1) They're suicide missions. Klingons might consider this an honorable death, but the Federation doesn't regularly send it's personnel in to situations where there's 0% chance of coming back. Even in STO, do a study of the mortality rate of your own fighters. It's a hard sell.
2) They provide no tactical, or strategic advantage in combat. Neither in speed, armament, or attack vector. They work as spam in STO only because the targeting computers in STO can only track, and engage one target at a time, unless you use FAW. Whereas a true 24th century targeting computer would probably be able to track, and engage an infinite number of targets at once. So, one quick phaser squirt, on the proportionately weaker shields, and armor of say a scorpion fighter, and no more squadron. They're pretty much dead when they leave the hangar. Life expectancy of less than a second.
3) There are cheaper, safer alternatives, that take up less space. Probes, and drones. We are already witnessing the advent of manned terrestrial attack craft being superseded by unmanned attack craft, here in the 21st century. To place men back into the role of machines is definitely a regurgitation of the evolutionary process.
So no, there shouldn't be any more carriers in this game
!. Considering the motherships don't lose crew for each launch of fighters, one might assume that no one is using manned fighters in sto, rather the fighters are drones and the pilots fly them from the comfort of the mother ship.
2. If fighters were unrealistic in the star trek universe, they would have never been introduced in the series/films. We have many instances of large vessels in the star trek universe having difficulty taking out smaller ones due to the smaller ship's maneuverability and small size making them a difficult target, additionally, small ships seem to be able to produce remarkably durable shields capable of sustaining quite a bit of punishment. We rarely saw fighters, but we regularly saw delta flyer/danube type runabouts and some times even shuttles able to evade fire, take a several hits, and even do significant damage to much larger ships.
of course ships that size cant fly about in space, they wouldn't have enough fuel or air in them SO STOP BEING AN IDIOT AND REALISE, THAT IS WHY WE HAVE CARRIERS so that we can refuel them and give them more air when they land again
If you don't agree with more carriers being added then just say don't write half thought out reasons why not to have them.
also I did not move to England and study at Newcastle university for 5 years for my Doctorate in applied physics to be considered as having "complete ignorance of physics" as you said.
In star trek fictional technology, air isn't really a consideration due to replicator technology, it would fall more to fuel, and considering how far they allowed shuttles/runabouts to go, small ships that were largely empty space with no obvious storage for fuel and magic warp cores that must have been no larger than a toaster... a fighter with a minimal cockpit and all the rest of it devoted to fuel/generators/weapons/shields/etc. should be able to put a runabout/shuttle to shame.
In regard to the carrier's appearance, I would prefer we did not use one of those old, ugly kitbashes. I realize ugly is subjective... but bleh.
More appropriate and future oriented rather than filling the game with old ships that arguably shouldn't still be in service... would be something ody-inspired. Perhaps a ship that would be to the ody as the nebula was to the galaxy. The ody does have a massive shuttlebay on the saucer, so that alone seems to lend itself to carrier duty to me. In fact, i was rather surprised they didn't give the ody a hangar since they've been slapping those on everything and the ody has that big, obvious "hangar."
The jupiter could be used as well, it is a rather hulking ship that would seem to naturally fill that roll, but didn't they say they were saving the jupiter and the typhoon for when they give full admiral as a rank?... so that would be waiting a while... but either way, i agree it would be nice to have a federation looking carrier. Which, as suggested earlier, could be accomplished by simply offering the skin as a choice for the atrox.
Star trek ships don't really run on fuel they run on power generated from warp cores. Fuel is simply used to generate power in case you didn't know. There are still things needed for upkeep on warpcores but shuttles/fighters cores are mostly lower class ones that are only meant short distances compared to the distances you expect a starship to travel.
and thats called "your own complete ignorance of physics".
the smallest any combat craft will ever get in space will still be the size of a naval frigate of today.
if you think starwars or galactica style fighters will or can ever exist, you are if not totally ignorant, utterly delusional.
Smallest any combat craft will ever get in space. . . Considering how small a weapon is In the 21st century I have to ask, why you would think this?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I have wanted to question this for some time. Some people say that unless you are altering the medium. (Going from water to air.) fighters are useless as you can just use a ship for the same effect.
