Starfleet Fighter Planes?

[FlapJoy]

The Academy? Glorified shuttles used to give cadets practical astronautical experience.

But then, if Starfleet really wanted to go the "one man expendable fighter" route, I wouldn't be surprised. Sounds like something they would do in their lack of even finite wisdom.

You mean like this?:

---Large numbers of these ships were used by Starfleet in the Dominion War. During Operation Return, eight successive waves of fighters were sent to attack the Cardassian ships of a Dominion fleet, hoping to provoke them into breaking formation and creating an opening for the Federation fleet. (DS9: "Sacrifice of Angels")
~From Star Trek Wiki: Memory Alpha
---

Might be what Academy training went towards.

 

[kv1at3485]

You mean like this?:

---Large numbers of these ships were used by Starfleet in the Dominion War. During Operation Return, eight successive waves of fighters were sent to attack the Cardassian ships of a Dominion fleet, hoping to provoke them into breaking formation and creating an opening for the Federation fleet. (DS9: "Sacrifice of Angels")
~From Star Trek Wiki: Memory Alpha

I'm well aware of SoA, and I have a long history of reviling the whole thing. SoA is what happens when you have a universe where it seems everybody is determined to use technology in the most anachronistic way possible.

But I suppose that is what happens when the users are psychologically a few centuries behind the science.

Might be what Academy training went towards.

Might also be there just to make sure there's always a designated pilot after the graduation ceremony.

And it seems you would benefit from familiarizing yourself with the board's "edit" and "multiquote" feature.

 

[FlapJoy]

You mean like this?:

---Large numbers of these ships were used by Starfleet in the Dominion War. During Operation Return, eight successive waves of fighters were sent to attack the Cardassian ships of a Dominion fleet, hoping to provoke them into breaking formation and creating an opening for the Federation fleet. (DS9: "Sacrifice of Angels")
~From Star Trek Wiki: Memory Alpha

I'm well aware of SoA, and I have a long history of reviling the whole thing. SoA is what happens when you have a universe where it seems everybody is determined to use technology in the most anachronistic way possible.

But I suppose that is what happens when the users are psychologically a few centuries behind the science.

Might be what Academy training went towards.

Might also be there just to make sure there's always a designated pilot after the graduation ceremony.

And it seems you would benefit from familiarizing yourself with the board's "edit" and "multiquote" feature.

Your right about Multi Quote, not quite figured that out yet... not sure it makes a huge difference other than etiquette, but I do understand and I apologize.

But, I DON'T think the idea of a fighter is behind the science. And even if it was, technically, a lot of Trek is behind the science, but Trek is mostly about about characters, at it's best, and not solely on the science; part of what makes it enjoyable. I don't want to watch a show full of dry exploration and robot drones. The science in Trek is very cool, and so often believable, and I'm glad they treat it as a serious part of the Trek universe.
I only use the DS9 episode as a demonstration that fighters exist in the Trek canon and can even be useful in tactical situations... and I don't doubt that many situations may call for a small one-man fighter, or fleet of such, instead of a larger cruiser every time. In the unverse of Trek many stories can be told.

Beyond that, I entered this thread because I just think warp fighters in Trek is a cool idea, a fun idea, and could make for a good storyline. That's all.

 

[kv1at3485]

But, I DON'T think the idea of a fighter is behind the science.

I admit I do not want to go into the whole missiles vs. fighter debate again. Most of the opposition can never get beyond the presumption that an expert system is always inferior to a "human" in specialized tasks. Especially given the technological capabilities in ST.[/quote]

And even if it was, technically, a lot of Trek is behind the science, but Trek is mostly about about characters, at it's best, and not solely on the science; part of what makes it enjoyable.

And good characters are required to behave in a manner consistent with the background. Which ST does very badly, since it falls into the trope that science and technology progression have minimal influence on culture and society, and therefore has no capability to reflect such influences in the characters.

ST characterization would be much improved with skilful injection of "logical use of tech".

I don't want to watch a show full of dry exploration and robot drones.

Then you have a problem with the creators', writers', and producers' implementation, not with the concept of "logical use of tech".

Going to the library and actually reading sci-fi works (not tech fantasy like ST) puts to pasture the mistaken notion that logical use of tech equates to poor characterization and storytelling.

The science in Trek is very cool, and so often believable, and I'm glad they treat it as a serious part of the Trek universe.

