StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Has there been any Carrier style starships in canon Star Trek either using starfighters or light capital ships or do those exist only in the (non-canon) ST-EU?

Not explicitly used as such in canon but as the Akira class has large shuttlebays on it's design and these are said to carry fighters in supplementary materials.

Crazedwraith wrote:Not explicitly used as such in canon but as the Akira class has large shuttlebays on it's design and these are said to carry fighters in supplementary materials.

I was looking for ships that were shown on-screen without a reasonble dout to use fighters as their main (or at least clearly signifigant) source of damage to the enemy.

So the Akira and the Scimitar wouldn't count as while the Scimitar was shown to have fighters didn't use them against the Enterprise so we don't know how big a role they played for the Scimitar and the Akira certain looks like it has the capability to be a carrier but again it's not shown on screen.

The Reman Warbird Scimitar had lots of fighters.
Although it is not clear if these fighters were supposed to attack other starships - or to support ground forces.

They weren't used to attack the Enterprise or the three Romulan Warbirds.

Insofar I assume that these fighters are not capable to efficiently attack a starship but are used for close air support e.t.c..

Lord Revan wrote:

Crazedwraith wrote:Not explicitly used as such in canon but as the Akira class has large shuttlebays on it's design and these are said to carry fighters in supplementary materials.

I was looking for ships that were shown on-screen without a reasonble dout to use fighters as their main (or at least clearly signifigant) source of damage to the enemy.

So the Akira and the Scimitar wouldn't count as while the Scimitar was shown to have fighters didn't use them against the Enterprise so we don't know how big a role they played for the Scimitar and the Akira certain looks like it has the capability to be a carrier but again it's not shown on screen.

Well perhaps you should have said that to start with.

In that case, no. We've seen Fed Fighters but they've always been independent of a mothership.

Lord Revan wrote:Has there been any Carrier style starships in canon Star Trek either using starfighters or light capital ships or do those exist only in the (non-canon) ST-EU?

Strictly in STO, other non-canon Star Trek works(such as the vidgame featuring the USS Tython), and the AU Star Fleet Universe of Star Fleet Battles.

I think the Peregrines, Marquis Raiders, and Runabouts are about as small as you can get and be effective against a true starship... but of course, don't need to be carried.

Which, thinking about it... the best way to get offensive and defensive power is to have a strong power source, best way to do that is a warp core, so most of what you need to fight is 90% to being warp capable right there.

The Romulan ones seem to me like they're almost certainly for ground support. No way do those have enough power to not suffer from the 'get one-shotted and killed in groups by rapid-fire low power phaser bursts,' like some alien fighters did vs the E-D once.

WATCH-MAN wrote:The Reman Warbird Scimitar had lots of fighters.

*snip pic*

Although it is not clear if these fighters were supposed to attack other starships - or to support ground forces.

They weren't used to attack the Enterprise or the three Romulan Warbirds.

Insofar I assume that these fighters are not capable to efficiently attack a starship but are used for close air support e.t.c..

I knew about the Scimitar as I stated before, but since we only see 1 scorpion in action and even that isn't piloted by the Reman crew so we don't know if those were intended to be used liked the Federation Attack fighters in DS9 or in some other role.

That said the Scorpions are tiny (practically a (small) cockpit strapped to pair of engines and a gun), so you assumption that they're ground support isn't that far fetched we just don't know as we don't see them often enough.

Q99 wrote:The Romulan ones seem to me like they're almost certainly for ground support. No way do those have enough power to not suffer from the 'get one-shotted and killed in groups by rapid-fire low power phaser bursts,' like some alien fighters did vs the E-D once.

Tbh the Galors 1 shotted or nearly so the Peregrines sent against them when they hit the fighters and these were Cardassian ships, it's more or a question would the disruptor mounted on the Scorpion be powerful enough to inflict enough damage before getting blasted to bits, though I'd say no based on just how bloody tiny the scorpion is.

Q99 wrote:I think the Peregrines, Marquis Raiders, and Runabouts are about as small as you can get and be effective against a true starship... but of course, don't need to be carried.

