Click on the link and download the official Star Trek Game, explore the deep space and claim the special rewards: sttlink.onelink.me/Z8Hp/June22G FB: bit.ly/3NKb2FV IG: bit.ly/38UBpdG Twitter: bit.ly/3tvPUM7
If they used SW fighter tactics where the fighters act as Raiders, annoyances and force multipliers in bigger battles and had better stand off weapons like the Ion Torpedo we see completely disable a ISD in Rogue One they would probably do much better ironically. The Peragrin desperately needs it's dumb gravity bombs replaced with actual guided munitions. Also it should be able to pack heavier ordnance under the fuselage like the Cardassian Bomber. The photon bombs are really undersized even for the paragrine.
@@JeanLucCaptain thats really the reason why star trek fighters seem so useless because nobody actually focused on that and the macquis definitly showed with more Research and development how deadly fighters can be
It's nice to have those little ships because other factions have little ships. We don't want enemies of the Federation to be able to get a photon torpedo impacting a federation capital ship especially if that capital ship is already been damaged severely. So it's nice that they can match up one-on-one little ship on little ship to protect Capital ships
Its space, you can counter fighters by just simply having good anti fighter weapon system and fire control systems. You dont absolutely need fighters to beat other fighters. What Starfleet could really use to end the days of swarms of fighters is something like the Burke class DDG's or Ticonderoga class CG's, with large numbers of vertically launched missile cells that can launch a wall of death missile swarm at anything that pisses them off. And in space your not limited by things like a radar horizon which considerably limits the engagement range for modern surface warships.
@@ryuukeisscifiproductions1818 This. Given the sensor resolution most ships have, for fighters to be survivable, one must be able to either mess with firing solutions via jamming, have shields/armor strong enough to withstand hits, or be able to avoid detection (cloaking device). That's not even accounting for power generation and weapons load. By the time you pack all of that equipment into a spaceframe, you're looking at a pretty beefy ship for something to be considered a "fighter". One way I could see it working is to have them be unmanned drones controlled in a way akin to how Promethus-class Multi Vector Assault mode worked on Voyager and then use those drones as an advanced picket/harassment force. But that's still a lot of resources being expended compared to alternatives like using probes coupled with photon torpedo warheads for a similar role.
To quote a Babylon 5 game guide, Kosh says “a glass of water quenches thirst, an ocean quenches cities” - translation - a single fighter is not likely to change the course of a battle, several squadrons are another matter. Fighters/small attack craft may also be cheaper to build and can be deployed to free up larger vessels and may be useful in guerrilla conflicts.
I think part of the issue is that the targeting and fire control systems are inconsistent in Trek. Sometimes ships can hit tiny targets from thousands of kilometers away. Other times, like in Generations, a tiny ship can zip around and avoid getting a target lock, and can take on a bigger ship without getting hit.
I think its because if intangible variables we don't see or know like environmental factors. Then there's also ECM which I'm sure exists at a passive level.
Fighters can be a major help to a ship large enough to carry them. Especially in numbers. Imagine the yesterdays enterprise battle fought with 12 fighters helping out. The klingons would have gotten creamed.
In the Star Trek Voyager Episode "Dragon's teeth", we see a bunch of smaller fighters overload Voyager's defenses. Voyager is attacked by multiple old fighters, and Voyager's targeting computer can't keep up. The shields and ship are overwhelmed.
Sure, but Voyager is a relatively small ship. Light Cruiser/Destroyer level. Compare this to PT Boats vs a Destroyer - sure, a swarm of PT Boats can kill a destroyer. A Heavy Cruiser? Questionable.
@@sundoga4961 That did happen though, during ww1the Italians managed to get a kill on a Dreadnaught Battleship using a PT boat. They also got used to harass the Japanese extensively in the Pacific though didn't score a major capital ship (outside of destroyers) kill however they did try. I will say as well that there's quite a few areas in Star Trek where it's roughly the equivalent of the islands in the Pacific. Better sensors and bad terrain can make them extremely nasty hit and run units where they focus on disabling specific stuff then withdraw.
@@Tarnfalk That's true, though I suspect it was only due to the out-of-proportion lethality of the WWII Torpedo. There's no equivalent to that for the small ships of Trek.
Still, it's weird that today's CIWS systems can track 25 targets at the same time, but computers hundreds of years in the future don't seem to have gotten any better.
Congratulations on the sponsorship. Btw uss malincche . ( i believe crazy horse was decent part one ). Yes in my head canon they are both made at alpha centauri federation fleet yards. Supposed to be the major civilian ship yards. I suspect the uss raven or federation transport ships are built at facilities like that
Let's come at this from a 'Runabout as a Huey' perspective for a second. If you were to take the Runabout and treat it the same way they did the Huey transport helicopter, stripping away everything that was for 'utility' purposes, and slimming it down to its engines and shields, then adding weapons befitting a true attack craft, you'd have a decent fighter / attack craft. You could even take some of that freed up tonnage and go the A10 route and build the fighter around a heavy dedicated weapon that could really hurt a larger vessel. If you know your shield output in a fighter isn't strong enough to take a full on hit, focus that energy into a jamming suite that prevents sensor locks. There's a lot of ways to use fighers in Star Trek left on the table if you're creative enough with how you develop and deploy them. Hell, if Serenity can spoof the sensors of a far more capable ship using Cry Babies they cobbled together out of scrap, imagine what a team of dedicated engineers in the ST universe could do with that same concept.
Essentially when they created the Cobra attack helicopter, they took a Huey and stripped away everything that made it a 'utility' oriented craft, and replaced that weight with weapons while keeping the proven parts like the engine, rotor, etc. If you were to apply the same process to the Runabout, stripping away all the creature comforts, hauling capacity, science stations, etc., reducing it to the same basic two person crew (pilot and WSO), then allocate heavier output weapons, shields, jamming suite, etc. it would be a far more capable craft than just taking a Runabout into combat. The other route is to look at a lance phaser style weapon and develop a spaceframe around it, just like they did with the GAU8 Avenger Cannon and the A10. It was very much 'make this gun fly' instead of 'build a plane and see what guns fit'.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Basically, Grunts strapped a bunch of machine guns that they had... Tactically acquired? From around the base to the airframe of a Huey, because Grunts are gonna Grunt, and then Command looked at it and said "That is working SURPRISINGLY well" and after that, the idea that would become the Bell AH-1 Cobra was born. Given the propensity of Starfleet engineers to come up with CREATIVE solutions to problems, I can easily envision a scenario where a captain said to his chief engineer "We need to blow up something important for plot reasons" and his engineer responded with "I have a crazy and/or stupid idea sir." I assume after that, the captain told said engineer to have it done in half the estimated time
There are a few factors that affect the functional utility of starfighters in Trek. Even relative to the larger size of Trek ships compared to present-day naval vessels and aircraft, the Peregrine is considerably larger than a modern-day fighter aircraft. They are much closer to what you would expect for a mid-sized bomber or large strike craft. Which makes a certain amount of sense with their employment against starships. They are more attack craft than aerospace superiority fighters or interceptors. Another important factor is how phasers and disruptors work. Disruptors, and older phaser cannons, are mechanically-aimed turret or elevated gun systems. Modern disruptors remain this way, because of how they generate the rapid nadion effect, but modern phasers are not. In the first half of the 24th Century, Starfleet developed a method to force-couple multiple phaser emitters together, passing that energy from one emitter to the next in sequence. This technology also allowed them to electrically direct the discharge of the beam at the emission point, much like some modern radar systems. The first ship to implement this technology was the Ambassador class, launched in the early 2320s (roughly calculated based on registry hull numbers). This technology allows MODERN Federation starships to discharge much more powerful phaser shots with much greater precision and accuracy, and phaser arrays are very flexible in how they discharge. Typically we see a sequential discharge of all emitters in an array, collecting into a single, powerful beam (with total output yield varying by both individual emitter discharge time, and total number of emitters discharging simultaneously). Against most other starships, this makes perfect sense - the more powerful the shot, the harder the shields have to work to deflect it, and the higher the wattage of the shot, the more energy will bleed through before the shields can spike their output, etc. However, we have seen on multiple occasions, modern Federation starships demonstrate the ability to fire multiple beams at varying yields simultaneously from the same array. The Enterprise-E fired a porcupine blast of low-power beams with only a handful of array segments contributing to each beam while probing for the Scimitar in the Battle of Bassen Rift. An unnamed Galaxy class gutted an unnamed Galor class with a couple partial discharges from its main ventral array. And the most important example, in regards to starfighters, is from TNG "Conundrum" when the Enterprise-D rapidly obliterates a flight of starfighters approaching it with a series of short, low-yield blasts from its main phasers. Older Federation starships (such as the Exclesior), and most Federation adversaries, will be more vulnerable to starfighter attack because their weapons must be mechanically aimed and oriented, giving them a small, but distinct disadvantage in precision and accuracy of targeting. Especially when bringing guns meant to fire on full-sized starships to bear. Newer Federation starships have a distinct advantage in defending themselves against starfighter type craft compared to pretty much everyone else we've seen in Star Trek, by the very nature of how their phaser arrays work. Cardassians are an interesting case, in regards to all of this. Prior to the Dominion War and gaining some technology from the Dominion (and I'd wager even after that conflict; I doubt the Dominion would have brought the Cardassians to anywhere near full technical parity), the Cardassians significantly lagged behind the Federation in technology. The Galor, for them, was their leading Battlecruiser in the late 2350s, through the 2360s, and into the 2370s (though it was iterated through a number of "Types," not unlike the three "Flights" of Los Angeles class submarines, or the five+ "Blocks" of Viriginias). They are, however, the only notable Federation adversary in the 24th Century who also employs phasers. Like the Federation, they have electrically-directed phaser beams, but unlike the Federation, they have not figured out how to couple more than 3 or 4 emitters together. As a result, the Galor class has 40-something tiny, 3-emitter phaser strips (mounted in pairs) scattered all around its hull (and the Keldon class battleship has 60-something), and three 4-emitter phaser clusters mounted on its deflector dish, which are used as its primary phaser battery. The deflector dish phasers probably use the deflector dish itself to amplify their output, along similar lines to how the Defiant was able to jerry-rig their deflector dish to discharge a phaser beam, at the cost of burning out the dish. Now, the Cardassian system is probably a bit more robust, being designed to function that way, but it probably comes at a cost, both in performance of the deflector array, and in maintenance and operational endurance of the system. The vast majority of those phaser clusters, however, are not boosted by the deflector dish and, while they would provide firepower comparable to an Excelsior's ball-turret phasers, they would be ill-suited to inflicting damage against a modern Federation, Klingon, or even Romulan starship (at least, if the Romulan ship still had shields). They are, however, particularly well-suited to dealing with the ships of the less advanced and powerful species the Cardassians were subjugating (like the Bajorans), and and especially for dealing with Federation attack fighters and gunships (which they likely would have engaged a lot of in their war with the Federation).
First off, I love Lore Reloaded and his unique look at the world. Having said that you both make great points. The problem is two fold and that is how they are employed and how they are defended from. The few times we see them on screen they are attacking an enemy fleet unsupported and told to "run like hell." In a major fleet action they should be used as long range scouts and clean up during close actions, taking out damaged ships that have drifted into your lines. They could also fulfill a harassment role but they would need bigger ships to support them. They would also work well in close air support against ground targets, supporting the boots on the ground. As for defense, the way its done is just silly. Its like the USS Iowa using its big 16 inch guns to shoot down airplanes, yeah it can work but their are better tools for the job. Nothing in Star Trek seems to have a dedicated anti aircraft weapons or secondary weapons for when you want to disable a rowboat rather than blow it out of the water with 16 inch guns. A Galaxy-class with a full AAA set up could deal with both fighters and capital ships at the same time with no fear from the fighters. The system might even knock down a few torpedoes and save the ship from the capital ships. Just my thoughts, what are yours?
The Sacrifice of Angels scene was the exception that proved the rule. Sisko knew that the fighter attack waves were a very costly gambit, but he was desperate. The move was a mind game against the Cardassians rather than purely tactical maneuver as he had neither the time nor the firepower to defeat the Dominion fleet in front of him. In fact, one can say that those fighters were the foremost of the Angels that were sacrificed.
