StarDestroyer.Net BBS

This never made any sense to me why Klingon Empire does not deploy starfighters. Klingon people race that look forward to dying for the Klingon Empire. If Klingon Empire was to us starfighters it would raise the likelihood getting kill in battle and cause give them tactic advance over enemies and we have seen UFP using 2 man fighter effectively in battle. So I hoping some of you guy could come up with some theories on why they Klingon Empire does not us them.

First of all, the word you're searching for is "use".

StarSword wrote:First of all, the word you're searching for is "use".

True, though in fairness I'd say this is better than his usual grammar.

Anyway, there are some pretty small Klingon ships in canon- the Bird of Prey isn't a fighter, but its no capital ship either.

My theory as to why they don't use fighters: Klingons like to use cloaking devices, and they can't be fit onto a fighter. No, I have no solid evidence for this. Its pure speculation.

I think the lack of a dedicated carrier might play a role in why we don't see Klingon fighters. A BoP has the range and provisions to carry out much longer missions that Klingons seem to undertake.

The use of fighter type craft is relatively new to the scene with Starfleet being first (AFAIK) among the Alpha\Beta Quadrant powers. But even then it is rarely used and Starfleet does not have a dedicated carrier.

I always thought the Bird of Prey was like a giant starfighter. Of course the real reason is that starfighters aren't really a Star Trek thing and they always seem weird and out of place when they are featured.

The Romulan Republic wrote:My theory as to why they don't use fighters: Klingons like to use cloaking devices, and they can't be fit onto a fighter. No, I have no solid evidence for this. Its pure speculation.

Remember that episode when Quark and Rom were carrying a cloaked cloaking device through the hallways of DS9?

Ah canon, why do you keep ruining things for us?

I hate being a nitpicker (OK, I lied, I love it. Stop looking at me that way), but we saw fighters, or at least fighter-sized ships, as early as Enterprise, where Sulibans and Tholians had warp-capable fighter-sized ships (they even fought each other, with the Tholians in the process of winning in spite of having just four fighters a small Suliban fleet) and the Vulcans showed non-warp capable fighters (at least they didn't go at warp). I think the issue against wider adoption of fighters is merely survivability: the few times we saw a starship firing on them, the fighters were pulverized (Sulibans would still use them because they don't have anything better, Tholians because it plays in their infamous Tholian Web manouver, and Federation because they showed useful for some damage before bringing in the big guns).
For why the Klingons don't use them... Well, I think the fighters simply aren't cost-effective enough for them. It's good to die in battle and go to paradise, but if you die without doing any damage...

lord Martiya wrote: Sulibans and Tholians had warp-capable fighter-sized ships

Oh, and those Suliban fighters all had cloaking devices too. Back in the 22nd century.

There are plenty of smaller ships, and even some with warp drives. Assuming the engineering know-how is there (since the technology likely is), the question is do they have enough range to operate independently? (We see no Klingon Carriers) If they are planet-based or Space Station based out of necessity then we would not see them because there is very little Trek depicted in their territory. Also, do they have enough armament for Klingon preferences (As Maritya said), is it more resource efficient to build a BoP instead with bigger guns?

Star Trek was never really 'about' snubfighters dropping bombs down thermal exhaust vents anyway.

Damn DS9 for shifting the paradigm away from what had already been established.

Don't Birds of prey perform the role of a fighter anyway? I seem to remember them swarming larger ships and pouncing once they were damaged kind of like a wolf pack. Their size gives them the bonus of endurance and added fire power.

Stofsk wrote:Star Trek was never really 'about' snubfighters dropping bombs down thermal exhaust vents anyway.

Damn DS9 for shifting the paradigm away from what had already been established.

The only time DS9 was 'about' snubfighters dropping bombs down thermal exhaust vents', it was when the Valiant's cadet crew went on a suicide mission and got themselves killed real good.

The Valiant wasn't a snubfighter. I'm talking about those spaceships that we see in 'Sacrifice of Angels' that were referred to as fighters. That's what I meant. Starfleet never used fighters before that episode aired, at least not that I recall. Runabouts, yeah they were used in 'The Jem'hadar' but that was because the crew wanted to be part of the action but didn't have their own ship. Besides which runabouts could hardly be described as fighter craft of the sort most people typically associate with the term.

