www.ditl.org

Hydran fighters were incredibly good were they not. In fact, Hydran weapons in general were good. it was just the piss poor aft shields that pissed me off.

Reliant121 wrote:Hydran fighters were incredibly good were they not. In fact, Hydran weapons in general were good. it was just the piss poor aft shields that pissed me off.

Yes they were. If only keeping your nose on the enemy was easier.

Mikey wrote:Coalition - I'm in agreement with your assessment of the different media applicable, but as to this:

ST fighters would have a top speed of 4* higher than the ships they are with (assuming the fighters travel at c, and the ships are limited to 25%c).

Why would we assume that?

I was figuring that fighters would travel at a top speed of c (given that most combat occurs at impulse speeds), while ST ships have been listed as getting up to 25%c. Divide one by the other.

In all likelihood, ST ships would engage at slower speeds than 25%c as aiming times come into play. The faster you are traveling towards an enemy (relatively speaking) the less time you have for maneuvers, locking on, taking the shot, etc. In Arsenal of Freedom, we saw the rough time frame for locking onto a decloaking probe, and trying to fire before the probe vanished again. It took a couple seconds, unfortunately it was about half a second longer than the probe took to decloak, fire, recloak (and likely dodge so they don't get lucky and shoot at empty space).

Rochey wrote:Aye, it's a bad idea to say that because fighters now are very powerful, they will be the same in the 24th century.

Actually i am in favor of fighters, i was just stating a fact.

Reliant121 wrote:I actually like the idea that Coalition has for fighters being more like gunships or PT boats. It sorta makes sense in a way.

That could work better with federation raiders or runabouts with tactical pod, i'm guessing here that a tactical pod for runabouts may use some heavyer weapons like tipe 6+ phasers and PT.

Coalition wrote:...In all likelihood, ST ships would engage at slower speeds than 25%c as aiming times come into play...

I don't really want to get into any debating here, but at speeds above .5c (or so), relativity starts screwing up all sorts of things. The closer to c you get, the worse those time dilation effects become.

I don't see any ships, ever, traveling much faster than .75c (+/- 502,200,000 mph) for that reason.

Of course, Trek science and visuals are all sorts of screwy, so I guess you could imagine that they can create an anti-time dilation field, or some such.

Coalition wrote:

Mikey wrote:Coalition - I'm in agreement with your assessment of the different media applicable, but as to this:

ST fighters would have a top speed of 4* higher than the ships they are with (assuming the fighters travel at c, and the ships are limited to 25%c).

Why would we assume that?

I was figuring that fighters would travel at a top speed of c (given that most combat occurs at impulse speeds), while ST ships have been listed as getting up to 25%c. Divide one by the other.

In all likelihood, ST ships would engage at slower speeds than 25%c as aiming times come into play. The faster you are traveling towards an enemy (relatively speaking) the less time you have for maneuvers, locking on, taking the shot, etc. In Arsenal of Freedom, we saw the rough time frame for locking onto a decloaking probe, and trying to fire before the probe vanished again. It took a couple seconds, unfortunately it was about half a second longer than the probe took to decloak, fire, recloak (and likely dodge so they don't get lucky and shoot at empty space).

Ha ha. Very funny. I may not be as vastly intelligent as you, but I still managed to get what 25% means. I was referring to this part:

Coalition wrote:I was figuring that fighters would travel at a top speed of c (given that most combat occurs at impulse speeds)

When were fighters shown travelling at the speed of light? Or even mentioned as having a differently-capable impulse drive system?

Mikey wrote:Ha ha. Very funny. I may not be as vastly intelligent as you, but I still managed to get what 25% means. I was referring to this part:

Coalition wrote:I was figuring that fighters would travel at a top speed of c (given that most combat occurs at impulse speeds)

When were fighters shown travelling at the speed of light? Or even mentioned as having a differently-capable impulse drive system?

I was figuring a maximum speed for fighters. As fighter speeds get reduced to ship speeds, then we need a new way to compare the roles of the two sizes of ships. PT boats or gunboats seemed appropriate.

It was a bit high, I'll admit.

There are quite a few problems with the impulse speeds of ships. One we never really see ships move as fast as they are stated to move. If they were/could mover at speed even a quarter for light speed I don't see ship combat playing out the way it does. There would be far to little time to react. Enemy ships would be in weapons firing arcs one moment but out again before a weapon could even be fired.

Personally I have always believed that impulse speed are much lower then have been stated. One of the times were I believe the visuals do a better job representing how the ships move and fight.

I'd guess that impulse "speeds" in fact represent acceleration, but it begs the question of why even scientifically-minded people (like Spock and Data, who are both also notorious nitpickers) still refer to "speed."

Mikey wrote:I'd guess that impulse "speeds" in fact represent acceleration, but it begs the question of why even scientifically-minded people (like Spock and Data, who are both also notorious nitpickers) still refer to "speed."

That could be. Until I heard that most people believed that max impulse was around .25c I always thought of different ships classes having a different top speed or max impulse. Like on modern navel ships a captain would call for "All ahead full". Which would be a very different speeds for an Aircraft Carrier and a Destroyer.

Mikey wrote:I'd guess that impulse "speeds" in fact represent acceleration, but it begs the question of why even scientifically-minded people (like Spock and Data, who are both also notorious nitpickers) still refer to "speed."

Have either of them used "speed" to refer to impulse, rather than warp? The latter would make more sense, as there's no physics to be contradicted.

Fighters are great.......if you can overcome certain obvious problems. The question begs, how do create a fighter with enough power to mount weapons heavy enough to pose a threat to a shielded and armored ship, without sacrificing speed and manuverability, and make it surviveable enough to live long enough to launch it's payload, and get it's pilot back to it's "carrier" alive?

I like fighters, but I just don't see them as a feasable option in Trek. They are fine for stinging enemies, pinpoint shots agaisnt unshielded spots on a ship, and so forth. But lets look at it this way. A Romulan Warbird (TNG) attacks a small convoy. The convoy is defended by carrier with two squadrens of fighters, as well as a couple of lighter starships. How do you make the fighters useful until the point where they aren't even really needed anymore?

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:I'd guess that impulse "speeds" in fact represent acceleration, but it begs the question of why even scientifically-minded people (like Spock and Data, who are both also notorious nitpickers) still refer to "speed."

Have either of them used "speed" to refer to impulse, rather than warp? The latter would make more sense, as there's no physics to be contradicted.

Good question, and I'm embarassed to say that I made an assumption without actually knowing. Certainly, if all they (or the people around them) ever said was "factor" or somsuch, then there is no contradiction.

In truth, I really see fighters as atmospheric attack ships. Air supremacy. Launched from orbit, to support ground troops. This is of course depending on there being ground troops.