why no single fighters?

[kv1at3485]

Regardless of who or what is attacking or defending, the 'attacker' (and the guy scoring hits) is the guy who can outlaunch the other guy in terms of quantity and rate. There's also the matter of how fast one has to be to completely outpace the missiles altogether. Saying that, if the intention is to go up against even Galaxy-sized warships, then we're not talking 15 DF-fighters per, but hundreds per. That sized hull can pack in quite a few launchers and accompanying magazines. (And the D'deridex is even larger.) The ratio gets less when the enemy uses smaller warships, but there tend to be more of the smaller warships...

Tens of thousands of DF-fighters, soaking up tens if not hundreds of thousands of personnel, are built. On paper, that's impressive. In practice, not so much. They're doled out in groups that cannot support each other and in sizes that an enemy can take on with a mobile interstellar force. The enemy fleet can probably move around faster than you can shuffle around thousands of DF-fighters to worlds you think the enemy will attack. Or if you insist on ever greater quantities of DF-fighters to 'proof' each possible target, you're just draining even more resources and personnel from the thing that actually puts stress on the enemy: your own mobile interstellar force.

And a last thing to note, it seems that manpower is more of a problem for Starfleet than ships. Depending how you interpret it, that's what the big fuss after Wolf 359 was about. During the War, that was the opinion of Vreenak shortly before his assassination, though of course he could be wrong and Sisko couldn't very well comment on such things to a potential adversary.

 

[Unicron]

I agree about quantity and rate, though perhaps we may have to disagree on some other points. When you can mount weapons similar to a Galaxy on a small fighter, as several Maquis eps have implied, then the playing field is leveled a bit. And if we're assuming that computer technology represents an advantage here, there is no reason why a fighter couldn't mount a computer with sophisticated targeting skills.

So I don't think that you'd need hundreds of fighters to take on a Galaxy or a warbird. I do think you'd ideally have at least 30, perhaps as many as 50. And as I've said before, in an ideal situation you'd have friendly support from other units - defense platforms, warships, stations, what have you.

 

[kv1at3485]

Not sure how that changes anything.

The reason you need the huge numbers of small ships to go against that Galaxy is because the Galaxy launches enough ordnance to intercept the ordnance launched by the smaller ships. The attackers must have at least that weight of fire to overcome that threshold before they get anywhere.

Its not a matter of the smaller ships having inferior computers or using different ordnance.

Or am I missing something here?

 

[Star Wolf]

Not sure how that changes anything.


Or am I missing something here?

Yes you are. Luke Skywalker and Starbuck are just so romantic that Trek fan wants his own rebel to be the hero all by himself. So badly he wants to change the show.

 

[Unicron]

Not sure how that changes anything.

The reason you need the huge numbers of small ships to go against that Galaxy is because the Galaxy launches enough ordnance to intercept the ordnance launched by the smaller ships. The attackers must have at least that weight of fire to overcome that threshold before they get anywhere.

Its not a matter of the smaller ships having inferior computers or using different ordnance.

Or am I missing something here?

And when have we ever seen a Trek ship launch interceptors at incoming fire? I agree that the Galaxy easily has this capability, as most Trek ships probably do, but it's never been used. It might not be especially realistic, but as I've said before Trek combat never is. I'm not trying to completely give up my suspension of disbelief.

 

[Cyke101]

Not sure how that changes anything.

The reason you need the huge numbers of small ships to go against that Galaxy is because the Galaxy launches enough ordnance to intercept the ordnance launched by the smaller ships. The attackers must have at least that weight of fire to overcome that threshold before they get anywhere.

Its not a matter of the smaller ships having inferior computers or using different ordnance.

Or am I missing something here?

And when have we ever seen a Trek ship launch interceptors at incoming fire? I agree that the Galaxy easily has this capability, as most Trek ships probably do, but it's never been used. It might not be especially realistic, but as I've said before Trek combat never is. I'm not trying to completely give up my suspension of disbelief.

