There's sort of a simple solution to that. A two man fighter.Mikey wrote:Because of the lack of separation between pilot and gunner in a one-man fighter, any missile system would have to largely be fire-and-forget, moreso than cap shp versions which can be controlled to a degree from the ship.
Why?I'd say the current torp size is close to the largest size that could be used for hardpoint launches from a fighter;
Even so, then you have to engage and destroy one target before you acquire another.Tyyr wrote:There's sort of a simple solution to that. A two man fighter.
Mass. Inertia. Once you get past a certain size, you both: a) detrimentally affect the performance of the carrying fighter, and b) get to a point at which the percentage of the torp that needs to begiven over to propulsion leaves very little boom left.Tyyr wrote:Why?
I seriously doubt most fighters would be engaging multiple targets.Mikey wrote:Even so, then you have to engage and destroy one target before you acquire another.
First from what we've seen torpedos are quite small. Two meters by a meter by a half meter if I'm being generous. a) Any fighter designed to carry these weapons will take into account their size and be designed to function appropriately with them. b) If you hold the size of the torp static. I also have to point out that the sub-light propulsion systems in Trek are extremely compact. The impulse engines of the Ent-D, capable of tremendous acceleration and pushing the ships to a sizable fraction of the speed of light, are small enough to fit in the ship's neck with room to spare.Mass. Inertia. Once you get past a certain size, you both: a) detrimentally affect the performance of the carrying fighter, and b) get to a point at which the percentage of the torp that needs to begiven over to propulsion leaves very little boom left.
We've used the comparison with modern RL fighters here, so let's continue - a SOTA modern fighter can engage one target, fire, and then engage a second without having to wait for the impact of the ordnance on the first. Why wouldn't we want the same capability... or at least to be even able to fire a second ordnance, even at the same target?Tyyr wrote:I seriously doubt most fighters would be engaging multiple targets.
The fighter design is already out there. More so, no matter how smallpropulsion systems are, they are necessarily larger than the simple "sustainer" that's used in typical PT's. Further, the more capable the propulsion gets, the bigger it will necessarily get - to say nothing of the larger draw on the reactants from the warhead.Tyyr wrote:First from what we've seen torpedos are quite small. Two meters by a meter by a half meter if I'm being generous. a) Any fighter designed to carry these weapons will take into account their size and be designed to function appropriately with them. b) If you hold the size of the torp static. I also have to point out that the sub-light propulsion systems in Trek are extremely compact. The impulse engines of the Ent-D, capable of tremendous acceleration and pushing the ships to a sizable fraction of the speed of light, are small enough to fit in the ship's neck with room to spare.
What would prevent firing multiple weapons at one target? Tactical officers seem to have no difficulty monitoring the flight of multiple weapons. Additionally the fighters proposed are less fighters and more bombers. A single photon torpedo is unlikely to finish the job against their likely targets, capital ships. It's unlikely they'll be salvoing a single torpedo at several ships. Much more likely to fire their whole load at one target.Mikey wrote:We've used the comparison with modern RL fighters here, so let's continue - a SOTA modern fighter can engage one target, fire, and then engage a second without having to wait for the impact of the ordnance on the first. Why wouldn't we want the same capability... or at least to be even able to fire a second ordnance, even at the same target?
The Peregrine? It exists but I don't think anyone is suggesting limiting ourselves to just that one fighter. Even then the Peregrine looks to be large enough to mount at least 4 torpedo sized or larger weapons.The fighter design is already out there.
Again, you seem want to hold the design to the existing torpedo. Same size, same warhead, jam everything else into the same space. That doesn't make a lot of sense. It's a clean sheet design, you can have things differ. As for the engine, why bother drawing antimatter from the warhead when most Federation impulse technology relies upon fusion. Take a look at the impulse engines on a Type 8 shuttle. Small, compact, and with significantly less mass to push around it'll be capable of moving a torpedo quite quickly. Small powerful engines are the Federation's stock in trade. Make use of their impulse tech for the engine and leave the anti-matter for the warhead. There's no reason to try and modify existing torpedo designs.More so, no matter how smallpropulsion systems are, they are necessarily larger than the simple "sustainer" that's used in typical PT's. Further, the more capable the propulsion gets, the bigger it will necessarily get - to say nothing of the larger draw on the reactants from the warhead.
Tac officers on a cap ship, sure. I still think having to guide a salvo to its target limits the fighter's capability; and adding fire-and-forget tech will once again enlarge the torp a/o diminish its payload.Tyyr wrote:What would prevent firing multiple weapons at one target? Tactical officers seem to have no difficulty monitoring the flight of multiple weapons. Additionally the fighters proposed are less fighters and more bombers. A single photon torpedo is unlikely to finish the job against their likely targets, capital ships. It's unlikely they'll be salvoing a single torpedo at several ships. Much more likely to fire their whole load at one target.
