Carrier

Post by **Mikey** » Fri May 23, 2008 1:36 pm

Teaos wrote:I'd rather have both. Just swapping one out for the other isnt the only option. Have a few of each because both have their advantages.

I don't think that's at issue. I would as well. I think what we're discussing is what we be most efficient and effective in a fleet action if we were forced to allocate our resources toward fighters OR small starships. As I have said before, if there is a use for fighters in a strike role, than might as well use 'em for other things as well because you will have them on hand already.

Post by **Teaos** » Fri May 23, 2008 1:38 pm

If it were a choice of one or the other I'd have to go with Fighters.

Both rights and frigates are small enough to be easy prey for most ships so I'd rahter have lots to split enemy fire and take advanatage of crippled ships.

Post by **Mikey** » Fri May 23, 2008 1:42 pm

frigates/corvettes/etc. would, however, be better defended, able to do actual damage to other ships, travel at higher FTL speeds, etc.

Post by **Teaos** » Fri May 23, 2008 1:53 pm

FTL speed is irrelivant in fleet battles.

Shield don't matter to much. Its the difference between weak and really weak. Both will get nailed by big ships. Better to have more of them.

sunnyside · Post by **sunnyside** » Fri May 23, 2008 2:21 pm

Teaos wrote:FTL speed is irrelivant in fleet battles.

Shield don't matter to much. Its the difference between weak and really weak. Both will get nailed by big ships. Better to have more of them.

It's still important logistics wise. That's why you need something to ferry fighters around, whereas a corvette can generally travel on its own.

And stronger shields at least force the opponent to use something of a focues beam.

Blackstar the Chakat · Fri May 23, 2008 4:19 pm

sunnyside wrote:
Teaos wrote:FTL speed is irrelivant in fleet battles.

Shield don't matter to much. Its the difference between weak and really weak. Both will get nailed by big ships. Better to have more of them.
It's still important logistics wise. That's why you need something to ferry fighters around, whereas a corvette can generally travel on its own.

And stronger shields at least force the opponent to use something of a focues beam.

But they can focus all their weapons on one target rather then a dozen.

Post by **Mikey** » Fri May 23, 2008 4:45 pm

But then at least you have a target able to fight back effectively, unlike a fighter.

Duskofdead · Post by **Duskofdead** » Fri May 23, 2008 5:07 pm

Well if we're going to say "I'd rather have both", then you're assuming unlimited resources. And if there were unlimited resources a big Federation fleet wouldn't have been 150 ships, it would have been 300. If it comes to a tradeoff, I think as a general statement fighters don't justify the cost of creating and having them around for the resources and space they take up. The exception is wartime, particularly against an enemy who outnumbers you, where the ease of constructing large numbers of small craft becomes a priority.

Blackstar the Chakat · Fri May 23, 2008 5:28 pm

[quote="Duskofdead"]Well if we're going to say "I'd rather have both", then you're assuming unlimited resources. And if there were unlimited resources a big Federation fleet wouldn't have been 150 ships, it would have been 300. If it comes to a tradeoff, I think as a general statement fighters don't justify the cost of creating and having them around for the resources and space they take up. The exception is wartime, particularly against an enemy who outnumbers you, where the ease of constructing large numbers of small craft becomes a priority.[/quote

If you wait to build until war starts you'll be lucky to survive much less win. Otherwise we wouldn't have almost a dozen carriers already in service with more on the way

Duskofdead · Post by **Duskofdead** » Fri May 23, 2008 5:30 pm

The Federation does construct, but in peacetime the cost of diverting the resources into fighter construction didn't outweigh the benefits of just building more ships. And even then, shipwise, the Federation was outnumbered. Again I think unlimited resources are being assumed. There is no reason to believe the Federation could have BOTH constructed ships at the same rate, AND added tons of fighters, prior to the Dominion War. Unless we go to the Starfleet incompetence assumption and say they were artificially holding back on construction abilities for some reason.

Post by **Teaos** » Sat May 24, 2008 3:21 am

Well if we're going to say "I'd rather have both", then you're assuming unlimited resources.

No it doesnt it means I'll split the resourses we have.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sat May 24, 2008 12:36 pm

Exactly. Numbers of each type would be less, but the fleet would likely be the better for it.
Put it this way: All navies throughout history have split their resources between building a few large ships and a tonne of smaller ships. There's a reason for that.

KuvahMagh · Post by **KuvahMagh** » Sat May 24, 2008 12:38 pm

Fighters can be destroyed too easily, they don't have the firepower to do serious damage to a ship, even in great numbers. If shields didn't exist and it was all armor you might have an argument but as it stands they just can not pack enough of a punch. All an enemy would have to do would be to deploy a few Frigates optimized for an Air Defence type role throughout their Battle Fleet, it wouldn't take long to remove the threat the fighter posses, you wouldn't even need to destroy them all to do it.

So far in Trek the only time we have seen fighters being used it is as a Diversion or for close in defence, in which role it acts more like a modern Phalanx CIWS than it does a Fighter. They were never expected to do any real damage to an enemy Fleet.

Corvettes/Frigates are also more useful in that outside of War they can be used to patrol larger stretches than Fighters could, unless you dispatched a Carrier type with them, in which case your using the same if not more resources for a similar effect (I say similar only in the event that the Carrier has some type of weapons, if it didn't it would be useless since its Fighters could not catch their target, be deployed for the same length as a Starship to chase something down and even if they caught it they couldn't do anything to it).

The only role for a Fighter in Trek as far as I see it is in Atmo operations, in which case a ship which can support both the Fighters and some unknown number of Ground Troops and their equipment for a certain length of time would certainly be an asset.

Post by **Mikey** » Sat May 24, 2008 3:19 pm

Thank you, KM - exactly what I've been saying. Before we can say if there is a definite role for fighters, we have to determine if there is regular role for ground actions - and thus air support/superiority.

KuvahMagh · Post by **KuvahMagh** » Sat May 24, 2008 3:54 pm

I like to believe there is, though carried out by true Ground Troops. My personal view is that things like AR with what seemed like SF officers were probably because whatever dedicated force existed was stretched and so some assignments were being handed to SF, explaining why such an important one went to amateurs is harder but I prefer not to think of that lol.