why no single fighters?

[Unicron]

They inflicted surgical strikes on the enemy fleet, though it's very difficult to tell how effective they were. They were a distraction because they were intelligently controlled and coordinated, which is impossible to do with an unthinking missile. To use a different example, look at the opening fight from "Preemptive Strike." The Maquis had Gul Evek's ship easily outmatched and presumably ambushed it. They eliminated the Galor's more powerful weaponry as an advantage through tactics.

That's the key difference for me. Missiles are largely single use weapons, and in some instances they might be a better choice. But fighters are multipurpose craft that can handle other missions. It's the same reason we use fighters as part of our defense today, instead of simply spending the same resources on lots and lots of SAMs. Besides, even if we accept that a Trek warship can so easily target and destroy enemy small craft, it could do the same to a swarm of missiles.

 

[Deimos Anomaly]

A lot of the way ships fight in ST is a lot different from fighting ships of today.

For example all the weapons on the ship appear to be directly controlled from the tactical console on the bridge. There are no gunnery crews in/near the actual weapons, aiming, firing them etc.

Now, it may be possible for the guns of real ships today to be remotely aimed and fired from the bridge, but that's typically not how it's done. Each gun or turret has its own crew or at the very minimum its own singular gunner controlling it but these are all under the direction of a commander in a remote part of the ship, probably on the bridge.

Other franchises like SW for example also more closely mirror the methodology of ships today with multiple individual weapons turrets each controlled by their own individual crew or gunner, but under the direction of someone presumably on the bridge.

I'm not sure which way is really the best.

 

[kv1at3485]

They inflicted surgical strikes on the enemy fleet, though it's very difficult to tell how effective they were. They were a distraction because they were intelligently controlled and coordinated, which is impossible to do with an unthinking missile.

That's putting it generously. Nine waves of nothing and a foe whistling and twiddling his thumbs points to ineffectiveness. The distraction was only a distraction because the tools being used couldn't do anything more. Actually starting to clear away the offending ships would have been far more conductive to the objective at hand, and Sisko didn't need to sacrifice sentients (at least not initially) to do that.

With the expert systems they can whip up, autonomous 'intelligently controlled and coordinated' is not beyond their capability. If anything, their computer technology is overkill when it comes to replicating the brain-dead tactics of the average human.

ST is in one of those positions where their technology allows the hot-seat, tips-of-the-spear units to be totally automated and tactically autonomous. The planes of contact should be dominated by the speedy decision making cycles and reaction times of computers. This is where the missiles come in: they only need somebody to designate something (or a potential group of targets) to hit.

Which is what the humans do, sitting somewhat further back where milliseconds don't mean the difference between hitting/outmanoeuvring and being hit/outmanoeuvred, and where human creativity actually has the time to generate qualitatively superior decisions which aren't based on totally out of date information.


Assuming that one demands we keep to the conceit that there is no way that an expert system can practically match a human intellect.

To use a different example, look at the opening fight from "Preemptive Strike." The Maquis had Gul Evek's ship easily outmatched and presumably ambushed it. They eliminated the Galor's more powerful weaponry as an advantage through tactics.

Interesting example. If the draft script is correct, the Maquis used their craft essentially as missile busses, and apparently didn't have enough missiles to finish the job outright. After which they reverted to doing the sort of graceful passes we all know and love from the War.


As for how they got the one-up on the Galor, there's nothing there to suggest it had anything to do with the attack being mounted by small ships. I'd wager that the Maquis simply took advantage of the classic Trek handicap: slow reaction time of their target due to a lack of automation. (eg. It takes ten seconds for the sensor officer say that unknowns are inbound and the watch officer to start going on alert... which by that time its all over.)

That's the key difference for me. Missiles are largely single use weapons, and in some instances they might be a better choice. But fighters are multipurpose craft that can handle other missions. It's the same reason we use fighters as part of our defense today, instead of simply spending the same resources on lots and lots of SAMs.

This is where the 'large number of smallest viable interstellar warships' comes in. For example, the Klingons had the spirit of the idea with their Bird-of-Prey. Although like the Defiant, the practical implementation still needs a lot of work.


The only role that that concept would have problems fulfilling is close air support. If ortillery isn't good, then that's something to be left to a specialized design carted to the field in an assault carrier.

