It's a well-established fact that Russian aeronautical engineers are freaking nuts.
"Hey! Lets cool our submarines nuclear reactors with liquid sodium - a substance that reacts explosively with water, which we use in the secondary coolant loop and completely surrounds our submarine!"
"Hey, lets build a massive aircraft as guided-missile carrier, but let's make it fly really low to the ground to take advantage of ground effect, right where it can be most easily shot down, and let's give it ten engines so the enemy can hear it coming from fifty miles away!"
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
Some hangar bays added to the Galaxy-X. Yes please.
This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
You know, I used to really hate the idea of Fed carriers; but I've realized lately that I might have been a little too focused on the idea of a fighter carrier.
Do I think the Feds would have a warship that fights by throwing small, poorly defended attack craft at giant battle-cruisers? No.
Do I think the Feds might have a ship designed to carry a lot of auxiliary craft like shuttles? Well, sure. I mean, we know that Starfleet vessels get tasked with stuff like transport missions, disaster relief, colonization efforts, and other things that might require shifting a lot of things; and we also know that transporters aren't always the way to go when it comes to pick up or delivery. So a kind of heavy transport, that could function as a carrier, isn't much of a stretch really.
Of course, with that in mind, if they did make a proper Starfleet carrier, I'd want it to come with some kind of mostly harmless shuttle pets. Like a personnel shuttle that can use really weak versions of the 'Team' abilities (for debuff clearance, and improved uptime on tac team, rather than heals). It simply wouldn't seem very 'Starfleety' to me if it just came loaded with fighters or frigates.
There are no carriers in canon Star trek. None. Zero. The concept in itself is moronic to the max considering the tech base.
1.) Defense: a fighter has none against star ship class weaponry. As evidenced by the copious amounts of them dieing in every ds9 battle. ECM only gets you so far.
2.) Firepower: So you build a craft to deliver what, energy weapons to the target? Or torpedoes? Well ,the torpedoes must be huge and visible under the fighter hull because why would anyone build a fighter that carries small torpedoes or pew pew phasers to the target? No one would do that, because its stupid. Instead you could build a torpedo the size of a fighter ,army it up and have it shoot your opponents while it flies there on a collision course. You get more bang, less cost and you save a pilot. And since the weapon does not need to have accommodations for personnel you will have a better payload of either propulsion defense or offense....
3.) Replacement: so fighters are dead? well fck, now your carrier has lost his parasites and is now a sub par starship...
We have never seen carriers in trek because the tech base has made them an obsolete concept.
No, we have seen them in Canon. No, DS9 has never shown carriers, No the scimitar is not a carrier because the ships it carries are ground assault craft as evidenced by the fact that they are roughly the size of the ******ned argo buggy and couldn't do jack vs any star ship. Even the USS Grissom would have kicked their TRIBBLE. The scorpions are tiny. Nothing they carry will harm a starship. Proximity torpedos would wipe them off the map instantly.
These little buggers are good for one thing only: harass ground targets. Also: they were not used in the space battle.
The fighter wings in ds9 traveled on their own, because each of them has enough room to be comfortable, a small replicator and naturally since it can turn **** into shoes: also a toilet.
And a lot of shoes probably. Always the shoes. Why do in conclude that? because very of the tiny rooms in the defiant has its own little replicator. So the fighters definitively can have those too.
Anyway: you argue that fighters cannot keep up with a fast response force, despite DS9 never showing us fast response forces in the first places.
Despite that, you also argue they could not keep up with the fleets top speed anyway.
They do not need to. Because the fleet will not travel at full taxation of its engines. Doing that is exclusively reserved for emergencies or when a gain is to be made from it.
We see the fighters as part of huge formations of ships, those are not fast response fleets those are attack fleets. These don't travel with full taxation of their equipment: that stuff is needed for battle in good condition.
One might argue that the maquis used fighters: and he would be wrong. They used repurposed small craft belonging in the runabout/shuttle category. (and some used really bug ships lik eddington and chakotay.)
The notion of fighters came up very late in the dominion war arc - the arc that also showed what a stupid idea it was.
Fighters were introduced because the producers thought it would look cool, would look like WAR.
All it does is look stupid.
Because fighters do nothing in star trek canon.
But hey i guess we can take the game seriously that made a romulan warbird lose to 4 ships the size of a volkswagen.... *cough*
The Fighters in star trek are like threshold: best be buried in the pile of bad ideas.
There are no carriers in canon Star trek. None. Zero. The concept in itself is moronic to the max considering the tech base.
1.) Defense: a fighter has none against star ship class weaponry. As evidenced by the copious amounts of them dieing in every ds9 battle. ECM only gets you so far.
2.) Firepower: So you build a craft to deliver what, energy weapons to the target? Or torpedoes? Well ,the torpedoes must be huge and visible under the fighter hull because why would anyone build a fighter that carries small torpedoes or pew pew phasers to the target? No one would do that, because its stupid. Instead you could build a torpedo the size of a fighter ,army it up and have it shoot your opponents while it flies there on a collision course. You get more bang, less cost and you save a pilot. And since the weapon does not need to have accommodations for personnel you will have a better payload of either propulsion defense or offense....
3.) Replacement: so fighters are dead? well fck, now your carrier has lost his parasites and is now a sub par starship...
We have never seen carriers in trek because the tech base has made them an obsolete concept.
No, we have seen them in Canon. No, DS9 has never shown carriers, No the scimitar is not a carrier because the ships it carries are ground assault craft as evidenced by the fact that they are roughly the size of the ******ned argo buggy and couldn't do jack vs any star ship. Even the USS Grissom would have kicked their TRIBBLE. The scorpions are tiny. Nothing they carry will harm a starship. Proximity torpedos would wipe them off the map instantly.
These little buggers are good for one thing only: harass ground targets. Also: they were not used in the space battle.
The fighter wings in ds9 traveled on their own, because each of them has enough room to be comfortable, a small replicator and naturally since it can turn **** into shoes: also a toilet.
And a lot of shoes probably. Always the shoes. Why do in conclude that? because very of the tiny rooms in the defiant has its own little replicator. So the fighters definitively can have those too.
Anyway: you argue that fighters cannot keep up with a fast response force, despite DS9 never showing us fast response forces in the first places.
