Simply because Jem Ha'Dar fighters and Klingon Birds of Prey are SEVERAL times bigger with tons more firepower than Federation fighters, that's why.
How much power do you need to launch a photon torpedo? (which the Dominion and arguably the Klingons do not use?)
See "the Valiant," "Sacrifice of the Angels," and "Call to Arms" for Dominion torpedoes. Also, Robot Elf is correct, Quark went so far as to disarm a Dominion torpedo that was lodged in the hull of the Defiant.
Also, not all photon torpedoes are created equal. Starfleet fighters, runabouts, and even the Delta Flyer fire micro-torpedoes, implying that regular torpedoes are too large and too powerful to launch from smaller craft.
Because several Federation fighters can fit within the cargo bay of a mere Miranda class starship, that's why.
Why would you want to stick a large warp-capable space craft into the cargo bay of another large warp capable space craft? The whole reason for using fighters in the first place is to add more firepower to the fleet without actually adding more capital ships.[/quote]
Not necessarily, especially since some of the larger vessels can match a fighter in terms of maneuverability (say, a Defiant). Fighters can be used to occupy larger ships, but you'd need numbers for that.
Besides, the Maquis showed that the Federation fighters themselves are warp-capable. What does being warp-capable have to do with anything?
No, a Jem'hadar fighter is about seventy meters long, roughly the size of a Maquis raider. It is significantly smaller than the Klingon Bird of Prey and only slightly larger than the Cardassian Hideki class (which also gets pressed into massive service as a fighter, probably for the same reason).
A Jem'Hadar fighter is 90 meters long, which brings it to roughly the same area as a Bird of Prey (110) and a Hideki (roughly 90 as well). Martok's Bird of Prey (again, in Call to Arms) is roughly the same size as the three Jem'Hadar fighters that attacked the Defiant.
Runabouts? You mean those things that have enough power to destroy unshielded Jem'hadar fighters?
You mean after sustained phaser fire upon a weakness that only a Vorta pointed out about but otherwise would've been destroyed in an instant? I refer back to "The Jem'Hadar" and "The Valiant," as well as the episode you referenced, as cases in which it was far easier for a Jem'Hadar fighter to disable or destroy a runabout, rather than the other way around.
That's really no different than when Ro had the option of destroying the Enterprise-D with her itty bitty fighter, simply because she had the bridge targetted. And even then, to get her to that position, she knew the ship's weaknesses, which took not only a rediculous amount of prep time, but detailed knowledge of the enemy. Even if the Enterprise were unshielded, in a straight up battle, the Enterprise would've clearly been the victor.
Unless you're arguing that Ro in a fighter could destroy the Enterprise-D in a straight battle with fire blazing all over the place...
Right, because you're under the impression that a fleet of space craft about to engage in battle would actually LAUNCH those fighters like 20th century aircraft carriers instead of simply having those fighters fly alongside the entire way to and from the operation zone like PT boats or missile corvettes.
If I'm the commander of a wet navy that's about to deploy sixty cruisers and destroyers (with three or four battleships) against a vastly superior enemy, I don't think I'll be quick to dismiss the fifty to a hundred Pegasus class hydrofoils sitting on the flanks as being somehow irrelevant. Each ship has a good-sized gun and eight screaming-hot missiles to add to the gamble. I might even say something on the radio like "Attack group, fire your Harpoon missiles at the enemy's guided missile escorts, harass them with concentrated fire from your deck guns, then split up into squadrons and run like hell."
The problem here is that Trek battle tactics are very different than real world wet navy tactics. For one thing, in the real navy, our aircraft carriers can't reach the relative speeds of their attack fighters, whereas in several fleet battles, we see larger ships flying side by side with fighters. That in itself would be a big difference. Additionally, aircraft carriers themselves can't absorb a constant number of hits the way ships in Star Trek do without suffering catastrophic damage.
Imagine an aircraft carrier that could take the brunt of attacks from enemy fighters, putting down enough cover fire and absobing enough attacks that its fighters can concentrate on the distracted enemy fighters. The catch is, a Starfleet mothership can do that; a modern day aircraft carrier can't, and relies on her fighter compliment to do much of its defense.
Pretty much, because of the speeds and tech levels that everyone involved operates, tactics are going to differ quite a bit than what we know in the 20th century.
It wasn't. It was about 300 capital ships and hundreds of fighters vs. 600 capital ships and hundreds of more fighters. The Cardassian Hidekis are also considered "fighters" much as Starfleet runabouts and Peregrine couriers.
And where's your source for this number? Where was it said on screen that it was 300 capital ships, 600 capital ships, etc. etc? Hidekis themselves operate as separate starships, without the need of a mothership, unlike the runabouts and Starfleet fighters.
As for those Maquis engineers who equipped big guns onto small shuttles, let's keep in mind that it still took a squadron to take down a Cardassian vessel in TNG, and perhaps similar numbers to handle Excelsior-sized vessels in DS9.
Like how it took four Jem'hadar fighters just to
damage an unprepared and unshielded Galaxy class before one of them went Kamikaze?
If you're trying to make the case that small Maquis ships have similar tactical capabilities as Jem'hadar battlebugs, your point is well made.[/quote]
When have the Maquis ever gone kamikaze?
And it didn't take four "just to damage" the Odyssey; the Dominion were scoring massive hits on her from the get go, though I hardly think that's a blame on fighter/capital ship labels but rather a blame on the enemy's severe technical edge.
If Starfleet had 300 fighters in Sacrifice of Angels, that only comes to matching only a small fraction of Dominion/Cardassian vessels.
Considering the Dominion vessels ALSO consisted mostly of fighters, that fraction would appear to be roughly "one half."[/quote]
Again, Dominion fighters are themselves considered fully-fledged starships, capable of surviving on their own for long periods of time, doing patrols and missions that ships of its size class routinely do. Semantics vs. actual Purpose.
With that said, I would think Starfleet fighters are ideal at occupying the larger Dominion vessels as well as the Cardassian Galor and Keldon vessels, but even then you'd need quite a few squadrons to do so. Dominion fighters, however, are ideal for going after pretty much anything Starfleet has; perhaps one for a Miranda, two for an Excelsior, and several more for a Galaxy. Three or four of them are enough to chase down the mighty Defiant.