Smaller ships like shuttles do have their use - transport to place where teleporters don't work, or sending small away mission where sending bigger vessel would be overkill and things like that.
Except I see a few things that would make a space fighter a viable option.
First the square cubed law. A big ship needs massively bigger thrust to move and change direction over a small one. So a fighter sized craft can be faster than a large one and alter direction easier.
Bigger ship means bigger power systems, which can generate more power/stronger warp fields/more power to engines etc. Bigger ship means more space for computers and sensor systems, therefore better detection, targeting systems, hacking/disabling enemy ship systems.
In the end, everything is dependent on amount of power you can generate. Sure, you can miniaturize some technology to have similar performance with reduced size, but you'll always get stuck on weapons/shields - and fighters really can't compare to bigger ships here, both due to amount of power they can generate and space to fit it. Shield generators/phaser banks/torpedo systems on larger ships are almost as big as small shuttles, and warp cores span through multiple decks. And if fusion generators on starships are similar size as standard fission reactors we have now...that's big.
I simply see no way how even a swarm of such fighters could even make a dent in larger starship's shields, let alone survive the approach.
Star trek ships don't really run on fuel they run on power generated from warp cores. Fuel is simply used to generate power in case you didn't know. There are still things needed for upkeep on warpcores but shuttles/fighters cores are mostly lower class ones that are only meant short distances compared to the distances you expect a starship to travel.
If this was directed at me- star trek ships do run on fuel in the form of matter and antimatter, so that would still be a consideration for smaller vessels, particularly as antimatter requires special containment which one would expect to take up some space.
I was speaking more to the seeming magic of shuttle type vessels in star trek, as large ships have massive guns and warp cores that take up several stories, and each torpedo is the size of a casket. Yet a shuttle has torpedoes and phasers capable of damaging those large ships, shields capable of taking quite the beating, has a warp core capable of similar speeds, and sufficient fuel to last through battles and to travel for, if I remember correctly, at least several weeks... and travel great distances. And they keep all of this where? Shuttles are clearly made using tardis technology. If you look at how big they appear on the outside, and how much room the crew has to move around in on the inside, they keep all of this, the phasers, the torpedoes, the antimatter and associated containment, the warp core, etc. etc. it's all in the walls. Walls apparently not much thicker than the walls of a typical house. Clearly, I could use star trek technology to turn my bedroom into quite the kickass. How? Because in addition to walls, I also have a closet, just imagine the uber weapon/core/torps/technobable I could fit in there!
Bigger ship means bigger power systems, which can generate more power/stronger warp fields/more power to engines etc. Bigger ship means more space for computers and sensor systems, therefore better detection, targeting systems, hacking/disabling enemy ship systems.
In the end, everything is dependent on amount of power you can generate. Sure, you can miniaturize some technology to have similar performance with reduced size, but you'll always get stuck on weapons/shields - and fighters really can't compare to bigger ships here, both due to amount of power they can generate and space to fit it. Shield generators/phaser banks/torpedo systems on larger ships are almost as big as small shuttles, and warp cores span through multiple decks. And if fusion generators on starships are similar size as standard fission reactors we have now...that's big.
I simply see no way how even a swarm of such fighters could even make a dent in larger starship's shields, let alone survive the approach.
Wait so now your fighters are to weak for real use argument has failed you just turned it into turned into oh we cant have them because they are too overpowered?
Small ships don't need powerful shields and weapons they are fast and hard to shoot at and with a swarm of 10-20 fighters you can easily kill a bigger ship, you people need to understand that bigger ships are not always better there was that 1 task force of British battleships in ww2 that were sunk by the Japanese using only fighters the British lost 3 battleships and 4 destroyers and the Japanese lost only 3 fighters
You don't need power if you outnumber the enemy 20-1
Small ships don't need powerful shields and weapons they are fast and hard to shoot at and with a swarm of 10-20 fighters you can easily kill a bigger ship,
They ain't hard to shoot really. Bigger ships can hold strong computers which can easily predict movement, it's up to tac officer to use such data efficiently. I say one torpedo spread with proximity detonation would wipe out entire squadron easily.
you people need to understand that bigger ships are not always better there was that 1 task force of British battleships in ww2 that were sunk by the Japanese using only fighters the British lost 3 battleships and 4 destroyers and the Japanese lost only 3 fighters
WW2 battleship didn't have force fields (shields) to stop torpedos. They didn't have automated targeting systems which allow SINGLE person on the bridge to target multiple opponents at once. Their AA weapons didn't have range of tens of thousands of kilometers and had to rely on sight to target their opponents.
