Starfleet Fighter Planes?

[Crazy Eddie]

A fighter carrier in this environment is just plain silly, though the idea of "parasite craft" docked to the outside of the ship Suliban-style would work extremely well.

No matter how the fighters were attatched to the ship is it not still a carrier?

In space craft, you could dock fifty fighters to the belly of a garbage scow and call it a carrier; in that sense, yes, there are probably some carriers floating around. As for "space craft designed specifically to launch and deploy fighters," that's just a waste of resources.

Besides, a shuttle bay works pretty well, why coudn't a ship house fighters and launch from that platform?

Because the whole point of a shuttle bay is a secure enclosure where shuttlecraft can load/unload personnel and equipment and have maintenance done. A fighter small enough to fit in a starship wouldn't load or unload anything except munitions and a pilot and the maintenance could be carried out in a conventional shuttlebay (see "Space Above and Beyond" for an example of a really efficient space fighter carrier; the fighters dock with the ship and both the cockpit and weapons stations are serviced by waldos).

Not sure why it's "silly".

The main reason is that any starship big enough to be useful as a fighter won't be small enough to fit inside a shuttlebay. A Klingon Bird of Prey doesn't need to land between missions.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Since they would be unable to rundown D7 cruiser because fighters in the Trek verse are not fast enough and don't have enough endrance to chase a starship down. Its not Battlestar where the only option is to jump to hide, Enterprise can outrun the shuttle with a phaser and a torpedo or two which we want to call fighters

What if the target can't run? If it has to remain close to something it is trying to defend?

Then the Enterprise buries them up to their necks in photon torpedoes. Or, alternately, the opponent clobbers Enterprise with torpedoes when they lower their shields to launch fighters.

 

[FlapJoy]

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.)

Why do you care?

 

[FlapJoy]

A fighter carrier in this environment is just plain silly, though the idea of "parasite craft" docked to the outside of the ship Suliban-style would work extremely well.

No matter how the fighters were attatched to the ship is it not still a carrier?

In space craft, you could dock fifty fighters to the belly of a garbage scow and call it a carrier; in that sense, yes, there are probably some carriers floating around. As for "space craft designed specifically to launch and deploy fighters," that's just a waste of resources.

Besides, a shuttle bay works pretty well, why coudn't a ship house fighters and launch from that platform?

Because the whole point of a shuttle bay is a secure enclosure where shuttlecraft can load/unload personnel and equipment and have maintenance done. A fighter small enough to fit in a starship wouldn't load or unload anything except munitions and a pilot and the maintenance could be carried out in a conventional shuttlebay (see "Space Above and Beyond" for an example of a really efficient space fighter carrier; the fighters dock with the ship and both the cockpit and weapons stations are serviced by waldos).

Not sure why it's "silly".

The main reason is that any starship big enough to be useful as a fighter won't be small enough to fit inside a shuttlebay. A Klingon Bird of Prey doesn't need to land between missions.

Right, silly.

 

[kv1at3485]

Why do you care?

About what?

 

[FlapJoy]

Why do you care?

About what?

About this:

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.

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.

And this...

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.

You've evolved past Trek, you're enlightened I assume...so why spend half a day in a trek forum counterpointing an obsessive/compulsive prick like me? Why do you care? Why do you need to give a "blunt assessment" over and over again?

Are you at least having fun? It's a real curiosity to me... I'd hate to think you're not even enjoying yourself.

 

[kv1at3485]

You've evolved past Trek, you're enlightened I assume...so why spend half a day in a trek forum counterpointing an obsessive/compulsive prick like me? Why do you care? Why do you need to give a "blunt assessment" over and over again?

I have time and I can. I suspect this is no different than most other web-denizens.

Are you at least having fun? It's a real curiosity to me... I'd hate to think you're not even enjoying yourself.

Of course I'm getting some enjoyment out of this. It's like chatting with other people. Ideas get exchanged, views may not coincide, but as long as participants remain civil there's no harm done.

