Future of Starfleet

The Next Generation
Meste17
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:45 pm

Future of Starfleet

Post by Meste17 »

Does anyone here think that Starfleet should focus more on building starfighters or space superiority fighters (like the Vipers of Battlestar Galactica or the X-Wings of Star Wars) and the carriers that carry them (the ISDs of Star Wars and the battlestars of Galactica) in the future?

1. the ISDs are Imperial Star Destroyers

2. yes I know, the ISDs dont carry X Wings, but they are my favorite type of starfighters! :D
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Future of Starfleet

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Not really, no. So far as we can see, fighters are rarely if ever used in Trek; apparently the tech works out to make them fairly useless. Not much point in building carriers if all you're doing is providing a target rich environment for a nice bit of gunnery practice for your opponent.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
RK_Striker_JK_5
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 12986
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:27 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award, Cochrane Medal of Excellence
Location: New Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Future of Starfleet

Post by RK_Striker_JK_5 »

Yeah, starfighters in Trek for the most part don't work out too well.
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Future of Starfleet

Post by McAvoy »

No.

A larger ship will have intangible defenses like shields that require large energy reserves. All things being equal, the bigger the reactor, the more energy the ship has. In other words, short of fighters or bombers firing photon torpedoes at a ship, they will or should never penetrate a ship's shields with their fighter energy weapons. Likewise, the fighter's shields will have issues protecting the fighter from an opposing ship's weapons.

That and Star Trek has pretty damn good targeting.

Now do not get me wrong, apparently enough of them is enough to disable a ship like a Galor. The only ship that seems to have issues with smaller fighters that we have seen.

In the end, it comes down to how many lives and fighters you want to lose to bring down a single ship.

IMO, small craft firing one or two photon torpedoes from long distance and then leaving isn't a bad tactic.

Ultimately it seems only Starfleet has an extensive small craft inventory.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
Meste17
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:45 pm

Re: Future of Starfleet

Post by Meste17 »

Good point
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Re: Future of Starfleet

Post by Teaos »

I agree with others that larger ships do tend to be the trend seen in Star Trek, and tthe best use of resources.

That being said, the Federation does cover a lot of space, and what with new Romulan raiders and orions, and Cardassians and Son'a, they have to many small problems to deal with. Problems that dont need a Galaxy class ship.

So I dont think we will see fighter size ships, a ship the size of a nova, but designed for boarder patrols, would be nice to see.
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
User avatar
Jim
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1907
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:32 pm
Location: Pittsburgh
Contact:

Re: Future of Starfleet

Post by Jim »

The only carrier that I would like to see in Star Trek is a Defiant carrier.
Ugh... do not thump the Book of G'Quan...
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Re: Future of Starfleet

Post by Teaos »

But Defiant are self sufficent enough not to to need a carrier.
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Meste17
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:45 pm

Re: Future of Starfleet

Post by Meste17 »

Good points. *shrugs* I just thought it'd be original you know?
User avatar
Jim
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1907
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:32 pm
Location: Pittsburgh
Contact:

Re: Future of Starfleet

Post by Jim »

Teaos wrote:But Defiant are self sufficent enough not to to need a carrier.
The Defiants are self sufficient, but they are not comfortable at all. Any kind of long term deployment or group action, I like the idea of a carrier. Even if it is more of a ... livable skid. It could use the power from the Defiants themselves to power it. Engines, livable areas, supplies, etc.
Ugh... do not thump the Book of G'Quan...
Meste17
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:45 pm

Re: Future of Starfleet

Post by Meste17 »

So if the Enterprise-D were to go up against X Wings or Tie fighters or even an Imperial Star Destroyer....? :D
User avatar
Jim
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1907
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:32 pm
Location: Pittsburgh
Contact:

Re: Future of Starfleet

Post by Jim »

It is one thing unique about the Trek verse compared to the others. Wars has fighters, B5 has fighters, BSG has fighters, SG1 has fighters... It isn't a Trek thing, but there are plenty of other potions out there.
Ugh... do not thump the Book of G'Quan...
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Re: Future of Starfleet

Post by Teaos »

Jim wrote:
Teaos wrote:But Defiant are self sufficent enough not to to need a carrier.
The Defiants are self sufficient, but they are not comfortable at all. Any kind of long term deployment or group action, I like the idea of a carrier. Even if it is more of a ... livable skid. It could use the power from the Defiants themselves to power it. Engines, livable areas, supplies, etc.
So a moveable starbase pretty much?
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
User avatar
Jim
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1907
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:32 pm
Location: Pittsburgh
Contact:

Re: Future of Starfleet

Post by Jim »

I think that I had done a 5 second horrible drawing a few years ago... I had thought more of an external carrier than an internal. The Defiants would be attached to the outside of a center stick-shaped ship. The engines would stick out and not be part of the central area. No (or very little) engineering section as it could use the Defiants for power. All the carrier core would need is living area and supply storage.
Ugh... do not thump the Book of G'Quan...
User avatar
Jim
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1907
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:32 pm
Location: Pittsburgh
Contact:

Re: Future of Starfleet

Post by Jim »

I found the old thread (2008), but the poor drawing picture is gone. Think of something like this flower picture. The purple flowers are the Defiants and the center stem is the carrier with the living areas, etc. You would just need to pop a few engine pylons out from the center, maybe 3. Again, the Definats would power the warp engines and the Defiants themselves could even provide the shields. Once the Defiants are "launched" the carrier would be relatively helpless (maybe only impulse power) but all it is 3 engines and a fancy hotel.

Image
Ugh... do not thump the Book of G'Quan...
Post Reply