Besides, even if we accept that a Trek warship can so easily target and destroy enemy small craft, it could do the same to a swarm of missiles.

Not a problem. At the least, the same job gets done without needlessly expending expensive personnel.

---

There is, of course, a matter of unmanned strike craft. At least in fleet action, I'm not sure if that actually makes things any more efficient, unless any supposed increase in range and speed can't be accomplished just by making the missile a little bigger or something. The same idea might be nice for a CAS aerocraft, or some sort of expendable scout (optimized for speed, comms, and eyeballs, not for fighting, comes back if it can.)

 

[Cyke101]

but still, even with targeting computers and magically accurate phasers remember that the fightrs will be backed by a capital ship of it's own, if a ship targets JUST swarming fighters the capital ship will shread the enemy ship, and if the enemy ship ignores the fighters the fighters will tea the enemy ship down

If you'd like, we'd also have to take a look at just what Starfleet is up against these days: Klingon Birds of Prey and Dominion fighters are much larger yet almost as maneuverable as a smaller fighter. Getting a bead on those ships will rarely happen. Dominion Battleships and Romulan Warbirds are heavy hitters in their own right, and probably every bit as capable as a Galaxy class when it comes to dispersing squadrons.

Magically accurate phasers are one thing, but a torpedo explosion actually separating a squadron is pretty devastating to any kind of tactics and formations that squadron would want to enact. And that frees up the rest of the capital ship's weapons, too. The problem with Starfleet fighters is that it doesn't take that much power to put one of them down. If the fighters are meant to draw enemy fire away from another ship, a decent Starfleet phaser array would only be delayed by a few seconds at most.

 

[Timo]

Assuming that one demands we keep to the conceit that there is no way that an expert system can practically match a human intellect.

Or, alternately, assuming that Trek computers indeed are so good that any sane species would be too scared to put them in control of combat hardware.

Basically, the humblest piece of ordnance in Starfleet is a strategic weapon. Sure, you can put in all sorts of safeguards so that it shall never occur to your AI weapon to operate against your own people - but that may not be enough. There will always be a major problem in defining "us vs. them" unambiguously; OTOH, sometimes you want to spare the enemy in order to reap strategic or even short-term tactical gain. The AI would need to have complex psychological skills in one hand, to cope with strategy, and be immune to the ambiguities arising from such skills in the other, to cope with IFF.

M-5 malfunctioned. The titular guest star of VOY "Warhead" did not. And even a hand phaser might prove deadly to an entire planet if equipped for thinking and mobility.

If the draft script is correct, the Maquis used their craft essentially as missile busses, and apparently didn't have enough missiles to finish the job outright. After which they reverted to doing the sort of graceful passes we all know and love from the War.

(Trekcore sometimes has inaccurate script versions, but the transcripts at www.chakoteya.net should be accurate. Too bad they aren't up to "Preemptive Strike" yet.)

Gul Evek quotes the Type 8 phasers aboard the Maquis craft as a problem comparable to the torpedoes they fired. Granted that one of his concerns is the fact that civilians have military hardware at all - but the emotional way he puts it, "They came at us with torps and type eights", suggests that those weapons were a real threat to them in tactical and weapon-technical terms as well. Not mere love pats, or then the torpedoes were love pats as well (which I wouldn't actually dismiss - only the sheer number of them fired might have been a threat to Evek).

The only role that that concept would have problems fulfilling is close air support. If ortillery isn't good, then that's something to be left to a specialized design carted to the field in an assault carrier.

...Which may be why both the modern fighters seen in "Maquis II" and "Sacrifice of Angels", and the older ones from "Preemptive Strike", have wings and are referred to as "attack fighters".

Although since these are both capable of independent warp, they are not in need of a carrier. A tender, perhaps, to go better with the idea that we are watching classic naval battle where the small things are boats rather than aircraft. And possibly some sort of a high speed transport for long transit runs. But attack runs might best be performed under independent warp propulsion, like the Maquis do against Evek.

The smaller Klingon BoPs seem to perform that role nicely enough, too. Or at least their ability to ground-strafe is second to none in "Once More Unto the Breach" or ST5:TFF. They can even sneak up to a ground target cloaked, like a stealthy helicopter from hell.