Despite that, you also argue they could not keep up with the fleets top speed anyway.
They do not need to. Because the fleet will not travel at full taxation of its engines. Doing that is exclusively reserved for emergencies or when a gain is to be made from it.
We see the fighters as part of huge formations of ships, those are not fast response fleets those are attack fleets. These don't travel with full taxation of their equipment: that stuff is needed for battle in good condition.
One might argue that the maquis used fighters: and he would be wrong. They used repurposed small craft belonging in the runabout/shuttle category. (and some used really bug ships lik eddington and chakotay.)
The notion of fighters came up very late in the dominion war arc - the arc that also showed what a stupid idea it was.
Fighters were introduced because the producers thought it would look cool, would look like WAR.
All it does is look stupid.
Because fighters do nothing in star trek canon.
But hey i guess we can take the game seriously that made a romulan warbird lose to 4 ships the size of a volkswagen.... *cough*
The Fighters in star trek are like threshold: best be buried in the pile of bad ideas.
Note fighters did do well against a Galor once. and I can't see someone spending weeks or months in a fighter so they have to be carried by something. on and guest what. the Akrira was supposed to be a carrier. the Curry/Shelby class was rumored to have the capacity as well. Fighters may not have as an important here as they are in Star Wars but they do have a role.
I'm still surprised the first fed carrier didn't use hologram fighters. We have photonic fleet and Cardassians have had a battleship that projects hologram cruisers. The loss of life issue would be moot, KDF can keep their flight deck officers, and the Feds can have a fluffy carrier and unique science ship. Who losses?
I'm still surprised the first fed carrier didn't use hologram fighters. We have photonic fleet and Cardassians have had a battleship that projects hologram cruisers. The loss of life issue would be moot, KDF can keep their flight deck officers, and the Feds can have a fluffy carrier and unique science ship. Who losses?
The holograms? If they are low on AI, then you couldn't really trust them to perform well in combat. If they weren't low on AI, then the 'loss of life issue' becomes much murkier; since Voyager's EMH was legally granted full 'human' rights, just as Data had been previously (which sets the precedent for treating holograms as people). The Moriarty hologram also came to be considered a 'living' being.
Remember, very few of the 'entitled' AIs in Star Trek were designed to be that way. Both Exocomps and the EMH were intended to be more or less disposable. It just never seems to work out that way though.
1.) Defense: a fighter has none against star ship class weaponry. As evidenced by the copious amounts of them dieing in every ds9 battle. ECM only gets you so far.
2.) Firepower: So you build a craft to deliver what, energy weapons to the target? Or torpedoes? Well ,the torpedoes must be huge and visible under the fighter hull because why would anyone build a fighter that carries small torpedoes or pew pew phasers to the target? No one would do that, because its stupid. Instead you could build a torpedo the size of a fighter ,army it up and have it shoot your opponents while it flies there on a collision course. You get more bang, less cost and you save a pilot. And since the weapon does not need to have accommodations for personnel you will have a better payload of either propulsion defense or offense....
3.) Replacement: so fighters are dead? well fck, now your carrier has lost his parasites and is now a sub par starship...
From all footage shown of the Dominion Wars, Peregrines had a better kills to loss ratio than several classes of Frigates and Cruisers FYI.
Bottom line: Trek fighters may not be as powerful as in some other SciFi 'verses, but they still have a place, and they do indeed exist. No matter how much you want them not to.
The holograms? If they are low on AI, then you couldn't really trust them to perform well in combat. If they weren't low on AI, then the 'loss of life issue' becomes much murkier; since Voyager's EMH was legally granted full 'human' rights, just as Data had been previously (which sets the precedent for treating holograms as people). The Moriarty hologram also came to be considered a 'living' being.
Remember, very few of the 'entitled' AIs in Star Trek were designed to be that way. Both Exocomps and the EMH were intended to be more or less disposable. It just never seems to work out that way though.
Possible solution to this specific situation: carrier based AIs flying networked craft.
Example (from a different verse, but the concept still works): Ship AIs from the Andromeda 'verse were described as being able to operate squadrons of Slip Fighters. I see no reason why a functional AI based from a central command ship (like an Akira, Atrox Vo'Quv or even a Maraduer or Corsair) couldn't do something similar.
The holograms? If they are low on AI, then you couldn't really trust them to perform well in combat. If they weren't low on AI, then the 'loss of life issue' becomes much murkier; since Voyager's EMH was legally granted full 'human' rights, just as Data had been previously (which sets the precedent for treating holograms as people). The Moriarty hologram also came to be considered a 'living' being.
Remember, very few of the 'entitled' AIs in Star Trek were designed to be that way. Both Exocomps and the EMH were intended to be more or less disposable. It just never seems to work out that way though.
Then why does everyone have photonic fleet? Fighters can be programed to fight. Skill and intuition may be low, but reaction speed, g-force resistance, lack of a need for life support, and beam weapons would go far to offset those weaknesses. Torpedo's are meant for bombing runs, surely an AI can fire a torpedo from 10K @ a cruiser/battleship/carrier/cube without too much trouble.
What if it were possible for the AI to "copy" itself into a fighter form? Not like a hologram fighter needs a holographic cockpit, with holographic windows, and holographic chairs. If transporters copy you, beam the information, and makes a copy of you at the destination, what makes a AI copying itself out of reach?
Then why does everyone have photonic fleet? Fighters can be programed to fight. Skill and intuition may be low, but reaction speed, g-force resistance, lack of a need for life support, and beam weapons would go far to offset those weaknesses. Torpedo's are meant for bombing runs, surely an AI can fire a torpedo from 10K @ a cruiser/battleship/carrier/cube without too much trouble.
What if it were possible for the AI to "copy" itself into a fighter form? Not like a hologram fighter needs a holographic cockpit, with holographic windows, and holographic chairs. If transporters copy you, beam the information, and makes a copy of you at the destination, what makes a AI copying itself out of reach?
Ships summoned by Photonic Fleet don't need to be smart; they just need to draw some fire and shoot at unfriendly stuff for the very brief time that they exist. A carrier uses fighters as its primary weapon (or one of its primary weapons anyway); they need to be reliable enough to perform their tasks as well as the flesh and blood crew of the ship that launched them or they are just pointless. Might as well just have torpedoes with guns, as reynoldsxd suggested; it'd work better.
