Actually you normally have "CAP" and recon birds up whenever you are out and about so having fighters up before making contact with the enemy is normal.
As far as carriers being canon... since canon changes seemingly with every TV series and movie released i guess no one remembers back in SFB (the only real canon combat sim ever published and even had pics of Gene playing it) that the Federation did have carriers, as did most the other major races.
In Nemesis they didn't launch fighters as a plot device.
Overall think they've done a pretty good job with the Klingon carrier and fighters.
As to what would I do if they took away carriers... swap back to my gorn sci or bird and watch people scream NERF about hose ships until all the klinks have left are Tauron Shuttles.....:D
Actually you normally have "CAP" and recon birds up whenever you are out and about so having fighters up before making contact with the enemy is normal.
All of them?
Besides, either fighters need carriers to get somewhere because carriers have more range and are faster, which would mean they could not operate as a CAP while the fleet is in transit or they are as fast and have as much range as the larger ships which would defeat the point of carriers and the CAP because then the fighters would be 'out' the entire time.
As far as carriers being canon... since canon changes seemingly with every TV series and movie released i guess no one remembers back in SFB (the only real canon combat sim ever published and even had pics of Gene playing it) that the Federation did have carriers, as did most the other major races.
In Nemesis they didn't launch fighters as a plot device.
Overall think they've done a pretty good job with the Klingon carrier and fighters.
As to what would I do if they took away carriers... swap back to my gorn sci or bird and watch people scream NERF about hose ships until all the klinks have left are Tauron Shuttles.....:D
SFB canon?
Good joke, really.
SFB operates under a very strange license.
They cannot use the name Star Trek (which clealy shows how canon it is) they cannot mention persons from the Original series (Spock is referred to as a prominent science officer, Kirk is referenced by a Klingon captain as a tin-plated dictator) and their entire storyline diverged in 1978 with the first movie.
They are not allowed to use any material outside the Original Series and some aspescts of the Animated series and vice versa material from the "Star Fleet Universe" cannot be used by canon Trek.
They even state as much in their various publications and also explicitly discourage anyone from submitting material that is in any way connected to Trek outside the Original Series because they could not use it anyway.
So how canon can it be?
The only reason Interplay could use material from SFB for SFC was because they got both licenses otherwise even that would not have been possible.
So canon?
You're joking right?
Besides, either fighters need carriers to get somewhere because carriers have more range and are faster, which would mean they could not operate as a CAP while the fleet is in transit or they are as fast and have as much range as the larger ships which would defeat the point of carriers and the CAP because then the fighters would be 'out' the entire time.
Not to mention that we know the Peregrine wasn't even a fighter design. It used to be a civilian courier, which is how the Maquis got their hands on them in the first place. It's even described as a "lightly armed shuttlecraft" by a Starfleet officer on-screen and slower than a Runabout.
Why would the Federation bother to build carriers for "fighters" they do not have, seeing that they had to repurpose training shuttles to do the job?
Actually, my mains are a Fed Tac in a Defiant-R and a Fed Eng in a Galaxy. The character listed in my sig is actually my roommate's character. My roommate plays on my account and I allow my roommate the use my account for posting on the forum as well. Since I haven't bothered joining a fleet, I let my roommate use my sig to advertise the T'mt fleet.
Don't get me wrong, I do have a sci-carrier that I play on occasionally, but I've got far more wins under my belt as my Fed Tac than I do as my Sci-Carrier, and I use it largely because it was the pretty much the only real Science-oriented ship the KDF had, and I'm -considering- switching over to the new one, but haven't decided yet.
That said, Carriers really haven't felt overpowered to me. They're not really any harder to kill than a Cruiser, and their pets are pretty easy to take out with Cannon: Scatter Volley. So anyone who considers Cruiser a crutch, well, probably doesn't actually know how to play against them. Just like any ship/officer combination, they all take different strats to take'em down. Maybe not always -massively- different strats, but there are differences.
Warp Engines. We saw them flying around the Starbase, we saw them flying at warp, we saw them engaging in combat. At no point where they launched from the ship. The Maquis used them to fight the Cardassians. They didn't seem to use any Carriers at all for them.
It would also be a stark reversal from the real world - in the real world, the carrier is slower then the planes it is carrying. That alone would create a very odd dynamic.
Could you perhaps link to a clip of them flying at warp? Though, the info I've looked up shows that they were actually Civilian Courier ships before being used by the Federation for the Dominion War.
However, the crew compliment is also listed as 1-2 for the fighters used in the Dominion War. This would run quite contrary to them being the exact same ships as those used by the Maquis, considering that Chakotay's had a significantly larger crew (at least 20-30 maquis, if I recall correctly).
Further research on the Maquis fighters yeilds the information that these ships came in varying sizes, ranging from the 1-2 crew cockpit style to the size of the Val Jean (Chakotay's ship). The key difference I can find is internal with the 1-2 crew cockpit style having a larger cargo area, likely for the photon/quantum torpedos that it was armed with.
I would also note that the ships having warp capability is not at all unreasonable for Fighters in Star Trek, as we see Federation shuttles also having Warp capability. However, most shuttles were limited to around Warp 2, and were not intended to utilize warp flight very often, usually only when being used for an individual officer to go on vacation or return to a starbase while the main ship continued its mission.
The Fighters would, reasonably, have low level Warp engines to facilitate escape in certain situations as well as preventing them from being quite as likely to end up completely stranded with only impulse engines to help them return to a Federation colony or starbase.
And as I suspected, the Federation Attack Fighter is -not- simply the same ship as the Maquis-Raider, though they are somewhat similar. The Maquis Raider and Federation Atack Fighter are two separate designs, though the Maquis are listed as having made use of the FAFs at some point as well.
I can't find any specific information on the actual engines used by FAFs or MRs, aside from an example of Chakotay's ship having rebuilt engines from the 2330s and others having rebuilt 39-year-old engines.
However, here's another reason for the existance of Fighters. Atmospheric combat. The larger ships utilized by the Federation, for example, were not good for use in atmospheric combat. Even the Intrepid class, which was capable of landing on a planet, couldn't be a particularly effective combatant in a planet's atmosphere.
The Nemesis did not use their fighters in combat at all. Why was that? It seems they didn't see them as valuable.
Actually, it was the Scimitar. And, they did not send out their fighters because they weren't needed at the time that they were fighting the Enterprise-E because of their "perfect" cloak and ability to fire while cloaked. They were also only facing three ships in total.
If they did not consider the fighters to be valuable at all, then they wouldn't have had the fighters to begin with. Having them and using them in -every single situation- do not equate to the same thing. By the time the Scimitar was damaged severely enough to have reasonable need of the fighters in order to win against the Enterprise-E, it was too late to use them as their Fighter bay had been utterly demolished by the collision between the Enterprise and the Scimitar.
Of course they got shuttle craft. But they don't start them in combat for extra firepower. They serve for transportation and of course they have some self-defense capabilities. After all, their are threats small enough to be dealt with for Runabouts. For example, fighters like they were employed by the Maquis.
Again, the Maquis didn't simply employ Fighters. They had a few, but their primary crafts were larger and not -fighters-. They were Escorts from the early 24th century.
They don't send shuttlecraft out into combat for extra firepower because -shuttlecrafts- are not designed for it. However, the fact that they can and do have shuttlecrafts and we have seen those shuttlecraft progress into more offensively and defensively capable crafts, such as the Runabouts and Delta Flyer, it is far from unreasonable that very potent -Fighters- would be designed in the 40s years between Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek Online.
And the Defiant is as small as they got it. The Defiant was not one of those all-purpose Cruisers. It didn't have the vast shield arrays, crew quarters, cargo bays, plain empty internal space, laboratories, aboretums and holodecks. It didn't even have a real sickbay. And yet, it wasn't a fighter and it was significantly larger then any fighter we see in Startrek Online.
And the Fighters that the Vo'quv has don't pack even remotely as much punch as a Defiant, even the Captain-rank Defiant. Hell, even the BoPs launched by the Vo'quv don't pack that much punch, nor are they anywhere near as defensive.
Additionallly, the Defiant lacked in crew quarters, laboratories, and various recreational facilities, yes. However, it did not lack in shield arrays or defenses. In particular, it had added defense in the form of ablative armor on the hull. Also, the Defiant, while tiny, did still maintain a crew of about 50, which is more than a Bird of Prey accomodated. The smaller Birds of Prey (which would be the type launched by the Vo'quv) only had a crew of about 12. About 1/5th of what the Defiant held.
The point is not that the Defiant was a Fighter or that it would be a ship launched from another ship or that Fighters would be as powerful as the Defiant. The point was that the Federation was getting more and more capable of fitting larger amounts of firepower into smaller, more compact designs, which is -exemplified- by the Defiant, the Runabouts, and the Delta Flyer.
A single fighter in Startrek is _no_ threat at all to a Cruiser. A typical engagement between a shuttle and a larger ship consists of the shuttle ducking and weaving and hoping to ge to a safe spot (or at least its crew). There is no hope of breaking the larger ships defenses.
If you look at the typical Startrek weapon, for example a torpedo, you will notice that most ships can survive multiple hits of them - even without shields, but the standard case is that we do have shields. So even if we arm our Startrek fighter as good as we can (carrying a few photon torpedoes or quantum torpedoes), it still can't really hope to survive them.
Fighters are not -intended- to take on cruisers single-handedly. Hell, take a look at one of those other serieses you referenced earlier. In Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica, the fighters were never intended to singlehandedly take down a cap ship. They work in groups, assaulting the target's defenses from multiple angles and forcing them to divide their attention and fire at smaller, more maneuverable targets that are harder to hit.
One of the specific advantages seen with Fighters is manueverability, largely due to significantly lower mass. A great example of this actually includes both the Defiant and a Maquis-style Raider, when they're fighting Regent Worf's oversized Negh'var in the Mirror Universe. They do not match the firepower of the vastly larger ship, true. But due to their size and maneuverability, they're able to stay extremely close to its hull and fly circles around the ship, making it far more difficult for the larger ship to target them and actually hit them with their disruptor beams, and also makes the use of torpedos by the larger ship nigh impossible, due to the combination of the blasts hitting themselves due to the proximity as well as the torpedos having a smaller targeting arc. This would also apply with very small 1-man fighters versus the more "average" sized "cap ships" we typically see. You can also see an example of this when the Defiant is being chased around Deep Space 9 by Klingon BoPs.
As for the armaments of the Federation Attack Fighters. They are listed as having "At least 3 torpedo launchers and 2 phaser emitters." That's directly off of memory alpha and determined through viewing them in combat during the Dominion War. Presumably, their individual phasers are not as powerful as that of say a Galaxy class as they do not have the power generation capabilities (though they can devote more of the power they do generate to weapons in general), but the torpedos would not suffer much at all. The only issue would be potentially carrying fewer torpedos than the cap ships can, but much of the body of the ship was cargo area for that very purpose. Their torpedos -might- have a lower yeild than that of a cap ship, but not likely by much. And they could most certainly carry more photon/quantum torpedos than a modern day Fighter plane can carry missiles and bombs. Additionally, they have little worry about running out of fuel, nor do they have to worry about running out of bullets. Even after they run out of torpedos, they'll still be capable of firing their phasers.
A real world plane can be armed with weapons that pose a significant threat to a single naval vessel. It might not sink the ship, but it might be enough to need considerable repairs and possible some time in a friendly airport. A single hit can be all that it takes to deal this kind of damage.
You wil notice the type of damage these weapons inflict is very different. Real world planes have considerably more firepower compared to a real world ships defenses then we see it in Startrek.
While there is truth to this, that really has little to do with the actual purpose of the Fighters and Carriers. On Earth, we primarily use Carriers as a mobile airbase in order to make air strikes against land targets on the other side of an ocean, thus creating less concern about fuel. However, when it comes to actual naval combat, go take a look at an Aircraft Carrier's fleet. They'll have 1-3 aircraft carriers and 2-4 times as many Naval Destroyers, heavily armed ships. Those ships are there to defend the carrier at sea and are a primary naval combat force. In such combat, the carrier would very likely scramble fighters, but the Fighters would not be their most effective anti-ship weaponry.
Now, where the truth in your statement comes in is the simple fact that while similar to naval combat, space combat is -not- naval combat. Fighters in space are a supplemental force. Sending out fighters adds additional firepower. Albeit, each individual Fighter does not by any means equate to a cap ship. However, each cap ship that acts as a carrier brings with it far more than simply -one- fighter. And while one fighter does not equal a cap ship, a dozen fighters very well -could- equate to a cap ship, at least in offensive capability. As for defensive, they have a specific advantage over the cap ships, which I've mentioned several times before. Maneuverability. Also, you have 12 targets to hit instead of just one. The fact that they can swarm and surround also makes it harder to keep any potential weak spots of your own ship out of the line of fire. Whereas the larger capships might have a hard time keeping their firing focused on your aft shields as you rotate, the Fighters are more capable of staying on your tail and bombarding your aft shields until they're down, then shoving a torpedo or 12 up your TRIBBLE. And, while they may have the aforementioned lower yeild torpedos, 12 of them can easily make up for that. After all, what does more damage? 12 ordinary Quantum Torpedos or one tricobalt torpedo?
So while they do not serve the -exact- same purpose as our current Carrier/Aircrafts on EArth do, that in no way invalidates their existance. It's called adapting and modifying effective tactics and systems to new environments.
Now, as for the Carrier themselves, one of the ways to be able to have more powerful armaments on the tiny Fighters is to reduce their long-range traveling capabilities. With fairly slow, or possibly even non-existant, warp engines, less space is devoted to the engines overall, thus allowing for more of the ship to be devoted to firepower. However, this also makes getting them to the battlefield significantly more difficult. This is where you enlist cap ships to carry them (i.e., be Carriers). This also leaves them more protected on the way to combat and gives them a refuge to flee to if too badly damaged to continue fighting, but not destroyed.
Another aspect about planes and carriers is that a carrier serves as its operation base. The carrier cannot itself attack targets on land. But it can send out its planes to achieve this. And they can move considerably quicker then any other naval vessel.
In Startrek, there is no distinctinction between "land" and "water" for fighters vs carriers. Both fly through space. The fighter might be able to enter the atmosphere, but Startrek cruisers are quite capable of attacking ground targets within the atmosphere on their own. The only purpose of smaller vessels can be to send troops to the ground when transporters aren't working.
A fighter craft is definitely not faster then a typical Cruiser, in fact it is typically more the opposite.
While the top-speed of the fighter would not be higher, the ability to maintain fairly high velocities in the short-term with a very high degree of maneuverability makes it far more effective at avoiding attacks.
Also, there is a distinction between "land" and "water" when it comes to space combat, including in Star Trek. It is not quite as -clearly- defined as on Earth, but it is there. A cap ship bombarding a ground target from space is essentially the same as a destroyer bombarding a land target from sea. This is not only possible, but was the only way in which they could attack land targets before fighter planes and aircraft carriers were created.
Yes, a cap ship in Star Trek is quite capable of bombarding a planet. However, this does not carry the same precision and localized effectiveness as it would if you sent in fighters. If you wish to completely decimate the surface of a planet, then orbital bombardment works quite well. Just look at Iconia. However, if you wish to strike a very specific target, a fighter will be more effective. For example, when Janeway and the Trabe gathered the First Majes of all the Kazon sects for a "peace conference," the Trabe used one of their small fighter crafts to do a very precise strike straight into the room that held the Kazon leaders. Now, it is true that they could have just hit the building from orbit, but that would have destroyed the entire building and areas around it, which would have also caused far more casualties. It also would have killed the Trabe leader and Janeway since the Trabe didn't have transporter technology to beam out before it happened.
Planes also serve as a defense against others. Aircraft carriers are typically found within a fleet, and part of their planes provide a combat air patrol that's sole purpose is to be the first line of defense against hostile planes that could send their weapons against the carrier or its fleet.
We have seen nothing like that in Startrek. The instances where we saw fighters in real battles at all, we saw them in the middle of the fleet. There are no combat air patrols provided by shuttlecraft when the Enterprise flies through unknown space. It didn't happen in peace times, nor did it happen in war times (like in the "Yesterday's Enterprise" episode). A small reason might be that any sufficiently sized threat (e.g. not a fighter) could possible outrun any type of fighter screen (see abocve.)
This is mostly true, though that in no way discounts the existence of and use of Fighters and Carriers in general as this is but one use of them. In fact, that particular use you describe only exists because there is the potential of enemy fighter planes coming in to harass/attack a naval fleet. Well, that and the fact that we still have fairly limited long-range sensor technology. Radar only extends so far and only gives so much information. Fighters are useful for making visual identifications in these cases as well.
This is something that is not particularly necessary in Star Trek because of highly advanced long-range sensor technology. This simply allows Fighters, when utilized, to be reserved for offensive purposes, however, and limits the likelihood of them being destroyed while on patrol.
However, another purpose of keeping some already out and in flight is to reduce the time required to scramble fighters, which is something that we can see by the fact that the fighters are already deployed before combat starts in DS9.
Within Startrek Online, you will notice one thing - fighters from Carriers can be spawned endlessly. That is a game mechanic, just like our own ships can spawn endlessly and not permanently lost. If we remove the respawns for a moment (To some extent we can create such a scenario - there are fighter only NPC groups in PvE), you will notice how quickly all those fighters are destroyed.
NPC groups are a poor example. To maintain the "heroic" feel of being the "hero ship" in an episode of Star Trek. The Enterprise and Voyager, for example, often succeeded against seemingly overwhelming odds, while other, oft times unnamed, ships failed against underwhelming odds.
Also, STO doesn't really make use of maneuverability for the purpose of dodging attacks, beyond simply staying outside of someone's firing arc. They have the "Defense" stat for "hit or miss," but that really seems to have very little to do with actual maneuverability, which has as much to do with turn rate as with speed.
This fact actually significantly weakens Fighters in STO. If they had a more "FPS" style targeting, like in Airplane Combat Sims or Freespace, instead of "virtually gauranteed to hit your target" style firing, then you would find Escorts, for example, very difficult to hit. Fighters would be even harder to hit, especially if controlled directly by a player.
Every time you destroy a fighter, you remove some of the fighter wing's firepower, too. If you had bothered to put all that firepower into a single ship, it would have taken a lot longer for that ship to be destroyed and any firepower to be lost. So instead of slapping all that firepower on 12 fighters, you should have put it on one single ship. Even in the worst case, complete loss of the fighters and complete loss of the ship, you would have inflicted more damage with the ship. And there is a higher chance that maybe you dealt enough damage with that ship to avoid a loss, or at least were able to retreat without losing half of your wing.
There is -some- truth to this. However, you're being very limited in your view. Let's say one of those fighters gets hit, unshielded, by a Tricobalt Device. That fighter is -gone.- However, most ships would be -gone- due to that event as well. In that case, where you would've lost an entire cap-ship, you lose only 1/12th of your overall fighting power with the Fighter, thus allowing you to do more damage.
Additionally, if we look at this particular situation from a purely Star Trek setting standpoint and not STO mechanics, there's the fact that as a cap ship gets damaged in combat, different systems can end up going offline, usually permanently. If you take out a cap ship's shields, you're probably going to be annihilating the entire ship very soon. If you take out a fighter's shields, you've still got 11 more fighters to deal with after that one fighter is gone. If you take out a cap ship's weapons (which can be done without disabling their shields, as we've seen on Star Trek), they are unable to continue attacking at all. However, with the Fighters, you'd have only taken out one, maybe two fighter's weapons in that time, leaving 10-11 still attacking.
