Carrier

[mlsnoopy]

Whenever fighers come up in a discusion, I think of how E-E did it phaser reconosince agains the Scimitar. If the shots were strong enough to bring down fighters we can imagine how effective they would be agains such a ship.

[Teaos]

But they would really only be used for fleet actions in which case you cant really do what the E-E did.

[Sionnach Glic]

Fighters or bombers would be a brilliant asset in a battle. Your enemy is forced to make a choice: take down the cruiser coming right at you, or take down the dozens of heavily armed bombers coming at you. It forces the enemy to split his fire between one large target and a group of smaller, harder targets.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

I think the main problem with fighters in trek is that most of the time small shuttles and such aren't very effective against larger ships except in grouped attacks like during the battle to re-take DS9. If the fighter's carried full sized photon warheads they would be formidable against larger ships, without a doubt.

A group of Defiants could cause a Sov problems, but saying that a couple could take one down easilly is exagerating somewhat. A squadron, say half a dozen, could probably do it, but it would be a hard fight.

I think you're overestimating the Soverign's abilities. Six Defiants on a single Sov would be overkill, but would result in fewer causilities on the Defiant side. Remember, these tiny buggers are fast and manuverable and they'd outnumber the Sov 6 to 1. It would be like a group of sharks ganging up on a whale. 3 Defiants could take a Sov with maybe the loss of one of them. 4 or 5 would own the Sov.

[Captain Seafort]

I don't believe so. A Sov is almost 40 times the size of a Defiant. Even if the Defiant's mass-power ratio was three times the Sov's, it would still be outgunned more than a dozen to one. It's due to the tactical advantages of splitting the enemy's fire, and the manoeuverabillity of the Defiant that I think half a dozen would be able to take a Sov down - such a force would still be outgunned.

[Sionnach Glic]

I think the main problem with fighters in trek is that most of the time small shuttles and such aren't very effective against larger ships except in grouped attacks like during the battle to re-take DS9. If the fighter's carried full sized photon warheads they would be formidable against larger ships, without a doubt.

We're not talking about shuttles, we're talking about purpose-built attack craft.

[mlsnoopy]

Fighters or bombers would be a brilliant asset in a battle. Your enemy is forced to make a choice: take down the cruiser coming right at you, or take down the dozens of heavily armed bombers coming at you. It forces the enemy to split his fire between one large target and a group of smaller, harder targets.

What does your enemy do with the reousorces that you use up to builed fighters/bombers. Can he basicly builed a ship out of the same material. One builed an Akira and 50 fighters. The other buileds an Akira and a Defiant, who would win in such a fight.
The other thing is the firepower. How good could you arme the f/b. Its hard to belive that it could be armed any better than a runabaut.

[Monroe]

I don't think we've ever seen any true fighters but I would think they would be useful. 300 ships with just a standard ship phaser could take down a Sov I would think.

[sunnyside]

Look fundamentally we don't know the resources required for any of this stuff. So it's hard to say what's a good deal.

However it seems to take very little resources to add in a shuttle bay. Really just some more hull.

And that's part of why I'm opposed to carriers. Again the ship isn't on the lines fighting. That's one more spaceframe and warp core that isn't bruising it up with the other side. The other side could well field the same number of fighters via large shuttlebays on regular ships, but now they outnumber and outgun you in the actual battle because you've got a huge ship sitting out.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

I think the main problem with fighters in trek is that most of the time small shuttles and such aren't very effective against larger ships except in grouped attacks like during the battle to re-take DS9. If the fighter's carried full sized photon warheads they would be formidable against larger ships, without a doubt.

We're not talking about shuttles, we're talking about purpose-built attack craft.

I know but a fighter would be about the same size as a shuttle or smaller. Unless it's a long range heavy hitter which would make it more of a bomber then a fighter.

It's due to the tactical advantages of splitting the enemy's fire, and the manoeuverabillity of the Defiant that I think half a dozen would be able to take a Sov down - such a force would still be outgunned.

