www.ditl.org

I never saw a problem with the Peregrine. Add some warhead hard points and its good.

But they were getting blasted to hell by Cardie guidence tech, which was inferior to the Feds at least.

We KNOW the Romulans had developed fighters by Nemesis, at least.

I wouldn't call that shuttle pod with a phaser rifle a fighter.

Tyyr wrote:I wouldn't call that shuttle pod with a phaser rifle a fighter.

Are you referring to the "Peregrine^®" or the "Scorpion Class Attack Flyer^®"?

If its Nemesis then the Scorpion obviously.

Mark wrote:But they were getting blasted to hell by Cardie guidence tech,

They were getting blasted to hell when they were flying alone against a combined arms fleet... which is the same tactic some of the people have been talking about using. Both then and now, it makes no sense.

which was inferior to the Feds at least.

A shuttle or fighter gets hit with a weapon meant to take on capital ships... who's more advanced rarely makes a difference.

Its like taking a 1929 Ford and a 2010 BMW... hit both with a 105 at 100m and then tell me about how much more advanced your BMW is.

We KNOW the Romulans had developed fighters by Nemesis, at least.

The Romulans were building a lot of new things after the DW.

Mark wrote:Maybe we should take on another forum project, the design of a fighter that actually COULD support capital ships without being canon fodder.

Best stunt would be a microtorp bomber, with 90% of its shields and armor on the front and sides. It follows ships towards the enemy, and when the starship breaks away, it fires all of its ordnance. The strong forward defenses help it survive against last-minute enemy fire, and the microtorps give it a single-burst shot. After that, it is effectively unarmed (maybe a light phaser for anti-small craft work).

So the enemy ship has a fun time of trying to pick off the fighters before they launch their ordnance, while also dealing with the fully shielded ship in front of the fighters. Once the fighters have fired off their shots, they are no longer a threat.

So the defensive maneuver is for ships to support each other, with one ship trying to pick off fighters attacking its buddy.

Basically, I'd turn space fighters into missile pods. Of course, the obvious question at that point is why risk a human, and just have the attacking ship tow the pods with tractors.

Coalition wrote:snip...

A meaningless craft. Runabouts have phasers and micro torpedo launchers plus range and services aboard to support the crews on such range. So, when it comes down to it, the Runabouts would be superior in every way to your purpose built bomber.

Also, you're effectively still trying to use the bomber as its own force rather then supporting the capital ship they launch from.

If you want to build a bomber then you need a lot more firepower. Otherwise you're wasting resources and lives. Make no mistake, a lot of people will die in this service. The question is, can you make it worth the cost.

Agreed. Such a bomber/strike fighter would probably end up looking on paper like a runabout anyway, since it would need to be in order to have any survivability.

The Runabout is nice for a light assault ship. If you need to land troops to board someone's ship or land near them on a planet. However, it is not a warship.

If you want a fighter, take the Peregrine and add some weapons hard points.

If you want a bomber, take the Delta Flyer and use the cargo bay to carry full sized PT or QT style warheads and have them dropped or launch from there.

The key is having the ships (fighters or bombers) equipped with weapons strong enough to be effective in combat. They have to be able to hurt the enemy, shields up or down.

Deepcrush wrote:

Mark wrote:But they were getting blasted to hell by Cardie guidence tech,

They were getting blasted to hell when they were flying alone against a combined arms fleet... which is the same tactic some of the people have been talking about using. Both then and now, it makes no sense.

which was inferior to the Feds at least.

A shuttle or fighter gets hit with a weapon meant to take on capital ships... who's more advanced rarely makes a difference.

Its like taking a 1929 Ford and a 2010 BMW... hit both with a 105 at 100m and then tell me about how much more advanced your BMW is.

I believe Mark's point isn't firepower but the targeting system and i add the fire arc.

Nevertheless i like the Peregrine too, they just need full sized PT or QT in order to be a credible threat for capital ships (regardless the tactics) and microtorps are useless. Anyway, what the hell is a micro torpedo, like a torpedo but smaller? i never liked the concept and we know nothing about it.

Indeed it is. If you can't hit a target, you can't kill it. Obviously, since even Cardassian guidence systems could lock on and destroy those fighters they can't dodge incoming fire, thus need better survivability from some other source.

A, if you're within visual range you can't do much to stop someone from shooting at you.

B, what do you plan on doing to protect fighters against the defensive fire coming from a capital ship?

As I and several others have pointed out. Fighter losses will always be high. The point of the matter is to make the cost of those life worth the price you're paying.

To be fair, that example showed the fighters out of their use. Fighters really should be used to support the capital ships. Sisko used them out of that role. in the heat of battle, when all the capital ships are duking it out like they were, the fighters are going to be a lot harder to target, and certainly aren't going to be the priority.

The problems with the fighters we saw in DS9 was how they were deployed.
Sending fighters against capships is utter idiocy. They're going to die very quickly. What they should have done is make a torpedo bomber by strapping photorps to the wings, have them hide within the Federation fleet and use allied ships for cover, then quickly dart out and hit an unsuspecting capship with a salvo of torps.