Typhon class carrier for feds
Which race do you like most? What do you like - what you don't like? Discuss it here.
posted on June 27th, 2012, 10:05 pm
The problem is that a carrier is geared towards launching fighters.
Fighters are small craft with 1-2 pilots geared towards warfare.
From what we know about the Penegrine (DS9 and Voyager Maquis ) it's best described as a MBT/Snellboot/Fast Attack Craft.
The only place where a carrier is mentioned is in an Atari game and STO and neither are canon.
Sadly the developers like carriers and as such they have been given a place in FO, but from a canon point of view fighters are a travesty. The only thing closely resembling fighters are the training craft used at Star Fleet Academy.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Academy_flight_trainer
Fighters are small craft with 1-2 pilots geared towards warfare.
From what we know about the Penegrine (DS9 and Voyager Maquis ) it's best described as a MBT/Snellboot/Fast Attack Craft.
The only place where a carrier is mentioned is in an Atari game and STO and neither are canon.
Sadly the developers like carriers and as such they have been given a place in FO, but from a canon point of view fighters are a travesty. The only thing closely resembling fighters are the training craft used at Star Fleet Academy.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Academy_flight_trainer
posted on June 27th, 2012, 10:18 pm
Andre27 wrote:The problem is that a carrier is geared towards launching fighters.
Fighters are small craft with 1-2 pilots geared towards warfare.
From what we know about the Penegrine (DS9 and Voyager Maquis ) it's best described as a MBT/Snellboot/Fast Attack Craft.
The only place where a carrier is mentioned is in an Atari game and STO and neither are canon.
Sadly the developers like carriers and as such they have been given a place in FO, but from a canon point of view fighters are a travesty. The only thing closely resembling fighters are the training craft used at Star Fleet Academy.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Academy_flight_trainer
I agree with your general sentiment. the current fighters are more like runabouts. in the dominion war i suspect that they travelled to the battles under their own power.
if we're willing to bend canon then i like the idea of a fighter latching onto the hull of a much bigger ship for transport to a fleet battle. silly for in game use, but would allow low warp craft (like the runabout) to tag a long with bigger fleets.
the fleetops carriers can be handwaved away by the use of the many years gap between canon and game. it's possible that the remaining fighters had their warp engines removed and replace with more weapons, so that they now need a carrier to get to battle, but can be cheap way of adding more weapons ability to a fleet.
posted on June 27th, 2012, 10:35 pm
I agree that fighters in Star Trek closely resemble leeches 
but i cannot say I'm thrilled about the idea of bending canon to fit fighters in.
but i cannot say I'm thrilled about the idea of bending canon to fit fighters in.
posted on June 28th, 2012, 5:57 am
Federation attack fighters, current naval fighters such as the F-14, and MBT/Schnellboot style ships are in the same ballpark of size with each other, around 20 meters. The F-14 is a closer analogue though, as the cockpit on the Federation vessel looks very much like it would only accommodate a couple of people.
Actual carriers don't have a hard canon appearance, it's true, but soft canon (by which I mean statements by the production crew) at the very least implies that they exist, and reasoned speculation gives enough justification for why that style of vessel would be considered, at least while Starfleet is on a more military footing like it had during the Dominion War.
PS Fighters a "travesty"? How so?
Actual carriers don't have a hard canon appearance, it's true, but soft canon (by which I mean statements by the production crew) at the very least implies that they exist, and reasoned speculation gives enough justification for why that style of vessel would be considered, at least while Starfleet is on a more military footing like it had during the Dominion War.
PS Fighters a "travesty"? How so?
posted on June 28th, 2012, 7:45 am
Because no ST series ever happened on a carrier and as such, fighters didn't really get much airtime. Out of sight, out of mind.
The only really dedicated combat craft we actually see is the Defiant, though. Even the fighters seem to have initially been a Maquis idea that the Feds then used during the war. Which would also explain why the things only start to show up in DS9.