No, the Valiant wasn't a Federation attack fighter. But the scenario fits the bill. Star Wars pilots call it "Trench Run Disease": using small vessels to target structural or other weaknesses in enemy ships or stations.

In Star Trek, most attacks are pinpoint attacks on features of the enemy vessel. 'Target their weapons system', 'disable their shields', etc. So what?

Actually, "trench run disease" is just the same old swarming tactic that small craft (e.g. destroyers) use against bigger enemies. (e.g. post-dreadnought battleships) They abuse the big gun's low number, rate of fire and ability to move onto a new target, by being small, nimble, fast and numerous. Considering we see even capital ships dodge enemy fire all the time in ST and most ships seem to have only a very low number of weapons that take quite a while between shots, this seems like a good tactic to employ.

e/ The really funny thing about this is: WARS does have dedicated medium artillery and flak.

I'd imagine that after the Peregrine fighters reasonable level of success (I seem to recall them blowing up a few Galor class ships in "Sacrifice of Angels") All of the major powers might rethink their "No Fighters" policy. While non-canon, I do like the idea of Star Trek: Invasion having the new, 1 man version, the Valkyrie along with this Klingon fighter I never got the name of.

http://gaming.trekcore.com/gallery/albu ... ighter.jpg

Also I imagine the Klingon carriers would be heavily armed and armoured, like refitted cruisers and the like, sortof Klingon Battlestars.

Don't forget the Romulan (Reman?) Scorpion-class fighters in Nemesis (bleah).

Its no coincidence to me that fed fighters show up at the same time as the Akira, which I believe is the ship that... carries fighters.

So its not so much a "no fighters" policy so much as it is a decision on whether or not it is worth developing a means to get said fighters into range.

Darth Fanboy wrote:Its no coincidence to me that fed fighters show up at the same time as the Akira, which I believe is the ship that... carries fighters.

So its not so much a "no fighters" policy so much as it is a decision on whether or not it is worth developing a means to get said fighters into range.

We saw the Maquis us them in TNG: "Preemptive Strike. Also in DS9 the Klingon Empire in secret provide cloak devices to the Maquis that can work for smell space vehicle like two man fighters on terms that they would be used against Cardassion Union. Also runabout seem more then match for UFP build fighter suggesting that UFP fighters design better fight air and less space. After all thin spacecraft without wings harder target to hit.

Darth Fanboy wrote:Its no coincidence to me that fed fighters show up at the same time as the Akira, which I believe is the ship that... carries fighters.

So its not so much a "no fighters" policy so much as it is a decision on whether or not it is worth developing a means to get said fighters into range.

Actually, I'd expect them to be designed at the same time, but the Akira takes longer to be built vs fighters on an assembly line. This also lets tactics be improved by using 'real-life' experience, so by the time the carrier is finished the new squadrons can use the new tactics for larger scale operations.

Freighters can be used to serve as fighter platforms until dedicated carriers are developed, since fighters launched in space don't worry about stall speeds. Just add extra launch systems (or additional freighters) to simulate a proper carrier.

The Maquis only had the Raiders though and only had the resources for smaller craft unless I'm mistaken. They are not a good comparison to one of the Alpha Quadrant powers.

Coalition wrote:Actually, I'd expect them to be designed at the same time, but the Akira takes longer to be built vs fighters on an assembly line.

Kind of my point.

On theory, in response to the OP, is perhaps that the Klingons themselves never developed the concept of a fighter? Even as a space-faring culture, Klingons still have an emphasis on hand-to-hand combat. I suspect the human concept of airpower would have been considered "dishonorable" to Klingons. Why engage in combat using a fighter jet when it was more honorable to fight with a bat'leth? I would not be surprised if Klingons only developed warships after encountering aliens who were not so keen on fighting wars by Klingon rules.

Um-Klingons have used warships since their first appearance in Trek (even the retroactive ones from ENT), and continued to do so even after the stupid 'let's use knives against guys with ray guns' tactics surfaced in the TNG/DS9 era. The 'RAR! Knives' thing seems to be exclusively infantry. Not that I know how this is supposed to translate into starship combat anyway.