Starfleet Carrier Ship
- Thread starter MatthiasRussell
- Start date
This is one of those topics which seems to come up about every eighteen months or so, isn't it? (not a criticism, for anyone who's missed the prior conversations, by the way)
The problem with all the arguments I've seen here, really, is that (as is usually the case) the terms aren't being properly defined.
Mainly... "what is a fighter?" This is a term which really isn't the best possible descriptive term for what this type of craft really does, is it?
If you really want to think about this, consider them as "remote weapons deployment platforms."
Today, fighters are the main combat unit in controlling air and naval operations. They aren't useful for sub-surface operations, or for ground-control operations, however. Basically, they're the most effective tool for engaging in environments where there is limited "loiter" capability, and no real "terrain advantage" to be captured or held.
Today, we focus on fighters because all of our most powerful and effective weapons systems can be mounted on these mobile platforms. There are very few weapons systems which can be deployed by a naval vessel or ground forces which cannot also be deployed by fighters.
A few years ago, we focused on battleships... and fighters weren't quite as predominant. That's because the battleship carried weapons systems that could not be mounted onto the more mobile fighter platforms.
What does a "fighter" do? Basically, it is a deployable weapons platform. It can allow you to engage an enemy before that enemy is within striking distance of your command and control, or your logistical, hubs. A mobile weapons system (aka "fighter") can be damaged, or even lost, with relatively minimal risk to the C&C and logistical mechanisms. It's basically total compartmentalization.
A fighter normally will not be designed for long-duration operations. It will fly out, do its job (patrol, strike, intercept, etc) and fly back, to refuel, rearm, etc. It need not have the ability to support a crew beyond JUST the duration needed to perform that one mission.
In Trek terms, what does this mean? A "fighter" can, and really must, be a fast warp ship, but needs no bussard collectors or antimatter generation capabilities. It only needs a small fuel supply, loaded at base (whether that base is mobile or stationary). It needs no medical facilities, crew quarters, dining facilities, or even room to get up and walk around. It needs a small, tough hull, fast engines capable of at least keeping up with any expected target or incoming threat (both at sublight and FTL). And it needs massive firepower (but not SUSTAINED massive firepower).
I saw the comments here about "fighters being obsolete" because in Trek times, they can just be blown up by a capital ship. But if you have technological parity with your target, this is not true. The reason that the little fighters were helpless against the 1701-D was because there was not technological parity.
If you were to fly in a fleet of small, light, evasive ships, each of which carried four heavy photon missiles, plus had the capacity to unleash a sustained, ten-second burst equivalent to a type-10 phaser on a cruiser... and if you have several waves of these attacking, drawing back, re-arming/recharging/refueling, then repeating the whole thing over again... think about it.
A well-designed fighter strike could knock down, say, a Galaxy class exploratory cruiser before the fighter's home base (say, a Klingon carrier) was ever in range of the Galaxy's weapons.
You might lose a few of these fighters to the Galaxy's weapons systems... but the "home base" would be untouched, and I'm sure that they'd consider the loss of a few fighters as a fair exchange for taking out a Galaxy.
The trick with deciding if fighters are effective or not is deciding if you have, as I said, "technological parity" between the two forces... that is, if you can put enough "bang" onto the mobile weapons platforms ("fighters") to engage your target.
Are we talking "battleships with 16" guns" or are we talking about "missile cruisers," in naval terms?
If you're talking battleships, fighters are useful but not as the most significant combat tool. If you're talking "missile cruisers," fighters are the most effective combat tool you've got. They just extend your "missile launch" range a lot, and are a lot harder to hit than your big cruiser...
The problem with all the arguments I've seen here, really, is that (as is usually the case) the terms aren't being properly defined.
Mainly... "what is a fighter?" This is a term which really isn't the best possible descriptive term for what this type of craft really does, is it?
If you really want to think about this, consider them as "remote weapons deployment platforms."
Today, fighters are the main combat unit in controlling air and naval operations. They aren't useful for sub-surface operations, or for ground-control operations, however. Basically, they're the most effective tool for engaging in environments where there is limited "loiter" capability, and no real "terrain advantage" to be captured or held.
Today, we focus on fighters because all of our most powerful and effective weapons systems can be mounted on these mobile platforms. There are very few weapons systems which can be deployed by a naval vessel or ground forces which cannot also be deployed by fighters.