Additionally, if one facing of your shields goes down on a cap ship versus another cap ship, you can turn your ship so that a different facing is toward's them, or divert power from other facings to the damaged facing. If you're fighting against a dozen fighters, however, their -maneuverability- lets them either focus on that damaged facing you're trying to turn away from them, or when you divert power, switch their targeting to one of the facings you've thus weakened. They're also able to target multiple subsystems much more easily than a cap ship could, and are able to be more precise to make up for the lower individual firepower, as well as have an easier time targeting any particular weak spots in your shields.
As for casualties and "repair costs," that won't necessarily be any different. In fact, since each Fighter would presumably have only 1-2 people in it, that's 12-24 people if you lose the entire wing. Even losing simply the Defiant could easily account for 50 deaths. Also, even if the Defiant manages to win the fight and not be destroyed, you could still lose 30 or more people depending on where the damage to the Defiant occurred. If you lose half your wing, but still win, you'd have lost around 6-12 people, not 30+. And that's just using the Defiant as an example. The Intrepid class had a crew of 160, which could mean far more lives lost in battle than the Fighter wing example. The Galaxy class had a crew and passenger compliment of over 1000.
In the real world, we don't have shields and the type of armor used in Startrek. In the real world, all this scales very badly. You can probably use the exact same type of missiles or guns to bring down a small airplane then you can use to destroy a large one. It can be more useful to scale up your numbers then to scale up your size under these circumstances, e.g. it is actually more effective to send a wing of 6 planes armed with 6 missiles each then it is to send a larger plane with 36 missiles. Beause those 6 wings need 6 hits to be destroyed, while that large plane probably still needs only one.
Of course, in the real world, the larger plane would have other disadantages, too - it would probably be less maneuverable and easier to detect, too.
Part of your problem is thinking that only current 'real world' situations apply to the use of Fighters and Carriers, which is an illogical assumption.
Maneuverability is very much an issue in Star Trek combat. This is shown very significantly with the Defiant, and is a significant reason for its small size. They could have easily fit all that firepower onto a ship the size of a Galaxy-class. Hell, they could've probably fit -more- power onto it, but they wanted maneuverability.
Yes, they have shields and stronger hulls, but they also have far stronger weapons than our modern day planes and ships have. Photon torpedoes are at least as powerful as modern day tactical nukes and Quantum Torpedos are even more powerful than that.
The fact that cap ship defenses are scaled up so much higher than anything we have in the real world is something that also applies to the fighters themselves. While they are individually far less physically defensive than the cap ships (which is the same with modern designs as well, where larger military vehicles are typically more heavily armored than smaller military vehicles, such as a Tank compared to the Bradly Fighting Vehicle), they still have far far higher defensive capabilities than a modern day fighter plane. They have sheilds. They can be equipped with ablative armor. And they make up for lower physical defense with higher maneuverability and higher evasive capabilities.
I think a Vulcan would hesitate from such conclusions without sufficient data, and with sufficient data, he would come to the same conclusion I did.
I can also put a short version of all the above.
Startrek Combat doesn't feature fighters. Startrek flagships have never been carriers. If this is to feel like Startrek, Carriers have no place in it.
Wrong, right, wrong.
Star Trek Combat has featured fighters, both involving the Maquis and the Dominion War, as well as Vulcan vs the Andorians, the Kazon, and several other instances.
The flagships of the federation that have been presented in Star Trek have never been Carriers, true. Those flagships have all been named Enterprise as well, except maybe for the Excelsior after the decomissioning of the Enterprise-A.
As for the "hero ships" of Star Trek series, the Enterprise, Enterprise-A, Enterprise-D, Enterprise-E, Enterprise NX-01, USS Defiant, and USS Voyager were not Carriers. This is true. However, there are far -far- more ships in Star Trek than that and most of the "hero ships" faced off against Fighters and, in some cases, Carriers, at one point or another.
For this to feel like Star Trek, it doesn't matter whether or not there are Carriers. If STO had no carriers, it would still feel like Star Trek. STO having Carriers still feels like Star Trek. The only way it could end up -not- feeling like Star Trek is if every single ship in the game was a Carrier, except maybe Escorts. Hell, even if they made it so that every CRUISER in the game was also a Carrier, that would not feel like Star Trek.
However, adding a few ships that are also Carriers does very much fit the setting and canon of Star Trek, especially since STO takes place in 2409 and there was at least -one- known Carrier starship in the form of the Scimitar as of 2379.
Besides, either fighters need carriers to get somewhere because carriers have more range and are faster, which would mean they could not operate as a CAP while the fleet is in transit or they are as fast and have as much range as the larger ships which would defeat the point of carriers and the CAP because then the fighters would be 'out' the entire time.
First off, we don't know that the fighters seen in those scenes are all of them. I'm fairly certain they aren't. Especially in the pic that was linked, which only shows THREE fighters.
Also, even if the Fighters themselves are capable of traveling at Warp 6+ (the average cruise speed of a federation vessel, though presumably a fleet on its way to battle would be traveling faster than that), how long a trip was it from that starbase to the field of battle? How are the pilots of 1-2 man fighters supposed to take care of things like sleep, using the restroom, eating meals, etc.?
We've got carriers, the devs have invested time (which to them is money) into them. They are not going away canon or not.
Now could we possibly have more variation on the theme or even more complex and intricate ship design other than the Rochambeau of Cruiser, Escort, Science and Carrier? Yes, but you're still going to see these designs in there some where. The devs have invested too much into this to see it change or any of them simply removed.
That assists to a certain extent with waste issues, but doesn't really apply to sleep and food. There's also the issue of being in that cramped cockpit for overly extended periods of time.
First off, we don't know that the fighters seen in those scenes are all of them. I'm fairly certain they aren't. Especially in the pic that was linked, which only shows THREE fighters.
Very well, here is a link to the relevant part of the actual episode.
To see what I mentioned, please look at counter 1:10 minutes, where you can see the fleet moving off, of which the pic I linked shows a part.
I predict that you will say that there are not enough fighters in that sequence to hint at them not being aboard some kind of carrier craft however in that scene we also only see a handful of the 600 capital ships so this counterargument does not really apply.
In the second part, beginning with counter 7:00, you can see the deployed fighters before the detection of the enemy fleet.
There is also another aspect to consider: smaller ships can travel inside the warp field of a larger ship, so the fighters could simply come along with larger ships at higher speeds that they would themselves be incapable of without the need to carry them on a ship.
There was more then one instance of this shown throughout the shows, beginning with the TNG pilot where the Saucer remained inside the Drive-Section's warpfield, the NX-01 was carried inside the NX-02's warpfield for several minutes, now think ahead 220 years and consider the size difference between a Galaxy with its hughe engines and some 48 fighters that could easily 'hike a ride' inside the ship's field.
The TNGTM also supports this and states both that the Saucer can travel inside the Warpfield and that Photon Torpedoes also travel inside the ship's Warpfield until the distance between the ship and the torpedo becomes to great and the warp-sustainer engine of the torpedo needs to kick in.
Also, even if the Fighters themselves are capable of traveling at Warp 6+ (the average cruise speed of a federation vessel, though presumably a fleet on its way to battle would be traveling faster than that), how long a trip was it from that starbase to the field of battle? How are the pilots of 1-2 man fighters supposed to take care of things like sleep, using the restroom, eating meals, etc.?
When Quark finds out from Damar that the minefield would be destroyed in less than a week, he uses Morn to get a message to the Federation which them moves out as quickly as possible.
Since it would still take Morn time to get that message physically to Starfleet it was not really a long peroid of time.
As for the human(oid) need for rest/restroom etc: it's the same as on a Runabout which is suposed to operate for two weeks at a time.
And we've seen them out with only one pilot for extended periods so it must be possible.
Another example would be the, compared to the 32 meter Peregrine rather small, SU-34 which HAS a toilet and even a kitchen and also space between the seats to lie down.
Very well, here is a link to the relevant part of the actual episode.
To see what I mentioned, please look at counter 1:10 minutes, where you can see the fleet moving off, of which the pic I linked shows a part.
I predict that you will say that there are not enough fighters in that sequence to hint at them not being aboard some kind of carrier craft however in that scene we also only see a handful of the 600 capital ships so this counterargument does not really apply.
In the second part, beginning with counter 7:00, you can see the deployed fighters before the detection of the enemy fleet.
There is also another aspect to consider: smaller ships can travel inside the warp field of a larger ship, so the fighters could simply come along with larger ships at higher speeds that they would themselves be incapable of without the need to carry them on a ship.
There was more then one instance of this shown throughout the shows, beginning with the TNG pilot where the Saucer remained inside the Drive-Section's warpfield, the NX-01 was carried inside the NX-02's warpfield for several minutes, now think ahead 220 years and consider the size difference between a Galaxy with its hughe engines and some 48 fighters that could easily 'hike a ride' inside the ship's field.
The TNGTM also supports this and states both that the Saucer can travel inside the Warpfield and that Photon Torpedoes also travel inside the ship's Warpfield until the distance between the ship and the torpedo becomes to great and the warp-sustainer engine of the torpedo needs to kick in.
It is true they could travel within the warp fields of other ships. However, that is not exactly the safest way to travel, and is not recommended for prolonged flights. It would be more reasonable to land the fighters in the shuttlebays of the Galaxy class starships than to fly them within another ship's warp field.
I would note that the clip still doesn't show the Fighters traveling at warp. The first scene is before leaving Starbase. The second scene is after coming out of warp and being on approach to the enemy fleet. The Fighters may have been on their way from the Starbase to their respective "Carriers" (whether actual -carriers- or simply the shuttlebays of larger ships) and had just been deployed and were moving into their respective formations and positions when shown in the second scene. Since we only see those two scenes, there's no way to know for sure.
Something else I would note is the Multi-Vector Assault Mode tested with the Prometheus-class starship. While the Prometheus is not itself a -carrier,- it is still a carrier-like concept of using a "swarm" of smaller, more maneuverable ships rather than a single large ship. The concept is most certainly not unknown to the Federation and clearly considered effective. This was in the 2370s, and again, STO is in the 2400s. It is very -very- reasonable for Carriers to have become an actual ship design in that 40s years, even if they weren't one -in- the 2370s.
I'd also point out again that the only thing that -really- matters as far as carriers go is the fact that carriers -are- canon. Even if the Federation themselves didn't -have- Carriers (which is an "unknown" with some indications that they may have had them), the existence of carriers in the setting of Star Trek -is- absolutely canon. The Reman Warbird Scimitar, the Kazon ships, etc. Fighters are also completely canon, as shown with the Federation, the Kazon, the Vulcans, the Bajorans, etc. Even if you believe the Federation has never had carriers, well, they don't have carriers in STO either.
I hear a lot of saying - no, they arent'treally anything like our fighters and carriers, but they still make sense? I just disagree. I am not seeing it.
Not for Startrek. That other franchises like Star Wars, Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica also make similar errors is not my problem - or maybe they didn't - in the Star Wars movies, there are at least 3 examples of small fighters taking out larger vessels, so maybe Fighters do indeed serve a purpose their? And in Babylon 5, ships didn't generally have shiields, I think. In BSG, the vipers at least made sense for planetary attacks. In Startrek, we have seen the Enterprise use Phasers for precise drilling... THe Kazon and Trabe might have been to primitive for more precise weaponry, but Starfleet isn't.
Startrek has Fighters, but they are not used in the way we use carriers and their planes. Their fighters seem to share little similarities to planes in combat roles, and overall I just don't see it fitting.
We've got carriers, the devs have invested time (which to them is money) into them. They are not going away canon or not.
Now could we possibly have more variation on the theme or even more complex and intricate ship design other than the Rochambeau of Cruiser, Escort, Science and Carrier? Yes, but you're still going to see these designs in there some where. The devs have invested too much into this to see it change or any of them simply removed.
I think regarding Carriers, especially after reading some ideas of others, I would like to see them carrying something else then carriers in battle. Special Weapons. This is kinda the stuff I was hoping for - people thinking outside the box and thinking what else is possible. (Aside from the fact that I really hate Carriers in Startrek and like to fantasize about them not being there. ).
Breaking up the current 3-4 general ship types we had seems difficult. Ships are strongly defined by their bridge officer slots. You could create something like a nimble ship with lots of engineering slot, but then, we already have the Bird of Prey.
I think there is a lot of room for hybrids in that regard (like the Excelsior and more?).
What kind of role on the battlefield could ships fulfill? Particularly if we want all ships to be "equally" useful. One could have stuff like frigates or light cruisers, but if they have the same type of firepower, shields, hull or maneuveraility as existing ships, they don't really form something new.
One way to "break out" of the mold might be to reduce the number of Bridge Officer slots and instead give more unique special abilities.
For example, the mobile forward operating base. It is kinda like a Carrier, except there is nothing about fighters. It might be a flying repair dock with capabilities to help colonization, research and maybe installing transwarp gates (including ones that could be tactically employed within a battle, allowing ships to quickly travel to the base ship.) That could be what the Jupiter Class is all about (as much as I dislike its current looks, I do also believe it is salvageable, and a Jupiter-like starship would look more compelling to me then a Galaxy Dreadnought).
It is true they could travel within the warp fields of other ships. However, that is not exactly the safest way to travel, and is not recommended for prolonged flights. It would be more reasonable to land the fighters in the shuttlebays of the Galaxy class starships than to fly them within another ship's warp field.
Not correct I'm afraid.
I spefically checked for risks regarding this matter in the TNGTM and the only risk comes from the simple reason that at warp, the saucer is ahead of the stardrive but has not warpdrive itself.
The same applies to the aforementioned extending of the Warpfield by to NX-02 to the NX-01, which also had no warpdirve itself since the core underwent a cold-start while the two ships traveled inside the NX-02's field, which was also primiarily to unsafe because it had to be extended to encompass both ships, which would not be the case with the method I propose.
Also the problems from the difference in the means of propulsion would not apply since the fighters are known to be warp-capable.
The fighters the Maquis used in "The Maquis Pt2" were unquestionably Warp-Capable and they use the identical model for both ships.
So unless you want to say the Federation deliberately removed this ability...;)
The Galaxy can use it's shuttlebays for a great many different functions, including as emergency hospitals which would be more likely to be needed to evacuate and treat personnell from badly damaged ships, which tend to come up in a major battle.
This could not be done when the bays were rigged for fighters.
Additionally as I mentioned above those fighters are over 30 meters long and wide (they have a cockpit for two people side-by-side.
Which means they would only fit into the large hangar bays on the Galaxy saucer section.
No other ship would be likely to have the hangar capacity to carry them.
Even in case of the Akira it is questionable how a 30 meter fighter would be supposed to fit into a 25 meter shuttlebay.
I would note that the clip still doesn't show the Fighters traveling at warp. The first scene is before leaving Starbase. The second scene is after coming out of warp and being on approach to the enemy fleet. The Fighters may have been on their way from the Starbase to their respective "Carriers" (whether actual -carriers- or simply the shuttlebays of larger ships) and had just been deployed and were moving into their respective formations and positions when shown in the second scene. Since we only see those two scenes, there's no way to know for sure.
Again, as I mentioned above they were out before they even knew there was an enemy fleet out there.
Why?
Aestetics?
Boredom?
And now you indicate they would have been launched from regular ships; from shuttlebays.
Aside from the fact that most Federation ships couldn't hold such a large fighter aside from the Galaxy and the Nebula you now say those would have carried the fighters, not a dedicated carrier.
If that is true, there would still not be a carrier, there would only be larger Federation ships serving as makeshift carriers, not as proper carriers even remotely like the ones the Klingons have in STO.
It would even indicate the exact opposite of it.
If the Federation can simple convert the shuttlebays of a few ships to make room so they can operate fighters for a limited period of time without any of the problems associated with a carrier like the limited defensive capabilites compared to its size...what purpose would a dedicated carrier serve?
If this is any indication it would mean Starfleet came to the conclusion that carriers are not really that useful.
Particularly in peace time, what would you do with them?
Something else I would note is the Multi-Vector Assault Mode tested with the Prometheus-class starship. While the Prometheus is not itself a -carrier,- it is still a carrier-like concept of using a "swarm" of smaller, more maneuverable ships rather than a single large ship. The concept is most certainly not unknown to the Federation and clearly considered effective. This was in the 2370s, and again, STO is in the 2400s. It is very -very- reasonable for Carriers to have become an actual ship design in that 40s years, even if they weren't one -in- the 2370s.
Again quite obviously Starfleet rather experimiented with ships like the Prometheus than developing a carrier.
Appearently they saw a concept (which is basically the inverse of a Power Rangers Robot which ususually starts out as seperate parts that connect to become more powerful) like this as more promising otherwise they would have never built even a prototype.
I'd also point out again that the only thing that -really- matters as far as carriers go is the fact that carriers -are- canon. Even if the Federation themselves didn't -have- Carriers (which is an "unknown" with some indications that they may have had them), the existence of carriers in the setting of Star Trek -is- absolutely canon. The Reman Warbird Scimitar, the Kazon ships, etc. Fighters are also completely canon, as shown with the Federation, the Kazon, the Vulcans, the Bajorans, etc. Even if you believe the Federation has never had carriers, well, they don't have carriers in STO either.
In the case of the Kazon, because something is called a "carrier" does not indicate it's even remotely like the carrier you're thinking of.
Carrier means it carries...something.
In case of the Kazon and their somewhat strange fleet structure where these large ships are basically large mobile centers it probably means it carries a lot of personnell.
Also it would be the most ineffective carrier I ever saw on television.
In the pilot it was escorted by two (!!!) fighters.
In basics 8 of them launched so few fighters it's not really any better.
If that is the concept of a carrier you're referring to it's no wonder the Federation never developed one.:)
The fighters the Scimitar carried were called "flyers", they were extremely small (about the size of a shuttlepod), they were equipped with a tiny gun and they were appearently intended to be used in an evironment with gravity.
Otherwise they would nove relied so much on an antigrav-system for propulsion.
They were also not used by the Scimitar in the fight against the Enterprise even after the cloak on the ship was disabled and even Shinzon began to loose his cool.
So they were appearently not space-fighters but aerospace fighters intended to operate against planetary targets not ships.
This is further supported by the "Tales of the Dominion War" book which explains how Shinzon got his hands on the Thalaron device.
The Scorpions are used as planetary attack fighters there as well.
Of course since this is soft-canon I understand perfectly that you may wish to ignore this piece of information.
Your view that whoever has fighters must have a carrier ignores the fact that for example on Earth very many nations have fighters but only very few have carriers (GB, US, France) so why would the Federation have to base its fighter operations on the methods of those nations that have fighters?
Further research on the Maquis fighters yeilds the information that these ships came in varying sizes, ranging from the 1-2 crew cockpit style to the size of the Val Jean (Chakotay's ship). The key difference I can find is internal with the 1-2 crew cockpit style having a larger cargo area, likely for the photon/quantum torpedos that it was armed with.
No. There are no various sizes, they're two completely different ships.
