www.ditl.org

I'd also like to address the other parts of the basic design. Any Fighter in Space should expect to be destroyed. This means you either have an ejection system or you kill the pilot/crew. An ejection system would have to have some way of getting away from a fighter loaded with anti-matter and possibly weapons which is about to blow, most likely you would use some type of fast thruster, so you need space for that in the ejection module. You also need a life support system for the crew since they are in space. Some type of shielding would also be useful to protect the pod from debris/micro-meteorites. Now you could just throw the person out in a space suit but then he is completely exposed to a battle.

No, it would just not get hit Rolling Eyes 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

They would have to be able to go faster than a Starship to close within an effective weapons range, otherwise the ship could just keep moving to avoid getting into their weapons range.

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

Not necessarily, I'm just saying that comparing this idea to modern implementations doesn't work so well because of the differences. Modern Fighters are much faster than ships or other expected targets, thats why they are so valuable. They can arrive in an area quickly, in many cases, before the enemy realizes they are there, engage them with weapons capable of destroying or crippling a target and leave the area returning to safety much faster than other units, save missiles which are extremely expensive. In Trek this role seems hard to fill, you need a powerful Warp Core unless you launch from within Impulse Range, at which point you can get in close enough to use regular ships. Also any target which can be taken out by fighter sized weapons in Trek could probably be dealt with by a few Frigate/Destroyer Type ships which are much better protected and can get out on their own instead of having to rely on a mother ship.

What could you drop? Not FTL drive, not navigation, not life support... maybe scientific equipment, but I don't think anyone expected to have that anyway.

Teaos wrote: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.

What weapons can't you add otherwise? What stuff could you drop?

Also maintence is something a regular ship would do well at. Fed ships are overcrewed. In that if you lose a few crew members there aren't jobs going undone. Likely so that there is enough crew to cope with battle situations and handle repairs quicker after the anomaly of the week tries to eat you.

These extra people could handle fighter maintenence. This wouldn't hurt damage control during a battle as the fighters would be deployed.

I suppose there is something to the argument of using fighters as torpedo bombers that require reloading. However since a carrier that does such a task would have to leave their shields down they are especially vulnerable. Of course you'd be trying to keep them out of combat. But I don't know how practical that is in Trek. Unshielded ships don't fare well against Trek weapons. If a small enemy ship managed to get a torpedo into one of the open hangers that might be all it takes.

And again I'm not so convinced a bunch of torpedo bombers would be better economically than another actual ship.

One initial reason being, oh, what is it called, it's refered to in military theory.

Anyway the way it would boil down is that in the initial vollies the single ship would just take hits on its shield. It's at 100% combat capability. However first hits on fighter bombers will destroy them. Meaning the combat capability of the ships is now reduced.

Exactly, you actually need MORE of those basic systems. I would expect to have a backup life support unit, after all such a ship's defences would be weak compared to the incoming weapons fire and would be vulnerable to that fire.

You either get a Fighter/Bomber so large it becomes hard to maneuver unless you add more thrusters which in turn makes it larger, or you get a ship so weak that a Phaser passing by rips it apart. Its all about balance and I'd say that it takes a larger space frame to balance it out.

Fed ships are overcrewed.

I wouldn't say they are overstaffed, I'd rather carry a few extra people than not enough. While it may seem like they have a lot of people sitting around doing nothing in actual fact what we have seen is multi-purpose explorers who would have scientists and such on board which would count towards their crew numbers that you see and hear.

You either get a Fighter/Bomber so large it becomes hard to maneuver unless you add more thrusters which in turn makes it larger, or you get a ship so weak that a Phaser passing by rips it apart. Its all about balance and I'd say that it takes a larger space frame to balance it out.

Or you make the ship manuverable enough that it doesn't get hit. And a back-up life support would be silly. If the ship takes criticle damage there's a good chance you're dead anyway.

And again I'm not so convinced a bunch of torpedo bombers would be better economically than another actual ship

Let's see...one huge ship launching 90 fighters or so into battle or a bunch of full sized ships with equal firepower...which sounds cheaper? The One ship and fighters or the huge amount of huge ships? Clearly the carrier wins

Not FTL drive, not navigation, not life support

You could reduce life support though. Like the flight suits used by Star Wars' TIE fighter pilots.

means you either have an ejection system or you kill the pilot/crew.

If you eject into deep space you're gonna die soon anyway. Or get captured by the enemy.

Also any target which can be taken out by fighter sized weapons in Trek could probably be dealt with by a few Frigate/Destroyer Type ships

And risk a few hundred people as opposed to maybe two dozen? Ya...because that makes sense.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:Or you make the ship manuverable enough that it doesn't get hit. And a back-up life support would be silly. If the ship takes criticle damage there's a good chance you're dead anyway.

Nothing is so maneuverable that it can't get hit. Even if a ship is near that capability, the upper limit of its maneuverability is the pilot.

Let's see...one huge ship launching 90 fighters or so into battle or a bunch of full sized ships with equal firepower...which sounds cheaper? The One ship and fighters or the huge amount of huge ships? Clearly the carrier wins

I see your point, but I think the idea here is that you could make a handful of cap ships for the same resources, and have that much more efficacy.

You could reduce life support though. Like the flight suits used by Star Wars' TIE fighter pilots.

Would that save enough space/weight/mass to be useful?

And risk a few hundred people as opposed to maybe two dozen? Ya...because that makes sense.

Again, I see your point - but to match the killing power of a "few" frigates or destroyers you need much more than two dozen fighters.

I wouldn't say they are overstaffed, I'd rather carry a few extra people than not enough. While it may seem like they have a lot of people sitting around doing nothing in actual fact what we have seen is multi-purpose explorers who would have scientists and such on board which would count towards their crew numbers that you see and hear.

There are also three duty shifts and other jobs.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:Let's see...one huge ship launching 90 fighters or so into battle or a bunch of full sized ships with equal firepower...which sounds cheaper? The One ship and fighters or the huge amount of huge ships? Clearly the carrier wins.

The fewer, bigger ships would be more effective, thanks to their more powerful weapons and shields. They'd be able to do more damage per hit, and conversely a hit that would destroy a fighter would only damage the shields of a larger vessel.

You're right that fighters would be able to avoid weapons fire most of the time, but that's evened out by the fact that they can't do any significant damage, and they can be destroyed far more easilly.

I dont think either is better. The best fleet is a mixed fleet.

Some guys here give fighters to much credit. It looks like you are comparing tham to modern day fighters and theri performence against ships. A better comparisment would be if we compared ST fighters to torpedo boats. Small, fast, cheap, can sink a battleship but can be easly destroyed.

I dont think that is a good example.

A trek fighter wouldnt stand a chance in hell of beating any normal size ship let alone battleships.

I earlier compared Trek fighter to medium bombers due to their size and range. In terms of their combat utility however, they're probably about equal to WWII fighters - they'd be effective against ground targets, and could harrass heavy warships, but there's no way they could be an effective anti-ship weapon.

Good analogy. To carry it further to support one of Blackstar's points, to be significant they would have to carry something like full-size torps - much like the Avengers or other torpedo-bombers of WWII. Without that, we are left to resort to "divine wind" ideas like the Japanese, but with probably even less effectiveness.

Thats only if you go head on. If you use them in support and have them pick of damaged ships they wont need full sized weapons.