Warp-Capable, Single-Pilot Fighter Craft?

[blssdwlf]

How about a cannon-sized power pack?

Sure, why not? It'd even have the equivalent of "ammo" in how many shots it could fire but variable based on the power settings used.

Exactly. Internally powered phaser banks of the type we see mounted on shuttles look like simple phaser strips bolted to the hull. A self-contained unit would probably be the size of a compact car while at the same time channeling--in short but effective bursts--phaser output far greater than the ship could expect to sustain from its own power plant.

I dunno about output far greater than the fighter's own power plant. If it was built like a starship's phaser system with a phaser bank that acted like a buffer, then I see no power output advantages between a self-contained system vs one that is drawn from the power plant.

It is not like an F-15 needs to divert 30% of it's total power system over to charge up and fire it's Vulcan

No, it's more like 5%. Although it IS closer to 30% for the A-10 Warthog.

The GAU-8 needs 57kW to drive it's gun and feed mechanism. That is powered via the two hydraulic motors which gets their power from the two A-10 engines. I'm having a hard time imagining 30% of the power output of the two engines equating to 57kW.

 

[Timo]

...One might also consider that the explosive driving the ammo has an energy density somewhere around a dozen megajoules per kilogram, and that the gun burns that stuff at a rate of a dozen kilograms per second. A pure ballpark figure would then give the gun an "input" rate closer to gigawatts than megawatts (with a comparable "output" rate in the form of the kinetic energy of the slugs), making the contribution of the electric motor fairly insignificant in comparison.

Perhaps photon torpedoes are fairly similar in that they get much of their propulsive energy from their antimatter warheads, tasking the energy reserves of the ship only modestly at the moment of launch? OTOH, photon torpedoes would also be similar to GAU-8 ammo in that one'd need a major industrial plant for preloading the energy into them - except in this case, the ship herself would have to be that major industrial plant!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Exactly. Internally powered phaser banks of the type we see mounted on shuttles look like simple phaser strips bolted to the hull. A self-contained unit would probably be the size of a compact car while at the same time channeling--in short but effective bursts--phaser output far greater than the ship could expect to sustain from its own power plant.

I dunno about output far greater than the fighter's own power plant. If it was built like a starship's phaser system with a phaser bank that acted like a buffer, then I see no power output advantages between a self-contained system vs one that is drawn from the power plant.

A shuttlecraft's warp core might not have enough power to drive a starship-sized phaser bank. You would have to build up that energy over a longer period of time, hence a phaser power cell (you can recharge it between fights or waypoints; arguably, some starship phasers already do this).

It is not like an F-15 needs to divert 30% of it's total power system over to charge up and fire it's Vulcan

No, it's more like 5%. Although it IS closer to 30% for the A-10 Warthog.

The GAU-8 needs 57kW to drive it's gun and feed mechanism. That is powered via the two hydraulic motors which gets their power from the two A-10 engines. I'm having a hard time imagining 30% of the power output of the two engines equating to 57kW.[/QUOTE][/quote]
IIRC, the total electrical output of the A-10's engines is about 200kW for use by the craft (most of its output is in the form of propulsive energy, which I imagine will also be true of a starship). So in this case, just a little more than 25%.

 

[seekertwo]

So why would anybody build 50 fighters instead of a starship? Because they're cheap, easier to build and repair, and the 50 fighters can be in 50 places at once. They give a quick, easy way to put a officer with set of sensors and a phaser in space.

They would be a kind of militia\garrison\police force, either attached to starbases and colonies, or running out of "carrier" which is used to help colonies and outposts in occasions in which which need more craft than what they usually have.

That could answer the question of why they didn't show up before, because Treak was focused on dashing captains and glamorous starships, maybe they were always there, doing boring routine patrols and traffic control while we where watching Kirk's adventures.

The only question left is why they showed up against the Dominion? I think that it was because a torpedo always hurts coming from a fighter or a starship and every extra one helps, the Federation could have procedures and plans to call up the fighter "militias" if a big battle happens near the territories in which they are based and they have time to prepare.