The "Maquis Fighter" aka "Academy Trainer" aka "Federation Attack Fighter" is a Peregrine-type Courier Shuttle, the "Maquis Raider" is a Ju'day-class Freighter. Sadly, many people have mixed them up due to their somewhat similar general shape and affiliation, so even the Memory Alpha articles about them are a bit untidy and lack a clear connection.
The Fighters would, reasonably, have low level Warp engines to facilitate escape in certain situations as well as preventing them from being quite as likely to end up completely stranded with only impulse engines to help them return to a Federation colony or starbase.
Actually, it would be reasonable for courier ships to have a rather fast warp drive so they can ... you know, do courier runs. This is all very relative, of course, for it's a hard canon fact that the Peregrine was somewhat slower than a Danube-class Runabout, which still has a maximum speed of warp 5.
We don't know at which speed the fleet travelled, but I guess the piggyback warp bubble solution is also practical.
In any case all this does not really matter anything, for we know for a fact that the Peregrine was not conceived as a fighter but as a civilian ship - so why would the Federation build a dedicated carrier when it obviously did not plan on dedicated fighers? This simply does not add up. The most you could argue with is that some of the Peregrines could have been carried in the existing shuttlebays of the capital ships.
However, here's another reason for the existance of Fighters. Atmospheric combat.
Why exactly would the Federation even do such a thing? As we know from the shows, phasers are accurate enough to chirurgically hit any target on the surface without the need to enter a planet's atmosphere. Wide scale destruction can be achieved by photon torpedoes.
The point was that the Federation was getting more and more capable of fitting larger amounts of firepower into smaller, more compact designs, which is -exemplified- by the Defiant, the Runabouts, and the Delta Flyer.
I think you're misinterpreting starship evolution here. The Federation has always been capable of fitting firepower into compact designs - see the ENT-era Vulcan fighters you linked. The important thing to consider is that the Federation chose to not do so because of several key reasons:
fighters are even more limited in their scope than the Defiant
fighters were regarded as "too aggressive" (remember the Defiant "warship" debate?)
fighters are way too vulnerable and would put Starfleet pilots in unnecessary risk
fighters are simply not efficient in comparison to larger ships
One of the specific advantages seen with Fighters is manueverability, largely due to significantly lower mass.
Not really. Every time fighters showed up on screen we've seen them die in droves, one-shotted by the capital ships. The one and only advantage Starfleet had with the Peregrines is quite simply that they had them and their pilots ready (due to the Peregrine being used as an Academy Trainer) and they needed every single ship for Operation Return. It was an all-or-nothing assault whose outcome would determine the fate of the Quadrant and the Federation as a whole, for if those Dominion reinforcements would have come through, the UFP may as well have surrendered instantly.
And I fail to see this supposedly superior maneuverability in civilian couriers that let themselves get disabled even by Runabouts(!).
Presumably, their individual phasers are not as powerful as that of say a Galaxy class as they do not have the power generation capabilities (though they can devote more of the power they do generate to weapons in general), but the torpedos would not suffer much at all.
Actually, I do believe that the torpedoes would be significantly smaller - and less effective - in the same way as comparing a Hellfire missile with an MGM-140 missile.
In any case we have seen what the Peregrines can do on-screen, and frankly, I was not impressed.
Star Trek Combat has featured fighters, both involving the Maquis and the Dominion War, as well as Vulcan vs the Andorians, the Kazon, and several other instances.
As for the Maquis and the Dominion War, those were still not fighters but repurposed shuttlecraft. The Vulcans have since reformed. The Kazon are not part of the Federation and do not really seem to /care much for the loss of life.
If STO had no carriers, it would still feel like Star Trek.
I maintain that carriers have no place in the setting. This is not Star Wars. Trek has always been about "naval" style combat, not waves of squishy suicide bombers duking it out. DS9 felt weird enough with the whole "let's copy the Shadow War" going on. It moved away noticeably from the Starfleet we knew from TNG and TOS.
Some like it and deem it "more realistic". I say we don't need to copy the real world this extensively, other franchises do it enough. If you remove the things that set Trek apart from other settings, you're diminishing its uniqueness.
However, adding a few ships that are also Carriers does very much fit the setting and canon of Star Trek, especially since STO takes place in 2409 and there was at least -one- known Carrier starship in the form of the Scimitar as of 2379.
Well, I'd argue that the Romulans have less concern for their Reman troops than Starfleet has for its own.
How are the pilots of 1-2 man fighters supposed to take care of things like sleep, using the restroom, eating meals, etc.?
The same way the civilian pilots that were using these very same shuttles did before. And the Maquis.
In fact, were not the Delta Flyer and the Danubes used for equally long voyages without any problems as well? You're still seeing too much "fighter" where in actuality the Peregrine is a shuttlecraft that might even feature its own replicator.
"They used to shoehorn half a dozen cadets into one of these things for weeks at a time."
- Tom Paris, about the type-IX shuttlecraft
Something else I would note is the Multi-Vector Assault Mode tested with the Prometheus-class starship.
Aside from the Prometheus' ridiculous concept (which sadly still is canon) you cannot really compare the three frigate-sized components of the Prometheus to some tiny shuttle that goes poof as soon as someone so much as locks onto it with a phaser bank.
... actually, didn't the devs put out an in-universe reason for why MVAM isn't available for the Prometheus in STO? Something about Starfleet intentionally removing it?
I think regarding Carriers, especially after reading some ideas of others, I would like to see them carrying something else then carriers in battle. Special Weapons. This is kinda the stuff I was hoping for - people thinking outside the box and thinking what else is possible. (Aside from the fact that I really hate Carriers in Startrek and like to fantasize about them not being there. ).
Oh boy, a carrier that carries carriers...that sounds really reeaallly big.
But I guess you meant fighters.
Anyway outside the box, at least a bit:
There is currently no artillery.
They would be the equivalent of "Archers" (no "Enterprise"-pun intended).
Low on maneuverability with limited self defense at close range.
The reasoning behind why the current Klingon carriers would have such ability would be rather simple:
Planetary assault.
Assuming they actually carry an entire invasion force, like a giant Tarawa filled with angry Klingons
why not combine it with some "shore artillery"? The ship could knock out planetary shields from orbit and also destroy anti-air/anti-space batteries that might be used to take down the planetary assault shuttles you want to send down to "secure" a particular colony.
Of course those guns could be used in space combat as well, but only beyond a certain minimum range (say only at ranges 5-15 km)
Hence artillery capability for the Vo'Quv.:)
I think a Cryptic dev once posted something to the effect of "Once we give something to players, we basically never take it away." So I doubt this would happen. Carriers aren't my favorite thing either, if it is any consolation.
Not correct I'm afraid.
I spefically checked for risks regarding this matter in the TNGTM and the only risk comes from the simple reason that at warp, the saucer is ahead of the stardrive but has not warpdrive itself.
The issue comes in maintaining such close proximity at such high velocity.
The fighters the Maquis used in "The Maquis Pt2" were unquestionably Warp-Capable and they use the identical model for both ships.
I would note that identical model doesn't equate to identical ships. Also, the ships used by the Maquis were refit with whatever they could obtain and used old rebuilt engines. I can't say for certain if this is the case or not, but it would not be unreasonable for the Maquis to have upgraded the fighters to be warp capable, since they themselves would definitely not have had access to Carriers.
The Galaxy can use it's shuttlebays for a great many different functions, including as emergency hospitals which would be more likely to be needed to evacuate and treat personnell from badly damaged ships, which tend to come up in a major battle.
They could be, sure, but it was usually the cargo bays that were converted into triage centers. Also, they wouldn't have been able to evacuate personal from badly damaged ships, since they wouldn't be able to beam anyone aboard due to having their shields up, since they'd be in a combat situation.
Additionally as I mentioned above those fighters are over 30 meters long and wide
I'd like to see where you're getting those numbers. Shuttlecraft, which carry more than 2 people, were only 3-6 meters in length, for example. Some were smaller (such as the shuttles designed to be carried by Defiant-class starships). I would agree that the fighters were larger than the shuttlecraft, but frankly, "over 30 meters long and wide" seems a bit much.
Again, as I mentioned above they were out before they even knew there was an enemy fleet out there.
Why?
Aestetics?
Boredom?
They knew the fleet was out there. They knew they were going into battle. They may not have known the exact position or exact numbers, but they knew it was there.
And now you indicate they would have been launched from regular ships; from shuttlebays.
I said that's a possibility, not a definitive "that's what happened." The existence of federation fighters implies the existence of either federation Carriers or the capability of other ships to act as pseudo-Carriers, but it is only an implication, not an absolute.
However, that really isn't much of an issue when it comes to the carriers in STO, considering that the only support they need is Carriers existing -at all- in the Star Trek universe, which they do, as seen in Nemesis and Voyager in particular. Whether or not someone -likes- them existing is irrelvant. They are canon.
If this is any indication it would mean Starfleet came to the conclusion that carriers are not really that useful.
Particularly in peace time, what would you do with them?
Considering that the Federation was dedicated to peaceful exploration and preferred to avoid war whenever possible, it is not at all inconcievable that the Federation -would- choose not to construct dedicated Carriers. Of course, that would also make it conceivable that the Federation would choose not to construct Fighters, but they did construct them.
However, that really has nothing to do with the existence of KDF Carriers. While the Federation is a strong advocate of peace, the Klingons are strong advocates of war and combat. Even in "peace" times, they still have lots of in-house fighting, and there's really not much in the way of a true "peace time" for the Klingons anyway.
Again, I point to the fact that it is canon for Carriers to exist in the Star Trek universe. The Remans and the Trabe both felt that Carriers were appropriate ships to build, for example.
Again quite obviously Starfleet rather experimiented with ships like the Prometheus than developing a carrier.
Appearently they saw a concept (which is basically the inverse of a Power Rangers Robot which ususually starts out as seperate parts that connect to become more powerful) like this as more promising otherwise they would have never built even a prototype.
For the purpose of "Escorts," it is more promising, at least in theory. However, we only know of the prototype in regards to the Prometheus-class, at least "in canon." The purpose of a prototype is to determine if the concept works. Just because it seems "more promising" doesn't mean that it actually is. We don't actually know which way their research goes after the 2370s.
In the case of the Kazon, because something is called a "carrier" does not indicate it's even remotely like the carrier you're thinking of.
Carrier means it carries...something.
In case of the Kazon and their somewhat strange fleet structure where these large ships are basically large mobile centers it probably means it carries a lot of personnell.
Also it would be the most ineffective carrier I ever saw on television.
In the pilot it was escorted by two (!!!) fighters.
In basics 8 of them launched so few fighters it's not really any better.
If that is the concept of a carrier you're referring to it's no wonder the Federation never developed one.
*shakes her head* Actually, I don't think the Kazon ships are ever actually -called- Carriers in the series. But they do carry Kazon Fighters. A Carrier doesn't have to be -effective- to be a Carrier. The Kazon used technology they'd stolen from the Trabe after their successful revolt as well as technology they could manage to steal from anyone else. Doesn't mean they used it well or new how to be particularly quick in replacing their Fighters when they were destroyed.
The fighters the Scimitar carried were called "flyers", they were extremely small (about the size of a shuttlepod), they were equipped with a tiny gun and they were appearently intended to be used in an evironment with gravity.
Otherwise they would nove relied so much on an antigrav-system for propulsion.
They were also not used by the Scimitar in the fight against the Enterprise even after the cloak on the ship was disabled and even Shinzon began to loose his cool.
So they were appearently not space-fighters but aerospace fighters intended to operate against planetary targets not ships.
This is further supported by the "Tales of the Dominion War" book which explains how Shinzon got his hands on the Thalaron device.
The Scorpions are used as planetary attack fighters there as well.
Of course since this is soft-canon I understand perfectly that you may wish to ignore this piece of information.
Even if their primary purpose was for in-atmosphere situations, that doesn't change the fact that the Scimitar was a Carrier equipped with a large supply of Fighters.
Regardless, they weren't used against the Enterprise E in Nemesis largely because Shinzon was cocky and because it wasn't long after the cloak was disabled that the Enterprise rammed the Scimitar, destroying the fighter/shuttle bay. http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Scorpion_class And, they were Attack Fighters.
Your view that whoever has fighters must have a carrier ignores the fact that for example on Earth very many nations have fighters but only very few have carriers (GB, US, France) so why would the Federation have to base its fighter operations on the methods of those nations that have fighters?
I never said that Fighters necessitate Carriers. I've only stated that Fighters in interstellar space imply Carriers. I have never stated that the Federation absolutely has Fighters, only that there is reason to suspect they might. In regards to Carriers existing, I have only referenced Carriers that definitely appeared on-screen, such as the Scimitar and the Kazon Carriers.
No. There are no various sizes, they're two completely different ships.
The "Maquis Fighter" aka "Academy Trainer" aka "Federation Attack Fighter" is a Peregrine-type Courier Shuttle, the "Maquis Raider" is a Ju'day-class Freighter. Sadly, many people have mixed them up due to their somewhat similar general shape and affiliation, so even the Memory Alpha articles about them are a bit untidy and lack a clear connection.
That may be true. I don't know where you're getting the information, though, so I can't confirm it.
Actually, we've seen Runabouts being used for combat in DS9, in lieu of a larger ship. And they outperformed the Peregrines they were attacking.
This may be nitpicking, but then, you're sorta nitpicking as well. Runabouts are Runabouts, not "shuttlecrafts" or "shuttlepods." My statement was refering specifically to shuttlecraft (and shuttlepods, really) and not to Runabouts, which were designed more in line with the concepts of larger ships than regular shuttlecraft and shuttlepods, which were designed primarily for short-term and short-range use.
I think you're misinterpreting starship evolution here. The Federation has always been capable of fitting firepower into compact designs - see the ENT-era Vulcan fighters you linked.
To an extent, yes, but not to the degree of the Defiant-class. If you recall, one of the problems they had with the Defiant-class design was that it was so overloaded with weaponry that it nearly tore itself apart trying to maneuver. Even the "finished" design had to be tweaked by O'Brien in order to work at max efficiency and effectiveness. However, the firepower of a Defiant-class starship could have easily been put into the frame of a Galaxy-class starship due to its size. It simply would've meant replacing much of the interior of the ship that is otherwise intended for civilian/recreational/non-combat use. It would have, however, lacked the extensive maneuverability of the final version of the Defiant-class, which was something particularly desirable when dealing with the Borg, which the Defiant was designed to combat in the first place.
Not really. Every time fighters showed up on screen we've seen them die in droves, one-shotted by the capital ships. The one and only advantage Starfleet had with the Peregrines is quite simply that they had them and their pilots ready (due to the Peregrine being used as an Academy Trainer) and they needed every single ship for Operation Return. It was an all-or-nothing assault whose outcome would determine the fate of the Quadrant and the Federation as a whole, for if those Dominion reinforcements would have come through, the UFP may as well have surrendered instantly.
Um, they were primarily one-shotted by dominion ships, which were also devastatingly powerful compared to anything the Federation had fought before. Just because they were being destroyed easily by the dominion ships doesn't mean they were easily destroyed by alpha quadrant ships.
And I fail to see this supposedly superior maneuverability in civilian couriers that let themselves get disabled even by Runabouts(!).
If you're refering to encounters involving the Maquis, well, the Maquis had obtained them -very- second hand, and often were using rebuilt engines that were decades old. Runabouts, themselves, were fairly maneuverable and fairly well armed, without having to worry about trying to obtain equipment from potentially unreliable sources (such as Quark).
Also, many of the pilots of Maquis ships were civilians. They may have been good by civilian standards, but they weren't starfleet trained pilots.
In any case we have seen what the Peregrines can do on-screen, and frankly, I was not impressed.
Again, that was against Dominion ships, and Cardassian ships that had likely been upgraded by the Dominion. And we also saw Mirandas do just as poorly. I even recall some BoPs doing just as poorly.
Also, it's been about 40 years since the Dominion War. I'm pretty sure that the technology for Fighters would've advanced a good bit in the meantime.
I think he was referring to the reformed Vulcans, not the militarized despotists from the ENT era.
Aside from their view of Mind Melds, the Vulcans really haven't changed much between the 22nd century and the 24th century.
Regardless, he's arguing that -Fighters- do not exist at all in Star Trek, when they very clearly do.
As for the Maquis and the Dominion War, those were still not fighters but repurposed shuttlecraft. The Vulcans have since reformed. The Kazon are not part of the Federation and do not really seem to /care much for the loss of life.
They're classified as Federation Attack Fighters. They were used as civilian couriers prior to 2370, but the Maquis modified theirs to be more useful beyond simply being couriers, and it's absurd to think that Starfleet didn't modify the ones they were using as well, and they had much better resources for that purpose than the Maquis did.
As I said before, the Vulcans really haven't changed much.
Again, this has little to do with whether or not the -Federation- has Carriers and Fighters, but with whether or not Carriers and Fighters exist -in the Star Trek universe.-
I maintain that carriers have no place in the setting. This is not Star Wars. Trek has always been about "naval" style combat, not waves of squishy suicide bombers duking it out. DS9 felt weird enough with the whole "let's copy the Shadow War" going on. It moved away noticeably from the Starfleet we knew from TNG and TOS.
Some like it and deem it "more realistic". I say we don't need to copy the real world this extensively, other franchises do it enough. If you remove the things that set Trek apart from other settings, you're diminishing its uniqueness.
First off, Aircraft Carriers are a part of Naval Combat, so your whole "naval style combat" idiocy is simply that, idiocy.
Second, DS9 may have moved things in a somewhat different direction in certain respects, but it didn't give up anything that makes Star Trek Star Trek. And while it may not be your cup of tea, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is canon and is part of the setting.
Additionally, Voyager returned very much to the feel of TOS in -many- ways and is one example of Carriers existing in the setting. Also, the movie Nemesis is TNG-based and also includes a Carrier.
Carriers have as much place in Star Trek as they do in any other sci-fi series.
Well, I'd argue that the Romulans have less concern for their Reman troops than Starfleet has for its own.
Well, there's no indication that the Romulans were actually in charge of the Reman ships, in particular the design of the Scimitar. Without further information on that, which can't be found in "hard canon," there's no way to make a full determination here.
The same way the civilian pilots that were using these very same shuttles did before. And the Maquis.
In fact, were not the Delta Flyer and the Danubes used for equally long voyages without any problems as well? You're still seeing too much "fighter" where in actuality the Peregrine is a shuttlecraft that might even feature its own replicator.
"They used to shoehorn half a dozen cadets into one of these things for weeks at a time."
- Tom Paris, about the type-IX shuttlecraft
First off, you're mistaken in calling the Fighters "shuttlecrafts."
Second, what you do with cadets doesn't apply to what you do with fighter pilots. Also, the Delta Flyer was specifically designed to be larger and more "livable" than the Class-2 Shuttlecraft.
The Runabouts were also specifically designed for more long-term use.
Even as couriers, the "Peregrine-class" ships would not have been designed as significantly for "comfort" or long-term single-trip use.
The Maquis weren't using the Fighters in that way either. You're getting confused with the raiders, which were the larger ships like Chakotay's.
Aside from the Prometheus' ridiculous concept (which sadly still is canon) you cannot really compare the three frigate-sized components of the Prometheus to some tiny shuttle that goes poof as soon as someone so much as locks onto it with a phaser bank.