A few years ago, we focused on battleships... and fighters weren't quite as predominant. That's because the battleship carried weapons systems that could not be mounted onto the more mobile fighter platforms.
What does a "fighter" do? Basically, it is a deployable weapons platform. It can allow you to engage an enemy before that enemy is within striking distance of your command and control, or your logistical, hubs. A mobile weapons system (aka "fighter") can be damaged, or even lost, with relatively minimal risk to the C&C and logistical mechanisms. It's basically total compartmentalization.
A fighter normally will not be designed for long-duration operations. It will fly out, do its job (patrol, strike, intercept, etc) and fly back, to refuel, rearm, etc. It need not have the ability to support a crew beyond JUST the duration needed to perform that one mission.
In Trek terms, what does this mean? A "fighter" can, and really must, be a fast warp ship, but needs no bussard collectors or antimatter generation capabilities. It only needs a small fuel supply, loaded at base (whether that base is mobile or stationary). It needs no medical facilities, crew quarters, dining facilities, or even room to get up and walk around. It needs a small, tough hull, fast engines capable of at least keeping up with any expected target or incoming threat (both at sublight and FTL). And it needs massive firepower (but not SUSTAINED massive firepower).
I saw the comments here about "fighters being obsolete" because in Trek times, they can just be blown up by a capital ship. But if you have technological parity with your target, this is not true. The reason that the little fighters were helpless against the 1701-D was because there was not technological parity.
If you were to fly in a fleet of small, light, evasive ships, each of which carried four heavy photon missiles, plus had the capacity to unleash a sustained, ten-second burst equivalent to a type-10 phaser on a cruiser... and if you have several waves of these attacking, drawing back, re-arming/recharging/refueling, then repeating the whole thing over again... think about it.
A well-designed fighter strike could knock down, say, a Galaxy class exploratory cruiser before the fighter's home base (say, a Klingon carrier) was ever in range of the Galaxy's weapons.
You might lose a few of these fighters to the Galaxy's weapons systems... but the "home base" would be untouched, and I'm sure that they'd consider the loss of a few fighters as a fair exchange for taking out a Galaxy.
The trick with deciding if fighters are effective or not is deciding if you have, as I said, "technological parity" between the two forces... that is, if you can put enough "bang" onto the mobile weapons platforms ("fighters") to engage your target.
Are we talking "battleships with 16" guns" or are we talking about "missile cruisers," in naval terms?
If you're talking battleships, fighters are useful but not as the most significant combat tool. If you're talking "missile cruisers," fighters are the most effective combat tool you've got. They just extend your "missile launch" range a lot, and are a lot harder to hit than your big cruiser...
I'd start with a Work Bee for the cockpit and plug it into a fuselage, although something a lot beefier than the Killer Bee concept I worked up the last time this topic reared its loathsome head.
To be sure, that's not quite what "fighters" originally did in the aircraft scene. "Bombers" deployed decisive weapons at long distances against a wide range of targets; fighters just carried point-blank armaments for the explicit purpose of combating a single type of target: an opposing aircraft. The armaments they carried were in no demand at the target area, save for the somewhat monomaniacal task of fighting other aircraft.
"Fighter-bomber" was a natural development as soon as fighter armaments by necessity of the original mission became heavier and heavier; ultimately, it became trivially easy to swap some of them for different weapons that could be applied for different missions. Today, pure air combat aircraft no longer exist, as there is no technological limitation against equipping an air superiority machine with ground attack ordnance. Doctrinal choices and technological optimization mean that some of the generic fighter-bombers are still used as pure air superiority fighters, though.
When analyzing a scifi fighter scene, one would do well to consider whether the scene is analogous to the early days of flying, or perhaps to the glory days of WWII, or the more modern jet fighter-bomber era. It's always possible the scifi story deals with a truly futuristic scene, too, giving its own definition to "fighter". Getting stuck with a single definition always risks going against the spirit and intention of the particular scifi piece.
Timo Saloniemi
Throwing in a strong nod from the relatively non-militaristic roles of Starfleet.
Search and Rescue, exploration of vast planetary systems and nebulae, evacuation- and even colonisation- of worlds, co-ordination of sector-wide relief efforts, support of mobile research teams and, yes, combat.
