The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > General Star Trek Discussions > Trek Tech > Ships, Devices, etc. > Why no Starship Fighter Carriers?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 04-26-2009, 05:36 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

The Constitutions and Excelsior definitely had blind spots to work with but even with those what about approach at range
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-26-2009, 05:53 PM
Akula2ssn's Avatar
Akula2ssn Akula2ssn is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
The Constitutions and Excelsior definitely had blind spots to work with but even with those what about approach at range
That's probably where the accuracy of the old phaser banks might be an issue that goes in favor of the fighter. Especially if its fast like that orion ship that attacked the Enterprise on the way to Babel.

On the other hand if I were an engineer for Starfleet, and the Chief of Starfleet Operations came up to me and told me that they really wanted to use small fighter vehicles against a starship, then I would recommend the use of full sized photon torpedoes as the fighter's primary offensive weapon against a starship. IF, you can get a fighter sized vehicle that has extremely high speeds, and I mean faster than a typical shuttle, then just use the fighter's speed to give the torpedo the speed that normally would be imparted to it through the acceleration tube of a starship mounted launcher. Get to high speed, launch at a standoff distance and break away then let the torpedo's onboard guidance carry it to the target. Basically don't even bother getting into phaser range. Get a flight of 10 fighters each armed with a full sized photon torpedo and you can probably do some serious damage if not destroy the ship. Each vehicle could probably carry a single torpedo in an interal weapons bay, and maybe a second on an external rack if desired. You could maybe modify the torpedo to carry a slightly smaller warhead so that it can carry a little more fuel to extend its range.

Since I am on the topic of fighter sized vehicles, torpedoes, and speed, I will add that high speed isn't always the answer. One of the great ironies of WWII was that the battleship Bismarck was pretty much done in by a small bi-wing torpedo plane hitting the steering gear. The reason the Bismarck's anti-aircraft system failed, despite of how state of the art it was, was because of a simple design flaw. The way the fire control system was designed, it didn't anticipate that any airborne target would be flying so slow. So it literally couldn't hit slow moving targets.
__________________

"Don't confuse facts with reality."
-Robert D. Ballard

Last edited by Akula2ssn : 04-26-2009 at 09:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-27-2009, 02:21 AM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,458
Default

Although not canon, there was a video game made for the Playstation One called Star Trek Invasion, which featured a Federation fighter carrier in its narrative, commanded by LCdr Worf.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-27-2009, 02:34 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

That starts to get me thinking about that series 'Space: Above and Beyond'.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-27-2009, 04:41 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akula2ssn View Post
That's probably where the accuracy of the old phaser banks might be an issue that goes in favor of the fighter. Especially if its fast like that orion ship that attacked the Enterprise on the way to Babel.

On the other hand if I were an engineer for Starfleet, and the Chief of Starfleet Operations came up to me and told me that they really wanted to use small fighter vehicles against a starship, then I would recommend the use of full sized photon torpedoes as the fighter's primary offensive weapon against a starship. IF, you can get a fighter sized vehicle that has extremely high speeds, and I mean faster than a typical shuttle, then just use the fighter's speed to give the torpedo the speed that normally would be imparted to it through the acceleration tube of a starship mounted launcher. Get to high speed, launch at a standoff distance and break away then let the torpedo's onboard guidance carry it to the target. Basically don't even bother getting into phaser range. Get a flight of 10 fighters each armed with a full sized photon torpedo and you can probably do some serious damage if not destroy the ship. Each vehicle could probably carry a single torpedo in an interal weapons bay, and maybe a second on an external rack if desired. You could maybe modify the torpedo to carry a slightly smaller warhead so that it can carry a little more fuel to extend its range.