I shouldn't think that there is anything putting copying AIs out of reach; but an intelligence being a copy of another intelligence doesn't make the problem go away. Just ask Thomas Riker.
Ships summoned by Photonic Fleet don't need to be smart; they just need to draw some fire and shoot at unfriendly stuff for the very brief time that they exist. A carrier uses fighters as its primary weapon (or one of its primary weapons anyway); they need to be reliable enough to perform their tasks as well as the flesh and blood crew of the ship that launched them or they are just pointless. Might as well just have torpedoes with guns, as reynoldsxd suggested; it'd work better.
I shouldn't think that there is anything putting copying AIs out of reach; but an intelligence being a copy of another intelligence doesn't make the problem go away. Just ask Thomas Riker.
If the photonic fighter was a self propelled remote hologram emitter, then technically it would be a torpedo with guns. Beams fired by flesh and blood using targeting computers are just as accurate as the targeting computer itself. Cannons are the exception as they require more maneuvering due to firing arc.
I've seen that episode with the Riker copy. I was thinking of that when I typed my last post. The catch to that is, a physical copy of Riker is a conundrum born from an accident, but a copy of an AI is an opportunity. Best case scenario, you send out the remote holo emitter or pure energy AI copy, it does it's mission, and doesn't get blasted/dispersed, then it would return to the ship and give the original AI the combat experience it gathered or like stirling191 suggested, the AI could pilot the holo fighter from the ship. AI's have the possibility to merge, Riker isn't so lucky. He could always eat his copy, but the usefulness to that is situational at best.
Right now, the hanger craft you can deploy now have strengths and weaknesses. From the item descriptions shuttles are tougher than fighters and fighters hit harder than shuttles. For there to be balance, holo fighters could have less skills (DEM/tractor beams/etc), be as squishy as fighters, but be easier to spam. Isn't the point of fighters is to be spammable vs the big bad battleship? You would spam holo fighters because you wouldn't have to prep them or flight crew, re-arm them, or perform maintenance if they where pure energy. Just copy and launch. Just like a torpedo.
I've seen that episode with the Riker copy. I was thinking of that when I typed my last post. The catch to that is, a physical copy of Riker is a conundrum born from an accident, but a copy of an AI is an opportunity. Best case scenario, you send out the remote holo emitter or pure energy AI copy, it does it's mission, and doesn't get blasted/dispersed, then it would return to the ship and give the original AI the combat experience it gathered or like stirling191 suggested, the AI could pilot the holo fighter from the ship. AI's have the possibility to merge, Riker isn't so lucky. He could always eat his copy, but the usefulness to that is situational at best.
You're neglecting the ethical problem of repeatedly creating, killing and recreating sentient beings solely for the purpose of fighting. Feds wouldn't go for that.
A central AI controlling craft remotely doesn't have that issue however.
Do they have to be sentient? If their single purpose is combat/probing, then I'd figure the Federation would avoid a Data/Voyager Doctor situation, neither of which were meant for combat. Just design the thing to do it's job and not to socialize with the crew.
Is it killing if the original is safe on the ship?
If you treat them as crew and drink with them at the bar, then I would see an ethical problem. However, if the AI's are performing their duties as part of the super(central) computer or being copied from the super(central) computer without humanoid bodies to interact with the crew, with their only "physical" presence as a fighter/drone, then there would be less problems.
That may be a heartless way to use photonics, but there is no code of ethics saying you have to make a sentient humanoid to pilot a fighter. Just make a photonic fighter craft. You don't have to make the warp core sentient and give it the will to do it's job or feel sorry for it when you have to eject it before it inevitably goes critical(like they all do) destroying the ship.
Do they have to be sentient? If their single purpose is combat/probing, then I'd figure the Federation would avoid a Data/Voyager Doctor situation. Just design the thing to do it's job and not to socialize with the crew.
I don't know about you, but having a fighter squadron that can critically think on the fly, and adjust to a situation creatively without direct commands from another officer would be extremely advantageous.
If you treat them as crew and drink with them at the bar, then I would see an ethical problem. However, if the AI's are performing their duties as part of the super computer or being copied from the super computer without humanoid bodies to interact with the crew, with their only "physical" presence as a fighter/drone, then there would be less problems.
I'll refer you most notably to Exo-comps. It doesn't have to shoot the **** with the crew to be sentient, or alive.
Ship to ship combat isn't that critical. I'd rather have mindless drones to shoot at large ships than risk critical thinkers that could man my ship.
If a copy came back to the original and gave it the experiences the original didn't have, is that creation or destruction? That's not "death" in my eyes. Nothing stops the original from coping itself again to create two AI's with all the experiences of both. Have you ever seen the Ghost in the Shell TV series? In it, they have the AI driven tanks that trade experiences when one goes on a mission and comes back.
Photonics are a different form a life, as designated by the courts in the Voyager's Doctors case. However, wouldn't that mean there are various forms of Photonic "life". To photonics, is merging death or reproduction/evolution? Perhaps we are placing our human limitations on holographic lifeforms that have different limitations.
At the end of the day I want a carrier that uses drones. You can kill/support/modify that dream however you like. There is a place for fighters in STO, they counter Heavy plasma torpedoes, drain shields, and kill other fighters. To say there is no ethical way to do so is just shooting my idea down to make a carrier-less federation for your own fluff enjoyment.
If a copy came back to the original and gave it the experiences the original didn't have, is that creation or destruction?
You're creating an entity that is fundamentally different, and in the process destroying an existing entity. In addition, a third entity would cease to exist entirely. That's death by any measure.
Have you ever seen the Ghost in the Shell TV series? In it, they have the AI driven tanks that trade experiences when one goes on a mission and comes back.
Learning from another entity is one thing. Destroying that entity to eat it's memories, then subsequently spawning a new copy of yourself in it's place is something else entirely.
You're creating an entity that is fundamentally different, and in the process destroying an existing entity. In addition, a third entity would cease to exist entirely. That's death by any measure.
The copy isn't fundamentally different. Its a copy of a drone fighter. It has the same purpose and experience of the original. The only difference is the experiences post copy.
Learning from another entity is one thing. Destroying that entity to eat it's memories, then subsequently spawning a new copy of yourself in it's place is something else entirely.