Build the carrier along the lines of the Galaxy-class but bulk it up, give it the means to launch it's Fighter-like vessels in quick succession, (Here's looking at you nuBSG/ Buck Rogers. With a Trek twist, naturally.) and the sort of layout and equipment to truly suit a massively multi-modal vehicle. Modular construction and Industrial replicators should allow for in-mission alteration to accommodate fluctuating mission needs as well as assemble new support craft to replace those that are heavily damaged and/ or lost.
Update the Danube-class to reflect the heavily modular nature of the 'Mothership' (Expand the roles to mobile laboratory, heavy-cargo lifter, refueler, ECM/ Countermeasure Suite, Mining Ops, S.C.E. Engineering Lab etc etc.)
As for the figher vehicles? Sleek, ablative armoured craft with Defiant-esque pulse phasers and the 'option' of mounting micro-torps could do the job. However, to throw in a personal gripe, give the damned thing a thruster grid that takes advantage of the lack of atmo-drag in space and allow it to perform on-axis turns ala B5 and nuBSG. How much harder would they be to hit with Capital grade beam weaponry and slow/ dumb torpedo's if they're constantly changing vectors and giving targeting sensors a run for their money? I don't suggest allowing them to take point in a cruiser-grade engagement but rather seize upon the notions mentioned before and exploit weaknesses that becomes apparent in enemy formations. And, inevitably, to counter-act enemy strike-craft.
More intrigued by the notion of the Carrier as a Galactic Relief Support Craft though than the military-side.
The Galaxy's, Nebula's and other big beastie's are formidable but a Carrier so sized and equipped could, perhaps, perform the more mundane but utterly critical parts of their mission with better adaptability?
A mobile Starbase, if you will. Give it a hundred, well-engineered and adaptable support craft and let it loose upon a Sector. Free's up the Galaxy's for Cruiser-grade fights, long-range exploration and Diplomacy, eh?
Search and Rescue, exploration of vast planetary systems and nebulae, evacuation- and even colonisation- of worlds, co-ordination of sector-wide relief efforts, support of mobile research teams and, yes, combat.
Build the carrier along the lines of the Galaxy-class but bulk it up, give it the means to launch it's Fighter-like vessels in quick succession, (Here's looking at you nuBSG/ Buck Rogers. With a Trek twist, naturally.) and the sort of layout and equipment to truly suit a massively multi-modal vehicle. Modular construction and Industrial replicators should allow for in-mission alteration to accommodate fluctuating mission needs as well as assemble new support craft to replace those that are heavily damaged and/ or lost.
Update the Danube-class to reflect the heavily modular nature of the 'Mothership' (Expand the roles to mobile laboratory, heavy-cargo lifter, refueler, ECM/ Countermeasure Suite, Mining Ops, S.C.E. Engineering Lab etc etc.)
As for the figher vehicles? Sleek, ablative armoured craft with Defiant-esque pulse phasers and the 'option' of mounting micro-torps could do the job. However, to throw in a personal gripe, give the damned thing a thruster grid that takes advantage of the lack of atmo-drag in space and allow it to perform on-axis turns ala B5 and nuBSG. How much harder would they be to hit with Capital grade beam weaponry and slow/ dumb torpedo's if they're constantly changing vectors and giving targeting sensors a run for their money? I don't suggest allowing them to take point in a cruiser-grade engagement but rather seize upon the notions mentioned before and exploit weaknesses that becomes apparent in enemy formations. And, inevitably, to counter-act enemy strike-craft.
More intrigued by the notion of the Carrier as a Galactic Relief Support Craft though than the military-side.
The Galaxy's, Nebula's and other big beastie's are formidable but a Carrier so sized and equipped could, perhaps, perform the more mundane but utterly critical parts of their mission with better adaptability?
A mobile Starbase, if you will. Give it a hundred, well-engineered and adaptable support craft and let it loose upon a Sector. Free's up the Galaxy's for Cruiser-grade fights, long-range exploration and Diplomacy, eh?
I think you're mistaken, or misunderstanding.
Think about the typical WWII fighter plane... it had large-caliber guns (and may have carried missiles or bombs, but I'll focus on guns for now, since you mentioned "point blank" armaments).
The same basic guns would be found in AA emplacements at the base (aircraft carrier, or land base). But the ones mounted on the aircraft had the advantage of being able to engage hostiles before the hostiles could engage the base.
Missiles... similar argument would apply. BOMBS, well... this is a slight variation, but you can associate conventional bombs more to large artillery shells... area-effect weapons.
