Carrier

[Mark]

The fighter design would have to be a mix of give and take to even remotely be feasable. If they are assigned to a carrier then they wouldn't need warp engines, but would need some kind of impulse engine and very powerful thrusters to let them dance around a battlezone. The way I read it, phasers just wouldn't be practical becuase you just couldn't put a big enough one on a small one or two man ship to even register on a capital ships deflectors, yet at least one would be needed for any "dogfighting" with similar sized craft. Maybe, if you completely removed all automated targeting crap from a micro-torpedo warhead, you could pack enough anti-matter into it that it could generate a big enough explosion to at least damage a shield. But you'd be targeting completely manually, so you'd need to get in close, and it would obviously take several shots to cause any damage, and I can't see a ship that size carrying at the outside more than 10 in a magazine, but more realistically about 6. Several of them would need to concentrate fire at the same time on the same spot, and that would be tricky in a firefight were EVERYBODY is manuvering as rapidly as they can.

[Deepcrush]

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.

Agreed, fighters would have only one run in the start of a battle then would have to return for a rearm. Then they would be best for support in mop up and flanking actions. As to their weapons, much like todays fighters and their equal. I would say that you would arm each fighter with 4 to 6 dumb fire PTs. This would mean that the fighters would have very short range but in fair numbers would still be able to bring down or atleast badly damage an enemy capital ship.

[katefan]

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.

You are perhaps correct concerning the poor analogy with Pearl Harbor; the ships certainly were not ready for battle. So I stand corrected there.

But you are incorrect concerning the use of carriers during WWII. Pearl Harbor revealed the value of the aircraft carrier in battle and it was a lesson that was accepted by the US Navy, which could have easily laid keels for numerous cruisers and battleships rather than the hoards of escort carriers and Essex class carriers (24 Essex class were built in all). The fact that the USN was forced to change to a carrier based navy was not due to economy; if you look at the United States industrial machine economy has nothing to do with it. Also look at the fact that the Hellcat and Corsair were in production before WWII even started for the US, showing that the USN was serious about the role of a carrier even though it may not have valued it as highly as before Pearl Harbor.

An Essex class carrier carried 36 fighters, 36 torpedo bombers and 18 dive bombers. Employing a similar ship in the ST universe, you would not need the fighters as there are no opposing fighters. So you could have 90 Starfleet fighters launching from a carrier. WWII carriers often worked in teams so you could have a pair of carriers. That's 180 fighter sized vessels, each one carrying 1-2 quantum torpedoes.

Carriers would be built in shipyards like Utopia Planetia, while your fighters can be built anywhere where you can set up industrial grade replicators. Heck, Voyager showed us that you can slap together the Delta Flyer in a matter of a few days so imagine what a factory on Earth could produce. Hundreds and hundreds of fighter craft, each one employing a crew of three (pilot, bomber, engineer). So if you lose ninety fighters that is 270 men and women. Compare that to an Akira class whose crew compliment is 500.

Not a bad trade off.

Again, what makes this feasable is the fact that small craft have the same sort of deflector shields as capital ships. That would have been akin to putting ten inch armor plate on Hellcats. Sure, they could not sustain the same amount of punishment but they would not have to; they are not sticking around for an extended engagement, they are unloading their payloads and running away while Starfleet capital ships keep the enemy vessels pinned down and away from the carriers.

So, economy of lives saved, speed of production, and a devastating punch. The carrier would be lethal in the ST universe.

[Mikey]

When I said "economy" I didn't mean the US national economy, I meant economy of production - as in practicality. A decision had to be made as to spending available resources on materiel that could be fielded quickly in difference-making numbers (carrier-born aircraft) or traditonal naval war-fighting materiel (battleships.)

As to this:

the fact that small craft have the same sort of deflector shields as capital ships. That would have been akin to putting ten inch armor plate on Hellcats.

No way. The same "sort" of shields, yes, in that the technology is the same. The difference in capacity, however, would liken it to taking the 16" armor plate (or however thick it was) from an Iowa-class and putting 2mm of it on a Hellcat.

