www.ditl.org

Question

Can a small attack ship (a fighter) be designed in such a way as to be a clear and present danger to a cap ship?

I say yes.


That being the case, a carrier makes ALOT of sense.

Mark wrote:Question

Can a small attack ship (a fighter) be designed in such a way as to be a clear and present danger to a cap ship?

I say yes.


That being the case, a carrier makes ALOT of sense.

Sure, but in the given volume I can design a stand-off weapon with the following characteristics.

1. Equal or More Speed in all profiles- I don't need to make room for a pilot, nor do I need equipment like dampeners to keep them from getting smushed. Out of warp I can perform as drastic of manuvers as my technology allows, without having to worry about operating with the limits of the inertial dampeners.

2. More destructive power- Since I don't have a pilot I can carry a bigger warhead (probably much bigger since like 70-95% of a fighter comes back to the ship).

3. More range- Again, I have more room for fuel since I don't have to carry all that other crap (Dampeners, seat, controls, environmental support, stasis equipment ect).

4. I can carry more of them- I don't need facilities to maintain them, arm them, pilots to fly them, spare parts. I simply load them up and fire them as self contained units. All I really need for the targeting is a fast recon craft of some sort to call in the strike. There are weapons now that provide their own terminal guideance or you could to it from the scout ship. Take your pick.

BigJKU316 wrote:Yes, of course if you are desiging a Battlestar it needs fighters so you are 100% right.

Well then correct me if I'm wrong, but is designing the Battlestar Enterprise not the point of this thread? If we're designing a Battlestar, then it's naturally going to have fighters.

However, I do agree with you that fighters aren't great in the Trekverse at fleet combat. Thus a redesignation of the Battlestar's role is required. A carrier/warship hybrid isn't suited for Trek-style fleet combat, but it would be perfect for supporting ground operations. It's big enough to carry a few thousand troops on board, the flight pods are large enough to house an array of orbit-to-ground troop transport shuttles and CAS aircraft, and the ship itself has enough firepower to maintain space supremecy against anything short of a major counter-attack.

Given that Starfleet (and indeed, all of Trek) is sorely lacking any ship for such a role, I'd suggest seeing how well the Battlestar could take that job.

I just think the question is somewhat akin to asking that the United States build the worlds best gun-armed prop plane right now. Sure, it could be done. The question is do you really want to do it?

Sionnach Glic wrote:Given that Starfleet (and indeed, all of Trek) is sorely lacking any ship for such a role, I'd suggest seeing how well the Battlestar could take that job.

They've got a great potential assault ship, it's just a matter of fitting it out.





Snap!

*snip pretty picture*

Good point - I'd forgotten about Puff

Captain Seafort wrote:They've got a great potential assault ship, it's just a matter of fitting it out.

An excellent point - I'd forgotten about the Intrepid. Though it would presumably require some serious refitting to turn it from a long-range exploration vessel to a ground assault transport. I'd still favour the Battlestar for its greater troop carrying capability, raw power, and its carrier ability. The fighters alone would make it worth it - a starship can't be providing air support for every ground unit on a planet after all.

Captain Seafort wrote:Snap!

Now I have this vision of a Star Trek version of the ending scene of AotC. Tens of thousands of Redshirts standing in formation in the middle of Paris as Intrepids take off behind them.

Captain Seafort wrote:Good point - I'd forgotten about Puff

I've always had a fondness for the AC-130. There's something about the idea of bolting an artillery cannon onto the side of a cargo plane that you've just gotta love.

I see no reason why an orbiting starship could not provide fire support over a wide area. It is really a matter of comm links, which you would need with fighters anyway to direct strikes. If the person on the ground can designate a tager for a space launched fighter they can designate one for an orbiting ship. It is just a matter of putting the right weapons on it to allows them to be useful in a close support situation. Really your field of fire would be far better and the response time much quicker from orbit than from fighters operating within the atmosphere.

I could see where perhapse when comms don't work you might want the fighters, but even then you could not operate very close to your troops. You don't allow CAS to troops without positive communications between the fighter and the ground force.

BigJKU316 wrote:I see no reason why an orbiting starship could not provide fire support over a wide area. It is really a matter of comm links, which you would need with fighters anyway to direct strikes. If the person on the ground can designate a tager for a space launched fighter they can designate one for an orbiting ship. It is just a matter of putting the right weapons on it to allows them to be useful in a close support situation. Really your field of fire would be far better and the response time much quicker from orbit than from fighters operating within the atmosphere.

Yes, a ship can hit targets over a wide area. But what if the ship is getting dozens of requests at once for immediate fire support? What if your sensors are fouled by something in the atmosphere or the make up of the planet? What if the target is out of the line of sight of the ship's guns? What if there are dozens of targets out of sight of the ship's guns? What if the ship is suffering from battle damage and is unable to lend accurate support? What if the ship is engaged in action with the enemy fleet? What if the ship has been temporarily called away from the planet to provide support elsewhere? What if your ground troops are being harrassed by enemy CAS aircraft? What if comms are down?