Your argument doesn't counter my point at all... these weapons simply become more effective when they're used from a "remote weapons platform" than they would be if they were deployed from the base itself.
Which is in no way a counter-argument against my own point. They remain weapons-deployment platforms, with C&C and logistics provided by the base but deploying the weapons systems remotely from the base, therefore making the weapons system more effective, overall.
I'm not sure how that's a response to what I said. I mean, if I said that I thought that fighters, as shown in Star Wars, was a reasonable model, this would be a valid response. But that's not what I said at all, was it?
A "fighter" is a remote weapons deployment platform. So is a bomber... it just deploys a different sort of weapon.
I'm not talking about "in sci-fi." I'm talking about in space combat... which has not happened yet (at least so far as humanity is concerned) but which will, inevitably, happen.
Remote weapon deployment platforms, especially those which are capable of deploying "technologically matched" (or even better, technologically superior) weapon loads against a threat, will ALWAYS have beneficial role in warfare.
I'm not sure I see the advantage, in a non-hostile environment, for this... the galaxy as a relief ship is still very limited... you could evacuate or serve a small town with the resources of a Galaxy class. How many Galaxies would it take to do disaster relief in New Orleans after Katrina... much less to deal with a city-wide disaster in NYC, for example?
It's a lot easier to deploy destructive force than it is to patch together the wounded... or to rebuild a city.
I think that the idea of a "carrier" is probably less suited for this purpose. Instead, I'd argue in favor of a series of small craft... some of which would be something along the size/crew capacity of the Defiant, but instead of being warcraft they'd be "mobile relief ships" with a small crew and a significant medical facility. You'd want a lot of similar "factory ships" in that same relief fleet, basically dedicated replicators. And you might even have some "constructor equipment carrier" ships. But these would be so dramatically different in terms of roles and hardware that it seems silly to me to try to "modularize" a single concept to fit all of those roles. "Jack of all trades, master of none" and all that, ya know?
I can see "relief fleets" but I don't see them as being analogous to carrier groups, and the idea of "fighter-esque small craft" seems ill-suited to that role, while I believe it will always be the most effective combat functionality.
FYI, if we do see "space combat" in the foreseeable future, I do not imagine it being remotely like anything we've seen in movies. I see the "fighters" as being unmanned, most likely, or with a basic "caretaker" crew who are only there in case the auto-systems fail.
I do not see WWII-esque "bombing and strafing runs" so much as I see beyond-visual-range weapons releases, of weapons with massive destructive power, then rapid withdrawl to re-arm/re-fuel, even "re-crew."
That's a totally different role... one that is ONLY suitable for a combat "remote weapons deployment platform"... than you'd see for a "relief fleet" or the like. For that relief fleet concept, the ships need to be almost totally different in form, feature, and functionality.
Last edited:
Well, in a Katrina-like scenerio, a large complement of small vessels would be highly useful for policing. But shuttles can do that and would be less threatening to survivors than a fighter. For evacuations, the extra launch/load bay space of a carrier would be handy.
If I am exploring an asteroid field, I would rather have fighters, not just for size but a fighter would traditionally be more maneuverable than a transport. If I happen to be doing some mining in that asteroid, some armament would be nice.
If I am exploring an asteroid field, I would rather have fighters, not just for size but a fighter would traditionally be more maneuverable than a transport. If I happen to be doing some mining in that asteroid, some armament would be nice.
Actually, that aspect had little or no relevance in WWI: fighters were seldom if ever called to defend one's base or one's other surface installations, since there was no early warning system to allow them to do so. And moving the Lewis gun from the surface closer to the enemy was of little relevance as well: most aerial fights took place well within the effective range of a surface-mounted Lewis gun (yours or theirs, although long stretches of WWI were fought under the doctrine of never loitering into enemy airspace), and the loading of said gun onto a scout, spotter or bomber did not turn that aircraft into a fighter. Indeed, a Lewis gun hauled to the skies aboard an "aerial truck" had basically zero chance of downing an enemy aircraft.
What turned a Lewis gun from a morale-boosting source of noise into an aircraft killer, and what defined "fighter" in the original and relatively enduring sense, was the fighter's ability to bring the boresight-mounted gun to bear in a turning fight. Elimination of complex ballistic considerations, lead times and relative speed differences was the defining factor separating a spotter plane from fighter, the prey from the predator.
