Star Trek and Fighters

[Alyeska]

On the subject of ST fighters, anybody remember that Voyager episode where the USS Voyager was attacked by "The Swarm", an alien species which didn't use any other ships above shuttlecraft size but nonetheless managed to pose a serious threat to the Voyager??

Thats how many fighters it took to take down Voyager.

[Knife]

Can you prove they have enough range to be of any pratcial use against fighters? They already have a lower refire rate and if your detonate them they become less powerful because each fighter is only hit by a small part of the total explossion. And who says the fighters will be flying close enough together for your idea to be of any use?

Surfed around for a picture of Sacrife of Angels but couldn't find the one I wanted. Anyway, I don't recall any instance of the Tac fighters attacking any thing when they weren't in a tight formation. It seems that their tactics reley on such tight formations and outnumbering or overwelming their foe.

That in it self makes the torpedo idea better. In a tight formation, the various fighters around the exploding torpedo would recieve a part of the damage imparted by the warhead. As far as range, its an independent weapon with its own warhead. Come on.

[Alyeska]

Can you prove they have enough range to be of any pratcial use against fighters? They already have a lower refire rate and if your detonate them they become less powerful because each fighter is only hit by a small part of the total explossion. And who says the fighters will be flying close enough together for your idea to be of any use?

Surfed around for a picture of Sacrife of Angels but couldn't find the one I wanted. Anyway, I don't recall any instance of the Tac fighters attacking any thing when they weren't in a tight formation. It seems that their tactics reley on such tight formations and outnumbering or overwelming their foe.

That in it self makes the torpedo idea better. In a tight formation, the various fighters around the exploding torpedo would recieve a part of the damage imparted by the warhead. As far as range, its an independent weapon with its own warhead. Come on.

And you fail to adress the issue of the torpedo having sufficent firepower. You further fail to adress the issue of the torpedo lacking the accuracy to hit fighters. You would have to fire multiple torpedoes and that is a waste. Phasers are more then enough to take on the fighters before they enter range.

And once again you completely fail to recognize that we are talking instances of fleet combat. When facing off against just fighters, a capital ship can use whatever resources it wants to.

[Knife]

And you fail to adress the issue of the torpedo having sufficent firepower.

Whose numbers do you want to use. The typical 64 MT's or some one elses.

You further fail to adress the issue of the torpedo lacking the accuracy to hit fighters.

Your missing that point too. Its an area weapon. You shoot it at a formation and it detonate in the formation. Weather you target the central ship or use a proximity fuse, the point is to spread the damage done by the war head to various vessels.

[Rogue 9]

But torpedoes quite frequently miss capital ships, by Alyeska's own admission. Since he's the Trekkie here, I'd tend to believe him when he says something less than wanking about Trek.

[Knife]

But torpedoes quite frequently miss capital ships, by Alyeska's own admission. Since he's the Trekkie here, I'd tend to believe him when he says something less than wanking about Trek.

So by that rational, the Fed's should scrap all their torpedo launchers on all vessels. No need to waste resources on those pesky torpedos that keep missing the target.

[Alyeska]

Whose numbers do you want to use. The typical 64 MT's or some one elses.

In order to be useful you have to use a spherical detonation. Because of this the fighters would recieve only a fraction of the total firepower of the torpedo. At best you might strike a fighter with 5% of the torpedoes total yield. We already know that phasers are more then 5% more powerful then torpedoes and thus a single phaser strike will place far more firepower on target then a single torpedo could.

Your missing that point too. Its an area weapon. You shoot it at a formation and it detonate in the formation. Weather you target the central ship or use a proximity fuse, the point is to spread the damage done by the war head to various vessels.

Proximity detonation reduces the firepower on target. Already adressed that issue above.

[Alyeska]

But torpedoes quite frequently miss capital ships, by Alyeska's own admission. Since he's the Trekkie here, I'd tend to believe him when he says something less than wanking about Trek.

So by that rational, the Fed's should scrap all their torpedo launchers on all vessels. No need to waste resources on those pesky torpedos that keep missing the target.

Are you fucking stupid or something? Phasers strike their target 90% of the time whereas torpedoes strike them 50-75% of the time. Given the larger firepower of a single torpedo even with their being misses a torpedo will impart far more damage.

