Carrier

Deep Space Nine
Post Reply
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!

Carrier

Post by Teaos »

I know this has been covered partially else where but it is usually buried under other debates. We also discussed whether fighter had any roll in modern trek battles.

Anyway do you think a purpose built fighter carrier would be a good use of resources for the Federation? I'm not talking about the Akira which is just a cruiser that can carry quite a few fighters but a purpose built craft that is made specifically for the maintenance and deployment of large numbers of fighters. The ship would have no other roll, although I suppose in peace time it could easily be converted to hold shuttles and act as a colony transport.

It would have to be very large and hold large numbers of people to fly the fighters and maintain them and the ship. It would basically be just like modern carriers.

Personally I'm not sure if there is call for a dedicated carrier. Fighters seem to have a limited roll of supporting larger ships and maybe the odd dogfight so there is not call for massive numbers of them. The cost to build and maintain the carriers would also be very large. Probably the cost of a could of GCS or Sov's.
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
sunnyside
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2711
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:35 pm

Post by sunnyside »

I'm thinking no.

The key reason being that we don't make carriers big just because we feel like it. We make them big because we need to in order to get aircraft safely on and off of them. And as it is most navies have to modify aircraft to work on the carrier and/or send them off without their full load of weapons or fuel(due to having to use afterburners to take off).

Trek however doesn't have a problem with that. I see no reason to gain the disadvantages of putting all your eggs in one basket AND having an expensive ship with a limited role.
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!

Post by Teaos »

The advantage though is being able to deploy large numbers of them when needed and maximizing the effectiveness of the fighters.
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
sunnyside
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2711
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:35 pm

Post by sunnyside »

Teaos wrote:The advantage though is being able to deploy large numbers of them when needed and maximizing the effectiveness of the fighters.
What precisely about being launched from a single point as opposed to from multiple ships maximizes the fighters effectiveness? It isn't like Akiras or even Intrepids lack the capability to maintain them.
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!

Post by Teaos »

The Intrepid can't carry that many and it has other units to carry.

We don't know enough about the Akira to judge its capability.

A purpose built craft will always get more out of them than something that can just carry them in adition to their real purpose.
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
sunnyside
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2711
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:35 pm

Post by sunnyside »

Teaos wrote: A purpose built craft will always get more out of them than something that can just carry them in adition to their real purpose.
A shuttle bay is purpose built for shuttles and fighters really aren't that different. Can you even think of what a purpose built ship would have that you couldn't put into an Akira? What advantage do you actually gain?

Because, as I mentioned, you get extra disadvantages doing that in the form of a ship that is a single point of failure for your fighters and that would be less suited for other roles.
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!

Post by Teaos »

Can you even think of what a purpose built ship would have that you couldn't put into an Akira?
If the Carrier is the size I'm thinking it could probably hold a few Defiants. And since the amin roll of this ship would be moving to somewhere fast it would be considerably faster than the Defiant is.
What advantage do you actually gain?
We've never seen fighters being used much so we can't say, but I imagin having them come from one location the carrier could then keep track of them and deploy them in the best possible way rather than the "let them go and do what they like" stategy used now.
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.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Post by Mikey »

#1 - Forget the Akira-class. I'm happy to use it in our game, but there is no canon suggesting that an Akira is capable of being used as even an escort carrier. There's lots of fanon, quasi-canon sources, etc., but that's it.

#2 - IF fighters are to be used commonly, then a carrier is a good idea for the reason Teaos mentioned of centrally coordinating operations. It can also remain behind the front line - a front-line ship could easily be made to strand its entire complement, but a carrier of warp-capable fighters wouldn't really need to be at the front line to deploy them.

The question comes to this, and it's been touched on elsewhere - how important/common are non-ship-to-ship actions in 'Trek. While fighters have been show to have some small effectiveness in fleet battles, they certainly haven't (to me at least) been show to be a decisive edge. Where they would truly be needed is atmospheric superiority, strike roles, and ground support. If ground-pounding actions do and will occur in 'Trek regularly, then fighters will have a role.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
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!