... actually, didn't the devs put out an in-universe reason for why MVAM isn't available for the Prometheus in STO? Something about Starfleet intentionally removing it?
First off, I referenced it as an example of the Federation testing concepts of using smaller craft for higher maneuverability in combat.
Additionally, you're still being a complete idiot by talking about the fighters going poof so easily. Mirandas and BoPs were being one-shotted by the Dominion ships as well. The Dominion ships were massively more powerful than anything the Federation had encountered before, except for the Borg.
Even Romulan Warbirds and Cardassian Galor-class starships weren't surviving long against Dominion ships. Same with Galaxies and Excelsiors.
Also, since they were utilizing ships that had up until that decade been primarily civilian ships, it's not unreasonable that they would decide to develope much more advanced Fighters for future use, since it would've become obvious that those civilian designed ships weren't good enough.
It's the same reason behind the development of ships like the Defiant-class. They realized their current ships just weren't good enough.
Careful. What's the source for this classification? Just because some fan wrote it into the wiki this doesn't make it true - I for one cannot recall them ever being called like this in the movie.
Not saying it isn't true, just saying that the sources on the Scorpion are a bit ... hazy.
This may be nitpicking, but then, you're sorta nitpicking as well. Runabouts are Runabouts, not "shuttlecrafts" or "shuttlepods." My statement was refering specifically to shuttlecraft (and shuttlepods, really) and not to Runabouts, which were designed more in line with the concepts of larger ships than regular shuttlecraft and shuttlepods, which were designed primarily for short-term and short-range use.
Granted. In that case we still have the on-screen statement that Peregrines have been called shuttlecraft.
Um, they were primarily one-shotted by dominion ships, which were also devastatingly powerful compared to anything the Federation had fought before. Just because they were being destroyed easily by the dominion ships doesn't mean they were easily destroyed by alpha quadrant ships.
Actually, Sisko had the fighter waves concentrate on the Cardassian ships - which the Federation had fought before.
It was also a comment about fighters in general, though. As you pointed out, they have been used by other races throughout Trek occasionally - with the same result.
If you're refering to encounters involving the Maquis, well, the Maquis had obtained them -very- second hand, and often were using rebuilt engines that were decades old.
Speculation. When the Maquis was able to procure the same kind of craft used by Starfleet itself, they can just as well get their hands on the same kind of engines. Not to mention the secret support they received from the KDF, including the supply of military-grade cloaking devices.
Aside from their view of Mind Melds, the Vulcans really haven't changed much between the 22nd century and the 24th century.
I do believe a cultural change from an aggressive military regime (ENT, "Awakening") to a peaceful society that does not believe in warships (TNG, "Unification") or the enforcement of peace with weapons (TOS, "Journey to Babel") does implicate coming a long way.
They're classified as Federation Attack Fighters. They were used as civilian couriers prior to 2370, but the Maquis modified theirs to be more useful beyond simply being couriers, and it's absurd to think that Starfleet didn't modify the ones they were using as well, and they had much better resources for that purpose than the Maquis did.
They're classified as nothing just because Sisko dubbed them so. It still is just a repurposed civilian shuttlecraft with integral limitations on how much you can do with them. If Starfleet did not bother to equip its Runabouts or other shuttlecraft with better equipment, I don't see why they would do so for the Peregrines - aside from the fact that the entire fleet was put together in a hurry. When you include the travel times I doubt that the engineers spent months pondering about the best refit.
First off, Aircraft Carriers are a part of Naval Combat, so your whole "naval style combat" idiocy is simply that, idiocy.
I thought it would be clear from the context that I was referring to the kind of naval combat revolving around the big ships, considering what we have seen in TOS, TNG and every single movie. Apologies if I presumed too much.
Second, DS9 may have moved things in a somewhat different direction in certain respects, but it didn't give up anything that makes Star Trek Star Trek.
The Maquis weren't using the Fighters in that way either. You're getting confused with the raiders, which were the larger ships like Chakotay's.
It seems you have watched neither the DS9 episode "Heart of Stone" nor "The Maquis", the latter of which I already mentioned (the dogfight). It is even possible that this was also the ship appearing in "Preemptive Strike", though the evidence is inconclusive - they used the model of a Ju'day, but the interior of a Peregrine cockpit for the shots. Messy Trek consistency again.
Additionally, you're still being a complete idiot by talking about the fighters going poof so easily. Mirandas and BoPs were being one-shotted by the Dominion ships as well. The Dominion ships were massively more powerful than anything the Federation had encountered before, except for the Borg.
Again, the fighters were shot down by Cardassian ships. Maybe you want to re-watch that episode before calling names. Also, I tend to dismiss contradictions, and since the Birds-of-Prey performed much differently in other instances I would give them the benefit of the doubt and explain it with dramatization. As for the Miranda: again, hopelessly outdated.
Also, since they were utilizing ships that had up until that decade been primarily civilian ships, it's not unreasonable that they would decide to develope much more advanced Fighters for future use, since it would've become obvious that those civilian designed ships weren't good enough.
Or rather that fighters per se weren't good enough. Starfleet fared well for centuries without using waves upon waves of suicide ships, going through several wars and winning them by their proven multi role capital ship doctrine. Added to that comes the fact that both fighters as well as a carrier are utterly useless in peacetime - just like the Defiant which was left in storage until the Dominion War. With the exception that a fighter corps would require constant training, putting an unnecessary strain on Starfleet manpower that could just as well be used elsewhere.
Actually, Sisko had the fighter waves concentrate on the Cardassian ships
As I said before, the Cardassian ships were likely upgraded by the Dominion.
Careful. What's the source for this classification? Just because some fan wrote it into the wiki this doesn't make it true - I for one cannot recall them ever being called like this in the movie.
Not saying it isn't true, just saying that the sources on the Scorpion are a bit ... hazy.
Personally, I recall it being said by Picard in the movie.
Speculation. When the Maquis was able to procure the same kind of craft used by Starfleet itself, they can just as well get their hands on the same kind of engines. Not to mention the secret support they received from the KDF, including the supply of military-grade cloaking devices.
First off, that's not speculation. It's made clear in quite a few episodes dealing with the Maquis, both in TNG and DS9. The Maquis were a "terrorist" organization, composed mostly of civilians. They did not have the resources that Starfleet had. The fighters that the Maquis had were built prior to 2370, when they started being used by Starfleet.
As for the KDF supplying them with cloaking devices, I'm curious about your source for that, as I know that wasn't ever mentioned in TNG or DS9.
I do believe a cultural change from an aggressive military regime (ENT, "Awakening") to a peaceful society that does not believe in warships (TNG, "Unification") or the enforcement of peace with weapons (TOS, "Journey to Babel") does implicate coming a long way.
I do not think it's accurate to call them an aggressive military regime. There was one leader who leaned that way, but he was also being influenced by the Romulans.
Granted. In that case we still have the on-screen statement that Peregrines have been called shuttlecraft.
And the Defiant is a -warship- that gets classified as an "escort" because the Federation doesn't like to admit when it designs something purely for war due to their attempts at maintaining at least some semblance of being focused on peace.
They're classified as nothing just because Sisko dubbed them so.
Sorry, but no. If they were called Fighters in the series, that makes it "hard canon" that they are Fighters.
I thought it would be clear from the context that I was referring to the kind of naval combat revolving around the big ships, considering what we have seen in TOS, TNG and every single movie. Apologies if I presumed too much.
That's just it. You're being far too narrow in your reasoning.
Just like a warp-capable courier ship, one would assume.
No. A courier is not the same as a runabout which is 1) a far newer design than the Fighters/Couriers and 2) built for "mid-range" scientific research and exploration.
As for the range, I disagree. The sole purpose of a courier is reach and speed, no?
I said "long-term," not "long range."
Again, the fighters were shot down by Cardassian ships. Maybe you want to re-watch that episode before calling names. Also, I tend to dismiss contradictions, and since the Birds-of-Prey performed much differently in other instances I would give them the benefit of the doubt and explain it with dramatization. As for the Miranda: again, hopelessly outdated.
You can't legitimately dismiss the BoP performance as "dramatization" while also condemning the Miranda and Fighter that performed exactly the same as being "crappy."
Also, the Excelsior is not -that- much newer than the Mirandas and much older than the Peregrines, and has been seen to perform quite well.
Added to that comes the fact that both fighters as well as a carrier are utterly useless in peacetime - just like the Defiant which was left in storage until the Dominion War
1) The Defiant wasn't -useless- in peacetime.
2) The Defiant wasn't "left in storage until the Dominion War." For one, it was put into service quite sometime before the Dominion even entered the Alpha Quadrant. Second, the Defiant wasn't actually -complete- when it was put into service. They hadn't been able to get it to work entirely right. O'Brien was the one to finally get it fully functional.
Again, my personal argument is not that the Federation had Carriers, but that Carriers -are- canon to the Star Trek Universe, which is all that matters. The Federation doesn't have Carriers in STO, either, and the devs had made it pretty clear that the federation won't be getting carriers.
Besides, either fighters need carriers to get somewhere because carriers have more range and are faster, which would mean they could not operate as a CAP while the fleet is in transit or they are as fast and have as much range as the larger ships which would defeat the point of carriers and the CAP because then the fighters would be 'out' the entire time.
SFB canon?
Good joke, really.
SFB operates under a very strange license.
They cannot use the name Star Trek (which clealy shows how canon it is) they cannot mention persons from the Original series (Spock is referred to as a prominent science officer, Kirk is referenced by a Klingon captain as a tin-plated dictator) and their entire storyline diverged in 1978 with the first movie.
They are not allowed to use any material outside the Original Series and some aspescts of the Animated series and vice versa material from the "Star Fleet Universe" cannot be used by canon Trek.
They even state as much in their various publications and also explicitly discourage anyone from submitting material that is in any way connected to Trek outside the Original Series because they could not use it anyway.
So how canon can it be?
The only reason Interplay could use material from SFB for SFC was because they got both licenses otherwise even that would not have been possible.
So canon?
You're joking right?
Take the time to read the history... I will even link the generic wiki page for you... game is even referenced in TNG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Fleet_Battles
I was mentioning it because Gene actually played and endorsed it in Jacksonville, Florida when i was stationed down there. Somehow in shouting everyone down, you are completely missing the point of carriers. They are a projection of power. Instead of having to commit 30-40 warships in an area, a simple carrier task group of 10-12 ships carries the firepower of that large force because of the fighters and SUPPORT craft it also carries.
Now, the orig question was "Removing carriers- What would you do?" Same answer as before, continue with my Gorn sci or Bird and listen to people cry nerf about them too
As I said before, the Cardassian ships were likely upgraded by the Dominion.
Speculation again. Based on what? They did fire with the same orange-coloured phasers they always had, not the distinctively purple Dominion polaron beam. One would assume that a weapons upgrade at the hands of Dominion engineers would incorporate ... well, a different weapon. Way more practical than trying to jury-rig Dominion "energy boosters"(?) into a Cardassian phaser bank. If that is even possible.
First off, that's not speculation. It's made clear in quite a few episodes dealing with the Maquis, both in TNG and DS9. The Maquis were a "terrorist" organization, composed mostly of civilians. They did not have the resources that Starfleet had. The fighters that the Maquis had were built prior to 2370, when they started being used by Starfleet.
With all those turncoat Starfleet officers I wouldn't be so sure about that. The Maquis dished out some real hurt to the Cardassians, which doesn't really seem possible unless they would use military grade equipment. Thanks to DS9 we also know it isn't really hard to procure this kind of stuff if you just know the right people.
Also, your argumentation seems to be based entirely on Memory Alpha. Careful with the interpretation of these articles. Just because the Peregrine did not appear in Starfleet service on screen prior to 2370 that doesn't automatically qualify as a fact.
I do not think it's accurate to call them an aggressive military regime. There was one leader who leaned that way, but he was also being influenced by the Romulans.
Annexing entire planets sounds pretty aggressive, not to mention the Vulcans almost going to war with Andoria and Earth. And I hope that you don't really believe that only a single person is to blame when his authority is based on his support by the military and his henchmen in the government.
The High Command was dissolved and power transferred to a civilian institution, and centuries later there's no trace of Vulcan warships. That's a pretty major social change there.
And the Defiant is a -warship- that gets classified as an "escort" because the Federation doesn't like to admit when it designs something purely for war due to their attempts at maintaining at least some semblance of being focused on peace.
Exactly. Which means there would be an even stronger prejudice against fightercraft, whose capabilities are even more focused. You can at least claim that an escort is there to escort. What does a fighter do?
Sorry, but no. If they were called Fighters in the series, that makes it "hard canon" that they are Fighters.
Sorry, but no. If they were designedas Couriers in the series, that makes it "hard canon" that they are Couriers. Regardless of how a character calls them.
Of course you may argue that the fact that they were used as fighters qualifies as sufficient for calling them such, and in a way you're right. But at the same time you cannot deny their origin and say it's wrong when I point this origin out.
In terms of maximum range it boils down the same thing, even if you have to fly longer. And you still owe an explanation for why "long term" is actually a requirement for either a courier or a fighter. And what you actually mean when you say "long term" - for obviously other Peregrine-sized shuttlecraft were fine with housing a dozen people for weeks.
You can't legitimately dismiss the BoP performance as "dramatization" while also condemning the Miranda and Fighter that performed exactly the same as being "crappy."
What's the alternative? My reasoning is that I am dismissing contradictory evidence as unreliable. Your reasoning seems to twist what we have seen on-screen into the exact opposite, stating that the Peregrines - which were never designed to perform in such a role in the first place - apparently are oh so superior despite blowing up every time we see them in action? And with this kind of argumentation you have the gall to call me an idiot AND claim that my reasoning is too narrow? Some nerve you've got there.
Also, the Excelsior is not -that- much newer than the Mirandas and much older than the Peregrines, and has been seen to perform quite well.
Unlike the Mirandas and the Peregrines, the Excelsior underwent some major refits, in case you didn't notice the extra impulse engines etc on the Lakota.
2) The Defiant wasn't "left in storage until the Dominion War." For one, it was put into service quite sometime before the Dominion even entered the Alpha Quadrant.
The shakedown cruise was in 2370. Sisko got the ship in late 2371. Where do you think the Defiant was when Starfleet abandoned the project in 2370? Time paradox?
No matter. I guess our .. perception is just too different. As we likely won't get anywhere here, I'll "abandon ship" at this point, before you find some more nice terms to describe my supposed level of intelligence.
What would you do? You can't just rip out 2 end-game ships and existing art assets and play styles and give nothing in return. This would lead to murder and mayhem.
So, what would you do? What kind of ship class would you come up with? What would you do with the existing Carrier models? How can they be reused?
Well there is SOME precedent for there being carriers in the game and in Star Trek, but that's not at issue here. Honestly I've always felt that carriers are not really....Klingon, the idea of keeping 4,000 warriors at bay while sending a small number to fight at a distance that's capable of being out of range for the enemy to fight back just doesn't strike the right cord with me when I think of Klingons.
If anything I would have given carriers to the Federation and heavy battleships/dreadnoughts to the Klingons; however it's not that way and it won't ever be that way.
But to answer the question, I would simply give both sides Dreadnoughts: Massive, heavy armed, heavily armored capital warships that have exceedingly limited maneuverability and speed but can brawl like no other. Give the ships a 5/5 or a 6/4 weapon layouts with console layouts of either 4/2/3 or 3/2/4 with large hulls and 125-150% shields.
With BOs, assuming that Cryptic would want to keep things in line with what is currently in the game, then something like: Cmdr Tac, Lt. Tac; Lt. Cmdr Eng; Lt. Cmdr Sci.
A lumbering giant that if commanded by a competent person would require multiple people to bring down, but then again that's the carrier today....
As for the ship models, the Vo'Quv hull could be re-tasked as a heavy battleship easily enough, but the Kar'Fi......I know that some people like it but person I hate it so I say let it rust....
Speculation again. Based on what? They did fire with the same orange-coloured phasers they always had, not the distinctively purple Dominion polaron beam.
Actually, while they were the same color as federation phasers, they were frequently referred to as disruptors. The same is true of hand-held cardassian weapons.
The High Command was dissolved and power transferred to a civilian institution, and centuries later there's no trace of Vulcan warships. That's a pretty major social change there.
There's no less trace of Vulcan warships than there is of Andorian Warships. Both races joined the Federation and the primary fleet of the Federation became Starfleet. If you recall, there were no Andorian, Vulcan, Tellarite, etc. ships in the fleet that fought the Dominion, despite all three races being prominant members of the Federation.
It's pure speculation on your part that the lack of Vulcan "warships" and "fighters" is purely due to a change in the command structure of the Vulcans. Also, the Fighters were created due to Vulcan logic, which was just as much in effect before ENT as it was after ENT.
Sorry, but no. If they were designedas Couriers in the series, that makes it "hard canon" that they are Couriers. Regardless of how a character calls them.
Except that, 90% of the time, all we even have to go by is what a character calls them. And while they may have been designed as X, that doesn't mean they weren't repurposed as Y, which makes them into Y, in addition to having been X.
Of course you may argue that the fact that they were used as fighters qualifies as sufficient for calling them such, and in a way you're right. But at the same time you cannot deny their origin and say it's wrong when I point this origin out.
I haven't said you're wrong for saying they were created as Couriers. I've said you're wrong for calling the ones used as Fighters "shuttlecraft." And, as I recall, your reference to them being called "shuttlecrafts" is merely a character referring to them as such, the same as the claim that they're fighters.
for obviously other Peregrine-sized shuttlecraft were fine with housing a dozen people for weeks.
The cockpit/crew area of a Class-2 Shuttle is larger than that of a Peregrine, from what I recall. You'll need to show a source on that.
Either way, you're referencing "what one character said," which you yourself have stated is "unreliable." Considering Tom Paris' personality, it's likely he was using hyperbole. Granted, that is speculation, but it's -at least- as plausible as the idea that he was being exactly truthful, which is rather unlikely.
Your reasoning seems to twist what we have seen on-screen into the exact opposite, stating that the Peregrines - which were never designed to perform in such a role in the first place - apparently are oh so superior despite blowing up every time we see them in action?
Hmm? Care to point to where I said that the Peregrines are superior to anything? I said that Carrier+Fighter has certain advantages in space combat versus simply a single cap ship.
Though, I would note that while we do frequently -see- them explode on screen, there is also a significant amount of time during which they are in combat, without direct support from the main fleet, and surviving rather well. This merely occurs while the screen is showing us inside the Defiant, since the main characters of the series were the crew of the Defiant, not the pilots of the Peregrine Fighters.
Unlike the Mirandas and the Peregrines, the Excelsior underwent some major refits, in case you didn't notice the extra impulse engines etc on the Lakota.
While there may have been no obvious changes externally to the Mirandas and the Peregrines, it is highly unlikely that they would still be functioning with the exact same equipment as they had when they were first built.
The shakedown cruise was in 2370. Sisko got the ship in late 2371. Where do you think the Defiant was when Starfleet abandoned the project in 2370? Time paradox?
Yes, it was put in storage, because it wasn't working right. Just because a ship had a "shakedown cruise" doesn't mean it's functioning correctly or complete. The USS Enterprise-B had its shakedown cruise before it was completed. As did the Enterprise NX-01, though that was for more extenuating circumstances than the Enterprise-B.