Believable of the science and technology in ST is not even an issue. The backdrop for sci-fi (which ST is not) is all about "what happens if I put some blokes into an environment where magic/advanced/extrapolated-from-today tech and science has been realized?" Sp "believable" is

But given the carefree way ST uses tech and science, I disagree that they are treated seriously.

I only use the DS9 episode as a demonstration that fighters exist in the Trek canon and can even be useful in tactical situations... and I don't doubt that many situations may call for a small one-man fighter, or fleet of such, instead of a larger cruiser every time. In the unverse of Trek many stories can be told.

Beyond that, I entered this thread because I just think warp fighters in Trek is a cool idea, a fun idea, and could make for a good storyline. That's all.

Well, as long as you don't try to claim it makes sense. Because SoA did not make sense.

 

[Star Wolf]

It makes sense when a fighter wing is a squad of Birds of Prey, not when they are formations of single seat Vipers or X-Wings

 

[FlapJoy]

But, I DON'T think the idea of a fighter is behind the science.

I admit I do not want to go into the whole missiles vs. fighter debate again. Most of the opposition can never get beyond the presumption that an expert system is always inferior to a "human" in specialized tasks. Especially given the technological capabilities in ST.

And even if it was, technically, a lot of Trek is behind the science, but Trek is mostly about about characters, at it's best, and not solely on the science; part of what makes it enjoyable.

And good characters are required to behave in a manner consistent with the background. Which ST does very badly, since it falls into the trope that science and technology progression have minimal influence on culture and society, and therefore has no capability to reflect such influences in the characters.

ST characterization would be much improved with skilful injection of "logical use of tech".

I don't want to watch a show full of dry exploration and robot drones.

Then you have a problem with the creators', writers', and producers' implementation, not with the concept of "logical use of tech".

Going to the library and actually reading sci-fi works (not tech fantasy like ST) puts to pasture the mistaken notion that logical use of tech equates to poor characterization and storytelling.

The science in Trek is very cool, and so often believable, and I'm glad they treat it as a serious part of the Trek universe.

Believable of the science and technology in ST is not even an issue. The backdrop for sci-fi (which ST is not) is all about "what happens if I put some blokes into an environment where magic/advanced/extrapolated-from-today tech and science has been realized?" Sp "believable" is

But given the carefree way ST uses tech and science, I disagree that they are treated seriously.

I only use the DS9 episode as a demonstration that fighters exist in the Trek canon and can even be useful in tactical situations... and I don't doubt that many situations may call for a small one-man fighter, or fleet of such, instead of a larger cruiser every time. In the unverse of Trek many stories can be told.

Beyond that, I entered this thread because I just think warp fighters in Trek is a cool idea, a fun idea, and could make for a good storyline. That's all.

Well, as long as you don't try to claim it makes sense. Because SoA did not make sense.

****
If it's not Sci-fi, i'm ok with that. I do read science fiction in all it's forms, I enjoy them TOO. Is that ok?

What do you like about Trek? Why are you here?

I except Trek's failings but also enjoy it most when it entertains, which is often.

I like Star Trek for what it is, and it's capacity for healthy speculation about man's adventure in space.

 

[kv1at3485]

If it's not Sci-fi, i'm ok with that. I do read science fiction in all it's forms, I enjoy them TOO. Is that ok?

Personal preference and all. At the very least tech fantasy is a good palce to start, but certainly not a good place to remain forever.

What do you like about Trek? Why are you here?

My account is an artifact from the days when I was a die-hard/rabid ST fan. You know, the ones that readily ate up the belief that the UFP is enlightened and a future with it, and its institutions and philosophies as portrayed, was on top of the pile of desirable outcomes.

I wish ST had evolved into something better along with me.

I except Trek's failings but also enjoy it most when it entertains, which is often.

I like Star Trek for what it is, and it's capacity for healthy speculation about man's future in space.

I'm not so sure about that. I'm forced to agree with others that ST is, at best, about the present. How good it is at reflecting us and the world we live in I leave to others to speculate on. I'm hesitant to say that ST is about the future because it has never successfully put together a coherent vision of the future.

 

[FlapJoy]

If it's not Sci-fi, i'm ok with that. I do read science fiction in all it's forms, I enjoy them TOO. Is that ok?

Personal preference and all. At the very least tech fantasy is a good palce to start, but certainly not a good place to remain forever.

