www.ditl.org

ChakatBlackstar wrote:True but carriers can be battleships too. I think the russians tried that with some of their carriers. However the fact is that carriers, modern or otherwise, have rarely been heavily armed or used in ship-to-ship battles, or ever designed as anything other then a carrier, with a handful of exceptions.

There have been a few battlecarriers historically - the Japanese Ise and Hyuga, and HMS Furious. None of them were successful - their air group was too small to be effective, and the hanger and its associated fuel storage would have been a liability in a fleet action.

Captain Seafort wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:True but carriers can be battleships too. I think the russians tried that with some of their carriers. However the fact is that carriers, modern or otherwise, have rarely been heavily armed or used in ship-to-ship battles, or ever designed as anything other then a carrier, with a handful of exceptions.

There have been a few battlecarriers historically - the Japanese Ise and Hyuga, and HMS Furious. None of them were successful - their air group was too small to be effective, and the hanger and its associated fuel storage would have been a liability in a fleet action.

Which shows that combo ships like Sunny seems to think would work haven't been effective in the past.

The biggest problem would be fuel storage. Rather than being able to store antimatter centrally with the warp core, with the ability to eject the entire system if necessary, a carrier would have to take the requirements of it's fighters into account. This would mean either storing the stuff close to the hanger, where it would be at risk from both enemy fire and boched landings, or pumping it from a central source, which would involve the risk of it touching the side of the pipe anwhere along the route.

Why pump the stuff if you can beam it.

Intraship beaming has been consistently depicted as rare and unsafe. Moreover I wouldn't trust it to transport antimatter on a regular basis - if a person beams in a few millimetres one way or the other it's neither here nor there. If antimatter in any quantity beams in a few millimetre out of place then you'll have quite a mess to clean up.

ChakatBlackstar wrote: Which shows that combo ships like Sunny seems to think would work haven't been effective in the past.

However they work just fine now. You may have noticed the use of shuttle bays on some of the popular ships featured in Star Trek. As in pretty much freaking all of them since day one of the series.

Look if launching a Trek fighter was this massive ordeal and you needed to allocate some chunk of a machinery the size of a GCS saucer to making it happen you'd have a point for a carrier. But that just is not the case.

Again carriers in real life are already brutally big. With only the US being able to make the top of the line ones I think. The idea of making them bigger for some other reason doesn't make sense.

Just on a historical note the ships Seafort mentioned we're really meant to be dual purpose ships. They were built for traditional big gun navy warfare but people realized that aircraft was where it was at. So they yanked the big guns off to put little decks on.

sunnyside wrote:However they work just fine now. You may have noticed the use of shuttle bays on some of the popular ships featured in Star Trek. As in pretty much freaking all of them since day one of the series.

Yes, they have shuttle bays, just as most modern warships have hangers. This does not mean they can carry starfighters any more than modern escorts can carry strike aircraft. There was a lot of theoretical work done in the late 70s/early 80s regarding the possibility of fielding Harriers on escorts, to try and compensate for the frankly pathetic air groups of the Invincible class ships. The idea was rejected, mainly due to the phenomenal amount of avgas that would have to be carried.

Don't many ships nowadays carry a couple of unarmed helicopters to ferry people around? That'd be a good analogy to the shuttles.

They usually carry a chopper or two, but they're used for ASW, not transport. The shuttles fill roughly the same roll as modern ships' boats.

Captain Seafort wrote:

sunnyside wrote: This does not mean they can carry starfighters any more than modern escorts can carry strike aircraft.

What, in all of Trek, gives you the indication that a Trek fighter would need some kind of special launching mechanism.

For launch and retrieval I think your example of a ships small boats seems more apt. Even a helicopter is harder to provide for. Though I also think the helipads you see on destroyers is more appropriate.

Well, if a Starfighter is to be much use in a fight, its going to need a reasonable compliment of weapons. If these include torpedoes, the mothership needs the facility to rearm the fighters quickly. I'd also assume a Starfighter would require much more maintenance then a regular shuttle.

I'm not saying an average Starship couldn't cope, but the fact that one has the facilities to maintain shuttlecrafts effectively, doesn't mean it can maintain a fighter wing as well.

Fighters/bombers should be expected to require more upfit, maintenance, and refit than shuttles, because their very purpose is to seek out and enter hazardous situations. In addition, one can reasonably assume that they would be expected and required to launch more quickly and in multiples. Both of these facts would necessitate larger and more specifically-equipped accomodation.

The best possible role for Fighters in Trek would likely be in support of a ground action or low intensity interdiction. A Fleet Fighter would have to not only carry weapons and defences capable of engaging a Starship with a reasonable chance of survival, but would also have to be able to exceed their speed at impulse, this means more efficient engines and Inertial Dampers which can stand up to a heavy pounding.

The real advantage of current Aircraft/Aircraft Carriers is the Aircrafts ability to close long distances to a target, do considerable damage/destroy the target and return quickly, all without being destroyed.

I don't agree with the Akira being a true Carrier, at most it would be comparable to a small Escort Carrier, even then I think that is being over generous. If Starfleet ever did decide to field large numbers of Space Superiority Fighters it would almost certainly require a dedicated, new design to support them.

but would also have to be able to exceed their speed at impulse, this means more efficient engines and Inertial Dampers which can stand up to a heavy pounding

No, it would just not get hit And the engines wouldn't have to be more efficient, they'd just have to be big for the ship of that size. The fighters have a lot less mass

The real advantage of current Aircraft/Aircraft Carriers is the Aircrafts ability to close long distances to a target, do considerable damage/destroy the target and return quickly, all without being destroyed

So basically for fighters to play a big role in Star Trek they'd have to revamp the weapons and FTL drives...well that sucks

A purpose built fighter that is designed to fly out of a carrier would be a big advantage. You could add more weapons and drop other stuff.