Magically accurate phasers are one thing, but a torpedo explosion actually separating a squadron is pretty devastating to any kind of tactics and formations that squadron would want to enact.

Which might be why Starfleet is refitting short-barrel, "point defense" photon launchers on the Enterprise-E...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Unicron]

Yeah, it seems that dedicated carriers are pretty rare in most of the series that use fighters - BSG could perhaps be an exception. But since warships of different classes usually have some space for fighters, there's little need for a specific carrier unit itself.

 

[Furlong]

I can see fighters being used in Trek in one of two situations.

1) As hard hitting fast attach ships. Basically, the 24th Century version of a PT Boat. I don't really see the federation using these, however. Klingons, definitely, but not the Feds, who place a very high value on life.

2) For close air support in planetary operations. Yes, while it is possible that a starship can conduct precision orbital strikes on hardened targets, it would make sense to have fighters available to go into the atmosphere and act as air support for Federation ground troops.

 

[Unicron]

Agreed, and I think it's important to remember a key fighter tactic: they don't attack capital ships unless there's a whole lot of them or they have friendly warships. Fighters engage and destroy other small craft. I think some of the comparisons of fighters vs. warships are incorrect, because it's not the most realistic situation.

 

[alicelouise]

Realistically speaking the only chance a group of such fighters against a capital ship have is to land a killing blow in the first volley.

If they don't and we assume Star Trek is realistic capital ship phasers will blow them out of space with each hit and i believe their targeting and aiming the actual emitters is fast enough so those fighters won't be able to dodge them.


In TV show reality it just looks cool to have fighters pouring out of a carrier and to see some fast paced dogfighting.

Like nuBSG and BSG? I think characters like Tom Paris, Sulu, Worf, or even Ryker would be well suited to that type of action.

I'm not up on the Tech of Trek but, wouldn't a small fighter be like the misquito versus the elephant. If the starship elephant got in an accurate shot the single fighter would be toast. The tricky part would be targeting that individual single fighter. It would be a headache if there were a swarm of them. Space would be different.

 

[Anwar]

Trek weapons seem to be some of the most accurate weapons in televised sci-fi, they could easily fire a large enough phaser/disruptor beam that would destroy several fighters in a swarm by targeting only one if they were grouped close enough together. And the blast radius from a photon torpedo might be enough to wipe out a swarm in one shot too.

 

[Cyke101]

Trek weapons seem to be some of the most accurate weapons in televised sci-fi, they could easily fire a large enough phaser/disruptor beam that would destroy several fighters in a swarm by targeting only one if they were grouped close enough together. And the blast radius from a photon torpedo might be enough to wipe out a swarm in one shot too.

Yep. Just to back you up, Voyager's Type-10 torpedo (modified with nanoprobes, of course) took out a group of Species 8472 ships with a single wide-range explosion.

 

[Unicron]

How are you defining accuracy? I'm not disagreeing, but I don't see anything that suggests the weapons in B5, Wars or other series aren't equally accurate. Using a large explosion in the middle of a formation is a valid tactic, thought I'd think a projectile would be better for that than an energy beam. Problem is, since the fighters are usually deployed against enemy fighters, that kind of strike might be difficult to pull off.

Star Wars also had cluster bombs on some rebel ships, operating on the same principle. They'd be triggered whenever an enemy fighter or other target was passing along the hull.

 

[Timo]

One way to define accuracy is to count how many hits connect and at what ranges. In Star Wars, that's about 10% at best, typically at ranges of less than a kilometer. And that's for capital ship weapon systems that supposedly have some sort of central targeting hardware. Individual craft and droids are significantly worse. The Jedi have to deliberately leap in the way of incoming (and I use that term generously) blaster bolts in order to do that cool lightsaber parry!

NuBSG has something like 0% hit rate for capital ship flak, but better than 50% for those Viper pilots who have the skill to get to their opponent's six or the cool to stay at their opponent's twelve. And homing missiles exist, and have rates approaching 80% against small craft (the 20% misses being attributed to both self-defense fire and maneuvering).

