I'm working on an article about late pre-TOS (2230s-40s) warp-capable fighters for my Starfleet Museum. Can anyone suggest some possible ways that fighters (carrier-borne) might realistically be used in interstellar combat? I want to exclude the Star Wars/Battlestar Galactica-type of sublight mass-fleet melee because it doesn't make much sense to me. I would think that you'd want to be moving at faster-than-light speeds whenever possible.
Some possible uses: 1. Do you think carrier-borne fighters would be useful for attacking large capital ships in interstellar space? Fighters likely carry less powerful lasers/phasers and might be slower at warp than large ships but might be able to deliver warheads more accurately than can unmanned photon topedoes, at least in the early days. They also might be harder to detect and hit than capital ships because of their smaller size and better maneuverability. But missiles (and maybe even phasers, sometimes) are still faster than ships.
2. Travelling with convoys. Fighters would be useful for defending merchant convoys against attack, sort of like fighters on escort carriers hunting down u-boats.
3. Attacking surface and orbital targets. Fighters could be brought down to low orbit or even enter the atmosphere to attack surface targets. They could also attack targets in orbit. This stuff would have to be done at sublight speeds, I guess.
Thanks in advance.
Posted by Rogue Starship (Member # 756) on :
Hey, I would think it would depend on what type of battle the ships were in and who against. I dont mean race, I mean ship type. LIke if a carrier was protecting a convoy with some light to medium cruisers and some big ass romulans attacked. I would use them to shoot down the missles. THIs is how I would use them...it would just depend on what the weapon complement is.
Hope this helps...I kinda rambled,
RS
Posted by Rogue Starship (Member # 756) on :
Hey, I would think it would depend on what type of battle the ships were in and who against. I dont mean race, I mean ship type. LIke if a carrier was protecting a convoy with some light to medium cruisers and some big ass romulans attacked. I would use them to shoot down the missles. Note-watch ANDROMEDA, the ship is almost a submarine...with the sonar pings and stuff...anyway, they use their fighter to protect the ship and fight smaller cruisers. THIs is how I would use them...it would just depend on what the weapon complement is.
Hope this helps...I kinda rambled,
RS
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Hey, Rogue Starship, you made a double post! And so will I!
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
No, I'll scratch that. Masao--Is this thread (and the "Friendship One" thread) an old thread? They are familiar. If so, how did you get it back up here saying it was posted on February 27, today, not when you originally posted them? (Hope that makes sense)
[ February 27, 2002, 19:57: Message edited by: Veers ]
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Hmm... Space combat of any sort typically take place at sublight speed. So your idea of a warp-capable fighter avoiding operating at sublight speeds will not work. Your fighters will be considerably slower than the carriers and other capital ships, so it's unlikely they can catch an opponent at warp or run fast enough to make it back to her carrier. Also, having warp capability is meaningless if you're thinking of a trans-atmospheric support craft. You don't want to go to warp inside the atmosphere, especially with Pre-TMP tech. Fighters of that time are also unlikely to have the range and speed for interstellar travel.
With Pre-TOS, you're working with really limited technology. I'm not sure warp-capable fighters are even possible, unless they are large and unwieldly like the Pereguines, maybe even more so.
As for operations of the fighters, unless you're planning on warp strafing as the only thing they're capable of, forget warp. What fighters are used for is to extend the weapons range of the carrier vessel. A common tactic is to hit your opponent with your fighters, while your battleline keeps out of weapons range. This would keep up until your opponent is sufficiently weakened for your battleline to engage with minimal losses. But since Pre-TOS fighters would be slow, even with warp, they can be easily by-passed by the enemy ships. Since fighters are considered expandable, they are also used to cover withdrawls, and anything else to buy time for the capital ships to get away.
Fighters make poor convoy escort, this is not WWII and we're not dealing with U-boats that can barely shoot back. The fighters don't have the sensor to detect enemies far away, but normal sized capital ships can detect the convoy and her fighters just fine. Escort carriers are vulnerable to attacks themselves in the absence of battleline units. The fighters can't possibly keep up with the convoy, or even last that long, without support. If you rely on the convoy ships as fighter tenders, the fighters are vulnerable to surprise attacks, considering the lack of warning and poor compatability from being based from less than ideal facilities. Fighters also lack the decisive firepower to stop any convoy raiders. They can drop in, concentrate on a single target, and be gone before a single bird gets off the deck.
[ February 27, 2002, 20:33: Message edited by: David Templar ]
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Veers: As far as I know these aren't old posts, since I just started them today. Of course, someone (maybe even me) might have posted something similar before.
DT: Why does combat have to take place at sublight speeds? In TOS, ships often chased and charged each other at warp speeds and fired phasers or photon torpedoes. If these weapons are faster than light and you can fire when travelling faster than light, slowing down to sublight speeds just makes you an easier target. Sublights speeds only became the norm after Star Wars came out.
In TOS, shuttles made interstellar trips, so they had to be FTL-capable. My fighters will also be FTL because that's how I designed them. "Fighter" is really an aircraft designation based on mission rather than size: fighters attack other planes. That designation doesn't really work for spacecraft or boats since most are designed to attack other spacecraft or boats. So space fighters would have to be defined by something else, such as crew, basing, range, payload, or mission. Maybe their can go faster than light but can't travel interstellar distances (they need to be carried)?