[Knife]

In order to be useful you have to use a spherical detonation. Because of this the fighters would recieve only a fraction of the total firepower of the torpedo. At best you might strike a fighter with 5% of the torpedoes total yield. We already know that phasers are more then 5% more powerful then torpedoes and thus a single phaser strike will place far more firepower on target then a single torpedo could.

Oh for Christ sake. Yes each individual fighter would recieve only a fraction of the damage. But more than one fighter would be struck by a fraction of that damage. Thats the fucking point. Unless the fighters are so spread out, which means they'd have to spend the time and resourses to set themselves up for such an attack that it gives the capship plenty of time to manuver as well, a detonation of a torpedo amongst them imparts damage to any fighter near.

A god damn phaser blast only imparts damage on the target (if it hits) or anything dumb enough to run into it. Using Mike's numbers again, a phaser blast delivers roughly 1 kiloton on target per second against armor or dense metal or 7 MT/sec against shielding.

5% of a 64 MT torpedo (the percentage being your assumption) is 3.2 MT. At 1 KT/ sec you need to keep the phaser on target for 320 seconds. If we use the phaser/shield figures of 7 MT/sec then one phaser blast imparts per second on one target twice as much to one target as the torpedo imparts but has only done so to one target unlike the torpedo.

Net results; A phaser blast targets one vessel at a time and delievers either twice as much energy (shield hit) on target of a partial torpedo blast but is limited to that one vessel or must track that target (with a hull hit) with no where near the damage as a partial torpedo hit.

A long range torpedo using a proximity fuse can impart that damage to multible targets at once with out having to retarget or assign additional assets to those targets.

Is it perfect? No. Does it make tactical sense to expend an expendable resourse like this? Yes. I don't know why you seem to have this dissent to using anti fighter missile's (torpedos) in Trek. The shoe fits the other foot as well in that a swarm of fighters using torpedos would overwelm a capship with basicly the same tactics.

It is these tactics that would result in an explosion of fighter development in the ST universe which is what I originally posted about. (In the circle, the circle of life )

[Rogue 9]

You're a fighter pilot. You're in formation. You see your target launch a torpedo that comes careening toward your formation. What do you do? Scatter, that's what. Come on, its not that hard.

[Knife]

You're a fighter pilot. You're in formation. You see your target launch a torpedo that comes careening toward your formation. What do you do? Scatter, that's what. Come on, its not that hard.

Your a fighter pilot in a large formation. You see your target vessel fire. You evade and either ram a buddy or disrupt his flight path causing him to both dodge you and the on coming weapon thus breaking up the formation.

Or

A coordinated turn of the formation happens and thus a large realitivly slow moving target turns which the torpedo could still track or a coordinated break of ships down to smaller formations happens in which the torpedo tracks one. And even if the torpedo misses totally (meaning doesn't even come close or impart any damage) you've still just broken the fighters out of their attack run with a torpedo.

[Rogue 9]

Well, breaking formation is preferable to death. Furthermore, one would think that you'd set up formations in such a way that deviating from that formation would not cause instant death for the pilots and destruction for the fighters.

[Alyeska]

You fucking idiot Knife. Now your equating phasers at being orders of magnitude weaker then photon torpedoes.

You lost the debate a long time ago and you still haven't adressed a wide variety of issues here.

BTW, Type-12 phasers are more powerful then photon torpedoes. While you will cause shield damage to a flight of fighters with your torpedo idea, I can kill a flight of fighters in less then 6 seconds from a single phaser array without wasting torpedoes.

[Isolder74]

On the subject of ST fighters, anybody remember that Voyager episode where the USS Voyager was attacked by "The Swarm", an alien species which didn't use any other ships above shuttlecraft size but nonetheless managed to pose a serious threat to the Voyager??

Thats how many fighters it took to take down Voyager.

Its a good thing the Federation doesn't use mines that swarm would be dead.

[Knife]

You fucking idiot Knife. Now your equating phasers at being orders of magnitude weaker then photon torpedoes.

Why yes I am. A torpedo delivers more damage on target in less time than a phaser blast. If you have different info, please express it. If the phasers were the end all of weapons then why the hell would the Fedies still have torpedos?

I was using the stats of a torpedo being 64 MT and a phaser blast being 1 KT/sec on armor (7 MT/sec versus shields). If you have different numbers post them and show me how a phaser is orders of magnitude stronger than a PT.

