www.ditl.org

Where does the reference to "anti phaser coating" come from?

Also, presuming armor like that is primarily useful against phaser weapons, it would seem to not be the kind of armor you would want on a carrier as I'd be a lot more worried about a long range torp shot than short range phaser fire.

Also on carriers, are they supposed to have worked out a way to allow fighters to land and take off with the shields down or would carriers like this try to sit behind the battle lines with sheilds down.

If so I'd think they'd be low manuverability armored tanks.

sunnyside wrote:Where does the reference to "anti phaser coating" come from?

Also, presuming armor like that is primarily useful against phaser weapons, it would seem to not be the kind of armor you would want on a carrier as I'd be a lot more worried about a long range torp shot than short range phaser fire.

Also on carriers, are they supposed to have worked out a way to allow fighters to land and take off with the shields down or would carriers like this try to sit behind the battle lines with sheilds down.

If so I'd think they'd be low manuverability armored tanks.

The Anti-Phaser coating was listed in teh armor types and mainly used to keep the Galaxy Class stronger than it. I Could make it like that but it would be stronger than the galaxy, which would disagree with the timeline. this being an older-ship

I try to 'not' do what they did to enterprise

Wouldn't Delta Flyer like ships make better starfighters though?

Love the idea though.

The Delta Flyer does work out quite a bit stronger than the Peregrine or the Danube on Graham's strength calculator. Question is, was the Gabriel designed before or after Voyager returned, and will the UFP field the Delta Flyer as a production design? I don't see any reason why they wouldn't, but you never know.

Tsukiyumi wrote:The Delta Flyer does work out quite a bit stronger than the Peregrine or the Danube on Graham's strength calculator. Question is, was the Gabriel designed before or after Voyager returned, and will the UFP field the Delta Flyer as a production design? I don't see any reason why they wouldn't, but you never know.

The Delta Flyer ended up using a fair bit of Borg-influenced technology, as well as Tuvok's proprietary shielding... IDK how much of that is mass-produceable, let alone how much would make it through the endless committees which would approve Starfleet production designs.

I have a slight niggling feeling that the Delta Flyer wouldnt make it past the numerous committees you speak. The Borg technology alone might kill it off.

The episode "Timeless" showed the Flyer in mothballs before Harry and Chakotay stole it, so I'm assuming it never was mass-produced.

Forgot about that - good catch. I was just going by how the decision would be left to people least able to make it.

How about a custom starfighter for the Star Trek universe for this carrier then?

Should it be one manned or two? Warp Drive capable or not?

Warp capability would add a lot of mass and expense for a fighter that is expressly designed to be carrier-borne.

Mikey wrote:Warp capability would add a lot of mass and expense for a fighter that is expressly designed to be carrier-borne.

So basically a 'TIE Fighter' or 'TIE Interceptor'? A cheap, non-FTL capable craft?

Mikey wrote:Warp capability would add a lot of mass and expense for a fighter that is expressly designed to be carrier-borne.

Ironically given the number of arguments over the applicability of modern military principles to sci-fi recently, a carrier-borne starfighter would probably be the exact opposite in terms of mass, relative to normal fighters.

Carrier aircraft tend to be quite a bit heavier than an otherwise indentical land-based aircraft, due to the arrester gear and reinforced undercarrage they need. A starfighter would be the exact opposite of this - since landing opperations would not only be in zero-G, but would usually be handled by tractor beam, it might not even need undercarrage, let alone all the extra gubbins, while a planet-based fighter would still require all the usual landing gear.

The carrier starfighter would therefore be lighter, have a better power-to-mass ratio, and be the superior fighter.

Excellent analysis - but all I'm saying is that warp capability is a little extraneous on a warp-carrier-borne fighter.

Mikey wrote:Excellent analysis - but all I'm saying is that warp capability is a little extraneous on a warp-carrier-borne fighter.

I understand that, I'm simply pointing out the other mass-savings inherent in the premise. The comparison is excellently illustrated by comparing SSM's example of the TIE series with the Alliance X- and Y-wing fighters. The former are dedicated carrier starfighters, whilr the latter are deigned for planetary launch. The difference in mass is obvious.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:Excellent analysis - but all I'm saying is that warp capability is a little extraneous on a warp-carrier-borne fighter.

I understand that, I'm simply pointing out the other mass-savings inherent in the premise. The comparison is excellently illustrated by comparing SSM's example of the TIE series with the Alliance X- and Y-wing fighters. The former are dedicated carrier starfighters, whilr the latter are deigned for planetary launch. The difference in mass is obvious.

Yet X-Wings, E-Wings, A-Wings, and B-Wings are superior to the TIE Fighter due to three reasons-they are all FTL capable, they are more heavily armed, and they have shields. It wasn't until the TIE Defender came out that the Imperial Remnant really had a Space Superiority Fighter that didn't have to rely on heavy numbers.

Given how Starfleet wants its officers to survive...it would be reasonable for their starfighters to have shields and Warp capability.