The only really dedicated combat craft we actually see is the Defiant, though. Even the fighters seem to have initially been a Maquis idea that the Feds then used during the war. Which would also explain why the things only start to show up in DS9.
posted on June 28th, 2012, 9:37 am
MadHatter wrote:Federation attack fighters, current naval fighters such as the F-14, and MBT/Schnellboot style ships are in the same ballpark of size with each other, around 20 meters. The F-14 is a closer analogue though, as the cockpit on the Federation vessel looks very much like it would only accommodate a couple of people.
Actual carriers don't have a hard canon appearance, it's true, but soft canon (by which I mean statements by the production crew) at the very least implies that they exist, and reasoned speculation gives enough justification for why that style of vessel would be considered, at least while Starfleet is on a more military footing like it had during the Dominion War.
PS Fighters a "travesty"? How so?
More along the lines of 50-100 meters. The Penegrine and maquis raider are surrounded with a fair bit of controversy. http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/artic ... egrine.htm
Either way you're missing the point when i make a distinct difference between a fighter and a MBT/Schnellboot/Fast Attack Craft. Fighters need a place to land while MBT/Schnellboot/FAC are capable of independent operations.
posted on June 28th, 2012, 5:31 pm
Andre27 wrote:More along the lines of 50-100 meters. The Penegrine and maquis raider are surrounded with a fair bit of controversy. http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/artic ... egrine.htm
The page you cite doesn't support your assertion; the "controversy" on that page is trying to pin down which of the four candidates is the Peregrine. The four ships are quite different from each other; the attack fighter is not the same ship as the Maquis raider.
In this thread, I've refined my designation of the specific vessel I've been referring to from "Peregrine" (which is ambiguous), to "Federation attack fighter" (which is quite specifically the small craft seen in numerous DS9 battles, most prominently during the episode "Sacrifice of Angels"); this is so people can be sure of what I'm referring to. But even that source decides that the fighter craft is a good candidate for the Peregrine name, and is quite settled on their size being around 25m long.
Andre27 wrote:Either way you're missing the point when i make a distinct difference between a fighter and a MBT/Schnellboot/Fast Attack Craft. Fighters need a place to land while MBT/Schnellboot/FAC are capable of independent operations.
The thing is, a carrier gives a lot more to fighter craft than extended ranges. They provide better accommodations for the crew, on the spot maintenance and repair facilities, a point where expendables like photon torpedoes can be reloaded, and so on. The MTBs and Schnellboots you refer to could operate for a while away from harbour, sure, but they would still need to make frequent rendezvous with fleet auxiliaries and supply craft for fuel, food, munitions, and so on.
posted on June 28th, 2012, 6:13 pm
If fighters are mostly kept in a Starbase or on a planet and only let out for brief periods like a single large-scale battle, resupply shouldn't be too much of a problem.
I wouldn't be surprised if they just stuck them on Galaxy's until they reach the battleground then took them back to base afterwards.
I wouldn't be surprised if they just stuck them on Galaxy's until they reach the battleground then took them back to base afterwards.
posted on June 28th, 2012, 7:33 pm
But then, pretty much have to carry them all the way to the battle and back before you can send them somewhere else.
It's...ineffectice, to say the least. Pants on head retarded, if you ask me.
It's...ineffectice, to say the least. Pants on head retarded, if you ask me.
posted on June 28th, 2012, 8:29 pm
Tyler wrote:If fighters are mostly kept in a Starbase or on a planet and only let out for brief periods like a single large-scale battle, resupply shouldn't be too much of a problem.
For things like fuel and food, absolutely. In situations like that, the main operational concern would be arranging some way to reload a fighter's stock of photon torpedoes without requiring a visit to their home port; it's not likely they would have very many per launcher, and they're a significant portion of the craft's arsenal.
Tyler wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if they just stuck them on Galaxy's until they reach the battleground then took them back to base afterwards.
