www.ditl.org

Reliant121 wrote:People seem to think that casualties cant be existent or have to be really low. It isn't going to happen. Casualties will be high, no matter what you do. Unless you make them mini-uberships. It was precisely the same in world war II, the casualties of fighters were monumentally high. It's going to be the same here, just on a much bigger scale since there is a possibility of having far more carriers in a fleet.

Of course there are casualties in war - if there weren't, it would be an excercise. However, that doesn't preclude the thought of minimizing casualties as part of a design process, or in this case not building something that's likely to lead to an excessively high number of casualties for little net reward.

Which I agree with. I still maintain that people are trying to overcomplicate fighter designs, or overarmour them so their usefullness compared to a frigate or light warship is superfluous.

Unless you can make the fighter much more resistant. A powerfull enough shielding able to take several hits from a capital ship heavy weaponry it's unlikely, the option is of course ablative armour,

Yeah, thats not a fighter... thats a Defiant class ship. A fighter is built... much like a fighter.

if Janeway's shuttle (10m long) could take all that fire from those klingon cruisers a fighter like an armoured Peregrine must be able to do the same.

Not a factor for this. That shuttle was from a different FUTURE timeline.

Coalition wrote:If you can put the super armor on a fighter, why can't you put the same armor on a ship?

When comparing fighters to ships, let's try to keep the differences to a minimum. Same tech base, same/equivalent weaponry, shields, protection, training, etc.

The best use for fighters would be long-range firepower for a fleet command ship, so it can contribute to the battle without getting near enemy ships.

You were on a roll till you said "Long range". When the battle starts you'll need every ship you can get. On their own, fighters in ST are going to get eaten alive. They are support craft for combat, not a primary fighting option.

Of course, that shuttle was from a different time line and it was from 25 years after TNG era, my point was that we know that that kind of tech is possible and although could surely increase the cost of the fighter, AFAWK it could be standar on any ship of that period.

And theres the achilles heel of your argument. We don't use "coulds" or "maybes" unless its almost certain, just uncomfirmed. We have no idea how Janeway's arrival in the AQ early of time could affect the distribution of technological power in the AQ. Seven of Nine could help starfleet by bettering shield technology, or she could for all we know suddenly reactivate as a drone and have to be shut down. We just dont know. What we do know is, that with current technology, fighters are vulnerable. That was shown in "Sacrifice of Angels" where they were being slaughtered by the Dom/CU alliance. There are two reasons. One, they are fighters. Cheap, low armour with a good payload. They aren't designed to be survivable, they are designed to be fast and maneuverable. I can perfectly understand a single blast of cap ship weaponry tearing it to shreds. It should, IMO, IU be fast and maneuverable enough to evade the scanners. thats just my opinion. The second reason, is that they were being used out of their role. A fighter in ST is best used in support of the fleet. Once the Federation attack fleet made the run of the gauntlet, the fighters came into their own, hugging close to a capital ship so the capital ship draws the fire, then firing as they can before ducking back into the cover of the capital ship. Instead sisko used them as a frontline assault unit, which they were not designed for, and reasonably shouldn't, lest you make some uber-mini frigate.

Mikey wrote:

Reliant121 wrote:People seem to think that casualties cant be existent or have to be really low. It isn't going to happen. Casualties will be high, no matter what you do. Unless you make them mini-uberships. It was precisely the same in world war II, the casualties of fighters were monumentally high. It's going to be the same here, just on a much bigger scale since there is a possibility of having far more carriers in a fleet.

Of course there are casualties in war - if there weren't, it would be an excercise. However, that doesn't preclude the thought of minimizing casualties as part of a design process, or in this case not building something that's likely to lead to an excessively high number of casualties for little net reward.

The excessiveness of casualties and other costs (raw material, manufacturing time, etcetera) on fighters is relative because when you destroy 1 fighter you kill 1 guy, if you destroy 1 capital ship the killing could get to hundreds. So you should have to lost like 500 fighters to match just 1 GCS, and fighters are probably even cheaper on other costs.

