Warp-Capable, Single-Pilot Fighter Craft?

[glock27]

For me, the crucial piece of the jigsaw would be the "fighter"-type spacecraft's non-military applications. What use would the Federation have for such a class of small craft during peacetime/exploration? In the TNG ep "The Emissary", K'Ehleyr was shot into space inside a torpedo/probe to intercept the Enterprise-D. That shows me that the whole one-man-ship idea can be done, and at warp speeds to boot.

So the questions remain: what would such a one-man or two-man ship look like, what kind of nomenclature would Starfleet give it, and what would its applications be for both military and non-military (exploration, transportation, etc.) purposes?

There are only 5 main purposes for any vehicle: military, cargo, passenger, service, & sport.

A single-man vehicle has definite applications in regards to racing sports. I would imagine the Star Trek Universe's answer to Formula One Racing, would be to strap oneself to a warp core & nacelle and see how far one can go before exploding, and how quickly they can get there. We have already seen Starfleet train cadets in single-pilot craft (albeit at sublight speeds) in the case of Nova Squadron's advanced pilot training course at the Academy -- so that's military. For service, I think a one-man or two-man craft, capable of interplanetary or interstellar ranges, would have enormous benefits to local law enforcement as cheap, easy-to-maintain patrol cruisers. Passenger-wise, I think an affordable private low-capacity craft might do for the STU what the automobile did in the 20th century, granting people more autonomy and independence in their transportation needs. As far as cargo, we already have the "work bee" shuttle, that can be modified to do a number of tasks.

The key is finding a way to get those smaller craft to be able to keep up with and out run some of their bigger cousins. Speed is definitely the key. I just wonder if that speed is possible in such a small craft?

 

[Captain Robert April]

Only in a short burst. For the long haul, you're not going to outrun a Galaxy class starship in the equivalent of an X-Wing.

 

[bryce]

Didn't we see fighter trainers in TNG's "The First Duty"?

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Academy_flight_trainer_studiomodel.jpg

Obviously if there's a fighter trainer, there are fighters too...

And didn't Probert design a fighter that was never used on-screen, but appeared in a ST:SOL calender...(anyone here have a linky?)

ETA: Here: http://img.trekmovie.com/images/sotl11.jpg

Not sure that either look very warp-capable, but maybe a version could be made that is...

 

[T'Girl]

What is seen in the episode "The First Duty" is a flight trainer, not a fighter trainer.

The US Air Force uses the T-38 (A and B) Talon as a general flight trainer, and in a pinch could arm them, but they're not fighters. The story is likely the same with the craft seen in TFD.

 

[bryce]

What is seen in the episode "The First Duty" is a flight trainer, not a fighter trainer.

The US Air Force uses the T-38 (A and B) Talon as a general flight trainer, and in a pinch could arm them, but they're not fighters. The story is likely the same with the craft seen in TFD.

Oh, my bad. Still, doesn't a single-seat (or two-pilot) small flight trainer imply that it's fro training people to fly a small one or two person craft...?

Although...NASA uses those flight trainers for all their astronauts...don't they? Or just for the pilots...?

 

[Penta]

Just for the pilots and commanders, I think.

 

[T'Girl]

The military has to start the flight training of their future bomber and transport pilots somewhere.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Just for the pilots and commanders, I think.

No, mission and payload specialists too. You have to log a certain amount of flight time just to qualify to SIT in the shuttle. Considerably less than the pilots, of course, but there's a reason there's no such thing as "human payload."

Of course, it's significant enough that NASA pilots have to flight qualify to even stricter standards than their military counterparts. There's probably a similar logic at work between flight trainers and starship helmsmen, considering the space shuttle doesn't perform anything like a T-38 (I've been told it doesn't exactly fly as much as "gracefully plummets").

 

[Captain Robert April]

The glide path of the shuttle is pretty damn close to vertical.

 

[USS Jack Riley]

^^ "Flying brick" is how I heard it described.

 

[Timo]

Is the glide performance optimized for the way the shuttle is flown now - or is it a relic from the days when the orbiter was supposed to have atmospheric flight engines? AFAIK, no engines were ever planned for the current shape of orbiter (except perhaps for ferry purposes), but IIRC the overall configuration and concept with the externally fed SSMEs and the humungous USAF-sized cargo hold was decided upon before the atmospheric jets were ditched.

That is, is there "excess performance" in the current orbiter, for a craft that can never do a touch-and-go or a complex approach pattern anyway, or perhaps too little performance, for a craft that was supposed to have a degree of propulsion?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ I think it's just the fact that the delta wing is the optimal configuration for super/hyper sonic flight and virtually useless at lower velocities; pretty much ANYTHING with a delta wing is going to behave badly in a glide, and something with the size and weight of a space shuttle is gonna fly like a rock.