New specs

[Meste17]

Hey, just a suggestion. You should really try to put in specs on how many shuttles and/or fighters that the ships could carry (IF they carried any fighters that is). I would REALLY like to figure out just how many shuttles a starship, Federation or otherwise, has. Also if you are looking to .... fill in the blanks, so to speak, You can message me. I think I would like to help figure out just what type of warp cores they have. For example, Voyager having a class 9 warp core with a tri-cyclic manifold.

[McAvoy]

Aside from Voyager, E-nil/E-A and E-D, we really do not have a clue how big the shuttlebays are. The E-E we can guess, but aside from that, we can assume for all we know a Nebula could carry more/less or equal to a Galaxy for all we know. The massive shuttlebay on the Galaxy class could be smaller on the Nebula class because they installed more labs/compartments etc. Not to mention the fact that Voyager seems able to make shuttles out of nowhere.

As far as giving warp cores or other equipment more technical brand sounding names, that is up to the almighty Webmastas. But there is nothing stopping you from doing it in your own personal cannon. I used to do that myself by using the Ships of the Line books as basis.

[Meste17]

Right right

[IanKennedy]

I'm not aware of any canon source that would provide that information. Otherwise it would just be speculation on our part. I'm not sure there's any specific canon that even proves that fighters exist.

[Tsukiyumi]

...I'm not sure there's any specific canon that even proves that fighters exist.

Sacrifice of Angels.

[McAvoy]

If you are loose on the definition.

[Tinadrin Chelnor]

Even if you accept fighters exist in the Star Trek Universe, there is still no evidence for fighter carriers. The fighters in Sacrifice of Angels were already formed into squadrons in space, and as we know, even small craft in Star Trek can be warp capable, so they could just as easily have traveled under their own power.

[Graham Kennedy]

That's true, but if they travel significant distances then one has to wonder just how much of a fighter they really are - toilet facilities and sleeping facilities would make them more akin to something like an MTB.

Also worth bearing in mind that in the real world a carrier is a carrier because it has very specialised equipment in the form of catapults and traps, angled flight deck, etc - all of which weigh quite heavily against that ship doing anything but be a carrier. Whereas in Trek none of that is needed; pretty much any ship has a hangar deck and space for a number of fighters. The model for how ships operate them would be far more akin to how current navy ships operate helicopters, and a Trek "carrier" would be more like the original concept for our Invincible class or those new Japanese giant helicopter carrying "destroyers".

[Teaos]

I am still of the opinion that fighters are just not viable. They cant deliver the needed power to be worth it and the loss of them would not be worth the value they bring to the field. A very qualified pilot and a craft, for what is essentially harassment.

I could only envisage them being useful as colony defense craft against pirates and the like.

[IanKennedy]

...I'm not sure there's any specific canon that even proves that fighters exist.

Sacrifice of Angels.

It proves small ships, but, we don't know what they are and who's they are. They could be warp capable like shuttles often are.

[Teaos]

Isnt it the same ship that Chakotay has in Caretaker?

[stitch626]

Isnt it the same ship that Chakotay has in Caretaker?

No, though they have some similarities they are very different ships.

[McAvoy]

That's true, but if they travel significant distances then one has to wonder just how much of a fighter they really are - toilet facilities and sleeping facilities would make them more akin to something like an MTB.

Also worth bearing in mind that in the real world a carrier is a carrier because it has very specialised equipment in the form of catapults and traps, angled flight deck, etc - all of which weigh quite heavily against that ship doing anything but be a carrier. Whereas in Trek none of that is needed; pretty much any ship has a hangar deck and space for a number of fighters. The model for how ships operate them would be far more akin to how current navy ships operate helicopters, and a Trek "carrier" would be more like the original concept for our Invincible class or those new Japanese giant helicopter carrying "destroyers".

Actually what you are describing the classic aircraft carrier, catapults and all. However, there are plenty of carriers out there that do not have traps, catapults and angled flight decks. The USN have their own, with the nickname mini flattops.

I honestly think for fighters to work in Trek is for them to have first strike capability with the ability to carry photon or quantum torpedoes where they can launch them at capital ships at different vectors. Problem with this is that ships can long detect the fighters before they can get close enough to fire their torpedoes at the ship.

I mean energy weapons should not do much to let's say a Galaxy class and would be target practice for the Galaxy. But launching torpedoes from a distance especially ones that are fully capable of weakening or bringing the down the shields might make it worthwhile.

[Teaos]

I agree that working as torpedo boats is the only way they can be a viable threat, but the cost to sucess ratio I think would still be to high. Even lossing 10% of fighter/bombers in an engagement would be bad in terms of personal. And when you consider you would need dozens of craft to even approach the single volly power of an Akira...

[Graham Kennedy]

Actually what you are describing the classic aircraft carrier, catapults and all. However, there are plenty of carriers out there that do not have traps, catapults and angled flight decks. The USN have their own, with the nickname mini flattops.

Yes, but even they have designs driven by the need to launch and recover fighters - the big long flight deck.

The point I'm making is that the launch and recovery tech in Trek removes any need for a ship to be designed around the launch and recovery of fighters in the way that it does today. Take any ship, put a hole in the side (or back, or front), put a decent sized space behind, and you can operate a fighter. Almost ANY Starship can fill the carrier role.

I honestly think for fighters to work in Trek is for them to have first strike capability with the ability to carry photon or quantum torpedoes where they can launch them at capital ships at different vectors. Problem with this is that ships can long detect the fighters before they can get close enough to fire their torpedoes at the ship.

I mean energy weapons should not do much to let's say a Galaxy class and would be target practice for the Galaxy. But launching torpedoes from a distance especially ones that are fully capable of weakening or bringing the down the shields might make it worthwhile.

Fighters seem largely pointless to me in Trek. The fighter doesn't seem able to launch full sized weapons capable of doing real damage; they also have to go well into the big ship's range to fire. Meanwhile big ships have the firecontrol to hit a fighter pretty easily and it's often a one shot kill. It's little wonder that you hardly ever see the things in use, they're death traps.