Possible Roles For Fighters

[Teaos]

Considering Fed capships can fire 4 torpedoes from a single tube per second, turning fighters into torpedo boats =doesnt seem very effective next to that.

[Tyyr]

Except that those fighters will always be able to increase the size of a salvo no matter how many tubes you mount on a ship.

[Sionnach Glic]

The fighters would also idealy be dirt cheap. Have just two of them following a vessel in combat, and that 4 torpedo strong salvo could easily be increased to a 12 torpedo strong salvo.

[Tyyr]

And fighters can be added to any ship with a shuttle bay. Unlike increasing torpedo firepower by adding launchers which would require a refit.

[Mikey]

The fighters would also idealy be dirt cheap.

Pilots' lives aren't, however. Unless there is some plan for massively increased survivability, the idea of adding a handful of extra micro-torps to a ship's barrage isn't worth the personnel attrition.

Yes, I said micro-torps. Unless someone can show me a fighter-sized ship launching cap-ship type torpedoes, there is no reason to assume that they can.

Fighters really should be used to support the capital ships.

The problems with the fighters we saw in DS9 was how they were deployed.

Support for the cap ships shouldn't be fighters, it should be torpedo boats/cutters/frigates. Fighters are suited to an atmospheric superiority/ground support role.

[Lighthawk]

Yes, I said micro-torps. Unless someone can show me a fighter-sized ship launching cap-ship type torpedoes, there is no reason to assume that they can.

Other than that we know the size of torps and modern day fighters can carry and launch missiles of equal size. Yeah I know, torps MIGHT need something in the launcher to get them moving. That's pure assumption though, the launcher is just as likely merely a means of moving the torps from storage into a firing position.

Ignoring that though, lets ask ourselves...do we really believe that fighters in the 24th century are going to be incapable of performing missile/torp launches on the same scale as the stuff we have right now? That they could not have hardpoints loaded with, if not standard torps, then some specially designed anti-ship missile?

[Mikey]

#1 - Of course photon torpedoes use similar chemical rocket propulsion to modern day air-launched missiles, and obviously they use the same guidance technology as well. In fact, I think the US Army is fitting the next gen of Apaches with photon torpedoes.

#2 - If it were so easy, why didn't they do it?

[Sionnach Glic]

Pilots' lives aren't, however. Unless there is some plan for massively increased survivability, the idea of adding a handful of extra micro-torps to a ship's barrage isn't worth the personnel attrition.

Yes, I said micro-torps. Unless someone can show me a fighter-sized ship launching cap-ship type torpedoes, there is no reason to assume that they can.

It's perfectly logical to assume that the UFP can engineer a torp to fire without a launcher. I see no reason that they couldn't do so rather simply. Just bolt an engine on to the back of the torp, add a release mechanism to the wing of the ship, and you're done.

And with that increase of armament, it may very well be worth it. They'd be of more use than the hundreds of Mirandas that must have been sent out as cannon fodder during the war at any rate.

[Mikey]

I see no reason that they couldn't do so rather simply.

I beg your pardon, do you have the link to the wiki on photon torpedo engineering?

Anyway, the question still stands - we saw them use fighters plenty of times. If fitting them with big-boy torps was so easy, how come they didn't?

[Deepcrush]

Mikey, making a machine gun is easy. Yet they don't do it.

We know the weapons can be built, that they are small enough to mount and easy enough to be produced with minor effort.

The question for me is, do you have any reason that it can't be done?

[Mark]

Do we know why photon torpedoes need launcher tubes to fire? I'm assuming to accelerate them to proper speed to fire. Torps have "sustainers" IIRC to maintain firing speed, but when have we actually seen a torp engine?

I'm sure a torp could be re-engineered to be mounted under a fighter, with it's own engine and firing mech, but only by increasing its size and mass. But at that point they wouldn't BE torps anymore would they? They'd be something new.

[Tyyr]

I'm sure a torp could be re-engineered to be mounted under a fighter, with it's own engine and firing mech, but only by increasing its size and mass. But at that point they wouldn't BE torps anymore would they? They'd be something new.

If they follow the same function and are equivalent in destructive power I see no reason not to keep calling them that. After all we still call the warhead of an ASROC a torpedo and it's got a rocket strapped to it's ass.

[Lighthawk]

#1 - Of course photon torpedoes use similar chemical rocket propulsion to modern day air-launched missiles, and obviously they use the same guidance technology as well. In fact, I think the US Army is fitting the next gen of Apaches with photon torpedoes.

Nit picking. You know that's not what I meant. But since you seem to want it spelled out...

There should be no reason why a space fighter craft should not be able to be equiped with a missile type device (a weapon with it's own propulsion, a guidence system, and a warhead.) We already have modern day fighters equiped with such devices(and obviously given a few centuries of technological improvements, a 24th century version should be using much more advanced versions of each of those components, and quite likely include some other devices, or be able to pack them into a smaller device).

The only thing we really need to consider for such a weapon system is: Is the warhead powerful enough to do significant damage. I don't think anyone can really argue that starfleet could not build a missile device that could be attached to a fighter, the only real question is, would it be powerful enough. Well we've seen the size of ship fired torps, which are clearly packing warheads large enough to do damage to captial ships. Said torps are not that big really, bigger than a lot of modern day missiles, but not bigger than anything that can be carried by a fighter sized craft.

Now how much of a torp is warhead and how much is everything else? Who knows, but viritually all missile devices tend to have only a small amount of it's total mass and volume dedicated to the explosive, and that's with convential explosives, anti-matter is rather more powerful stuff.

At the very least, we at least know how small a missile type device can be and still threaten a capital ship, and it is small enough to mount on a fighter craft.

#2 - If it were so easy, why didn't they do it?

Best answer, OOU they just didn't think to do it, or some budget issue, or maybe they just didn't think the fighters worth spending the time on in the FX department to present them that way.

[Mark]

I'm just thinking out loud here

To give it propulsion, you'd need to add an engine (Unless you designed the fighter to be large enough to mount whole tubes), which means either a larger weapon, or less room for guts (like explosives)

At first I thought you could strip out its targeting and guidence system on a fighter mounted missle, but then realised that you can't do that either, because even Cap ships are moving pretty damned fast.



What about Tri Coblat devices? Wouldn't that be a more effective idea for fighters?

[Tyyr]

Possibly. There didn't seem to be any real issue with Janeway uncorking a pair, not like you'd expect from a genuine WMD.