 

[Anwar]

Are we going to get back on topic, or is this going to continue to be about you two?

 

[FlapJoy]

And it's always amusing to see people struggle to find new ways to justify weird things in ST.

Civil... and condescending. How is that an exchanging of ideas? Again, get over yourself.

Trek IS weird.

 

[FlapJoy]

Are we going to get back on topic, or is this going to continue to be about you two?

Go ahead

 

[Anwar]

Alright, I think the evidence against fighters in Trek in space works out well enough. I never understood how in Wars despite the capital ships having shields the fighters still get through to fight.

Fighters however, would work better for planetary defense against an invasion and fighting a land war. If the planet had shields or fortifications to protect from bombardment than getting troops to the surface (somehow past the shields) than an army attack is required and air superiority counts.

As for why fighters over drones? Maybe the enemy could jam the remote control for the Drones from Drone control and thus piloted fighters wouldn't be affected by that since they would have actual pilots who can adapt to being cut off from command.

 

[SilentP]

There could also be laws or regulations within Starfleet or the Federation that bans the use of autonomous offensive vessels like drones or the like, especially in light of events like the M5 computer fiasco. There may also be interstellar laws against drones as well, since we already know that biogenic weapons have been banned, maybe other weapon types have been banned.

 

[Anwar]

They do have drones though, the Mars Defense Perimeter.

 

[SilentP]

I don't remember that, what episode was that shown in? I'm not ruling out the concept of stationary weapons platforms as being drones, since they're inherently static defences, so perhaps there's not so much 'stigma' or moral panic about having them as drones.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Fixed weapon emplacements work well enough for defense (DS9, Chintoka). Fighters would be a somewhat annoying distraction for the attackers, just like the were in Sacrifice of Angels (where after eight waves of fighters they effectively failed to do any serious damage to the Cardassian fleet).

 

[Star Wolf]

Alright, I think the evidence against fighters in Trek in space works out well enough. I never understood how in Wars despite the capital ships having shields the fighters still get through to fight.

Fighters however, would work better for planetary defense against an invasion and fighting a land war. If the planet had shields or fortifications to protect from bombardment than getting troops to the surface (somehow past the shields) than an army attack is required and air superiority counts.

As for why fighters over drones? Maybe the enemy could jam the remote control for the Drones from Drone control and thus piloted fighters wouldn't be affected by that since they would have actual pilots who can adapt to being cut off from command.

There was a thread in Misc, "Red Baron Hero or Villain?". For TV a fighter pilot can not be a hero unless he is outnumbered and shots down enemy fighter pilots. Its like a law of nature. The Starfleet fighter pilot thus will be set as the villain strafing Jem'Hadar, Cardasians, Klingons etc who can't defend themselves. More then the science, our preconceptions of heroism will prevent Starfleet fighters, even commanded by Sisko from fulfilling that role.

 

[kv1at3485]

Civil... and condescending. How is that an exchanging of ideas? Again, get over yourself.

It was not meant to be insulting. I suspect you have not been around long enough to appreciate the mental gymnastics demonstrated by other posters in the process of formulating those explanations. I may agree that they all work, but many are valiant in their own right.

I suggest that you stop putting words in my mouth.

Trek IS weird.

Hence why I used the word.

 

[Jono]

I don't remember that, what episode was that shown in? I'm not ruling out the concept of stationary weapons platforms as being drones, since they're inherently static defences, so perhaps there's not so much 'stigma' or moral panic about having them as drones.

We saw three "attack ships" of the MDP attack the Borg cube in "Best of Both Worlds, Part II". I don't remember them been identified on screen as unmanned drones but it might have been in the script. The Star Trek Encyclopaedia calls them unmanned pods that are there to track and intercept intruders trying to get to Earth.

 

[FlapJoy]

I suggest that you stop putting words in my mouth.

I didn't.

 

[Jono]

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

Still working on that I see.