@@deinekes9 good point. The truth is we don’t really see them enough to devine what the Federation’s doctrine is for the use of these fighters. Lots of supposition.
I imagine part of the use of the primary phasers to shoot them is because well shielding tech in Trek is rather advanced even in compact packages so it might simply be the case to knock out a fighter's shields at the lowest level you might need a 10 inch gun so having that massive a secondary armament just to knock out fighters that the majority of the forces in Trek don't use seems like a waste if said guns can't dent the more common big ships
you can make a parody and double down maybee avocate for a big thicker ship .(Thats the reason why the empire failed because cruiser firepower is nice but when swarms make bombing runs from multiple direction and all your guns are distracted hitting tiny fighters meanwhile the enemy cruiser is just chilling firing at you you are kinda toast
Unfortunately I think you have both missed the point here about why the peregrine or fighters in trek in general should or should not exist. The reason for why a piece of equipment exists in any military is not a factor of its vulnerabilities, but rather its capabilities. In short, what does this piece of equipment offer that you cant to better with something else. For example, the humble infantryman. If vulnerability determined the obsolescence, then the humble infantryman would have disappeared long ago, because there isn't much out there that is more vulnerable than a regular ol squishy human being. But because infantry offer capabilities that you cant do with anything else, they are still here. The same question is asked of the starfighter. What does this thing offer that you cant accomplish better with something else. Well unfortunately, you cannot use the same justifications for real fighter aircraft. Why, because a battleship or a tank cant fly, only an aircraft can do that, and as long as aircraft exist as viable weapons, there is always a reason to use an aircraft designed to kill other aircraft. Yes ships and ground vehicles can carry antiaircraft weapons to kill aircraft, but there is no way in hell a battleship or an SPAAV can move anywhere near at the same speeds as an aircraft, thus their AA capabilities are defensive only and they can only kill Aircraft that come near them. Because an aircraft is faster, they can always choose to stay out of any murder deathbox that a battleship or SPAAV might put up, where as a fighter aircraft is fast enough to hunt down an enemy aircraft. These conditions dont necessarily exist in trek, because unlike with combat aircraft compared to ships or ground vehicles, space fighters and spaceships both inhabit the same medium, space. And this is a bit of a problem for the space fighter. All a space fighter is is a spaceship, but smaller, thus they wont have the same kind of speed advantages that aircraft enjoy over ships and tanks. Thus the theoretical role of a space fighter would be to react faster to an incoming threat than anything else, except that in trek, this isn't the case. fighter warp drives are much slower than almost anything else, thus all an enemy warship has to do to outmaneuver fighters is to go into warp, and they cant do anything. So for fighters to match the warp speeds of other ships, they need to be carried into battle. But the problem is, deploying them takes time, time in which the enemy can pound on the carrier before its able to get the things out, or time the enemy can use to escape before they deploy. Fighters might theoretically have better acceleration than almost anything else, but i guarantee you the defiant comes so damn close that its largely irrelevant, and the defiant has a hell of a lot more firepower and protection to back it up, and it has the warp speeds to effectively chase. realistically in trek, i can only see one useful role for fighters, and that's in the planetary defense role. This is where i can see them being really good at, since they can be deployed from a planets surface relatively quickly and manned by local planetary defense forces, and with a few squadrons they could stop light raids and at lest slow or delay more substantial ones.
I would propose a counterargument to you about the viability of Star Trek Fighters with the argument of them being used in a different way. Comparable to the use of drones in the Ukrainian-Russian war, especially with the example of the sinking of Moskva, we have seen how swarm tactics can be used as an effective means to counteract electronic warfare. Now before you say, the concept cannot be applied to Star Trek, I beg to differ as in Canon we have seen numerous times in TNG, DS9, and Voyager that small craft swarm tactics do overwhelm the ability of larger ship's ability to use superior firepower and shielding due to the inability of the ship based computer to attack or counter incoming attacks with shields. I would argue like in the real world example of a Russian flagship being brought down by 3-4 drones acting as screens and several attack missiles/drones using the opening, you can effective use fighters in Star Trek with the same kind of screen/breakthrough tactic. Thus, a starfighter in Trek is essentially a torpedo boat of classic WWI and prior naval tactics, small and easily outgunned by most ships, but in numbers can be used to great effect by acting to distract enemy covering fire and use opening to attack in swarm formations.
Eddington had lured the Malinche into a trap and damaged their systems before the ships even showed up. And in Preemptive Strike the Maquis had massively overwhelming numbers. The other issue where Lore has a point is that you’re treating firepower a little tooclosely to the real world. In Star Trek their targeting systems are ludicrously precise. I do think the fighters definitely have utility in massive fleet battles where there’s a lot of sensor interference and worry of hitting allies. But that’s really the only time we’ve seen the Federation used them. And the Maquis weren’t exactly overburdened with options…
Yes he has a couple of videos about the fighter that i seriously disagree with. First they are very effective, second if shuttles at the academy have emergency transporters why wouldn't a fighter in war time , they are capable of launching in one scene ( 18 quantum torpedoes) ( mirco torpedoes) that barrage practically destroyed a type two galor class in sacrifice of angels. Its force protection. It multiplies the the combat abilities of a ship . ( lol you just said the same thing)
@@venomgeekmedia9886 well you carrier vessel, or a pattern buffer storage in the black box .although im not entirely sure why they couldn't have used drones, they can operate drone transports and computer controlled ships. As far as we see , they are based on starbases , planets and starships. Trying to save lives seems very Starfleet. It probably wasn't always possible. ?
@@shanenolan8252 Practical experience shows that manned craft are always superior to unmanned craft in a dogfight. For torpedo runs against a capital ship, use unmanned fighters; but for CAP duties you need a manned fighter or you will lose.
Star trek has done the swarms vs single ship trope a few times, and each time the only thing that stops the swarm has been some kind of out of left field saving grace. If I could retcon anything in ds9 it would be seeing the galaxy ships shooting out squadrons of fighters.
In those cases the swarms are more than just a few individual fighters. I seriously doubt a couple Perigrines could ram their way repeatedly through a ships hull to pretty much dismantle it. The interesting swarm fight was on Discovery with Disco and Enterprise fighting converted Sec31 ships, both sides deployed drones and the good guys deployed shuttles and pods as fighters. The fight was portrayed as a chaotic furball (not the problem some make it out to be, a chaotic fight can serve perfectly well to communicate the realities of battle, not every fight needs to be shown in perfect detail) but the gist seemed to be that the smaller craft both screened the larger ships and attempted to overwhelm the larger ships in concert with their own ships.
Computer controlled beam weapons SHOULD hard-counter swarms though. It is literally what we use in reality. And we make do with projectiles for doing the same thing! Now if you showed the use of decoys, electronic warfare, and target saturation, and THEN threw in fighters, that would be an excellent representation. I disagree with much of lore reloaded but it does stand to reason that fighters have less use in an age of shields, infinite space, computers, and beam weapons. We see them used very little and I think it is appropriate how we do see them used, I don't think we need much more fighters as doctrine in star trek but more in depth fighter portrayals
This video actually convinces me that start fleet should put forth a requirement for likely a galaxy class modification capable of carrying supporting and arming at least 48 of these little terrors cause though I don't know exactly how nasty a type ten phaser and six photons are precisely a bunch of them backed up by a carrier galaxy or something similar just sounds like it would ruins anyone's day
Dr Alexander Clarke recently had a video on the Galaxy class where he expanded on how the Galaxy would likely be used as a carrier. In addition he also went into how the Galaxy would fit into Starfleet doctrine and Federation power projection if you also want to watch the 1 hour long video he did as well. I found it to be very informative and contained many a convincing argument for why the Galaxy likely was capably of accepting a CV conversion from the start, and why a Galaxy carrying fighters would make sense.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Modifying the saucer would be a better choice. The stock shuttlebay 1 in the saucer is already big enough for like 6 Peregrines, and the saucer has a huge bulk that could be hallowed out for additional hanger space, easily supporting dozens of fighters (even a big chungus like the Peregrine). You might want to enlarge or add additional hanger doors, but you wouldn't necessarily need to. The secondary hull could be unmodified from existing Galaxy class stock, preventing the need to mess with any of the critical power or propulsion systems. Tactically, and harking back to the Galaxy class' original emphasis on saucer separation, the carrier portion could be left in a safe position while the fully combat capable secondary hull joins the main battle lines.
@@CaptainMojo I was thinking something similar. Also it opens up other tactical options. When we talk about fighters in trek we tend to think of the major powers but let's be real. There are a metric ton of lesser powers and pirates in trek that pose a threat but don't warrant a fleet of capital ships and all the resources that entails. Think of a saucer completely converted into dedicated a carrier. It could be dropped and used as a mini starbase for extended operations against an enemy 100 years behind them in weapons tech. Or even as a defensive presence in a cold war scenario. (Think the U.S. base in Korea) that base wouldn't last an hr if N Korea invaded. But all hell would rain down on N Korea if they made a move on it.
galaxy class ships made during the war wernt furnished with labs and such. they were very hollow. imagine expanding the shuttle bays and filling them with fighters.
Fighters... The "Death-of-a-thousand-stings" kind of vehicle.... Sure you may lose half of the force if things go south, and also sure their weapons are quite weak when compared to a Defiant/Akira/Excelsior/Galaxy/Sovereign, but the combined power still can match or even outclass bigger ships...
star fighters are good for planetary defense and system patrols. given operating areas and specialized modifications fighters can expand a single ship's search and scanning without too much of a manpower increase. sure in combat they aren't that good but against smaller warships fighters are deadly.
One of the better tactical uses of fighters hinges on the nature of most shield systems. In this scenario, the capital ship goes in first and starts pummeling the shields of he opposing vessel. As that vessel's shields deplete, most systems would have power diverted away from shields facing away from the attacks in order to reinforce the facing ones. This is where fighters with their high acceleration and maneuverability could come in, flank and then encircle the opposing vessel. The fighters would then exploit he weakened shield areas and in he case of the Peregrine with its weapons loadout, likely destroy or disable the enemy. I can see where fighters having sensor suites that allow them to see weakened areas in opponents' shields would make them the daggers that drive into the gaps in the enemy's armor, to use a medieval analogy.
Just imagine, you are a Vorta in command of a Cruiser. You are slugging it out with a Galaxy class when a brace of 120 torpedoes scream into your flank. Launched by the formation of fighters you missed because you were busy with the capital ship.
this is the exact reason why the Argument "lol phasers can easily shoot them down " isnt working. because like you say an enemy ship comes at you focus on the bigger ship usually and dismiss like the imperials in star wars the little fighters. you soon discover the little fighters are nasty but you only have a couple of phasers so you have to focus on the little ships and now the big enemy ship has free firing without fearing counters because your ship is distracted with the little fighters. its a win win for the enemy unless you have some fighters as well and now you have an arms race in fighters. unless star Trek federation wants to end up like the empire and get absolutely wrecked by fighters they better step their fighter game up
That is because the Jem'Hadar Cruiser is outnumbered. It is fighting both the Galaxy, and the vessel that is providing the fighters. If it was a semi-fair fight there would be a second Jem'Hadar Cruiser that is trying to hunt down and kill the carrier, or at least pursue the fighter squadron to keep the squadron focusing on evasion/defense.
There should be lots of electronic warfare, sensor targeting, and maneuvers but I can easily see it working. Especially against ships with smaller crews
I agree with both of your perspectives; however, I still lean a bit toward Lore's perspective for a few reasons; 1) In the on-screen big engagements of the Dominion War, it showed how easily it was for ships to hit the Peregrine with beam weapons, and they can't survive a single hit. 2) I see it in the same vein as the Japanese vs the US when the US first deployed the proximity fuses, or modern day Russia with their tanks against modern hand-portable anti-tank weapons, and so on; the Peregrine may be an excellent ship, but it was created during a time where starship technology has made such concepts obsolete. In short, against an empire with state-of-the-art technology, the Peregrine is simply a nuisance that can easily be taken down with a quick series of beam shots against them. I would imagine it to be similar to the scene where the Borg Cube shoots down the entirety of Mars' defence grid in just a few seconds. And considering that Peregrines are manned, that means that every fighter destroyed is the loss of a pilot. Even though the Peregrine can do a lot of damage, the question is at what cost? Personally, I think the resources would be better use to upgrade Akira-Class ships (and similar) to having standoff-range mass-torpedo systems; they already have the multi-launcher; but imagine if it could fire from outside of phaser and/or disruptor range?
