I don't think you understood my point. I don't have time to explain now, but I'll try again later on.
I wonder what Federation attack fighters do in their off time?
- Thread starter Robert DeSoto
- Start date
I don't think you understood my point. I don't have time to explain now, but I'll try again later on.
I agree with this, except that I can imagine that some fighters might be used to patrol inside Federation space during peacetime.
But I agree, fighters could be rapidly mass-produced in huge quantities, which would be another advantage of them over larger ships.
In this context, I think still it would be good for the Federation to train fighter pilots, even if only in simulator as reserves, as I said above, in order to keep them sharp.
This is probably true, except that there might be a fair distinction when designing an attack craft for extreme performance, as in Journey to Babel. Maybe the Federation's "fighter" is Orion's "P/T boat", and Orion's "fighter" has no counterpart in the Federation, because it would be considered suicidally insane.
I respectfully disagree with this, for the reasons explained here and elaborated on further below.
Given that under the right circumstances a small expendable craft [i.e., a fighter] could outmaneuver and outflank a heavy cruiser starship, and given that once the cruiser's shields are penetrated, the fighter has good chances of scoring a kill by torpedo, beaming a bomb, a phaser shot, or whatever, this means that fighters would have their uses.
Think about it. How many times was getting shields penetrated a problem for the penetratee. Here are three examples: Film: Generations, VOY: Prototype, TNG: The Best of Both Worlds, Part II. VOY: Prototype illustrates the kind of tactics I discussed here.
We have to use our imagination as to why a ship must be surrounded by a shield with only one set of parameters. It might be that if you use two or more different shield settings to surround a single ship, there will be gaps where a phaser might penetrate.
Whatever the canonical reason, we do know that when shields are down or penetrated, even a large capital ship is vulnerable to a single torpedo or even a tiny well-placed bomb within its interior. Therefore, the strategy for a fighter is to penetrate shields. If this is done, a large capital ship is vulnerable to even a small fighter. Subcommander R., does this address your issue?
No it doesn't. You just agreed that the primary objective is to punch a hole in enemy's shields. Now in order to do it in the first place you need hefty weaponry focused on a small target. Fighters rely on speed for their defense, so they have to stick with strafing runs. And strafing scatters the points of impact. So a few fighters could be a pain in the rear all day and not take down the shields. You need bigger guns for that.
And if you have big enough guns to take down their shields, why bother with fighters? Just fire another salvo and blow them away.
I only see fighters useful for attacking shuttlecraft or unarmed/lightly armed craft. And if thats the goal, I'd rather make one escort or raider than four fighters.
Please see the movie Generations and VOY episode Prototype for how to penetrate shields without overpowering them with brute force, as I have stated above. Many fighters each trying different shield settings, as I have already said, have a greater chance of at least one penetrating by matching shield settings, than a single ship operating alone.
Irrelevant as Generations relied on subterfuge. And you'll notice that in Prototype (IIRC) there was already a breach in the shield to be exploited.
My points all still stand.
I would think planetary defense, where planet based fighters could swarm attacking ships, harassing them so the bigger starships could get in bigger and kill shots. I know some people don't Like DS9 Sacrifice of Angels use of fighters, however, one fighter took two hits, the second being the kill shot. A swarm of those could do some damage allowing the big guns to exploit weaknesses opened up by fighters.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoIFUJxJwcQ[/yt]
At about 30 seconds you see a fighter hit once then the second shot taking it out.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoIFUJxJwcQ[/yt]
At about 30 seconds you see a fighter hit once then the second shot taking it out.
I still don't see how fighters are supposed to make the breakthrough. If they have any use in a large scale engagement its engaging targets of opportunity as they are presented. Or as cannon fodder.
But in a small-scale conflict I don't see them as particularly useful.
But in a small-scale conflict I don't see them as particularly useful.
As I see it a Federation Fighter would have short duration phasers (not able to fire for long burst) and only a few (if any) torpedoes. Such a ship might be fast but would be lightly shielded. If it has a warp core or M/AM reactor it would need all the energy for weapons and flight. Fighters would be good for Outlying colonies much like the old Soyuz Class was supposed to be designed for (anti piracy, etc)
We've seen Voyager being attacked by multiple small ships as well as the NX Enterprise so it is possible for small ships to Swarm, but I think it has to be by surprise and superior tech.
We've seen Voyager being attacked by multiple small ships as well as the NX Enterprise so it is possible for small ships to Swarm, but I think it has to be by surprise and superior tech.
When talking about a "Federation Fighter'" you're probably referring to something the size of, and with the capability of, a small Klingon BoP. The some general category. In Vanyel's video each of the fighters were doing as much damage (size of fireball) to a Cardassian ship, as one of the main phaser strips on a following Galaxy class firing a equal number of shots at a similar target.
So a totally stripped down starship, just a warp core, engines, weapons, shields and life support. Nothing else. It's phasers (as stated) the equal a segment of a Galaxy's strip, perhaps only good for several dozen full power shots.