Since I am on the topic of fighter sized vehicles, torpedoes, and speed, I will add that high speed isn't always the answer. One of the great ironies of WWII was that the battleship Bismarck was pretty much done in by a small bi-wing torpedo plane hitting the steering gear. The reason the Bismarck's anti-aircraft system failed, despite of how state of the art it was, was because of a simple design flaw. The way the fire control system was designed, it didn't anticipate that any airborne target would be flying so slow. So it literally couldn't hit slow moving targets.
surprising.

I would think long range would be easier for phasers to track and hit opposed to cluse range erractice firing. The righters at range would be easier to plot approach patterns for the targeting systems.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-27-2009, 08:02 AM
Akula2ssn's Avatar
Akula2ssn Akula2ssn is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
surprising.

I would think long range would be easier for phasers to track and hit opposed to cluse range erractice firing. The righters at range would be easier to plot approach patterns for the targeting systems.
It could very well be easier at range, I honestly do not know for sure. Whether the target is at range or close, the actual attack run is where the target will be more vulnerable because it must head straight toward the target in order to make its attack. The difference is that at range, the phaser must be very precise because any slight error is magnified the greater the distance to the target. Also at ranged the fighter would have more room to do some evasive maneuvers. However the closer it gets to the target on the attack run, the fighter has to steady up more and more.

Obviously, hitting a small high speed target isn't anything to sneeze at. We can do it today, but it does take some complex and unforgiving engineering. One text book example is the PATRIOT missile that was deployed during Desert Storm to shoot down Iraqi SCUDs. When a RADAR pulse picks up a potential incoming missile, the computer then calculates, based on the last point of contact, where the missile is going to be. When after the targeting RADAR has picked the target up again and againt, it then sends the information to the launcher and to launch the interceptor. In order to accurately target the incoming missile, the system needs to keep accurate track of time and the internal clock measure time in tenths of a second. Beyond this point there's a bit of computer software terminology that I don't fully understand. However, to cut to the chase, 1/10 is a "non-terminating binary expansion" meaning that it cannot be expressed precisely in binary. Just like how we cannot express 1/3 precisely, because it becomes 0.33333333333.....It keeps going on forever. The result is that as soon as the system is turned on, the internal clock loses time and the error increases over time. On Febuary 25, 1991 at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, a patriot missile batter that had been on for about 100 hours picket up an incoming SCUD moving about about 1600 m/s. After being on for 100 hourse, the internal clock of the PATRIOT battery had lost 0.34 seconds which resulted in a positioning error of 600 meters. So the targeting RADAR would constantly pick up the SCUD, then lose it again and again. The end result was the death of 28 US Army soldier. Perhaps the most tragic aspect not only was that the update software arrive about the next day, but that I believe a few weeks or months earlier, the Israelis discovered the problem and reported it to the DoD. The Israelis basically said not to leave the system on for more than something like 24 or 48 hours. You had to keep rebooting the system at those intervals. The DoD informed the US PATRIOT units. But instead of saying reboot every so many hours, they basically said reboot after a while. So the US forces didn't know what "a while" meant and only rebooted after days on end.
__________________

"Don't confuse facts with reality."
-Robert D. Ballard

Last edited by Akula2ssn : 04-27-2009 at 08:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-27-2009, 08:57 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Other than bad communications, binary code seems to be the culprit.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-27-2009, 09:00 AM
Akula2ssn's Avatar
Akula2ssn Akula2ssn is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
Other than bad communications, binary code seems to be the culprit.
It was. The whole thing ultimately made it onto the History Channel's program on engineering disasters.

The PATRIOT was not intended to shoot down missiles but aircraft. The antimissile function was added around the time of the Gulf War.
__________________

"Don't confuse facts with reality."
-Robert D. Ballard
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-27-2009, 09:06 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

hmm.
Now that sounds like jury rigg programing.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-27-2009, 12:03 PM
Akula2ssn's Avatar
Akula2ssn Akula2ssn is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
hmm.
Now that sounds like jury rigg programing.
Basically it was rushed into service.
__________________

"Don't confuse facts with reality."
-Robert D. Ballard
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:14 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.