Thats fine as they are. Fitting them with complex armour systems is only going to hike the cost even more, making the material cost exponentially higher.

Deepcrush wrote:A fighter is built... much like a fighter.

One would have hoped that you wouldn't have needed to say that out loud.

Deepcrush wrote:They are support craft for combat, not a primary fighting option.

Bingo!

SomosFuga wrote:So you should have to lost like 500 fighters to match just 1 GCS, and fighters are probably even cheaper on other costs.

The ratio is what's important here. Fighters would have a much lower survival rate than a GCS. Combine that with the lower efficacy of fighters in 'Trek - in which universe cap ship combat is the norm.

Mikey wrote:One would have hoped that you wouldn't have needed to say that out loud.

There are a lot of things on this forum that I shouldn't have to say for people.

The ratio is what's important here. Fighters would have a much lower survival rate than a GCS. Combine that with the lower efficacy of fighters in 'Trek - in which universe cap ship combat is the norm.

The other side of that coin isn't just the cost of the pilots but also... the service or losses there of the 500 mass produced fighters vs the cost of that GCS. Its harsh to say but if those fighters break down that GCS then thats just the cost of war.

SomosFuga wrote:The excessiveness of casualties and other costs (raw material, manufacturing time, etcetera) on fighters is relative because when you destroy 1 fighter you kill 1 guy, if you destroy 1 capital ship the killing could get to hundreds. So you should have to lost like 500 fighters to match just 1 GCS, and fighters are probably even cheaper on other costs.

The other side of the coin is that a PT or a good phaser hit will destroy a fighter and kill the crew. A GCS will just get shaken about, and maybe have one or two people injured.

Captain Seafort wrote:

SomosFuga wrote:The excessiveness of casualties and other costs (raw material, manufacturing time, etcetera) on fighters is relative because when you destroy 1 fighter you kill 1 guy, if you destroy 1 capital ship the killing could get to hundreds. So you should have to lost like 500 fighters to match just 1 GCS, and fighters are probably even cheaper on other costs.

The other side of the coin is that a PT or a good phaser hit will destroy a fighter and kill the crew. A GCS will just get shaken about, and maybe have one or two people injured.

True, however the point remains.

One hit leaves one cheap, easy, quick to build, hard to hit ship destroyed and one dead vs several hits that leaves a much more powerfull and better but much more sluggish and bigger, very expensive to build and operate ship and hundreds of deads.
You need a lot of fighters to match the power of a capital ship but you have to lost a lot of fighters to match the the cost of losing the same capital ship.

I'm just saying that the mentioned excessiveness of casualties and other costs of the use and lost offighters it's relative.

There is, however, no proof that fighters are harder to hit than capital ships. The cardies managed pretty damn well against the fighters, and star trek is notorious for showing inaccuracy toward capital ships. Which is why, to remain cost effective in life and material, they need to be used in conjunction with the support of larger ships.

Deepcrush wrote:

Coalition wrote:The best use for fighters would be long-range firepower for a fleet command ship, so it can contribute to the battle without getting near enemy ships.

You were on a roll till you said "Long range". When the battle starts you'll need every ship you can get. On their own, fighters in ST are going to get eaten alive. They are support craft for combat, not a primary fighting option.

I agree on needing the ships, just that you don't want your fleet flagship too near the front lines. Being able to deploy remote weapon platforms (fighters) allows the command ships to contribute, without risking as much enemy fire.

My example would be having to choose which target to target. The enemy carrier that has already launched its fighters and is towards the rear of the battleline, or at the War Galaxy that is in your face and launching photon torpedoes like their weapons officer is undergoing a seizure on the firing button.

You're strategy is fine, apart from the fighters going alone. Tag them in the shield bubble of the cruisers, destroyers and frigates at the front, then they can use them for cover.

SomosFuga wrote:I'm just saying that the mentioned excessiveness of casualties and other costs of the use and lost offighters it's relative.

I'm not convinced that it would be relative. I'd guess that the ratio of fighter pilots lost to pilots launched would be considerably higher than that of GCS crew lost vs. embarked.