Even so, that's about the size we're discussing - much larger, and we're talking about a runabout, if not a frigate or escort. Also, the space for the hardpoints isn't at issue - rather, adding mass and the effects on the nebulous but seemingly important warp field dynamics are.Tyyr wrote:The Peregrine? It exists but I don't think anyone is suggesting limiting ourselves to just that one fighter. Even then the Peregrine looks to be large enough to mount at least 4 torpedo sized or larger weapons.
Fair enough, but how effective as far as launch-to-hit ratio can an impulse-only torp be?Tyyr wrote:Again, you seem want to hold the design to the existing torpedo. Same size, same warhead, jam everything else into the same space. That doesn't make a lot of sense. It's a clean sheet design, you can have things differ. As for the engine, why bother drawing antimatter from the warhead when most Federation impulse technology relies upon fusion. Take a look at the impulse engines on a Type 8 shuttle. Small, compact, and with significantly less mass to push around it'll be capable of moving a torpedo quite quickly. Small powerful engines are the Federation's stock in trade. Make use of their impulse tech for the engine and leave the anti-matter for the warhead. There's no reason to try and modify existing torpedo designs.
Most torps seem to be fire and forget as a matter of course with the option to alter the course if the officer chooses. There's nothing I can see that indicates the firing ship, be it fighter or capital, is directing the weapon.Mikey wrote:Tac officers on a cap ship, sure. I still think having to guide a salvo to its target limits the fighter's capability; and adding fire-and-forget tech will once again enlarge the torp a/o diminish its payload.
And we know absolutely ZERO about WFD so claiming they'll affect the WFD is completely pointless. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. We don't know.Even so, that's about the size we're discussing - much larger, and we're talking about a runabout, if not a frigate or escort. Also, the space for the hardpoints isn't at issue - rather, adding mass and the effects on the nebulous but seemingly important warp field dynamics are.
Well most torps fired at impulse speeds seem to do just fine.Fair enough, but how effective as far as launch-to-hit ratio can an impulse-only torp be?
Well, we know that altering both the shape and mass of a vessel is a cause for concern insofar as warp field dynamics. As to everything else, I'm heading to the hospital soon, so OK.Tyyr wrote:And we know absolutely ZERO about WFD so claiming they'll affect the WFD is completely pointless. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. We don't know.
And they would not have to worry about relativistic effects in the crew of a PT.Tyyr wrote:b) If you hold the size of the torp static. I also have to point out that the sub-light propulsion systems in Trek are extremely compact. The impulse engines of the Ent-D, capable of tremendous acceleration and pushing the ships to a sizable fraction of the speed of light, are small enough to fit in the ship's neck with room to spare.
Why do you think auto guidance systems are that big? you could always use AI in the missile/torpedo, Data's brain is human brain sized and is much much much more than you need to guide our proposed missile/torpedo. I'm not suggesting to use a positronic brain here but a relatively simple AI.Mikey wrote:Tac officers on a cap ship, sure. I still think having to guide a salvo to its target limits the fighter's capability; and adding fire-and-forget tech will once again enlarge the torp a/o diminish its payload..
We know ST ships can fight at FTL speeds but it isn't very likely they do that in fleet engagements.Mikey wrote:Fair enough, but how effective as far as launch-to-hit ratio can an impulse-only torp be?
And I can be reasonable.I don't think they're that big; I think they'd be bigger than a simpler guidance system. As far as AI, forget it - the UFP has shown a distinct aversion to creating AI for such roles.SomosFuga wrote:Why do you think auto guidance systems are that big? you could always use AI in the missile/torpedo, Data's brain is human brain sized and is much much much more than you need to guide our proposed missile/torpedo. I'm not suggesting to use a positronic brain here but a relatively simple AI.
Fair enough.SomosFuga wrote:We know ST ships can fight at FTL speeds but it isn't very likely they do that in fleet engagements.
We're not debating whether SF actually WOULD do it, we know they are complete idiots in that respect. I like the idea of a limited AI programme, with little frills. A few evasive programs, and a pre-programmed determination to get the torpedo to the designated target.Mikey wrote: As far as AI, forget it - the UFP has shown a distinct aversion to creating AI for such roles.
We're not? Then we're discussing the use of fighters in which fleet?Reliant121 wrote:We're not debating whether SF actually WOULD do it