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
You have ONE series where ships chased each other (forwards, backwards, and sideways) at warp speed while firing warp speed phasers, warp speed torpedoes, and warp speed coherent balls of hot gas which tracks and follows its target somehow.
You have, barring the occasional sillyness, FOUR series in which combat typically took place at sublight, including "Enterprise", which predates TOS and should be close to where your time is.
You can always try "gunboats" or "corvettes". Fighters are like you said... fighters.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
For the moment, I'm ignoring Enterprise, since my museum started first!
Seriously, I think that the way Star Wars showed space combat made people believe that slugging it out toe-to-toe at sublight speeds was the ONLY way space combat could work. But TOS showed that you could have combat at FTL speeds. I don't care if the nine Trek movies or the four modern series showed only sublight combat, because I consider them all tainted by Star Wars.
So I'm looking for ideas here about how small, maneuverable craft with limited range and small crews might be used in an interstellar FTL environment; I don't want to only hear what can't be done because of what's been shown on screen. However, I might even decide that using small craft really can't be rationalized in any way. So, please try to think outside the box. Remember, space is very big and these ships go very fast.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
I would tend to agree with the "gunboat" or "torpedo boat" idea. We're stuck on fighters in our time as they are one of the dominant warfighting tools - for now. Even today SAMS and remote operated vechicles are closing in on the manned fighter.
I tend to think of the smaller warships in trek more in the terms of Horatio Hornblower. In those books (in case you haven't read them) a ship of the line's boats could be used to some effect against enemy heavy units in particular situations. Boarding parties, demolition parties, etc. could be placed along side a heavy ship that's movement was restricted.
In a similiar way I'd use armed shuttles or peregrine style "fighters" to attack captital ships that are at some sort of tactical disadvantage that keeps them from using their full weapons and speed. Close in combat in a system -i.e. system defense. Fixed piece battles where a fleet is trying to bottle up another. Attacks on ships in orbit (use the planet to hide your approach - why if I was in orbit I'd set out a probe network).
respectfully submitted,
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I'm not sure I'd go with the idea that small craft can go interstellar in pre-TOS, warp or no warp. The three shuttles we saw in arguable warp and supposed interstellar transit were exceptions of sort: In "The Menagerie", the shuttle was only trying to catch a recently departed starship, not travel to another star. In "Let That Be...", the shuttle was operated by a very long-lived and obsessed individual who could have planned to spend several centuries in interstellar transit. And in "Metamorphosis", the shuttle was negotiating an asteroid field, not a likely interstellar phenomenon.
Enough of that rant. But I do think endurance would be a big issue for pre-TOS fightercraft. There would have to be dedicated "auxiliary carriers" in the convoy to tend to the fighters (didn't we hear that designation in "The Maquis"?). Or at the very least something like the makeshift air defence ships of WWII convoys, merchant ships which launched Seafires or Hurricanes from catapults and then recovered the pilot from the sea after the one-off mission...
And I do think even a mere fighter could make a difference in escort duty, since any armed vessel would help deter the "look what we ran into" kind of pirates operating a single vessel and only attacking completely defenceless targets. If, OTOH, the convoy was ambushed by a determined and informed enemy, then this enemy would know the defensive strength and scale its forces accordingly - so even a big starship escort wouldn't help.
And in escort duty, it would be an advantage to have a distributed defence, so that 1/10 of your force is between the enemy and the convoy all the time, and the 9/10 can arrive in an emergency. With a single ship, no matter how powerful, you can't guard the convoy from every direction, nor chase the attacker. Starfleet might try to strike a balance and use a couple of corvettes instead of the numerous fighters or the one big ship, though.
Perhaps pre-TOS Starfleet would have a bifurcated fighter force: sub-impulse assault craft for planetary forays, and impulse- or possibly warp-capable escort craft for "auxiliary defence" of big formations and primary defence of low-priority shipments. No sense wasting any impulse or warp engines in planetary assaults where they aren't needed.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
*tries to think outside of the box, which results in two alternate timelines, one in which his head explodes, and the other in which he goes to watch some Seikai no Senki, which technically has FTL combat*
Hmm... anime... *drools*
Your level of technology is still a major factor, pre-TOS tech is so... crude. I would need to know what we have to work with to come up with something supportive. FTL combat requires FTL sensors, FTL weapons, and FTL computing. At the speed you're dealing with, there's probably more computer than man behind that trigger. I'm pretty sure I saw more than one microchip onboard the Enterprise...
Another problem is that smaller vessels like gunboats and such usually have a much higher top speed than their battleline, and relies on that speed advantage to overhaul or escape larger ships, plus their manuverability for protection. Unfortunately, Star Trek doesn't work that way. Smaller ships usually have much lower top speeds than larger capital ships, so FTL combat between a gunboat and a cruiser could be like a Vespa trying to chase down a drag racer. There's a big gap in relative velocity between even warp 3 and warp 5. You'll need some pretty heavy technobabling to convince anyone that the technologically backward Starfleet could produce something fast and small, when people are still recovering from being able to cruise the galaxy at warp 4.