<nod> And I think an argument could be made that a Defiant-class ship is a pocket starship that thinks it's a fighter. There's still really nothing ship-based, though, apart from armed shuttlecraft, and in most cases I don't think anyone would consider calling them dedicated fighter types.

Looking upthread a bit, I didn't know that about the Akira's capabilities, and I see from some of the online blueprints that that what they have hangar space for is mostly Peregrines. Certainly sounds like a carrier to me, although not really a big one.

I do have vague memories of looking through various Star Fleet Battles sourcebooks (for what that's worth) many years ago, and at least one of the carrier designs there looked a bit like an Excelsior on steroids with rows of launch bays running down the sides of the secondary hull; very different from the Akira layout with one big hangar in the middle.

the Akira was intended to be a carrier but that was never shown on screen, though the Model has 4 hangar doors (2 at the front and 2 at the back) though at the same time the Akira has an insane amount of torp tubes as well visible ones that is not ones told to us in dialoge like Scimitar.

I don't ever recall seeing something operate like a carrier in Star Trek. And to honest, I only remember one battle that utilized starfighters en masse and that was Operation Return in the episode "Sacrifice of Angels".

Not to mention that carriers wouldn't fit well with the Age of Sails/Trireme style combat that Star Trek is preferable to using. With warp speeds being what they are, the carrier's ability of force projection would be severely limited. Which does bring up the question since the carrier would have to rely on other vessels for protection 'Where in the wall of ships would one even sit while the strikecraft were deployed?'

I could see fighters being useful if they were armed like modern fighters, in that they carried 2 - 6 large anti-ship missiles (torpedoes) and attacked in squadrons. The way they are portrayed on screen however, is as small starships. They attack with beam weapons and micro-torpedoes that are scaled down for the size of the fighter or runabout. In a battle such as in "Sacrifice", they sent the fighters in first to open a hole with the capital ships intended to take advantage of. That would have worked out far better if the fighters were able to obliterate the first line of Cardassian ships instead of simply luring them out of formation.

SilverDragonRed wrote:Which does bring up the question since the carrier would have to rely on other vessels for protection 'Where in the wall of ships would one even sit while the strikecraft were deployed?'

Would it help any to file this under "Trek writers don't really understand how to use modern air power tactics" along with oh-so-many similar things...?

Shuttlecraft, even the smaller shuttlepods, seems to have decent durability, when compared to full-size starships, so a purpose-built fighter could be useful.

While that wouldn't particularly surprise me the fact is modern air power tactics don't work in space. The nifty thing about aircraft on Earth is they a) are massively faster than any naval or ground vehicle and b) they can go (or at least fly over) places those can't get to. Neither of that is true for starships.
In fact, in Trek the full-up starships are the ones that are usually faster, and barring very select circumstances, everywhere a Peregrine can go, a Galaxy can too, can probably get there faster and pack a hell of a lot more of a wallop. About the only advantages the Peregrine has are it's a smaller target, more maneuverable (for want of a better term) and less expensive.

SpottedKitty wrote:Would it help any to file this under "Trek writers don't really understand how to use modern air power tactics" along with oh-so-many similar things...?

I would add a lot of sci-fi under that umbrella. There are a lot of settings where 'carriers' have to sit on the front line for their strikecraft to be useful, but never seen them be able to hang back a light-second distance away (or more). I would hope Wing Commander does this since their fleet is built around carriers, but I've only ever seen the movie. So, for the time being, I just say my own setting is the only one with true carriers in it.

biostem wrote:Shuttlecraft, even the smaller shuttlepods, seems to have decent durability, when compared to full-size starships, so a purpose-built fighter could be useful.

That added with the armament Borgholio suggested would be a great boon for a purpose-built carrier before the wall-of-ships engage in battle. Certainly be better than those little skull-things I launch from the alien battlestar I've used for a while now in STO.

Heck, if these fighters were warp-capable, and you could launch a few dozen, you could easily outflank your typical enemy. Plus, you could have the craft rotate in and out of combat as they get damaged or need to regenerate their shields. You could even intermix some drone craft along with piloted ones...

biostem wrote:Heck, if these fighters were warp-capable, and you could launch a few dozen, you could easily outflank your typical enemy. Plus, you could have the craft rotate in and out of combat as they get damaged or need to regenerate their shields. You could even intermix some drone craft along with piloted ones...