[Tsukiyumi]

The way I read it, phasers just wouldn't be practical becuase you just couldn't put a big enough one on a small one or two man ship to even register on a capital ships deflectors...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoIFUJxJwcQ

Watch the fighters during the beginning quarter of the clip; it looks like they're using pulse phasers, though I'll admit, they could be some extra-tiny micro-photons... Either way, half a squadron did decent damage against a Galor, so ten full squadrons should blow through several. What would the kill/loss ratio be there, I wonder?

[katefan]

When I said "economy" I didn't mean the US national economy, I meant economy of production - as in practicality. A decision had to be made as to spending available resources on materiel that could be fielded quickly in difference-making numbers (carrier-born aircraft) or traditonal naval war-fighting materiel (battleships.)

As to this:

the fact that small craft have the same sort of deflector shields as capital ships. That would have been akin to putting ten inch armor plate on Hellcats.

No way. The same "sort" of shields, yes, in that the technology is the same. The difference in capacity, however, would liken it to taking the 16" armor plate (or however thick it was) from an Iowa-class and putting 2mm of it on a Hellcat.

Point taken. But even if there was an option between building battleships or carriers, carriers win out because of the best use of manpower and resources. And fighter craft/carriers are far more versatile with the varied sorts of munitions that the planes could be outfitted with. Anything from bunker busting bombs to torpedoes to anti-personnel, fighters proved their worth in numerous ways.

And again, look at Star Trek and how most small craft seem able to withstand one or two direct phaser hits. There are multiple instances in DS9 and Voyager of this, especially with the Delta Flyer. Perhaps the shielding is not as powerful, but it is certainly effective enough for a thirty second engagement.

[Teaos]

You cant compare modern carriers and fighters with trek ones. They are totally different, the deployment of shields and armour over the whole ship would mean that unless they are used in anything but huge numbers they are useless. And if you have them in that great of numbers you may as well just build a big ship that can also bring down ships while doing other things.

[Mikey]

Anything from bunker busting bombs to torpedoes to anti-personnel, fighters proved their worth in numerous ways.

All of which can be better performed by a starship, save anti-personnel. As to that role, I've said countless times in here that I agree with the need for fighter craft in that role, provided that Starfleet comes up with a useful planetside force to support.

[Mark]

On this line, could a small fighter be equiped with a shield powerful enough to afford it any kind of survivability in combat against a capital ships weapons? I just cannot see being able to equip a ship that size with a shield generator big enough to do anything to protect a ship against anything but a graze by a beam weapon and absoulutely nothing against a torpedo explosion.

[Mikey]

could a small fighter be equiped with a shield powerful enough to afford it any kind of survivability in combat against a capital ships weapons?

No.

[Mark]

And considering "speed" at which those weapons fire, evasive manuvers would be critical, but WOULD you be able to dodge a weapons lock? Timing would need to be perfect. Need Jedi reflexes.

[acstull]

From what I have seen, most fighter armament has been a scaled down version of capital ship armament. Would a change in tactics and weapon load be more practical? Maybe we should take a cue from WWII carrier aircraft and carry only one quantum torpedo or the most powerful phaser/disruptor that is possible. Sacrifice all other systems for maximum sub-light speed and maneuverability. Of course, this creates other tactical concerns, specifically fighter recovery, and the attrition rate could be very high. Still though, I would expect a squadron of twelve ships each carrying a full strength quantum torpedo could be lethal at close range - particularly if immediately followed up by an assault from a starship.

[Teaos]

As fleet support they have a small limited roll but thats it. They cannot replace other ships and they are not a better use of resources during war.

[Deepcrush]

Agreed, fighters in Trek for fleet battles play only a support role. They shouldn't be relied on as a main element of the battle plan.

[Captain Seafort]

The can be used as the key part of a battle, but not as breakthrough units. Sisko's tactics during Op RETURN were probably the most effective use they could be put to - buzzing the Cardies untill they got p*ssed-off enough to go after them, despite not suffering any significant damage.