Federation shuttle craft vs TIE fighter

[Connor MacLeod]

You can not radicaly manuever at high speeds because to do so would require decelerating and going the other direction.

That's not what I asked, nor what you said before. You said that manuvering at relatavistic speeds was IMPOSSIBLE, but now you are saying that you cannot "radically" manuver at high speeds. Which is it?

For that matter, how exactly are you defining "radical" manuvering?

This takes time and manuevers would be substansialy slower.

The time it takes is goign to depend on the ship's maximum possible acceleration (which isnt necceesarily going to be the same as the ship's maximum accelerative capability) and the distance they intend to cover relative to their initial velocity. (Manuvering is determined by the amount of acceleration they can apply in a given direction, as well as how they do it.)

To use an example that I seem to remember you posting. Andromeda might be a fast ship but when traveling exceptionaly fast and you wish to radicaly alter your direction, you must decelerate or make sweeping predictable turns.

An incomplete and somewhat simplistic conclusion I drew before largely because most Andromeda fans in the vs debates I have dealt with somehow do not think that inertia applies to an Andromeda ship. It applies more towards their claims that ships can instantly change directions at relatavistic speeds irrespective of what their actual accelerative capabilites are. However, even traveling at near-c, they can manuver to some degree in anyy direction so long as they can apply acceleration in a given direction (it will take time to completely CHANGE course.)

As for "predictable" it is somewhat (from, head on, say, at a high approach speed - that negates one axis of approach) but you can still hamper things by varying acceleration in given directions, (although this will bleed off your inertia - but at relatavistic speeds its not an immediate factor.). Even if you accelerate at a few hundred gravities while traveling relatavistically, you can still make it hard to predict just where you are (another oversimplification error on my part.)

What is more, this is STILL somewhat simplistic, since vessels do not automatically change direction (thrusters, or at least the thrust streams, have to be redirected, for example.), it does not factor in reaction times to situations, weapons ranges, and so on and so forth, the value of surprise, etc.

Now, according to Allston, you through all this out the window and fighters can now maneuver at highspeeds like they can at low speeds.

Or it simply means that SW craft have different ways of fighting (did you neglect to mention that the Vong are not the Empire? Tactics and such do change, but that does not mean they aren't capable of it. Relatavistic combat is not uncommon, but neither is it the rule.) You make the error of assuming that everyone fights in a single way all the time irrespective of situation and other factors.

Because what I brought up was a red herring. I was talking about limitations other universes are put under and this is not relevent to the debate.

This sounds vageuly like another "Star Wars applies unfair standards to other universes it does not apply to itself" comment.

[Alyeska]

Again you assume no upgrades! I've already shown that older models keeping deadly alongside new, advanced ones is an implicit indication of upgrades.

This still doesn't adress the issue that human reaction times make such combat impossible. I also want proof of such upgrades, or at least another source.

Alright. The only evidence for rapid re-targetting in Trek is Nemesis. Since it's only one event, we can throw it out.

I don't give a shit if you're going to whine about it being too rarely quantified. Either show contradictions that don't rely on more of your unsupported assumptions, or concede.

Apples and organges. I am talking about something that is in direct contradiction to earlier established information and it requires upgrades to do this(which have not been established). Insurrection showed a NEW ship doing something that hasn't been established as impossible (which earlier SW did establish NJO type manuevering as impossible) and has infact been done before by Galaxy class starships on at least two other ocassions. Furthermore for the NJO type maunevering is impossible because human reaction times can't handle it.

[Alyeska]

Connor, I adressed some of your issues in expanded posts to Sir Nitram. I will try to get back to your issues soon, but this thread has ballooned a little quickly and I don't exactly have the time or resources to keep this debate up from work.

However to adress this issue.

This sounds vageuly like another "Star Wars applies unfair standards to other universes it does not apply to itself" comment.

Yes, thats exactly what I was starting to say and you caught me. Thats why I dropped it. It has no real bearing on the debate because each universe has its own rules.