That's AI life! A lot different from us. Who are we to say there's anything wrong with it?
The copy isn't fundamentally different. Its a copy of a drone fighter. It has the same purpose and experience of the original. The only difference is the experiences post copy.
If you copy a biological being, with every memory intact, is that copy not alive? You're effectively arguing that it isn't. Life is life, whether it comes wrapped in skin, scales, circuits, feathers or photons. If you copy it, you're creating new life. If you destroy it, you're taking a life.
That's AI life! A lot different from us. Who are we to say there's anything wrong with it?
I must have missed the part where the Doctor, Moriorty, Data, Hal, Andromeda, the Geth or any other non-organic sentient ran around consuming other synthetic intelligences as part of their everyday existence.
the problem i have is that kdf has their carrier free at RA but the feds do not, i want to see a carrier free to the feds as well, less capable then that of the dread/armitage/atrox/vesta for example but on par with the kdf carrier, peregrines or runabouts and thats all. no special NPC pets like adv class or other types like the delta flyer, no DHC and 3 front and 2 rear weapon slots.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
I just want a drone bomber. Nothing that has self preservation or musical talent. If we have photonic fleet, why can't we have photonic fighters?
Do we in fact know how the Geth reproduce? Even so, those AI's are all independent non combatants, aside from Andromeda(not a drone) and the Geth(still murky on reproduction).
They don't reproduce by copying and they don't learn by absorption, they live and learn as individuals.
You want critically thinking/learning fighter craft, but don't want them to share experiences as programs do. You want there to be no loss of life, but insist every AI has to be sentient and ethically UN-sacrificable.
Sentient life is Actual Intelligence. Drone fighters are Artificial Intelligence, as in fake and disposable. Exocomps were made to be disposable, but were given the hardware to modify themselves, and evolution occurred. Drone fighters would just be drones with guns, nothing more. If you insist Actual intelligence = Artificial Intelligence then talking to you is pointless as every traffic light system, and Pandora internet Raido will become sentient and decide to go Terminator or Matrix and kill/enslave us all. Then there will be no more ST:O...
I just want a drone bomber. Nothing that has self preservation or musical talent.
Which is fundamentally different from an Artifical Intelligence. The discussion then turns to the efficacy of said drone, which isn't really pertinent to the current conversation.
You want critically thinking/learning fighter craft, but don't want them to share experiences as programs do. You want there to be no loss of life, but insist every AI has to be sentient and ethically UN-sacrificable.
A true AI is by definition alive. By everything that the Federation stands for, the wanton creation and slaughter of life for the purpose of warfare is abhorrent.
Sentient life is Actual Intelligence. Drone fighters are Artificial Intelligence, as in fake and disposable.
Here's the problem, you're thinking an AI is something it isn't.
The thrust of this conversation then gets back to the effectiveness of a "dumb" fighter squadron, which for a ship relying heavily on said squadron for combat efficacy and survival is a major concern.
A true AI is by definition alive. By everything that the Federation stands for, the wanton creation and slaughter of life for the purpose of warfare is abhorrent.
The thrust of this conversation then gets back to the effectiveness of a "dumb" fighter squadron, which for a ship relying heavily on said squadron for combat efficacy and survival is a major concern.
"True AI" is Actual Intelligence. It gets to learn things beside combat out of choice. The "non-true AI" just mimics human intelligence and does what it's programing tells it to. Fed. wouldn't use "true AI" for drone fighters, that's a no duh because of Data and Voy/Dr.
It wouldn't be "alive" because it wouldn't want to preserve itself, it wouldn't want to reproduce for preserving the race. It wouldn't want to explore or improve itself beyond the combat attack patterns. Sure, there is the possibility for it to become sentient, but really, what in the Star Trek universe can't somehow become sentient? Sentient sand stopped the Genesis experiments on one planet in TNG. Tribbles and Klingons are somehow sentient too...
A drone carrier wouldn't solely rely on "dumb" fighters for offense and defense. No more than any other carrier in this game does. Safe to assume it would have at least 3/3 weapon slots, shields, equipment slots, and bridge crew. Heck, just as point defense, the drone fighters would be useful. A dumb Federation drone will probably be better at fighting than the average Naussican mercenary or Orion pirate. Yeah, that's speculation, but saying a "non-true AI" drone would be useless is speculation as well.
"True AI" is Actual Intelligence. It gets to learn things beside combat out of choice. The "non-true AI" just mimics human intelligence and does what it's programing tells it to. Fed. wouldn't use "true AI" for drone fighters, that's a no duh because of Data and Voy/Dr.
It wouldn't be "alive" because it wouldn't want to preserve itself, it wouldn't want to reproduce for preserving the race. It wouldn't want to explore or improve itself beyond the combat attack patterns. Sure, there is the possibility for it to become sentient, but really, what in the Star Trek universe can't somehow become sentient? Sentient sand stopped the Genesis experiments on one planet in TNG. Tribbles and Klingons are somehow sentient too...
Then why the hell did you argue for using AI controlled ships in the first place?
A drone carrier wouldn't solely rely on "dumb" fighters for offense and defense. No more than any other carrier in this game does. Safe to assume it would have at least 3/3 weapon slots, shields, equipment slots, and bridge crew. Heck, just as point defense, the drone fighters would be useful. A dumb Federation drone will probably be better at fighting than the average Naussican mercenary or Orion pirate. Yeah, that's speculation, but saying a "non-true AI" drone would be useless is speculation as well.
Didn't say it would be useless, I said that a fighter controlled by a well-trained sentient mind would be considerably more effective than a "dumb" counterpart. And unless every ship suddenly starts fielding swarms of drones (which they're not going to do because this isn't BSG), that gives a major advantage, and thus a major incentive for use, to the carrier using intelligent pilots, be they organic or otherwise.
Warning: the following responses may contain dangerous levels of sarcasm and are posted by an individual who knows a thing or two about military systems and tactics.
There are no carriers in canon Star trek. None. Zero.
Because we've never heard of the Akira-class, and the massive multi-deck main shuttlbay on the Galaxy is just there to be pretty.
The concept in itself is moronic to the max considering the tech base.
Because technology goes backwards in the future. Either that or we used nuclear-powered supercarriers in WWI and use dreadnought battleships today.
