Battleships and carriers

posted on February 22nd, 2014, 9:22 pm

They ditched too much of the comedy and that probably didn't help alienating the old fanbase either.

posted on February 22nd, 2014, 9:58 pm

They ditched too much of the comedy and that probably didn't help alienating the old fanbase either.

They ditched all the comedy, as far as i remember there was none.

They had no quirky main character like o'neil or shepherd to crack a joke about a situation or anything and you never felt any connection to any of the characters i kept watching because it was stargate and hoped it would pick up somewhere and take off but it never did.

posted on February 22nd, 2014, 11:16 pm

Another reason why I don't think you see many fighters in ST is because weapons tech makes them harder to keep alive. In the episode Conundrum we see the Enterprise D wipe out a squad of fighters with ease, and didn't miss a single time. In the Voyager episode Dreadnought, the dreadnought missile had some sort of AOE field that wiped out any fighters near it, a weapon like that would make it very difficult for fighters to even get near a ship.

[LHoffman]

posted on February 24th, 2014, 6:07 pm

Last edited by LHoffman on February 25th, 2014, 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Another reason why I don't think you see many fighters in ST is because weapons tech makes them harder to keep alive. In the episode Conundrum we see the Enterprise D wipe out a squad of fighters with ease, and didn't miss a single time.

That is one of the fighter uses that I was referencing above, even though they had a vastly inferior technology compared to the Enterprise. But in general I believe this would be the case in most scenarios. Shipboard phasers/disruptors are extremely powerful weapons and could certainly cripple or destroy a very small craft [edit: with] little more than a single shot.

posted on February 24th, 2014, 7:51 pm

Again, the danger with using on screen visuals as reference is that they aren't necessarily accurate though. In that episode of Conundrum those fighters the Ent-D easily dispatched didn't fire a singe shot as I recall and due to how poorly the shot was set up, they just flew casually at the ship like they were on a sight seeing tour even if they were vastly inferior.

The ships in later episodes fire multiple shots from the same phaser strip at once and also the Ent-D fired a tightly focused phaser beam at some planet and then launched a spread of torps at the same spot to counteract some planetary reaction though I don't recall the episode.

Overall I just feel that fighters would be so much less effective. Even though they are highly maneuverable compared to a large ship they can't turn on a dime so to speak due to momentum and structural forces and the like. Even if they make the defiant look like it bobs and weaves like a tiny mosquito. Just my two cents

posted on February 24th, 2014, 9:34 pm

Again, the danger with using on screen visuals as reference is that they aren't necessarily accurate though. In that episode of Conundrum those fighters the Ent-D easily dispatched didn't fire a singe shot as I recall and due to how poorly the shot was set up, they just flew casually at the ship like they were on a sight seeing tour even if they were vastly inferior.

I certainly agree. You have to take each situation into consideration.

However, I have used the outside-rationalization method before but there seem to be people that will come up with any form of reasoning to justify on-screen happenings, even if those happenings don't make sense or are contradictory. It is nice to think up ways that the universe is continuous and accurate, but sometimes the writers/production people just do a shoddy job and we need to correct the mistakes or pretend they never happened.

The tricky part is picking and choosing what is an anomaly and what is supposed to be that way.

For example, the lack of fighter craft in Star Trek is more than likely because of (a) production limitations and (b) storyline focus. Neither of which are in-universe factors, but real life Hollywood factors. The absence of fighters does not necessarily mean that they do not exist or are ineffective machines. but the fact of the matter remains that fighters do not play a significant role at all in Star Trek. The quandary is how we deal with that in Fleet Ops (if at all) or how we decide to theorize about the subject.

posted on February 24th, 2014, 9:58 pm

There are two main reasons for fighters to be present in a Sacrifice of Angels scale battle:

• Force multiplication.
• Damage absorption.

I believe Peregrines are about the size of a Runabout; perhaps a bit smaller. Every ship in the fleet can replace some of their shuttles with fighters, giving you that many extra weapon platforms out in space. This is aided by the nature of photon torpedoes--it's a standardised munition (other than perhaps "microtorpedoes"). It adds up to a lot more throw-weight of ordnance than would be seen with just the fleet.

Additionally, shots fired at fighters are not being fired at capital ships. This may seem like stating the obvious, but the ramifications are cumulative. The destruction of just one doesn't reduce the overall fleet effectiveness that much, and takes a good fraction of the firepower needed to cripple or destroy a larger vessel.

posted on February 24th, 2014, 11:44 pm

There are two main reasons for fighters to be present in a Sacrifice of Angels scale battle:

• Force multiplication.
• Damage absorption.

I believe Peregrines are about the size of a Runabout; perhaps a bit smaller. Every ship in the fleet can replace some of their shuttles with fighters, giving you that many extra weapon platforms out in space. This is aided by the nature of photon torpedoes--it's a standardised munition (other than perhaps "microtorpedoes"). It adds up to a lot more throw-weight of ordnance than would be seen with just the fleet.

