Star Trek Discussion

Thank you.

What I find so remarkable about Trek is how well it holds up to its internal logic, considering the number of people who wrote for it over the course of some 30 or so years. (Leaving out the more recent films as they exist outside TOS onwards) And of course they don't seem to have had anyone keeping track of what had gone before - as I said they didn't even remember that the Enterprise D was meant to explore 'strange NEW worlds' as they did this exactly once in seven seasons*. They also forgot that Voyager was meant to be struggling to survive without access to Federation and Starfleet resources**, or that half the crew were technically criminals***.

Sure, there are problems with continuity - in TNG era they often forgot that they had used the main deflector to solve a problem similar to the one they faced only two weeks earlier. But a lot of this can be explained or forgiven given the needs and limitations of TV****.

(*TNG, season 2's last episode 'Shades of Grey' - aka the lame clip show - was the only time they visited an entirely new and unknown world. The rest of the time they were boldly going where someone else had gone before.)

(**Although they loved to talk about their limited supplies, the ship and crew spent seven years in pristine condition, managed to somehow replace all their TNG phasers with DS9/film versions and were even capable of refitting part of the ship with an advanced astrometrics lab.)

(***Remember that Chakotay was leading a group of terrorists, some of whom had gone AWOL from Starfleet? Yeap, the writers forgot about this after the second episode as well.)

(****Which is why the CSI franchise has forensic scientists carrying out interviews and Bones conducts autopsies on a raised platform in the middle of a huge open room. It looks good, and allows the story to remain focused on the main cast. This is also why Kirk and Riker insisted on beaming down with most of the Enterprises command crew every week...because nothing helps the ship more than putting those people best qualified to run it as far away from the bridge as you can manage)

The 'warship' argument is one example. While it is stated that Starfleet is definitely not military*, this does not preclude them from deciding to design ships with combat applications in mind - even if those ships were not fitted out as warships or used as such outside wars.

(*The earliest mention of this in the time line was at the end of Enterprises second season when Archer decides to take MAKO's aboard they are specifically identified as being the military, while Starfleet was not.)

In the case of the Akira class, a large hanger does not mean that the ships were intended to be used as 'carriers' in a battle group. Around the same time as the Akira was being developed Starfleet was clearly in the process of designing the Danube Class Runabouts. This was a large shuttle that could be modified quickly and easily to fill multiple roles - from science missions to combat roles*. The large shuttle bay on the Akira would have allowed that class of ship to carry a large number of these craft, which in turn would have allowed a (relatively) small ship incredible flexibility in terms of what missions it could undertake, how many (multiple runabouts would allow the ship to carry out several missions in several different places at the same time) and how quickly it could reconfigure itself to deal with new situations - expecting a fight? Refit the runabouts for their tactical role.
That the Akira seems to have used dedicated fighters during the Dominion War means nothing in this context. It would presumably be cheaper and quicker to build dedicated fighters for a war than to try and produce the more complex Runabouts.

(*It is noted in at least one episode of DS9 that O'Brian was converting all three of the stations Runabouts to a tactical role for a mission. The indication was that the craft had been designed to be as modular as possible, and presumably only taking as long as it did because the crew were not used to having to do this for all three craft at the same time.)

That is roughly the same size as an F-15 fighter.

The fighters used by the Federation during the Dominion war were Peregrine class vessels. These ships were used by the Marqis and seen fighting against Runabouts on DS9 where they appeared to be of very similar size if not larger than the Federation craft. Even if you assume that the 'pure' fighter was a smaller version of the one seen on DS9 they would still not be all that much smaller than Runabouts. So presumably you could carry almost as many Runabouts as Peregrine fighters.

The shuttles we get to see in the series were short-ranged craft, and in fact the main reason we only tended to see the smaller versions was that they were easier and cheaper to build for TNG. They intended to have a much larger 'executive' shuttle on TNG, but they couldn't afford to build a life sized version for the hanger bay. The largest of the shuttles we get to see next to the cast was the type 6, which was a redress of the Shuttle made for STV.

True - for comparison the F-14's dimensions are significantly smaller than the F-15's.

What is missed about modern day carriers however is that you have to have a long flight deck for landing the aircraft, plus you also need to have extra room so you can physically move the aircraft around.