Comparison like that just doesn't work. In Star Trek, smaller ships will defeat bigger only due to big difference in technology levels or some gimmick ability that was never encountered before (like Breen ship weapons in Dominion War).
you people need to understand that bigger ships are not always better there was that 1 task force of British battleships in ww2 that were sunk by the Japanese using only fighters the British lost 3 battleships and 4 destroyers and the Japanese lost only 3 fighters
All ships in British force in the Battle of Kuantan were outdated in terms of aerial defense, but faced by airplanes far superior to anything that Allies had in early WWII.
They were also armored with artillery of enemy capital ships in mind, not to endure aerial strikes.
In comparison, most of aerial strikes made by Japanese against US ships in late war, when radars played much bigger role and anti-aircraft defence was simply better, not to mention steel and concrete armored decks, were not successful. Not even kamikaze strikes.
Not like talking about realism makes sense when compared to Star Trek, because it is a space opera, but space fighters makes little sense in cosmic battles.
About the only situation where fighters make any sense is when you need units capable of both atmospheric and space flight. For planetary defense, for example.
But then, these would not be a real space fighters, but rather glorified astroplanes. And all combat ships in ST are already capable of atmospherical flight, so not really a reason do to so.
As for how survivable are fighters in Star Trek, well...
Fire at Will?
It's only a mmo game but even here fighters are kamikaze business.
Also, in terms of Star Trek, the bigger you are, the more survivable you will be because you will have bigger warp core and stronger shield generators.
IF it seems impossible then we can always just say Q did it to make space combat more interesting, but either way Carriers and fighters are in this game already so your argument won't change things
if a warp core has enough power to get a ship to warp don't you think when it is not at warp it would have all of that power to send to weapons and shields since it wouldn't take much engine power to keep a small ship flying?
AND if you still don't think it is possible then I don't think living snowmen and gingerbread men are possible
SO think before you start crying Realism about startrek
2. The only canon examples of a fighter in Star Trek is the Scorpion from Nemesis. Which was a poorly conceived plot device to facilitate Data, and Picard's escape. And the Jem Hadar, who's purpose is to fight, and die for the Dominion, using superior numbers. The next closest things were the planetary defense force that tried to make an attack run on the Borg cube, and were summarily, dispatched in one or two shots, if I remember correctly.
Apparently you never watched Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, specifically "The Maquis", which introduced the concept of converting the Peregrine-class courier vessel into a fighter, and "Sacrifice of Angels", where the Federation borrowed the idea from the Maquis and mass-produced the Federation attack fighter, which is exactly what STO's Peregrine fighter is.
Why not just put shuttle size warp cores in starships?
Power requirements. Shuttles and fighters in Star Trek are orders of magnitude smaller than capital ships, meaning less mass, meaning less power is needed to move them.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
1. This is just an unsubstantiated argument, for an undisputable point. But I'll indulge you. What's the point of flying an unmanned drone into combat, if it's going to be destroyed as soon as it leaves the hangar?
2. The only canon examples of a fighter in Star Trek is the Scorpion from Nemesis. Which was a poorly conceived plot device to facilitate Data, and Picard's escape. And the Jem Hadar, who's purpose is to fight, and die for the Dominion, using superior numbers. The next closest things were the planetary defense force that tried to make an attack run on the Borg cube, and were summarily, dispatched in one or two shots, if I remember correctly.
Maneuverability is not a factor, as you cannot outfly faster-than-light targeting slaved to computers that are trillions of teraflops more powerful than today's machines. The physics of 24th century combat dictate that you ARE going to get hit.