Post by Teaos »

Even if they aren't used that much the knowledge that there are a few of these around could deter attack. But if the Feds develope them you can bet the other guys will to.

I think fighters have a important part in fleet action but fleet actions do't happen all that often... or didnt use to.
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
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Post by Captain Seafort »

A few points I think are important.

1) Federation "fighters" would be better descibed as medium bombers - they're capable of warp speed, and independant operation. While their method of deployment during fleet actions of the Dominion War was unclear, the fact that the two used by the Maquis in "The Maquis" II were deployed without starship support indicates that they'd probably be based on a starbase or planet. The Akira could probably carry a few of them, but in the same way the Hornet carried Doolittle's B-25s, rather than as a standard compliment.

2) The fighters in "Sacrifice of Angels" were used as a diversion, nothing more. While they could probably shake the heavy ships about a bit (as everything bigger than a hand grenade seems to), the fact that Dukat basically ignored them until he wanted to lure Sisko in demonstrates that they're not a serious threat. In a general action their role would probably be harrasment, preventing the crews of ships not engaged in the main action from relaxing, and perhaps finishing off ships disabled by heavier vessels.

3) The best use of the fighters would be in local system defence forces. Their use by the Maquis implies that they've got the firepower to do a lot of damage to civilian targets, and they should therefore be effective police/customs ships. They're small enough to be deployed in numbers, enough to cover most systems, while having the firepower to disable or destroy any smugglers or pirates they come across, saving Starfleet the overkill of sending a starship to do the job.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
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!

Post by Teaos »

I think fighters could be used a lot more.

In the support of larger ships.

Picking off damaged ships.

Taking advantage of holes in enemy lines to break the line.

If the carrier existed and fighters were more numerous they could be used a lot more and a lot better.
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
sunnyside
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2711
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:35 pm

Post by sunnyside »

Actaully I don't know that it's established in cannon that those things are purpose built fighters.

Actually in dialogue the "Peregrine class" is identified as a courier ship the Maquis modify to use in combat. Of course the Feds could modify as well and all shuttles have a similar armament.

That would explain why the "fighters" are warp capable and don't seem all that impressive. Though they could also be warp capable so they can deploy well away from where the engagement takes place to avoid risk of the mother ship taking hits whit its shields down.

I'd also like to point out that having a ship sitting back behind the lines is not a good thing. It means that you have fewer actual ships in the line.

As for a Defiant carrier, I could sort of see that. However once you're making something that massive I think you might do better just making Sovs that can move fast on their own instead of trying to hurry up the defiants.
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 21747
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
Contact:

Post by Tsukiyumi »

sunnyside wrote:...As for a Defiant carrier, I could sort of see that. However once you're making something that massive I think you might do better just making Sovs that can move fast on their own instead of trying to hurry up the defiants.
From what we've seen, a couple of Defiant-class ships would be more than a match for a Sovereign. I really think Graham's stats for the class are representative of what we've seen on-screen, so a carrier to ferry ten of them to a battle at warp 9.95 or whatever would be a significant force indeed.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
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!

Post by Teaos »

I'd dispute that 3 Defiants could take on a Sov. It would be close but I think the Sov just has to much of an advantage in power to be taken down by them.
I'd also like to point out that having a ship sitting back behind the lines is not a good thing. It means that you have fewer actual ships in the line.
The carrier would be behind the line because it had no point being up close and behind the lines it is safe and can organise things.
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
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Post by Captain Seafort »

Tsukiyumi wrote:From what we've seen, a couple of Defiant-class ships would be more than a match for a Sovereign.
I vey much doubt it. The Defiants may well be the most powerful ships, size for size, that we've ever seen in Trek, but that doesn'tchange the fact that they're also among the smallest Fed starships. A group of Defiants could cause a Sov problems, but saying that a couple could take one down easilly is exagerating somewhat. A squadron, say half a dozen, could probably do it, but it would be a hard fight.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Post Reply