I wonder what Federation attack fighters do in their off time?

[Subcommander R.]

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:

The airspeed indicator was redlined at Mach 2.8, with typical intercept speeds near Mach 2.5 in order to extend the service life of the engines.[13] A MiG-25 was tracked flying over Sinai at Mach 3.2 in the early 1970s, but the flight led to the destruction of its engines.[14]

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.

1. "Well, I've heard of supersonic fighters." Thats indicator 1. Heard of. Then you go on to mention afterburners to indicate you're talking about jets. And thats a double-whammy as you'd hard-pressed to find a subsonic jet fighter.

2. The MiG 25 was an interceptor. Its only job was to hit high-speed bombers and land again. Space warfare is much closer to Naval warfare. Size and weight aren't limiting factors as they are in the air. So essentially a MiG 25 would be useless if we had armored and shielded battleships flying around.

3. Your primary error is equating aviation to space combat. Nval combat is a better comparison as aerodynamics, materials, and weight are all totally different factors.

4. To draw on an historical comparison again, would you rather be in a B24 buzzing flak guns or in a P38? One has chosen size and range. Those two factors go hand in hand.

In a Federation context, size is required to have warp capability. Now if you're a one-man craft, do you want to tax the pilot by having him monitor everything alone and be in a vessel unnecessarily large? Keep in mind that warp drive isn't some 'let's go slightly faster than impulse' plot device. Its creating a warp field that forms a bubble and takes you past the speed of light.

5. There are no 'warp afterburners.' Afterburners inject fuel into the exhaust outlets and ignite it there to give additional thrust. Warp drive uses a warp core to generate the plasma, and then its moved into nacelles to the warp coils. Its bulky. And as I've said a thousand times, size is the enemy of a fighter.

6. Now to blend history and Star Trek, the only way we can rationalize the 'fighters' is if they are multiple-occupancy raider/patrol craft/escorts/bombers. A fighter is designed to engage other fighters for (air) superiority. Not engage capital ships. Thats the role of torpedo bombers.

 

[Subcommander R.]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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?

Admittedly with just a crew of three, but the Northrop P-61 Black Widow night fighter nicely fits that criteria.

Night fighters were large because they operated at night, required bulky radar systems, and had little danger of engaging other fighters. Thats why they died off after WW2. Technology and size rendered them obsolete.

Frankly, it should have a crew of more than two. And when you say its the size of a runabout (or larger) and has four crew, I say its ceased to be a fighter.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

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.

In terms of cockpit, it's more like a glorified shuttlepod actually. But the fuselage is large enough to carry a reasonably-sized sleeping compartment and probably a toilet and stowage for personal items.

Moreover, the Maquis ships these "attack fighters" were based on are EXPLICITLY depicted as being capable of warp speeds, so the question of warp drive on a fighter is already irrelevant. They have them, we know they have them, and that's that.

The actual question we need to answer is why the "attack fighters" would be in any way more effective in that role than ordinary runabouts modified with extra torpedo bays. The runabouts were slightly smaller and probably had better shielding to boot, and yet are a more modern design with better internal arrangement conducive to installing additional weapons banks. At the end of the day, the only reason those "attack fighters" were used was because the producers of DS9 asked themselves "What is our big huge space battle going to look like?" and they wound up going back and watching "Return of the Jedi" for ideas.

 

[T'Girl]

To draw on an historical comparison again [snip] A fighter is designed to engage other fighters for (air) superiority. Not engage capital ships. Thats the role of torpedo bombers

Historically fighters have carried both bombs and torpedoes and have engaged and sank large capital ships, and yes I mean fighters.

The US Navy's F-14's (those are fighters by the way) were tested carrying up to fourteen 500 lbs bombs, the '14's could also carry a variety of anti-maritime weapons. One of their many roles during the cold war was to destroy incoming Soviet cruise missiles. So fighters do more than just engage other fighters. Oh, and the F-14 had a two man crew.

would you rather be in a B24 buzzing flak guns or in a P38?

P-38 Lightnings were capable of sinking smaller warships (destroyers and frigates) using only their guns. And often did. The P-38 Lightning is of course a fighter.

In a Federation context, size is required to have warp capability.

No, uh uh, wrong. Size is not require for a craft to be equipped with warp drive. As I stated in a previous post, warp drive is nearly ubiquitous.

There are no 'warp afterburners.'

While never using the phrase "warp afterburners" myself, I have through the years compared afterburners with emergency warp speeds, like when the TOS Enterprise would exceed warp six. Uses more fuel, taxes the engines and does incremental damage to the structure of the airframe (space frame?).

Now if you're a one-man craft, do you want to tax the pilot by having him monitor everything alone

Some fighters do carry more than one crewmember.

 

[Kaziarl]

Now if you're a one-man craft, do you want to tax the pilot by having him monitor everything alone

Some fighters do carry more than one crewmember.