The warp core of a modern Starship is several decks high, with an entire engineering department running them. This is what delivers power to not only run the entire ship, but provide power to it's shielding, and weapons through the EPS manifold. Shuttles, and fighters do not have warp cores that are several decks high. They don't have an entire engineering department managing them. It's because of this that I have a problem with shuttles being warp capable at all. Why not just put shuttle size warp cores in starships? Anyway, it would only be logical then to assume that a cruiser size vessel has a proportionately larger power reservoir to draw on, when compared to fighters and other such craft. Ergo, smaller craft simply can't generate the power needed to penetrate the larger vessel's shielding, nor generate enough power to bolster their own shields from an attack by the significantly, larger craft, armed with proportionately, stronger weapons.
I'm sorry but wasn't it YOU that started the whole FIGHTERS thing?
1. This is just an unsubstantiated argument, for an undisputable point. But I'll indulge you. What's the point of flying an unmanned drone into combat, if it's going to be destroyed as soon as it leaves the hangar?
2. The only canon examples of a fighter in Star Trek is the Scorpion from Nemesis. Which was a poorly conceived plot device to facilitate Data, and Picard's escape. And the Jem Hadar, who's purpose is to fight, and die for the Dominion, using superior numbers. The next closest things were the planetary defense force that tried to make an attack run on the Borg cube, and were summarily, dispatched in one or two shots, if I remember correctly.
Maneuverability is not a factor, as you cannot outfly faster-than-light targeting slaved to computers that are trillions of teraflops more powerful than today's machines. The physics of 24th century combat dictate that you ARE going to get hit.
The warp core of a modern Starship is several decks high, with an entire engineering department running them. This is what delivers power to not only run the entire ship, but provide power to it's shielding, and weapons through the EPS manifold. Shuttles, and fighters do not have warp cores that are several decks high. They don't have an entire engineering department managing them. It's because of this that I have a problem with shuttles being warp capable at all. Why not just put shuttle size warp cores in starships? Anyway, it would only be logical then to assume that a cruiser size vessel has a proportionately larger power reservoir to draw on, when compared to fighters and other such craft. Ergo, smaller craft simply can't generate the power needed to penetrate the larger vessel's shielding, nor generate enough power to bolster their own shields from an attack by the significantly, larger craft, armed with proportionately, stronger weapons.
1. The point is that fighters can be quite deadly as demonstrated in the shows when jem hadar fighters were quite effective despite being easily dispatched once starfleet had learned how to prevent their weapons from passing straight through their shields. If one is launching drones and not manned fighters, then the "suicide of the entire crew" thing isn't an issue. And considering that these carriers apparently have the onboard supplies to manufacture these drones endlessly and quickly, the instapop of many of their drones isn't too big of an issue.
2. You are right, fighters should not be able to evade the fire of capital ships, however, we have several instances documented in the show of the fire of large ships missing a target, and not simply because something was out of alignment or some sort of technobable sabotage. So there is canon support for small vessels using evasion and maneuverability to their advantage, especially if they get in close and fly where the ship simply can not fire on them as the defiant did with the negvar in the mirrior universe episodes of ds9.
And yes, shuttles make use of miraculous tardis technology that is for some reason not being applied to their motherships. And we have seen in various episodes where shuttles/runabouts like danubes and deltaflyers could take a significant beating and dish out some decent punishment... of course in the next episode they might be destroyed by a single shot, depending on what suited the writer's plot.
And that last bit brings us back around to the point that "logic" doesn't really work when trying to apply it to the show or this game because it works however it needs to work to facilitate what the writers/creators/whoever wants.
Apparently you never watched Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, specifically "The Maquis", which introduced the concept of converting the Peregrine-class courier vessel into a fighter, and "Sacrifice of Angels", where the Federation borrowed the idea from the Maquis and mass-produced the Federation attack fighter, which is exactly what STO's Peregrine fighter is.
Canon. Deal with it.
Primary purpose of Peregrine was to deal with Attack Ships, which had tendency to ram into anything their size and bigger, thus instakilling ship crew which was far harder to replace in the time of full blown war. Since there wasn't big difference in sizes between the two, and therefore small difference in weapon/shield power, squadron of Peregrines had fair chance to destroy the bugger relatively fast without suffering (much) casualties.