Of course, if your intended victim is the Romulans... Well, "Their power is simple impulse." ^_~
Remember, if you make this idea *too* good, people will wonder why it's not in use anymore.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
A fighter, defined as a tiny ship launched from a larger one, is only useful when it can do things the larger ship can't. So...what can't your pre-TOS ships do?
My suspicion is that, in Star Trek, a fighter or other distributed weapon system would only be useful if you could put a greater or equal amount of power into your distributed weapon as you have in your shipboard ones.
Considering the era, perhaps a good use for fighters would be as single (or at least limited) shot nuclear warhead launchers. Not to drag Enterprise into this, but...Enterprise suggests that pre-photon torpedo torpedoes were self-propelled. So you wouldn't need a fancy magnetic/gas launcher, and could just strap them to the bottom of a tiny craft. By spreading out your launchers, you presumably make it harder for the enemy to shoot down all the missles before they hit, as well as reduce the number of people at risk from any single counterattack.
Having read through at least some of your Starfleet Museum, I get the impression that beam weapons of the day were fairly sizable, so they wouldn't seem to be likely candidates for fighters. As far as I know.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
God don't you people ever sleep??
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Considering the era, perhaps a good use for fighters would be as single (or at least limited) shot nuclear warhead launchers. Not to drag Enterprise into this, but...Enterprise suggests that pre-photon torpedo torpedoes were self-propelled. So you wouldn't need a fancy magnetic/gas launcher, and could just strap them to the bottom of a tiny craft. By spreading out your launchers, you presumably make it harder for the enemy to shoot down all the missles before they hit, as well as reduce the number of people at risk from any single counterattack.
This would fall in line with what I said before about fighters as a long-range punch for the battleline. Strap long ranged missiles on your fighters and your attack range is increased several fold. A fighter would also be capable of packing a huge punch, especially if all it packs are short ranged attack missiles. Basically a nuclear warhead with a short burning high acceleration rocket engine, such a weapons could be only two meters long, max, and with a yield of well over 400KT (I'm going by a W-88 here). Imagine a fighter packing four of those things and just salvoing them all at once.
Of course, the problem with all that is that ships in Star Trek can simple go to warp. There must be some reason for them to remain at sublight in order for tactics like this to work (ex. being inside a solar system, no warp drive, etc).
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
The way I've used fighters so far has only been for the Romulan War. For that time period I've have 50-m-long "fighters" which are carried four at a time within large carriers. The top speed of The carriers have a cruising speed of about warp 3.5 and take several weeks to travel between stars. The fighters can jump at warp 4 but have too short a range for interstellar travel. So, the carriers carry the fighters within a few hundred AUs of the target, where they fire off their missiles while travelling at high warp.
For the Pre-TOS period I'm thinking about (2230s-40s), the level of tech is only slightly lower than TOS. Basically we have everything we have in TOS, just a bit slower and shorter. I'm assuming that we already have FTL weaponry, sensors, communications, targeting, etc. as we have in TOS. I haven't decided whether effective, shield-busting beam weapons are small enough to be carried on fighters; if they were so small, you'd think a cruiser might carry a lot more of them.
I'm leaning towards the idea of FTL fighters with short ranges, so that they still have to be carried between star systems. I haven't decided about speed yet, but I'm worried that big ships with big powerplants might be faster than small ships with small power plants. If small ships aren't faster, they're probably more maneuverable, at least and maybe they can get closer to a target before they fire.
Thanks so far for the input.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
Using the aircraft carrier as a model may not be the best thing to do; in many ways, the basic relationship between a fighter and its carrier is 180 degrees out of synch with their spacegoing counterparts. The aircraft carrier concept works because the basic operational principles involved in flight gives the fighter speed and range capabilites no surface vessel could hope to match (at least until the invention of the cruise missile).
With a starship, the relationship is much different. Both vessels are operating in the same environment, so the advantage aircraft have over sea vessels is lost. Actually, the best model for starships with fighters is really something the Air Force tried back in the 50's. In an attempt to protect its nuclear bomber force from enemy fighter attacks, the Air Force experimented with retrofitting B-36 bombers to be able to carry midget jet fighters as their own fighter cover. These planes would act as flying aircraft carriers.
Unfortunately, the concept bogged down mainly because the designers had to greatly reduce the midget fighters' size to allow them to fit within the bomber. This limited the size of the engine and the amount of fuel the fighter would carry, and thus made them far less effective weapons than their land based opponents would be.
With a space fighter (and I'm trying to be a bit more realistic than our friends in Star Wars), we have to ask just how small a vessel we're talking about. Not only do you have to have space for the power plant, the propulsion systems and the armament, but there are a couple of other systems a pilot will need. Unless you want to flatten your pilot against the bulkhead, you'll need inertial dampeners. I'd think you'd also want to equip your ships with deflectors, if only to avoid the "flying coffin" syndrome of SW and Galactica. Your fighters might wind up being closer to PT boats than F-14's, if only to house the necessary equipment.
I suspect a warp-capable fighter (if such a thing were feasible) would be more effective if they were ROV's; indeed, at FTL speeds, making them totally automated makes more sense than manned crews.