You lost the debate a long time ago and you still haven't adressed a wide variety of issues here.

Care to be more specific? I thought I'd adressed most of your points and you still cling to some idea that the phaser is the uber weapon with uber power over a torpedo and uber targeting over a torpedo.

BTW, Type-12 phasers are more powerful then photon torpedoes. While you will cause shield damage to a flight of fighters with your torpedo idea, I can kill a flight of fighters in less then 6 seconds from a single phaser array without wasting torpedoes.

Well unless you come up with another set of numbers that show that, the only example in the thread right now is mine using Mike's numbers and your presumption of only 5% damage being imparted on each near by fighter.

Not that a phaser couldn't do the job just that a torpedo used as an area weapon against a formation of smaller ships is more effective in both resources and tactics.

[Alyeska]

Why yes I am. A torpedo delivers more damage on target in less time than a phaser blast. If you have different info, please express it. If the phasers were the end all of weapons then why the hell would the Fedies still have torpedos?

When you are firing a torpedo in proximity detonation you deliver LESS energy on target.

I was using the stats of a torpedo being 64 MT and a phaser blast being 1 KT/sec on armor (7 MT/sec versus shields). If you have different numbers post them and show me how a phaser is orders of magnitude stronger than a PT.

Use your fucking brain. Your stats are contradictory here. Furthermore you don't even understand how phasers work. Phasers do inordinates amounts of damage against physical targets. They do MORE damage against armor then they do shields. Ever hear of NDF? And for fucks sake, can't you see the difference in your figures? Your claiming that phasers are litterly seven thousand times more powerful against shields then armor.

And of course you then pull a TM figure out without even bothering to compare it with the other information. Phasers are not massively weaker then torpedoes lest they wouldn't be used in combat period.

Care to be more specific? I thought I'd adressed most of your points and you still cling to some idea that the phaser is the uber weapon with uber power over a torpedo and uber targeting over a torpedo.

Lets see. Phasers are not limited stock weapons, have better refire rates, have better accuracy, have sufficent firepower to take down fighters.

What fucking points do you have? That you can POSSIBLY detonate a torpedo near a fighter and hope to cause shield damage? BTW, torpedo can miss multi hundred meter ships. Care to explain how you plan to get within killing range of fighters?

Well unless you come up with another set of numbers that show that, the only example in the thread right now is mine using Mike's numbers and your presumption of only 5% damage being imparted on each near by fighter.

DS9 was armed with Type-12 phasers and was exploding BoPs in a handful of shots. Sovereign and Prometheus class ships are armed with Type-12 arrays. They can litterly blow apart fighters with ease. And did you ever watch Nemesis? Remember the massive phaser barrage? Those phaser arrays can take down a dozen fighters in less then 6 seconds and this doesn't rely on the fighters flying in formations.

Not that a phaser couldn't do the job just that a torpedo used as an area weapon against a formation of smaller ships is more effective in both resources and tactics.

An area weapon which you have absolutely no knowledge about compared to an energy weapon you have equaly no knowledge about.

[Alyeska]

On the subject of ST fighters, anybody remember that Voyager episode where the USS Voyager was attacked by "The Swarm", an alien species which didn't use any other ships above shuttlecraft size but nonetheless managed to pose a serious threat to the Voyager??

Thats how many fighters it took to take down Voyager.

Its a good thing the Federation doesn't use mines that swarm would be dead.

Self replicating cloaked mines. Those were bassed on swarming tactics. Problem is you need a minimum number to sustain the minefield and it takes time to get them in place.

[Isolder74]

Thats how many fighters it took to take down Voyager.

Its a good thing the Federation doesn't use mines that swarm would be dead.

Self replicating cloaked mines. Those were bassed on swarming tactics. Problem is you need a minimum number to sustain the minefield and it takes time to get them in place.

No I mean normal mines rolled out of the shuttlebay

[Alyeska]

Its a good thing the Federation doesn't use mines that swarm would be dead.

Self replicating cloaked mines. Those were bassed on swarming tactics. Problem is you need a minimum number to sustain the minefield and it takes time to get them in place.

No I mean normal mines rolled out of the shuttlebay

Interesting idea. All known shuttlebays are aft facing as it is. Mines the size of the DS9 ones could hold more firepower if the replicating and cloaking systems are left out. If an enemy ship is pursuing you, open up the "mine bays" and release those things to royaly screw the enemy.