Peregrines could also be deployed to defend smaller colonies without need to assign bigger ships (which became practically impossible in the later stages of war). They could deal with smaller vessels like pirate ships using the opportunity of war chaos to raid such places. They were definitely not intended to fight anything bigger than frigate, since difference in weapon/shield power would be too big and would allow bigger vessel to whittle them 1 by 1 if needed. Taking 1/10 of shield of big ship doesn't reduce his ability to fight back. Taking down 1 of 10 Peregrines directly effects their ability to deal damage.
So reading again I have a few bits to input again.
If a fighter can't stand against a larger ship at all. Why arm them at all?
Why did the maquis arm tiny couriers instead of a nice big freighter to use as a pocket warship?
And why would the federation launch fighters or drone when they can be shot down.
Same reason modern carriers launch fighters now. They can hurt an enemy and hopefully get out. Why drones? Because even if the anti fighter defenses are too thick for the flight to survive the pilot did.
Why use them if they can get shot down immediately?
1) Projected firepower. Numerous sources firing as well as the mothership can better overwhelm shields and hull.
2) Every shot against a fighter is one not against the mother ship or other protected asset.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
So reading again I have a few bits to input again.
If a fighter can't stand against a larger ship at all. Why arm them at all?
Why did the maquis arm tiny couriers instead of a nice big freighter to use as a pocket warship?
Why to build gunboats when they can't harm capital ships? And they never were able to do so in naval warfare.
The same reason why IRL we have small patrols ships, instead of navies running everything with their biggest guns.
For patrol and police duties, for example. Or taking out cargo crafts.
So reading again I have a few bits to input again.
If a fighter can't stand against a larger ship at all. Why arm them at all?
I did answer that in my previous posts. Defense of smaller colonies that usually ain't threatened by anything bigger than small pirate vessels.
Why did the maquis arm tiny couriers instead of a nice big freighter to use as a pocket warship?
Because it's hard to get hand on any type of bigger ship and adequate armament without drawing too much attention. And those would require lot of refitting that would probably require proper shipyard. And then again, they probably still wouldn't stand up against proper military ship of the same size.
And why would the federation launch fighters or drone when they can be shot down.
Everything can be shot down, it's just easier with Star Trek technology level.
Same reason modern carriers launch fighters now. They can hurt an enemy and hopefully get out. Why drones? Because even if the anti fighter defenses are too thick for the flight to survive the pilot did.
Why use them if they can get shot down immediately?
1) Projected firepower. Numerous sources firing as well as the mothership can better overwhelm shields and hull.
2) Every shot against a fighter is one not against the mother ship or other protected asset.
It can also be argued that space used for hangar bays could be better used for more weapons/shield generators/power reactors/sensors/point defense systems etc.
People don't seem to understand that in "Sacrifice of Angels", Sisko had to cobble together whatever defense forces he could muster. It wasn't the textbook Starfleet SOP on how to retake a starbase.
Wait, they actually said onscreen that fighters aren't Starfleet SOP?
Frankly having a full up Fed carrier, really isn't in the Federation doctrine. I mean they are not about sending fighters into full fleet combat all that often because of the high attrition rate. KDF really doesn't give two hoots. Infact dying gloriously in combat like that is a high honor.
It's about doctrine. Federation only uses fighters like that for customs and system patrol. I mean there are so many planets in the federation, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to build and crew enough cruisers or even escorts to patrol EVERY star system.
Now building cheap fighters for system patrol far from the enemy and you might have to deal with smugglers and the like, makes sense to place a squadron of Peregrine or delta flyers.
They are cheap to build, easy to maintain and require small customs crews compared to say a 50 or 80 man ship which there can be better uses for those ships.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
In regard to the carrier's appearance, I would prefer we did not use one of those old, ugly kitbashes. I realize ugly is subjective... but bleh.
More appropriate and future oriented rather than filling the game with old ships that arguably shouldn't still be in service... would be something ody-inspired. Perhaps a ship that would be to the ody as the nebula was to the galaxy. The ody does have a massive shuttlebay on the saucer, so that alone seems to lend itself to carrier duty to me. In fact, i was rather surprised they didn't give the ody a hangar since they've been slapping those on everything and the ody has that big, obvious "hangar."
The jupiter could be used as well, it is a rather hulking ship that would seem to naturally fill that roll, but didn't they say they were saving the jupiter and the typhoon for when they give full admiral as a rank?... so that would be waiting a while... but either way, i agree it would be nice to have a federation looking carrier. Which, as suggested earlier, could be accomplished by simply offering the skin as a choice for the atrox.