I still stand behind photon torpedo launchers and photon torpedos being very small with an oversized power. It’s like bombs and torpedos in WWII. Load up 80 Peregrines with 5 photon torpedos and watch them decimate entire fleets.
Personally, I think it depends on two things, the level of technology and the number of units. While you did bring up the idea of how numbers could make a difference, there are instances where a Federation and a Cardassian starship just wipe out all the fighters and the enemy capital ships because they are on a lower tech-based. So, unless the factions are near technological parody, fighters would be more like extra targets than a force multiplier. Also, on your example of four Galors vs a Galaxy and a peregrine squadron, my thoughts would be why not have all four Galors just concentrate all fire on the Galaxy and take it out before going after the Peregrines. I think a squadron only has enough firepower to take down one Galor, but three is possibly enough against a Galaxy depending on the Galaxy variant. Unless the commander is green, the only difference I think the fighters would make if more than one Galor goes with the Galaxy. I guess is a factor, but since you still be losing more lives than the Cardassians, it is a hollow one. I think on a small scale, their force multiplier is finite as opposed to a fleet operation, which is why I think we only see them during large battles like the Battle for DS9. Also, one thing you didn't bring up that would make a huge difference in the number of fighters a side to bring up is the material used to make a power plant. Specifically, can you sacrifice starship numbers for fighters when all depend on dilithium for their warp cores? I mean, if I had the choice to make a Sovereign vs two squadrons of peregrine with the dilithium I had in a shipyard, I would make the Sovereign and maybe some Peregrine if I have leftover material. Also, even finding people is a factor as well for not everyone would be skilled enough pilot to fly a Peregrine, so can I sacrifice helmsmen needed for fast maneuverable starships for fighters treated as disposable units?
Multiple target, i have to choce, main target (galaxy) oder 10 fighter, when i focus the fighter, and hit every one, the galaxy is 10 shots in advance. You don't need to equipt fighter with a worp engine, when you can carry them. And when i can hit with every shot a figther, used as a drone, so i have 10 shots in advance for the galaxy, ore 10 shot more because my fighter werent targetet.
Historic precedent: ww2 in the pacific. Many a ship of both USN and IJN met the sea floor at the hands of small single engine aircraft and not from the primary battery the other side’s ships. Prior to DS9 I found it odd that star fighters weren’t used in trek.
nah don't think thats a good idea, lore reloaded is a total amateur a rookie compared to this guy here lol venom is a PHD veteran lore reloaded is a 7th year freshman 😂
@@Big_Black_Dick Worse is Lore Reloaded is also not the nicest person either, He also shoves politics and his hatred of certain politicians into every video. I use to watch him but after a while he became not enjoyable to watch. He lost the plot.
I usd to play Star Fleet Battles where they had 'pseudo fighters' which were like the Condor in terms of size and tactics. And man did they not survive long against phasers. They did massive damage and died. Weaker weapons are usually much shorter range so they'd be sitting ducks on the approach against ships which could one hit them from multiple phaser banks. And anyone playing homeworld knows to take out the weaker ships first ... usually. Finally, I don't see neural jell packs having trouble tracking six thousand fighters, not just 16. Maybe if they had countermeasures we haven't seen, maybe against lighter ships or with a heavy carrier they might be kinda okay in a small number of situations. But I wouldn't want to fly one in anger. The Enterprise didn't carry sixteen peregrines for a reason and I doubt it was due to Starfleet pinching pennies (given the scarcity free society). I gotta go with reloaded on this one.
I argued all these points on that same video, but Venom did add a lot of good additional points. The points used against the use of fighters I find are similar points used against the Defiant as a failed ship in it's design "to fight and defeat the Borg". Both are small ships that punch well above its own weight, and a loss of them won't hurt the fleet anywhere near as bad as losing all those larger ships that Starfleet loved using in that era. And the survivability point used against fighters were based on the few times we see fighters engaging thr Borg Cube and the Enterprise. In both cases the fighters just ran straight for their target, and were hilariously outclassed anyways. The Peregrines harassing enemy positions in Sacrifice of Angels wasn't the best use, but we do see them avoiding enemy fire. But seeing them act as a screen while the fleet pushes through the line was proper use of fighters.
It can also help if the fighters have any kind of ECM/Sensor Jammers. Help with survivability and can create a wall of ECM to mark friendly ships. If it was up to me, I'd install a single scaled down phaser lance on them for firepower with lots of missiles/torpedos.
Fighters are swarmers, not only are they useful for harassing the enemy, but can rapidly circumvent a front line and attack things in the rear such as support/CnC/Carriers that sit at the back but provide essential fleet services, destroy them with fighters and a fleet is severely hampered, it stalls and is of limited use.
The Oberth class is not a bad ship. What most seem to overlook is the simple fact that IT WAS NEVER designed as a warship. It was a STRICTLY a SCIENCE ship. Most commenters use the fact that a smaller type of Klingon Bird of Prey, a WARSHIP, was able to blown it up. That logic fallacy would be like someone taking a modern commercial vessel putting a pop gun on it and claim it's a warship and then complain about it being a bad warship after it gets blown to bits by an actual warship
I follow this logic: Runabouts are essentially scaled up shuttles and they can pack quite a punch, especially with weapon-pod rollbar. Galileo, Type 6, 6A, 7, 8, 11, & Delta Flyer, Class 2 are almost all seen at one point or another as support weapons platforms. Thing is, they're all made with passengers and scientific or diplomatic missions in mind. Cut down on the passenger space and crew amenities, so that there's only a single seat cockpit, you'll end up with a tiny platform with a lot of power for it's size, with shields that covers a smaller area, and weapons gaining from surplus power. A small glass-cannon if you will since a direct hit from a capital-class beam weapon could possibly take it out, but it's small mass and size would help it to avoid getting hit and the shields would protect against glancing hits. The weapons wouldn't need to be too complicated. Just pump out as much power out as possible, not unlike the mindset behind the Defiant class Pulse-phase cannons.
One way to compare a carrier with fighters vs a capital ship is as follows: Assume both ships are the same mass/tech base/mass fractions for equipment (so if a Galaxy ship has 20% of its mass allocated to weaponry, then the carrier would be similar mass as the Galaxy, and have 20% of its mass allocated to fighters and self-defense weaponry) Fighter advantages: 1) Low strategic capability needed - fighters only need to be powerful for a few hours/days/weeks, meaning less mass is needed for long-term capability 2) greater surface area for their volume - they can dissipate heat better, which per 'Yesterday's Enterprise' is a key factor in long-term combat. This means a fighter group can sustain higher firing rates for their weapons without roasting the pilot(s) 3) relative expendability - fighters can be launched as stand-off, while the controlling ship remains out of enemy firing range. If the fighters are defeated, the carrier can leave 4) Easy upgrades - if you develop a better fighter, you just have to fly off the older fighters and replace them with newer fighters. Compare that with a capital ship that needs to have the old weapons removed and new weapons take their place. It also means that any integration problems can be tested by the fighters themselves, rather than having to wait until the weapons are mounted on the capital ship. 5) relatively cheaper components - a fighter doesn't need to have a warp core, or Structural Integrity field, or life support system that can run for weeks/months/years with minimal support. This means their systems can be made cheaper/simpler, easing maintenance and replacement issues. 6) Better structural support - structural strain is based on mass, while structural strength is based on cross-section. This means fighters can use smaller structural members, or provide higher acceleration capability (making them more zippy and hopefully harder to hit). 7) Ease of deployment - fighters can be disassembled and sent via freighter to a planet needing protection. This allows for packing a cargo hold full of the fighters and assembling them on-site, rather than needing to send a combat vessel to the planet. In areas where you can guarantee there will be no commerce raiders, this allows strengthening planets while the combat ships are busy elsewhere. Capital ship advantages 1) High strategic capability - a hundred fighters might have a hundred copies of 'Basic Repair Kit #37', while a capital ship will have multiple levels of repair capability. So a fighter that loses its warp drive is stuck, while a capital ship can repair its warp drive. 2) Lower surface area for their volume - assuming two ships, both the same shape, where the larger is 2* as wide, tall, and long, the larger ship will have 4* the surface area and 8* the volume (and mass). This means that for the same mass fraction, the larger ship's external armor will be ~2* as thick as the smaller ship, with similar enhanced protection capability from shields 3) Coordinated defense - the fighters are vulnerable to each one getting their shield and hull popped individually by an attacker, while a capital ship means the opponent has to punch through all of its shields to damage the hull. 4) Coordinated support - fighters can't help each other if another is damaged, but of one part of a ship is damaged then personnel from another part of the ship can go to that location and help out. 5) Better targeting/ECM - a capital ship's targeting system will often mass more than an entire fighter, giving the capital ship an effectively greater range for its weapons. Similarly, capital ships can put out more ECM than a fighter swarm, forcing the swarm to have to get closer to aim properly 6) Better sensors - a capital ship can mount single sensor systems that are bigger and better, plus have the capability to have dedicated specialists for that sensor system to get more information out of it. This means that a capital ship can see targets that a fighter squadron might miss. 7) No unpacking - a starship is ready to protect a planet as soon as it arrives. It does not need to launch its weapons, it is a weapon.
The big problems that Star Trek fighters have is that they are not used in enough numbers. An early war US fleet carrier packed an air group of 4 squadrons of aircraft (a fighter squadron, 2 bomber squadrons, and a torpedo squadron) along with 50% spares. A late war light carrier carried about the same number of active aircraft. Meanwhile, Starfleet 'carriers' barely carry a dozen craft with no spares. It just doesn't make for a serious threat.
I cansee 2 reasons for that small complement. 1. A dozen is the peacetime complement that Starfleet CV's tend to (admit to) have, in wartime that number increases notably (2x to 4x). 2. Starfleet brings a lot of ships that carry fighters to any fight, the CV's are just the dedicated refuel/rearm ships. When every heavy brings a dozen fighters, that starts to add up quickly.
@@IO-hh2fz actual real world experience shows that battleship carriers (BBV) are less valuable then even a dedicated light carrier (CVL) with less combat ability then either a battleship or a light carrier. They give less ability in a straight fight and have a compromised defenses, have an airgroup that wouldn't even be able to provide CAP, and would be unable to service strike missions with that airgroup. Starfleet needed proper fleet carriers and light carriers.
In Trek lore, Lt. Parris radically upgraded the Voyager’s shuttles to deal with the situations Voyager encountered. I’d have to look at the timelines to see if the Peregine was online while Voyager was away, but it bears consideration. There have been many Star Trek episodes where a shuttle was used for covert or exploratory purposes, but was underpowered for the job. From a storytelling standpoint, a Peregine is a great plot device for covert ops stories where having the full might of a starship behind you undercuts dramatic tension. I would need to think hard about how the Peregine fits into the engineering narrative of Starfleet. There’s a subtle story being told by the ships of Starfleet, as they transform from an exploratory force into a military one. It’s interesting to see how the Peregine fits into that story. Perhaps Admiral Janeway’s yacht is the final expression of where the Peregine ends up.
While you do have good points.... When I was younger and DS9 first aired, I loved the fighters, but as the years go on, I've come around to the idea that this is Star Trek, not Star Wars, and shouldn't have "fighters." Somewhat closer to Age of Sail than WW2 in feel compared to Star Wars. A war time contingency created at some point that was activated for the Dominion War and deactivated afterwards, sure. Something more permanent, nah.