Against those figures, Trek weapons seem to have far superior accuracy at somewhat higher ranges. Perhaps more importantly, maneuvering of the target seems to have no effect on anything, nor is it viable to use counterfire to stop homing missiles or other projectiles. Then again, Trek is the only show where shielding seems to protect even the smallest of craft, at least to some degree.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Vanyel]

Why not use a Delta Flyer type ship as a fighter? If the ship is scaled down from an approximate length of 21 meters to 17 meters would make it the approximate length of an F/A-18 Hornet. The reduction in size would mean the ship would lose it long range ability but not power. Keeping the same power levels the Delta Flyer exhibited, a squadron of fighters based on its design could have the fire power, the speed, agility and shield strength to be able fight a capital ship or two.

The ship would have to lose the luxuries the Delta Flyer had. It would lose, it's bunks, facilities and eating area. It would also need to be a two man ship, a pilot and an engineer/gunner. The space gained from removing its long range ability could be used to add a compliment of about 5 or more full sized torpedoes or even more micro torpedoes and larger phasers could be added.

The ship would, of course need a base. Its best best suited to a planetary base where hundreds if not thousands could be housed. Special carrier type ships would need to be designed, or existing ships internal space would need to be redesigned to house them.

In fleet combat, such as what was shown in Sacrifice of Angles, a number of these types of fighters would have provided excellent support for the battle. Their mother ship(s) would be just out side of sensor range so as to provide a safe harbor for reloading and refueling.

 

[Timo]

What sort of firepower did the Delta Flyer really demonstrate?

The first real battle was in "Tsunkatse", where the craft basically bent an antenna on the enemy ship. The second was "Unimatrix Zero", where the DF did minimal damage to a small Borg cube, and was promptly destroyed. Not a sparkling success in my books...

The replacement DF only fought one battle of any significance, in "Homestead". No action against a capital ship there, only potshots at slowly moving projectiles.

I'd say the fighters of "Preemptive Strike" and the DS9 war episodes showed more firepower than that. The strong point of the DF would be her shielding. But that, too, failed to protect the craft often enough, and the only capital ship weapons to challenge those shields were the ones fired by the Borg, who could always be argued to aim for capture rather than kill.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Forbin]

Since when has anything been able to dodge phaser fire? Starship phasers (at least Federation ones) have a hit rate of 100% against targets that venture as close as those fighters have been shown getting...

Timo Saloniemi

Uh-uh, remember when they took a shot at that battle bot in Arsenal of Freedom? I believe it was the first phaser shot ever seen in TNG, and Worf followed it by yelling "We missed!!"

 

[Star Wolf]

A lot of the way ships fight in ST is a lot different from fighting ships of today.

For example all the weapons on the ship appear to be directly controlled from the tactical console on the bridge. There are no gunnery crews in/near the actual weapons, aiming, firing them etc.

Now, it may be possible for the guns of real ships today to be remotely aimed and fired from the bridge, but that's typically not how it's done. Each gun or turret has its own crew or at the very minimum its own singular gunner controlling it but these are all under the direction of a commander in a remote part of the ship, probably on the bridge.

Other franchises like SW for example also more closely mirror the methodology of ships today with multiple individual weapons turrets each controlled by their own individual crew or gunner, but under the direction of someone presumably on the bridge.

I'm not sure which way is really the best.

You got it backwards. Since the introduction of the Dreadnaught the guns have increasingly come under the control of the gunnery officer, first in the armored mast sitting as high as possible later in the CIC. The gun crew in the turrent just serves as a backup and in normal operations in no way controls the fire of their weapon.

The ship is many times less effective when they take control of their gun because of battle damage. In fact a single ship with the latest technology will control the fire of all the ships her entire task force.

 

[Star Wolf]

It seems like every two weeks this topic reappears. Some variation of why can't we have cool fighters and hero pilots too.

Those on my side awnser because of established Star Trek tech the fighter can not bring enough combat power to make a difference no matter what scenario you draw.

A WWII Swordfish squadron can bring enough torepedos to the conflict with a greater sprint speed then the Bismark to make a difference. In Trek tech the fighter will be slower and can't run down a ship in warp. Being smaller the fighter can't carry enough torpedos and its powerplant can't generate enough phaser shots or shields to matter. And so far in this edition of the discussion Bismark's AAA is many times more effective then in 1940

So it comes down to seeing the fighter not as a 2008 F-18 or even a 1942 Dauntless divebomber but rather in comparison to Enterprise, Voyager etc the fighter craft at best is the 1906 Wright brothers original flyer.