It's photon torpedoes the same as the larger ship's, the fighter would lack the larger ship's launch accelerators, but for near point blank range firings wouldn't need them. The torpedoes might be carried in simply "drop" bays or mounted externally.
Because of the smaller space of the enclosure, the shield generator could project a full power field around the fighter. The generators (run at maximum capacity) wouldn't have to last for protracted periods, a few hours at most. Between battles they would be swapped out.
I wonder about the "wings." Shuttlecraft and runabout don't possess them and so why does the fighter? The Klingon BoP has them too and doesn't have nacelles, the fighter (and the BoP) might have a different form of warp coil, different shape, that is housed in the wing.
So a totally stripped down starship, just a warp core, engines, weapons, shields and life support. Nothing else. It's phasers (as stated) the equal a segment of a Galaxy's strip, perhaps only good for several dozen full power shots.
It's photon torpedoes the same as the larger ship's, the fighter would lack the larger ship's launch accelerators, but for near point blank range firings wouldn't need them. The torpedoes might be carried in simply "drop" bays or mounted externally.
Because of the smaller space of the enclosure, the shield generator could project a full power field around the fighter. The generators (run at maximum capacity) wouldn't have to last for protracted periods, a few hours at most. Between battles they would be swapped out.
I wonder about the "wings." Shuttlecraft and runabout don't possess them and so why does the fighter? The Klingon BoP has them too and doesn't have nacelles, the fighter (and the BoP) might have a different form of warp coil, different shape, that is housed in the wing.
Returning to the OP. The same attachment points that would mount a external torpedo, would also mount external sensor pods. It might also be possible to attach a habitat module for longer term patrols and science missions, utilizing the fighter in a small "tug" configuration.
When talking about a "Federation Fighter'" you're probably referring to something the size of, and with the capability of, a small Klingon BoP. The some general category. In Vanyel's video each of the fighters were doing as much damage (size of fireball) to a Cardassian ship, as one of the main phaser strips on a following Galaxy class firing a equal number of shots at a similar target.
So a totally stripped down starship, just a warp core, engines, weapons, shields and life support. Nothing else. It's phasers (as stated) the equal a segment of a Galaxy's strip, perhaps only good for several dozen full power shots.
It's photon torpedoes the same as the larger ship's, the fighter would lack the larger ship's launch accelerators, but for near point blank range firings wouldn't need them. The torpedoes might be carried in simply "drop" bays or mounted externally.
Because of the smaller space of the enclosure, the shield generator could project a full power field around the fighter. The generators (run at maximum capacity) wouldn't have to last for protracted periods, a few hours at most. Between battles they would be swapped out.
I wonder about the "wings." Shuttlecraft and runabout don't possess them and so why does the fighter? The Klingon BoP has them too and doesn't have nacelles, the fighter (and the BoP) might have a different form of warp coil, different shape, that is housed in the wing.
Returning to the OP. The same attachment points that would mount a external torpedo, would also mount external sensor pods. It might also be possible to attach a habitat module for longer term patrols and science missions, utilizing the fighter in a small "tug" configuration.
Yes, which is interesting as I would classify that as an escort or patrol craft. A fighter would be a one or two man craft with only impulse capability.
IMO of course. But I think history agrees with me.
Because have you ever heard of a fighter with a crew of 4 and a range allowing it to strike targets from its own base without refueling?
Well, I've heard of supersonic fighters. It's true, when their afterburners are on, fighters burn fuel at a much faster rate than normal. But maximum speed and maximum fuel capacity are two different parameters.
See TNG: The Emissary for how to build a short-duration [expendable?] craft for a crew of one that is about two meters long and is capable of going warp 9 quite safely. So, I see no technical reason even a small fighter can't have a great FTL, and I think FTL would come in handy for a fighter. If I needed to evade a torpedo, I'd want one.
And, I love T'Girl's suggestion of swapping out burnt out parts, and expecting some to burn out rapidly, say after every mission. That's a very logical and sane mode of normal usage that can still yield high performance, and that is short of the dangerous extreme red-lining used in Journey to Babel.
*Facepalm*
The sound barrier was broken in 1947. You'd be hard-pressed to find any current fighter that is subsonic.
The reason it makes no sense to put a warp drive on a fighter are:
1. Size. It takes up so much space that it means more mass has to be propelled and the overall size is larger. As a result that makes it a larger target.
2. Crew Comfort: Again, if you add that drive it means the pilot has to spend more time in the craft. And that means crew comfort sucks unless you increase the size. And thats difficult.
In case you hadn't noticed, in 'The Emissary' its a converted probe. Which means no control, no weapons systems, and the occupant must be in stasis.
You're going to have more chance of evading a torpedo by being a smaller target and being able to make quick turns. By adding more size and bulk you reduce the survivability.
The fact is, Subcommander R., that there is not a lot of onscreen evidence to back any claims about the details of Federation fighters. We can only speculate. But I do not agree with most of your assertions. Nor do I feel the need to defend my positions any further, unless others indicate sincere interest. And I do not appreciate being facepalmed.
