Starfleet Carrier Ship
- Thread starter MatthiasRussell
- Start date
One possible reason for the lack of fighters prior to the Dominion war might be technological. Up until quite recently, in the Trek time line, the technology to produce small, fast, hard hitting craft might not have been available.
Perhaps in recent years Star Fleet has been working on miniaturising it's technology? The Danube class runabout, Data's scout in Insurrection, and the Chaffee clas shuttle are all small craft, recently developed, with tactical capabilities. Once the technology was developed it wouldn't be hard to build a pure combat design, either adding it to a pre existing ship (possibly the Peregrine class courier, though that isn't confirmed) or creating an entirely new ship.
And whilst I agree that their use against capital ships would be limited, that does not mean they would be totally ineffective. Used wisely a swarm of small torpedo armed ships could overwhelm a much larger opponent.
Perhaps in recent years Star Fleet has been working on miniaturising it's technology? The Danube class runabout, Data's scout in Insurrection, and the Chaffee clas shuttle are all small craft, recently developed, with tactical capabilities. Once the technology was developed it wouldn't be hard to build a pure combat design, either adding it to a pre existing ship (possibly the Peregrine class courier, though that isn't confirmed) or creating an entirely new ship.
And whilst I agree that their use against capital ships would be limited, that does not mean they would be totally ineffective. Used wisely a swarm of small torpedo armed ships could overwhelm a much larger opponent.
In "The Jem'Hadar", we see a Danube fire repeatedly on a Dominion attack ship with little effect, while in subsequent episodes we see "larger" ships such as B'Rel-class birds-of-prey rip the same ships apart with just a few shots. I just don't think the smaller ships have that significant of an attack capability (the "strap-on" full-size photon torpedo module atop the Danube aside) that larger ships need to worry about, other than kamikaze attacks. Even the Federation scout ship from "Insurrection" was only an annoyance to the bad guys. Maybe if you had a bunch of Danubes or scouts, each with a photon torpedo or two (even then, I have tech issues with smaller ships having full-sized photorps), yeah, I'd be worried; otherwise, just a distraction.
ONLY once someone's shields have been knocked out. There's a fair point to be made that fighters waiting in ambush could easily take on a capital ship if they bounce it before they have time to get their shields up, but even in TOS, starships are seen shrugging off dozens of torpedo hits before their shields begin to fail.
But their power source can't, so even if you can mount a battery cell to power the weapons in the short term, you won't have enough firepower to bring down their shields.
The appropriate use of fighters and small craft in the Trekiverse is against OTHER fighters and small craft, where you can trade your shield/firepower advantage for a maneuvering/pursuit advantage. Small craft with small power supplies cannot carry heavy shielding, so it doesn't take as much firepower to penetrate them; a large craft can easily overwhelm them, but smaller ones can do so as well AND give chase if a group of enemy fighters decides to split up in multiple directions.
I think the PT boat is the PERFECT analogy, actually. Best for coastal patrol, interdiction, law enforcement, border security... useful against warships, but only in large groups and then only against small ones.
There is another principle-based issue buried in this line of discussion. In "The Search, Part 1" when Sisko presented the uber-mini-battleship Defiant to Deep Space Nine, Kira responded "I thought the Federation didn't believe in warships."
It was clearly understood that Starfleet employed deep space vessels based on multiple, practical uses and the ability to customize and adapt their modules and technologies to mission profiles, but there were (supposedly) no Federation "warships". Perhaps this would be a good place to start a discussion on P.O.U. (philosophy-of-use) for limited-range multi-use craft that could have a military dimension to their (presumed multiple) applications.
We've seen TOS-era and TAS-era shuttlecrafts and scoutships. And we've seen larger Klingon birds-of-prey that were also called "scout class vessel". And in DS9 and TNG we've seen Runabouts and Maquis "fighters". So, what would a TOS-era Starfleet mini "scout" look like, and how would it function in both military and non-military modes? Could it be based on at least some of the components seen in a Class F shuttlecraft, just assembled and arranged in a different configuration? If so, perhaps Kirk's Enterprise already had "fighters" kept disassembled in cold storage in case the need were to arise.
