www.ditl.org

stitch626 wrote:Unless you count the Defiant as just a really big fighter... and bomber.

The thing is bigger than a modern USA supercarrier. I think it left fighter behind some time ago.

It just likes to act like one.

Actually, the CVN-65 is larger. At least, its longer.

stitch626 wrote:Actually, the CVN-65 is larger. At least, its longer.

Yeah but it's only twice as long compared to three/four times narrower (they're about the same hight).

Hmm, good point.

We discuss about the peregrine class. When we need a pure fighter, then we have a two-men-crew at maximum, so much weapons as to be built in and enough power to fly to any reachable target and come back. a peregrine has a better design than a "normal" shuttle or runabout to fly through the atmosphere, but has also space for 6 persons. That couldn't be a pure fighter. But it is simulary to the mosquito-bomber in second world war: It could be used as an pathfinder, bomber and courier. Sure, then the peregrine is a multirole project - but it can reach in every role no more than average. A special project as a fighter only had the highest power for fighting - not for other things. Maybe Starfleet likes a multirole peregrine more than a pure fighter? Starfleet don't shoot at first ...

Oh. Hi and welcome.

Huh. I think you might be the first "propper" simmer to come by.

For aircraft comparisons I'd liken the Peregrine more to the AC-47 gunship. You start off with the civilian DC-3 as the basic design and then the military makes them with guns when the need comes up.

You make an excellent point, Chadic - not to be a nay-sayer, but the de Havilland Mosquito was perhaps the most single-role aircraft ever developed. It didn't have the electronics or staying power to be an on-target recon unit (it was made of wood, after all,) and it couldn't be a gunship - it had no armaments besides its bomb payload at all.

Mikey wrote:You make an excellent point, Chadic - not to be a nay-sayer, but the de Havilland Mosquito was perhaps the most single-role aircraft ever developed. It didn't have the electronics or staying power to be an on-target recon unit (it was made of wood, after all,) and it couldn't be a gunship - it had no armaments besides its bomb payload at all.

The Mossie had four MGs and four 20mm cannon in addition to its bomb load, and once it was fitted with radar it was one of the most effective night-fighters of the war.

I beg your pardon - I was just watching a documentary on the most succesful bombers of history (scaled to their respective eras,) and there was a whole segment on de Havilland in general and the Mosquito in particular - you know, hiring cabinetmakers and all that - and it was mentioned explicitly that it was unarmed save for its actual bomb payload.

Certainly I've come to not doubt your expertise in these matters, but do you have a link to something that would help me reconcile these two different stories?

Voila

The photo-recce and light bomber variants lacked gun armament, as the bomb-aimer's poition was in the nose, but the fighter and fighter-bomber variants were certainly armed.

Yup the show you watched was about Bombers. Not other varients.

sunnyside wrote:Yup the show you watched was about Bombers. Not other varients.

Apparently to the exclusion of all other pertinent info.

Thanks for the info, Seafort.