Perhaps the FTL battles would be capital ship combats, while sublight fighters would be used in areas where the battlewagons were not practical, i.e. deep gravity wells, asteroid belts, etc.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Yes by definition, a fighterplane is used because it can go somewhere the ship cannot: in the air. Since starships are free to move in the third dimension, they have no such limitation. Removing the inaccessibility of the z axis removes the need for the fighter. However, as in Star Wars, fighters seem to be used because they have the advantage over large vessels.. i.e. a Star Destroyer has difficulty dealing with an X-Wing attack on its own.. it batteries are just too big to accurately pick off snubs. Hence the need for TIES. Also, TIES are used for patrols of the area around the ship, much as a modern carrier will often have continuous overflights of its own planes to spot intruders in their airspace. In Star Trek, this seems unnecessary because of advanced magic sensor technology. And Trek shields and deflectors being magically powerful also make fighters inadequate for the task of assaulting a capital ship. Now, with the rationale of fighters being used where he main ship cannot go, where can't a starship go? Atmospheres and debris fields like asteroids mostly.
This technology served its purpose, as battles in Star Trek often categorize themselves like Napoleonic era battles, ships floating past each other exchanging broadsides. Probably the most unintentional of Roddenberry's 'Hornblower' homages
However, if you remove the magic sensor and the magic shield, the Trek universe might find itself needing fighter support. Perhaps this should be the crux of the pre-TOS fighter concept.
[ February 28, 2002, 07:25: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Some of this has already been posted before, but I'm going to put it into my own words.
First, I don't think that fighters would be very useful in front line combat. If Starfleet tried to send a squadron of fighters (ten or twenty) against a Klingon D7, they'd probably be cut to pieces.
The main problem is that "Star Trek" beam weaponry has always been highly precise, and easily targetable. There's no ponderous turbolaser turrets like in "Star Wars" -- the phaser emitter stays in place and just shoots in whatever direction it pleases.
That being said, I guess you'd have to decide just how accurate the targeting scanners and response fire can get in the 2240's. If a fast-moving fighter can really avoid at least most of the fire from the enemy, then they might be useful. Otherwise, they're likely to be cut to shreds by an enemy heavy cruiser.
That being said, there are still possibilities for using overwhelming numbers of fighters against a single target. For instance, there's TNG's "Preemptive Strike" where several dozen Maquis fighters overwhelmed a single Cardassian Galor-class cruiser. The advantage there is that, even if a lucky shot hits one fighter, there are still a dozen more -- or even more than that. One hit does not do much to detract from the collective firepower of the squadron.
As for potential uses...
Well, planetary assault is one option that was already mentioned. Given the wide range of targets to be covered when you're attacking a planet, spreading your firepower around allows you to cover more area.
Escort duty is also a possibility. If an enemy attacks from multiple angles, the fighters can adapt and cover all areas at the same time. However, the drawback there is that the fighters are likely outnumbered or outgunned by the interstellar cruisers that are attacking.
One possible aspect you might address is piracy. Most interstellar pirates (the Orion Pirates?) probably operate much smaller ships, and fighters would be ideal for those circumstances.
Fleet action is the toughest aspect to consider. I'm thinking that fighters would not work well on their own, but WOULD be effective if they operated ALONGSIDE the heavy cruisers. If the big guns can keep the other ship busy, then the small fighters can sting the other ship to death, effectively.
One more aspect to consider: these fighters are certain not to exist in a creative vacuum. If the Federation starts introducing warp-capable fighters on the front lines, then wouldn't the Klingons do the same thing? If that happened, then you'd just end up with the same "Star Wars"-type fighter-to-fighter battles that you want to avoid.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
It also occured to me that tiny warp-capable vessels need not be used just to shoot at things. If you could make their warp drive look, just for a moment, like that of a much larger vessel, then they could be deployed by...I don't know, strike cruisers or something, for a psychological advantage. Instead of one or two ships attacking, the enemy sees twenty.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Haveing read most of the Starfleet museum I would propose another use for fighters/gunboats in pre-TOS: colonial defense. If they were equipped with just enough weaponry to cause damage to an enemy or at least distract him from the planets in system long enough for capital ships to arrive they could be faily small ships. The fighter would then need only limited FTL range; it would then have more room for defensive and offensive systems. As for starship carried fighters, I would imagine that they would mainly be used for ground attack and to cover planetary landings. The purpose of the fighter carrier is negated by the three dimensional nature of space and the speed and manouverability of the starships in Star Trek; in Star Wars the capital ships we see are usually very large and sluggish. Not to mention the size of such vessels if they have warp drive with decent interstellar range; what if their carrier is destroyed or Starfleet loses? I can't see Starfleet leaving people and equipment behind. Granted, the pilots could be beamed off by other ships but what if they're out of range? Starfleet would provide a back up i.e. a warp system. Therefore I don't think starship carried fighters are likely.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: However, if you remove the magic sensor and the magic shield, the Trek universe might find itself needing fighter support. Perhaps this should be the crux of the pre-TOS fighter concept.