[Connor MacLeod]

An incomplete and somewhat simplistic conclusion I drew before largely because most Andromeda fans in the vs debates I have dealt with somehow do not think that inertia applies to an Andromeda ship. It applies more towards their claims that ships can instantly change directions at relatavistic speeds irrespective of what their actual accelerative capabilites are. However, even traveling at near-c, they can manuver to some degree in anyy direction so long as they can apply acceleration in a given direction (it will take time to completely CHANGE course.)

Edit: I should note this tended to apply more towards their kinetic warheads (certain fans tended to assume they would retain their full destructive kinetic power yet be able to easily manuver irrespective of momentum. ) That doesnt quite apply to ships in the same manner (unless they're attempting to get close or ram), but it did apply to the oversimplified notion they had that speed/accelerative capability was an unbeatable advantage (erroneously assuming noone would be able to close the distance on an Andromeda ship at all. If speed were everything, then SW ships would win by virtue of hyperdrive)

[Connor MacLeod]

Lets simplify this. The whole point to Nitram bringing up relatavistic speeds is based on the earlier poitn he made: one cannot overgeneralize accuracy based on a specific set of conditions. 100% accuracy against targets moving in fairly predictable manners at a predictable speed at close range does not mean that it will be 100% accurate across the board (at all ranges, against all sorts of targets, in all conditions.) For that matter, its rather foolish to generalize that accuracy is going to be consistent across all sorts of weapons outputs (recoil dissipation is going to be a big factor in the weapon's tracking/predicting ability.)

[Connor MacLeod]

To further illustrate, in Nitrams "relatavistic sW fighter" example, he was suggesting that if one changes the speed of a target (altering one of the factors in the accuracy equation), the original accuracy estimate does not neccesarily apply. This could possibly remain true even if it were only a few tens of km/s difference (thousands of gees of accecleration) in velocity rather than relatavistic (as opposed to say a few hundred meters per second or even a few kilometers per second.)

[SirNitram]

Again you assume no upgrades! I've already shown that older models keeping deadly alongside new, advanced ones is an implicit indication of upgrades.

This still doesn't adress the issue that human reaction times make such combat impossible. I also want proof of such upgrades, or at least another source.

Perhaps you could show me where these fighters have no computers onboard. Oh yea, they've always had computer assistance.

Alright. The only evidence for rapid re-targetting in Trek is Nemesis. Since it's only one event, we can throw it out.

I don't give a shit if you're going to whine about it being too rarely quantified. Either show contradictions that don't rely on more of your unsupported assumptions, or concede.

Apples and organges. I am talking about something that is in direct contradiction to earlier established information and it requires upgrades to do this(which have not been established). Insurrection showed a NEW ship doing something that hasn't been established as impossible (which earlier SW did establish NJO type manuevering as impossible) and has infact been done before by Galaxy class starships on at least two other ocassions. Furthermore for the NJO type maunevering is impossible because human reaction times can't handle it.

Wow, hairsplitting. It's a new ship so it doesn't count(Except there's no X-J Wings or Coralskippers in earliy movies, first strike), it's a new capability, not an enhanced one(Flat out LIE, we have never seen a maximum capability for a fighter's combat speed, only some pilots limits.), and again the 'Uh, it can't be because there's no explicit statement of upgrades!'(Would you like to see what this logic causes in Trek, Alyeska?).

[Alyeska]

To further illustrate, in Nitrams "relatavistic sW fighter" example, he was suggesting that if one changes the speed of a target (altering one of the factors in the accuracy equation), the original accuracy estimate does not neccesarily apply. This could possibly remain true even if it were only a few tens of km/s difference (thousands of gees of accecleration) in velocity rather than relatavistic (as opposed to say a few hundred meters per second or even a few kilometers per second.)

I understand that. What I have issues with is the assertation that NJO allows fighters to be traveling at PLS speeds and change course radicaly (90 degree turns or more) along with speed towards the new course in just a matter of seconds. Such course changes with associated speeds would be impossible to dogfight at because human reaction time can't handle it. Infact some of the stuff Allston wrote contradicts some of the claimed manuevers because the pilots can still comprehend what is going on and when someone changes course the following pilot can still follow.