Take the time to read the history... I will even link the generic wiki page for you... game is even referenced in TNG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Fleet_Battles
I was mentioning it because Gene actually played and endorsed it in Jacksonville, Florida when i was stationed down there. Somehow in shouting everyone down, you are completely missing the point of carriers. They are a projection of power. Instead of having to commit 30-40 warships in an area, a simple carrier task group of 10-12 ships carries the firepower of that large force because of the fighters and SUPPORT craft it also carries.
Now, the orig question was "Removing carriers- What would you do?" Same answer as before, continue with my Gorn sci or Bird and listen to people cry nerf about them too
I am well aware of this page, thank you.
But appearently you did not read it properly:
"With the rebirth of Star Trek as an active film franchise, the 'SFU' started diverging sharply from canon Star Trek, as the producers ignored anything from fan productions, and SFB's own licence did not allow them to use the new material. Due to several factors, the SFU has re-interpreted several things, and in some places only bears a passing resemblance to the show that gave it birth."
Additionally there is another thing to consider that clearly shows how canon, or rather non-canon this game is:
It's based on the old Star Fleet Technical Manual by Franz Joseph.
Even though I'm proud to have two copies of it on my shelf (the first one that I got my hands on is not really pretty but I'd nontheless never throw it away) Roddenberry had a serious agreement with Joseph sometime after the creation of the first movie and as a result deliberatly laid out rules for "The Next Generation" the made the ships in that book non-canon.
So when he stopped endorsing the old Manual, he also stopped endorsing material based on it.
Also several aspects of SFB are actually the exact opposite of canon like the fact that warp-power is produced inside the nacelles not inside a warpcore or that Photon Torpedoes are charged with warp-energy and not actually guided weapons like we saw in Star Trek VI.
So even if he once endorsed it (despite the strange license), that ended abruptly between the first and second movie.
So no, it's non-canon.
As for power-projection:
We had a similar discussion a while back in another thread:
Starfleet is not like several Earth militaries and it does not do power projection since it does not create peace, it enforces piece.
"Power projection (or force projection) is a term used in military and political science to refer to the capacity of a state to conduct expeditionary warfare, i.e. to intimidate other nations and implement policy by means of force, or the threat thereof, in an area distant from its own territory."
The issue comes in maintaining such close proximity at such high velocity.
They managed to do it with a Class-( Probe in TNG "Emissary" (not to be confused with the TNG Pilot) so it would not be a problem with a far more sophisticated ship.
Additionally you could simply link the fighters' computer to the larger ship's and there would be no rpoblem coordinating them unless the helmsman of the larger ship did something stupid it would be no more difficult that holding formation.
I would note that identical model doesn't equate to identical ships. Also, the ships used by the Maquis were refit with whatever they could obtain and used old rebuilt engines. I can't say for certain if this is the case or not, but it would not be unreasonable for the Maquis to have upgraded the fighters to be warp capable, since they themselves would definitely not have had access to Carriers.
Sisko was surprised in "The Maquis" Pt1 that they were armed, he was NOT surprised that they were warp-capable.
Besides what purpose would those blue-glowing nacelles serve when they were not warp-engines?
They could be, sure, but it was usually the cargo bays that were converted into triage centers. Also, they wouldn't have been able to evacuate personal from badly damaged ships, since they wouldn't be able to beam anyone aboard due to having their shields up, since they'd be in a combat situation.
I was referring to the time after the battle.
Besides:
The first step was not to convert the cargo, but the shuttlebays.
Particularly in a post-battle situation where transporters would not be reliable you might want to use the more easily accessable shuttlebays instead.
I'd like to see where you're getting those numbers. Shuttlecraft, which carry more than 2 people, were only 3-6 meters in length, for example. Some were smaller (such as the shuttles designed to be carried by Defiant-class starships). I would agree that the fighters were larger than the shuttlecraft, but frankly, "over 30 meters long and wide" seems a bit much.
They knew the fleet was out there. They knew they were going into battle. They may not have known the exact position or exact numbers, but they knew it was there.
I said that's a possibility, not a definitive "that's what happened." The existence of federation fighters implies the existence of either federation Carriers or the capability of other ships to act as pseudo-Carriers, but it is only an implication, not an absolute.
However, that really isn't much of an issue when it comes to the carriers in STO, considering that the only support they need is Carriers existing -at all- in the Star Trek universe, which they do, as seen in Nemesis and Voyager in particular. Whether or not someone -likes- them existing is irrelvant. They are canon.
Considering that the Federation was dedicated to peaceful exploration and preferred to avoid war whenever possible, it is not at all inconcievable that the Federation -would- choose not to construct dedicated Carriers. Of course, that would also make it conceivable that the Federation would choose not to construct Fighters, but they did construct them.
They did not construct them.
They constructed "trainers" and "couriers" that were repurposed.
There is no indication they were new-construction for the Dominion War.
However, that really has nothing to do with the existence of KDF Carriers. While the Federation is a strong advocate of peace, the Klingons are strong advocates of war and combat. Even in "peace" times, they still have lots of in-house fighting, and there's really not much in the way of a true "peace time" for the Klingons anyway.
One of the intended additions to the Klingon fleet that never made it to the viewscrren was a new kind of BoP for DS9
Because appearently the PTB thought that the Klingons would rather develop a better BoP, they did not entertain the idea of Klingons using fighters in any capacity.
Again, I point to the fact that it is canon for Carriers to exist in the Star Trek universe. The Remans and the Trabe both felt that Carriers were appropriate ships to build, for example.
For the purpose of "Escorts," it is more promising, at least in theory. However, we only know of the prototype in regards to the Prometheus-class, at least "in canon." The purpose of a prototype is to determine if the concept works. Just because it seems "more promising" doesn't mean that it actually is. We don't actually know which way their research goes after the 2370s.
Well the at least one Prometheus was around in Voyager "Engame".
Whether that was the original prototype or not is not clear.
There was also a Propmetheus in "Azati Prime".
Even if we discount this apearance as a feverish nightmare it clearly shows the direction towards escortish ships (is this a real word?) and not towards fighters.
*shakes her head* Actually, I don't think the Kazon ships are ever actually -called- Carriers in the series. But they do carry Kazon Fighters. A Carrier doesn't have to be -effective- to be a Carrier. The Kazon used technology they'd stolen from the Trabe after their successful revolt as well as technology they could manage to steal from anyone else. Doesn't mean they used it well or new how to be particularly quick in replacing their Fighters when they were destroyed.
They were called carrier in Voyager, however so was the Botany Bay in Star Trek 2, so because something is called carrier does not mean that it has even remotely anything to do with modern naval carriers.
Even if their primary purpose was for in-atmosphere situations, that doesn't change the fact that the Scimitar was a Carrier equipped with a large supply of Fighters.
So every ship that has some kind of armed shuttlecraft is a carrier, even when in a battle situation where the ship is at stake noone would bother to launch them, which is the actual mark of a true carrier.
Then the Intrepid would be one, too.
Regardless, they weren't used against the Enterprise E in Nemesis largely because Shinzon was cocky and because it wasn't long after the cloak was disabled that the Enterprise rammed the Scimitar, destroying the fighter/shuttle bay. http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Scorpion_class And, they were Attack Fighters.
Data referred to them as flyers not fighters.
Also between the disabling of the cloak and the ramming there were 6 minutes of screentime so there would have been enough time particularly since we can clearly see the the bay was manned (Remans running from the saucer coming towards them) and not empty when the Enterprise crashed into it.
Also after his claok was gone, he started to get frustrated, talked through his teeth and also began to scream orders ("Get.The.Cloak.Back!") so appearently he felt a little cast...in bad light without his cloak.
I never said that Fighters necessitate Carriers. I've only stated that Fighters in interstellar space imply Carriers. I have never stated that the Federation absolutely has Fighters, only that there is reason to suspect they might. In regards to Carriers existing, I have only referenced Carriers that definitely appeared on-screen, such as the Scimitar and the Kazon Carriers.
The former was not referred to as a carrier, even through the entire scanning of the ship noone cared for the Scorpions, only for the armaments of the ship.
The latter was a so-called carrier "armed to the teeth" that never launched anything to protect itself, even though in "Basics" Voyager crippled one of them.
So what kind of a carier can it actually be?
This may be nitpicking, but then, you're sorta nitpicking as well. Runabouts are Runabouts, not "shuttlecrafts" or "shuttlepods." My statement was refering specifically to shuttlecraft (and shuttlepods, really) and not to Runabouts, which were designed more in line with the concepts of larger ships than regular shuttlecraft and shuttlepods, which were designed primarily for short-term and short-range use.
I used Runabouts as a reference because they're the only other known "ship" even remotely of a similar size as the fighters/couriers.
It's pure speculation on your part that the lack of Vulcan "warships" and "fighters" is purely due to a change in the command structure of the Vulcans. Also, the Fighters were created due to Vulcan logic, which was just as much in effect before ENT as it was after ENT.
This is not speculation, this is stated on-screen by the Ferengi arms dealer in "Unification" ("I deal in warships, the Vulcans are pacifists!") and in line with what both Spock and Surak said several times in TOS.
Also, you seem to confuse logic with agenda. It is logical that you build warships when you want to wage war. This, in combination with the Vulcan willingness for sacrifice and to forego personal safety for the greater good, led to the development of these picket ships.
By the time of TOS and TNG, however, the situation has changed:
- The Vulcans are still willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, but they do not believe in arms.
- The Federation believes in arms, but is not quite as willing to throw the lives of their people away.
The "split" of the aforementioned necessity for fighters results in the non-existence of said ships in Starfleet, only strengthened by the fact that Starfleet did well without them for centuries.
The cockpit/crew area of a Class-2 Shuttle is larger than that of a Peregrine, from what I recall. You'll need to show a source on that.
What does the cockpit have to do with this? The type-2 is overall smaller than a Peregrine, regardless of its cockpit size. I hope you did not assume they put a dozen people into the cockpit?
Hmm? Care to point to where I said that the Peregrines are superior to anything? I said that Carrier+Fighter has certain advantages in space combat versus simply a single cap ship.
ad·van·tage
/ædˈvæntɪdʒ, -ˈvɑn-/ [ad-van-tij, -vahn-]
noun, verb, -taged, -taging
#3 superiority or ascendancy (often fol. by over or of): "his height gave him an advantage over his opponent"
#4 a position of superiority (often fol. by over or of ): "their advantage in experienced players"
Though, I would note that while we do frequently -see- them explode on screen, there is also a significant amount of time during which they are in combat, without direct support from the main fleet, and surviving rather well. This merely occurs while the screen is showing us inside the Defiant, since the main characters of the series were the crew of the Defiant, not the pilots of the Peregrine Fighters.
So you're surmising that because we did not see them explode, they did not explode even though they do every time we do see them? With Sisko being forced to send "wave after wave of his best fighters"?
While there may have been no obvious changes externally to the Mirandas and the Peregrines, it is highly unlikely that they would still be functioning with the exact same equipment as they had when they were first built.
What leads you to this theory? The Mirandas surely worked fine as freighters, just as the Peregrines worked fine as couriers - though I do indeed agree that the latter were likely upgraded from their civilian counterpart. This only makes their use as fighters look even more inefficient, of course.
Yes, it was put in storage, because it wasn't working right. Just because a ship had a "shakedown cruise" doesn't mean it's functioning correctly or complete. The USS Enterprise-B had its shakedown cruise before it was completed. As did the Enterprise NX-01, though that was for more extenuating circumstances than the Enterprise-B.
Every ship has a shakedown cruise. This is part of normal naval procedure. The fact that Starfleet couldn't be arsed to finish the ship and instead opted to put her away (at least we got that sorted now!) does kinda point to the assumption that they did not really believe the Defiant to be useful in peacetime, no?
"Power projection (or force projection) is a term used in military and political science to refer to the capacity of a state to conduct expeditionary warfare, i.e. to intimidate other nations and implement policy by means of force, or the threat thereof, in an area distant from its own territory."
Actually a very good liberal/textbook answer and will give you that point since i know which angle you are coming from. In the "Star Trek orig concept" there were no actual Federation Warships because back in the 60s it was determined that 'enlightened/well educated' societies did not fight battles which is why the Federation had very durable ships, they never fired the 'first shot'. The Federation in it's 1960s "enlightened" mentality would not project a show of force which makes your text valid.
On the flip side, you would be crazy not to build carriers and use fighters and drones if for nothing else, cost and efficiency. Replacing fighters is cheap, replacing cruisers and destroyers is not.
And one of us is just going to agree to disagree on SFB since Gene signed my copy and was called it the best "Kick in the butt the Star Trek Fanchise got to keep the dream alive". I don't believe canon is whatever some yahoo writes into the show to save his/her job for ratings. But obviously this comes from growing up on the orig and meeting them all in person so my view is "jaded" from the kids today that think Nemesis and DS9 (although was okay for a generic TV show going against Babylon 5) are the "core" of the orig concept.
Back to somewhat on topic...
Since this is a game, which means like Star Trek Combat Simulator, SFB, etc.. means it is not cannon in your opinion... carriers, borg parts bungie corded to your ship, ESD full of people creating their own uniforms is perfectly acceptable. The only drawback to carriers is that it is only after you create them and put them in game do you realize how incredible they are. Then you have to figure out how to scale them back and balance them with other ships so you basically have to take a ship with the firepower of a large fleet (thru its air wing) and nerf it from hell. Cryptic did a pretty good job on it.
And if they took it away...
I'd fly my gorn sci or bird and listen to people cry about them..
Anyway, try to have fun and remember that this is a game and designed to have something in it for everyone to enjoy and they've done a pretty good job.
That assists to a certain extent with waste issues, but doesn't really apply to sleep and food. There's also the issue of being in that cramped cockpit for overly extended periods of time.
Modern suits can remove and replenish upon demand (via mouth niple in helmet, direct intraveinus infusion and catheter) most if not all needs of nourishment and waste removal.
Given that while in space one will not drop out of the sky if halted (or even flying) sleep is a non-issue, especially for a combat trained or experienced pilot. One can sleep while on autopilot in space.
The only concern would be confiment of space in the cockpit for extended time periods cuasing muscle atrophy. If one is in a vessel so long as for this to happen, then they need to get out more.
Comments
As far as carriers being canon... since canon changes seemingly with every TV series and movie released i guess no one remembers back in SFB (the only real canon combat sim ever published and even had pics of Gene playing it) that the Federation did have carriers, as did most the other major races.
In Nemesis they didn't launch fighters as a plot device.
Overall think they've done a pretty good job with the Klingon carrier and fighters.
As to what would I do if they took away carriers... swap back to my gorn sci or bird and watch people scream NERF about hose ships until all the klinks have left are Tauron Shuttles.....:D
All of them?
Besides, either fighters need carriers to get somewhere because carriers have more range and are faster, which would mean they could not operate as a CAP while the fleet is in transit or they are as fast and have as much range as the larger ships which would defeat the point of carriers and the CAP because then the fighters would be 'out' the entire time.
SFB canon?
Good joke, really.
SFB operates under a very strange license.
They cannot use the name Star Trek (which clealy shows how canon it is) they cannot mention persons from the Original series (Spock is referred to as a prominent science officer, Kirk is referenced by a Klingon captain as a tin-plated dictator) and their entire storyline diverged in 1978 with the first movie.
They are not allowed to use any material outside the Original Series and some aspescts of the Animated series and vice versa material from the "Star Fleet Universe" cannot be used by canon Trek.
They even state as much in their various publications and also explicitly discourage anyone from submitting material that is in any way connected to Trek outside the Original Series because they could not use it anyway.
So how canon can it be?
The only reason Interplay could use material from SFB for SFC was because they got both licenses otherwise even that would not have been possible.
So canon?
You're joking right?
Awesome. I now picture these missile cruisers from SFC. What was the race that used them again? The Kzinti?
Not to mention that we know the Peregrine wasn't even a fighter design. It used to be a civilian courier, which is how the Maquis got their hands on them in the first place. It's even described as a "lightly armed shuttlecraft" by a Starfleet officer on-screen and slower than a Runabout.
Why would the Federation bother to build carriers for "fighters" they do not have, seeing that they had to repurpose training shuttles to do the job?
Actually, my mains are a Fed Tac in a Defiant-R and a Fed Eng in a Galaxy. The character listed in my sig is actually my roommate's character. My roommate plays on my account and I allow my roommate the use my account for posting on the forum as well. Since I haven't bothered joining a fleet, I let my roommate use my sig to advertise the T'mt fleet.
Don't get me wrong, I do have a sci-carrier that I play on occasionally, but I've got far more wins under my belt as my Fed Tac than I do as my Sci-Carrier, and I use it largely because it was the pretty much the only real Science-oriented ship the KDF had, and I'm -considering- switching over to the new one, but haven't decided yet.
That said, Carriers really haven't felt overpowered to me. They're not really any harder to kill than a Cruiser, and their pets are pretty easy to take out with Cannon: Scatter Volley.
Could you perhaps link to a clip of them flying at warp? Though, the info I've looked up shows that they were actually Civilian Courier ships before being used by the Federation for the Dominion War.
However, the crew compliment is also listed as 1-2 for the fighters used in the Dominion War. This would run quite contrary to them being the exact same ships as those used by the Maquis, considering that Chakotay's had a significantly larger crew (at least 20-30 maquis, if I recall correctly).
Further research on the Maquis fighters yeilds the information that these ships came in varying sizes, ranging from the 1-2 crew cockpit style to the size of the Val Jean (Chakotay's ship). The key difference I can find is internal with the 1-2 crew cockpit style having a larger cargo area, likely for the photon/quantum torpedos that it was armed with.
I would also note that the ships having warp capability is not at all unreasonable for Fighters in Star Trek, as we see Federation shuttles also having Warp capability. However, most shuttles were limited to around Warp 2, and were not intended to utilize warp flight very often, usually only when being used for an individual officer to go on vacation or return to a starbase while the main ship continued its mission.
The Fighters would, reasonably, have low level Warp engines to facilitate escape in certain situations as well as preventing them from being quite as likely to end up completely stranded with only impulse engines to help them return to a Federation colony or starbase.
And as I suspected, the Federation Attack Fighter is -not- simply the same ship as the Maquis-Raider, though they are somewhat similar. The Maquis Raider and Federation Atack Fighter are two separate designs, though the Maquis are listed as having made use of the FAFs at some point as well.
I can't find any specific information on the actual engines used by FAFs or MRs, aside from an example of Chakotay's ship having rebuilt engines from the 2330s and others having rebuilt 39-year-old engines.
However, here's another reason for the existance of Fighters. Atmospheric combat. The larger ships utilized by the Federation, for example, were not good for use in atmospheric combat. Even the Intrepid class, which was capable of landing on a planet, couldn't be a particularly effective combatant in a planet's atmosphere.
Actually, it was the Scimitar. And, they did not send out their fighters because they weren't needed at the time that they were fighting the Enterprise-E because of their "perfect" cloak and ability to fire while cloaked. They were also only facing three ships in total.