Not to mention that larger ships in Trek have been manned by one man. Voyager was manned by just Seven at one point, after the doctors program went offline. Runabouts are often taken out by just one person. The Prometheus, the "Most advanced ship" of it's time was manned by two holograms that didn't have a clue what they were doing.

Doesn't seem overtaxing at all really.

 

[T'Girl]

Night fighters were large because they operated at night, required bulky radar systems, and had little danger of engaging other fighters. Thats why they died off after WW2. Technology and size rendered them obsolete.

The fore mentioned twin engine P-38 was employed as a night fighter, the Vought F4U-4N Corsair (Night Fighter Variant) was a single engine, single pilot, Navy carrier fighter of the WW2 era. Not an unusually large aircraft

Special purpose night fighters died off in the years and decades following WW2 because all fighters basically became night fighters, being radar equipped becoming so common.

Frankly, it should have a crew of more than two. And when you say its the size of a runabout (or larger) and has four crew, I say its ceased to be a fighter.

Runabouts are 75 feet long, the F-111 Aardvark (originally design as a fighter) is 73 feet, 6 inches. Some older Russian MiG fighter design's were similar in length to the runabout.

 

[Subcommander R.]

The F-111 is a strike aircraft. Don't let the 'F' fool you. And runabouts are smaller than I thought then. But I suppose the weapons systems needed for a combat craft would add significantly to the size.

Thing is, the Lightning and the Corsair were primarily day fighters. And that meant engaging a wide variety of targets. So maneuverability was the key there. Again though, the primary mission of a fighter is air superiority. And the way we saw those 'fighters' in the clip operating is much more in line with strike aircraft.

(BTW, your aviation knowledge is excellent. This thread is a blast now! )

 

[T'Girl]

^ Apreciado

 

[CorporalCaptain]

There are no 'warp afterburners.'

While never using the phrase "warp afterburners" myself, I have through the years compared afterburners with emergency warp speeds, like when the TOS Enterprise would exceed warp six. Uses more fuel, taxes the engines and does incremental damage to the structure of the airframe (space frame?).

What I meant exactly. That's why I put "afterburners" in quotation marks when talking about warp drive.

 

[J.T.B.]

To draw on an historical comparison again [snip] A fighter is designed to engage other fighters for (air) superiority. Not engage capital ships. Thats the role of torpedo bombers

Historically fighters have carried both bombs and torpedoes and have engaged and sank large capital ships, and yes I mean fighters.

I don't know of any fighter aircraft that has sunk a capital ship, or carried a torpedo. But on nomenclature your point is a good one: By the latter part of WW2 many fighter aircraft were performing tactical bombing missions regularly and effectively, and of course the multi-purposing only increased in the jet age. I admit it does rub me the wrong way, though, to hear (as I have) an SDB or A-1 called a "fighter."

P-38 Lightnings were capable of sinking smaller warships (destroyers and frigates) using only their guns. And often did. The P-38 Lightning is of course a fighter.

P-38s sank a destroyer? I would like to know more about that, my strong impression is that all warships of that size sunk by army air were down to bombers.

(BTW, your aviation knowledge is excellent. This thread is a blast now! )

Of course it's more fun to talk about real aircraft because they make sense. Most space combat in Trek has been designed around dramatic needs or to look cool, as newtype_alpha pointed out, and is consequently so full of holes that discussion ends up debating over contradictions. Yes, the small Orion ship did some damage in "Journey to Babel." The best way to counter that would be a screen of similar fast fighting vessels, but even for a war exercise in "The Ultimate Computer" the fighting force is four cruisers, unescorted. Shuttles are said to be too small for warp drive, but in "The Menagerie" one clearly follows Enterprise at warp speed. And the battle in DS9 posted above, with dozens ships packed together and slugging it out within hundreds of meters is just so poorly conceived that is doesn't even bear discussing.

--Justin

 

[Subcommander R.]

Good points JTB.

I do believe we've been a wee bit too serious!

 

[T'Girl]

P-38s sank a destroyer? I would like to know more about that, my strong impression is that all warships of that size sunk by army air were down to bombers.

In March of 1943 Lieutenant Rex Barber and other pilots of the 70th Pursuit Squadron operating P-38's off of Henderson Field, Guadalcanal sank a Japanese destroyer with gun and cannon fire. The next month it would be Barber's P-38 that shoots down the transport carrying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.

WW II era destroyers were notoriously thin skinned, earning them the nickname of "tin cans." The 20mm cannon on the P-38 could turn their decks into swiss cheese, set them afire and detonate their munitions magazines.

----------------

Your right, the combat in Star Trek rarely make sense, certainly the tactics don't. Ben Sisko's battle tactics in Sacrifice of Angels have all the subtlety of a nineteenth century carvery charge. Given that the Cardassian foolishly decelerated to subllight, the Starfleet force should have simply flicked past them at maximum warp, denying them any targets.

