www.ditl.org

SomosFuga wrote:Why? photon torpedoes are probably the more common weapon in 24 century ST and they are use by lots of different species with quite different technology for a long period. Yes, all of them AFAIK use launchers but we can assume that those are completely different delivery systems, changing depending on the species and even on the age.

Very true. This has no bearing on the point, however. The fact that different species probably use different launcher mechanisms doesn't indicate at all an ability to fire from an external mount. In fact, quite the contrary; the fact that there are so many different types of launchers, yet not one example of any type of hardpoint-launched PT, indicates that they can't. However, my point isn't that they absolutely can't be fired in such a fashion - merely that we can't assume that they can.

SomosFuga wrote:Anyway I didn't say same payload, i said same type of warhead, but yes should be the similar payload too.

I said type of payload, but I apoligize - that could have been clearer.

SomosFuga wrote:I'm not trying to launch/fire a pt from a present day fighter or helicopter but a 24 century platform especially designed for that purpuse.

I know you're not; but you claimed that such an anlogy was valid, while I claim that it isn't.

Mikey wrote:Seeing the apparently strong defenses a typical starship has against fighters (see Graham's post last page) I think you're talking about a relatively small number of craft getting close enough for an effective launch, and an even smaller number returning their pilots home.

If you're talking about a carrier Vs a battleship in open space, then yeah. But my suggestion was based around them being involved in fleet actions, where space is crowded enough to give some cover to the fighters and enemy vessels will be preoccupied with allied warships, allowing a squadron of fighters to slip into range and launch a salvo of torps at the enemy.

Tyyr wrote:Yes, they get one volley and they're done. However a ship like a GCS could easily accommodate two or three dozen fighters in that huge hanger it has. While they might be one and done for very little cost you get the ability to lob between 48 and 144 torpedoes in a single volley at a target, maybe even more. The ability to go from putting 5 to 10 torps on target to that kind of volley is big. Given the size of starships a few fighters is a small investment for a potentially big return in a combat situation.

Just putting more tubes on a GCS would eliminate the need for fighters though..........

Rochey wrote:If you're talking about a carrier Vs a battleship in open space, then yeah. But my suggestion was based around them being involved in fleet actions, where space is crowded enough to give some cover to the fighters and enemy vessels will be preoccupied with allied warships, allowing a squadron of fighters to slip into range and launch a salvo of torps at the enemy.

I see where you're going, but remember (eye-candy visual FX notwithstanding) that "space is big... really big."

Poor spelling on title fixed.

Sorry I missed this but here's my take.

A.) Forget the carrier. You have shuttle bays so fill them up with fighters rather then shuttles.
B.) Forget this "Fighters working alone" crap. They are a combined arms force when dealing with Trek.
C.) Swarm and volley. Every fighter carries a pair of warheads or mines and sends them towards an enemy ship. The ship can either try and take out the fighters and their bombs or deal with the capital ship that brought them.

A squadron of fighters vs a Dominion Battlecruiser is worthless. A squadron of fighters that are supporting their Akira or GCS or Nebula mother ship while firing their 20 or 30 warheads is very helpful.

Fighters in Trek are support weapons. Not uber solo weapons.

Deepcrush wrote:...Fighters in Trek are support weapons...

Exactly my take on it.

Yeah, that's how I see it, their place is to support a war ship. Not to destroy, but distract, and get in the way.

Once an enemy's shields are damaged, a dozen torpedoes could be the deciding factor; I don't think they could take on major cap ships on their own, but I could see them proving useful in fleet engagements or even in one-on-one ship duels.

That's about the game of it.

Use their warheads against ships with shields and use their phasers against ships without them.

Aye, agreed. Fighters can be used to great effect to finish off already damaged ships, leaving the capships free to move on to other targets.

Agreed that they can do some of those things. I just don't feel (yes, I said the "f" word) that the expense - in ships and in pilots - justifies the use unless and until there are more typical reasons for fighters to be commonplace: such as infantry and armor support, atmospheric superiority, etc.

I have a hard time imagining how you don't think it's worth it. This is the Federation. They happily carry noncombatants aboard their front line warships. They gave a ship to Janeway. They don't teach their ground troops how to fight or even give them decent equipment. Do you really think the lives of 40 or 50 fighter pilots will matter to them?