If they did not consider the fighters to be valuable at all, then they wouldn't have had the fighters to begin with. Having them and using them in -every single situation- do not equate to the same thing. By the time the Scimitar was damaged severely enough to have reasonable need of the fighters in order to win against the Enterprise-E, it was too late to use them as their Fighter bay had been utterly demolished by the collision between the Enterprise and the Scimitar.
Again, the Maquis didn't simply employ Fighters. They had a few, but their primary crafts were larger and not -fighters-. They were Escorts from the early 24th century.
They don't send shuttlecraft out into combat for extra firepower because -shuttlecrafts- are not designed for it. However, the fact that they can and do have shuttlecrafts and we have seen those shuttlecraft progress into more offensively and defensively capable crafts, such as the Runabouts and Delta Flyer, it is far from unreasonable that very potent -Fighters- would be designed in the 40s years between Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek Online.
And the Fighters that the Vo'quv has don't pack even remotely as much punch as a Defiant, even the Captain-rank Defiant. Hell, even the BoPs launched by the Vo'quv don't pack that much punch, nor are they anywhere near as defensive.
Additionallly, the Defiant lacked in crew quarters, laboratories, and various recreational facilities, yes. However, it did not lack in shield arrays or defenses. In particular, it had added defense in the form of ablative armor on the hull. Also, the Defiant, while tiny, did still maintain a crew of about 50, which is more than a Bird of Prey accomodated. The smaller Birds of Prey (which would be the type launched by the Vo'quv) only had a crew of about 12. About 1/5th of what the Defiant held.
The point is not that the Defiant was a Fighter or that it would be a ship launched from another ship or that Fighters would be as powerful as the Defiant. The point was that the Federation was getting more and more capable of fitting larger amounts of firepower into smaller, more compact designs, which is -exemplified- by the Defiant, the Runabouts, and the Delta Flyer.
Fighters are not -intended- to take on cruisers single-handedly. Hell, take a look at one of those other serieses you referenced earlier. In Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica, the fighters were never intended to singlehandedly take down a cap ship. They work in groups, assaulting the target's defenses from multiple angles and forcing them to divide their attention and fire at smaller, more maneuverable targets that are harder to hit.
One of the specific advantages seen with Fighters is manueverability, largely due to significantly lower mass. A great example of this actually includes both the Defiant and a Maquis-style Raider, when they're fighting Regent Worf's oversized Negh'var in the Mirror Universe. They do not match the firepower of the vastly larger ship, true. But due to their size and maneuverability, they're able to stay extremely close to its hull and fly circles around the ship, making it far more difficult for the larger ship to target them and actually hit them with their disruptor beams, and also makes the use of torpedos by the larger ship nigh impossible, due to the combination of the blasts hitting themselves due to the proximity as well as the torpedos having a smaller targeting arc. This would also apply with very small 1-man fighters versus the more "average" sized "cap ships" we typically see. You can also see an example of this when the Defiant is being chased around Deep Space 9 by Klingon BoPs.
As for the armaments of the Federation Attack Fighters. They are listed as having "At least 3 torpedo launchers and 2 phaser emitters." That's directly off of memory alpha and determined through viewing them in combat during the Dominion War. Presumably, their individual phasers are not as powerful as that of say a Galaxy class as they do not have the power generation capabilities (though they can devote more of the power they do generate to weapons in general), but the torpedos would not suffer much at all. The only issue would be potentially carrying fewer torpedos than the cap ships can, but much of the body of the ship was cargo area for that very purpose. Their torpedos -might- have a lower yeild than that of a cap ship, but not likely by much. And they could most certainly carry more photon/quantum torpedos than a modern day Fighter plane can carry missiles and bombs. Additionally, they have little worry about running out of fuel, nor do they have to worry about running out of bullets. Even after they run out of torpedos, they'll still be capable of firing their phasers.
While there is truth to this, that really has little to do with the actual purpose of the Fighters and Carriers. On Earth, we primarily use Carriers as a mobile airbase in order to make air strikes against land targets on the other side of an ocean, thus creating less concern about fuel. However, when it comes to actual naval combat, go take a look at an Aircraft Carrier's fleet. They'll have 1-3 aircraft carriers and 2-4 times as many Naval Destroyers, heavily armed ships. Those ships are there to defend the carrier at sea and are a primary naval combat force. In such combat, the carrier would very likely scramble fighters, but the Fighters would not be their most effective anti-ship weaponry.
Now, where the truth in your statement comes in is the simple fact that while similar to naval combat, space combat is -not- naval combat. Fighters in space are a supplemental force. Sending out fighters adds additional firepower. Albeit, each individual Fighter does not by any means equate to a cap ship. However, each cap ship that acts as a carrier brings with it far more than simply -one- fighter. And while one fighter does not equal a cap ship, a dozen fighters very well -could- equate to a cap ship, at least in offensive capability. As for defensive, they have a specific advantage over the cap ships, which I've mentioned several times before. Maneuverability. Also, you have 12 targets to hit instead of just one. The fact that they can swarm and surround also makes it harder to keep any potential weak spots of your own ship out of the line of fire. Whereas the larger capships might have a hard time keeping their firing focused on your aft shields as you rotate, the Fighters are more capable of staying on your tail and bombarding your aft shields until they're down, then shoving a torpedo or 12 up your TRIBBLE. And, while they may have the aforementioned lower yeild torpedos, 12 of them can easily make up for that. After all, what does more damage? 12 ordinary Quantum Torpedos or one tricobalt torpedo?
So while they do not serve the -exact- same purpose as our current Carrier/Aircrafts on EArth do, that in no way invalidates their existance. It's called adapting and modifying effective tactics and systems to new environments.
Now, as for the Carrier themselves, one of the ways to be able to have more powerful armaments on the tiny Fighters is to reduce their long-range traveling capabilities. With fairly slow, or possibly even non-existant, warp engines, less space is devoted to the engines overall, thus allowing for more of the ship to be devoted to firepower. However, this also makes getting them to the battlefield significantly more difficult. This is where you enlist cap ships to carry them (i.e., be Carriers). This also leaves them more protected on the way to combat and gives them a refuge to flee to if too badly damaged to continue fighting, but not destroyed.
While the top-speed of the fighter would not be higher, the ability to maintain fairly high velocities in the short-term with a very high degree of maneuverability makes it far more effective at avoiding attacks.
Also, there is a distinction between "land" and "water" when it comes to space combat, including in Star Trek. It is not quite as -clearly- defined as on Earth, but it is there. A cap ship bombarding a ground target from space is essentially the same as a destroyer bombarding a land target from sea. This is not only possible, but was the only way in which they could attack land targets before fighter planes and aircraft carriers were created.
Yes, a cap ship in Star Trek is quite capable of bombarding a planet. However, this does not carry the same precision and localized effectiveness as it would if you sent in fighters. If you wish to completely decimate the surface of a planet, then orbital bombardment works quite well. Just look at Iconia. However, if you wish to strike a very specific target, a fighter will be more effective. For example, when Janeway and the Trabe gathered the First Majes of all the Kazon sects for a "peace conference," the Trabe used one of their small fighter crafts to do a very precise strike straight into the room that held the Kazon leaders. Now, it is true that they could have just hit the building from orbit, but that would have destroyed the entire building and areas around it, which would have also caused far more casualties. It also would have killed the Trabe leader and Janeway since the Trabe didn't have transporter technology to beam out before it happened.
This is mostly true, though that in no way discounts the existence of and use of Fighters and Carriers in general as this is but one use of them. In fact, that particular use you describe only exists because there is the potential of enemy fighter planes coming in to harass/attack a naval fleet. Well, that and the fact that we still have fairly limited long-range sensor technology. Radar only extends so far and only gives so much information. Fighters are useful for making visual identifications in these cases as well.
This is something that is not particularly necessary in Star Trek because of highly advanced long-range sensor technology. This simply allows Fighters, when utilized, to be reserved for offensive purposes, however, and limits the likelihood of them being destroyed while on patrol.
However, another purpose of keeping some already out and in flight is to reduce the time required to scramble fighters, which is something that we can see by the fact that the fighters are already deployed before combat starts in DS9.
NPC groups are a poor example. To maintain the "heroic" feel of being the "hero ship" in an episode of Star Trek. The Enterprise and Voyager, for example, often succeeded against seemingly overwhelming odds, while other, oft times unnamed, ships failed against underwhelming odds.
Also, STO doesn't really make use of maneuverability for the purpose of dodging attacks, beyond simply staying outside of someone's firing arc. They have the "Defense" stat for "hit or miss," but that really seems to have very little to do with actual maneuverability, which has as much to do with turn rate as with speed.
This fact actually significantly weakens Fighters in STO. If they had a more "FPS" style targeting, like in Airplane Combat Sims or Freespace, instead of "virtually gauranteed to hit your target" style firing, then you would find Escorts, for example, very difficult to hit. Fighters would be even harder to hit, especially if controlled directly by a player.
There is -some- truth to this. However, you're being very limited in your view. Let's say one of those fighters gets hit, unshielded, by a Tricobalt Device. That fighter is -gone.- However, most ships would be -gone- due to that event as well. In that case, where you would've lost an entire cap-ship, you lose only 1/12th of your overall fighting power with the Fighter, thus allowing you to do more damage.
Additionally, if we look at this particular situation from a purely Star Trek setting standpoint and not STO mechanics, there's the fact that as a cap ship gets damaged in combat, different systems can end up going offline, usually permanently. If you take out a cap ship's shields, you're probably going to be annihilating the entire ship very soon. If you take out a fighter's shields, you've still got 11 more fighters to deal with after that one fighter is gone. If you take out a cap ship's weapons (which can be done without disabling their shields, as we've seen on Star Trek), they are unable to continue attacking at all. However, with the Fighters, you'd have only taken out one, maybe two fighter's weapons in that time, leaving 10-11 still attacking.
Additionally, if one facing of your shields goes down on a cap ship versus another cap ship, you can turn your ship so that a different facing is toward's them, or divert power from other facings to the damaged facing. If you're fighting against a dozen fighters, however, their -maneuverability- lets them either focus on that damaged facing you're trying to turn away from them, or when you divert power, switch their targeting to one of the facings you've thus weakened. They're also able to target multiple subsystems much more easily than a cap ship could, and are able to be more precise to make up for the lower individual firepower, as well as have an easier time targeting any particular weak spots in your shields.
As for casualties and "repair costs," that won't necessarily be any different. In fact, since each Fighter would presumably have only 1-2 people in it, that's 12-24 people if you lose the entire wing. Even losing simply the Defiant could easily account for 50 deaths. Also, even if the Defiant manages to win the fight and not be destroyed, you could still lose 30 or more people depending on where the damage to the Defiant occurred. If you lose half your wing, but still win, you'd have lost around 6-12 people, not 30+. And that's just using the Defiant as an example. The Intrepid class had a crew of 160, which could mean far more lives lost in battle than the Fighter wing example. The Galaxy class had a crew and passenger compliment of over 1000.
Part of your problem is thinking that only current 'real world' situations apply to the use of Fighters and Carriers, which is an illogical assumption.
Maneuverability is very much an issue in Star Trek combat. This is shown very significantly with the Defiant, and is a significant reason for its small size. They could have easily fit all that firepower onto a ship the size of a Galaxy-class. Hell, they could've probably fit -more- power onto it, but they wanted maneuverability.
Yes, they have shields and stronger hulls, but they also have far stronger weapons than our modern day planes and ships have. Photon torpedoes are at least as powerful as modern day tactical nukes and Quantum Torpedos are even more powerful than that.
The fact that cap ship defenses are scaled up so much higher than anything we have in the real world is something that also applies to the fighters themselves. While they are individually far less physically defensive than the cap ships (which is the same with modern designs as well, where larger military vehicles are typically more heavily armored than smaller military vehicles, such as a Tank compared to the Bradly Fighting Vehicle), they still have far far higher defensive capabilities than a modern day fighter plane. They have sheilds. They can be equipped with ablative armor. And they make up for lower physical defense with higher maneuverability and higher evasive capabilities.
Actually, I can say with 99.9% certainty that a Vulcan would come to the same conclusion I've come to. http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Vulcan_fighter
Wrong, right, wrong.
Star Trek Combat has featured fighters, both involving the Maquis and the Dominion War, as well as Vulcan vs the Andorians, the Kazon, and several other instances.
The flagships of the federation that have been presented in Star Trek have never been Carriers, true. Those flagships have all been named Enterprise as well, except maybe for the Excelsior after the decomissioning of the Enterprise-A.
As for the "hero ships" of Star Trek series, the Enterprise, Enterprise-A, Enterprise-D, Enterprise-E, Enterprise NX-01, USS Defiant, and USS Voyager were not Carriers. This is true. However, there are far -far- more ships in Star Trek than that and most of the "hero ships" faced off against Fighters and, in some cases, Carriers, at one point or another.
For this to feel like Star Trek, it doesn't matter whether or not there are Carriers. If STO had no carriers, it would still feel like Star Trek. STO having Carriers still feels like Star Trek. The only way it could end up -not- feeling like Star Trek is if every single ship in the game was a Carrier, except maybe Escorts. Hell, even if they made it so that every CRUISER in the game was also a Carrier, that would not feel like Star Trek.
However, adding a few ships that are also Carriers does very much fit the setting and canon of Star Trek, especially since STO takes place in 2409 and there was at least -one- known Carrier starship in the form of the Scimitar as of 2379.
First off, we don't know that the fighters seen in those scenes are all of them. I'm fairly certain they aren't. Especially in the pic that was linked, which only shows THREE fighters.
Also, even if the Fighters themselves are capable of traveling at Warp 6+ (the average cruise speed of a federation vessel, though presumably a fleet on its way to battle would be traveling faster than that), how long a trip was it from that starbase to the field of battle? How are the pilots of 1-2 man fighters supposed to take care of things like sleep, using the restroom, eating meals, etc.?
Now could we possibly have more variation on the theme or even more complex and intricate ship design other than the Rochambeau of Cruiser, Escort, Science and Carrier? Yes, but you're still going to see these designs in there some where. The devs have invested too much into this to see it change or any of them simply removed.
Flight suits.
That assists to a certain extent with waste issues, but doesn't really apply to sleep and food. There's also the issue of being in that cramped cockpit for overly extended periods of time.
Very well, here is a link to the relevant part of the actual episode.
To see what I mentioned, please look at counter 1:10 minutes, where you can see the fleet moving off, of which the pic I linked shows a part.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7Bj5LqsUfU
I predict that you will say that there are not enough fighters in that sequence to hint at them not being aboard some kind of carrier craft however in that scene we also only see a handful of the 600 capital ships so this counterargument does not really apply.
In the second part, beginning with counter 7:00, you can see the deployed fighters before the detection of the enemy fleet.
There is also another aspect to consider: smaller ships can travel inside the warp field of a larger ship, so the fighters could simply come along with larger ships at higher speeds that they would themselves be incapable of without the need to carry them on a ship.
There was more then one instance of this shown throughout the shows, beginning with the TNG pilot where the Saucer remained inside the Drive-Section's warpfield, the NX-01 was carried inside the NX-02's warpfield for several minutes, now think ahead 220 years and consider the size difference between a Galaxy with its hughe engines and some 48 fighters that could easily 'hike a ride' inside the ship's field.
The TNGTM also supports this and states both that the Saucer can travel inside the Warpfield and that Photon Torpedoes also travel inside the ship's Warpfield until the distance between the ship and the torpedo becomes to great and the warp-sustainer engine of the torpedo needs to kick in.
When Quark finds out from Damar that the minefield would be destroyed in less than a week, he uses Morn to get a message to the Federation which them moves out as quickly as possible.
Since it would still take Morn time to get that message physically to Starfleet it was not really a long peroid of time.
As for the human(oid) need for rest/restroom etc: it's the same as on a Runabout which is suposed to operate for two weeks at a time.
And we've seen them out with only one pilot for extended periods so it must be possible.
Another example would be the, compared to the 32 meter Peregrine rather small, SU-34 which HAS a toilet and even a kitchen and also space between the seats to lie down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-34
It is true they could travel within the warp fields of other ships. However, that is not exactly the safest way to travel, and is not recommended for prolonged flights. It would be more reasonable to land the fighters in the shuttlebays of the Galaxy class starships than to fly them within another ship's warp field.
I would note that the clip still doesn't show the Fighters traveling at warp. The first scene is before leaving Starbase. The second scene is after coming out of warp and being on approach to the enemy fleet. The Fighters may have been on their way from the Starbase to their respective "Carriers" (whether actual -carriers- or simply the shuttlebays of larger ships) and had just been deployed and were moving into their respective formations and positions when shown in the second scene. Since we only see those two scenes, there's no way to know for sure.
Something else I would note is the Multi-Vector Assault Mode tested with the Prometheus-class starship. While the Prometheus is not itself a -carrier,- it is still a carrier-like concept of using a "swarm" of smaller, more maneuverable ships rather than a single large ship. The concept is most certainly not unknown to the Federation and clearly considered effective. This was in the 2370s, and again, STO is in the 2400s. It is very -very- reasonable for Carriers to have become an actual ship design in that 40s years, even if they weren't one -in- the 2370s.
I'd also point out again that the only thing that -really- matters as far as carriers go is the fact that carriers -are- canon. Even if the Federation themselves didn't -have- Carriers (which is an "unknown" with some indications that they may have had them), the existence of carriers in the setting of Star Trek -is- absolutely canon. The Reman Warbird Scimitar, the Kazon ships, etc. Fighters are also completely canon, as shown with the Federation, the Kazon, the Vulcans, the Bajorans, etc. Even if you believe the Federation has never had carriers, well, they don't have carriers in STO either.
Not for Startrek. That other franchises like Star Wars, Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica also make similar errors is not my problem - or maybe they didn't - in the Star Wars movies, there are at least 3 examples of small fighters taking out larger vessels, so maybe Fighters do indeed serve a purpose their? And in Babylon 5, ships didn't generally have shiields, I think. In BSG, the vipers at least made sense for planetary attacks. In Startrek, we have seen the Enterprise use Phasers for precise drilling... THe Kazon and Trabe might have been to primitive for more precise weaponry, but Starfleet isn't.
Startrek has Fighters, but they are not used in the way we use carriers and their planes. Their fighters seem to share little similarities to planes in combat roles, and overall I just don't see it fitting.
I think regarding Carriers, especially after reading some ideas of others, I would like to see them carrying something else then carriers in battle. Special Weapons. This is kinda the stuff I was hoping for - people thinking outside the box and thinking what else is possible. (Aside from the fact that I really hate Carriers in Startrek and like to fantasize about them not being there.
Breaking up the current 3-4 general ship types we had seems difficult. Ships are strongly defined by their bridge officer slots. You could create something like a nimble ship with lots of engineering slot, but then, we already have the Bird of Prey.
I think there is a lot of room for hybrids in that regard (like the Excelsior and more?).
What kind of role on the battlefield could ships fulfill? Particularly if we want all ships to be "equally" useful. One could have stuff like frigates or light cruisers, but if they have the same type of firepower, shields, hull or maneuveraility as existing ships, they don't really form something new.
One way to "break out" of the mold might be to reduce the number of Bridge Officer slots and instead give more unique special abilities.