I realize I'm reaching here, but I could swear something was done to that effect in TOS. And then there are the Klingon ships that fired at the V'Ger blasts, too...

Worf did nail a missile with two phaser blasts (the second one missed b/c the first blast hit).

 

[kv1at3485]

And when have we ever seen a Trek ship launch interceptors at incoming fire? I agree that the Galaxy easily has this capability, as most Trek ships probably do, but it's never been used. It might not be especially realistic, but as I've said before Trek combat never is. I'm not trying to completely give up my suspension of disbelief.

Apologies. The most recent tangent came out of my reply to Vanyel which was keeping in the spirit of "what happens if they get smarter", although naturally we both had different ideas of "smarter".

As for SoD, if one intends to stick within it, then it's probably best to ignore me in these sorts of discussions because I'll only answer from a mindset going beyond that. (Within SoD, I've become content to say that stupid people do stupid things, and that's not really a viewpoint that merits me posting anything.)

 

[Vanyel]

Not sure how that changes anything.

The reason you need the huge numbers of small ships to go against that Galaxy is because the Galaxy launches enough ordnance to intercept the ordnance launched by the smaller ships. The attackers must have at least that weight of fire to overcome that threshold before they get anywhere.

Its not a matter of the smaller ships having inferior computers or using different ordnance.

Or am I missing something here?

No ship has ever intercepted a torpedo launched at sublight speeds. I only mention this, because if a Galaxy can launch enough ordnance to stop incoming ordnance, then torpedoes, usually flying in a straight line, should be easy pickings.

A fighter, launching torpedoes should be able to land a few hits. And like I said, with a good shield system, the fighter can take a few direct hits and keep going.

As has been mentioned before, enough fighters can overwhelm the defensive systems of a Galaxy.

I'm not talking about unshielded, slow moving, lightly armed ships but shielded, high impulse, highly maneuverable ships with some heavy weapons. Ships that can run circles around a Galaxy at impulse. A ship that gets in close enough to launch a few torpedo at high impulse and get out. Or come in close to fire Type VIII or IX phasers, or maybe even pulse phasers.

Starfleet can pack a big punch in small packages, the Defiant is an example on a starship scale; fighters with enough power to add support to starships, starbases or fleets are a logical next step.

Look at what damage the fighters did in Sacrifice of Angles. See how a part of the Cardassian ships hull has been blown away.

 

[Timo]

No ship has ever intercepted a torpedo launched at sublight speeds.

Kirk tried to do so in ST2, versus Khan's final torpedo in the first encounter, but Sulu declared it was "too late". Kirk's ship was adept at shooting down missiles in "Patterns of Force" and "For The World Is Hollow And I Have Touched The Sky", too.

Picard did it against the Ferengi missile in "The Price". He wanted to do it against Soran's warp projectile in Generations, too, but target acquisition was a problem. It would be less so if the projectile were heading towards his ship...

Generally, though, it's probably far better to divert power to shields than to expend it at futile phaser barrages. We haven't yet seen a missile weapon that would wield a warhead capable of doing massive damage to a shielded vessel. Or at least none of the standard villains pack one of those.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Vanyel]

No ship has ever intercepted a torpedo launched at sublight speeds.

Kirk tried to do so in ST2, versus Khan's final torpedo in the first encounter, but Sulu declared it was "too late". Kirk's ship was adept at shooting down missiles in "Patterns of Force" and "For The World Is Hollow And I Have Touched The Sky", too.

In TWOK, to me, it looks like Kirk is looking at returning fire on the Reliant, not shooting down the torpedo. I believe this is reinforced when Kirk asks Scotty what's left and if he can give him phasers, all again implying a need to retaliate not to shoot any torpedo. In Patterns of Force and For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky, both were chemically propelled rockets being fired at the Enterprise. Primative, slower than impulse rockets.

I'm talking about full fledged torpedo launchers firing from ships moving at high impulse, much greater speeds than a chemically propelled missile.

Picard did it against the Ferengi missile in "The Price". He wanted to do it against Soran's warp projectile in Generations, too, but target acquisition was a problem. It would be less so if the projectile were heading towards his ship...