1.) Defense: a fighter has none against star ship class weaponry. As evidenced by the copious amounts of them dieing in every ds9 battle. ECM only gets you so far.
Because size doesn't matter, and maneuverability is totally unrelated to defense.
2.) Firepower: So you build a craft to deliver what, energy weapons to the target? Or torpedoes? Well ,the torpedoes must be huge and visible under the fighter hull because why would anyone build a fighter that carries small torpedoes or pew pew phasers to the target? No one would do that, because its stupid. Instead you could build a torpedo the size of a fighter ,army it up and have it shoot your opponents while it flies there on a collision course. You get more bang, less cost and you save a pilot. And since the weapon does not need to have accommodations for personnel you will have a better payload of either propulsion defense or offense....
Because they only make torpedoes in one size, canon doesn't show them with torpedo launchers and phaser cannons are totally useless.
3.) Replacement: so fighters are dead? well fck, now your carrier has lost his parasites and is now a sub par starship...
Because we've never heard of emergency transporters, and we can't possibly carry multiple squadrons aboard a ship with more interior volume than an oil tanker, and the Akira's phaser banks and the massive torpedo bay on its crossbar are just there for show.
We have never seen carriers in trek because the tech base has made them an obsolete concept.
Because why would you send waves of cheap and heavily armed fighters after the enemy when you can risk your capital ship with its crew of a thousand plus.
No, we have seen them in Canon. No, DS9 has never shown carriers,
because a weekly serial syndicated TV show totally has the budget for an extraneous CGI or studio model shot to show fighters being launched, and half a minute to spare to show something that adds nothing to the narrative.
No the scimitar is not a carrier because the ships it carries are ground assault craft as evidenced by the fact that they are roughly the size of the ******ned argo buggy and couldn't do jack vs any star ship. Even the USS Grissom would have kicked their TRIBBLE. The scorpions are tiny. Nothing they carry will harm a starship. Proximity torpedos would wipe them off the map instantly.
These little buggers are good for one thing only: harass ground targets. Also: they were not used in the space battle.
Because something that's designed for ground attack couldn't possibly be used for a strafing run on a starship the size of a small island. And torpedoes can't be evaded, and shields don't really do anything against shockwaves.
The fighter wings in ds9 traveled on their own, because each of them has enough room to be comfortable, a small replicator and naturally since it can turn **** into shoes: also a toilet.
And a lot of shoes probably. Always the shoes. Why do in conclude that? because very of the tiny rooms in the defiant has its own little replicator. So the fighters definitively can have those too.
Right. Because this cockpit looks at least as comfortable as the first class cabin on a 747, and since I can fly in that for fourteen hours from Los Angeles to Singapore without losing my mind, a few days from DS9 to Chin'toka in a little tandem cockpit peeing into a tube in front of my copilot is no big deal.
Anyway: you argue that fighters cannot keep up with a fast response force, despite DS9 never showing us fast response forces in the first places.
Despite that, you also argue they could not keep up with the fleets top speed anyway.
They do not need to. Because the fleet will not travel at full taxation of its engines. Doing that is exclusively reserved for emergencies or when a gain is to be made from it.
Because changing battlespace conditions don't ever call for a rapid response, and who ever heard an emergency situation in the middle of a war?
We see the fighters as part of huge formations of ships, those are not fast response fleets those are attack fleets. These don't travel with full taxation of their equipment: that stuff is needed for battle in good condition.
Right, because starships that can cruise comfortably at warp 7 or 8 are going to throttle back to warp 5 so the fighters, shuttles and runabouts can keep up, instead of opening up the hangar doors and letting them hitch along. And they're going to keep the fighter crews cooped up in their tiny little cockpits for days on end instead of letting them come aboard for a shower, shave and a hot meal.
One might argue that the maquis used fighters: and he would be wrong. They used repurposed small craft belonging in the runabout/shuttle category. (and some used really bug ships lik eddington and chakotay.)
Because the heavily-modified "courier" craft the Maquis used looked exactly like the Starfleet attack fighter totally by coincidence. Besides, its not like civilian aircraft have ever been modified into warplanes before.
The notion of fighters came up very late in the dominion war arc - the arc that also showed what a stupid idea it was.
Right, because the first six episodes of DS9 season six were all towards the end of the Dominion War. And the fact that fighters were used effectively both in Operation Return and the Battle of Cardassia proves that they were worthless, so Starfleet was stupid to use them for the duration of the entire war.
Fighters were introduced because the producers thought it would look cool, would look like WAR.
All it does is look stupid.
Because it's not like fighters have been used in every major conflict since WWI with increasing effectiveness.
The Fighters in star trek are like threshold: best be buried in the pile of bad ideas.
Never mind that they were featured prominently in several major battles and are a continuation of current military technology and doctrine.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
Then why the hell did you argue for using AI controlled ships in the first place?
I was wanting a photonic fighter carrier, but you insist all AI's are sentient, which is over valuing the term Artificial Intelligence. While, somehow, photonic fighters are sentient and photonic fleet ships aren't. I really don't know what you think I'm arguing, I just want a ship to produce photonic fighters to go with my photonic fleet.
To the post above. All Star Trek games may not be "cannon", but one of my favorites was Star Fleet Command 2: Empires at War. My favorite ship was a Dreadnaught class Federation Carrier. Its the one with quad nacels. It has photon torpedoes, lots of phasers, missiles, gatling phasers, and heavy fighters. I would drop the cash to use it in this game in a heartbeat.
Naval ships and aircraft behave differently because they move through different mediums. This is not the case in space. In space, all that matters is the mass to thrust ratio.
Bigger ship means bigger power plant.
Bigger power plant means more powerful engines.
If you scaled up a Peregrine to the size of a Sovereign, its flight characteristics would remain exactly the same, because its mass to thrust ratio would not have changed.
We've seen them on screen, so fighters are in and that's that. Doesn't mean they actually make any sense. Their performance would be no better, in any way, than that of a big ship; and due to their size, would be inferior to big ships in any respect not related to mass to thrust ratios (fire power, combat endurance, sensor range, etc).
We've seen them on screen, so fighters are in and that's that. Doesn't mean they actually make any sense. Their performance would be no better, in any way, than that of a big ship; and due to their size, would be inferior to big ships in any respect not related to mass to thrust ratios (fire power, combat endurance, sensor range, etc).