[Isolder74]

right, which is why it is moronic they do not use them! Using Transportsers to beams mines into the paths of enemy ships would be nasty too

Edit: Yes I play SFB

[Lancer]

right, which is why it is moronic they do not use them! Using Transportsers to beams mines into the paths of enemy ships would be nasty too

Aft torp launchers should be able to deploy mines also. Think of what a tricolbalt charge like the ones used in Voy could do!

[Isolder74]

right, which is why it is moronic they do not use them! Using Transportsers to beams mines into the paths of enemy ships would be nasty too

Aft torp launchers should be able to deploy mines also. Think of what a tricolbalt charge like the ones used in Voy could do!

Why not just fire a torpedo?

[Rogue 9]

right, which is why it is moronic they do not use them! Using Transportsers to beams mines into the paths of enemy ships would be nasty too

Aft torp launchers should be able to deploy mines also. Think of what a tricolbalt charge like the ones used in Voy could do!

Why not just fire a torpedo?

Err... That's what we've been talking about, I think. Besides, mines are far cheaper than torpedoes, and if the enemy is pursuing you closely enough that dumping dumb mines in their path will do the job just as well for less expense and less expenditure of resources, why not use the mines?

[Knife]

When you are firing a torpedo in proximity detonation you deliver LESS energy on target.

To one target because of the spherical detonation, yes. Thats the point, the explosion delievers damage in all vectors and some of that damage gets delievered to multible targets with using only on freaking weapon.

Use your fucking brain. Your stats are contradictory here.

I used Mike's data,

Their phasers appear to induce some kind of chain reaction in matter. Against shields, they seem to be tactically equivalent to lasers in the range of 30,000 TW (7 megatons per second). Against dense armour, their effectiveness is much lower, in the 1-10TW range (1 kiloton per second). A typical starship has only a handful of phaser arrays.

If you have differnt or better, please post it.

Furthermore you don't even understand how phasers work. Phasers do inordinates amounts of damage against physical targets. They do MORE damage against armor then they do shields. Ever hear of NDF? And for fucks sake, can't you see the difference in your figures? Your claiming that phasers are litterly seven thousand times more powerful against shields then armor.

Again, I used the info off of Mike's site. If you have better or different, post it.

And of course you then pull a TM figure out without even bothering to compare it with the other information. Phasers are not massively weaker then torpedoes lest they wouldn't be used in combat period.

I don't think that phasers are weaker than torpedos per say, just that a torpedo can deliever more firepower in less time than a phaser. Hence my explaination earlier. In 320 seconds a phaser can deliever as much damage on a target as a torpedo can in a second or so.

However thats beside my point, my point is that multible targets can be affected by ONE torpedo blast while the phaser is a beam and can only affect what that beam targets or what is between the beam and the target.

Lets see. Phasers are not limited stock weapons, have better refire rates, have better accuracy, have sufficent firepower to take down fighters.

Arg. Yes, phasers are not limited stock weapons. Yes, they have better refire rates. Really couldn't tell you about the accuracy, never made a comparison so I'll conceed that one to you. They also have sufficent firepower to take down fighters one at a time and given enough time to deliever enough damage to the one fighter before moving on to the next.

A torpedo delievers at the least, half that damage BUT to multible targets. At the best it delivers substancially more damage to MULTIBLE targets. I swear, are you trying to be dense.

What fucking points do you have? That you can POSSIBLY detonate a torpedo near a fighter and hope to cause shield damage? BTW, torpedo can miss multi hundred meter ships.

What points do I have?

You can impart either equal or greater damage by detonating a torpedo in a formation of fighters. You don't have to actualy hit a fighter with the physical torpedo if you fuse it to detonate within the formation.

Care to explain how you plan to get within killing range of fighters?

I planed on using engines.

DS9 was armed with Type-12 phasers and was exploding BoPs in a handful of shots. Sovereign and Prometheus class ships are armed with Type-12 arrays. They can litterly blow apart fighters with ease. And did you ever watch Nemesis? Remember the massive phaser barrage? Those phaser arrays can take down a dozen fighters in less then 6 seconds and this doesn't rely on the fighters flying in formations.