But the Defiants, with their maneuverability, they would render a Sov's torpedoes ineffective. They also force the enemy to split it's fire power, else they'd just rotate the attacked ships in and out. In terms of numbers the Sov's firepower is superior however if battles were just about numbers then they wouldn't build small ships.

How good could you arme the f/b.

And thus the underlying problem of fighters in Star Trek. Small fighter/shuttle sized vessels aren't very powerful whereas small ships like the Defiant can own them, meaning that small fighters are useless. The only way they should use fighters in Trek is if the next series is post-Nemesis and everyone is using uber-powerful weapons that can do heavy damage and still be mounted on small ships. Like how modern day missles having the ability to tear huge holes in ships but are still mounted on fighters.

Again the ship isn't on the lines fighting. That's one more spaceframe and warp core that isn't bruising it up with the other side

And if the carrier is destroyed how are the fighters supposed to get home? Besides, I've never seen a modern day carrier mixing it up with other ships yet our Navy seems to do just fine without a four billion dollar ship getting into the middle of things.

[Sionnach Glic]

I know but a fighter would be about the same size as a shuttle or smaller. Unless it's a long range heavy hitter which would make it more of a bomber then a fighter.

Given that we're talking about attack craft V cap ships, I think it's safe to assume we're talking about bombers.

[sunnyside]

And if the carrier is destroyed how are the fighters supposed to get home? Besides, I've never seen a modern day carrier mixing it up with other ships yet our Navy seems to do just fine without a four billion dollar ship getting into the middle of things.

Again in our world if you want to have a fighter flying out from a naval unit it has to be a carrier. You can't just launch and land an F-18 on the back of a Destroyer.

And in the real world the weapons on a fighter are decisive. A single F-18 can kill any ship in the water. If a single Trek fighter could pop a Sov this would be a different discussion.

As for the carrier getting destroyed at least you don't have one point of failure. We're talking about having large shuttlebays on a number of ships instead of one pure carrier. If any one of those ships gets blown up if any of its fighters survive they could go to one of the other ships. Likely there will be plenty of room as fighters have not shown themselves to be survivable.

[Captain Seafort]

But the Defiants, with their maneuverability, they would render a Sov's torpedoes ineffective. They also force the enemy to split it's fire power, else they'd just rotate the attacked ships in and out. In terms of numbers the Sov's firepower is superior however if battles were just about numbers then they wouldn't build small ships.

The various sizes of ships built in Trek are for strategic rather than tactical reasons - no ship can be in more than one place at a time, and it's rare that the heavy firepower and protection of Sovereign are needed to solve a situation. Smaller ships can be built in greater numbers, making the fleet a lot more flexible.

As for tactical considerations, look at the Defiant-Lakota battle. The Excelsior design is over eighty years old, and while the Lakota was considerably stronger than a typical Excelsior, that doesn't equate to being able to withstand (or dish out) the sort of punishment a brand new ship several times its size could. Nonetheless, the Lakota was able to hit the Defiant hard,it the ship had Benteen wanted to.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

And in the real world the weapons on a fighter are decisive. A single F-18 can kill any ship in the water. If a single Trek fighter could pop a Sov this would be a different discussion

I believe I mentioned that as one of the problems in this discussion in my last post. Maybe not destroy a Sov outright but if they put a few holes in it... Since the F-18 probably wouldn't destroy the ship outright, but damage it beyond repair and/or sink it.

Again in our world if you want to have a fighter flying out from a naval unit it has to be a carrier. You can't just launch and land an F-18 on the back of a Destroyer.

True but carriers can be battleships too. I think the russians tried that with some of their carriers. However the fact is that carriers, modern or otherwise, have rarely been heavily armed or used in ship-to-ship battles, or ever designed as anything other then a carrier, with a handful of exceptions.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

As for tactical considerations, look at the Defiant-Lakota battle. The Excelsior design is over eighty years old, and while the Lakota was considerably stronger than a typical Excelsior, that doesn't equate to being able to withstand (or dish out) the sort of punishment a brand new ship several times its size could. Nonetheless, the Lakota was able to hit the Defiant hard,it the ship had Benteen wanted to.

This is relevant...how?