For example, the mobile forward operating base. It is kinda like a Carrier, except there is nothing about fighters. It might be a flying repair dock with capabilities to help colonization, research and maybe installing transwarp gates (including ones that could be tactically employed within a battle, allowing ships to quickly travel to the base ship.) That could be what the Jupiter Class is all about (as much as I dislike its current looks, I do also believe it is salvageable, and a Jupiter-like starship would look more compelling to me then a Galaxy Dreadnought).
Not correct I'm afraid.
I spefically checked for risks regarding this matter in the TNGTM and the only risk comes from the simple reason that at warp, the saucer is ahead of the stardrive but has not warpdrive itself.
The same applies to the aforementioned extending of the Warpfield by to NX-02 to the NX-01, which also had no warpdirve itself since the core underwent a cold-start while the two ships traveled inside the NX-02's field, which was also primiarily to unsafe because it had to be extended to encompass both ships, which would not be the case with the method I propose.
Also the problems from the difference in the means of propulsion would not apply since the fighters are known to be warp-capable.
The fighters the Maquis used in "The Maquis Pt2" were unquestionably Warp-Capable and they use the identical model for both ships.
http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/d/d3/Maquis_fighters.jpg
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060825153714/memoryalpha/en/images/3/31/Federation_attack_fighter_attacks_Danube_class.jpg
So unless you want to say the Federation deliberately removed this ability...;)
The Galaxy can use it's shuttlebays for a great many different functions, including as emergency hospitals which would be more likely to be needed to evacuate and treat personnell from badly damaged ships, which tend to come up in a major battle.
This could not be done when the bays were rigged for fighters.
Additionally as I mentioned above those fighters are over 30 meters long and wide (they have a cockpit for two people side-by-side.
http://www.st-intelligence.com/ship_database/dom/images/Per_slide1.jpg
Which means they would only fit into the large hangar bays on the Galaxy saucer section.
No other ship would be likely to have the hangar capacity to carry them.
Even in case of the Akira it is questionable how a 30 meter fighter would be supposed to fit into a 25 meter shuttlebay.
Again, as I mentioned above they were out before they even knew there was an enemy fleet out there.
Why?
Aestetics?
Boredom?
And now you indicate they would have been launched from regular ships; from shuttlebays.
Aside from the fact that most Federation ships couldn't hold such a large fighter aside from the Galaxy and the Nebula you now say those would have carried the fighters, not a dedicated carrier.
If that is true, there would still not be a carrier, there would only be larger Federation ships serving as makeshift carriers, not as proper carriers even remotely like the ones the Klingons have in STO.
It would even indicate the exact opposite of it.
If the Federation can simple convert the shuttlebays of a few ships to make room so they can operate fighters for a limited period of time without any of the problems associated with a carrier like the limited defensive capabilites compared to its size...what purpose would a dedicated carrier serve?
If this is any indication it would mean Starfleet came to the conclusion that carriers are not really that useful.
Particularly in peace time, what would you do with them?
Again quite obviously Starfleet rather experimiented with ships like the Prometheus than developing a carrier.
Appearently they saw a concept (which is basically the inverse of a Power Rangers Robot which ususually starts out as seperate parts that connect to become more powerful) like this as more promising otherwise they would have never built even a prototype.
In the case of the Kazon, because something is called a "carrier" does not indicate it's even remotely like the carrier you're thinking of.
Carrier means it carries...something.
In case of the Kazon and their somewhat strange fleet structure where these large ships are basically large mobile centers it probably means it carries a lot of personnell.
Also it would be the most ineffective carrier I ever saw on television.
In the pilot it was escorted by two (!!!) fighters.
In basics 8 of them launched so few fighters it's not really any better.
If that is the concept of a carrier you're referring to it's no wonder the Federation never developed one.:)
The fighters the Scimitar carried were called "flyers", they were extremely small (about the size of a shuttlepod), they were equipped with a tiny gun and they were appearently intended to be used in an evironment with gravity.
Otherwise they would nove relied so much on an antigrav-system for propulsion.
They were also not used by the Scimitar in the fight against the Enterprise even after the cloak on the ship was disabled and even Shinzon began to loose his cool.
So they were appearently not space-fighters but aerospace fighters intended to operate against planetary targets not ships.
This is further supported by the "Tales of the Dominion War" book which explains how Shinzon got his hands on the Thalaron device.
The Scorpions are used as planetary attack fighters there as well.
Of course since this is soft-canon I understand perfectly that you may wish to ignore this piece of information.
Your view that whoever has fighters must have a carrier ignores the fact that for example on Earth very many nations have fighters but only very few have carriers (GB, US, France) so why would the Federation have to base its fighter operations on the methods of those nations that have fighters?
The "Maquis Fighter" aka "Academy Trainer" aka "Federation Attack Fighter" is a Peregrine-type Courier Shuttle, the "Maquis Raider" is a Ju'day-class Freighter. Sadly, many people have mixed them up due to their somewhat similar general shape and affiliation, so even the Memory Alpha articles about them are a bit untidy and lack a clear connection.
Actually, it would be reasonable for courier ships to have a rather fast warp drive so they can ... you know, do courier runs. This is all very relative, of course, for it's a hard canon fact that the Peregrine was somewhat slower than a Danube-class Runabout, which still has a maximum speed of warp 5.
We don't know at which speed the fleet travelled, but I guess the piggyback warp bubble solution is also practical.
In any case all this does not really matter anything, for we know for a fact that the Peregrine was not conceived as a fighter but as a civilian ship - so why would the Federation build a dedicated carrier when it obviously did not plan on dedicated fighers? This simply does not add up. The most you could argue with is that some of the Peregrines could have been carried in the existing shuttlebays of the capital ships.
Why exactly would the Federation even do such a thing? As we know from the shows, phasers are accurate enough to chirurgically hit any target on the surface without the need to enter a planet's atmosphere. Wide scale destruction can be achieved by photon torpedoes.
Actually, we've seen Runabouts being used for combat in DS9, in lieu of a larger ship. And they outperformed the Peregrines they were attacking.
I think you're misinterpreting starship evolution here. The Federation has always been capable of fitting firepower into compact designs - see the ENT-era Vulcan fighters you linked. The important thing to consider is that the Federation chose to not do so because of several key reasons:
- fighters are even more limited in their scope than the Defiant
- fighters were regarded as "too aggressive" (remember the Defiant "warship" debate?)
- fighters are way too vulnerable and would put Starfleet pilots in unnecessary risk
- fighters are simply not efficient in comparison to larger ships
Not really. Every time fighters showed up on screen we've seen them die in droves, one-shotted by the capital ships. The one and only advantage Starfleet had with the Peregrines is quite simply that they had them and their pilots ready (due to the Peregrine being used as an Academy Trainer) and they needed every single ship for Operation Return. It was an all-or-nothing assault whose outcome would determine the fate of the Quadrant and the Federation as a whole, for if those Dominion reinforcements would have come through, the UFP may as well have surrendered instantly.And I fail to see this supposedly superior maneuverability in civilian couriers that let themselves get disabled even by Runabouts(!).
Actually, I do believe that the torpedoes would be significantly smaller - and less effective - in the same way as comparing a Hellfire missile with an MGM-140 missile.
In any case we have seen what the Peregrines can do on-screen, and frankly, I was not impressed.
I think he was referring to the reformed Vulcans, not the militarized despotists from the ENT era.
As for the Maquis and the Dominion War, those were still not fighters but repurposed shuttlecraft. The Vulcans have since reformed. The Kazon are not part of the Federation and do not really seem to /care much for the loss of life.
I maintain that carriers have no place in the setting. This is not Star Wars. Trek has always been about "naval" style combat, not waves of squishy suicide bombers duking it out. DS9 felt weird enough with the whole "let's copy the Shadow War" going on. It moved away noticeably from the Starfleet we knew from TNG and TOS.
Some like it and deem it "more realistic". I say we don't need to copy the real world this extensively, other franchises do it enough. If you remove the things that set Trek apart from other settings, you're diminishing its uniqueness.
Well, I'd argue that the Romulans have less concern for their Reman troops than Starfleet has for its own.
The same way the civilian pilots that were using these very same shuttles did before. And the Maquis.
In fact, were not the Delta Flyer and the Danubes used for equally long voyages without any problems as well? You're still seeing too much "fighter" where in actuality the Peregrine is a shuttlecraft that might even feature its own replicator.
"They used to shoehorn half a dozen cadets into one of these things for weeks at a time."
- Tom Paris, about the type-IX shuttlecraft
Aside from the Prometheus' ridiculous concept (which sadly still is canon) you cannot really compare the three frigate-sized components of the Prometheus to some tiny shuttle that goes poof as soon as someone so much as locks onto it with a phaser bank.
... actually, didn't the devs put out an in-universe reason for why MVAM isn't available for the Prometheus in STO? Something about Starfleet intentionally removing it?
Oh boy, a carrier that carries carriers...that sounds really reeaallly big.
But I guess you meant fighters.
Anyway outside the box, at least a bit:
There is currently no artillery.
They would be the equivalent of "Archers" (no "Enterprise"-pun intended).
Low on maneuverability with limited self defense at close range.
The reasoning behind why the current Klingon carriers would have such ability would be rather simple:
Planetary assault.
Assuming they actually carry an entire invasion force, like a giant Tarawa filled with angry Klingons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarawa_class_amphibious_assault_ship
why not combine it with some "shore artillery"? The ship could knock out planetary shields from orbit and also destroy anti-air/anti-space batteries that might be used to take down the planetary assault shuttles you want to send down to "secure" a particular colony.
Of course those guns could be used in space combat as well, but only beyond a certain minimum range (say only at ranges 5-15 km)
Hence artillery capability for the Vo'Quv.:)
The issue comes in maintaining such close proximity at such high velocity.
I would note that identical model doesn't equate to identical ships. Also, the ships used by the Maquis were refit with whatever they could obtain and used old rebuilt engines. I can't say for certain if this is the case or not, but it would not be unreasonable for the Maquis to have upgraded the fighters to be warp capable, since they themselves would definitely not have had access to Carriers.
They could be, sure, but it was usually the cargo bays that were converted into triage centers. Also, they wouldn't have been able to evacuate personal from badly damaged ships, since they wouldn't be able to beam anyone aboard due to having their shields up, since they'd be in a combat situation.
I'd like to see where you're getting those numbers. Shuttlecraft, which carry more than 2 people, were only 3-6 meters in length, for example. Some were smaller (such as the shuttles designed to be carried by Defiant-class starships). I would agree that the fighters were larger than the shuttlecraft, but frankly, "over 30 meters long and wide" seems a bit much.
They knew the fleet was out there. They knew they were going into battle. They may not have known the exact position or exact numbers, but they knew it was there.
I said that's a possibility, not a definitive "that's what happened." The existence of federation fighters implies the existence of either federation Carriers or the capability of other ships to act as pseudo-Carriers, but it is only an implication, not an absolute.
However, that really isn't much of an issue when it comes to the carriers in STO, considering that the only support they need is Carriers existing -at all- in the Star Trek universe, which they do, as seen in Nemesis and Voyager in particular. Whether or not someone -likes- them existing is irrelvant. They are canon.
Considering that the Federation was dedicated to peaceful exploration and preferred to avoid war whenever possible, it is not at all inconcievable that the Federation -would- choose not to construct dedicated Carriers. Of course, that would also make it conceivable that the Federation would choose not to construct Fighters, but they did construct them.
However, that really has nothing to do with the existence of KDF Carriers. While the Federation is a strong advocate of peace, the Klingons are strong advocates of war and combat. Even in "peace" times, they still have lots of in-house fighting, and there's really not much in the way of a true "peace time" for the Klingons anyway.
Again, I point to the fact that it is canon for Carriers to exist in the Star Trek universe. The Remans and the Trabe both felt that Carriers were appropriate ships to build, for example.
For the purpose of "Escorts," it is more promising, at least in theory. However, we only know of the prototype in regards to the Prometheus-class, at least "in canon." The purpose of a prototype is to determine if the concept works. Just because it seems "more promising" doesn't mean that it actually is. We don't actually know which way their research goes after the 2370s.
*shakes her head* Actually, I don't think the Kazon ships are ever actually -called- Carriers in the series. But they do carry Kazon Fighters. A Carrier doesn't have to be -effective- to be a Carrier. The Kazon used technology they'd stolen from the Trabe after their successful revolt as well as technology they could manage to steal from anyone else. Doesn't mean they used it well or new how to be particularly quick in replacing their Fighters when they were destroyed.
Even if their primary purpose was for in-atmosphere situations, that doesn't change the fact that the Scimitar was a Carrier equipped with a large supply of Fighters.
Regardless, they weren't used against the Enterprise E in Nemesis largely because Shinzon was cocky and because it wasn't long after the cloak was disabled that the Enterprise rammed the Scimitar, destroying the fighter/shuttle bay. http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Scorpion_class And, they were Attack Fighters.
I never said that Fighters necessitate Carriers. I've only stated that Fighters in interstellar space imply Carriers. I have never stated that the Federation absolutely has Fighters, only that there is reason to suspect they might. In regards to Carriers existing, I have only referenced Carriers that definitely appeared on-screen, such as the Scimitar and the Kazon Carriers.
That may be true. I don't know where you're getting the information, though, so I can't confirm it.
This may be nitpicking, but then, you're sorta nitpicking as well. Runabouts are Runabouts, not "shuttlecrafts" or "shuttlepods." My statement was refering specifically to shuttlecraft (and shuttlepods, really) and not to Runabouts, which were designed more in line with the concepts of larger ships than regular shuttlecraft and shuttlepods, which were designed primarily for short-term and short-range use.
To an extent, yes, but not to the degree of the Defiant-class. If you recall, one of the problems they had with the Defiant-class design was that it was so overloaded with weaponry that it nearly tore itself apart trying to maneuver. Even the "finished" design had to be tweaked by O'Brien in order to work at max efficiency and effectiveness. However, the firepower of a Defiant-class starship could have easily been put into the frame of a Galaxy-class starship due to its size. It simply would've meant replacing much of the interior of the ship that is otherwise intended for civilian/recreational/non-combat use. It would have, however, lacked the extensive maneuverability of the final version of the Defiant-class, which was something particularly desirable when dealing with the Borg, which the Defiant was designed to combat in the first place.
Um, they were primarily one-shotted by dominion ships, which were also devastatingly powerful compared to anything the Federation had fought before. Just because they were being destroyed easily by the dominion ships doesn't mean they were easily destroyed by alpha quadrant ships.
If you're refering to encounters involving the Maquis, well, the Maquis had obtained them -very- second hand, and often were using rebuilt engines that were decades old. Runabouts, themselves, were fairly maneuverable and fairly well armed, without having to worry about trying to obtain equipment from potentially unreliable sources (such as Quark).
Also, many of the pilots of Maquis ships were civilians. They may have been good by civilian standards, but they weren't starfleet trained pilots.
Again, that was against Dominion ships, and Cardassian ships that had likely been upgraded by the Dominion. And we also saw Mirandas do just as poorly. I even recall some BoPs doing just as poorly.
Also, it's been about 40 years since the Dominion War. I'm pretty sure that the technology for Fighters would've advanced a good bit in the meantime.
Aside from their view of Mind Melds, the Vulcans really haven't changed much between the 22nd century and the 24th century.
Regardless, he's arguing that -Fighters- do not exist at all in Star Trek, when they very clearly do.
They're classified as Federation Attack Fighters. They were used as civilian couriers prior to 2370, but the Maquis modified theirs to be more useful beyond simply being couriers, and it's absurd to think that Starfleet didn't modify the ones they were using as well, and they had much better resources for that purpose than the Maquis did.
As I said before, the Vulcans really haven't changed much.
Again, this has little to do with whether or not the -Federation- has Carriers and Fighters, but with whether or not Carriers and Fighters exist -in the Star Trek universe.-
First off, Aircraft Carriers are a part of Naval Combat, so your whole "naval style combat" idiocy is simply that, idiocy.
Second, DS9 may have moved things in a somewhat different direction in certain respects, but it didn't give up anything that makes Star Trek Star Trek. And while it may not be your cup of tea, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is canon and is part of the setting.
Additionally, Voyager returned very much to the feel of TOS in -many- ways and is one example of Carriers existing in the setting. Also, the movie Nemesis is TNG-based and also includes a Carrier.
Carriers have as much place in Star Trek as they do in any other sci-fi series.
Well, there's no indication that the Romulans were actually in charge of the Reman ships, in particular the design of the Scimitar. Without further information on that, which can't be found in "hard canon," there's no way to make a full determination here.
First off, you're mistaken in calling the Fighters "shuttlecrafts."
Second, what you do with cadets doesn't apply to what you do with fighter pilots. Also, the Delta Flyer was specifically designed to be larger and more "livable" than the Class-2 Shuttlecraft.
The Runabouts were also specifically designed for more long-term use.
Even as couriers, the "Peregrine-class" ships would not have been designed as significantly for "comfort" or long-term single-trip use.
The Maquis weren't using the Fighters in that way either. You're getting confused with the raiders, which were the larger ships like Chakotay's.
First off, I referenced it as an example of the Federation testing concepts of using smaller craft for higher maneuverability in combat.
Additionally, you're still being a complete idiot by talking about the fighters going poof so easily. Mirandas and BoPs were being one-shotted by the Dominion ships as well. The Dominion ships were massively more powerful than anything the Federation had encountered before, except for the Borg.
Even Romulan Warbirds and Cardassian Galor-class starships weren't surviving long against Dominion ships. Same with Galaxies and Excelsiors.
Also, since they were utilizing ships that had up until that decade been primarily civilian ships, it's not unreasonable that they would decide to develope much more advanced Fighters for future use, since it would've become obvious that those civilian designed ships weren't good enough.
It's the same reason behind the development of ships like the Defiant-class. They realized their current ships just weren't good enough.
Not saying it isn't true, just saying that the sources on the Scorpion are a bit ... hazy.
Granted. In that case we still have the on-screen statement that Peregrines have been called shuttlecraft.
Actually, Sisko had the fighter waves concentrate on the Cardassian ships - which the Federation had fought before.
It was also a comment about fighters in general, though. As you pointed out, they have been used by other races throughout Trek occasionally - with the same result.
Speculation. When the Maquis was able to procure the same kind of craft used by Starfleet itself, they can just as well get their hands on the same kind of engines. Not to mention the secret support they received from the KDF, including the supply of military-grade cloaking devices.
Point. Although the lead ship of the Peregrine wing was commanded by a veteran Starfleet officer.
Of course, those were extremely old ships, with the Mirandas even having already been relegated to freighter duty at that time.
Just like the technology against fighters, meaning more powerful weapons, more reliable targeting systems and stronger shields.
I do believe a cultural change from an aggressive military regime (ENT, "Awakening") to a peaceful society that does not believe in warships (TNG, "Unification") or the enforcement of peace with weapons (TOS, "Journey to Babel") does implicate coming a long way.
There I agree - just not for the Federation.
They're classified as nothing just because Sisko dubbed them so. It still is just a repurposed civilian shuttlecraft with integral limitations on how much you can do with them. If Starfleet did not bother to equip its Runabouts or other shuttlecraft with better equipment, I don't see why they would do so for the Peregrines - aside from the fact that the entire fleet was put together in a hurry. When you include the travel times I doubt that the engineers spent months pondering about the best refit.
I thought it would be clear from the context that I was referring to the kind of naval combat revolving around the big ships, considering what we have seen in TOS, TNG and every single movie. Apologies if I presumed too much.