In modern naval combat, fighters have a few advantages in combat. Speed - fighters can fly ten to twenty times faster than a surface vessel Maneuverability - Surface ships are stuck in two dimensions and take forever to turn. Fighters can move in three dimensions. Range - fighters can launch ship-killer missiles (each one capable of sinking a destroyer) from over a hundred miles out, while the target ships can't even return fire until the fighters are thirty miles out. Cost - as expensive as modern fighters are, they're still cheaper than a modern cruiser and only have one or two pilots aboard. In Star Trek, fighters have ONE of those advantages. Speed - warp drive starships can actually OUTRUN a fighter at both sublight and warp. Maneuverability - Starships can move in all three dimensions. Fighters can _out accelerate_ a starship at sub-light, but starships have very fast, very accurate guns. Range - fighters don't have the power to use weapons with the range of a starship. They actually have to close INSIDE a starship's range to fire their weapons, and the starship only needs to get one or two hits to erase a fighter. The fighter still has to penetrate it's target's shields and armor. Cost - yes, fighters are still a lot cheaper than a starship and only have a couple of people on board you'd have to replace when they inevitably get blown out of the sky. Starships have a few advantages against fighters: SHIELDS that can take another capital ship's phasers and torpedos, let along the tiny, underpowered pop-guns on a fighter. WEAPONS that can crack planetary crusts and travel at light speed (you can't see them coming to dodge them until AFTER they've hit you - and they only have to hit you once) and start hitting you well before you can shoot back. (And, because fighters have never really been a thing in Trek until DS9 we've never seen dedicated anti-fighter point defense weapons systems or AOE attacks - like you use when facing fighters in Star Trek Online - that can take out fighters by the squadron.) TARGETING: Those phasers are aimed by sensors that can track micrometors traveling at relativistic velocities COMPUTERS: Those weapons are guided by AI computers that outmass the fighter's entire squadron and can process information at FTL speeds. ENGINES and navigational deflectors that can actually outrun your fighter at both sub-light and warp speed. POWER Antimatter warp cores and redundant fusion plants that can power ALL those systems. Against this, the only advantage fighters _might_ have is overwhelming numbers Star Trek's tech base isn't very kind to any ship smaller than a Defiant or Bird of Prey sized ship (which can maneuver as quickly as a fighter, but have the reactor to power starship grade weapons, shields, computers, sensors, and engines). Fighters would only be effective ships against unarmed civilian ships, other fighters, or to mop up already near-crippled ships. To give you an analogy, imagine if you could go back in time and stick a couple of Phalanx point defense systems on the Arizona and a couple of her fellow battleships at Pearl Harbor. How effective would the Japanese planes have been against point defense turrets that can hit something as slow as a prop plane two kilometers away from the ship? (And the Japanese planes didn't have to penetrate shields before getting actually damaging hits on hull). If they didn't work they wouldn't be there? That's your argument? They're there, not because they work or fit in lore, but because some studio executives thought they would LOOK COOL on screen, because they looked cool in Star Wars, even though the lore doesn't work.
I love the idea of fighters in Star Trek. The Peregrine may not be the super best one, but I think it still does what it needs to do. As I commented on his page, the fact that starships aren't always able to target other starships in battle should, theoretically, mean that targeting fighters should be harder. The fact that we see fighters get hit hard in the shows is more a product of the show-making, not what the ship class could be like.
And even when figter get hit hard, you can have 100 of figther for the price of one capital ship. (Price= personel, construction time, material, training, ect)
A WWII analogy for the fighters would be MTB's (Motor Torpedo Boats) in the fleet. Did these boats sink capital ships? Not in any significant way. Could they be used to harass fleets in certain situations? Yes, in the battle of Leyte, they were used to harass and managed to put the Southern Japanese force in some disarray prior to the big guns coming in to play. MTB's also performed many other roles that large capitol ships couldn't, especially inshore and river patrols. MTB's were wooden for the most part and had very low survivability, but with a couple of torpedoes they could pose a threat to any ship they came across. Their mere presence altered how capital ships were used in areas with complicated shorelines or islands that could be used as cover. Many of the arguments against Star fighters could have been applied to MTB's, but MTB's were a very valuable part of naval operations in WWII nevertheless.
Good video love your explanation but you're not taking into account that the the Cardassian Union Fire Control System was a joke compare to the Federation Fire Control when it came to those size of vessels. (Case in point the USS Enterprise D destroyed a dozen perimeter defense drones that were smarter than a Peregrine during the episode Conundrum.) but when the Crdassians join the Dominion I'm pretty sure Dominion Engineers upgraded every single one of those systems before the War started that's why when we see in operation return those cardassian vessels picking off I think 3 out of 5 Federation Fighters per Squadron in every wave Now granted the Federation fighter and other fighter craft are still very powerful in what you've given us in this video by think mortality rates with Federation Fighters are probably a little bit higher than those suffered on the larger vessels but that's just my opinion from what I've seen
Mortality rates would be higher, but overall mortality in relation to damage done to the enemy is probably lower as you're putting far fewer people at risk. Even a small star ship, like a Sabre class, would have a crew in the dozens. If a Sabre were destroyed or disabled while fighting an enemy it's personnel losses could also be in the dozens. Meanwhile, losing 3 out of 5 fighters in exchange for disabling an enemy ship costs only half a dozen lives. That's one of the ways the federation adopting fighter tactics during the dominion war makes a horrible kind of sense. Even high loss rates among the fighters meant far fewer losses in men and material overall.
@@theodoremccarthy4438 quality over quantity, call me an unreal list or something but I'd rather those men and women be on a vessel which gives the a better chance of seeing their loved ones again then ask them to flying a fighter knowing that they most likely wouldn't make it back because their enemies has a targeting system they can take down three fighters every few seconds in a major Fleet battle Remember the Dominion has been around for 2,000 years before the Dominion War. I refuse to believe that Dominion tactical sensors don't have the capability of tracking that many small craft in a Squadron of 5 and not be able to destroy most of them. But again this is my opinion on the matter. Feel free to believe what y'all like. PS I also believe that all the Miranda's we saw in the Dominion War we're run by skeleton Crews
to be fair tho, in Conundrum, the Lysian tech(including weapons and shields) was at least 100 yrs behind, so even the Cardassians could have walked thru them and we have scenes in the TNG/DS9/VOY episodes where the Federation ships are missing shots
I actually had a thought regarding small ship combat like with a runabout and or peregrine. If I recall correctly larger ships need to turn down their inertial dampeners in combat to limit being pushed around from being hit by fire. But I think such a thing could be used for fighting in a runabout... If say you go and take a runabout sized ship and max out its inertial dampeners its gonna be pushed about by the smallest impact ... So you plan for that by reinforcing the equipment that gives you feed back from the shields and deploying a shield designed in such a way to generate a maximum of glancing blows when hit... Any hit will then most likely push the craft out of the danger of said hit.. most likely before the shield dies granted that wont be far off but it could be mitigated by fitting a second shield generator that gets activated while the first one recharges ... Over all the shield strength would probably be lower but the longlivability would increase.... Add to that some holo emitters and maybe some reflective smart dust you can tow around with a tractor and you got some interesting ECM possibilities
Perigones functioning like world war 2 float planes would be massively valuable even discounting any combat ability as scouts or a screen. The ability to push sensors out gives the ship's captain or the taskforce commander something absolutely invaluable in combat, reaction time.
I don't really like fighters in star trek. I prefer to think of them as being planetary defence. That is, like runabouts, but where the local area has already been thoroughly explored.
Currently an Aegis cruiser can track over 100 air contacts at one time. How many can a Galaxy class starship track? Far many more than an aegis cruiser.
Fighters absolutely have a role in the trekverse. Like all things Starfleet though, as much as I love the home team, they aren't particularly good with combat doctrine. Which, to Lores credit, he does point out, on the regular. Starfleet after Kirks era, got pretty high and mighty on their hubris, and it reflects in their ship design. A lot of science vessels, some cruisers, mostly CL's CA's and the occasional BC if we dare to give Excelsior a BC rating at time of initial deployment, versus the Connie being a Heavy Cruiser (CA) designation. Starfleet was always a organization geared towards exploration and growth through trade/Commerce and Diplomacy. Not hostile enforcement like the Klingons, Cardassians, Romulans. And it reflects that doctrine in ship design. However things begin to change again after the Enterprise-C gets smacked off the map at Khitomer and we see the Big D. She is massive, she has the best equipment starfleet has to offer, just like her Excelsior shipmate before her, and hailed as the next, best thing. Fighters and Carrier designs were never really at the forefront of Starfleets doctrine, unless you include some very old Fasfa material or the old Starfleet starship Design journals from TMP era, where that really fleshes out Frigates, Destroyers, CV's, BC's and the like. And this does raise fairly good questions, like why do we never see, any of the "other" models of ships Starfleet should have in their stable? That's all VFX budgeting. But let's discontinue that reasoning and let's assume for a minute, this universe actually, factually exists. History, our history, has clearly shown the devastating potential of what a fighter/torpedo bomber can do to a groups of unsuspecting surface ships. But let's take the effectiveness of those fighters which effectively can only interact with a target on a couple of axis' (you know with water not being something a fighter plays well with when engaging a naval target) and transpose those same elements into the full multiple axisies of space.... It's a no brainer. If you can have a small, very fast moving, very agile ship, that has similar weaponry available to it as it's mothership does. And it can use these weapons at harder to hit angles, maneuver between multiple objects a starship would be mad to try to maneuver through.... Where's the second guessing to that? And we've seen in trek that all starships have inertia dampeners, so starfighters should be able to perform some pretty insane moves, which could easily bunk a lot of sophisticated targeting computers. This isnt even taking into account if you were to have fighters that would, and should definitely be equipped with ECM suites and Jamming suites onboard to help defeat targeting and scanning capabilities of the ships they are trying to fight against. Remember, Japan had two of the most dreaded surface vessels ever put to water, both were skunked by vehicles waaaaay smaller and cheaper to build.
Also worth considering that even a galaxy class can instantly fire about 10 photon torpedoes. A feat that just five peregrines can match. That kind of instant firepower (albeit with very long reload times) is probably very worthwhile in some situations. Especially if you have twenty or thirty perigrines, rather than just five.
To be fair to Lore, if you look at the VFX of the scaled-down Raider that we see sometimes, it isn't exactly the same model as the Condor. Its cockpit detailing looks modified to suggest a smaller-sized ship about on par with the Peregrine in size.
Since the "Star Trek: Invasion" game, the Valkyrie has become a fixture of the Star Trek Fandom. It is about the size of a modern air superiority fighter, like the F-22, a F/A-18, or an F-14 at most. It is also well designed to function in atmosphere. The Valkyries does share an issue with the Peregrine, unlike carrier based fighters, the Valkyrie can not be folded up to save space. The BSG Viper could not be fold up either, but had the advantage of being tiny, compared to other Space fighters in other franchises, and the Battlestars they were assigned to are GIGANTIC. Just one Jupiter Class flight pod was easily as long as an entire Excelsior Class, at least. Never mind the Double stacked Pods on the Mercury Class. Battlestars were just generous. Starfleet vessels, at least in the original continuity, are not nearly so generous with space or amenities. To make things worse the Peregrine is a very spread out design. The Sub-light engines are bulky and given way too much space. This in opposition to the warp drives which are slim and compact. But everything is spread out wasting valuable space the frame and worse requiring much more material to be so spread out. This makes the fighter heavier and so less maneuverable. Further as seen with SHUTTLES, a smoother hull is easier to shield, make tougher, and can be made to be more stealth by defusing and deflecting sensor signals, just as real world Stealth technology works today. The Peregrine has all the hallmarks of a older generation fighter. Meanwhile, the Valkyrie is a much more advanced fighter in every sense, smaller, lighter, more compact, less wasteful, quicker, faster, better armed and shielded, easier to defend, tougher. It is like comparing the F-86 Saber (3rd gen) to the F-22 (5th Gen). The Peregrine is not meant to be a heroic ship, not very cool, and more tragic that such a deficient vessel is "sent out to die". I have A LOT of baggage on why I hate the writers' mindsets and how they hand even the concept of "the military in space". But one way to fix most of it, for the Space fighters in Star Trek, is to make the retire the Peregrine for a more advanced fighter, such as the Valkyrie. Much as Trek tends to retire still new starship for something new for no good reason except its new and shiny.
I had a concept carrier class ship, ISS Conqueror that is slightly over four times the size of a Galaxy Class ship. With 200 fighter type and 100 transport (with cloaking) type craft.