Small shuttle-craft type ships are almost always shown to be considerably slower than full sized starships, barring unusual tech (like the Delta Flyer using a transwarp coil). A small fighter would certainly be a lot more manuevrable than, say, a Galaxy-class while at impulse speeds, but I dont see how it would outflank a full sized starship via warp. If anything they'd have to stay close to their carrier in order to protect it because if they don't the starship would just focus on knocking out the carrier then warp out of the fighter's range. IMO you couldn't really have operations like in the Pacific Theatre where the carriers hung back out of range of other naval warships.

Tribble wrote:

biostem wrote:Heck, if these fighters were warp-capable, and you could launch a few dozen, you could easily outflank your typical enemy. Plus, you could have the craft rotate in and out of combat as they get damaged or need to regenerate their shields. You could even intermix some drone craft along with piloted ones...

Small shuttle-craft type ships are almost always shown to be considerably slower than full sized starships, barring unusual tech (like the Delta Flyer using a transwarp coil). A small fighter would certainly be a lot more manuevrable than, say, a Galaxy-class while at impulse speeds, but I dont see how it would outflank a full sized starship via warp. If anything they'd have to stay close to their carrier in order to protect it because if they don't the starship would just focus on knocking out the carrier then warp out of the fighter's range. IMO you couldn't really have operations like in the Pacific Theatre where the carriers hung back out of range of other naval warships.

I'm talking about the typical encounter, where you have the main starship facing off against another one; But now have one launch a dozen or so fighters, do a quick micro-warp, and now the other ship is surrounded.

biostem wrote:

Tribble wrote:

biostem wrote:Heck, if these fighters were warp-capable, and you could launch a few dozen, you could easily outflank your typical enemy. Plus, you could have the craft rotate in and out of combat as they get damaged or need to regenerate their shields. You could even intermix some drone craft along with piloted ones...

Small shuttle-craft type ships are almost always shown to be considerably slower than full sized starships, barring unusual tech (like the Delta Flyer using a transwarp coil). A small fighter would certainly be a lot more manuevrable than, say, a Galaxy-class while at impulse speeds, but I dont see how it would outflank a full sized starship via warp. If anything they'd have to stay close to their carrier in order to protect it because if they don't the starship would just focus on knocking out the carrier then warp out of the fighter's range. IMO you couldn't really have operations like in the Pacific Theatre where the carriers hung back out of range of other naval warships.

I'm talking about the typical encounter, where you have the main starship facing off against another one; But now have one launch a dozen or so fighters, do a quick micro-warp, and now the other ship is surrounded.

But a micro-warp (assuming that could be done) works both ways - the other ship would also have the ability to warp out of the way of the attacking fighters, and due to its faster speed it could make a break for the carrier and start shooting at it. Or would be able to disengage from the fight at will as the only other ship that could keep up would be the carrier, and given the two are roughly equal mass the carrier wouldn't have the same amount of firepower. Unless the carrier group gets a lucky early shot that knocks out the opposing ship's warp drive it's going to be able to dictate the range/ speed of the fight.

This is very differnent than modern navies, where fighters are far faster than any sea-going warship, and are able to go to places where the ships can't. Star Trek small-craft are slower and have a much shorter range. Also Star Trek fighters may even be at a "terrain" disadvantage compared to a regular starship because anomales of the week tend to impact smaller ships more than bigger ones.

have we seen ships warp thru solid objects? It seems a pretty easy way to keep a startship from warping out would be to fly in such a way that if they tried to warp out you'd ram them, that said at least in STO the carriers aren't exactly toothless without their fighters being battleship or dreadnaught level ships for the most part. Also the implied carriers in canon (the Scimitar and the Akira) aren't useless in a fight without their fighters either.