As for whether a dedicated Federation starship class would be needed for military purposes, such as deploying "fighter"-like craft, perhaps that goes back to the Sisko/Kira dialogue. Perhaps instead of designing a dedicated "carrier" for "fighters", the Federation would simply attach "carrier" cargo pods to Starfleet transport/tugs (like FJ's Ptolemy or, more likely, something more like Forbin's Sultana) so that the smaller craft could be deployed from the pods when loaded on the tug, or perhaps the tug could jettison the pods to serve as a provisional "Guadalcanal" launch base.
It was clearly understood that Starfleet employed deep space vessels based on multiple, practical uses and the ability to customize and adapt their modules and technologies to mission profiles, but there were (supposedly) no Federation "warships". Perhaps this would be a good place to start a discussion on P.O.U. (philosophy-of-use) for limited-range multi-use craft that could have a military dimension to their (presumed multiple) applications.
We've seen TOS-era and TAS-era shuttlecrafts and scoutships. And we've seen larger Klingon birds-of-prey that were also called "scout class vessel". And in DS9 and TNG we've seen Runabouts and Maquis "fighters". So, what would a TOS-era Starfleet mini "scout" look like, and how would it function in both military and non-military modes? Could it be based on at least some of the components seen in a Class F shuttlecraft, just assembled and arranged in a different configuration? If so, perhaps Kirk's Enterprise already had "fighters" kept disassembled in cold storage in case the need were to arise.
As for whether a dedicated Federation starship class would be needed for military purposes, such as deploying "fighter"-like craft, perhaps that goes back to the Sisko/Kira dialogue. Perhaps instead of designing a dedicated "carrier" for "fighters", the Federation would simply attach "carrier" cargo pods to Starfleet transport/tugs (like FJ's Ptolemy or, more likely, something more like Forbin's Sultana) so that the smaller craft could be deployed from the pods when loaded on the tug, or perhaps the tug could jettison the pods to serve as a provisional "Guadalcanal" launch base.
I don't think a carrier vessel needs to be classified as a warship. Charting a solar system? Why not have a capitol ship as a base that sends out many smaller ships to do the up close surveying, especially in asteroid belts. A carrier would be very useful for exploration.
As to kira saying the ufp doesn't believe in warships, the defiant clearly indicated a change in policy, at least in some level. If they are going to have battleships, why not carriers? In STO, the Klingons have carriers and some say the ufp shouldn't not but if your enemy has a particular weapon, often you need it too if just to be able to fight back.
Someone said maybe they just didn't have the technology. That's just absurd. If you can have shuttles and runabouts equipped with advanced sensory pods, you can build a fighter.
As to kira saying the ufp doesn't believe in warships, the defiant clearly indicated a change in policy, at least in some level. If they are going to have battleships, why not carriers? In STO, the Klingons have carriers and some say the ufp shouldn't not but if your enemy has a particular weapon, often you need it too if just to be able to fight back.
Someone said maybe they just didn't have the technology. That's just absurd. If you can have shuttles and runabouts equipped with advanced sensory pods, you can build a fighter.
Within today's US Army, the 1st Cavalry Division is a rapidly deployment heavy armored division (tanks) composed of 16,700 soldiers The division does maintains a ceremonial detachment of horse-mounted cavalry. However the horses do not deploy overseas.
The traditional job of the cavalry is reconnaissance, security and assault. So the fighters we saw, and any carrier that might move them about and deploy them, just might in fact be the Federation's and Starfleet's cavalry.
Calvary, I kind of like that.
Is it your position then that Starfleet (the majority of the time) lack an actual "fleet," such as the large ones we saw during the Dominion War?
During the battle to regain DS9, 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 the fighter, at least for a few dozen shots, has the identical fire power of a Galaxy class "flagship."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoIFUJxJwcQ&feature=player_embedded
Except he agreed with her, conceding that the only reason Starfleet took such an unprecedented step was because of the Borg threat, and that the reduction in the urgency of the Borg threat made the Defiant impractical.
As for the dual use of fighters in the Trekiverse: I concede that there isn't much utility for a starship-transportable fighter given the technological realities of the verse. OTOH, I'm reminded that the nomenclature might not limit such a starship to fighter craft in naval parlance. The "Assault carriers" of the Halo universe are basically gigantic troop transports that "Carry" everything from infantry squadrons to small warships. If there is an analogy to that in Star Trek, it would be the NuEnterprise and/or Kelvin with their enormous shuttlebays and tube-launched drop pods.