Additionally, shots fired at fighters are not being fired at capital ships. This may seem like stating the obvious, but the ramifications are cumulative. The destruction of just one doesn't reduce the overall fleet effectiveness that much, and takes a good fraction of the firepower needed to cripple or destroy a larger vessel.

While I agree with your assessment, I believe the reason fighters are so limited is because of the reasons I stated above. The federation isn't huge into sacrificing its people, and as we have seen the fighters in SoA, while doing some damage, were getting destroyed in a single shot. And to be honest it would made more sense for the capitol ships to be launching torpedo barrages at each other at range then having fighters get up to point blank range and get wasted while inflicting relatively insignificant amounts of damage. To me, it just seems like fighters aren't that effective in the ST universe with the weapons available to capital ships.

posted on February 24th, 2014, 11:54 pm

The problem with the Star Trek fighters is the fact that they were still piloted by people. I find it impossible to believe that with all their advances in AI (think holodeck AI) that they couldn't make a simple unmanned fighter that could fly itself. Its ludicrous.

posted on February 25th, 2014, 1:17 am

The problem with the Star Trek fighters is the fact that they were still piloted by people. I find it impossible to believe that with all their advances in AI (think holodeck AI) that they couldn't make a simple unmanned fighter that could fly itself. Its ludicrous.

The biggest argument for this is if everything was AI controlled you no longer need people and that's the whole point of the show. How everyone interacts and the drama etc... Starfleet could just sit on earth and send out remote control/AI operated ships and keep everyone out of danger.

As to Equinox1703e, I agree that in general the Feds don't sacrifice people or for fighter type craft however, I really didn't like how in the later battles of DS9 they used Miranda's and to some degree Excelsiors as pure cannon fodder. Who in their right mind would have volunteered on one against the Dominion/Cardies with the way they were shown as glass fragile? They really shouldn't have been used as they died in one shot and sacrificed the crew for nothing.

As to the whole discussion if you were deploying hundreds of fighters at once then it would probably make a difference as you would overwhelm by shear force and multitude of targets however, the issue is still getting those fighters in range without bringing the carrier in range. If there's 100 fighters coming at you just fire a burst of torps to detonate near them (flak). Vent some plasma and detonate it to clear a wider area of space. Launch your own fighters etc. In the Trekverse I just have a hard time seeing the point of them.

posted on February 25th, 2014, 1:51 am

The problem with the Star Trek fighters is the fact that they were still piloted by people. I find it impossible to believe that with all their advances in AI (think holodeck AI) that they couldn't make a simple unmanned fighter that could fly itself. Its ludicrous.

The biggest argument for this is if everything was AI controlled you no longer need people and that's the whole point of the show. How everyone interacts and the drama etc... Starfleet could just sit on earth and send out remote control/AI operated ships and keep everyone out of danger.

As to Equinox1703e, I agree that in general the Feds don't sacrifice people or for fighter type craft however, I really didn't like how in the later battles of DS9 they used Miranda's and to some degree Excelsiors as pure cannon fodder. Who in their right mind would have volunteered on one against the Dominion/Cardies with the way they were shown as glass fragile? They really shouldn't have been used as they died in one shot and sacrificed the crew for nothing.

As to the whole discussion if you were deploying hundreds of fighters at once then it would probably make a difference as you would overwhelm by shear force and multitude of targets however, the issue is still getting those fighters in range without bringing the carrier in range. If there's 100 fighters coming at you just fire a burst of torps to detonate near them (flak). Vent some plasma and detonate it to clear a wider area of space. Launch your own fighters etc. In the Trekverse I just have a hard time seeing the point of them.

I totally agree with you on the point of the Mirandas and Excelsiors being used as fodder, and basically that there is too many easy ways to kill large amounts of small fighters, which is why I don't think you really see them used in the trek universe.

posted on February 25th, 2014, 3:17 am

@Equinox.......I am just referring to the fighters themselves. Its human nature to have actual human going out and exploring and that will never change. Just sending out probes will never be enough. Having obviously fragile fighters still piloted by humans is just absurd especially when you can literally make fighter pilot AI in Quarks holodeck program such as when OBrien and Doc recreated the Battle of Britain in that one episode. They could just download the same AI routines to a drone. The humans could be safely on board the ship while the drones plaster the enemy with extra torpedoes.

Regarding the fragility of ships that seems to have been a shift from TNG to DS9. Starfleet weren't the only ones that were exploding all over the place so were the Romuland, Cardassians, DOminion and Klingons. Voyager pretty much dumped all over the Borg and turned them into a bunch of lightweights as well. Its one of the few things that I didn't like with DS9 over TNG.

posted on February 25th, 2014, 5:41 pm

While I agree with your assessment, I believe the reason fighters are so limited is because of the reasons I stated above. The federation isn't huge into sacrificing its people, and as we have seen the fighters in SoA, while doing some damage, were getting destroyed in a single shot. And to be honest it would made more sense for the capitol ships to be launching torpedo barrages at each other at range then having fighters get up to point blank range and get wasted while inflicting relatively insignificant amounts of damage. To me, it just seems like fighters aren't that effective in the ST universe with the weapons available to capital ships.