In the Trek universe however they have anti-gravity devices and tractor beams, and this would change the way a 'carrier' would need to be designed. For one thing you don't have to worry about a runway for take off or landing as the craft are VTOL by their nature - and even if the craft has no working engines the tractor beams can duplicate this. As long as the hanger is tall enough to allow it, which based on the height of the Enterprise D's hangers they are and then some, all you need is a large enough bit of flooring to set down on and don't have to worry about moving craft around when you want to launch them as they can take off over the top of anything that happens to be in front of them.

In fact this would hold for a space craft even if you didn't - or rather especially if you don't have - artificial gravity or tractor beams. Modern carrier aircraft can only be moved around and launched in two dimensions. But in space you have the option of moving 'shuttles' around the bay in three dimensions*.

(*Just think how many aircraft one of the big US Carriers could carry if they could store them vertically on the hanger deck....)

My bad, I meant imagine how many fighters you could store on the hanger deck of a modern carrier if gravity wasn't an issue.

The real point about zero gravity (or anti-gravity) in the Trek context is that you have more space in which you can move craft around in. On today's carriers a great deal of care and attention has to go into where you put every aircraft, since the last thing you want is for an inoperative craft to be blocking the passage of an operational one. Without gravity however this is no longer an issue, as you can simply fly the operational craft over the top of the non-operational one. All you need is a boxed off area large enough to place a craft and no longer have to worry about keeping part of the hanger clear so you can roll craft into it.



The turn around rate for a Starship would be at least equal to modern ships, and depending on the width of the door quite probably a lot better.

Consider that modern carriers have to use catapults to launch fighters, and typically only have four catapults fitted to them at most. With the time needed to reset the catapults this lowers the number of craft you can launch in a given period. As for landing, well you can only have one craft landing at a time on a carrier, and once it does set down you have to physically move it out of the way and reset the arrestor wires before the next one can land.

On our Starfleet carrier the only limit to the number of craft you can launch at a time is how many you can safely get out of the door because there is no catapult system to slow things down. Likewise you can land as many fighters as can fit through the door. In the case of the Enterprise D's main hanger* you could probably manage to fit a dozen craft through the door at the same time - remember that they have advanced computer systems that could run the traffic control system you'd need without denting their processing ability in the slightest. Hell, you could probably run the entire system on a tricorder without problems.

So in terms of continuous flight operations our Starfleet carrier would be capable of launching and landing more craft in a given period than a modern carrier, and do so without even trying.

(*The main hanger on the Enterprise D is seen once, in Cause and Effect. This is a HUGE area that contained enough air to push the entire ship when vented. Off the top of my head the hanger was seen with about 30 shuttles in a single row and with a huge amount of space between the craft and a large gap between the row and the doors. Even accounting for their larger size it would appear that you could stick over 40 runabouts in there without any trouble.)



Nemesis showed us such a fighter, although that was a Romulan/Reman design not a Federation one.

The Federation version has a much larger crew than that, it seems that the flight crew consists of at least three people - pilot, tactical officer and engineer - and could be far more than that.

The problem with having sublight only fighters on a warp capable ship is that if the carrier has to withdraw it will lose its entire fighter wing in the process. While some races in ST would consider this a minor inconvenience, the Federation seems to place a higher regard on the life of its personal* and is unwilling to sacrifice them in such a fashion. Which makes sense, as a lot of time must go into training personal.

(*Personal apparently doesn't include children, who are welcome on Starfleet ships no matter how likely it is to get involved in a battle.)

Giving your fighters warp capability, however limited, allows the carrier to withdraw while giving the fighters a chance to escape themselves. It would also allow the fighters to do more than just support the carrier in battle - a warp capable fighter can patrol a larger area, and therefore allow the carrier to project its force over a wider area. It may also allow them to be launched when the carrier is at warp, meaning that when a ship drops out of warp to fight it already has its fighter screen in place. The alternative is opening the large doors while being shot at and running the risk of a shot hitting the hanger deck - in the case of the Akira, with its forward facing doors, this would be a major consideration as it would have to lower its shields to launch or recover fighters.

The decision would seem to be how much value you place on the crews of the fighters, and how much flexibility you want them to have. If you want craft that are capable of doing more than just fighting, and that give the crew a good chance of survival, then adding a warp drive makes sense even if it costs more*

(*Yes, there is no money as such in Trek** - or at least in the Federation. But cost in context means the amount of resources that are needed to produce a craft, keep it in service and the time needed to design and build it.)