Which sort of confirms the point: there is no cavalry any more. Even the units that carry the name are no longer cavalry units, any more than People's Democratic Republics are People's Democratic Republics.
That's the funny thing about military history: while there are recurring themes, the rules, aims and means of war have undergone massive change, typically apace with technological development. There is no going back, and a military leader displaced in time would surely lead his troops to defeat if employing the thinking appropriate for his own era.
Of course, scifi is all about anachronisms, and thus clever writing might give us a "space cavalry" operating on beasts that gallop through vacuum, or "cybertriremes" where dozens of hackers drive a virtual attack platform in unison to the beat of cyberdrums. Doesn't mean the retro-weapons would be particularly plausible, though.
I don't really see "agreement" there. We simply get a flippant platitude to counter the one by Kira ("Desperate times"), followed by dispassionate analysis on what the Defiant is and what she isn't.
And, tellingly enough, these fireballs were established (in "Call to Arms") to indicate shots that fail to penetrate.
It's pretty funny that we never see a Starfleet capital ship destroy an enemy ship of any sort, unless it's the Defiant doing the firing. We get these fireballs, but the targeted ship merely descends out of view (as if "sinking") still intact. In contrast, enemy ships frequently cut Starfleet capital ships to imposing pieces. It's an odd imbalance in VFX art, but probably not to be taken as indicating the impotence of Starfleet weaponry, because dialogue confirms victories.
Timo Saloniemi
I think the calvary response is valid. Just because horses were replaced with tanks doesn't mean a modern calvary isn't a calvary. I sure wouldn't tell one of those soldiers they aren't calvary.
Call a small 2 person craft a fighter or a boat but the role is the same, as is its usefulness as a support vessel, if not the tip of the spear.
Someone mentioned the ST09 ship bays. Prime 24th century ships have much bigger bays, just look at the D blueprints and the '11 SOTL calender.
Call a small 2 person craft a fighter or a boat but the role is the same, as is its usefulness as a support vessel, if not the tip of the spear.
Someone mentioned the ST09 ship bays. Prime 24th century ships have much bigger bays, just look at the D blueprints and the '11 SOTL calender.
And what she IS is a stem to stern, purpose-built combat vessel. What she ISN'T is a multi-purpose platform with science labs, families and advanced scientific sensor equipment.
It's the "ISN'T" here that makes the Defiant such a radical move for Starfleet. It would be like the U.S. Navy building a nuclear-powered cruiser with an all-nuclear armament and someone asking "I thought the Navy didn't believe in tactical nukes?" to which some Admiral says "Desperate times... that ship was originally designed to fight the Deceptacons. But then the Autobots arrived and the threat became less urgent."
In the twenty-first century, being "cavalry" has to do with the mission of the unit and not as to whether that mission is carried out upon a horse.
If Starfleet fighters fullfill the traditional role of cavarly, then that's what they would be, as jjim Kirk once said of Starfleet "we a combined service."
I kind of disagree; I think in terms of the actual use of cavalry, the only ones that really preserved the original concept would be AIR cavalry, where units traded horses for helicopters and continued to operate as a highly mobile "go anywhere, do anything" unit. You can sort of do that with tanks too, but tanks aren't as mobile as helicopters and their main advantage is actually their invulnerability to small arms; they're used in a completely different way, and are useful against different types of enemies.
Well, no, fighter's role is almost ALWAYS the tip of the spear, especially when their role is to establish air superiority for bombers. Patrol/gunboats don't have that sort of role and never have, so the analogy doesn't fit.
OTOH, fighters and/or runabouts fit the "spaceborne cavalry" model pretty well. Especially if you consider that one of the secondary roles of such craft have been demonstrated to be the rapid delivery and recovery of personnel from combat situations and that they perform THIS role far more often than the ground/space attack role.
Starfleet's "attack fighters" I really see as modified shuttles with heavy armaments, sort of like the Huey Cobra is really just a redesigned Huey optimized for the gunship role. The only thing that breaks the analogy is the fact that shuttles and starships use the same medium and shuttles are nowhere near as fast as starships, but that breaks the "fighter" analogy even more.
No they don't. If anything the HANGAR on the Enterprise-D shuttlebay gives it a similar shuttle capacity, but the narrow passages on all three bays indicate the ship is intended to launch shuttles no more than one or two at a time, and never in a "all hands scramble" fashion as we see on the Kelvin. And even then, the E-D's hangar was never seen in screen, nor were the blueprints themselves.