Starships are a damn useful tool when it comes to warfare, and they would certainly revolutionise how we fight a war. But just as the invention of jet fighters and missiles didn't doom the tank to obsolesence, neither will a starship remove the need for close air support. A Battlestar could deploy fighters which could acompany ground forces, launch strikes on the other side of the planet, dogfight with enemy aircraft, land at and be deployed from ground-based airfields, remain on station even if the Battlestar is otherwise occupied or removed from the area, if comms or sensors are down they can easily get a eye on the situation and respond to visual signals, and they extend the striking range of the ship to cover the whole planet. They offer a versatility that simply isn't available to a lone ship in orbit, regardless of how powerful said ship may be.

I will address one by one some of these points.

1. Getting overwhelmed with request- You are dealing with computers vastly superior in power to anything ever even contemplated in human history. The US Military today already has software that would does a pretty good job of this sort of thing. Simply put, the programing to handle the request and automate the firing is something that would be well within the capabilities of these ships.

2. Sensors getting fouled- This is quite possible, as is commuincations going out, but if that is the case how will CAS aircraft operate? They need the same information to operate, you can't do it visually at high speed and if fighters became something seen often enough then AAA systems would be deployed by other ground forces. Operating at low speed doing a visual search for targets is sucicide now against well defended targets. It would be even worse when the AAA emplacements are phasers and mini-torpedoes. If you are going to operate at high speed you need the sensors and comm links but if you have those you can call a starship.

3. Ship is called away/damaged and unable to give support- I don't see how this would make things different if the ship was equipped with fighters or not. I suppose you could in theory leave some fighters behind, but then they have no support base. If you can operate them from land bases you don't really need the carrier in the first place, just stick them in a transport (or pack them into shuttlebays for a one way flight) and unload them when you get there from standard ships.

4. Targets on the other side of the planet- Well assuming a normal orbit you can orbit the whole planet (263,000 mile orbit) at 10% the speed of light in about 9 seconds. So it is not much of an issue. Depending on the angles 2 or 3 ships could provide nearly instant coverage, so that does not seem to be an issue.

BigJKU316 wrote:1. Getting overwhelmed with request- You are dealing with computers vastly superior in power to anything ever even contemplated in human history. The US Military today already has software that would does a pretty good job of this sort of thing. Simply put, the programing to handle the request and automate the firing is something that would be well within the capabilities of these ships.

How many times have we seen Trek ships engage targets automatically, hmm? Never - either due to technical limitations or, more likely, Starfleet doctrine, they always require crew intervention to engage.

2. Sensors getting fouled- This is quite possible, as is commuincations going out, but if that is the case how will CAS aircraft operate?

By getting in close. Stuff that buggers up sensors and comms isn't binary - platforms closer in can burn through the interference to establish contact.

if fighters became something seen often enough then AAA systems would be deployed by other ground forces. Operating at low speed doing a visual search for targets is sucicide now against well defended targets. It would be even worse when the AAA emplacements are phasers and mini-torpedoes. If you are going to operate at high speed you need the sensors and comm links but if you have those you can call a starship.

Air Defence kit exists today, in an hundred different forms. It hasn't made aircraft obsolete.

3. Ship is called away/damaged and unable to give support- I don't see how this would make things different if the ship was equipped with fighters or not. I suppose you could in theory leave some fighters behind, but then they have no support base. If you can operate them from land bases you don't really need the carrier in the first place, just stick them in a transport (or pack them into shuttlebays for a one way flight) and unload them when you get there from standard ships.

That depends on how long the ship is called away for - if it's only a few hours then fighters can remain on-station ready to assist. If it's a big one, similar to a B-52 or similar, they could stay on station for a day or more.

4. Targets on the other side of the planet- Well assuming a normal orbit you can orbit the whole planet (263,000 mile orbit) at 10% the speed of light in about 9 seconds. So it is not much of an issue.

Starfleet sensors take at least a second to lock onto targets - that gives you at most 3.5 seconds to engage and destroy a ground target. When have we ever seen a starship complete an engagement that quickly?

At that speed you wouldn't be orbiting the planet anyway - you'd simply be flying in circles round it.

Depending on the angles 2 or 3 ships could provide nearly instant coverage, so that does not seem to be an issue.

The problem with that is line-of-sight - the terrain would get in the way so you'd need far more ships, just as the GPS requires more than a dozen satellites to maintain coverage. You'd be taking an awful lot of powerful ships out of the line.

Big, the problem is that you are taking the stand that "Tech solves all" which isn't true in either Trek or real life.

You know what? I friggin' LOVE the idea of the Battlestar in that role. It's made to order with the launch and landing pylons. Strip out the cat system and open BOTH fore and aft sections, its like having twin Akira class ships on your flanks.

You could load a full Armored Division and a two wings of fighters on a SF-BSG. That would allow you to put all of that force on any target at anytime you so please. Plus as SG pointed out, have fun trying to get a BsG to leave.

It COULD be the most powerful ship in space "today". Excepting the Voth and the Borg of course. Manuverability would suck, but who cares? Just park, turn broadside, and open up said can of whoopass.

Very true. Taking on one would be a pain. Taking on a squadron of them would be a pain fest.

Deepcrush wrote:You could load a full Armored Division and a two wings of fighters on a SF-BSG. That would allow you to put all of that force on any target at anytime you so please. Plus as SG pointed out, have fun trying to get a BsG to leave.

Not at all really. I just think people are stating with fighters and the solution to the problem (because they like fighters) rather than trying to solve the problem with what already exist in the universe.