I think a misunderstanding of what Allston is writing is occuring. Some people are taking what he says to mean that the fighters can alter course and speed radicaly even at high velocities. I would say that some of the battles are occuring at high fractions of C, but relativisticaly the fighters are not moving very much in relation to eachother. As I said earlier they might all be moving .2C towards a specific point, but within that speed they are manuevering and flying while interita keeps pulling them in the direction they all accelerated up to.

[Alyeska]

Perhaps you could show me where these fighters have no computers onboard. Oh yea, they've always had computer assistance.

At the speeds they are traveling, computer assistance would be meaningless. Dogfighting would be impossible because a human can't comprehend at those speeds. If someone pulls a 45 degree turn at .5C, you can't follow and it will take a LONG time to catch up, provided you can even out accelerate your enemy. This doesn't happen. I think a misinterpretation is occuring.

Wow, hairsplitting. It's a new ship so it doesn't count(Except there's no X-J Wings or Coralskippers in earliy movies, first strike), it's a new capability, not an enhanced one(Flat out LIE, we have never seen a maximum capability for a fighter's combat speed, only some pilots limits.), and again the 'Uh, it can't be because there's no explicit statement of upgrades!'(Would you like to see what this logic causes in Trek, Alyeska?).

Nitram, now your using the wrong terms. I do not disagree with the speeds. I disagree with being able to significantly manuever at those speeds. You can not just change direction while going full engine burn without some serious changes to the ship.

[SirNitram]

Perhaps you could show me where these fighters have no computers onboard. Oh yea, they've always had computer assistance.

At the speeds they are traveling, computer assistance would be meaningless. Dogfighting would be impossible because a human can't comprehend at those speeds. If someone pulls a 45 degree turn at .5C, you can't follow and it will take a LONG time to catch up, provided you can even out accelerate your enemy. This doesn't happen. I think a misinterpretation is occuring.

Probably, given how you keep stumbling to disprove the actual maneuvers I've seen written and keep going quite vaguely. For instance, has anything you've said touched on the fact Vong fighters(And from Anakin's reaction to their maneuver, Republic ones) can fly formation-perfect at PLS speeds? None of it.

Wow, hairsplitting. It's a new ship so it doesn't count(Except there's no X-J Wings or Coralskippers in earliy movies, first strike), it's a new capability, not an enhanced one(Flat out LIE, we have never seen a maximum capability for a fighter's combat speed, only some pilots limits.), and again the 'Uh, it can't be because there's no explicit statement of upgrades!'(Would you like to see what this logic causes in Trek, Alyeska?).

Nitram, now your using the wrong terms. I do not disagree with the speeds. I disagree with being able to significantly manuever at those speeds. You can not just change direction while going full engine burn without some serious changes to the ship.

And you keep refraining from defining what you mean by 'signifigantly maneuver', which is getting really fucking tiresome, Alyeska. We know, for a fact, they can ramp up to lightspeed in pathetically tiny amounts of time, we know they can apply thousands of G's from their engines, we know they can pivot while in motion quite quickly. All this adds up to a vehicle that would be incredibly hard to hit at the sort of extreme speeds Allston has ships moving at.

If you assuming they must have pulled hard right hand turns with no 'skid', so to speak, that's not my doing. I simply want you to actually define your position rather than stating something can't be true because you don't like the fact it's there.

[Connor MacLeod]

I understand that. What I have issues with is the assertation that NJO allows fighters to be traveling at PLS speeds and change course radicaly (90 degree turns or more) along with speed towards the new course in just a matter of seconds.

I dont recall the NJO even giving a remote indication they do this (at least by thrust alone). The closest is a slingshot effect that relies more on tractor beams on a larger stationry object, and thats not independent thrust. Nor do I recall anyone suggesting they in fact do this, simply that they can manuver while at relatavistic speeds.

Such course changes with associated speeds would be impossible to dogfight at because human reaction time can't handle it.

At short distances, it is. But this simply means that they engage at much longer ranges when fighting relatavistically, wouldnt you think? (Just to illustrate my prior points, I want you to think VERY carefully about how the NJO examples differ frrom NR vs Empire/Rebel vs Empire combat, and what differences might exist.)

Infact some of the stuff Allston wrote contradicts some of the claimed manuevers because the pilots can still comprehend what is going on and when someone changes course the following pilot can still follow.