9:40 given the border wars that "civilian" use seems like a cover up story to ship them into the DMZ and then smuggle the phasers and photon torpedos later in that coincedently fit just perfectly
I do not like fighters in Star Trek. Putting precious Starfleet crews in small, easily obliterated space vehicles in an era of hyper-accurate computer-driven weaponry does not feel right to me. But they are part of the core canon as of DS9, so 🤷♂
In reality, when aircraft became commonly used by navies it forced navies to mount ever more specific weapons to deal with them. Nowadays, most of a ships weapons are air defense ones. I think a similar dynamic might be at play in a Star Trek combat environment but not the same. The main weapons of a starship are not as unwieldy as something like a 14 inch gun. Also, the phasers mounted on a fighter are far more threatening to a starship than a .50 mg or 20mm cannon might be. It is a interesting thing, one I'm kind of on the fence about. Fighters work in SFB...
Battleships were the king of the sea, until a lonely bomber could sink her. AKA 22nd and 23rd century star trek Then the 50 isoton photon showed up, 4 to 6 per fighter in the 24th century, and can cripple a starship. On screen evidence, Sacrifice of Angel's. Note the chucks blown out of the Galors hull. For the cost of 12 pilots a crippled Galor and hundreds of casualties. Do not forget the fighters have escape transporters increasing survival
Just one point, under impulse engines, the ship with the greater thrust to weight ratio will reach a higher top speed -- assuming they have enough fuel. It all comes down to simple (Newtonian physics adjusted for relativity). An efficient warp field is not a consideration. In normal space, there is a fixed "top" speed. 😏 Of course, a starship can warp ahead. Where I see these fighters being deficient is if combat occurs at warp speed or if starships use bursts of warp to maneuver.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Yes. I really do not see fighters being useful unless a battle is tied to a fixed lcoation or for in a defensive capacity. I really do not see them beiung useful in a running battle.
A few points, first there's a reason most rl "first rate" Navy's use aircraft carriers as the value of a Navy. Much like battleships of pre WW2. Yes in a 1v1 a fighter/bomber small craft isn't going to do much but die. So swarm tactics are the order of the day with them. The Maquis raiders; much like the Toyota's you mentioned, rl Toyota trucks are repurposed for use as support and heavy gun carriers in certain places. Tho I believe the raiders are more along like cigarette boats with a few heavy mg's and some torpedoes strapped on. Again not really a 1v1 type of ship, but swarm tactics with some fighter ships can do some damage especially to single or small task groups with limited support.
I would assume that the Peregrines could followed, or hitch, on the starship warp bubble or something to allow them to travel at the same speed as their support ship could. Through I find the idea a bit pointless as sense drones would do a much better job then fighters in evading enemy fire and much more compact. I could guess they are also used for other roles then support attackers or sent to discharge all their weapons payloads and escape, that wouldn't warrant the presence of a full starship but is also beefier then a shuttle or Runabout.
The only way a fighter craft could work in the Star Trek universe is by having a quasi cloaking system which a Star ship can't get a lock on therefore wouldn't be targeted. With the inability to target such a smaller attack craft a fighter can make its attack run and deliver its payload of photon torpedoes with impunity.
Your videos have completely changed my mind on the necessity of fighters in Trek. I used to disregard them but deeply appreciate how much you detail you have given them.
This always comes up in science fiction. 1- or 2-person fighters in an active combat role will exist in science fiction, ONLY IF they can materially damage larger vessels in numbers. Swarm tactics work in real life - look no further than Coral Sea or Midway - so if small craft can carry ship damaging/killing weapons (like photon torpedoes, in Trek), they _will_ be out there. Also, warp speed is largely irrelevant, because the _vast_ majority of space combat in Trek takes place at Impulse speeds. While we don't see fighters very often in the Federation, that can be written off as a cultural thing (because casualties among fighter crews will be very high, proportionally speaking), but the _Klingons_ not using them would indicate that either fighters cannot carry those weapons (which is silly, when you see the size of the weapons), or that the Klingons are stupid, which is even sillier.
I think a lot of people underestimate the value of harassment in conflicts. Even if you're only able to slow them down, there's still value because that's time they didn't spend hitting something more valuable.
I would add that fighters are useless against certain targets, Borg craft for example. Given the Borg can generate any amount of wepions or tractor beam emitters or anything else it wants in any direction it wants. So swarm tactics are next to useless inless you have some means to fuck over the hive mind Also the lack of carriers and fighter support crafter
Well i believe the cude has limits. But apparently they are capable of engaging 24 starships at the same time. I would argue they would be effective or complimentary to a fleet attacking a cube the borg would target the biggest treat. Remember in best of both worlds enterprise separated and then they ignored the shuttle with data and wolf . They could target the weapons or tractor beams . ? 24 is the basic cube i imagine different types have different weapons. ( tactical or sphere) would be different
Swarm tactics are exactly what the Federation adopted to fight the Borg. The Defiant was supposed to operate in packs. But, there is of course a limit, as the swarm needs to actually be able to harm to target, not just annoy it.
@@nunya3163 true the defiant was ment to be used in a swarm but it also packs far far more of a punch the fighters. fighters are fragile enough that i just dont see them doing annoying thing but any borg craft bigger than a spear inless they were supported by capital ships then i could see them takeing on at least a bassic cube tatical cube, you need shenanigans to even think about touching that thing with a ten foot poll i could see fighters being realtively effecive vs borg propes. like the one we saw in the voyager two prater dark frontier the issue again is that the price is going to be high
@@shmee123ful Fighter might be able to get inside of the Borg weapons arc of fire, and just chip away at them. They also could be used to plant large bomb on, or even within the super structure, opening holes to fly inside of and really go at them. In the Voyager series, there was on race that used swarms of small single seat craft to hold the Borg at bay. I cannot recall their name at the moment.
If you have read any of David Weber's Honor Harrington series, you can draw a very good analogy between Star Trek's starfighters and the Shrike generation of light attack craft. The LACs were never meant to go against the wall of battle. They were meant to run down cripples and engage light cruisers and smaller
Eddington cripples Defiant with computer cascade virus, cripples the Malinche with faked sensor readings to pretend that a cardissian freighter was sending out distress signals and got hit with a booty trapped that hit them with a particle beam that punched through their shielding and then hit by three raiders, while their shields were down.
Just in a support role during a 1 v 1 battle between cruisers I always thought that fighters could take advantage of the fight. The adversary will usually attenuate shield power against the vector of their main enemies firepower. Keep the fighters a little away until the enemy loses a shield facet and then they pounce. Launch a few torpedos each and that section can be damaged pretty good. If in a no quarter type battle. If trying to disable they can still help damage specific areas to disable the ship. Plus they can always automate several to follow a flight leader whose manned if your worried about crew loss. Holoemitter run pilots could work and now you can consider kamikaze strikes as a last ditch option.
A Peregrine can carry eight Photon Torpedoes on its exterior hardpoints. which means 2 squadrons can carry more than the Akira-class heavy cruiser. and launch these at the Akira without even entering phaser range. Putting less men, and less costly ships at risk. and if it did enter phaser range. 2 squadrons would outshoot an Akira. 40 vs 3.
Has he played the Star Trek Homeworld mod, because ive found a fighter screen invaluable in keeping my frigates and cap-ships alive longer... because the enemy ends up having to divide their targets. And as you mentioned in the Dominion War series, frigates and capships do not operate as well in atmosphere, i should know, Ive done Aerial Conflict Zones in Elite Dangerous, Frigates lose maneuverability as compared to Corvettes and smaller.
Yeah it doesn't help that pre-2005 only time we saw UFP use fighters they were unsupported. That said it's not like an X-Wing could take on an Imperial Stardestroyer 1v1 either, that's not the role of starfighters. Like you said if properly supported Trek fighters have enough fire power that they do play an important role. Oh and something that wasn't directly mentioned in the video but implied is that you can have the bigger ships batter the enemy shields then send in your fighters to target critical targets on the enemy ships like weapon emplacements or engines so that even though the enemy warp core hasn't breached they're useless as far as combat is concerned as they got nothing to fight with, yes you can target those emplacements with a bigger ship too but a bigger ship is a more obvious threat and thus the enemy will be more likely focus their shields towards the bigger ship.
Lore Reloaded is definitely wrong. When used in fleet battles, they are very extremely effective. They split the fire and harass large capitals. If the capitals ignore the fighters , they'll lauch huge salvos of torpedo at them. Thus a power like the Dominion would have to task its attack ships to keep the fighters off the heavy cruisers. The Federation fleet is heavily based on light to medium cruisers. Strip away the Jem Hadar attack ships from the Dominion heavy cruisers and the Federations more numerous light and medium ships swamp the Dominion heavys. This is what should have been shown in DS9. Instead of DS9 where they sent in fighters without cruiser support, yet they still did ok.
There is another great use for small ships, harassing a heavily damaged ship that is withdrawing from combat, to keep it out of a battle. Ships like the Peregrine would be great keeping a disabled ship from getting weapons back online and getting back in the fight, freeing up your major ships from having to deal with it.
Where did you get the weapon layout from completely different than Emmanuel I have? Federasion assault Fighter Att130,000/ deff 15,000 Shield 15,000 TW 2 shot Galor spiral wave disruptor 7,500tw each Dead. 3 phaser type6 shields down from runabout. 5,000 each type 6 Fighter weapons (Eaglemoss magazines) 2 type8 phaser 30,000 tw 4 per volley 1 Torpedo tubes with 6 torpedo volley 6 Torpedo are 65,000 each 1 type 6 phaser Note one fighter had DS9 had to be using a Type X phaser to do the damage it did to runabout one shot
Development of the Peregrine makes more sense if you consider it as a Borg Cube harrier. A personnel commitment of a single Miranda could saturate an entire quadrant of a cube's defenses with a force that can take losses more slowly than the time it would take to disable a single Miranda.
I think a lot of the prejudice against fighters comes from The Next Generation. The Enterprise is shown with excellent point defense phaser arcs and tractor beams, so things like fighters and shuttles are countered almost effortlessly in TNG. Though if I remember correctly most of these encounters were against technologically inferior opponents and against small numbers. So I think you would have to employ them in an ambush or with a large group of friendly ships to take the damage for the fighters until they are close enough. But a large volley of torpedoes followed up by capital ships is bound to make an impact on enemy formations . To combat them it would probably require a fleet to assign some of their limited ships to be dedicated point defense "anti aircraft" platforms.
This really just depends case to case on both sides ability to kill. If your fighters are the equivalent of ww1 biplanes dropping hand grenades and you're sending them against ships with modern ciws, then obviously no. But If a dozen torpedoes can kill a ship and each fighter can carry 2 then it only matters how good the point defence is at killing the fighters. There's also the cost ratio. Even losing 50 fighters (each costing 1mil) to kill one ship (costing a 100 mil) is easily considered a win.
the way Starfleet uses it, ya it is useless... but it has so much potential and the issues largely boil down to doctrine, Starfleet(and basically everyone but the Maquis, which is the outgrowth from the old Bajoran resistance tactics) doctrine is/was equal size ships slug it till the Dominion War and 2 Borg incursions(with exceptions for last stands to protect civilians and such) so big ships only engaged big ships and everyone else is either supposed to run away or call for help and wait for the Enterprise to save them part of it is the way they show targeting, one minute you have the ships capable of sniping the heads off randomly moving pins from orbit the next they can't a barn from inside it the rest of it being arrogance, for the bulk of the 'lost age' or 'golden age' till somewhere in TNG/DS9(culminating with both Wolf 359 and the Dominion) their main ships could mostly trounce everyone in equal size 2+ v 1 and the gap for bigger the smaller the enemy ship got but the same can be said about a lot of Starfleet not using tactics that have been common since forever(hell AR-558 might as well have been in WWI, at least they used cover unlike Star Wars) they haven't fought outside the box in so long they forgot how to a few 'control' fighters backed up with a drone swarm(mix it up, some each of phasers, torpedoes, ecm, and maybe even kinetic(remember Borg were shown to not shield for it, like at all, so imagine what some Federation tech level version of a GAU-8 aka the A-10's gun could do) or kamikaze drones(ram that warp nacelle)) the enemy is trying to retreat their damaged _________(maybe it's only making warp 3 or something), your capital ships are busy still slugging it out, warp a few fighters after and knock it our of warp before it can withdraw completely(we have seen warp combat over the various series) less so for the Federation(damned treaty), but the Klingons and Romulans since they can't fire cloaked cloaked carriers even partly eliminate one of the weaknesses of fighters(slow warp speeds so everyone sees you coming in advace) to be fair tho, even our own history, several normal today tactics were considered garbage, impossible, or whatever else till someone was crazy enough to prove they worked rockets/missiles on subs(hello, USS Barb would like a word here), carrier assaults on shallow or defended harbors(Taranto, Pearl Harbor, Truk)
It's ridiculous the amount of firepower the Federation can compress into a very tight package with regards to capital ship level firepower. Fighters should be waaaaaaay more prevalent. They are just so much bang for very little bucks. Just enormous force multipliers. This is just using their shields and tractor beams in combat, to say nothing of deploying capital grade phasers or torpedo.