What's with all the "magic"? Maybe Star Trek equipment are just very good. If anything, it's hard to imagine that the X-wings, being the size of a mite compared to a Stardestroyer, can pack sufficient weaponary to even scratch it.
*sense a vs debate coming on, flees the scene*
I think warp capable fighters have a lot more going against it than for it, especially in a pre-TOS setting. Personally, I don't even see them as practical for ground support. A starship is perfectly capable of accurate ground bombardment. Remember when the Enterprise stunned a whole block?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Well, we already know that a warp engine is easily packed inside of a shuttlecraft-sized ship. The range is questionable, but a fighter could manage for at least a couple of hours on its own.
The colonial defense idea sounds feasible. Fighters would probably take a lot less maintenance compared to a full-fledged starship sitting in orbit. Even one of Masao's Kestrel-class patrol cruisers isn't well suited for long-term defense of a single planet. A dozen or two small fighters could collectively hold back an attacking Klingon cruiser for a short while... and certainly keep any Orion Raiders or other nasties at bay.
As I said, the fighters wouldn't be able to take on the full-fledged cruisers, like the D7's or even smaller D6's. Or to pick Starfleet equivalents, I wouldn't want to send a squadron of fighters against a Miranda, and certainly not a Constitution. It's mainly the smaller fry that the fighters would go up against.
Which means that the fleet-scale options for fighters are pretty limited.
As for carriers, I'd say that carriers are necessary, because fighters can't travel interstellar distances on their own. They'd have to rely on the speeds of a heavy cruiser (carrier-type ship) in order to get from point A to point B. The carriers would definitely be necessary. I just don't think that they'd be very useful in a Dominion War-type setting.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I'm going to get smacked for this, I'm sure.
I've always considered Birds-of-Prey and ships the relative size of the Defiant as fighters. They're fast, small, and pack a punch. Why do we have to classify a "fighter" as a one or two-crew vehicle the size of an F-18?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
The Defiant is more of a frigate, officially classified as an escort ship. We sometimes see it escorting convoys. In fact, one inspiration according to Gary Hutzel were pocket battleships (such as the Graf Spee in WWII that had to adhere to established limitations on tonnage and weaponry). The Bird of Prey is classified as a scout ship, not a fighter. I'm also thinking of Babylon 5, where Shadow scout ships are bigger than Shadow fighers.
We've seen what the Federation fighters look like, and they really are smaller.
[ February 28, 2002, 14:43: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Well, we already know that a warp engine is easily packed inside of a shuttlecraft-sized ship.
Not in pre-TOS time it isn't.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
We already discussed this.
"The Menagerie" -- Kirk's shuttle took off after the Enterprise at warp speed and sustained that high speed (IIRC the E was travelling at Warp 6) for at least four hours.
"The Galileo Seven" -- I don't remember the exact circumstances, but I do know that the shuttle was far enough away from the Enterprise to observe the Murasaki Quasar (when the E couldn't see it, for whatever reason) and then ended up crashing far enough away for the Enterprise to not know where it was.
"Metamorphosis" -- Some people have suggested that this shuttle was just traveling in-system, and that's possible -- but consider how long it took for the Enterprise to find the shuttle in that asteroid field. If this were just a short interplanetary hop, then the Enterprise would have been near enough to see them disappear in the first place.
(All of this is admittedly with a hazy memory of the TOS eps -- haven't seen them in a while.)
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The speed in "Metamorphosis" was given as warp two initially (but of course Spock could have ordered an acceleration when we weren't looking, and Kirk would have compensated for that).
In "The Galileo Seven", the shuttle was lost mainly because of the interference of the quasarlet on the ship's sensors. I suspect the shuttle was sent out for that very reason (and later the Columbus was sent to search for the Galileo): the ship's sensors weren't working very well, so the heroes had to get up close. And the ship herself couldn't be risked because she was carrying a priority shipment.
In "Metamorphosis", the shuttle was supposedly traveling between Epsilon Canaris and Gamma Canaris or something, suggesting two separate star systems. We could be talking about a close binary here, though. The 'roids were in the Gamma Canaris "region" (so probably within the said star system). However, we were given no good reason why the captain was using a shuttle instead of the ship. The Big E wasn't engaged in other activity or anything. So one possible logical explanation would be that the ship couldn't penetrate the asteroids safely, so Kirk took the shuttle for that part of the journey and intended to rendezvous with the ship outside the system. The 'roid hazard was also slowing down the search.
Incidentally, if the GC system is that hazardous to big ships, it would be a prime candidate for a fighter-based defence...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
I just felt the need to correct someone:
Someone mentioned that ST has magic sensor tech and it makes fighters useless and then used the modern aircraft carrier as an example of the other situation. This was incorrect.
Aircraft carriers have a little "magic" device called radar. It helps them detect incoming craft from from up to 300 [I think] miles. And let's not forget the "super magic" level of sonar...
Fighters are not used to detect incoming threats, they are used to counter incoming threats faster than the capital ship can. This is the reason why SFC sends out patrol ships, instead of waiting for threats to come to the nearest Starbase. Ships send out fighter squads to counter incoming threats as the approach-- not when they get there.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Back in the old days of sail, wooden ships rarely got sunk from enemy fire, what really sunk them, was the fire, the weather, or poor navigating. However with a ship with a lenght of 150-200 feet with 70 guns will do far better than 70 ships with 1 gun. Because back then, ships were designed to withstand their own weapons, and there still was no iron. Not only that, those 1 gun ships will most likely either be propeled by oar or by small sail.