In deep space, perhaps (I disagree, but I don't really feel like rehashing the argument again). But having craft that can operate in atmospheric, low gravity, or other areas where a starship simply cannot go (such as dense debris fields for example) gives another level of operational flexibility.
Comments
"Hey! Lets cool our submarines nuclear reactors with liquid sodium - a substance that reacts explosively with water, which we use in the secondary coolant loop and completely surrounds our submarine!"
"Hey, lets build a massive aircraft as guided-missile carrier, but let's make it fly really low to the ground to take advantage of ground effect, right where it can be most easily shot down, and let's give it ten engines so the enemy can hear it coming from fifty miles away!"
"Hey! What if we built a bomber that could carry its escort fighters with it into battle?"
"Hey! Instead of adapting an existing aircraft to carry the Buran Space Shuttle which we're never really going to use, let's instead build a one-off transport plane, and just for good measure let's make it the biggest damned airplane the world has ever seen, because it's 1988 and we totally have the money to burn."
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
Some hangar bays added to the Galaxy-X. Yes please.
Do I think the Feds would have a warship that fights by throwing small, poorly defended attack craft at giant battle-cruisers? No.
Do I think the Feds might have a ship designed to carry a lot of auxiliary craft like shuttles? Well, sure. I mean, we know that Starfleet vessels get tasked with stuff like transport missions, disaster relief, colonization efforts, and other things that might require shifting a lot of things; and we also know that transporters aren't always the way to go when it comes to pick up or delivery. So a kind of heavy transport, that could function as a carrier, isn't much of a stretch really.
Of course, with that in mind, if they did make a proper Starfleet carrier, I'd want it to come with some kind of mostly harmless shuttle pets. Like a personnel shuttle that can use really weak versions of the 'Team' abilities (for debuff clearance, and improved uptime on tac team, rather than heals). It simply wouldn't seem very 'Starfleety' to me if it just came loaded with fighters or frigates.
Seriously.
There are no carriers in canon Star trek. None. Zero. The concept in itself is moronic to the max considering the tech base.
1.) Defense: a fighter has none against star ship class weaponry. As evidenced by the copious amounts of them dieing in every ds9 battle. ECM only gets you so far.
2.) Firepower: So you build a craft to deliver what, energy weapons to the target? Or torpedoes? Well ,the torpedoes must be huge and visible under the fighter hull because why would anyone build a fighter that carries small torpedoes or pew pew phasers to the target? No one would do that, because its stupid. Instead you could build a torpedo the size of a fighter ,army it up and have it shoot your opponents while it flies there on a collision course. You get more bang, less cost and you save a pilot. And since the weapon does not need to have accommodations for personnel you will have a better payload of either propulsion defense or offense....
3.) Replacement: so fighters are dead? well fck, now your carrier has lost his parasites and is now a sub par starship...
We have never seen carriers in trek because the tech base has made them an obsolete concept.
No, we have seen them in Canon. No, DS9 has never shown carriers, No the scimitar is not a carrier because the ships it carries are ground assault craft as evidenced by the fact that they are roughly the size of the ******ned argo buggy and couldn't do jack vs any star ship. Even the USS Grissom would have kicked their TRIBBLE. The scorpions are tiny. Nothing they carry will harm a starship. Proximity torpedos would wipe them off the map instantly.
These little buggers are good for one thing only: harass ground targets. Also: they were not used in the space battle.
The fighter wings in ds9 traveled on their own, because each of them has enough room to be comfortable, a small replicator and naturally since it can turn **** into shoes: also a toilet.
And a lot of shoes probably. Always the shoes. Why do in conclude that? because very of the tiny rooms in the defiant has its own little replicator. So the fighters definitively can have those too.
Anyway: you argue that fighters cannot keep up with a fast response force, despite DS9 never showing us fast response forces in the first places.
Despite that, you also argue they could not keep up with the fleets top speed anyway.
They do not need to. Because the fleet will not travel at full taxation of its engines. Doing that is exclusively reserved for emergencies or when a gain is to be made from it.
We see the fighters as part of huge formations of ships, those are not fast response fleets those are attack fleets. These don't travel with full taxation of their equipment: that stuff is needed for battle in good condition.
One might argue that the maquis used fighters: and he would be wrong. They used repurposed small craft belonging in the runabout/shuttle category. (and some used really bug ships lik eddington and chakotay.)
The notion of fighters came up very late in the dominion war arc - the arc that also showed what a stupid idea it was.
Fighters were introduced because the producers thought it would look cool, would look like WAR.
All it does is look stupid.
Because fighters do nothing in star trek canon.
But hey i guess we can take the game seriously that made a romulan warbird lose to 4 ships the size of a volkswagen.... *cough*
The Fighters in star trek are like threshold: best be buried in the pile of bad ideas.
Note fighters did do well against a Galor once. and I can't see someone spending weeks or months in a fighter so they have to be carried by something. on and guest what. the Akrira was supposed to be a carrier. the Curry/Shelby class was rumored to have the capacity as well. Fighters may not have as an important here as they are in Star Wars but they do have a role.
And I'd love if they made it a caitian-styled ship to fit my atrox, too =P
The holograms? If they are low on AI, then you couldn't really trust them to perform well in combat. If they weren't low on AI, then the 'loss of life issue' becomes much murkier; since Voyager's EMH was legally granted full 'human' rights, just as Data had been previously (which sets the precedent for treating holograms as people). The Moriarty hologram also came to be considered a 'living' being.
Remember, very few of the 'entitled' AIs in Star Trek were designed to be that way. Both Exocomps and the EMH were intended to be more or less disposable. It just never seems to work out that way though.
The Akira-class would like to have a word with you.
From all footage shown of the Dominion Wars, Peregrines had a better kills to loss ratio than several classes of Frigates and Cruisers FYI.
Bottom line: Trek fighters may not be as powerful as in some other SciFi 'verses, but they still have a place, and they do indeed exist. No matter how much you want them not to.
Possible solution to this specific situation: carrier based AIs flying networked craft.