You'll need to refresh my memory of The Price, I don't remember any exchange of fire, just the threat by the Ferengi to destroy the wormhole.

As for Generations, Picard wasn't sure if the Enterprise could take out the missile, which is why he went down to the planet. I believe there were two things at play in his decision. One the BoP that was lurking about, it could have been enough to distract the Enterprise for the missile to escape, second would be doubt that the Enterprise could track and hit a warp capable missile.

Generally, though, it's probably far better to divert power to shields than to expend it at futile phaser barrages. We haven't yet seen a missile weapon that would wield a warhead capable of doing massive damage to a shielded vessel. Or at least none of the standard villains pack one of those.

Torpedoes fired from a BoP inflicted heavy damage to the shielded Enterprise and caused some damage to the shielded Excelsior in The Undiscovered Country. A barrage of torpedoes not only damaged the Enterprise C but opened a space-time rift. Photons do a lot of damage. And to bring this back to the subject of fighters, fighter with standard photon or quantum torpedoes, and launching those torpedoes at high sublight speeds should be able to inflict considerable damage to an attacking vessel.

 

[Timo]

In TWOK, to me, it looks like Kirk is looking at returning fire on the Reliant, not shooting down the torpedo. I believe this is reinforced when Kirk asks Scotty what's left and if he can give him phasers, all again implying a need to retaliate not to shoot any torpedo.

If Kirk were trying to fire at the Reliant, the "Too late!" bit would make zero sense. It's only too late to fire at the torpedo, not at the ship.

You'll need to refresh my memory of The Price, I don't remember any exchange of fire, just the threat by the Ferengi to destroy the wormhole.

DaiMon Goss punctuated that threat by actually firing a missile. Picard ordered Worf to intercept, which he did with a single phaser shot. Goss then continued to threaten with further missiles, as part of the haggling ploy with negotiator Ral, but never fired another shot.

The missile in question didn't seem to differ from a standard photon torpedo in terms of speed or appearance, although it might well have been larger or smaller, more or less destructive, sublight only, whatever.

..second would be doubt that the Enterprise could track and hit a warp capable missile.

Oh, Worf was sure he'd hit it. Eventually. He claimed he could crosshair the thing in fifteen seconds, but they didn't have fifteen seconds.

A torpedo launched from a non-cloaked, known point of origin would be easier prey.

Torpedoes fired from a BoP inflicted heavy damage to the shielded Enterprise and caused some damage to the shielded Excelsior in The Undiscovered Country.

What I mean is, they are not comparable to today's anti-ship missiles which have to be shot down before they hit, lest they sink the target. The E-A could apparently take a dozen torps in ST6 before losing shields. Diverting power to some sort of a "goalkeeper" phaser system might not be worth it in those circumstances, as the power would do more good in bolstering the shields.

It's a matter of balances. At certain level of destructiveness, it would be smart to have both shields and "goalies". Above that level, only "goalies" make sense, much as with today's warships. Below that level, only shields make sense. And since Trek doesn't feature last-ditch phaser defenses, we could just as well assume that Trek combat happens in the regime of less than lethal yields.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Blueicus]

Also in Voyager's "Thirty Days" Janeway fired photon torpedoes to intercept the ones Paris was firing at the Monean generators from the Delta Flyer. Perhaps it is more energy effective to have torpedoes hit the shields as opposed to trying to intercept them with weapons... especially with 24th C tech.

 

[Vanyel]

In TWOK, to me, it looks like Kirk is looking at returning fire on the Reliant, not shooting down the torpedo. I believe this is reinforced when Kirk asks Scotty what's left and if he can give him phasers, all again implying a need to retaliate not to shoot any torpedo.

If Kirk were trying to fire at the Reliant, the "Too late!" bit would make zero sense. It's only too late to fire at the torpedo, not at the ship.