IMO, Pre-TOS was like that, due to the slow warp, weak weapons, no shields, very little comunication etc.
Thats what Star Trek is like, and not only that most ships have very good aim. Star Wars, none of the ships could seriously shoot down fighters unless they were either lucky or experienced. In either case, thats why fighters in Star Wars can defeat a larger ship.
Star Trek fighters as seen in DS9 can destroy or seriously damage ships but with a very large causlity rate. Only used to brings ships out from the main fleet where the opposing fleet can corner those seperated ships and easily destroy them.
For Pre-TOS I propose a U-Boat type fighter. A small ship equipped with massive torpedoes going in really fast perhaps near warp speed towards a ship fire the torps, and run away.
Lasers will not work, becuase you would need alot of fighters (I doubt a smaller ship like a fighter will near the power of a battleship) to even damage a ship, let alone muliple sips.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Please explain to me where you got that signature. I do want the whole story, thank you.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I would agree with the idea of larger fighter/gunboats. The purposes of carrier based fighters today are to extend the range of a ship and also provide a fast attack capeability. This would be negated by the speed/manouverability of Trek starships. I think their would probably be two types used by Starfleet at this time: 1) A system defence craft, with limited warp capeability; these would be about the same size as the Minotaur fighters on the Starfleet Museum and carry a mixed bag of photon torps (or nukes) and phasers/lasers (upgrades?). These would be assigned to fixed defensive stations inside federation systems that are near borders or known areas of pirate activity and their primary purpose would be to defend the system and incoming transports and civilian ships from pirate attack or to delay incoming hostile capital ships until Starfleet capital ships could arrive. About 30 would be assigned to a system in the roskier areas of space. Each would have a crew of around 3. 2) A ground attack craft; this would be carried on board a starship and accompany planetary landing attempts. They would be capeably of atmospheric flight but not warp speed (imagine a matter- antimatter reactor going up on a planet). Their primary purpose would be to destroy ground based installations and troop concentrations that are either in an area inaccessable to starship weapons or where precision targeting is needed that cannot be attained by starship weapons. Also they could counter airbourne threats to UFP ground troops. These would be closer in size to modern day fighters.
[ March 01, 2002, 12:41: Message edited by: Wraith ]
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Look at it this way: fighters can still attain the same function that they do today in the Trek universe -- that is, projecting and expanding upon the weapon range/capabilities of the mother ship -- in that multiple fighters can use multiple attack angles and provide multiple targets for the enemy ship to have to deal with. THAT is the primary strength of the fighter strategy -- a bunch of bees stinging the enemy.
Of course, bees can rarely take down a bear on their own -- but wouldn't a bunch of bee stings make it easier for another bear to attack the first bear?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Fighters . . . the original Multi-Vector Assault Mode.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Yes but a bee sting on lets say a 300 lbs 7 foot pure muscle matter to him/her? Yes, if he/she is sensitive.
I got bee stung three times in a row at the same time. It does not hurt and later it made me itch. However later I did pour oil down their holes (they had three, I plugged two up with baseballs and put dirt on top).
Anyway, it seems in 22nd century technology (if Enterprise does not have shuttles with warp capability) then I doubt with 10 years they will develope smaller warp drives because if they did, then the 20-30 years thery spent on trying to get up to Warp 5, seems abit shitty. Of course if you plan on having the Vulcans lend technology along the way.
By the way, just a tip, I would suggest begin slowly integrating Enterprise info. Meaning that the Vulcans finally did this and that and so on.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Oh, the story on my sig.?
Actually its something you are supposed to think about. Because when you think about it, and have an idea on what I wrote, then in part you took ownership of the sig. So after you read, you felt that you got something from it. Mentally the is what they do with art.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:By the way, just a tip, I would suggest begin slowly integrating Enterprise info. Meaning that the Vulcans finally did this and that and so on.
Oh boy, Masao is gonna hit the roof now! Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
#*@%$&!!!!!!
Posted by Rogue Starship (Member # 756) on :
Hey, I just thought of this. One advantages I see to having a squadron of fighters on a Lancastor or Siegfrid(sp?) is better fire range. It would be like having two ships. If a Lancastor engaged a 2 Klingon D6's and it had a squadron of fighters(8-12 ships) w/two twin typeIII phaser cannons, it could attack one ship while the "Mothership" attacks the other. The recharge rate of a fighters weapons is far less than that of a capital ship. So w/mutiple ships continuously diving on one target; its going to get ripped to shreads.
Also, another reason to have fighters is that they cost less to build than capital ships( duh!) And they can get fitted with newer tech as it comes out at a lower cost than doing that to capital ships.
You also might want to consider adding torps to the fighters or even micros?
Hope this helps....
RS
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Unfortunately, Masao really had his little heart set on warp-capable, pre-TOS fighters. What you're suggesting is more TMP-era, Starfleet Command (game) kinda thing. That's probably how fighters should work in Trek, but that's not what he wanted.