Well, if you want to use your manpower more inteligently and keep the tactical bonus of swarming tactics with fighters using the heaviest weapons you can fit on them, use fighter drones. You can even pilot them from the mothership, or combine wings of manned fighters with wings of unmanned fighters (one fighter and say 3-5 robots) and let the living pilots order the rest of his/hers robo-wing. Or use of holografic crew members. With that tactics, it would me much preferable, the manned fighters to be as undistinquishable from the drones, as possible. BTW, i would prefere use of heavy fighters roughly 35 meters long, with two decks, although one would be mostly "bridge", and spaces for crew (transporter, replicator, toilet, faucet, sonic shower, bunkbed, medibed with auto-doctor, life-suport, and the whole segment works as a detachable "lifeboat" for the whole ship) - my sugestion is 3 people - captain (tactical specialist), pilot, and engeneer. The lower deck would have everything else (weapons in front, energy core in the back, shields, torp magazine and engines. Immagining overall shape very similar to "Interceptor" class, only the warp nacceles connected by multiple struts, to bulkier and blockier end of the second hull. The use of said ship is similar to the runaboat, but with primary concern with defense and if different missions needed, the weapons are connected modulary "plug and play" system, therefore the "lower deck" can serve as transport deck, or space for extra sensor racks.
To me they are just manoeuvrable torpedo platforms. Shoot your 6 and skedaddle out of the fight. But then, if that is possible, you could just beam torpedoes into space and have them lying in wait since they don't need launching tubes, right? There is also no way a type X phaser on a small fighter can deliver even close to the punch of the same phaser on a big starship. It would need to generate way too much power for it's size, way more ridiculous than the Defiant. And another thing; I'm not sure if Star Trek: Armada is seen as canon, but in that game the Federation does seem to have a CIWS ability by using short phaser bursts. (A bit the same as the Enterprise-D effortlessly vaporised those 3 little ships in a TNG episode). I would think that the engineers at Utopia Planetia would have thought of that since it would make enemy fighters nearly useless against ships with beam weapons. (I do not believe that computers 360 years in the future would be unable to track a few targets).
I feel like Star Trek fleets are in a transition phase when in comes to war fighting and are still trying to figure out the role of the fighter. The simple fact is they are easier to build, requiring less resources and smaller construction facilities, and crew in large numbers compared to larger ships and actually offer greater firepower. A Galaxy class has a crew of 1,000+ and 14 Type 10 phasers and 2 torpedo tubes, compare to 300 Peregrines, even if they only had 2 Type 7 phaseres they would still have 600 type 7 phasers and 1,800 torpedoes and only 600 crewmen. Their limiting factor is that they are small and incapable of providing for their crew over long duration missions, things like fuel, food, or even the ability to do routine maintenance are likely beyond the crew in flight require shore facilities and larger numbers of personnel on the ground to support them. Larger ships I would wager are still better offense tools as they can offer better projection of power away from shore facilitates and rapid response capabilities, but attacking a large world with a few thousand fighters would require a huge fleet to break though.
Galaxy class ships are also hideously under armed and under shielded for their size because they spend so much space on exploration equipment, so its not exactly a fair comparison. Compare this to the prometheus, which at minimum matches if not outright beats a galaxy in firepower despite being about one ninth the overall mass, and requiring a crew of only 175, or a Sovereign, which is probably triple the fighting power of a galaxy while again being less than half the mass (and still has a decent amount of exploration equipment shoved into the poor thing) , kinda shows just how under armed and protected the galaxy is. Galaxy is an explorer first, with combat being a distant second consideration. Things get even dumber when you talk about the defiant. Though defiant is also a short ranged ship which requires a substantial dock side maintenance crew to keep the thing running. Considering just what starfleet can do with Sovereign, Prometheus and Defiant class designs, id conservatively estimate a full warship galaxy would be at least ten times more powerful than it currently is.
@@ryuukeisscifiproductions1818 While the Galaxy is far from the best warship I would say it is equal to or greater than any Romulan, Klingon, or Cardassian ship in terms of firepower and defenseive ability during the Dominion War, mostly because they are just better scientists and engineers, and the only reason the Federation designed better ships was mostly to deal with the Borg. If the battle of Wolf 359 hadn't happend the Galaxy would have remained the most potent Federation combat ship.
I liked a lot of the points you brought up. I too did a response to Lore Reloaded at one point, I think he's a bit lacking with his military assessments. And I think that you're certainly bringing up at lot that he over looked or wrote off without warrant. Small mobile ships are functionally very desirable and viable in a military sense for a boatload (no pun intended) of reasons.
I saw Lore’s video and all I can say is: GET HIS ASS VENOM!! GET ‘EM!! BURY HIM within the mountain of his own ignorance!!! DEWWWWW IT!!! DEWWWWWWW IT!!! 😳🤭 lololol oppsies
My only issue with the peregrine is that the federation needed to make another iteration on it, while the base design works, it could use some improvements based on the runabouts, and a cockpit that looks less like a snowspeeders. Also, maybe make it smaller, or able to fold up so they could fit more of them in there ships.
I would take exception to the comment about the Oberth. While yes it’s not a “pretty” ship it’s clearly good at it’s intended task or it wouldn’t have been in use nearly as long. It’s just **not supposed to be anywhere near a fight**
Worth noting too that we see them used most in the huge fleet battles of the Dominion war. There the maneuverability is their major advantage as the larger starships are limited by their surrounding fleets and can't give chase as easily as in open space. Furthermore if a starship misses the small target of a fighter there is a high chance of hitting an allied ship!
The Peregrine class has become a favorite of mine, in part, but not exclusively for reasons that may be obvious. I like the design, and I wish that the writers and VFX artists back in the day had made more use of them. Or fighter-like ships in general, really. I get that they wanted to stick to more ship-to-ship scenarios, until the Maquis and the war came along, and differentiate themselves from other franchises, but it would have added some much needed variety to the FX sequences. From a world-building perspective, there's no reason why ships like this wouldn't exist, and fill a much needed niche, as fast, easily deployable support ships. I have nothing against Lore Reloaded, but I have sort of migrated away from his content in recent years. Though he still shows up in my recommendations from time to time. When I saw him taking a crack at one of my favorite underused designs, I was just... not amused.
I think stargate borrowed the idea of their glider thibgy from this. B5 had interesting fighter ideas and uses. I would put a cloak and subspace weapons on an autopilot driven fighter...quite the kamazie suprise.
Yeah, the Peregrines, despite their size, are quite capable in various fields. Their value as recon scouts & couriers shouldn't be understated, especially given then amount of space in well, outer space. As for combat, they're glass cannons, but those cannons pack a punch. They're also quite good for planetary/starbase defense or anti-piracy and can be acquired & used by civilian militia much easier than starships. IMO though, a hybrid balance of manned fighters, remote drones, and starships would be better.
I'd agree with you 100% already but I'll add something that's probably not in cannon. In modern warfare, planes can have electronic warfare capabilities. So imagine 20 Paragrines that can screen for a Galaxy and can spoof your sensors to look like 80 and/or can mask the approach of the Galaxy. All while carrying a type 10 phaser and 6 torpedos. That's a horrifying prospect to be faced with, imo.
You can guarantee those paragrine pilots where playing star wars and top gun music during thier often suicidal attack runs. ALSO if Janeway is your favorite captain then remember SHE SAVED THE BORG 😅
Maaan I get that this is a fighter but with it's size in comparison to the delta flyer it would make way more since for it to play the roll of a bomber or torpedo boat kind of like the Raptor from Battlestar Galactica. Fighters need to have small hit boxes for dog fighting, fighters = anti-fighter rolls or also akin to Star Wars fit a bomber escort roll for anti-capital ship. This Federation fighter is just a little large for my taste. I'd rather have a compliment of delta flyers than these things...or maybe even a ton of the fighters with foldable wings from the Constellation class.
Click on the link and download the official Star Trek Game, explore the deep space and claim the special rewards: sttlink.onelink.me/Z8Hp/June22G
FB: bit.ly/3NKb2FV
IG: bit.ly/38UBpdG
Twitter: bit.ly/3tvPUM7
oh gotta redownload this game
If they used SW fighter tactics where the fighters act as Raiders, annoyances and force multipliers in bigger battles and had better stand off weapons like the Ion Torpedo we see completely disable a ISD in Rogue One they would probably do much better ironically. The Peragrin desperately needs it's dumb gravity bombs replaced with actual guided munitions. Also it should be able to pack heavier ordnance under the fuselage like the Cardassian Bomber. The photon bombs are really undersized even for the paragrine.
@@JeanLucCaptain thats really the reason why star trek fighters seem so useless because nobody actually focused on that and the macquis definitly showed with more Research and development how deadly fighters can be
@@laisphinto6372 Also play the classic Attack on Death Star trench run soundtrack guarantees you will STAY ON TARGET!
4:51 The USS Malinche NCC-38997
That’s the ship Eddington disabled in “For the Uniform”
It's nice to have those little ships because other factions have little ships. We don't want enemies of the Federation to be able to get a photon torpedo impacting a federation capital ship especially if that capital ship is already been damaged severely. So it's nice that they can match up one-on-one little ship on little ship to protect Capital ships
Its space, you can counter fighters by just simply having good anti fighter weapon system and fire control systems. You dont absolutely need fighters to beat other fighters. What Starfleet could really use to end the days of swarms of fighters is something like the Burke class DDG's or Ticonderoga class CG's, with large numbers of vertically launched missile cells that can launch a wall of death missile swarm at anything that pisses them off. And in space your not limited by things like a radar horizon which considerably limits the engagement range for modern surface warships.
@@ryuukeisscifiproductions1818 This. Given the sensor resolution most ships have, for fighters to be survivable, one must be able to either mess with firing solutions via jamming, have shields/armor strong enough to withstand hits, or be able to avoid detection (cloaking device). That's not even accounting for power generation and weapons load. By the time you pack all of that equipment into a spaceframe, you're looking at a pretty beefy ship for something to be considered a "fighter". One way I could see it working is to have them be unmanned drones controlled in a way akin to how Promethus-class Multi Vector Assault mode worked on Voyager and then use those drones as an advanced picket/harassment force. But that's still a lot of resources being expended compared to alternatives like using probes coupled with photon torpedo warheads for a similar role.
To quote a Babylon 5 game guide, Kosh says “a glass of water quenches thirst, an ocean quenches cities” - translation - a single fighter is not likely to change the course of a battle, several squadrons are another matter. Fighters/small attack craft may also be cheaper to build and can be deployed to free up larger vessels and may be useful in guerrilla conflicts.
Quoting Kosh? I love you now.
Luke Skywalker has entered the chat.
I think part of the issue is that the targeting and fire control systems are inconsistent in Trek. Sometimes ships can hit tiny targets from thousands of kilometers away. Other times, like in Generations, a tiny ship can zip around and avoid getting a target lock, and can take on a bigger ship without getting hit.
Yes, 105% agree! Sometimes starship-to-starship battle shows missing some point-blank shots, so fighters should be much harder to hit!
I think its because if intangible variables we don't see or know like environmental factors. Then there's also ECM which I'm sure exists at a passive level.
Well that's because (QUANTUM QUANTUM) irregularities in the control crystals that QUANTUM!
@@JeanLucCaptain
No no no...tachyon particles...