 

[Unicron]

And again, it's not a matter of a tiny fighter vs. a giant capital ship. People assume that scenario because fighters are so rare in Trek, but it's tactically stupid most of the time. It won't happen because it is suicidal, like Luke trying to kill a Star Destroyer alone in his X-Wing. Not gonna happen, Jedi or not. A group of fighters with numerical superiority can make a difference, however small, as we've seen on the few occasions they've been used. Refer again to "Preemptive Strike." Had the Enterprise not shown up when it did, Evek's ship would likely have been destroyed. We've seen this in history, as with the sinking of the Bismarck, and in series like B5 and Star Wars.

I'm not advocating the use of fighters because they're "kewl," but because I haven't seen many plausible arguments for not using them more frequently in Trek. It's not the most realistic portrayal of ship behavior to begin with. And I suspect the main reason has more to do with trying to distinct from Star Wars than anything.

 

[Vanyel]

Why not use a Delta Flyer type ship as a fighter? If the ship is scaled down from an approximate length of 21 meters to 17 meters would make it the approximate length of an F/A-18 Hornet. The reduction in size would mean the ship would lose it long range ability but not power. Keeping the same power levels the Delta Flyer exhibited, a squadron of fighters based on its design could have the fire power, the speed, agility and shield strength to be able fight a capital ship or two.

The ship would have to lose the luxuries the Delta Flyer had. It would lose, it's bunks, facilities and eating area. It would also need to be a two man ship, a pilot and an engineer/gunner. The space gained from removing its long range ability could be used to add a compliment of about 5 or more full sized torpedoes or even more micro torpedoes and larger phasers could be added.

The ship would, of course need a base. Its best best suited to a planetary base where hundreds if not thousands could be housed. Special carrier type ships would need to be designed, or existing ships internal space would need to be redesigned to house them.

In fleet combat, such as what was shown in Sacrifice of Angles, a number of these types of fighters would have provided excellent support for the battle. Their mother ship(s) would be just out side of sensor range so as to provide a safe harbor for reloading and refueling.

What sort of firepower did the Delta Flyer really demonstrate?

The first real battle was in "Tsunkatse", where the craft basically bent an antenna on the enemy ship. The second was "Unimatrix Zero", where the DF did minimal damage to a small Borg cube, and was promptly destroyed. Not a sparkling success in my books...

The replacement DF only fought one battle of any significance, in "Homestead". No action against a capital ship there, only potshots at slowly moving projectiles.

I'd say the fighters of "Preemptive Strike" and the DS9 war episodes showed more firepower than that. The strong point of the DF would be her shielding. But that, too, failed to protect the craft often enough, and the only capital ship weapons to challenge those shields were the ones fired by the Borg, who could always be argued to aim for capture rather than kill.

Timo Saloniemi

Boy you sure know how to dash a guys ideas. LOL

Anyway, even if it is just the increased shield strength, that's an advantage for a small ship.

If, like I said, a squadron of 15 Delta Flyer design based ships were to attack a ship like a Romulan Warbird, the Warbird would have a fight on its hands. Each fighter able to take a few direct hits and still being able to launch torpedoes at near point blank range would severely damage if not destroy the Warbird.

Imagine if you would 15 DF's each carrying 5 full sized photon torpedoes that's the potential to fire 75 torpedoes. Even if only half that number are launched (Well half is 37.5 so I'll round down) 37 could do extreme damage to a ship.

So why not build fighters? They can be made to carry the armament needed to inflict heavy damage on a capital ship. They have the speed and agility to keep them safe if only for a little while, and they can be made with shielding that can take a few punches and keep going.

The starships will still be needed, and still be the more potent weapon, but for planetary or starbase defense and fleet engagements, fighters can give an edge and make the enemy have more targets to worry about.

One more word about plant based fighters, on a highly populated planet the number of fighter could number in the thousands. Starfleet is huge, it makes sense for it be. 1% or less of the Federation population in Starfleet would give tens of millions in man power. (Estimate based on 150 planets in the Federation and giving an average population per planet at 2 billion.) That is a lot of people to man starships, starbases and fighters.

--Vanyel runs and hides behind a wall and waits, for the tigers come at night, with their voices soft as thunder, as they tear your hope apart, and they turn your dreams to shame.