I facepalm as I see the need to do. But I will refrain for your sake.
Out of curiosity, if you didn't know today's fighters were supersonic, then why were you even mentioning them?
Its really just a simple discussion about the concept and definitions. If you'd like to know why I have a certain stance you are free to ask.
Out of curiosity, if you didn't know today's fighters were supersonic, then why were you even mentioning them?
Its really just a simple discussion about the concept and definitions. If you'd like to know why I have a certain stance you are free to ask.
Just out of curiosity, what did I say that leads you to believe that I didn't know almost all of today's fighters are supersonic [or at least capable of going supersonic when using afterburners, if not supercruising]?
My intention was in fact to suggest that since almost every fighter today is capable of supersonic speed for at least some of the time they are flying, I would expect most Trek fighters to be able to move at least as fast as the fastest shuttlecraft normally, and much faster during emergencies. This means, maximum safe crusing speed, without undue wear and tear, is maybe warp 3 or 4. However, maximum emergency speed for limited periods should be 9+, safe or not, and requiring replacement of engine parts after mission, following T'Girl's suggestion.
These suggestions have real-world parallels in the behavior of the MiG-25:
To spell it out:
I've heard of supersonic fighters, so I'd expect nothing less than superlumial fighters in Trek.
Saying you don't believe in superluminal fighters in Trek sounds about as ill-informed as saying that you've never heard of supersonic fighters in the real world.On the other hand, I would not be surprised at all if the maximum range of most fighters, the ferry range, were reachable at only warp 1 or 2, since to go faster should use up some resource at an ever greater rate, yielding diminishing returns at faster speeds.
For at least some classes of fighters, maximum combat range, carrying at least some weapons, should be interstellar, even if it requires, say, going warp 1 most of the way, but admitting "supercruising" at warp 6 but for only say one-tenth of the time, and admitting the hitting of "afterburners" to go to warp 9.2 but say for only 30 seconds. Longer high-warp durations should shorten the combat range, making carriers and motherships essential, as you were suggesting, however limited also by the fact that the ultra-high-warp "afterburners" might be usable for only a limited time before risking a warp core breach.
I always thought those were just Maquis survivors recruited by Starfleet because they had nowhere else to go and since the Dominion tookover the badlands nobody cared about their crimes anymore.
I can't read through all the replies to this, but I'll offer my two cents to the OP...
I've always presumed that attack fighters where stationed aboard larger ships capable as serving as carriers for a standard attack wing of five ships, like we saw in "Sacrifice of Angels" (the 5 ships being a squad, that is). I'd presume Nebula and Galaxy class ships each would serve as a home base to at least 1 squad of 5. Perhaps 2 or 3.
I also imagine that a couple of such could/would be assigned to each starbase, to offer them some form of mobile defensive.
I've played an RPG character for about 7 years now, who served as an attack fighter pilot during the Dominion War, and I've always used such reasoning for explaining said service.
I do hate the Peregrine error, though. The commonly seen Maquis raider was **NOT** the Peregrine. The ship we saw in "Sacrifice of Angels" and in "The Maquis, Part II" was the true Peregrine class. http://ditl.org/picship.php?fedperegrine&1
I've always presumed that attack fighters where stationed aboard larger ships capable as serving as carriers for a standard attack wing of five ships, like we saw in "Sacrifice of Angels" (the 5 ships being a squad, that is). I'd presume Nebula and Galaxy class ships each would serve as a home base to at least 1 squad of 5. Perhaps 2 or 3.
I also imagine that a couple of such could/would be assigned to each starbase, to offer them some form of mobile defensive.
I've played an RPG character for about 7 years now, who served as an attack fighter pilot during the Dominion War, and I've always used such reasoning for explaining said service.
I do hate the Peregrine error, though. The commonly seen Maquis raider was **NOT** the Peregrine. The ship we saw in "Sacrifice of Angels" and in "The Maquis, Part II" was the true Peregrine class. http://ditl.org/picship.php?fedperegrine&1
On the underside of the fighter, forward of the (apparent) impulse engines, at the wing roots, there are two blue glow panels (port and starboard). Those to me are warp engines.
In the 24th century, everything above a inspection pod / work bee possesses warp drive. You would want to equip your fighters with warp drive so that they could engage enemy targets in the FTL realm. They are attack craft, you want to maximize their operational envelope.
Nothing says the fighters have a tight cockpit arrangement, being Star trek, the control area is likely nearly the size of the same on a runabout or slightly smaller than the Delta Flyer. These things might be out on a patrol that lasts for days or even a week. In reference to one of you previous posts, the fighter could easily have a crew of more than two, a pilot, gunner, sensor operator and maybe a engineer. You need at least enough people aboard so during non-combat conditions you can swap around whose "at the wheel."
Admittedly with just a crew of three, but the Northrop P-61 Black Widow night fighter nicely fits that criteria.