[ March 07, 2002, 00:19: Message edited by: David Templar ]
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Boo-hoo-hoo!!!
OK. My concepts are starting to firm up with your guys' help.
How large do you think a ship needs to be to be warp capable? If you think that a TOS shuttle is warp-capable, then we can get as small as 7 m, which is pretty damn small. F-14s and F-15s are about 20 m long and weigh about 30 tons. The A3D Skywarrior was even larger. If planes of this size can operate from aircraft carriers, I'd think that starships can handle fighters at least as large, if not larger, since we don't have to worry about take-off weights and landing at high speeds. I'd think that a 20-m long ship should be warp capable, even in the pre-TOS period, as Phoenix was only 20 m long.
Fighters of this size look like insects compared with a starship. I also wonder if they could carry beam weapons strong enough to seriously damage a full-size, fully-shielded cruiser. So, I'm leaning towards fighters carrying some sort of large torpedo with a larger warhead than a standard cruiser-launched torpedo. But, they still might be too easily shot down.
Fighters are also useful in situations where large ships can't use their speed or where they are too large to go safely. This would include sublight regimes, such as asteroid fields, orbit, etc. I'd also use them against pirates, since pirate ships probably carry weapons sufficient only to rob or hijack ships, not to destroy them, or against technologically inferior enemies.
Fighters could also be used as scouts, pickets, and defenders for a fleet.
Carriers themselves would stay out of trouble by keeping well away from the battle zone. Fighters would use their warp drive to go somewhere, fight (either at warp or sublight), then return to the carrier. Carriers would carry relatively little armament, except light defensive armament, and would have to be shielded by escorts.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
What about fighters as support ships of a Starbase, like the Runabouts were to DS9. They could do things like patrolling the Earth Outposts near the RNZ, defend Starbase X from badass Kzinti and more like that.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I think that's a job for a second tier of fighters. There are uses for warp-driven small craft, but point defence isn't one of them. I'd suggest using sublight, short-range fighters in B5 style to defend installations and sublight ships and formations, and separate warp-capable craft for the missions Masao envisages. Replace the warp engines with more, better or heavier weapons in the sublight craft...
Or even build modular fighters, in the "killer bee" style. Engines could be separate modules (one for warp, one for impulse-only), while the cockpit/weapons combo could be another. The idea of an engine/weapons combo and a separate cockpit is a silly one IMHO, though. Unless you can launch the engine and weapons unmanned. Which is a neat idea, actually.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: I think that's a job for a second tier of fighters. There are uses for warp-driven small craft, but point defence isn't one of them.
Unless he goes the route that he did with his Archer & Curran classes & makes them in-system warp-capable only, which seems a good idea.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik:
Unless he goes the route that he did with his Archer & Curran classes & makes them in-system warp-capable only, which seems a good idea.[/QB][/QUOTE]
This is what I was saying above; I think that Starfleet would be likely to have several specialised classes of small ship/fighter for different purposes. A ship carried fighter would probably be useful as a kind of 'multi vector attack ship' and, while the warp drive may not need to be too large, the weapons embarked would cause an increase in the size of reactor and size of the fighter, particularly if it is carrying large nukes/photon torps. Correct me if I'm wrong but TOS shuttles had no weapons; taking this into account I would say that TOS shipbourne fighters would be about the same size as modern fighters, although probably a little deeper.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
The Pheonix was an engine with two warp nacelles attached, a warp-capable fighter's probably quite a bit bigger because of all the other equipment it needs.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
But you also have to consider that there's nearly two centuries of progress in warp engine design. Posted by Rogue Starship (Member # 756) on :
ok, I would assume that a warp capable fighter would be at least 20-30 meters long (at least!) As for armorment I still hold to the phaser cannons.
I would not dismiss the idea of impulse fighter squardons launched from capital ships. Now I am not saying STAR WARS type battles, because the capital ships still fight. I'm just saying it's like having two ships, becasue when 12 fighters go up against a Capital ship, I can tell you that the capital ship is going to be out gunned.
RS
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Rogue Starship said: "I would not dismiss the idea of impulse fighter squardons launched from capital ships. Now I am not saying STAR WARS type battles, because the capital ships still fight. I'm just saying it's like having two ships, becasue when 12 fighters go up against a Capital ship, I can tell you that the capital ship is going to be out gunned."
I'm not so sure about this. A small fighter (warp-capable or not) probably has only a single small fusion reactor to power the shields, weaponry and impulse drive. Therefore, each of these systems will be rather weaker than those of a large cruiser. An analogy would be a squadron of single-seat fighters of WWII vintage (like Corsairs or Hellcats) with machine guns or even 30 mm cannon attacking a battleship like Yamato. They could probably do a lot of damage to the superstructure but probably couldn't sink the ship without torpedoes or bombs. Sure they might get some sort of lucky hit and cause a chain reaction that consumes a magazine or something, but that's again kind of like Star Wars.
That's another question. How small of a ship can carry a actual matter/antimatter reactor? How were shuttlecraft powered in TOS and later series? Runabouts are 23 m long: do they have matter/antimatter reactors?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Runabouts do. 24th century shuttles might. No idea as regards the earlier ones.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
It depends on just how small you think M/AM technology can get.