What do you like about Trek? Why are you here?

My account is an artifact from the days when I was a die-hard/rabid ST fan. You know, the ones that readily ate up the belief that the UFP is enlightened and a future with it, and its institutions and philosophies as portrayed, was on top of the pile of desirable outcomes.

I wish ST had evolved into something better along with me.

I except Trek's failings but also enjoy it most when it entertains, which is often.

I like Star Trek for what it is, and it's capacity for healthy speculation about man's future in space.

I'm not so sure about that. I'm forced to agree with others that ST is, at best, about the present. How good it is at reflecting us and the world we live in I leave to others to speculate on. I'm hesitant to say that ST is about the future because it has never successfully put together a coherent vision of the future.

Well, you got me there on the last part, I actually edited my last post to read "adventure in space" and not "future"... I guess it didn't take. But this bit I'm with you on.

But if you've lost interest in Trek, why do you remain? It is, of course, your right to stay, but not if you evolve into a pure hater on these forums. (granted, that may not be a fair description... but that's how it seems) Do you see that others may want to converse without your rabid criticism?
My problem is that I take such things personal, because I really want a place to discuss Trek and the things I like about it. And so I'm irritated easily when I can't do that and take on the debate... I guess I should just ignore it. But honestly, why is a topic such as this so reviled by fans? It's playful speculation. I'm a fan way back of TOS and also of the various series' and films to follow, I loved the corny aspects as well as the interesting take it had on our society and all the rest of it... but at it's core, it's an action/adventure show, a western set in space. So, I don't really hold it to any higher standard. But damn... I've never seen such opposition to a concept like this.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

It's TrekBBS.

It's what we do.

 

[FlapJoy]

It's TrekBBS.

It's what we do.

No, it's not... not everyone.
And TrekBBS, no matter how long you've been here, is for EVERYONE.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical.

 

[Jono]

^ If it makes you feel better I got the joke and it made me chuckle.

 

[FlapJoy]

Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical.

Sorry, I'm a bit too defensive today I guess.

 

[kv1at3485]

But if you've lost interest in Trek, why do you remain? It is, of course, your right to stay, but not if you evolve into a pure hater on these forums. (granted, that may not be a fair description... but that's how it seems) Do you see that others may want to converse without your rabid criticism?

Why do I still pass by? Because rarely an interesting idea pops up in a tech tread. And it's always amusing to see people struggle to find new ways to justify weird things in ST.

If my criticism (which I classify as a blunt assessment) disturbs you then note that they followed logically from your replies.

My problem is that I take such things personal, because I really want a place to discuss Trek and the things I like about it. And so I'm irritated easily when I can't do that and take on the debate... I guess I should just ignore it. But honestly, why is a topic such as this so reviled by fans? It's playful speculation. I'm a fan way back of TOS and also of the various series' and films to follow, I loved the corny aspects as well as the interesting take it had on our society and all the rest of it... but at it's core, it's an action/adventure show, a western set in space. So, I don't really hold it to any higher standard. But damn... I've never seen such opposition to a concept like this.

The "ST fighters/carriers" topic (among other ones) pops up frequently. A strong response just means the bunkers are already in place waiting for the topic to rise from the grave.

 

[FlapJoy]

Why do I still pass by? Because rarely an interesting idea pops up in a tech tread. And it's always amusing to see people struggle to find new ways to justify weird things in ST.

If my criticism (which I classify as a blunt assessment) disturbs you then note that they followed logically from your replies.



The "ST fighters/carriers" topic (among other ones) pops up frequently. A strong response just means the bunkers are already in place waiting for the topic to rise from the grave.

Then I guess you should get over yourself. ( I'll do the same, btw)
How do you "bunk" any concept in a fictional universe? Star Trek depicted a talking rock with Christmas lights talking to Abraham Lincoln, there's weird stuff in ST, ok? Who gives a damn? Honestly, if you're stopping by waiting for a topic to "rise from the grave" just to piss on it, then you're just being an asshole.

 

[kv1at3485]

Then I guess you should get over yourself. ( I'll do the same, btw)

Not sure where that came from. I don't see anything out of the ordinary with the behaivour displayed in this thread.

How do you "bunk" any concept in a fictional universe? Honestly, if you're stopping by waiting for a topic to "rise from the grave" just to piss on it, then you're just being an asshole.