I still think its was for a retaliatory strike. After Spock tells Kirk "They knew exactly where to hit us." Kirk wonders aloud "Who knew?" He then orders for power to be diverted phasers, at the same time the Reliant fires a torpedo. How I see it is that Kirk was looking to strike at the Reliant while he had a good shot. Strike the Reliant hard and give engineering time to provide more power to the weapons. Spock saying "Too late." would be a warning that they don't have time, the torpedo would hit them before the phasers are recharged, or over charged, the phaser were charged at Yellow Alert and if the charge wasn't lost then perhaps Kirk was looking to give the phasers some extra oomph and really hurt Reliant.

You'll need to refresh my memory of The Price, I don't remember any exchange of fire, just the threat by the Ferengi to destroy the wormhole.

DaiMon Goss punctuated that threat by actually firing a missile. Picard ordered Worf to intercept, which he did with a single phaser shot. Goss then continued to threaten with further missiles, as part of the haggling ploy with negotiator Ral, but never fired another shot.

The missile in question didn't seem to differ from a standard photon torpedo in terms of speed or appearance, although it might well have been larger or smaller, more or less destructive, sublight only, whatever.

Or, since the whole thing was staged by Ral, maybe the Ferengi fired a torpedo that the Enterprise could shot down.

..second would be doubt that the Enterprise could track and hit a warp capable missile.

Oh, Worf was sure he'd hit it. Eventually. He claimed he could crosshair the thing in fifteen seconds, but they didn't have fifteen seconds.

A torpedo launched from a non-cloaked, known point of origin would be easier prey.

Yes Worf was sure he could, and if the BoP wasn't hanging around waiting to interfere he maybe he could have. However, from what I remember, it looked like it took the missile less than 15 seconds to hit the star. Also the movie implies that Picard didn't like the odds, which is why he traded himself for Geordi to be beamed down to where the missile was.

 

[kv1at3485]

No ship has ever intercepted a torpedo launched at sublight speeds. I only mention this, because if a Galaxy can launch enough ordnance to stop incoming ordnance, then torpedoes, usually flying in a straight line, should be easy pickings.

I've been using "missile", "ordnance", and "torpedo" interchangeably.

I've also been assuming that everything would be making the effort to be accelerating as unpredictably as possible, at least so they're less likely to run into a phaser on the 'death charge' in. No point increasing the effective range of the enemy's guns needlessly.

The irony is that if missiles cannot be intercepted then, with current ST tactics, you want your ships/bases/planetary defences to be packed to the gills with them, rather than devoting volume to strike craft which can be intercepted and destroyed before they can deliver the hurt.

A fighter, launching torpedoes should be able to land a few hits.

In the current way of things, supposedly they can do that already. But is it the most efficient way of delivering missiles? Maybe if you're desperate or you're relatively poor freedom fighters who can't afford anything better.

And like I said, with a good shield system, the fighter can take a few direct hits and keep going.

And it doesn't take much for warships to provide those direct hits. The magazines run deep.

As has been mentioned before, enough fighters can overwhelm the defensive systems of a Galaxy.

Obviously enough of anything will get the job done, even if it means throwing enough mass to suck the target down the resulting black hole. Whether the method used is the best way of going about it maybe a different matter altogether.

I'm not talking about unshielded, slow moving, lightly armed ships but shielded, high impulse, highly maneuverable ships with some heavy weapons. Ships that can run circles around a Galaxy at impulse. A ship that gets in close enough to launch a few torpedo at high impulse and get out. Or come in close to fire Type VIII or IX phasers, or maybe even pulse phasers.

The craft used by the Maquis, and Starfleet during the War arguably already fit that definition. In terms of engineering then it becomes a matter of trying to figure out how much better you think they can be, and whether its enough to make a difference.

For example, if the tactics don't change, if the pilots don't smarten up, what good will, say, increased speed or manoeuvrability do? I doubt they're getting the most out of what they have now.

But if we envision that the pilots and their strike craft, do start exploiting every iota of capability, then we should extend that thought experiment to everybody else.