Also remember that fighters may be not just small craft, there might be a whole range of small to big craft that are meant to operate from bases to do short missions (hours or days long) instead of long starship missions (months or years long).

I'd agree with that...fighters are a lot easier to maintain than a large ship or two. That's why a lot of small countries can field a significant air force but not a significant navy.

Fighters also make sense for border patrol & smuggling interdiction, esp. if teamed with a boarding shuttle full of custom inspectors & security personnel. And, if a larger threat appears, the fighters can converge on the threat and keep it occupied until the Enterprise comes to save the day.

Fighter tactics would change, too. Instead of straight-on attacks, ST fighters are well-suited to ambush (hide in the asteroid field & jump them) or stationary-target (planet, station, etc.) tactics. Maybe even some hit-&-fade action as well.

A carrier starship doesn't make much sense in the ST 'verse, but I always thought one or two of Bajor's moons would make excellent fighter bases.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I can just imagine one of JJ's toadies coming across this thread and giving him the idea to really turn the Enterprise in a battlestar.

"Launch all Vipers, Mr. Spock..."

 

[seekertwo]

I can just imagine one of JJ's toadies coming across this thread and giving him the idea to really turn the Enterprise in a battlestar.

"Launch all Vipers, Mr. Spock..."

More like "Scotty, lock S-foils in attack position"....

 

[Deks]

With respect ... we have seen Federation fighters inflicting heavy damage and destroying a Cardassian Galore class ship during 'Sacrifice of Angels'.

True ... the fighters blew up rather quickly, but then again those DS9 fleet battles never really bothered to show the shields and the VFX were more of an eye-candy instead of an actual representation of the crafts capabilities.

The Maqui raiders/fighters were in fact fully capable of disabling an Excelsior class star-ship (which seemed to have been upgraded).

Smaller crafts such as shuttles were seen as capable of inflicting heavy damage onto capital ships (especially in numbers).
I see no reason to think that these crafts wouldn't be viable in combat against actual larger ships.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I see no reason to think that these crafts wouldn't be viable in combat against actual larger ships.

In exactly the same way that Technicals equipped with javelin missiles would be effective against tanks. It's a viable resort IF you can't afford real tanks, or if you don't have enough tanks to provide serious opposition to an enemy force. But no self-respecting military is going to put a big chunk of their defense budget into a stockpile of Ford F150s and shoulder-fired missiles.

 

[Deks]

You are forgetting perhaps that these 'fighters' effectively utilize weapons that are used on star-ships, except the yield is lower.

Question is by how lower.

There were instances where shuttle-sized crafts in Trek were equipped with directed energy weapons carried onboard star-ships.

One of DS9 episodes involving the Maqui (I think) does that.
I can't be sure if it was in fact on TNG or DS9.

Furthermore, SF is NOT a military organization. It's been repeated so many times on-screen to the point where you could say we were beaten over the head with the statement in question.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You are forgetting perhaps that these 'fighters' effectively utilize weapons that are used on star-ships, except the yield is lower.

Which makes them inferior to technicals, since the shoulder-fired version of the Javelin is identical to the vehicle-mounted one. I suppose a better analogy would be a motorized yacht with a Harpoon missile bolted to the ceiling, but again, that's a full-sized antiship missile on a puny, inexpensive vessel.

The issue isn't the weapons, but the effectiveness of the delivery system. People who can afford real tanks and APCs do not use Technicals, because a stripped down truck with a gun mounted on it gives you only the bare minimum of combat functionality: JUST enough to put a weapon on target, but not much for mobility, survivability, battlefield networking, etc. Fighters probably work the same way: they can put a photon torpedo on target and maybe put a few phaser pulses into the target's softest spots, but they don't have much for staying power, tactical analysis, shielding, long-range communications, and they'd be hard pressed to support a boarding action or deal with wounded officers or battle damage.

Furthermore, SF is NOT a military organization. It's been repeated so many times on-screen to the point where you could say we were beaten over the head with the statement in question.