10:02 A F22 is 20 meters long and most sources put the parigrin at 15 meters in length.
Fighters can be a major help to a ship large enough to carry them. Especially in numbers. Imagine the yesterdays enterprise battle fought with 12 fighters helping out. The klingons would have gotten creamed.
i disagree. it wouldnt have made a difference.
In the Star Trek Voyager Episode "Dragon's teeth", we see a bunch of smaller fighters overload Voyager's defenses. Voyager is attacked by multiple old fighters, and Voyager's targeting computer can't keep up. The shields and ship are overwhelmed.
Sure, but Voyager is a relatively small ship. Light Cruiser/Destroyer level. Compare this to PT Boats vs a Destroyer - sure, a swarm of PT Boats can kill a destroyer. A Heavy Cruiser? Questionable.
@@sundoga4961 That did happen though, during ww1the Italians managed to get a kill on a Dreadnaught Battleship using a PT boat. They also got used to harass the Japanese extensively in the Pacific though didn't score a major capital ship (outside of destroyers) kill however they did try.
I will say as well that there's quite a few areas in Star Trek where it's roughly the equivalent of the islands in the Pacific. Better sensors and bad terrain can make them extremely nasty hit and run units where they focus on disabling specific stuff then withdraw.
@@Tarnfalk That's true, though I suspect it was only due to the out-of-proportion lethality of the WWII Torpedo. There's no equivalent to that for the small ships of Trek.
Still, it's weird that today's CIWS systems can track 25 targets at the same time, but computers hundreds of years in the future don't seem to have gotten any better.
@@bamikroketit has to be made interesting for story purposes. Plus future countermeasures, anomalies, blind spots, etc
Congratulations on the sponsorship. Btw uss malincche . ( i believe crazy horse was decent part one ). Yes in my head canon they are both made at alpha centauri federation fleet yards. Supposed to be the major civilian ship yards. I suspect the uss raven or federation transport ships are built at facilities like that
Yeah I reckon most shipyards have a civilian and military branch.
Let's come at this from a 'Runabout as a Huey' perspective for a second. If you were to take the Runabout and treat it the same way they did the Huey transport helicopter, stripping away everything that was for 'utility' purposes, and slimming it down to its engines and shields, then adding weapons befitting a true attack craft, you'd have a decent fighter / attack craft. You could even take some of that freed up tonnage and go the A10 route and build the fighter around a heavy dedicated weapon that could really hurt a larger vessel. If you know your shield output in a fighter isn't strong enough to take a full on hit, focus that energy into a jamming suite that prevents sensor locks. There's a lot of ways to use fighers in Star Trek left on the table if you're creative enough with how you develop and deploy them. Hell, if Serenity can spoof the sensors of a far more capable ship using Cry Babies they cobbled together out of scrap, imagine what a team of dedicated engineers in the ST universe could do with that same concept.
Yeah that is interesting when is a shuttle more of a helicopter or a fighter?
Essentially when they created the Cobra attack helicopter, they took a Huey and stripped away everything that made it a 'utility' oriented craft, and replaced that weight with weapons while keeping the proven parts like the engine, rotor, etc. If you were to apply the same process to the Runabout, stripping away all the creature comforts, hauling capacity, science stations, etc., reducing it to the same basic two person crew (pilot and WSO), then allocate heavier output weapons, shields, jamming suite, etc. it would be a far more capable craft than just taking a Runabout into combat.
The other route is to look at a lance phaser style weapon and develop a spaceframe around it, just like they did with the GAU8 Avenger Cannon and the A10. It was very much 'make this gun fly' instead of 'build a plane and see what guns fit'.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Basically, Grunts strapped a bunch of machine guns that they had... Tactically acquired? From around the base to the airframe of a Huey, because Grunts are gonna Grunt, and then Command looked at it and said "That is working SURPRISINGLY well" and after that, the idea that would become the Bell AH-1 Cobra was born.
Given the propensity of Starfleet engineers to come up with CREATIVE solutions to problems, I can easily envision a scenario where a captain said to his chief engineer "We need to blow up something important for plot reasons" and his engineer responded with "I have a crazy and/or stupid idea sir." I assume after that, the captain told said engineer to have it done in half the estimated time
There are a few factors that affect the functional utility of starfighters in Trek. Even relative to the larger size of Trek ships compared to present-day naval vessels and aircraft, the Peregrine is considerably larger than a modern-day fighter aircraft. They are much closer to what you would expect for a mid-sized bomber or large strike craft. Which makes a certain amount of sense with their employment against starships. They are more attack craft than aerospace superiority fighters or interceptors.
Another important factor is how phasers and disruptors work. Disruptors, and older phaser cannons, are mechanically-aimed turret or elevated gun systems. Modern disruptors remain this way, because of how they generate the rapid nadion effect, but modern phasers are not. In the first half of the 24th Century, Starfleet developed a method to force-couple multiple phaser emitters together, passing that energy from one emitter to the next in sequence. This technology also allowed them to electrically direct the discharge of the beam at the emission point, much like some modern radar systems. The first ship to implement this technology was the Ambassador class, launched in the early 2320s (roughly calculated based on registry hull numbers).
This technology allows MODERN Federation starships to discharge much more powerful phaser shots with much greater precision and accuracy, and phaser arrays are very flexible in how they discharge. Typically we see a sequential discharge of all emitters in an array, collecting into a single, powerful beam (with total output yield varying by both individual emitter discharge time, and total number of emitters discharging simultaneously). Against most other starships, this makes perfect sense - the more powerful the shot, the harder the shields have to work to deflect it, and the higher the wattage of the shot, the more energy will bleed through before the shields can spike their output, etc.
However, we have seen on multiple occasions, modern Federation starships demonstrate the ability to fire multiple beams at varying yields simultaneously from the same array. The Enterprise-E fired a porcupine blast of low-power beams with only a handful of array segments contributing to each beam while probing for the Scimitar in the Battle of Bassen Rift. An unnamed Galaxy class gutted an unnamed Galor class with a couple partial discharges from its main ventral array.
And the most important example, in regards to starfighters, is from TNG "Conundrum" when the Enterprise-D rapidly obliterates a flight of starfighters approaching it with a series of short, low-yield blasts from its main phasers.
Older Federation starships (such as the Exclesior), and most Federation adversaries, will be more vulnerable to starfighter attack because their weapons must be mechanically aimed and oriented, giving them a small, but distinct disadvantage in precision and accuracy of targeting. Especially when bringing guns meant to fire on full-sized starships to bear. Newer Federation starships have a distinct advantage in defending themselves against starfighter type craft compared to pretty much everyone else we've seen in Star Trek, by the very nature of how their phaser arrays work.
Cardassians are an interesting case, in regards to all of this. Prior to the Dominion War and gaining some technology from the Dominion (and I'd wager even after that conflict; I doubt the Dominion would have brought the Cardassians to anywhere near full technical parity), the Cardassians significantly lagged behind the Federation in technology. The Galor, for them, was their leading Battlecruiser in the late 2350s, through the 2360s, and into the 2370s (though it was iterated through a number of "Types," not unlike the three "Flights" of Los Angeles class submarines, or the five+ "Blocks" of Viriginias). They are, however, the only notable Federation adversary in the 24th Century who also employs phasers. Like the Federation, they have electrically-directed phaser beams, but unlike the Federation, they have not figured out how to couple more than 3 or 4 emitters together. As a result, the Galor class has 40-something tiny, 3-emitter phaser strips (mounted in pairs) scattered all around its hull (and the Keldon class battleship has 60-something), and three 4-emitter phaser clusters mounted on its deflector dish, which are used as its primary phaser battery. The deflector dish phasers probably use the deflector dish itself to amplify their output, along similar lines to how the Defiant was able to jerry-rig their deflector dish to discharge a phaser beam, at the cost of burning out the dish. Now, the Cardassian system is probably a bit more robust, being designed to function that way, but it probably comes at a cost, both in performance of the deflector array, and in maintenance and operational endurance of the system.
The vast majority of those phaser clusters, however, are not boosted by the deflector dish and, while they would provide firepower comparable to an Excelsior's ball-turret phasers, they would be ill-suited to inflicting damage against a modern Federation, Klingon, or even Romulan starship (at least, if the Romulan ship still had shields).
They are, however, particularly well-suited to dealing with the ships of the less advanced and powerful species the Cardassians were subjugating (like the Bajorans), and and especially for dealing with Federation attack fighters and gunships (which they likely would have engaged a lot of in their war with the Federation).
First off, I love Lore Reloaded and his unique look at the world. Having said that you both make great points. The problem is two fold and that is how they are employed and how they are defended from. The few times we see them on screen they are attacking an enemy fleet unsupported and told to "run like hell." In a major fleet action they should be used as long range scouts and clean up during close actions, taking out damaged ships that have drifted into your lines. They could also fulfill a harassment role but they would need bigger ships to support them. They would also work well in close air support against ground targets, supporting the boots on the ground.
As for defense, the way its done is just silly. Its like the USS Iowa using its big 16 inch guns to shoot down airplanes, yeah it can work but their are better tools for the job. Nothing in Star Trek seems to have a dedicated anti aircraft weapons or secondary weapons for when you want to disable a rowboat rather than blow it out of the water with 16 inch guns. A Galaxy-class with a full AAA set up could deal with both fighters and capital ships at the same time with no fear from the fighters. The system might even knock down a few torpedoes and save the ship from the capital ships.
Just my thoughts, what are yours?
The Sacrifice of Angels scene was the exception that proved the rule. Sisko knew that the fighter attack waves were a very costly gambit, but he was desperate. The move was a mind game against the Cardassians rather than purely tactical maneuver as he had neither the time nor the firepower to defeat the Dominion fleet in front of him. In fact, one can say that those fighters were the foremost of the Angels that were sacrificed.
@@deinekes9 good point. The truth is we don’t really see them enough to devine what the Federation’s doctrine is for the use of these fighters. Lots of supposition.
I imagine part of the use of the primary phasers to shoot them is because well shielding tech in Trek is rather advanced even in compact packages so it might simply be the case to knock out a fighter's shields at the lowest level you might need a 10 inch gun so having that massive a secondary armament just to knock out fighters that the majority of the forces in Trek don't use seems like a waste if said guns can't dent the more common big ships
I have't watched this yet - but I look forward to doing so..
you can make a parody and double down maybee avocate for a big thicker ship .(Thats the reason why the empire failed because cruiser firepower is nice but when swarms make bombing runs from multiple direction and all your guns are distracted hitting tiny fighters meanwhile the enemy cruiser is just chilling firing at you you are kinda toast
I look forward to seeing your response.
We will watch your response with great interest 😎
I am interested in knowing wether your opinion changed after watching...
Unfortunately I think you have both missed the point here about why the peregrine or fighters in trek in general should or should not exist.
The reason for why a piece of equipment exists in any military is not a factor of its vulnerabilities, but rather its capabilities. In short, what does this piece of equipment offer that you cant to better with something else.
For example, the humble infantryman. If vulnerability determined the obsolescence, then the humble infantryman would have disappeared long ago, because there isn't much out there that is more vulnerable than a regular ol squishy human being. But because infantry offer capabilities that you cant do with anything else, they are still here.
The same question is asked of the starfighter. What does this thing offer that you cant accomplish better with something else. Well unfortunately, you cannot use the same justifications for real fighter aircraft. Why, because a battleship or a tank cant fly, only an aircraft can do that, and as long as aircraft exist as viable weapons, there is always a reason to use an aircraft designed to kill other aircraft. Yes ships and ground vehicles can carry antiaircraft weapons to kill aircraft, but there is no way in hell a battleship or an SPAAV can move anywhere near at the same speeds as an aircraft, thus their AA capabilities are defensive only and they can only kill Aircraft that come near them. Because an aircraft is faster, they can always choose to stay out of any murder deathbox that a battleship or SPAAV might put up, where as a fighter aircraft is fast enough to hunt down an enemy aircraft.