Lol, personally, I find most of the newer style ships ugly as sin, and the older ones look far better, especially the TOS Constitution, TMP-era Enterprise class, and the Excelsior. I like more angled-looking ships, rather than elongated or bulbous.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
If federation doctrine was to be scared of Starfleet officers dying they wouldn't be sending out maned ships to explore the galaxy.
-facepalm- you completely missed the whole argument. Went right over your head. The Federation do not like to use high attrition units AKA space fighters in Star Trek age. They are purely low cost attrition warfare units. You send out fighters on an attack mission not a whole lot of them are coming home that night.
Why the federation doesn't like using them in all up battles. It's why they prefer starships with more redundancy, and bigger crews that can stay in action longer and have a higher chance of bringing their crews back alive.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
Comments
!. Considering the motherships don't lose crew for each launch of fighters, one might assume that no one is using manned fighters in sto, rather the fighters are drones and the pilots fly them from the comfort of the mother ship.
2. If fighters were unrealistic in the star trek universe, they would have never been introduced in the series/films. We have many instances of large vessels in the star trek universe having difficulty taking out smaller ones due to the smaller ship's maneuverability and small size making them a difficult target, additionally, small ships seem to be able to produce remarkably durable shields capable of sustaining quite a bit of punishment. We rarely saw fighters, but we regularly saw delta flyer/danube type runabouts and some times even shuttles able to evade fire, take a several hits, and even do significant damage to much larger ships.
In star trek fictional technology, air isn't really a consideration due to replicator technology, it would fall more to fuel, and considering how far they allowed shuttles/runabouts to go, small ships that were largely empty space with no obvious storage for fuel and magic warp cores that must have been no larger than a toaster... a fighter with a minimal cockpit and all the rest of it devoted to fuel/generators/weapons/shields/etc. should be able to put a runabout/shuttle to shame.
More appropriate and future oriented rather than filling the game with old ships that arguably shouldn't still be in service... would be something ody-inspired. Perhaps a ship that would be to the ody as the nebula was to the galaxy. The ody does have a massive shuttlebay on the saucer, so that alone seems to lend itself to carrier duty to me. In fact, i was rather surprised they didn't give the ody a hangar since they've been slapping those on everything and the ody has that big, obvious "hangar."
The jupiter could be used as well, it is a rather hulking ship that would seem to naturally fill that roll, but didn't they say they were saving the jupiter and the typhoon for when they give full admiral as a rank?... so that would be waiting a while... but either way, i agree it would be nice to have a federation looking carrier. Which, as suggested earlier, could be accomplished by simply offering the skin as a choice for the atrox.
Smallest any combat craft will ever get in space. . . Considering how small a weapon is In the 21st century I have to ask, why you would think this?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Smaller ships like shuttles do have their use - transport to place where teleporters don't work, or sending small away mission where sending bigger vessel would be overkill and things like that.
Bigger ship means bigger power systems, which can generate more power/stronger warp fields/more power to engines etc. Bigger ship means more space for computers and sensor systems, therefore better detection, targeting systems, hacking/disabling enemy ship systems.
In the end, everything is dependent on amount of power you can generate. Sure, you can miniaturize some technology to have similar performance with reduced size, but you'll always get stuck on weapons/shields - and fighters really can't compare to bigger ships here, both due to amount of power they can generate and space to fit it. Shield generators/phaser banks/torpedo systems on larger ships are almost as big as small shuttles, and warp cores span through multiple decks. And if fusion generators on starships are similar size as standard fission reactors we have now...that's big.
I simply see no way how even a swarm of such fighters could even make a dent in larger starship's shields, let alone survive the approach.
If this was directed at me- star trek ships do run on fuel in the form of matter and antimatter, so that would still be a consideration for smaller vessels, particularly as antimatter requires special containment which one would expect to take up some space.