Plenty of people on this board would take issue with this (I am not one of them). Suffice to say, Starfleet may have a reason to use fighters as a simple force multiplier, an inexpensive solution compared to mass producing Defiant class ships by the hundreds.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I can see Starfleet using fighters for perimeter patrol/defense force for a colony, or surveying an area where a shuttle, runabout, or full-scale starship would be unfeasible, like an asteroid belt in hostile territory or the Badlands with all those plasma storms. But in fleet operations, like, say, some sort of Starfleet aircraft carrier, fighters wouldn't be very effective. It's one thing where the ships lumber around like arthritic dinosaurs, like Galactica or Star Wars, but when we've seen full-blown starships effectively being used as fighters, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to throw in one- or two-man fighters into the middle of that.

 

[Deks]

Which makes them inferior to technicals, since the shoulder-fired version of the Javelin is identical to the vehicle-mounted one. I suppose a better analogy would be a motorized yacht with a Harpoon missile bolted to the ceiling, but again, that's a full-sized antiship missile on a puny, inexpensive vessel.

The issue isn't the weapons, but the effectiveness of the delivery system. People who can afford real tanks and APCs do not use Technicals, because a stripped down truck with a gun mounted on it gives you only the bare minimum of combat functionality: JUST enough to put a weapon on target, but not much for mobility, survivability, battlefield networking, etc. Fighters probably work the same way: they can put a photon torpedo on target and maybe put a few phaser pulses into the target's softest spots, but they don't have much for staying power, tactical analysis, shielding, long-range communications, and they'd be hard pressed to support a boarding action or deal with wounded officers or battle damage.

I think you are underestimating the smaller crafts capabilities in Trek.
Shuttles went up against 'capital ships' on more than one occasion and were relatively effective.
Granted, you would need several to present an actual threat to a star-ship ... but shuttles, fighters and most notably the runabouts have been on long range missions before and engaged larger ships to a degree of success.

They are all equipped with warp drive and have warp cores to suitably power their systems for longer periods of time.

The Delta Flyer for example was nothing more than a larger shuttle, yet it was capable of sustaining several direct hits from a Borg Tactical cube before it was destroyed (and it was set up as a deliberate bait for the cube in the first place without running evasive manoeuvres of any kind).

The Runabouts and shuttles both went up against larger threats and managed to take a beating before they had to retreat or were destroyed (but were able to deliver respectable damage beforehand).

We have no reason to think that dedicated fighters wouldn't be even more effective in combat situations.

They would all predominantly use 'hit and run' tactics ... still, I wouldn't even dare comparing them to fighter crafts of today by any stretch of the word because using contemporary analogy to explain things 300 years from now is essentially useless ... especially when the technology would in effect be thousands of years ahead of ours, and not just 300 years (the Feds utilized technology from races that have been around the block for far longer than Humans).

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I think you are underestimating the smaller crafts capabilities in Trek.

Not at all, just considering the broader context in which those capabilities exist. An armed shuttlecraft is a small combat craft at the LOWER END of a weight class that includes Jem'Hadar attack ships, the Defiant, the Miradorn Marauder, the Klingon Bird of Prey, etc. In other words there are FULL SIZED STARSHIPS that are designed to fill that same role in much the same way, with all the advantages and capabilities that starships tend to have (indeed, throughout the entirety of Deep Space Nine, USS Defiant was deployed as essentially a glorified runabout).

Shuttles went up against 'capital ships' on more than one occasion and were relatively effective.

I'm not arguing their effectiveness. I'm basically saying that, in the Trekiverse, a heavily armed shuttlecraft is basically a poor man's Bird of Prey, in much the same way a Kamikaze can be considered a poor-man's cruise missile. Anyone who can afford the real thing is better off shelling out the cash for it, while armed shuttlecraft are better as a stopgap for overtaxed armed forces or under-funded paramilitary organizations (like, for example, the Maquis or the Bajoran Resistance).

We have no reason to think that dedicated fighters wouldn't be even more effective in combat situations.