What I meant is the topic has been debated frequently in the past on this board and that previous participants may be somewhat prepared for it (same arguments and counterarguments rehashed, that sort of thing.) That is what I meant by the bunkers (as in fortification, not bunk as in sleeping rack.)

We've been through it before and a that strong response may be simply a way of getting it over with, instead of replaying some of the much longer threads that have occurred in the past.

Compared to past examples this one has been quite mild and short. Probably because it was light on technical discussion.

 

[FlapJoy]

Then I guess you should get over yourself. ( I'll do the same, btw)

Not sure where that came from. I don't see anything out of the ordinary with the behaivour displayed in this thread.

How do you "bunk" any concept in a fictional universe? Honestly, if you're stopping by waiting for a topic to "rise from the grave" just to piss on it, then you're just being an asshole.

What I meant is the topic has been debated frequently in the past on this board and that previous participants may be somewhat prepared for it (same arguments and counterarguments rehashed, that sort of thing.) That is what I meant by the bunkers (as in fortification, not bunk as in sleeping rack.)

We've been through it before and a that strong response may be simply a way of getting it over with, instead of replaying some of the much longer threads that have occurred in the past.

Compared to past examples this one has been quite mild and short. Probably because it was light on technical discussion.

I know what you meant by "bunking"... it still doesn't really apply here in discussion of a fictional universe.

If a topic has been discussed before, move on and let others have at it. Sorry if it's light on tech by your standards but it is a GENERAL disscussion thread after all.

 

[kv1at3485]

I know what you meant by "bunking"... it still doesn't really apply here in discussion of a fictional universe.

Sure it does. Why does it matter that the topic if of a fictional universe? That users have previous experience with the topic (which happens to be of a fictional universe) was the salient point.

If a topic has been discussed before, move on and let others have at it.

Like any other thread, my presence or lack thereof makes no difference to the ability of others to post.

Sorry if it's light on tech by your standards but it is a GENERAL disscussion thread after all.

I did not mean to imply that being light on technical discussion was a bad thing. Experience has shown, however, that when people start asking for rationales such things happen. (Nested "why?" and "explain" queries.)

 

[Sector 7]

I guess the board is overdue for another I want Captian Kirk to fly fighters like Skywalker Starbuck versus fighters can't work in the Star Trek universe fight.

There are no fighters because they can't generate shield strength or firepower to do anything useful against a starship. Hornblower did not command a rowboat with a torpedo strapped to the bow.

If you want to go there, let's go further:

There's no point in showing ANY combat in Star Trek, because if they really had the tech they're supposed to have, it would all be fought at the speed that computers can control warp engines and weapon systems that are ALSO light-speed or faster. And don't say they wouldn't because humanity (or whomever) "insists on control of their own fate", or some crap like that. Wouldn't matter - the first enemy that decided to go computer controlled for their systems would WIN, or would force everyone else to do so in response to keep from getting their butts handed to them - every time - without having time to even know what just happened. And don't say that no race does that because it inevitably leads to computers turning on their owners and killing them, because A) we don't know that, and B) wouldn't matter - even if the computers did kill their creators, they themselves would still be out their as enemies, fighting at their full speed.

Option B) has already happened... and they have a plan...

 

[Star Wolf]

I guess the board is overdue for another I want Captian Kirk to fly fighters like Skywalker Starbuck versus fighters can't work in the Star Trek universe fight.

There are no fighters because they can't generate shield strength or firepower to do anything useful against a starship. Hornblower did not command a rowboat with a torpedo strapped to the bow.

If you want to go there, let's go further:

There's no point in showing ANY combat in Star Trek, because if they really had the tech they're supposed to have, it would all be fought at the speed that computers can control warp engines and weapon systems that are ALSO light-speed or faster. And don't say they wouldn't because humanity (or whomever) insists on control of their own fate, or some crap like that. Wouldn't matter the first enemy that decided to go computer controlled for their systems would WIN, or would force everyone else to do so in response to keep from getting their butts handed to them every time - without having time to even know what just happened. And don't say that no race does that because it inevitably leads to computers turning on their owners and killing them, because A) we don't know that, and B) wouldn't matter - even if the computers did kill their creators, they themselves would still be out their as enemies, fighting at their full speed.

Option B) has already happened... and they have a plan...

Only the plan was so complex that it slowed them down back to Starbuck, make that Apollo speed.