I was speaking more to the seeming magic of shuttle type vessels in star trek, as large ships have massive guns and warp cores that take up several stories, and each torpedo is the size of a casket. Yet a shuttle has torpedoes and phasers capable of damaging those large ships, shields capable of taking quite the beating, has a warp core capable of similar speeds, and sufficient fuel to last through battles and to travel for, if I remember correctly, at least several weeks... and travel great distances. And they keep all of this where? Shuttles are clearly made using tardis technology. If you look at how big they appear on the outside, and how much room the crew has to move around in on the inside, they keep all of this, the phasers, the torpedoes, the antimatter and associated containment, the warp core, etc. etc. it's all in the walls. Walls apparently not much thicker than the walls of a typical house. Clearly, I could use star trek technology to turn my bedroom into quite the kickass. How? Because in addition to walls, I also have a closet, just imagine the uber weapon/core/torps/technobable I could fit in there!
Again, tardis technology... obviously.
Small ships don't need powerful shields and weapons they are fast and hard to shoot at and with a swarm of 10-20 fighters you can easily kill a bigger ship, you people need to understand that bigger ships are not always better there was that 1 task force of British battleships in ww2 that were sunk by the Japanese using only fighters the British lost 3 battleships and 4 destroyers and the Japanese lost only 3 fighters
You don't need power if you outnumber the enemy 20-1
They ain't hard to shoot really. Bigger ships can hold strong computers which can easily predict movement, it's up to tac officer to use such data efficiently. I say one torpedo spread with proximity detonation would wipe out entire squadron easily.
WW2 battleship didn't have force fields (shields) to stop torpedos. They didn't have automated targeting systems which allow SINGLE person on the bridge to target multiple opponents at once. Their AA weapons didn't have range of tens of thousands of kilometers and had to rely on sight to target their opponents.
Comparison like that just doesn't work. In Star Trek, smaller ships will defeat bigger only due to big difference in technology levels or some gimmick ability that was never encountered before (like Breen ship weapons in Dominion War).
All ships in British force in the Battle of Kuantan were outdated in terms of aerial defense, but faced by airplanes far superior to anything that Allies had in early WWII.
They were also armored with artillery of enemy capital ships in mind, not to endure aerial strikes.
In comparison, most of aerial strikes made by Japanese against US ships in late war, when radars played much bigger role and anti-aircraft defence was simply better, not to mention steel and concrete armored decks, were not successful. Not even kamikaze strikes.
Not like talking about realism makes sense when compared to Star Trek, because it is a space opera, but space fighters makes little sense in cosmic battles.
About the only situation where fighters make any sense is when you need units capable of both atmospheric and space flight. For planetary defense, for example.
But then, these would not be a real space fighters, but rather glorified astroplanes. And all combat ships in ST are already capable of atmospherical flight, so not really a reason do to so.
As for how survivable are fighters in Star Trek, well...
Fire at Will?
It's only a mmo game but even here fighters are kamikaze business.
Also, in terms of Star Trek, the bigger you are, the more survivable you will be because you will have bigger warp core and stronger shield generators.
if a warp core has enough power to get a ship to warp don't you think when it is not at warp it would have all of that power to send to weapons and shields since it wouldn't take much engine power to keep a small ship flying?
AND if you still don't think it is possible then I don't think living snowmen and gingerbread men are possible
SO think before you start crying Realism about startrek
Apparently you never watched Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, specifically "The Maquis", which introduced the concept of converting the Peregrine-class courier vessel into a fighter, and "Sacrifice of Angels", where the Federation borrowed the idea from the Maquis and mass-produced the Federation attack fighter, which is exactly what STO's Peregrine fighter is.
Canon. Deal with it.
Power requirements. Shuttles and fighters in Star Trek are orders of magnitude smaller than capital ships, meaning less mass, meaning less power is needed to move them.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
I'm sorry but wasn't it YOU that started the whole FIGHTERS thing?
1. The point is that fighters can be quite deadly as demonstrated in the shows when jem hadar fighters were quite effective despite being easily dispatched once starfleet had learned how to prevent their weapons from passing straight through their shields. If one is launching drones and not manned fighters, then the "suicide of the entire crew" thing isn't an issue. And considering that these carriers apparently have the onboard supplies to manufacture these drones endlessly and quickly, the instapop of many of their drones isn't too big of an issue.