Sure they would. But they would NOT be as effective as a bird of prey or a Defiant, which are designed along basically the same philosophy.

 

[Picard578]

Actually, Maquis were first who utilized fighters. I think SF just took it from Maquis in order to put more inexpensive ships in fight. And we know they were mass-producing Defiant class. Plus, we mainly see fighters used against Cardassian ships, which are not really top-of-the-line, althought that is debatable since in Sacrifice of Angels (only time we see them used) it is basically desperation move (in fact, deploying fighters could be desperation move in first place); however, fighters succeded in disabling (or destroying) several Cardassian ships while taking relatively moderate losses so fighters could actually preserve lives (until someone starts using photon torpedoes as flak shells).

 

[Deks]

It was the other way around.
The Maqui were the ones who took old Federation ships/technology upon their leaving the said organization.

A lot of the Maqui were in fact ex SF officers who probably had access to older tech and could have taken them upon leaving.
Maqui sympathizers existed as well who could have easily supplied the Maqui with replicators and weapons.

We also know that most of the Maqui were in the DMZ (on planets that fell within the Cardassian law).

Btw ... do we know if the fighters were actually manned or automated?
It seems to me as a waste to utilize crafts that would in effect be gone after a shot or two, especially when the Federation preserves life at all cost (granted, SF officers are another matter because they are willing to give their lives to protect others).

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Actually, Maquis were first who utilized fighters.

Actually, it was the Bajoran Militia, who seem to have passed on the idea to the Maquis in the years immediately after Bajor's liberation.

 

[dgguy2006]

I agree. And with the sophistication of 24th century computers, a flotilla of unmanned attack fighters would be both tactically coordinated and easily replaceable. However, it seems that even these drones are somewhat redundant, since (as was previously pointed out) they would have neither the speed nor power capabilities to take out even a small starship, much less a large destroyer or dreadnought.

 

[Timo]

With respect ... we have seen Federation fighters inflicting heavy damage and destroying a Cardassian Galore class ship during 'Sacrifice of Angels'.

The episode didn't actually show the destrucion of that ship; it only showed the ship being engulfed in gasoline explosions wherever the bolts/torps from the fighters connected. In a previous episode, "Call to Arms", gasoline explosions of this kind against the hull of DS9 had specifically indicated harmless impacts that were completely deflected by shields.

Also, as wave after wave of the fighters delivered their fireballs, the Cardassians made no attempt to evade. But once Dukat decided to open a hole in the Cardassian lines, a group of the smaller Hideki vessels went after the fighters, while the targeted Galor sank to camera down. It would be quite debatable to decide that the Galor going down indicated the ship was being destroyed or even significantly hurt; instead, since her movement coincides with Dukat's orders to open a hole, it could be part of the deliberate, voluntary withdrawal instead.

The Maqui raiders/fighters were in fact fully capable of disabling an Excelsior class star-ship (which seemed to have been upgraded).

In "For the Uniform"? Naah. According to the dialogue, the Maquis disabled that ship by attacking her computer electronically (or duotronically, or optronically, or whatever - "cybernetically" in any case). The role of any weapons fire from Maquis ships may have been minimal or insignificant.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Unicron]

IIRC, though (and I could be wrong), the damaged Galor is seen falling before Dukat orders the Cardassian units to make the hole, and in that sequence we mainly see the Hidekis breaking formation rather than the heavy warships. In that case, it might be inferred that the Galor did take some significant damage from the fighters.

 

[Timo]

It probably did, otherwise Starfleet would have recalled the fighters already, seeing they achieved nothing. And Dukat probably waited until some "plausible" damage had been scored: this would help him "sell" the trap to the Feds, and perhaps he would actually feel compelled to withdraw the cruiser before it actually suffered catastrophic damage.

But wave after wave after wave of fighters is probably too high a price to pay for mere non-crippling damage, and would not have been done in any other tactical situation... Generally, Starfleet only seems to fight battles where it can do things its preferred way, not battles where it has to operate hardware at and beyond its technological limitations and thus imperil lives (like most militaries do).

Timo Saloniemi