Example (from a different verse, but the concept still works): Ship AIs from the Andromeda 'verse were described as being able to operate squadrons of Slip Fighters. I see no reason why a functional AI based from a central command ship (like an Akira, Atrox Vo'Quv or even a Maraduer or Corsair) couldn't do something similar.
Then why does everyone have photonic fleet? Fighters can be programed to fight. Skill and intuition may be low, but reaction speed, g-force resistance, lack of a need for life support, and beam weapons would go far to offset those weaknesses. Torpedo's are meant for bombing runs, surely an AI can fire a torpedo from 10K @ a cruiser/battleship/carrier/cube without too much trouble.
What if it were possible for the AI to "copy" itself into a fighter form? Not like a hologram fighter needs a holographic cockpit, with holographic windows, and holographic chairs. If transporters copy you, beam the information, and makes a copy of you at the destination, what makes a AI copying itself out of reach?
Ships summoned by Photonic Fleet don't need to be smart; they just need to draw some fire and shoot at unfriendly stuff for the very brief time that they exist. A carrier uses fighters as its primary weapon (or one of its primary weapons anyway); they need to be reliable enough to perform their tasks as well as the flesh and blood crew of the ship that launched them or they are just pointless. Might as well just have torpedoes with guns, as reynoldsxd suggested; it'd work better.
I shouldn't think that there is anything putting copying AIs out of reach; but an intelligence being a copy of another intelligence doesn't make the problem go away. Just ask Thomas Riker.
If the photonic fighter was a self propelled remote hologram emitter, then technically it would be a torpedo with guns. Beams fired by flesh and blood using targeting computers are just as accurate as the targeting computer itself. Cannons are the exception as they require more maneuvering due to firing arc.
I've seen that episode with the Riker copy. I was thinking of that when I typed my last post. The catch to that is, a physical copy of Riker is a conundrum born from an accident, but a copy of an AI is an opportunity. Best case scenario, you send out the remote holo emitter or pure energy AI copy, it does it's mission, and doesn't get blasted/dispersed, then it would return to the ship and give the original AI the combat experience it gathered or like stirling191 suggested, the AI could pilot the holo fighter from the ship. AI's have the possibility to merge, Riker isn't so lucky. He could always eat his copy, but the usefulness to that is situational at best.
Right now, the hanger craft you can deploy now have strengths and weaknesses. From the item descriptions shuttles are tougher than fighters and fighters hit harder than shuttles. For there to be balance, holo fighters could have less skills (DEM/tractor beams/etc), be as squishy as fighters, but be easier to spam. Isn't the point of fighters is to be spammable vs the big bad battleship? You would spam holo fighters because you wouldn't have to prep them or flight crew, re-arm them, or perform maintenance if they where pure energy. Just copy and launch. Just like a torpedo.
You're neglecting the ethical problem of repeatedly creating, killing and recreating sentient beings solely for the purpose of fighting. Feds wouldn't go for that.
A central AI controlling craft remotely doesn't have that issue however.
Is it killing if the original is safe on the ship?
If you treat them as crew and drink with them at the bar, then I would see an ethical problem. However, if the AI's are performing their duties as part of the super(central) computer or being copied from the super(central) computer without humanoid bodies to interact with the crew, with their only "physical" presence as a fighter/drone, then there would be less problems.
That may be a heartless way to use photonics, but there is no code of ethics saying you have to make a sentient humanoid to pilot a fighter. Just make a photonic fighter craft. You don't have to make the warp core sentient and give it the will to do it's job or feel sorry for it when you have to eject it before it inevitably goes critical(like they all do) destroying the ship.
I don't know about you, but having a fighter squadron that can critically think on the fly, and adjust to a situation creatively without direct commands from another officer would be extremely advantageous.
A merged intelligence is functionally a different entity from two pre-joined ones. You'd be creating and killing them repeatedly.
I'll refer you most notably to Exo-comps. It doesn't have to shoot the **** with the crew to be sentient, or alive.
If a copy came back to the original and gave it the experiences the original didn't have, is that creation or destruction? That's not "death" in my eyes. Nothing stops the original from coping itself again to create two AI's with all the experiences of both. Have you ever seen the Ghost in the Shell TV series? In it, they have the AI driven tanks that trade experiences when one goes on a mission and comes back.
Photonics are a different form a life, as designated by the courts in the Voyager's Doctors case. However, wouldn't that mean there are various forms of Photonic "life". To photonics, is merging death or reproduction/evolution? Perhaps we are placing our human limitations on holographic lifeforms that have different limitations.
At the end of the day I want a carrier that uses drones. You can kill/support/modify that dream however you like. There is a place for fighters in STO, they counter Heavy plasma torpedoes, drain shields, and kill other fighters. To say there is no ethical way to do so is just shooting my idea down to make a carrier-less federation for your own fluff enjoyment.
For a warship, being capable in a fight is a smidge important.
You're creating an entity that is fundamentally different, and in the process destroying an existing entity. In addition, a third entity would cease to exist entirely. That's death by any measure.
Which would result in the creation of two additional lives.
Learning from another entity is one thing. Destroying that entity to eat it's memories, then subsequently spawning a new copy of yourself in it's place is something else entirely.
The copy isn't fundamentally different. Its a copy of a drone fighter. It has the same purpose and experience of the original. The only difference is the experiences post copy.
That's AI life! A lot different from us. Who are we to say there's anything wrong with it?
If you copy a biological being, with every memory intact, is that copy not alive? You're effectively arguing that it isn't. Life is life, whether it comes wrapped in skin, scales, circuits, feathers or photons. If you copy it, you're creating new life. If you destroy it, you're taking a life.
I must have missed the part where the Doctor, Moriorty, Data, Hal, Andromeda, the Geth or any other non-organic sentient ran around consuming other synthetic intelligences as part of their everyday existence.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Do we in fact know how the Geth reproduce? Even so, those AI's are all independent non combatants, aside from Andromeda(not a drone) and the Geth(still murky on reproduction).
They don't reproduce by copying and they don't learn by absorption, they live and learn as individuals.
You want critically thinking/learning fighter craft, but don't want them to share experiences as programs do. You want there to be no loss of life, but insist every AI has to be sentient and ethically UN-sacrificable.