And there is, again, the tube-launched drop pods on the Enterprise. This was implied to be some sort of escape pod, but the first time I saw it the first thing that came to mind was "ODST." That, plus the fact that Starfleet in the JJ verse is apparently capable of space-jumping into combat situations when transporters aren't available, leads me to believe that starships in the JJ verse have multiple methods of rapidly deploying troops into combat situations: Standard (transporters), rapid (swarms of shuttles), and un-blockable (space jumping and/or drop pods).
This is another area where we run into the fact that the world has changed, and keeps changing. Back when cavalry existed as a battlefield force, it filled a bewildering number of niches, mainly because horse was the only land-mobility-enhancing thing in the universe. Horses were used for charging, for routing, for exploiting a breach, for raiding, for scouting, for logistics, and even as platforms for ranged weapons. At different times, different cultures used different components from that collection of possibilities; a cavalry based on mounted archers could not fight a cavalry based on armored cataphracts, and neither could fight an infantry armed with pikes and muskets but another type of cavalry could be devised for that purpose.
When alternate means of land mobility arose (first with paved roads, then with railroads, and only very recently with offroad powered vehicles), parts of the "cavalry mission" were moved over to those; not everything at once. And what remained of the cavalry had to adapt to this and evolve to yet different forms, so that continuing to use the umbrella term "cavalry" was actually highly misleading. (Indeed, back when horses had been the decisive force, terminology had also reflected this, and there had been specific names for different types of horse formation or horse use, or even different breeds of horse for different battlefield roles. There didn't exist a single entity known as "cavalry", and no single unit could have performed all the different tasks.)
In WWI, tanks (and other motor vehicles) took over two different cavalry roles - or more accurately, two roles for different types of cavalry. They breached enemy lines (and eventually became very good at this), and they exploited the breach (although their abysmal mobility made them highly unsuccessful at this, and for some reason the commanders didn't realize that this was what traditional horse-based cavalry could still continue to do with high odds of success). There was no motor vehicle scouting and little in the way of motor vehicle logistics or the other roles back then.
By WWII, tanks had left cavalry thinking far behind and evolved all-new doctrines of operation, with major differences between the tank-wielding nations. Indeed, soon there were as many types of "armor" as there had been "cavalry", but that didn't translate into any sort of 1:1 commonality between the entities or their component parts. Tank warfare in WWII was nothing like any type of cavalry warfare Earth had ever seen, save perhaps for the use of light tanks for reconnaissance and raids. It hasn't returned to cavalry modes of operation later on, either.
Whether "air cavalry" exploits cavalry tactics and doctrines is arguable. It bears some similarity to the concept of mounted infantry, one of the longest-surviving cavalry types (still of value in the World Wars). But we shouldn't use misleading umbrella terms here; any self-respecting cavalry officer would fart in the general direction of mounted infantry, and challenge them to a duel if they dared apply the designation "cavalry" for their lowly units...
And there you get Starfleet's official support:
To be sure, that pod lacks in two abilities that might be relevant for combat use: the massive starship only seems capable of launching these one-man pods from a single bottleneck orifice, and the occupant has considerable trouble struggling out of his delivery vehicle in the best of circumstances.
Timo Saloniemi
Of course, the occupant had been knocked out courtesy of a vulcan neck pinch, and his pod was wedged deep in an ice crater.
At any rate, I don't see how it would be the escape pod. Having limited launch locations is a bad bad idea, and its a tiny one-person craft.
At any rate, I don't see how it would be the escape pod. Having limited launch locations is a bad bad idea, and its a tiny one-person craft.
Returning to the OP, actual the Enterprise Dee would made for a very effective fighter carrier. Large enough to carry dozens of fighters, plus flight crew and speciality maintenance personnel, and still be able to continue it's mult-mission role in Starfleet.
The relative narrow passage accessing the main flight deck wouldn't prevent the practical deployment of the fighters, modern US Navy carriers can take nearly a hour to launch a full strike package of aircraft.
In the episode Cause And Effect, the Enterprise Dee's main flight deck was large enough so as the sudden depressurization of the (presumably) one atmosphere chamber was sufficient to move the entire ship.
So "not small."