(**Although that does raise the question as to why the Federation has trade agreements with other races...or how you can have a trade agreement when you have no way to pay for goods. Methinks someone didn't think that through....)

Full impulse in the trek universe during TNG era is one quarter the speed of light - some 46,000 miles per second.

Warp one in all periods is equal to the speed of light - some 186,000 miles per second.

Clearly this discrepancy makes sub-light fighters useless unless you are defending a static target - such as a space station or a planet. If you try to deploy your fighters at a safe distance it will take days for them - and you - to get to your target. Plenty of time for your opponent to call for reinforcements and prepare, or carry out hit and run raids to weaken your fleet long before you can hit them.

Try to deploy within a more practical range and if your opponent has any warp capable ships they can dart in and hit you before you can launch the fighters - that is hit the carriers while the doors are open and their shields are down.

You would also have problems in deploying your fighters in battle, since even a short warp jump by an opposing fleet or ship will take them well outside the combat range of your fighters, and quite possibly put your ship(s) between your fighters and your opponent. Basically your fighters would spend the entire battle trying to catch up to the big ships.

What is more practical, and indeed seems to what and how fighters were used on DS9, is to have warp-capable fighters. They may not be able to outrun the big ships, but even a low warp speed makes warp based hit-and-run attacks ineffective. It also allows you to deploy fighters from much further away, and advance much more quickly on a target or fleet - or as was the case on DS9 pursue a fleeing enemy without having to stop and pick the fighters up first.

The only (known) sublight fighters in TNG era were those used by the Bajoran resistance during the Cardassian occupation. (The Romulan fighters in Nemesis *might* be warp capable.) In the case of the Bajoran's they were attacking and defending a 'fixed' target, and probably couldn't have afforded warp capable fighters anyway. In the case of the Romulan fighters it is not made clear if they were intended for space combat, or if they were really intended to be used to provide air support for an invasion force on the ground.



'Power-projection' is not just about the size of your guns or their range. It is about the area you can patrol and 'see' what is going on as well as being seen, to remind the locals that someone with very big guns isn't all that far away.
For example a frigate circa 1800 had guns that could at best hit a target at about a mile or so's range and which could itself see some 20 miles in good weather. However by careful use of its boats it could extend the range it could 'see' by at least twice that - and by doing so effectively project power over that area as any enemy found it harder to avoid notice. The ships boats also allowed these frigates to attack targets (at least stationary ones) far outside the range of its guns.

In Trek terms sub-light fighters would not be able to extend the range the mother ship could extend its influence - a ship in TNG era could scan other (uncloaked) ships from about 5 light years away. It would take a sublight fighter several years to extend this range even if it was moving at full impulse all the way.

So if you are producing 'fighters' for space combat or patrols warp capability would be a requirement unless you only intend to attack or defend static targets - or at least those that can't go to warp.

Trek never seems to have worked this out, as they used ships and names more on the 'what sounds/looks cool' principle than the 'what would be practical and realistic for the technology'. Of course they tended to do the same thing for the battles themselves....

Slight aside; The problems and areas in which Trek clearly didn't think things through is something I've recently started to muse on for a number of reasons. Oh, if only I was working in TV land or at least in a position to pitch ideas to studios....

Whatever happened to the "Picard Maneuver"?

Actually, there is no need to "scan faster than light". Light and gravity of a planet may travel with the speed of light but can be picked up after millions of years travelling with the speed of light so you just need to pick up those emissions at the point where you are to know where the planet is. You don't need to use some kind of Radar to "see" a planet!

And actually there is a theoretical method for communicating faster than light. This is done by "superstable standing waves". Disturb any point of the wave and the entire wave will change its pattern no matter how long it is, the energy level will remain the same, but the pattern change spreads faster than light.
Informations are independent from the laws of physics - we just use physical effects to convey, store and process informations - so there is no reason that informations can't be transmitted faster than light if we find a method to represent them on something that isn't limited by physical laws.

that, of course, makes the assumption that your scanning systems are passive in nature rather than active in nature. I.E. a windshield will work in FTL travel. a radar set won't. (or will it - I remember FTL headlights being a common question at the old site.)

Well, I know I do all my driving based on where stuff was, yesterday.