No, it doesn't. Again, think about the two different styles of combat and how they differ. Its not inconsistent in the least.

I think a misunderstanding of what Allston is writing is occuring. Some people are taking what he says to mean that the fighters can alter course and speed radicaly even at high velocities. I would say that some of the battles are occuring at high fractions of C, but relativisticaly the fighters are not moving very much in relation to eachother. As I said earlier they might all be moving .2C towards a specific point, but within that speed they are manuevering and flying while interita keeps pulling them in the direction they all accelerated up to.

Better, but I repeat: its not inconsistent, it is simply indicative of differing situations and conditions. There is nothing extraordinary about it.

[Alyeska]

If ranges have increased and they use computers to compensate for that, I can better accept such manuvers.

I think what is going on is more of a middleground between the two types of combat I have listed.

[General Zod]

If ranges have increased and they use computers to compensate for that, I can better accept such manuvers.

even modern aircraft have to use computers to compensate for high speed maneuvering at mach speeds. naturally they'd have to use computers to do the same at sub-C speeds for sci-fi fighter craft.

[Ubiquitous]

Oh, it's nothing of the sort.

If you can provide evidence, any evidence, of Federation jamming and ECM equipment then by all means provide it. The Wars side has done the same, I ask no more of you.

As Aly said, in TWOK there is Jamming. Since that is all you ask...

I seem to remember Jamming in DS9 5x26 that blocked a communication to DS9 but I can't remember whether that was the Dominion or Federation. An example of Federation anti-Jamming was in 6x06, when the Chief cuts through the Dominion jamming signals to regain fleet transmissions.

TIEs have jammers, we know that. I very much doubt the MF is without them, considering Solo cobbled on every piece of military equipment he could find, from quad lasers to extra shielding to frigging hull plating from a crashed Carrack (IIRC).

Unless you can find proof, I won't accept that. Now, the DS jammers may have been hampering the TIE's in the battle, but nothing was specifically stated in the movie. Perhaps in the book, if somebody would clear this up?

How do you know he wasn't pushing the limits?

Because didn't he call off his wingmen so that he could personally take Luke down? The lack of ramming [we all know TIE's can reach incredible speeds - Vader should have been able to chase the X-Wing down]? Arrogance from Vader stopped him from saving the DS, not the capabilities of his craft.

I stand by my previous comment: you ask nothing but pointless questions to which there can be no answer, but which can start long pointless flaming arguments. In my book, that makes you a person who trolls.

Gimme a fucking break. Every time I do post in here, I get pounced on by people like you because I voice a pro-Trek view. This is the first time ever in all my life I have been accused of trolling, and to be honest its fucking bullshit that someone like myself, who isn't big on Vs, can't get involved in a debate with the veterans without being labeled a 'troll' or a flamer just because I ask questions or voice an unpopular view. Well if my actions in this thread are considered those of a troll, then fuck me, have the internet must have trolled at some point!

If I were a fucking troll then why has there never been a complaint outside the Vs forum about my posts? I've been at this forum since day 1 and I've never been accused of trolling, flaming or anything. So if you want to continue your BS accusation, you better get some fucking real evidence or drop the matter. I won't have my good name tarnished by some guy on the other side in a Vs debate just because I'm not the hottest debator who has access to all material and the patience/ability to write excellent rebuttals.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Pardon, I meant the episode "Jem'Haddar", not BOBW. I can't actually believe I wrote that.

As for the GCS in "Jem'Haddar", I'm going to borrow the DVD's from my friend and get some screencaps of this and "Paradise Lost" for verification.

I'd be very surprised if we see any beam phaser misses.

You are suggesting drastically more accurate weapons, yet pound for pound match ups with opposing ships? Doesn't wash, and the writers having no logic doesn't fly either since we need an in-universe answer.

There are plenty of examples of UFP beam phasers missing, I just need some time to rewatch a few epsiodes and get some screepcaps of them since this isn't something I've thought about in a while.