A Lewis gun transformed by relocating it from a pintle mount (surface or airborne) to a fixed or Foster mount was a whole new category of weapon, despite being technologically identical between mounts. Bombs, missiles and other ordnance would not compare, and would not be what "fighter" would be relying on. Bringing those weapons to a new position over the battlefield would be the task for an "aerial truck", not a fighter - even though some missile trucks later on became confusingly designated as fighters, and even though the most recent aircraft combine the abilities of a fighter and a missile truck in the same airframe and remove the necessity and validity of the "fighter" concept altogether.
This holds true for all other aspects and weapons apart from the fighter ones. The other weapons are basically useless if mounted in the base, because a base cannot bomb or strafe anything else besides itself. But the Lewis gun equivalent plays two completely different roles depending on whether it's fighter-mounted or base-mounted. At the base, it's a valid point defense weapon and potentially much more effective in stopping the enemy because of the easier logistics, the ability to mount more barrels, and having the coverage where it's needed rather than scattered on the skies. Flying in the blue or black yonder, it's a point attack weapon that's only useful against other small craft, and then only if deployed in the fighter manner, not in the air/spaceborne truck manner.
But the key difference is in the manner of deploying the weapon, not in the nature of the weapon. Two similarly sized aircraft could mount banks of 20 mm Hispano-Suizas on the wings, but only the nimble one capable of bringing those to bear on enemy planes would be a fighter; the solid and steady one capable of strafing a truck convoy or an infantry formation would be an air support asset.
Again, this refers to the real-world definition of "fighter", the significance of which is waning if not already lost. It also appears to apply to the fighters of Star Wars or Space:Above and Beyond or Babylon 5. Whether it applies at all to the small craft of Star Trek, which all seem to have "pintle mount" weapons with 100% accurate targeting and no ballistics problems, is debatable. But it doesn't appear that bringing a 50 cm long phaser strip a tad closer to the enemy starships really presents any sort of an advantage in the Trek fighting environment.
Timo Saloniemi
To inject a little realism in this scenario:
1) In a Katrina-like scenario you're going to be a hell of a lot more concerned with humanitarian relief and medivac than policing. For that you'd need a few dozen Danubes and short-range shuttlecraft to setup field hospitals and triage centers; anyone requiring hospitalization can be beamed aboard to sickbay. The fact that Starfleet clings frantically to its non-combat roles before its combative ones means that any sort of craft capable of operating as a fighter MUST be able to serve all of these roles and then some, and its carrier must be optimized to support those types of missions as well.
2) In the real world there's no such thing as an "asteroid field," because real asteroids don't (and can't) hang around each other in the same general region of space for any amount of time; just the nature of orbital mechanics means they'll immediately begin to orbit about a common center of gravity, perturbations from other objects will toss them into differing trajectories and collisions with each other will limit the number of orbits that CAN assume. If they maintain any sort of particle density they'll form a structure similar to Saturn's rings, otherwise they'll be spread out in a thin diffuse belt with plenty of empty space between them. Dense fields of the type seen in "booby trap" would be EXTREMELY rare, and relatively new formations that could probably be mapped using conventional sensor probes and shuttlecraft.
OTOH, recently created asteroid clusters would probably be of considerable industrial as well as scientific interest, and thus sought-after and contested locations.
Also, several cultures from Trek past and present are credited with weapons capable of demolishing largish heavenly bodies and thus possibly creating rubble fields. The surprisingly numerous dense and compact nebulae in Trek might also indicate old battle sites littered with fluid or particulate residue.
Timo Saloniemi
Also, several cultures from Trek past and present are credited with weapons capable of demolishing largish heavenly bodies and thus possibly creating rubble fields. The surprisingly numerous dense and compact nebulae in Trek might also indicate old battle sites littered with fluid or particulate residue.
Timo Saloniemi
I sense that I may need to clarify on the multi-modal Carrier concept.
I should have elaborated that a decent percentage of the support craft would be crewed fighters (modular emplacements and mission-techs like the Danube's but designed for optimal offense/ defense usage) and the remainder the uprated Danube's, work-bee's and whatever bit of junk the pilot is 'working on' in his/her/hir/their spare time :P
The carrier platform though, with it's central concept of large volume, high-speed deployment and efficient vessel storage seems quite well fitted to being a variation of the on-screen galactic-support vessels like the ubiquitous Excelsior, Nebula and Oberth Classes.
