Carrier

[Teaos]

It's not a moot point at all. You said that the UFP military was far more preofessional than it had been,

I said it was better not perfect. It has dedicated war ships and a bigger fleet (although it is debateable whether it was always large but never mobilised).

When did the KE collapse? I think they're still around. If you're referring to the events at the beginning of TUC, you're conveniently forgetting about the part about Praxis blowing up.

One moon on one planet would not make any healthy empire collapse.

[Sionnach Glic]

It would if the majority of your fuel came from there, which I believe is what Praxis was.

[katefan]

It would if the majority of your fuel came from there, which I believe is what Praxis was.

Which is plausible when you take in what was revealed in Day of The Dove. Mara, Kang's wife told Kirk that the Klingon Empire's sphere of influence was resource poor in comparison to the Federation's, which gave a plausible explanation to their expansionist tendencies. One of the great things about that episode was how it really made the Klingons a much more complex race than the simple two dimensional villains they had been through most of the series before then. There was the first indication that Klingons could be honorable, gave them a good motivation, and showed that they could kick butt.

[katefan]

Apologies if this has been discussed in the eighteen pages before now and I am merely repeating what someone else had said.

If you look at Star Trek militarily, ship wise, the series from TOS thru VI was reminiscent of a 18th century wet navy. You had cruisers who relied upon durability and firepower that launched salvoes at one another. Speed was a factor as ship's whizzed by one another on strafing runs, but if ST II was anything to go by ships were not that maneuverable.

By TNG's period, ships were much more maneuverable. Still, the maneuverability did not seem to be a factor as it seemed no one ever missed a shot. But the big difference in technology where ships were concerned was the fact that small craft now had deflector shields. Small vessels could actually survive a shot or two (if not more, especially if there was a major character on board) from a capital ship.

In DS9, we see fighter craft strafing enemy ships, and this reminded me of the revolution in naval warfare during WWII. Capital ships became all but obsolete when fighter craft armed with bombs and torpedos were at least as effective as a captial ship's guns. The big difference? Fighters were cheap, single pilots more expendable than a crew of hundreds.

So, in DS9 if small craft can sustain multiple hits due to their shields, it would make sense that Starfleet would engage in a carrier/fighter project, sending small craft in their thousands to saturate an enemy's defenses. Even the Borg might be hard pressed to handle such waves of tiny gnats stinging them over and over again.

Such fighters and carriers would need to be active; like the Mirandas (as per Kennedy's theory) these ships would be kept mothballed until a major engagement. Then if a major war breaks out, shipyards break these carriers out. Then based on Voyager's magical replicated shuttle ability, Starfleet could generate hundreds of thousands of fighter craft.

Would this mean the death knell of the capital ship in the 'Trek universe? I do not think so. We have seen many instances where showing the flag can be very important, and a Sovereign class is very impressive. A Galaxy class' vast array of laboratories makes it invaluable. But I would think Starfleet would invest far fewer resources is such large vessels, concentrating instead upon ships more the size of the Intrepid.

Just my observations.

[Teaos]

The idea of small being able to take down large doesnt really work since the small craft lack the power to bring down the big boys. Their phasers may as well be spit wads and their torpedoes are to weak.

[katefan]

The idea of small being able to take down large doesnt really work since the small craft lack the power to bring down the big boys. Their phasers may as well be spit wads and their torpedoes are to weak.

Even if there were hundreds of ships? Thousands? In DS9 we only saw a handful of fighters flying. If a handful served a tactical purpose, what could hundreds achieve?

And if quantum torpedoes are more potent than photon, then could they not construct quantum micro torpedos? why don't fighter craft carry a pair of normal sized quantum torpedos much like torpedo/dive bombers did during WWII? Imagine these fighters sweeping down, unleashing hell, then flying back to the carriers for reloads?

[Teaos]

While hundreds or thousands may be able to take down a large ship eventually they would suffer heavy loses. Not to mention the fact that they have to travel there first. They also cant do patrols as well or have such a commanding presence. Everything about them is poor and while in huge numebrs they are powerful they still lack in areas such as sensors ect.

[Deepcrush]

Where most know I am a huge supporter of fighters and carriers in SF. The problem is this. We know that fighters can carry ship killing warheads, though just not many. This means that the fighters would do well at the very beginning of a battle but would very quickly find themselves defenseless. This would mean that at the start of a battle you would send in your fighters along with your larger ships but would then have your fighters break off as soon as they released their payload. Once they retreat you would have to pack them back onto a carrier and then rearm or run away. The cost of a carrier and all of those fighters would be better spent building a Sov or our new Battleship then on a carrier and her fighters.

[Teaos]

There is also the fact that they have to get close enough to deploy their weapons. Big ships out range and thus could destroy them before they even fire.

[Mikey]

Why build hundreds of fighters to take on a starship when you can build one starship to do so? As far as micro-QT's, they seem to be unable to to make the "standard" QT's backward-compatible, so I don't see micro versions anytime soon.

They key here is, I agree with the idea of building those fighters IF SF expands/creates its ground-based war-fighting ability. If they do, then there will be a second crucial role for fighters in the strike/support role.

[Deepcrush]

Hence the problem of having to fly in behind the cover of larger ships. A battleship would be far more useful then a carrier and a few wings of fighters.

[katefan]

To address some of the comments made:

1) I never said that large ships would be done away with entirely.

2) Looking at how many large ships were destroyed with ease during the Dominion War in spectacular CGI fashion I fail to see why Starfleet would not look into ways to spend lives more economically.

3) There is nothing "Eventually" about a large ship being taken down by a swarm of fighters. Look at Pearl Harbor and see how effectively small airplanes could be employed against large ships where there are no enemy fighters to fight them off.

Like I said before, small ships have deflector shields, and every phaser used to shoot at a fighter is one not being used to fire at a capital ship.

4) WWII planes were used in that very manner, deploying their torpedos and bombs then flying back to their carriers for reloading.

5) Big ships out-range fighter, sure,which is why they have carriers to carry them to battle. Just like modern fighters use carriers to carry them around the world.

[Mikey]

Pearl harbor is, I think, a poor analogy. It would be equivalent if you were talking about 'Trek fighters attacking a starship which was still sitting in drydock, unready to be underway. Yes, torpedo-bombers were used that way; but not as effectively as major ships. The use of torpedo-bombers, and cariers and carrier-borned aircraft in general, was a fact of economy; the US didn't have a plan to change naval warfare into the carrier-based paradigm which it became - rather, they were forced to do so. New battleships couldn't be produced quickly enough to fill the holes, yet if it tells us anything, new battleship classes were designed and built during the war.

[Mark]

The only question I have is, how would the fighters be armed? In the modern military, fighters carry missles and bombs that are quite effective against a ship, however, even they need several direct hits to disable or destroy one. In the 24th century, with shields and reinforced hulls coated in ablative armor, how would you equip a small one man fighter to make it a threat to anything but the smallest scout. I know that these fighters would work in squadrens, but still. Sorry if this has already been posed, I kinda just jumped in here.

[Mikey]

That point has been alluded to, but indirectly. It remains valid, though - How many flights, if there is an actual number, of these fighters would you need to constitute a credible threat to a starship? An awful lot, I imagine, which would relegate the fighter to screening and mop-up, as well as any support/strike roles as I've mentioned.