Actually it does wash. Review the episodes in which UFP fighters were used against OPFOR ships the fighters were able to close in and cause significant damage. However, OPFOR ships score reasonable accuracy against most UFP capitol ships. (except for the Defiant)

Examples of beam phaser misses do exist, however, they are very rare. Based of canon evidence UFP ships have a much better accuracy for ship mounted beam weapons. I await your response...

[Alyeska]

I just rewatched the Paradise Lost combat video (which makes 20+ times I've seen it now). The Lakota scores 100% accuracy against the Defiant. I also watched the Oddessy Battle. The GCS fires a total of three shots and all three hit.

There are only five examples I can think of when Starfleet capitalship have missed targets. Two of them are examples of blind firing against a cloaked target. Two more are examples are of Starfleet ships firing on stealth capable ships. The last example is when a ship missing its computer core had to manualy target fighters.

(Edit) I am specificaly referring to beam phasers. Torpedoes and PPCs are a red herring.

[Howedar]

As Aly said, in TWOK there is Jamming. Since that is all you ask...

I seem to remember Jamming in DS9 5x26 that blocked a communication to DS9 but I can't remember whether that was the Dominion or Federation. An example of Federation anti-Jamming was in 6x06, when the Chief cuts through the Dominion jamming signals to regain fleet transmissions.

Thanks, that's all I wanted.

Unless you can find proof, I won't accept that. Now, the DS jammers may have been hampering the TIE's in the battle, but nothing was specifically stated in the movie. Perhaps in the book, if somebody would clear this up?

"Chewie, jam their transmissions" - ANH

Thank you, come again.

Because didn't he call off his wingmen so that he could personally take Luke down? The lack of ramming [we all know TIE's can reach incredible speeds - Vader should have been able to chase the X-Wing down]? Arrogance from Vader stopped him from saving the DS, not the capabilities of his craft.

What the hell? I ask again, how do you know he wasn't pushing it for all it was worth? How does the presence of wingmen preclude his ramming?

Gimme a fucking break. Every time I do post in here, I get pounced on by people like you because I voice a pro-Trek view. This is the first time ever in all my life I have been accused of trolling, and to be honest its fucking bullshit that someone like myself, who isn't big on Vs, can't get involved in a debate with the veterans without being labeled a 'troll' or a flamer just because I ask questions or voice an unpopular view. Well if my actions in this thread are considered those of a troll, then fuck me, have the internet must have trolled at some point!

Oh poor fucking baby

I challenge you to find a single instance of me bashing Trek in my entire stay here. One. You won't find one because I don't fucking bash Trek. Most people here don't, and if you'd come off your whiny-ass wounded bitching you'd see that.

If I were a fucking troll then why has there never been a complaint outside the Vs forum about my posts?

I've asked myself that very same question.

I've been at this forum since day 1 and I've never been accused of trolling, flaming or anything. So if you want to continue your BS accusation, you better get some fucking real evidence or drop the matter. I won't have my good name tarnished by some guy on the other side in a Vs debate just because I'm not the hottest debator who has access to all material and the patience/ability to write excellent rebuttals.

You're breaking my balls, bitch. Cry me a fucking river.

If you were interested in a real discussion, you wouldn't snipe with a comment or three then disappear for weeks.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I just rewatched the Paradise Lost combat video (which makes 20+ times I've seen it now). The Lakota scores 100% accuracy against the Defiant. I also watched the Oddessy Battle. The GCS fires a total of three shots and all three hit.

There are only five examples I can think of when Starfleet capitalship have missed targets. Two of them are examples of blind firing against a cloaked target. Two more are examples are of Starfleet ships firing on stealth capable ships. The last example is when a ship missing its computer core had to manualy target fighters.

(Edit) I am specificaly referring to beam phasers. Torpedoes and PPCs are a red herring.

I know, but sometimes people just have to see these things for themselves.

[The Third Man]

So although unshielded and thin-hulled the TIE has ECM? Bugger. That means there's no chance of choosing one of the suitably-equipped shuttle types and at long, long last having an actual outside chance of feasible combat application of the transporter

[Alyeska]

Trek would be best suited to use the largest shuttle it can get away with. It has the best chance of penetrating the Tie's ECM while surviving Tie shots.