As to the old idea "Jack of all trades, Master of none." Agreed. Putting each of your eggs in separate baskets is not an efficient methodology. However, using a planetary or system evacuation as an example, a Carrier with a high-degree of easily/ intelligently configurable internal space and a diverse crew of Engineers, Medics and Support Officers covering the various disciplines involved in mass-migrations may serve to at least augment the fleet's existing mass-transport facilities.
It has the added handiness of circumventing the Voyager-esque "Transporters offline/ atmosphere prevents beaming/ there's a Targ in the way" situ's and, whilst I don't imagine a vast Transport Configuration being a comfortable way to travel, the vessel could ferry refugee's to a Proper Starbase for intensive social care.
Versatility has a place- Forsee a Fleet battle? Create a config that balances Hospital abilities with fleet resupply/ repair facilities alongside secondary Command and Support backups. (Admiral Hansons Flagship being lost at Wolf 359, one must assume that a backup Command structure would be in place to rally the fleet? A Carrier at the edge of the preceedings could provide valuable, long-range insight, as one line of thought.)
Damnit, I want one of these things. Now!
I should have elaborated that a decent percentage of the support craft would be crewed fighters (modular emplacements and mission-techs like the Danube's but designed for optimal offense/ defense usage) and the remainder the uprated Danube's, work-bee's and whatever bit of junk the pilot is 'working on' in his/her/hir/their spare time :P
The carrier platform though, with it's central concept of large volume, high-speed deployment and efficient vessel storage seems quite well fitted to being a variation of the on-screen galactic-support vessels like the ubiquitous Excelsior, Nebula and Oberth Classes.
As to the old idea "Jack of all trades, Master of none." Agreed. Putting each of your eggs in separate baskets is not an efficient methodology. However, using a planetary or system evacuation as an example, a Carrier with a high-degree of easily/ intelligently configurable internal space and a diverse crew of Engineers, Medics and Support Officers covering the various disciplines involved in mass-migrations may serve to at least augment the fleet's existing mass-transport facilities.
It has the added handiness of circumventing the Voyager-esque "Transporters offline/ atmosphere prevents beaming/ there's a Targ in the way" situ's and, whilst I don't imagine a vast Transport Configuration being a comfortable way to travel, the vessel could ferry refugee's to a Proper Starbase for intensive social care.
Versatility has a place- Forsee a Fleet battle? Create a config that balances Hospital abilities with fleet resupply/ repair facilities alongside secondary Command and Support backups. (Admiral Hansons Flagship being lost at Wolf 359, one must assume that a backup Command structure would be in place to rally the fleet? A Carrier at the edge of the preceedings could provide valuable, long-range insight, as one line of thought.)
Damnit, I want one of these things. Now!
So for TNG and later, how many "small combat craft" would be able to take out a starship in a straight out fight (Maquis using secret vulnerability not included )? T'Girl? a while back made a good mockup showing how runabouts / fighters a Galaxy-class could hold and it was a dozen or so. Could a dozen do it?
)? T'Girl? a while back made a good mockup showing how runabouts / fighters a Galaxy-class could hold and it was a dozen or so. Could a dozen do it?
This came up over in the "art" forum but I thought it might be relevant to this thread as well, so I'm doing a minor cut/paste/edit job to put the same info here.
Before CGI work was as common as it is today, getting high-quality ship design concepts was much rougher... but this also meant that those who did it were much better coordinated with each other, and that those who would dedicate the time to doing this work by-hand were pretty dedicated to the job.
Aridas Sofia was one of those guys, and he's still around today, though not nearly as active. He put out a series of really nicely done sheets and books back in the 80s, most of which were sold through places like "New Eye Studio" or "The Federation Trading Post." They were often advertised in the back of Starlog Magazine or Famous Monsters of Filmland or the like.
The topic that came up in the other forum was the Ariel Class Shuttlecarrier. So I dug up my best reference on that, and did a few scans. These are 11x17 prints, and I can only scan letter-size, so there's a "fold gutter shadow" in the middle, and you can see that I've merged two scans into one...
Back in the day, these were the best references you could find. This basic design was seen in numerous places, though... not all from Aridas or his collaborators. I have a big "sillouettes poster" that shows it, for instance.
I'm going to provide a low-res scan of the "overview sheet" and one of the Ariel's sheet, from this 10-sheet set. The overview sheet is interesting because it gives context of the Ariel class design... and remember, this pre-dates TNG by a number of years.