Not an unreasonable supposition. I could imagine that the hangar decks of war-service Galaxies being extended to take advantage of unused lab and family space.
For me, whether or not Starfleet decides to go down a "true carrier" route would depend greatly on how long they stay on a militarised footing after the Dominion War.
posted on June 28th, 2012, 8:44 pm
MadHatter wrote:Not an unreasonable supposition. I could imagine that the hangar decks of war-service Galaxies being extended to take advantage of unused lab and family space.
But then again, you can pretty much do anything you bloody want with a Galaxy as long as you don't actively want it blown up so you can replace it with something shinier.
For me, whether or not Starfleet decides to go down a "true carrier" route would depend greatly on how long they stay on a militarised footing after the Dominion War.
Given how that clusterfuck ended up, I doubt they'll be back to their normal retard pacifist selves for a while.
So warships ahoy! For at least a century, methinks.
posted on June 28th, 2012, 10:27 pm
they already started building dedicated warships like the defiant. and alot of their ships packed a punch anyway before that.
surely they would keep building more and more advanced military ships. they have to fill the gaps of all the lost ships with less resources to do it, what with all the losses.
they were building ships like the prometheus, which had an assault mode. so obviously designed to attack rather than defend.
they wouldnt sit there saying. "so weve had losses to the borg, massive losses in the dominion war.. lets not bother building better stuff since were not likely to be attacked again."
so i think its a great thing to have feds build military purpose ships like carriers
surely they would keep building more and more advanced military ships. they have to fill the gaps of all the lost ships with less resources to do it, what with all the losses.
they were building ships like the prometheus, which had an assault mode. so obviously designed to attack rather than defend.
they wouldnt sit there saying. "so weve had losses to the borg, massive losses in the dominion war.. lets not bother building better stuff since were not likely to be attacked again."
so i think its a great thing to have feds build military purpose ships like carriers
posted on June 28th, 2012, 10:51 pm
I don't know, Star Trek usually tends to avoid the Standard Sci-Fi Fleet that has been done to death in almost every other Sci-Fi ever made. I like carriers, but I doubt they'd ever really be a big deal for an empire that almost entirely fights with full-sized starships.
Starfleet is also not likely to specialize large ships, they only do that for smaller ones that cost less. No point in a battleship-sized vessel useless outside of a war.
Starfleet is also not likely to specialize large ships, they only do that for smaller ones that cost less. No point in a battleship-sized vessel useless outside of a war.
posted on June 28th, 2012, 11:26 pm
Tyler wrote: but I doubt they'd ever really be a big deal for an empire that almost entirely fights with full-sized starships.
Starfleet is also not likely to specialize large ships, they only do that for smaller ones that cost less. No point in a battleship-sized vessel useless outside of a war.
thats true, fighters could be destroyed earlier and feds dont like to sacrifice their crew. but dominion/klingons wouldn't care.
tho im not sure about a dedicated ship being useless out of war. it can still do normal patrol stuff or any other mission
rescue,
observation/research
it just doesnt use its firepower
only thing it couldnt do that an all rounder ship couldnt do is diplomatic as that would look intimidating.
posted on June 29th, 2012, 4:46 am
And that's a problem...why?
Drones. Either autonomous or remote-controlled. Don't even have to worry about taking too long to pick them up afterwards. Or life support, for that matter.
Though, if the situation looks dire enough for long enough (which it kind of did), they'd slowly start to change their minds over the whole 'waste of crew' thingy.
And let's be honest. Who mourns a redshirt?
hellodean wrote:thats true, fighters could be destroyed earlier and feds dont like to sacrifice their crew. but dominion/klingons wouldn't care.
Drones. Either autonomous or remote-controlled. Don't even have to worry about taking too long to pick them up afterwards. Or life support, for that matter.
Though, if the situation looks dire enough for long enough (which it kind of did), they'd slowly start to change their minds over the whole 'waste of crew' thingy.
And let's be honest. Who mourns a redshirt?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 guests