Sentient life is Actual Intelligence. Drone fighters are Artificial Intelligence, as in fake and disposable. Exocomps were made to be disposable, but were given the hardware to modify themselves, and evolution occurred. Drone fighters would just be drones with guns, nothing more. If you insist Actual intelligence = Artificial Intelligence then talking to you is pointless as every traffic light system, and Pandora internet Raido will become sentient and decide to go Terminator or Matrix and kill/enslave us all. Then there will be no more ST:O...
Which is fundamentally different from an Artifical Intelligence. The discussion then turns to the efficacy of said drone, which isn't really pertinent to the current conversation.
A true AI is by definition alive. By everything that the Federation stands for, the wanton creation and slaughter of life for the purpose of warfare is abhorrent.
Here's the problem, you're thinking an AI is something it isn't.
The thrust of this conversation then gets back to the effectiveness of a "dumb" fighter squadron, which for a ship relying heavily on said squadron for combat efficacy and survival is a major concern.
"True AI" is Actual Intelligence. It gets to learn things beside combat out of choice. The "non-true AI" just mimics human intelligence and does what it's programing tells it to. Fed. wouldn't use "true AI" for drone fighters, that's a no duh because of Data and Voy/Dr.
It wouldn't be "alive" because it wouldn't want to preserve itself, it wouldn't want to reproduce for preserving the race. It wouldn't want to explore or improve itself beyond the combat attack patterns. Sure, there is the possibility for it to become sentient, but really, what in the Star Trek universe can't somehow become sentient? Sentient sand stopped the Genesis experiments on one planet in TNG. Tribbles and Klingons are somehow sentient too...
A drone carrier wouldn't solely rely on "dumb" fighters for offense and defense. No more than any other carrier in this game does. Safe to assume it would have at least 3/3 weapon slots, shields, equipment slots, and bridge crew. Heck, just as point defense, the drone fighters would be useful. A dumb Federation drone will probably be better at fighting than the average Naussican mercenary or Orion pirate. Yeah, that's speculation, but saying a "non-true AI" drone would be useless is speculation as well.
Then why the hell did you argue for using AI controlled ships in the first place?
Didn't say it would be useless, I said that a fighter controlled by a well-trained sentient mind would be considerably more effective than a "dumb" counterpart. And unless every ship suddenly starts fielding swarms of drones (which they're not going to do because this isn't BSG), that gives a major advantage, and thus a major incentive for use, to the carrier using intelligent pilots, be they organic or otherwise.
Because we've never heard of the Akira-class, and the massive multi-deck main shuttlbay on the Galaxy is just there to be pretty. Because technology goes backwards in the future. Either that or we used nuclear-powered supercarriers in WWI and use dreadnought battleships today.
Because size doesn't matter, and maneuverability is totally unrelated to defense. Because they only make torpedoes in one size, canon doesn't show them with torpedo launchers and phaser cannons are totally useless.
Because we've never heard of emergency transporters, and we can't possibly carry multiple squadrons aboard a ship with more interior volume than an oil tanker, and the Akira's phaser banks and the massive torpedo bay on its crossbar are just there for show.
Because why would you send waves of cheap and heavily armed fighters after the enemy when you can risk your capital ship with its crew of a thousand plus.
because a weekly serial syndicated TV show totally has the budget for an extraneous CGI or studio model shot to show fighters being launched, and half a minute to spare to show something that adds nothing to the narrative.
Because something that's designed for ground attack couldn't possibly be used for a strafing run on a starship the size of a small island. And torpedoes can't be evaded, and shields don't really do anything against shockwaves.
Right. Because this cockpit looks at least as comfortable as the first class cabin on a 747, and since I can fly in that for fourteen hours from Los Angeles to Singapore without losing my mind, a few days from DS9 to Chin'toka in a little tandem cockpit peeing into a tube in front of my copilot is no big deal.
Because changing battlespace conditions don't ever call for a rapid response, and who ever heard an emergency situation in the middle of a war?
Right, because starships that can cruise comfortably at warp 7 or 8 are going to throttle back to warp 5 so the fighters, shuttles and runabouts can keep up, instead of opening up the hangar doors and letting them hitch along. And they're going to keep the fighter crews cooped up in their tiny little cockpits for days on end instead of letting them come aboard for a shower, shave and a hot meal.
Because the heavily-modified "courier" craft the Maquis used looked exactly like the Starfleet attack fighter totally by coincidence. Besides, its not like civilian aircraft have ever been modified into warplanes before.
Right, because the first six episodes of DS9 season six were all towards the end of the Dominion War. And the fact that fighters were used effectively both in Operation Return and the Battle of Cardassia proves that they were worthless, so Starfleet was stupid to use them for the duration of the entire war.
Because it's not like fighters have been used in every major conflict since WWI with increasing effectiveness.
Nothing like cripple a Galor, mix it up with Jem'Hadar attack ships and harass Dominion lines and force them to break formation, that is.
Because small aircraft taking out much larger ships is totally unheard-of.
Never mind that they were featured prominently in several major battles and are a continuation of current military technology and doctrine.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
I was wanting a photonic fighter carrier, but you insist all AI's are sentient, which is over valuing the term Artificial Intelligence. While, somehow, photonic fighters are sentient and photonic fleet ships aren't. I really don't know what you think I'm arguing, I just want a ship to produce photonic fighters to go with my photonic fleet.
To the post above. All Star Trek games may not be "cannon", but one of my favorites was Star Fleet Command 2: Empires at War. My favorite ship was a Dreadnaught class Federation Carrier. Its the one with quad nacels. It has photon torpedoes, lots of phasers, missiles, gatling phasers, and heavy fighters. I would drop the cash to use it in this game in a heartbeat.
Bigger ship means bigger power plant.
Bigger power plant means more powerful engines.
If you scaled up a Peregrine to the size of a Sovereign, its flight characteristics would remain exactly the same, because its mass to thrust ratio would not have changed.
We've seen them on screen, so fighters are in and that's that. Doesn't mean they actually make any sense. Their performance would be no better, in any way, than that of a big ship; and due to their size, would be inferior to big ships in any respect not related to mass to thrust ratios (fire power, combat endurance, sensor range, etc).
In deep space, perhaps (I disagree, but I don't really feel like rehashing the argument again). But having craft that can operate in atmospheric, low gravity, or other areas where a starship simply cannot go (such as dense debris fields for example) gives another level of operational flexibility.