I'll also provide a high-res scan of the Ariel's line-drawing itself.
Obviously, all of this is fully and completely the work of Aridas, except as noted by him... I have no legal rights to this in any sense and am providing it purely for informational purposes.
The high-res scan you see is what I used as my pattern when making my own 3D model of this ship, several years ago.
I LOVE the Ariel design... and it's definitely relevant to this discussion, I think.
Before CGI work was as common as it is today, getting high-quality ship design concepts was much rougher... but this also meant that those who did it were much better coordinated with each other, and that those who would dedicate the time to doing this work by-hand were pretty dedicated to the job.
Aridas Sofia was one of those guys, and he's still around today, though not nearly as active. He put out a series of really nicely done sheets and books back in the 80s, most of which were sold through places like "New Eye Studio" or "The Federation Trading Post." They were often advertised in the back of Starlog Magazine or Famous Monsters of Filmland or the like.
The topic that came up in the other forum was the Ariel Class Shuttlecarrier. So I dug up my best reference on that, and did a few scans. These are 11x17 prints, and I can only scan letter-size, so there's a "fold gutter shadow" in the middle, and you can see that I've merged two scans into one...
Back in the day, these were the best references you could find. This basic design was seen in numerous places, though... not all from Aridas or his collaborators. I have a big "sillouettes poster" that shows it, for instance.
I'm going to provide a low-res scan of the "overview sheet" and one of the Ariel's sheet, from this 10-sheet set. The overview sheet is interesting because it gives context of the Ariel class design... and remember, this pre-dates TNG by a number of years.
I'll also provide a high-res scan of the Ariel's line-drawing itself.
Obviously, all of this is fully and completely the work of Aridas, except as noted by him... I have no legal rights to this in any sense and am providing it purely for informational purposes.
The high-res scan you see is what I used as my pattern when making my own 3D model of this ship, several years ago.
I LOVE the Ariel design... and it's definitely relevant to this discussion, I think.
Well, any feds can carry a number small craft but practically you need 50+ crafts for a wing in order to keep pilot fatique low. Aside from that neither range, sensor range nor fire power are useful enough for a carrier in the trek universe except for civil purposes like evacuation and crisis management. Read some analysis found here
Trek Technical Manual realistically?
small numbers are rounded for convenience...
Peregrine fighter
weapons:
2x type VII 2.8 MW estimated (Miranda class); 2 shots/s
I personally think it's type V but since many like firepower...
6 micro torp launchers; 50 quantum rounds (yield 1/10 torpedo); triple barrage in 1s
6 normal sized torpedoes
shield: based on relative size to Galaxy 0.1 MW
50x more => 5 MW (just for those fighter jockeys)
Galaxy class
dorsal or ventral phaser roughly 5.1 MW * 200 = 1020 MW; 1 single shot/s
shield:
nominal 1152 MW cruise mode (3/12 generators)
alert status 2688 MW (7/12 generators) = 730 MW max dissipation rate
Fighter proceeding
approach-attack-retreat takes 30 seconds for each round for simplicity
at max combat range 300000 km; doesn't matter much...
attack: fires for 3 second as follows
4 type VII phaser shots for 1s
triple micro torpedo barrage 18 microtorps=2 torps; 1s (ignore that they are out of range)
2 torpedoes; 1s (ignore 90% yield due to range)
Galaxy proceeding
fires only dorsal and ventral phasers only, no torpedoes!
could fire 400 coordinated shots at once but for drama and action just only 2 shots per array per second otherwise the fight would be over in a second
Scenario 1: - Just enough fighters to overwhelm the Galaxy's shield in an alpha strike.
No matter what happens, if the fighters cannot destroy the Galaxy in an alpha strike it's over.
number of fighter's total attack power >= Galaxy shield
Scenario 2: - Enough fighters to overwhelm the Galaxy's shield at any one moment => 10x more fighters
Any other Scenarios do not matter.
For starters you could consider normal torpedoes to do 3 MW (or any other value) to shields...
Figure and play it out yourself.
So for TNG and later, how many "small combat craft" would be able to take out a starship in a straight out fight (Maquis using secret vulnerability not included
Trek Technical Manual realistically?
small numbers are rounded for convenience...
Peregrine fighter
weapons:
2x type VII 2.8 MW estimated (Miranda class); 2 shots/s
I personally think it's type V but since many like firepower...