Yes I remeber the MASSIVE PHASER BARRAGE. Phasers aren't a limited stock weapon but they do rely on onboard power. So unless it takes more than (going back to your assertion that only 5% of damage will be imparted to any fighter near the detonation) 3.2 MT of damage to destroy or make a fighter combat ineffective, then using one limited stock weapon is MORE EFFICIENT than using major phaser barrages utilizing a significant portion of onboard power.

An area weapon which you have absolutely no knowledge about compared to an energy weapon you have equaly no knowledge about.

Oh please. Instead of handwaving, produce your numbers that prove me oh so wrong. I'm more than willing to conceed if you show me where I am wrong instead of just decreeing it.

[Alyeska]

To one target because of the spherical detonation, yes. Thats the point, the explosion delievers damage in all vectors and some of that damage gets delievered to multible targets with using only one freaking weapon.

Better to kill one enemy rather then do NOTHING to all of them.

I used Mike's data,

Their phasers appear to induce some kind of chain reaction in matter. Against shields, they seem to be tactically equivalent to lasers in the range of 30,000 TW (7 megatons per second). Against dense armour, their effectiveness is much lower, in the 1-10TW range (1 kiloton per second). A typical starship has only a handful of phaser arrays.

If you have differnt or better, please post it.

Mike's Data is years out of date and is CONTRADICTORY. Can't you fucking see? You are claiming order of magnitude differences between phasers and torpedoes.

Again, I used the info off of Mike's site. If you have better or different, post it.

Watch the fucking SERIES! Ever see the hull eat away and disapear? NDF is when phasers cause the target to "vaporize"

I don't think that phasers are weaker than torpedos per say, just that a torpedo can deliever more firepower in less time than a phaser. Hence my explaination earlier. In 320 seconds a phaser can deliever as much damage on a target as a torpedo can in a second or so.

USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN. You just said that the entire phaser compliment of a Galaxy class starship is weaker then a SINGLE torpedo.

However thats beside my point, my point is that multible targets can be affected by ONE torpedo blast while the phaser is a beam and can only affect what that beam targets or what is between the beam and the target.

You have yet to prove it would do any good.

Arg. Yes, phasers are not limited stock weapons. Yes, they have better refire rates. Really couldn't tell you about the accuracy, never made a comparison so I'll conceed that one to you. They also have sufficent firepower to take down fighters one at a time and given enough time to deliever enough damage to the one fighter before moving on to the next.

A torpedo delievers at the least, half that damage BUT to multible targets. At the best it delivers substancially more damage to MULTIBLE targets. I swear, are you trying to be dense.

PROVE IT.

What points do I have?

You can impart either equal or greater damage by detonating a torpedo in a formation of fighters. You don't have to actualy hit a fighter with the physical torpedo if you fuse it to detonate within the formation.

If torpedoes have trouble hitting ships a thousand times larger then a fighter, you haven't evne proven you can get close enough to a fighter to do any damage. The further away you get from the originating point of the explossion, the less damage you recieve. Just being 50 meters away from the explossion will net you less then 1% of the total firepower of the torpedo. That is a 100 meter large spherical energy front with absolutely no power to it because it has been reduced in effectiveness. A torpedo can't even hit mid sized ships all the time. You have yet to prove you can even fire your torpedo close enough to make proximity explossions work at all.

I planed on using engines.

Enough with the smartass comments. You completely ignored the fact that torpedoes can't even get near fighters most of the time.

Yes I remeber the MASSIVE PHASER BARRAGE. Phasers aren't a limited stock weapon but they do rely on onboard power. So unless it takes more than (going back to your assertion that only 5% of damage will be imparted to any fighter near the detonation) 3.2 MT of damage to destroy or make a fighter combat ineffective, then using one limited stock weapon is MORE EFFICIENT than using major phaser barrages utilizing a significant portion of onboard power.

More efficent? Each shot is going to be more efficent then your fucking torpedo because they have a better chance of hitting. You have to detonate MULTIPLE torpedoes on target to hope to cause enough damage.

Oh please. Instead of handwaving, produce your numbers that prove me oh so wrong. I'm more than willing to conceed if you show me where I am wrong instead of just decreeing it.

You can't even support your own side and you've yet to prove either proximity deonation nor have you supported that you can even cause damage. Furthermore you show a complete lack of knowledge of phasers and how they work.