I would expect the Peregrine fighter programme had an all-volunteer pilot force. As for the other points, Sisko's use of them in SoA was a very specific ruse, which left them unsupported away from the main fleet and thus able to be concentrated on. In a more general melee, the fighters and capital ships would be closer together to complicate threat evaluation and targeting priorities.

The AI / drone question is a good one, but remember we have seen how easily sensors and communications can be spoofed and jammed; this is how the allies won the first battle of Chin'toka. Sapient minds cope best in these situations, thus requiring AIs on the order of Data to be trustworthy. And I suspect the failed M-5 experiment has ensured caution with that kind of research for generations.

I totally agree with you on the point of the Mirandas and Excelsiors being used as fodder, and basically that there is too many easy ways to kill large amounts of small fighters, which is why I don't think you really see them used in the trek universe.

Past TNG, the only ships not shown as blowing up at the drop of the hat is the Defiant, Galaxy class, and Voyager. Akiras, Steamrunners, Sabers, Excelsiors, Mirandas ... all shown blowing up rather easily. It was done for reasons of drama and visual excitement, I expect.

Which actually makes for a more compelling reason for Starfleet to deploy fighters. If the same shot destroys an Excelsior class with 500 crew, or a Peregrine with 2 crew, which would you rather see take it? If they're able to pack capital-ship grade weaponry (ie, some photon torpedoes), they can do some good.

I don't think Starfleet would have regarded anything as cannon fodder, but the realities of the war is that Starfleet had a lot of older hulls, all of which could be upgraded enough to damage Dominion vessels. The only bright side is that the Borg at the battle of Wolf 359 had given Starfleet an urgent impetus to upgrade and modernise the fleet; without that, I suspect things would have gone far worse against the Dominion.

posted on February 26th, 2014, 1:13 am

All very good points.

posted on February 26th, 2014, 3:27 pm

While I agree with your assessment, I believe the reason fighters are so limited is because of the reasons I stated above. The federation isn't huge into sacrificing its people, and as we have seen the fighters in SoA, while doing some damage, were getting destroyed in a single shot. And to be honest it would made more sense for the capitol ships to be launching torpedo barrages at each other at range then having fighters get up to point blank range and get wasted while inflicting relatively insignificant amounts of damage. To me, it just seems like fighters aren't that effective in the ST universe with the weapons available to capital ships.

I would expect the Peregrine fighter programme had an all-volunteer pilot force. As for the other points, Sisko's use of them in SoA was a very specific ruse, which left them unsupported away from the main fleet and thus able to be concentrated on. In a more general melee, the fighters and capital ships would be closer together to complicate threat evaluation and targeting priorities.

The AI / drone question is a good one, but remember we have seen how easily sensors and communications can be spoofed and jammed; this is how the allies won the first battle of Chin'toka. Sapient minds cope best in these situations, thus requiring AIs on the order of Data to be trustworthy. And I suspect the failed M-5 experiment has ensured caution with that kind of research for generations.

I totally agree with you on the point of the Mirandas and Excelsiors being used as fodder, and basically that there is too many easy ways to kill large amounts of small fighters, which is why I don't think you really see them used in the trek universe.

Past TNG, the only ships not shown as blowing up at the drop of the hat is the Defiant, Galaxy class, and Voyager. Akiras, Steamrunners, Sabers, Excelsiors, Mirandas ... all shown blowing up rather easily. It was done for reasons of drama and visual excitement, I expect.

Which actually makes for a more compelling reason for Starfleet to deploy fighters. If the same shot destroys an Excelsior class with 500 crew, or a Peregrine with 2 crew, which would you rather see take it? If they're able to pack capital-ship grade weaponry (ie, some photon torpedoes), they can do some good.

I don't think Starfleet would have regarded anything as cannon fodder, but the realities of the war is that Starfleet had a lot of older hulls, all of which could be upgraded enough to damage Dominion vessels. The only bright side is that the Borg at the battle of Wolf 359 had given Starfleet an urgent impetus to upgrade and modernise the fleet; without that, I suspect things would have gone far worse against the Dominion.

This ^

Given that the federation have such a high regard for life they could have been experimenting with drones, peregrine fighters controlled by an AI /super computer or lead capital ship relaying commands. 1 drone getting hit is a galaxy class not getting hit and no one dies when one is lost.

Even if somehow the enemy has the ability to disable a fleet of fighter drones, not only do you not lose any lives but just as when the breen were able to disable federation ships with a single torpedo you simply adapt and counter any advancements the enemy makes. Just as is is today a cat and mouse game in technological advancement.