Starfleet can pack a big punch in small packages, the Defiant is an example on a starship scale; fighters with enough power to add support to starships, starbases or fleets are a logical next step.

Warships and fleets of warships don't need strike craft support. They're already able to efficiently bring weapons, and sufficient weapons, to bear on the enemy independently over interstellar distances. Adding strike craft is an overcomplicated way of adding more punch.

If current ways hold, bases don't need strike craft support either. Fleets close to point blank range and the base is able to hit back on equal terms. It's not different than the current ST fleet-on-fleet engagement.

If current ways don't hold, then yes, you are correct that some form of mobile defence is necessary for the decidedly immobile base. But it hardly seems worth it just to come up with a whole new branch of the service, using relatively immobile munitions, just for starbase defence.

Look at what damage the fighters did in Sacrifice of Angles. See how a part of the Cardassian ships hull has been blown away.

After nine waves and a bunch of needlessly sacrificed pilots they finally managed to do something. SoA merely demonstrates the concept of "enough of something will get the job done", but it doesn't make an argument for the efficiency of the concept.

 

[Unicron]

Why are you assuming that the one shot we of the fighters actually scoring a hit was the only damage they inflicted? We only saw bits and pieces of the battle, so I don't know why you think that the first eight waves were just tossed in to be annihilated.

 

[kv1at3485]

It's hyperbole in response to some of the ways people use SoA to justify strike craft.

That particular scene with the holed Galor has been pulled out so many times and used to 'demonstrate' "efficient delivery of firepower" totally disregarding context.

As for your 'diversion', I've since taken issue with attempts to rationalize that botched battle plan that was not conductive to getting as much of the UFP fleet to DS9 in one piece. In future, however, I will not take issue with your views given the SoD divide.

 

[hellsgate]

Attack craft should be reserved for fan fiction for the very reasons already offered. Small craft such as the Xenon-Class (Defiant-that-never-was) by Jim Martin should be reserved for get-in-&-out-quickly functions such as Special Operations or in limited numbers as private hot-rods with phasers & other treats built in extremely small numbers from a collection of Wolf 359 / Dominion War battlefield thefts & surplus yards. A ship like the Typhon-Class & its Valkyrie-Class swarms are a nice idea, but it kinda lost its flavor for me when I saw the images of it being towed in by the Enterprise-E, & dropping out from the Sovereign-Class vessel's haunches.

 

[blaXXer]

hellsgate, I have no idea what you are alluding to. please specify?

 

[Timo]

Ah, there's a reputedly not at all crappy computer game that features a Typhon class carrier (a blocky, slightly "transformerish" thing that would feel right at home in ST:Insurrection next to the holo-freighter) launching those Valkyrie fighters (sleeker forms of Data's ST:Insurrection scoutcraft). By no means a radical departure from the Trek ethos or style... I forget the name of the game, tho.

We have to remember that whatever excuse we use for rationalizing the use of fightercraft in computer games, "future Trek" or the Dominion War has to also rationalize the absence of said craft from previous aired trek. The standard rationalizations would be twofold: fighters are for "special applications" which didn't exist outside the Dominion war (and the scenarios of the computer games or fanfic), or fighters have recently become viable through a technological breakthrough of some sort.

It wouldn't be out of place to argue that Starfleet has always believed in fightercraft, not when we see those Maquis craft with "Enterprise-C style" blue-green displays that suggest decades of age, and then similar craft (re?)fitted with modern LCARS. Indeed, in "First Duty", Starfleet Academy trains cadets in the piloting of similar craft - although admittedly this could be just a step towards piloting big starships, and the small craft themselves might be operationally worthless as a category.

It does seem that such craft are predominantly NOT used

-from aboard carriers (since we never see carriers, and the craft in DS9 possess warp drives, and we often see them fly in formation just before a fleet jumps to warp)
-against capital ships (since this usage by Sisko was considered radical and desperate)
-as support for solo starship missions (since Picard's ship preferred shuttles even in aggressive applications such as limpet-mining the Cardassian ships in "Chain of Command")

Timo Saloniemi