One one hand, a warp core is a pretty big piece of equipment. If you want to get decent results, it probably has to be of decent size.
On the other hand, there's the photon torpedo which can effectively combine matter and antimatter for a designed purpose. Granted, an explosive reaction is different from a controlled engine reaction, but do you get my point?
Also, Masao's got the concept of those "antimatter fuel celles" which were used during the Earth-Romulan War. These were small self-contained "batteries" which could be burned at a controlled rate. They could fit on the 50 meter Minotaurs a century previously -- I'm sure they could be used for shuttlecraft/fighters that are about half that size in the 2250's.
Posted by Chris StarShade (Member # 786) on :
I do not understand how such fighters could exist before the original series, since they didn't even have warp-capable shuttlecraft in the original series.
The methodology of Star Trek makes having smaller fighter vehicles unfeasible.
Posted by Chris StarShade (Member # 786) on :
Sorry to burst your bubble, but TOS shuttles were not warp-capable. TNG shuttles could get up to Warp 2. It wasn't until Voyager that shuttles could get any decent warp speed (unless you count runabouts, which were recorded going at least Warp 7 on several occasions, but technically runabouts are almost worthy of being called gunboats or corvettes).
In one episode of TOS a shuttle had trouble breaking orbit. Tells you how good those shuttles are (though it might have been because they ran out of fuel... but if it's that easy for them to run out of fuel...)
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
but then again, one episode had a shuttle pursuing the enterprise at warp speed. i realize 'metamorphosis' and 'the galileo seven' were vague about the concept, 'menagerie' definitely depicted the shuttle at warp.
and tng shuttles are rated at warp 3 or 4 according to the tng tm.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I really don't care if shuttles in TOS were warp capable or not. Shuttles in TOS were very bare-bone little boxes (about the size of an SUV) meant primarily to sell model kits adn to strand crew members in dangerous situations. The more relevant question for me is how small a ship can be and still have warp drive? I think we can all agree that a ship does not have to be 300 m long to have warp drive. Once you figure out that minimum, you can design a fighter (or any other ship) from there.
Posted by Hunter (Member # 611) on :
In regards to how small a ship could be and still have a warp drive in the TOS era, how large where the tholian web spinners? The quick search of the net I had showed them to be in the range of 30 metres. If they are that size wouldn't that be the size that your looking for in a fighter?
Posted by Chris StarShade (Member # 786) on :
To answer that question, the ship can be as small as a photon torpedo and still have a warp drive.
Posted by Chris StarShade (Member # 786) on :
As for how I would use fighters...
I would send them to blow a hole in the shuttlebay of the enemy, then enter it, and blow more holes until they get to the engine room, and then fry the reactor.
It is a mad tactic, but it works!
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Except torpedos don't have warp drives...
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
The Runabout had her warp drive on the top. Now that is fairly small, and for a ship I believe had a max warp of Warp 5 or 6. The TOS shuttles apparently needed a warp dive considering that in some episodes if they did not have warp drive they would never caught up with the E-nil which was going at warp. The NX shuttles does not have warp drive granted they are the size of a small SUV, and the Pheonix was actually quite massive. Now I'd think that a fighter of Warp 1 or Warp 2 could have a small enough warp propulsion package that could fit into a 20 meter fighter.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris StarShade: To answer that question, the ship can be as small as a photon torpedo and still have a warp drive.
There is a minimal size required for a M/AM reactor to be regarded as a warp drive, what can fit inside a torpedoe is about only 1/4 the required size.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
BTW, i found the Starfleet fighter i was looking for.. since we accept that Peregrines (or whatever Fed Fighters from DS9 were called) dont fit many in a standard bay, but the Valkyrie from Activision's Star Trek Invasion fits the bill, coming in under 20m, and having short hop warp capability (and NCCs to match). Not canon I realize, but when you say Starfleet fighter i dont see why everyone assumes that the Peregrinoid ships from DS9 are the only ones possible.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
What's a Valkyrie? I've seen that name mentioned from time to time, but I've never seen one.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
From Activision's Invasion game.. two seater, so im assuming the cockpit is a little bigger than a workbee, so the length might come out roughly even with a medium to large size shuttle. because it has a warp drive, it gets a NCC number (i figure), and the height looks appropriate for placing them in the shuttlebay of your favorite starship that you think might be a good carrier. Im not saying that its smart to use fighters in the Trek-verse, just saying that its possible to have a small one. i read about the design process, they said they tried to cross delta flyer with the defiant, and a fighterplane.. looks pretty cool tho..
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
No visible warp field grills, I don't think it's warp capable. Looks more like a trans-atmospheric fighter, since it looks like it's got functional wings and ramjet engines.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Interesting design...
But I agree, it looks more like a STL fighter designed for planetary operations. And it looks way too small to be an effective fighter against large ships.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Has anyone plyed this game? IIRC, the Valkyries are carried around in a big boxy starship..
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
If anything, it's hard to imagine that the X-wings, being the size of a mite compared to a Stardestroyer, can pack sufficient weaponary to even scratch it. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