also IIRC the speeds are around warp 3 cruise with warp 5-6 max for shuttle craft and a bit more then that for runabouts, while Starships have in general warp 6-8 cruise and warp 9+ max so for tactical the difference isn't that huge (it really doesn't matter if one is 0.000000001 second faster on the spot or not) since we are typically talking about ranges less then 1 ly, sure the starship could out run the fighters if it choose to flee but that's besides the point (since fleeing is defeat not a way to win a fight)

Have we seen ships warp thru solid objects? It seems a pretty easy way to keep a startship from warping out would be to fly in such a way that if they tried to warp out you'd ram them,

You'd likely need to be really close and have a lot of fighters to do that; space is big. Also, it's possible that larger ships with shields up could potentially ram a shuttle-sized craft without suffering serious damage (preferably after trying to weaken or destroy it via weapons). Remember that Jem-Hader "fighters" are actually Defiant-sized vessels and their crews are a lot more suicidal than your typical starship.

that said at least in STO the carriers aren't exactly toothless without their fighters being battleship or dreadnaught level ships for the most part. Also the implied carriers in canon (the Scimitar and the Akira) aren't useless in a fight without their fighters either.

The Scimitar was far bigger than the opponents it was facing, so it's not surprising that it could hold its own in fight. Given equal volume / mass and tech level, a dedicated warship would logically be superior to a carrier for the simple reason that a good chunk of the carrier is being used to house its fighters rather than dedicated weapons / shields / armour etc.

lso IIRC the speeds are around warp 3 cruise with warp 5-6 max for shuttle craft and a bit more then that for runabouts, while Starships have in general warp 6-8 cruise and warp 9+ max so for tactical the difference isn't that huge (it really doesn't matter if one is 0.000000001 second faster on the spot or not) since we are typically talking about ranges less then 1 ly, sure the starship could out run the fighters if it choose to flee but that's besides the point (since fleeing is defeat not a way to win a fight)

It's hard to say for sure how warp scales up and what the speeds are as it tends to be all over the map. IIRC once you hit warp 9+ the speeds start going up expoentially.

But the assumption here is that the opposing starship will play nice and act exactly the same way that it would agaisnt a regular starship. Unless you handicap it by having the crew being unaware of the fact that they are facing a carrier-based starships, or the Captain is a pacifist like Picard and he/she waits until the shields are down before responsing, IMO the opposing starship would switch tactics. The primary target would be the carrier because without it the fighters are basically crippled from a strategic standpoint, and their main goal would be to engage and cripple/ destroy the carrier before it is able to launch all of its fighters.

Preferably they would try to keep the engagement at warp as the fighters wouldn't be able to mount an effective response. While its possible that the fighters could be launched at warp (I don't recall any episodes where a shuttle-craft was launched from a ship already at warp mind you) and its possible that they would be able to coast at the carrier's speed for awhike (like the saucer section) inevitably their slower warp drives and any manuvering would cause them to fall behind. I don't think a carrier group would win a fight at warp unless the carrier was significantly larger and more powerful than the opposing ship to begin with.

At impulse speeds it really depends on the state of the carrier group (assuming the fighters can carry heavy enough weapons to pose a threat). If the opposing ship is able to attack before the carrier can deploy its fighters or if it is able to attack while the carrier is in the process of deploying fighters, then the carrier will be at a disadvantage. If the carrier has deployed all of its fighters before the oppopsing ship is able to get into range then the opposing ship would be at a disadvantage. At that point the regular ship should retreat unless it can get in some good hits on the carrier first because its best strategy was to hit the carrier before the fighters could come into play. Assuming of course that the fighters are able to stop it from micro-warping and/or the higher speed of the opposing ship isn't really a factor.

in the post TOS era fighting at warp is practically unheard of and when it happens it tends to be "ambush and force into impulse" kind of thing rather then long term fighting.

Remember that destroying the enemy is a secondary objective and more often then not you're defending (or attacking) a realatively speaking static object that limits the battlefield. We know the Mars defense drones have to have been useful for something even if stopping a Borg Cube wasn't that.

Most battles we see are fought at impulse speeds and when we do see fighters/shuttles attacking larger ships it's generally at very short ranges.