[Darth Wong]

Trek would be best suited to use the largest shuttle it can get away with. It has the best chance of penetrating the Tie's ECM while surviving Tie shots.

Are runabouts considered shuttles? The E-D's shuttles were pretty wheezy.

[The Kernel]

I just rewatched the Paradise Lost combat video (which makes 20+ times I've seen it now). The Lakota scores 100% accuracy against the Defiant. I also watched the Oddessy Battle. The GCS fires a total of three shots and all three hit.

Even when the Defiant was directly over the saucer? Jesus H. Christ, I must be getting old because I could swear I remember misses (and I've seen the damn thing a good dozen times). Oh well, thanks for looking them up.

[Alyeska]

Trek would be best suited to use the largest shuttle it can get away with. It has the best chance of penetrating the Tie's ECM while surviving Tie shots.

Are runabouts considered shuttles? The E-D's shuttles were pretty wheezy.

TNG era shuttles weren't very impressive. The shuttles that started appearing in DS9 and Voyager were far more impressive. The Insurrection shuttle is the largest shuttle ever shown.

Runabouts are an odd duck. They are armed with six phaser arrays and two micro torpedo launchers. They are given NCC numbers like starships and typicaly work indepdent of a starship, but they are usualy stationed on a station. However they have also been stationed on ships (The E-D had one for a time). I would classify them as large shuttles. They are large enough they can opperate independently, but they can also work from a shuttle or station like normal shuttles.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schem ... -chart.jpg

This gives you an idea of the various ships that could be fielded. The Peregrine Tactical Fighter is listed incorrectly in size IMO. Its more in the range of 14-18 meters.

Anyway the Insurrection shuttle and the Argos show a new progression in size and capability for Trek shuttles.

[Connor MacLeod]

As Aly said, in TWOK there is Jamming. Since that is all you ask...

I seem to remember Jamming in DS9 5x26 that blocked a communication to DS9 but I can't remember whether that was the Dominion or Federation. An example of Federation anti-Jamming was in 6x06, when the Chief cuts through the Dominion jamming signals to regain fleet transmissions.

This indicates they can jam communications... how does this translate into some sort of combat-EW capable of defeating SW sensors, exactly?

Unless you can find proof, I won't accept that.

Original Trilogy ICS, EGW&T, Han Solo at Star's End to name a few. Jamming capability is a well-known fact in the Star Wars universe.

By the way, I like how you assume above that we're supposed to take it as granted that the ability to jam communications translates into full-scale Electronic Warfare capability for the Feds, but we need EXPLICIT proof that TIE fighters have jamming even when its known that other fighters (Even obsolete Z-95 headhunters!) have them. I'm guessing hypocrisy doesn't bother you all that much when its to your advantage, does it?

Now, the DS jammers may have been hampering the TIE's in the battle, but nothing was specifically stated in the movie. Perhaps in the book, if somebody would clear this up?

The jamming was hampering both sides in terms of detection AND manuvering, as per the canon novelization. Its canon fact that they were reduced to visual detection. Didn't you watch the movie?

Because didn't he call off his wingmen so that he could personally take Luke down?

Which is supposed to prove what exactly?

The lack of ramming [we all know TIE's can reach incredible speeds - Vader should have been able to chase the X-Wing down]? Arrogance from Vader stopped him from saving the DS, not the capabilities of his craft.

What does this have to do with the presence of or lack of EW, exactly?

Gimme a fucking break. Every time I do post in here, I get pounced on by people like you because I voice a pro-Trek view. This is the first time ever in all my life I have been accused of trolling, and to be honest its fucking bullshit that someone like myself, who isn't big on Vs, can't get involved in a debate with the veterans without being labeled a 'troll' or a flamer just because I ask questions or voice an unpopular view. Well if my actions in this thread are considered those of a troll, then fuck me, have the internet must have trolled at some point!

I don't know whether or not you're a trroll, but your logic needs a great deal more work (especially where you demanded the Wars side explicitly prove something to you and assumed that we should take something on the Trek side for granted.)

[Darth Wong]

There's no point even addressing those "I'm being persecuted!" whiners. You can find people using that exact same excuse in any heated debate over any subject on the Net. It's a universal whine.