I suppose this is a matter of perception.
Not at all. This is from a line in the DS9 episode "The Jem'Hadar". And of course it makes sense. Why would a civilian courier fly a fighter?
Just like a warp-capable courier ship, one would assume.
Comfort? Perhaps not. That said, why would fighter pilots need comfort?
As for the range, I disagree. The sole purpose of a courier is reach and speed, no?
It seems you have watched neither the DS9 episode "Heart of Stone" nor "The Maquis", the latter of which I already mentioned (the dogfight). It is even possible that this was also the ship appearing in "Preemptive Strike", though the evidence is inconclusive - they used the model of a Ju'day, but the interior of a Peregrine cockpit for the shots. Messy Trek consistency again.
Again, the fighters were shot down by Cardassian ships. Maybe you want to re-watch that episode before calling names. Also, I tend to dismiss contradictions, and since the Birds-of-Prey performed much differently in other instances I would give them the benefit of the doubt and explain it with dramatization. As for the Miranda: again, hopelessly outdated.
Or rather that fighters per se weren't good enough. Starfleet fared well for centuries without using waves upon waves of suicide ships, going through several wars and winning them by their proven multi role capital ship doctrine. Added to that comes the fact that both fighters as well as a carrier are utterly useless in peacetime - just like the Defiant which was left in storage until the Dominion War. With the exception that a fighter corps would require constant training, putting an unnecessary strain on Starfleet manpower that could just as well be used elsewhere.
Correction: Not good enough against the Borg. I daresay that fighters would not have fared much better there.
As I said before, the Cardassian ships were likely upgraded by the Dominion.
Personally, I recall it being said by Picard in the movie.
First off, that's not speculation. It's made clear in quite a few episodes dealing with the Maquis, both in TNG and DS9. The Maquis were a "terrorist" organization, composed mostly of civilians. They did not have the resources that Starfleet had. The fighters that the Maquis had were built prior to 2370, when they started being used by Starfleet.
As for the KDF supplying them with cloaking devices, I'm curious about your source for that, as I know that wasn't ever mentioned in TNG or DS9.
I do not think it's accurate to call them an aggressive military regime. There was one leader who leaned that way, but he was also being influenced by the Romulans.
And the Defiant is a -warship- that gets classified as an "escort" because the Federation doesn't like to admit when it designs something purely for war due to their attempts at maintaining at least some semblance of being focused on peace.
Sorry, but no. If they were called Fighters in the series, that makes it "hard canon" that they are Fighters.
That's just it. You're being far too narrow in your reasoning.
No. A courier is not the same as a runabout which is 1) a far newer design than the Fighters/Couriers and 2) built for "mid-range" scientific research and exploration.
I said "long-term," not "long range."
You can't legitimately dismiss the BoP performance as "dramatization" while also condemning the Miranda and Fighter that performed exactly the same as being "crappy."
Also, the Excelsior is not -that- much newer than the Mirandas and much older than the Peregrines, and has been seen to perform quite well.
1) The Defiant wasn't -useless- in peacetime.
2) The Defiant wasn't "left in storage until the Dominion War." For one, it was put into service quite sometime before the Dominion even entered the Alpha Quadrant. Second, the Defiant wasn't actually -complete- when it was put into service. They hadn't been able to get it to work entirely right. O'Brien was the one to finally get it fully functional.
Again, my personal argument is not that the Federation had Carriers, but that Carriers -are- canon to the Star Trek Universe, which is all that matters. The Federation doesn't have Carriers in STO, either, and the devs had made it pretty clear that the federation won't be getting carriers.
Take the time to read the history... I will even link the generic wiki page for you... game is even referenced in TNG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Fleet_Battles
I was mentioning it because Gene actually played and endorsed it in Jacksonville, Florida when i was stationed down there. Somehow in shouting everyone down, you are completely missing the point of carriers. They are a projection of power. Instead of having to commit 30-40 warships in an area, a simple carrier task group of 10-12 ships carries the firepower of that large force because of the fighters and SUPPORT craft it also carries.
Now, the orig question was "Removing carriers- What would you do?" Same answer as before, continue with my Gorn sci or Bird and listen to people cry nerf about them too
With all those turncoat Starfleet officers I wouldn't be so sure about that. The Maquis dished out some real hurt to the Cardassians, which doesn't really seem possible unless they would use military grade equipment. Thanks to DS9 we also know it isn't really hard to procure this kind of stuff if you just know the right people.
Also, your argumentation seems to be based entirely on Memory Alpha. Careful with the interpretation of these articles. Just because the Peregrine did not appear in Starfleet service on screen prior to 2370 that doesn't automatically qualify as a fact.
Apparently it was: http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Maquis#Consolidating_strength
Annexing entire planets sounds pretty aggressive, not to mention the Vulcans almost going to war with Andoria and Earth. And I hope that you don't really believe that only a single person is to blame when his authority is based on his support by the military and his henchmen in the government.
The High Command was dissolved and power transferred to a civilian institution, and centuries later there's no trace of Vulcan warships. That's a pretty major social change there.
Exactly. Which means there would be an even stronger prejudice against fightercraft, whose capabilities are even more focused. You can at least claim that an escort is there to escort. What does a fighter do?
Sorry, but no. If they were designedas Couriers in the series, that makes it "hard canon" that they are Couriers. Regardless of how a character calls them.
Of course you may argue that the fact that they were used as fighters qualifies as sufficient for calling them such, and in a way you're right. But at the same time you cannot deny their origin and say it's wrong when I point this origin out.
In terms of maximum range it boils down the same thing, even if you have to fly longer. And you still owe an explanation for why "long term" is actually a requirement for either a courier or a fighter. And what you actually mean when you say "long term" - for obviously other Peregrine-sized shuttlecraft were fine with housing a dozen people for weeks.
What's the alternative? My reasoning is that I am dismissing contradictory evidence as unreliable. Your reasoning seems to twist what we have seen on-screen into the exact opposite, stating that the Peregrines - which were never designed to perform in such a role in the first place - apparently are oh so superior despite blowing up every time we see them in action? And with this kind of argumentation you have the gall to call me an idiot AND claim that my reasoning is too narrow? Some nerve you've got there.
Unlike the Mirandas and the Peregrines, the Excelsior underwent some major refits, in case you didn't notice the extra impulse engines etc on the Lakota.
Yeah right, they just put her into storage because Starfleet was short of work at the time. :rolleyes:
Says so here, though: http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Defiant_class
And here is the scene in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HilM3M9PWs8#t=04m30s
The shakedown cruise was in 2370. Sisko got the ship in late 2371. Where do you think the Defiant was when Starfleet abandoned the project in 2370? Time paradox?
No matter. I guess our .. perception is just too different. As we likely won't get anywhere here, I'll "abandon ship" at this point, before you find some more nice terms to describe my supposed level of intelligence.
Well there is SOME precedent for there being carriers in the game and in Star Trek, but that's not at issue here. Honestly I've always felt that carriers are not really....Klingon, the idea of keeping 4,000 warriors at bay while sending a small number to fight at a distance that's capable of being out of range for the enemy to fight back just doesn't strike the right cord with me when I think of Klingons.
If anything I would have given carriers to the Federation and heavy battleships/dreadnoughts to the Klingons; however it's not that way and it won't ever be that way.
But to answer the question, I would simply give both sides Dreadnoughts: Massive, heavy armed, heavily armored capital warships that have exceedingly limited maneuverability and speed but can brawl like no other. Give the ships a 5/5 or a 6/4 weapon layouts with console layouts of either 4/2/3 or 3/2/4 with large hulls and 125-150% shields.
With BOs, assuming that Cryptic would want to keep things in line with what is currently in the game, then something like: Cmdr Tac, Lt. Tac; Lt. Cmdr Eng; Lt. Cmdr Sci.
A lumbering giant that if commanded by a competent person would require multiple people to bring down, but then again that's the carrier today....
As for the ship models, the Vo'Quv hull could be re-tasked as a heavy battleship easily enough, but the Kar'Fi......I know that some people like it but person I hate it so I say let it rust....
Actually, while they were the same color as federation phasers, they were frequently referred to as disruptors. The same is true of hand-held cardassian weapons.
There's no less trace of Vulcan warships than there is of Andorian Warships. Both races joined the Federation and the primary fleet of the Federation became Starfleet. If you recall, there were no Andorian, Vulcan, Tellarite, etc. ships in the fleet that fought the Dominion, despite all three races being prominant members of the Federation.
It's pure speculation on your part that the lack of Vulcan "warships" and "fighters" is purely due to a change in the command structure of the Vulcans. Also, the Fighters were created due to Vulcan logic, which was just as much in effect before ENT as it was after ENT.
Except that, 90% of the time, all we even have to go by is what a character calls them. And while they may have been designed as X, that doesn't mean they weren't repurposed as Y, which makes them into Y, in addition to having been X.
I haven't said you're wrong for saying they were created as Couriers. I've said you're wrong for calling the ones used as Fighters "shuttlecraft." And, as I recall, your reference to them being called "shuttlecrafts" is merely a character referring to them as such, the same as the claim that they're fighters.
The cockpit/crew area of a Class-2 Shuttle is larger than that of a Peregrine, from what I recall. You'll need to show a source on that.
Either way, you're referencing "what one character said," which you yourself have stated is "unreliable." Considering Tom Paris' personality, it's likely he was using hyperbole. Granted, that is speculation, but it's -at least- as plausible as the idea that he was being exactly truthful, which is rather unlikely.
Hmm? Care to point to where I said that the Peregrines are superior to anything? I said that Carrier+Fighter has certain advantages in space combat versus simply a single cap ship.
Though, I would note that while we do frequently -see- them explode on screen, there is also a significant amount of time during which they are in combat, without direct support from the main fleet, and surviving rather well. This merely occurs while the screen is showing us inside the Defiant, since the main characters of the series were the crew of the Defiant, not the pilots of the Peregrine Fighters.
While there may have been no obvious changes externally to the Mirandas and the Peregrines, it is highly unlikely that they would still be functioning with the exact same equipment as they had when they were first built.
Yes, it was put in storage, because it wasn't working right. Just because a ship had a "shakedown cruise" doesn't mean it's functioning correctly or complete. The USS Enterprise-B had its shakedown cruise before it was completed. As did the Enterprise NX-01, though that was for more extenuating circumstances than the Enterprise-B.
I am well aware of this page, thank you.
But appearently you did not read it properly:
"With the rebirth of Star Trek as an active film franchise, the 'SFU' started diverging sharply from canon Star Trek, as the producers ignored anything from fan productions, and SFB's own licence did not allow them to use the new material. Due to several factors, the SFU has re-interpreted several things, and in some places only bears a passing resemblance to the show that gave it birth."
Additionally there is another thing to consider that clearly shows how canon, or rather non-canon this game is:
It's based on the old Star Fleet Technical Manual by Franz Joseph.
Even though I'm proud to have two copies of it on my shelf (the first one that I got my hands on is not really pretty but I'd nontheless never throw it away) Roddenberry had a serious agreement with Joseph sometime after the creation of the first movie and as a result deliberatly laid out rules for "The Next Generation" the made the ships in that book non-canon.
So when he stopped endorsing the old Manual, he also stopped endorsing material based on it.
Also several aspects of SFB are actually the exact opposite of canon like the fact that warp-power is produced inside the nacelles not inside a warpcore or that Photon Torpedoes are charged with warp-energy and not actually guided weapons like we saw in Star Trek VI.
So even if he once endorsed it (despite the strange license), that ended abruptly between the first and second movie.
So no, it's non-canon.
As for power-projection:
We had a similar discussion a while back in another thread:
Starfleet is not like several Earth militaries and it does not do power projection since it does not create peace, it enforces piece.
"Power projection (or force projection) is a term used in military and political science to refer to the capacity of a state to conduct expeditionary warfare, i.e. to intimidate other nations and implement policy by means of force, or the threat thereof, in an area distant from its own territory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection
Is this what Starfleet does? I don't think so.
They managed to do it with a Class-( Probe in TNG "Emissary" (not to be confused with the TNG Pilot) so it would not be a problem with a far more sophisticated ship.
Additionally you could simply link the fighters' computer to the larger ship's and there would be no rpoblem coordinating them unless the helmsman of the larger ship did something stupid it would be no more difficult that holding formation.
Sisko was surprised in "The Maquis" Pt1 that they were armed, he was NOT surprised that they were warp-capable.
Besides what purpose would those blue-glowing nacelles serve when they were not warp-engines?
I was referring to the time after the battle.
Besides:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUG8zUHDRic#t=01m20s
The first step was not to convert the cargo, but the shuttlebays.
Particularly in a post-battle situation where transporters would not be reliable you might want to use the more easily accessable shuttlebays instead.
Look at the size of the fighter's cockpit here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jafezSTt9dM#t=07m25s
and here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-8qXl2xEqg
Also note that Bernie Casey, the actor playing Cal Hudson, is 6' 4" (1.93 m) so the cockpit is not for midgets.
And now compare the size of the cockpit with the entire fighter:
http://www.shipschematics.net/startrek/images/maquis/fighter_peregrine.jpg
Their total suprise says otherwise.
They did not construct them.
They constructed "trainers" and "couriers" that were repurposed.
There is no indication they were new-construction for the Dominion War.
One of the intended additions to the Klingon fleet that never made it to the viewscrren was a new kind of BoP for DS9
http://johneaves.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/97/
Because appearently the PTB thought that the Klingons would rather develop a better BoP, they did not entertain the idea of Klingons using fighters in any capacity.
Well the at least one Prometheus was around in Voyager "Engame".
Whether that was the original prototype or not is not clear.
There was also a Propmetheus in "Azati Prime".
Even if we discount this apearance as a feverish nightmare it clearly shows the direction towards escortish ships (is this a real word?) and not towards fighters.
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Kazon_carrier_vessel
They were called carrier in Voyager, however so was the Botany Bay in Star Trek 2, so because something is called carrier does not mean that it has even remotely anything to do with modern naval carriers.
So every ship that has some kind of armed shuttlecraft is a carrier, even when in a battle situation where the ship is at stake noone would bother to launch them, which is the actual mark of a true carrier.
Then the Intrepid would be one, too.
Data referred to them as flyers not fighters.
Also between the disabling of the cloak and the ramming there were 6 minutes of screentime so there would have been enough time particularly since we can clearly see the the bay was manned (Remans running from the saucer coming towards them) and not empty when the Enterprise crashed into it.
Also after his claok was gone, he started to get frustrated, talked through his teeth and also began to scream orders ("Get.The.Cloak.Back!") so appearently he felt a little cast...in bad light without his cloak.
The former was not referred to as a carrier, even through the entire scanning of the ship noone cared for the Scorpions, only for the armaments of the ship.
The latter was a so-called carrier "armed to the teeth" that never launched anything to protect itself, even though in "Basics" Voyager crippled one of them.
So what kind of a carier can it actually be?
I used Runabouts as a reference because they're the only other known "ship" even remotely of a similar size as the fighters/couriers.
take a took at the "shuttlecraft chart"
http://ex-astris-scientia.org/fleet-charts.htm
This is not speculation, this is stated on-screen by the Ferengi arms dealer in "Unification" ("I deal in warships, the Vulcans are pacifists!") and in line with what both Spock and Surak said several times in TOS.
Also, you seem to confuse logic with agenda. It is logical that you build warships when you want to wage war. This, in combination with the Vulcan willingness for sacrifice and to forego personal safety for the greater good, led to the development of these picket ships.
By the time of TOS and TNG, however, the situation has changed:
- The Vulcans are still willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, but they do not believe in arms.
- The Federation believes in arms, but is not quite as willing to throw the lives of their people away.
The "split" of the aforementioned necessity for fighters results in the non-existence of said ships in Starfleet, only strengthened by the fact that Starfleet did well without them for centuries.
Which is similar to the statement that it would supposedly be wrong to still call a truck a truck even if you mount a TOW on its back.
What does the cockpit have to do with this? The type-2 is overall smaller than a Peregrine, regardless of its cockpit size. I hope you did not assume they put a dozen people into the cockpit?
No. I stated it becomes unreliable when it is contradicted.
ad·van·tage
/ædˈvæntɪdʒ, -ˈvɑn-/ [ad-van-tij, -vahn-]
noun, verb, -taged, -taging
#3 superiority or ascendancy (often fol. by over or of): "his height gave him an advantage over his opponent"
#4 a position of superiority (often fol. by over or of ): "their advantage in experienced players"
So you're surmising that because we did not see them explode, they did not explode even though they do every time we do see them? With Sisko being forced to send "wave after wave of his best fighters"?
What leads you to this theory? The Mirandas surely worked fine as freighters, just as the Peregrines worked fine as couriers - though I do indeed agree that the latter were likely upgraded from their civilian counterpart. This only makes their use as fighters look even more inefficient, of course.
Every ship has a shakedown cruise. This is part of normal naval procedure. The fact that Starfleet couldn't be arsed to finish the ship and instead opted to put her away (at least we got that sorted now!) does kinda point to the assumption that they did not really believe the Defiant to be useful in peacetime, no?
Actually a very good liberal/textbook answer and will give you that point since i know which angle you are coming from. In the "Star Trek orig concept" there were no actual Federation Warships because back in the 60s it was determined that 'enlightened/well educated' societies did not fight battles which is why the Federation had very durable ships, they never fired the 'first shot'. The Federation in it's 1960s "enlightened" mentality would not project a show of force which makes your text valid.
On the flip side, you would be crazy not to build carriers and use fighters and drones if for nothing else, cost and efficiency. Replacing fighters is cheap, replacing cruisers and destroyers is not.
And one of us is just going to agree to disagree on SFB since Gene signed my copy and was called it the best "Kick in the butt the Star Trek Fanchise got to keep the dream alive". I don't believe canon is whatever some yahoo writes into the show to save his/her job for ratings. But obviously this comes from growing up on the orig and meeting them all in person so my view is "jaded" from the kids today that think Nemesis and DS9 (although was okay for a generic TV show going against Babylon 5) are the "core" of the orig concept.
Back to somewhat on topic...
Since this is a game, which means like Star Trek Combat Simulator, SFB, etc.. means it is not cannon in your opinion... carriers, borg parts bungie corded to your ship, ESD full of people creating their own uniforms is perfectly acceptable. The only drawback to carriers is that it is only after you create them and put them in game do you realize how incredible they are. Then you have to figure out how to scale them back and balance them with other ships so you basically have to take a ship with the firepower of a large fleet (thru its air wing) and nerf it from hell. Cryptic did a pretty good job on it.
And if they took it away...
I'd fly my gorn sci or bird and listen to people cry about them..
Anyway, try to have fun and remember that this is a game and designed to have something in it for everyone to enjoy and they've done a pretty good job.
Modern suits can remove and replenish upon demand (via mouth niple in helmet, direct intraveinus infusion and catheter) most if not all needs of nourishment and waste removal.
Given that while in space one will not drop out of the sky if halted (or even flying) sleep is a non-issue, especially for a combat trained or experienced pilot. One can sleep while on autopilot in space.
The only concern would be confiment of space in the cockpit for extended time periods cuasing muscle atrophy. If one is in a vessel so long as for this to happen, then they need to get out more.