2. You are right, fighters should not be able to evade the fire of capital ships, however, we have several instances documented in the show of the fire of large ships missing a target, and not simply because something was out of alignment or some sort of technobable sabotage. So there is canon support for small vessels using evasion and maneuverability to their advantage, especially if they get in close and fly where the ship simply can not fire on them as the defiant did with the negvar in the mirrior universe episodes of ds9.
And yes, shuttles make use of miraculous tardis technology that is for some reason not being applied to their motherships. And we have seen in various episodes where shuttles/runabouts like danubes and deltaflyers could take a significant beating and dish out some decent punishment... of course in the next episode they might be destroyed by a single shot, depending on what suited the writer's plot.
And that last bit brings us back around to the point that "logic" doesn't really work when trying to apply it to the show or this game because it works however it needs to work to facilitate what the writers/creators/whoever wants.
Primary purpose of Peregrine was to deal with Attack Ships, which had tendency to ram into anything their size and bigger, thus instakilling ship crew which was far harder to replace in the time of full blown war. Since there wasn't big difference in sizes between the two, and therefore small difference in weapon/shield power, squadron of Peregrines had fair chance to destroy the bugger relatively fast without suffering (much) casualties.
Peregrines could also be deployed to defend smaller colonies without need to assign bigger ships (which became practically impossible in the later stages of war). They could deal with smaller vessels like pirate ships using the opportunity of war chaos to raid such places. They were definitely not intended to fight anything bigger than frigate, since difference in weapon/shield power would be too big and would allow bigger vessel to whittle them 1 by 1 if needed. Taking 1/10 of shield of big ship doesn't reduce his ability to fight back. Taking down 1 of 10 Peregrines directly effects their ability to deal damage.
If a fighter can't stand against a larger ship at all. Why arm them at all?
Why did the maquis arm tiny couriers instead of a nice big freighter to use as a pocket warship?
And why would the federation launch fighters or drone when they can be shot down.
Same reason modern carriers launch fighters now. They can hurt an enemy and hopefully get out. Why drones? Because even if the anti fighter defenses are too thick for the flight to survive the pilot did.
Why use them if they can get shot down immediately?
1) Projected firepower. Numerous sources firing as well as the mothership can better overwhelm shields and hull.
2) Every shot against a fighter is one not against the mother ship or other protected asset.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Why to build gunboats when they can't harm capital ships? And they never were able to do so in naval warfare.
The same reason why IRL we have small patrols ships, instead of navies running everything with their biggest guns.
For patrol and police duties, for example. Or taking out cargo crafts.
I did answer that in my previous posts. Defense of smaller colonies that usually ain't threatened by anything bigger than small pirate vessels.
Because it's hard to get hand on any type of bigger ship and adequate armament without drawing too much attention. And those would require lot of refitting that would probably require proper shipyard. And then again, they probably still wouldn't stand up against proper military ship of the same size.
Everything can be shot down, it's just easier with Star Trek technology level.
It can also be argued that space used for hangar bays could be better used for more weapons/shield generators/power reactors/sensors/point defense systems etc.
Wait, they actually said onscreen that fighters aren't Starfleet SOP?
It's about doctrine. Federation only uses fighters like that for customs and system patrol. I mean there are so many planets in the federation, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to build and crew enough cruisers or even escorts to patrol EVERY star system.
Now building cheap fighters for system patrol far from the enemy and you might have to deal with smugglers and the like, makes sense to place a squadron of Peregrine or delta flyers.
They are cheap to build, easy to maintain and require small customs crews compared to say a 50 or 80 man ship which there can be better uses for those ships.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
If federation doctrine was to be scared of Starfleet officers dying they wouldn't be sending out maned ships to explore the galaxy.
Lol, personally, I find most of the newer style ships ugly as sin, and the older ones look far better, especially the TOS Constitution, TMP-era Enterprise class, and the Excelsior. I like more angled-looking ships, rather than elongated or bulbous.
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
-facepalm- you completely missed the whole argument. Went right over your head. The Federation do not like to use high attrition units AKA space fighters in Star Trek age. They are purely low cost attrition warfare units. You send out fighters on an attack mission not a whole lot of them are coming home that night.
Why the federation doesn't like using them in all up battles. It's why they prefer starships with more redundancy, and bigger crews that can stay in action longer and have a higher chance of bringing their crews back alive.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1