We got to remember that speed=distance/time and at practical combat distances shown in trek the diffrences in warp speeds are trivial as it takes longer for the warp engines to "charge" then it takes to cover the distance even at warp 1. so it matters little of you take 0.00000000000000001 s or 0.0000001 s to cover the distance as your reaction times will be longer then the travel time.

I think the proper analogy for 'fighters' (that is, single-seat independent spacecraft) in Star Trek isn't fighters from 20th century naval aviation. It's gunboats. Small vessels that are built using essentially the same technology as big heavy warships, and armed with smaller versions of the same weapons.

And the thing is... gunboats never actually accomplished very much tactically in combats involving larger ships. They were often faster or more agile in theory, but in practice the speed advantage was minimal, and the gunboats' fragility made it dangerous to bring them into combat against larger, more heavily built and armed enemies. Sometimes the gunboats benefited from being able to maneuver in shallow water or able to use oar power, so that they could move and fight in conditions where larger ships were paralyzed, but that was a very situational advantage. So on the whole, while gunboats* were designed and built in a variety of situations, and were effective under conditions where their vulnerability to heavier ships didn't matter... they never played a decisive role in naval engagements.

The sole exception to that rule came about after the invention of the self-propelled torpedo, in effect a "missile" that could be used only at short range, but which even a relatively small boat could carry, and which was a threat to very large ships. And this is our guideline to how fighters might prove effective.

If you are trying to fight effectively against an enemy with greater brute durability and endurance, you need to deliver an extremely powerful 'alpha strike' and escape before you are worn down by attrition. Torpedoes let small steam-powered boats do that; analogous missile-type weapons are about the only thing that could usefully be employed by fighters in Star Trek.
____

*Note that 'gunboat' here covers a very wide variety of ship types, including lightly armed sloops in the age of sail, small oar-powered galleys and flatboats, and various small steam-powered craft. Basically, if it's a boat (as opposed to a ship) and has guns (or other weapons), I'm calling it a gunboat.

Simon_Jester wrote:I think the proper analogy for 'fighters' (that is, single-seat independent spacecraft) in Star Trek isn't fighters from 20th century naval aviation. It's gunboats. Small vessels that are built using essentially the same technology as big heavy warships, and armed with smaller versions of the same weapons.

And the thing is... gunboats never actually accomplished very much tactically in combats involving larger ships. They were often faster or more agile in theory, but in practice the speed advantage was minimal, and the gunboats' fragility made it dangerous to bring them into combat against larger, more heavily built and armed enemies. Sometimes the gunboats benefited from being able to maneuver in shallow water or able to use oar power, so that they could move and fight in conditions where larger ships were paralyzed, but that was a very situational advantage. So on the whole, while gunboats* were designed and built in a variety of situations, and were effective under conditions where their vulnerability to heavier ships didn't matter... they never played a decisive role in naval engagements.

The sole exception to that rule came about after the invention of the self-propelled torpedo, in effect a "missile" that could be used only at short range, but which even a relatively small boat could carry, and which was a threat to very large ships. And this is our guideline to how fighters might prove effective.

If you are trying to fight effectively against an enemy with greater brute durability and endurance, you need to deliver an extremely powerful 'alpha strike' and escape before you are worn down by attrition. Torpedoes let small steam-powered boats do that; analogous missile-type weapons are about the only thing that could usefully be employed by fighters in Star Trek.
____

*Note that 'gunboat' here covers a very wide variety of ship types, including lightly armed sloops in the age of sail, small oar-powered galleys and flatboats, and various small steam-powered craft. Basically, if it's a boat (as opposed to a ship) and has guns (or other weapons), I'm calling it a gunboat.

I'd said they're more a mix between gunboats and modern fighters in terms of their battlefield use, they seemed to able to cause nontrivial damage to the Galors they attacked even if the attack wasn't decisive on its own.

I suspect that if properly supported by heavier ships fighters could cause signifigant damage by attacking spots where the shields have weakened while the heavy ships serve to draw attention away from the fighters to allow them to do their work.

That would explain why carriers we know about in trek tend to be capable of combat by themselves and aren't moving bases unable to defend themselves against any serious attack like modern carriers are.