'Check your six' in space?

I always find it ironic when folks make statements about things like formation flying and combat operations when they do not comprehend the mission nor the tasks involved. The primary function of #2 (or #3 or #4) is not to protect lead from aft interception - which is not only pretty tough to do, but is equally dangerous for the wing unless the pursuit is so close that there is more peril from collision than from weapons fire - but to complete the assigned mission. There is nothing sacred about lead aircraft that warrants his protection above anyone else's, and any pilot in a 2 ship or 4 ship formation who does not have his head on a swivel does not belong there. I mean, who is watching #2's "six?" The fact is that each pilot has to clear for everyone else.

Any extension of such efforts into space operations are speculative and totally foreign to air combat. Control inputs are different, spacecraft response is different, and formation flying seems to me to be sort of beside the point. Space operations (not to mention air operations) are not the same as Star Wars movies. Not even close.

ADDED: your point is well taken and understood. My advice is to at least attempt to understand how pilots work together in formation flight in order to make your story as realistic as possible. From my own limited experience:

1. Pilots are trained to fly in close formation during flight training. This is good for keeping the flight together as you pass through weather (and for air shows) etc, but is rarely done during VFR combat operations, when the formation is spread apart more to allow the flight to stay together but also to spend more time watching for danger than avoiding collisions with each other - not to mention avoiding taking out the whole formation if just one aircraft is hit. Classic fingertip formation is with #2 slightly aft and slightly below lead - with his wingtip about 3 - 5 feet from your wingtip and even with one side of your canopy. Tactical formation usually calls for #2 to be well aft, well off to one side, and slightly above lead, for better visibility in all directions.

2. Each pilot in the flight clears (watches) for the entire flight, not for any individual aircraft - like lead. These days, clearing is generally accomplished 50 miles away by radar anyway, so actual sighting of enemy aircraft is rare. The idea is to shoot them down before you see them - or before they see you. At 50 miles, relative direction does not matter. A sparrow or a sidewinder is fully capable of turning around and hitting someone behind you. I would think that in space, this would be even more true. You would probably be separated by thousands of miles when you decide to pull the trigger.

3. Keep in mind that if you are in orbit around a planet, the flight controls are not as easy as "pull back the stick and go up." In orbit, if you pull back the stick, you go up, but you also slow down - fall back - relative to anyone you are trying to fly adjacent to. If you push forward, you will actually tend to move forward. These results are exacerbated as you pass around the planet in your orbit. Flight inputs could actually be reversed from what you might expect. This is why most orbital corrections are done by computer and not by hand - until you get close enough for things like docking maneuvers.

I fully support your efforts to make this as realistic as possible. You will find that most producers can afford to hire technical experts who will quickly point out details that do not make sense to their bosses - since that is what they are paid to do. The less of this type of criticism you encounter, the better off you will be. So - the more you read on the subject, the more realistic you will be, and the less cringing will occur from folks that have been there and done that.

ADDED: I will try to respond, although I may run into one of the arbitrary limits that are imposed by YA. When you think about orbital flight controls, think of changing from one orbit to another. If you try to go up, you are entering an elliptical orbit that is higher locally, but may return to the same height or lower once you get around to the other side of the planet. Since you have robbed some energy by pulling up (fighting gravity) without adding thrust, the usual result from straight pulling up is that you will tend to slow down and end up being in an elliptical orbit that is mostly lower. The best way to get higher is actually to speed up straight ahead, not up - which will place you in an elliptical orbit that extends to a higher altitude out ahead of you. Once you reach that higher altitude, you have to fire your engines to speed up again in order to maintain that altitude in a new near-circular orbit and not fall back in an ellipse to your previous altitude.

I think that since you've recognized the differences between space flight and atmospheric flight, for the purpose of your story you should go ahead and recognize the increased complexity of the craft involved. The space fighter will have to be more complex, and therefore, harder to fly effectively. The pilots will be more skilled, capable of taking in more information and processing it quickly enough to remain aware of their situation.

I kind of picture additional screens (or holographic projections) within the cockpit that allow the pilot to see additional angles without having to turn away from what is in front of him, kind of like the back up cameras on newer cars but much cooler and more complicated. So then pairs (or squadrons) flying together would still have to cover blind spots, but the language wouldn't necessarily change - when flying high above the ground, jet fighters could face attacks from almost any angle. There would also likely be some sort of detection devices (radar? something cooler?) helping the pilots keep track of where things are nearby.

I suggest watching the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica scenes, they do a pretty decent job of depicting fighter-type craft moving in space - the way they change directions, how groups of fighters might work together, etc. It is also a good example of how a sci-fi writer can make up their own terminology when it suits the story.

Since you are writing a story, I appreciate your question, and I don't see why the same formation would not work in a hypothetical space fight. You might also consider the "Z" factor, or the depth, as well. Space is vast so attacks from above or below could happen too. The Star Wars films seemed to use the scenario you're suggesting during the Death Star fight scenes, so I don't see why your stories can't use this too. Having fighters watching out for each other seems like a very logical approach to me. Good luck! I love good science fiction, written with some degree of reality sprinkled into the mix.

How is a dog fight in space any different than a dog fight in the air? Besides the nearness of the ground and the effect of gravity, that is. Cant an attack come from any direction then too?

Im sure when we start fighting wars with the martians for being on our land before we got there, or for hogging all our oil, or whatever they might be doing to us, we will invariably develop an astronautical combat strategy. War tacticians have probably already been thinking it up.

The "six" is no direction in particular. Its just the direction opposite the way youre pointing.

Even in a jet fighter in Earth's atmosphere, an attack could easily come from any direction. Front, back, either side, above, below, or from any direction in between. Exactly the same as it could, in space. However your craft is oriented, your "six" is always directly behind you, even if your direction of travel is toward your "three" or your "nine".

The term "check your six" comes from placing your craft in the center of an imaginary, analog clock with the "12" being straight out from the front of your craft (with the direction of travel being irrelevant). "3" is 90 degrees to the right; and "9" is 90 degrees to your left.

"6" is then always directly behind the pilot - OUT OF HIS SIGHT. That is why part of the RIO's (Rear Information Officer) job is to "check the six".

.

Well.. "Your six" is going to be relative to your own direction of motion, one would assume, but no.. that's not the kind of command you'd hear in a fighter formation in space. Even with airplanes you have high / low etc... In space you would need a second whole clock. But let's be reasonable here... By the time we have space fighters, nobody is going to know what an analogue clock looked like, or why you would refer to a reference point in space as being a time on a clock.

You are free to invent some pilot banter in this case :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rKYL0tW-Ek

Yes, a fighter's most vulnerable position will be where their weapons aren't pointing, where they are not looking, where their attackers would have the most time to aim at them and that would be directly behind them. Of course if you had a Project Orion drive, that would also be where an atomic bomb keeps getting ignited.

I would expect fighters to be controlled by a group of people and or artificial intelligences both on board and remotely so the vulnerabilities would be from trajectories that matched or intercepted them or limit the field of fire from the intended targets.

"Check your six" is not relative to gravity. It is relative to the front of the plane. Most planes move in the direction they are pointing (if not, you're not worried about what's behind you. You're worried about crashing.). In space, a fighter jet will still have a front. Whether in space or in atmosphere, "look behind you" means the same thing.

given a choice of books, I would rather read Larry's book than yours, so don't knock reality over simplified mush. However, I think formation flying would be quite different and might not even appear like a formation to the layman.

Means of propulsion, means of detection and ease of manouvere make combat entirely hypothetical - you need to think through what fundamental breakthroughs have happened to allow manouver in space.