Problem is most people (with respect) don't understand the difference between slower and faster than light, not really. Separating your ships so as they are distant miles apart, firing at enemy ships that are millions of miles away, lacks emotional impact.

 

[Subcommander R.]

To be expected though, subtlety doesn't translate well to screens.

 

[Kaziarl]

Honestly, I think the only time it made any realistic sense might have been the DS9 episode where they were fighting in a gas giant. At least in relation to submarine warfare.

Although it could just be because I really like that episode.

 

[Subcommander R.]

For an example of submarine warfare in Star Trek, look no further than Balance of Terror.

 

[J.T.B.]

In March of 1943 Lieutenant Rex Barber and other pilots of the 70th Pursuit Squadron operating P-38's off of Henderson Field, Guadalcanal sank a Japanese destroyer with gun and cannon fire. The next month it would be Barber's P-38 that shoots down the transport carrying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.

Thanks a lot. Is that official sole credit, though? The Battle of the Bismarck Sea had so many B-17s, B-25s, A-20s and RAAF Bostons making bomb runs I think JANAC gave up trying to sort out who sank what.

Problem is most people (with respect) don't understand the difference between slower and faster than light, not really. Separating your ships so as they are distant miles apart, firing at enemy ships that are millions of miles away, lacks emotional impact.

That's definitely the perception. But "Balance of Terror" is one of the most beloved TOS episodes of all, with way, way beyond visual range combat. There's no reason that a similar episode couldn't work today, building off tension and drama among the crew, but it wouldn't be as good for showing off cool visual effects.

For an example of submarine warfare in Star Trek, look no further than Balance of Terror.

Or TWOK, where they at leat came up with an excuse (he nebula clouds) for up-close-and-personal combat.

--Justin

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Runabouts are 75 feet long, the F-111 Aardvark (originally design as a fighter) is 73 feet, 6 inches. Some older Russian MiG fighter design's were similar in length to the runabout.

And PT-109 was about 80 feet long.

Just sayin.

 

[The Badger]

Although never confirmed, there's been speculation that the Federation attack fighter might be a Peregrine class courier. If so, that answers the question of what such ships are used for when not involved in military action.

My personal hypothesis is that when the Dominion war kicked off Star Fleet realised it needed large numbers of small, manoeuvrable craft to counter the threat posed by Jem'hadar attack craft. Apart from the Defiant class, which may be too difficult and slow to mass produce, the fleet had no comparable ships. The attack fighter was developed as a stop gap measure, possibly derived from the Peregrine. I'd speculate it used the latest in small scale high efficiency technology, developed for the Danube class Runabout (the fact that such technology is a recent development may explain why fighter type craft have never been seen before).

I concur with T'girl's suggestion that regular maintenance, even replacement of parts, would be likely. These craft would operate at the borderline of performance.

Whether or not the Fleet maintains fighter craft after the war would depend primarily on how effective they were.

 

[Timo]

The Peregrine thing is a bit complicated. "Heart of Stone" defined the class as a courier pilotable by a single person. So far, so good - the attack fighter might fit the bill. "The Maquis pt I" defined a torpedo-armed Maquis attack craft as a modified "old support courier", while "The Maquis pt II" tells that the Maquis only have two craft that could mount the arsenal they purchased, an arsenal that includes the torpedoes that everybody was so amazed about.

Does that mean that the "support courier" from the first part must have been one of the two attack fighters from the second part? Not necessarily, as we don't know which part of the arsenal was uninstallable on craft other than the two seen. Perhaps every Maquis craft could carry torps (as we later see several of them doing so), but only these two could mount the pulse cannon or the disruptors?

FWIW, "Preemptive Strike" showed the Maquis operating Type 8 phasers, but in an attack that featured at least one attack fighter, so we can't know if those heavy phasers can be installed on a variety of Maquis types, or just the attack fighter. And we never quite learn what a pulse cannon or a disruptor would look like - although the attack fighters in the second part do fire pulses from emitters that appear to be close to the forward ends of the warp engines, while no other Maquis craft ever does so. And these pulses do create more damage than regular phaser beams, in that they physically tear off a runabout's targeting pod.

So, is the attack fighter a support courier? Yeah, why not. Is it an old support courier? A bit less likely, I guess - but if it was the craft used in the "The Maquis pt I" torpedo attack, then we have to accept it indeed is an old design. Is the Peregrine courier an old, torpedo-armed craft in "Heart of Stone"? Yeah, why not.

OTOH, the Maquis operate a range of similar designs. And the craft flown by Lieutenant Ro looks older than the attack fighter, in terms of general aesthetics and interior computer graphics, making her perhaps a better candidate for Peregrine and for the perp in "The Maquis Pt I".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Balance of Terror is a straight-up adaptation of the submarine warfare story The Enemy Below.