6 micro torp launchers; 50 quantum rounds (yield 1/10 torpedo); triple barrage in 1s
6 normal sized torpedoes
shield: based on relative size to Galaxy 0.1 MW
50x more => 5 MW (just for those fighter jockeys)
Galaxy class
dorsal or ventral phaser roughly 5.1 MW * 200 = 1020 MW; 1 single shot/s
shield:
nominal 1152 MW cruise mode (3/12 generators)
alert status 2688 MW (7/12 generators) = 730 MW max dissipation rate
Fighter proceeding
approach-attack-retreat takes 30 seconds for each round for simplicity
at max combat range 300000 km; doesn't matter much...
attack: fires for 3 second as follows
4 type VII phaser shots for 1s
triple micro torpedo barrage 18 microtorps=2 torps; 1s (ignore that they are out of range)
2 torpedoes; 1s (ignore 90% yield due to range)
Galaxy proceeding
fires only dorsal and ventral phasers only, no torpedoes!
could fire 400 coordinated shots at once but for drama and action just only 2 shots per array per second otherwise the fight would be over in a second
Scenario 1: - Just enough fighters to overwhelm the Galaxy's shield in an alpha strike.
No matter what happens, if the fighters cannot destroy the Galaxy in an alpha strike it's over.
number of fighter's total attack power >= Galaxy shield
Scenario 2: - Enough fighters to overwhelm the Galaxy's shield at any one moment => 10x more fighters
Any other Scenarios do not matter.
For starters you could consider normal torpedoes to do 3 MW (or any other value) to shields...
Figure and play it out yourself.
Last edited:
So for TNG and later, how many "small combat craft" would be able to take out a starship in a straight out fight (Maquis using secret vulnerability not included
That depends. if they're all being pilotted by redshirts, then at least twenty. If four of them are pilotted by people with names like "Sisko" or "Paris," then at least four.
So for TNG and later, how many "small combat craft" would be able to take out a starship in a straight out fight (Maquis using secret vulnerability not included
That depends. if they're all being pilotted by redshirts, then at least twenty. If four of them are pilotted by people with names like "Sisko" or "Paris," then at least four.
LOL, if the Galaxy-class starship was commanded by Riker, then only 1-2 small craft would be needed
So the cluster of asteroids in Jupiter's fourth (Greeks) and fifth (Trojans) lagrange points wouldn't qualify as "asteroid fields."
marspedia
sagansbrain
It is a foregone conclusion, especially one based on the Ariel drawings, that a small-craft carrier ship is going to be larger and less maneuverable than cruisers and such.
Given this, I wonder if perhaps the Federation would employ a completely different kind of "carrier" strategy, by not using a dedicated "carrier" starship at all. Look at it this way: a transport-tug class of starship (like FJ's Ptolemy, or, better yet, Forbin's Sultana concept) could haul multiple cargo pods. Maybe there's a special kind of cargo pod that serves as a "carrier", so that each pod is a self-contained hangar, launch system, and crew module containing everything needed to support the launching, maintenance and recovery of small craft. The benefit to such a tug-based "carrier pod" system is that a tug could haul multiple pods to a destination, dump them off, and each pod could act as a temporary space station until the tug would come back to pick them up. If we assume a Sultana-type tug could haul at least four "carrier pods" to a "base camp" point, I would expect that it would be far more than an Ariel-type ship could bring to the scene. And the tug could leave the pods there and go on to other assignments, meaning that launch operations in a given star system would not require tying up a warp-driven starship indefinitely.
Given this, I wonder if perhaps the Federation would employ a completely different kind of "carrier" strategy, by not using a dedicated "carrier" starship at all. Look at it this way: a transport-tug class of starship (like FJ's Ptolemy, or, better yet, Forbin's Sultana concept) could haul multiple cargo pods. Maybe there's a special kind of cargo pod that serves as a "carrier", so that each pod is a self-contained hangar, launch system, and crew module containing everything needed to support the launching, maintenance and recovery of small craft. The benefit to such a tug-based "carrier pod" system is that a tug could haul multiple pods to a destination, dump them off, and each pod could act as a temporary space station until the tug would come back to pick them up. If we assume a Sultana-type tug could haul at least four "carrier pods" to a "base camp" point, I would expect that it would be far more than an Ariel-type ship could bring to the scene. And the tug could leave the pods there and go on to other assignments, meaning that launch operations in a given star system would not require tying up a warp-driven starship indefinitely.