These conditions dont necessarily exist in trek, because unlike with combat aircraft compared to ships or ground vehicles, space fighters and spaceships both inhabit the same medium, space. And this is a bit of a problem for the space fighter. All a space fighter is is a spaceship, but smaller, thus they wont have the same kind of speed advantages that aircraft enjoy over ships and tanks. Thus the theoretical role of a space fighter would be to react faster to an incoming threat than anything else, except that in trek, this isn't the case. fighter warp drives are much slower than almost anything else, thus all an enemy warship has to do to outmaneuver fighters is to go into warp, and they cant do anything. So for fighters to match the warp speeds of other ships, they need to be carried into battle. But the problem is, deploying them takes time, time in which the enemy can pound on the carrier before its able to get the things out, or time the enemy can use to escape before they deploy.
Fighters might theoretically have better acceleration than almost anything else, but i guarantee you the defiant comes so damn close that its largely irrelevant, and the defiant has a hell of a lot more firepower and protection to back it up, and it has the warp speeds to effectively chase. realistically in trek, i can only see one useful role for fighters, and that's in the planetary defense role. This is where i can see them being really good at, since they can be deployed from a planets surface relatively quickly and manned by local planetary defense forces, and with a few squadrons they could stop light raids and at lest slow or delay more substantial ones.
I would propose a counterargument to you about the viability of Star Trek Fighters with the argument of them being used in a different way. Comparable to the use of drones in the Ukrainian-Russian war, especially with the example of the sinking of Moskva, we have seen how swarm tactics can be used as an effective means to counteract electronic warfare. Now before you say, the concept cannot be applied to Star Trek, I beg to differ as in Canon we have seen numerous times in TNG, DS9, and Voyager that small craft swarm tactics do overwhelm the ability of larger ship's ability to use superior firepower and shielding due to the inability of the ship based computer to attack or counter incoming attacks with shields. I would argue like in the real world example of a Russian flagship being brought down by 3-4 drones acting as screens and several attack missiles/drones using the opening, you can effective use fighters in Star Trek with the same kind of screen/breakthrough tactic.
Thus, a starfighter in Trek is essentially a torpedo boat of classic WWI and prior naval tactics, small and easily outgunned by most ships, but in numbers can be used to great effect by acting to distract enemy covering fire and use opening to attack in swarm formations.
Eddington had lured the Malinche into a trap and damaged their systems before the ships even showed up. And in Preemptive Strike the Maquis had massively overwhelming numbers. The other issue where Lore has a point is that you’re treating firepower a little tooclosely to the real world. In Star Trek their targeting systems are ludicrously precise. I do think the fighters definitely have utility in massive fleet battles where there’s a lot of sensor interference and worry of hitting allies. But that’s really the only time we’ve seen the Federation used them. And the Maquis weren’t exactly overburdened with options…
Yes he has a couple of videos about the fighter that i seriously disagree with.
First they are very effective, second if shuttles at the academy have emergency transporters why wouldn't a fighter in war time , they are capable of launching in one scene ( 18 quantum torpedoes) ( mirco torpedoes) that barrage practically destroyed a type two galor class in sacrifice of angels. Its force protection. It multiplies the the combat abilities of a ship . ( lol you just said the same thing)
I'm not do sure about the emergency transporter in battle since you'd need a ship waiting without sheilds. Not a great idea...
@@venomgeekmedia9886 well you carrier vessel, or a pattern buffer storage in the black box .although im not entirely sure why they couldn't have used drones, they can operate drone transports and computer controlled ships. As far as we see , they are based on starbases , planets and starships. Trying to save lives seems very Starfleet. It probably wasn't always possible. ?
@@shanenolan8252 Practical experience shows that manned craft are always superior to unmanned craft in a dogfight. For torpedo runs against a capital ship, use unmanned fighters; but for CAP duties you need a manned fighter or you will lose.
Yes after the Italian thing . Admiral Yamamoto borrowed that idea for pearl harbour. Inspiration
Star trek has done the swarms vs single ship trope a few times, and each time the only thing that stops the swarm has been some kind of out of left field saving grace.
If I could retcon anything in ds9 it would be seeing the galaxy ships shooting out squadrons of fighters.
In those cases the swarms are more than just a few individual fighters. I seriously doubt a couple Perigrines could ram their way repeatedly through a ships hull to pretty much dismantle it.
The interesting swarm fight was on Discovery with Disco and Enterprise fighting converted Sec31 ships, both sides deployed drones and the good guys deployed shuttles and pods as fighters. The fight was portrayed as a chaotic furball (not the problem some make it out to be, a chaotic fight can serve perfectly well to communicate the realities of battle, not every fight needs to be shown in perfect detail) but the gist seemed to be that the smaller craft both screened the larger ships and attempted to overwhelm the larger ships in concert with their own ships.
Computer controlled beam weapons SHOULD hard-counter swarms though. It is literally what we use in reality. And we make do with projectiles for doing the same thing!
Now if you showed the use of decoys, electronic warfare, and target saturation, and THEN threw in fighters, that would be an excellent representation.
I disagree with much of lore reloaded but it does stand to reason that fighters have less use in an age of shields, infinite space, computers, and beam weapons.
We see them used very little and I think it is appropriate how we do see them used, I don't think we need much more fighters as doctrine in star trek but more in depth fighter portrayals
This video actually convinces me that start fleet should put forth a requirement for likely a galaxy class modification capable of carrying supporting and arming at least 48 of these little terrors cause though I don't know exactly how nasty a type ten phaser and six photons are precisely a bunch of them backed up by a carrier galaxy or something similar just sounds like it would ruins anyone's day
You'd need to bulk out the neck so that the shuttlebays there can be bigger or replace the aft torpedo with clamshell doors
Dr Alexander Clarke recently had a video on the Galaxy class where he expanded on how the Galaxy would likely be used as a carrier. In addition he also went into how the Galaxy would fit into Starfleet doctrine and Federation power projection if you also want to watch the 1 hour long video he did as well.
I found it to be very informative and contained many a convincing argument for why the Galaxy likely was capably of accepting a CV conversion from the start, and why a Galaxy carrying fighters would make sense.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Modifying the saucer would be a better choice. The stock shuttlebay 1 in the saucer is already big enough for like 6 Peregrines, and the saucer has a huge bulk that could be hallowed out for additional hanger space, easily supporting dozens of fighters (even a big chungus like the Peregrine). You might want to enlarge or add additional hanger doors, but you wouldn't necessarily need to. The secondary hull could be unmodified from existing Galaxy class stock, preventing the need to mess with any of the critical power or propulsion systems. Tactically, and harking back to the Galaxy class' original emphasis on saucer separation, the carrier portion could be left in a safe position while the fully combat capable secondary hull joins the main battle lines.
@@CaptainMojo I was thinking something similar. Also it opens up other tactical options. When we talk about fighters in trek we tend to think of the major powers but let's be real. There are a metric ton of lesser powers and pirates in trek that pose a threat but don't warrant a fleet of capital ships and all the resources that entails. Think of a saucer completely converted into dedicated a carrier. It could be dropped and used as a mini starbase for extended operations against an enemy 100 years behind them in weapons tech. Or even as a defensive presence in a cold war scenario. (Think the U.S. base in Korea) that base wouldn't last an hr if N Korea invaded. But all hell would rain down on N Korea if they made a move on it.
Why tho? Akira has some extra hangar space.They could easily cary few of those inside.
galaxy class ships made during the war wernt furnished with labs and such. they were very hollow. imagine expanding the shuttle bays and filling them with fighters.
Ore energie storage for weapons, shilds, engine.
Fighters... The "Death-of-a-thousand-stings" kind of vehicle.... Sure you may lose half of the force if things go south, and also sure their weapons are quite weak when compared to a Defiant/Akira/Excelsior/Galaxy/Sovereign, but the combined power still can match or even outclass bigger ships...
star fighters are good for planetary defense and system patrols. given operating areas and specialized modifications fighters can expand a single ship's search and scanning without too much of a manpower increase. sure in combat they aren't that good but against smaller warships fighters are deadly.
One of the better tactical uses of fighters hinges on the nature of most shield systems. In this scenario, the capital ship goes in first and starts pummeling the shields of he opposing vessel. As that vessel's shields deplete, most systems would have power diverted away from shields facing away from the attacks in order to reinforce the facing ones. This is where fighters with their high acceleration and maneuverability could come in, flank and then encircle the opposing vessel. The fighters would then exploit he weakened shield areas and in he case of the Peregrine with its weapons loadout, likely destroy or disable the enemy.
I can see where fighters having sensor suites that allow them to see weakened areas in opponents' shields would make them the daggers that drive into the gaps in the enemy's armor, to use a medieval analogy.
Just imagine, you are a Vorta in command of a Cruiser. You are slugging it out with a Galaxy class when a brace of 120 torpedoes scream into your flank. Launched by the formation of fighters you missed because you were busy with the capital ship.
this is the exact reason why the Argument "lol phasers can easily shoot them down " isnt working. because like you say an enemy ship comes at you focus on the bigger ship usually and dismiss like the imperials in star wars the little fighters. you soon discover the little fighters are nasty but you only have a couple of phasers so you have to focus on the little ships and now the big enemy ship has free firing without fearing counters because your ship is distracted with the little fighters. its a win win for the enemy unless you have some fighters as well and now you have an arms race in fighters. unless star Trek federation wants to end up like the empire and get absolutely wrecked by fighters they better step their fighter game up
That is because the Jem'Hadar Cruiser is outnumbered. It is fighting both the Galaxy, and the vessel that is providing the fighters. If it was a semi-fair fight there would be a second Jem'Hadar Cruiser that is trying to hunt down and kill the carrier, or at least pursue the fighter squadron to keep the squadron focusing on evasion/defense.
There should be lots of electronic warfare, sensor targeting, and maneuvers but I can easily see it working.
Especially against ships with smaller crews
The shortest way I could describe it is if an X-Wing is a LaGG, the Peregrine is an IL-2.
to be fair the LaGG was way more a Z-95 😉
I agree with both of your perspectives; however, I still lean a bit toward Lore's perspective for a few reasons;
1) In the on-screen big engagements of the Dominion War, it showed how easily it was for ships to hit the Peregrine with beam weapons, and they can't survive a single hit.
2) I see it in the same vein as the Japanese vs the US when the US first deployed the proximity fuses, or modern day Russia with their tanks against modern hand-portable anti-tank weapons, and so on; the Peregrine may be an excellent ship, but it was created during a time where starship technology has made such concepts obsolete.
In short, against an empire with state-of-the-art technology, the Peregrine is simply a nuisance that can easily be taken down with a quick series of beam shots against them. I would imagine it to be similar to the scene where the Borg Cube shoots down the entirety of Mars' defence grid in just a few seconds. And considering that Peregrines are manned, that means that every fighter destroyed is the loss of a pilot. Even though the Peregrine can do a lot of damage, the question is at what cost?
Personally, I think the resources would be better use to upgrade Akira-Class ships (and similar) to having standoff-range mass-torpedo systems; they already have the multi-launcher; but imagine if it could fire from outside of phaser and/or disruptor range?
I still stand behind photon torpedo launchers and photon torpedos being very small with an oversized power. It’s like bombs and torpedos in WWII. Load up 80 Peregrines with 5 photon torpedos and watch them decimate entire fleets.
Ignore Lore. He constantly undercuts The Federation because they aren't an aggressive capitalistic empire. Also good video! Thank you!
... I want the Federation to be Capitalistic? Do you have a video you can point me to where I give that impresson?
Personally, I think it depends on two things, the level of technology and the number of units. While you did bring up the idea of how numbers could make a difference, there are instances where a Federation and a Cardassian starship just wipe out all the fighters and the enemy capital ships because they are on a lower tech-based. So, unless the factions are near technological parody, fighters would be more like extra targets than a force multiplier. Also, on your example of four Galors vs a Galaxy and a peregrine squadron, my thoughts would be why not have all four Galors just concentrate all fire on the Galaxy and take it out before going after the Peregrines. I think a squadron only has enough firepower to take down one Galor, but three is possibly enough against a Galaxy depending on the Galaxy variant. Unless the commander is green, the only difference I think the fighters would make if more than one Galor goes with the Galaxy. I guess is a factor, but since you still be losing more lives than the Cardassians, it is a hollow one.
I think on a small scale, their force multiplier is finite as opposed to a fleet operation, which is why I think we only see them during large battles like the Battle for DS9.
Also, one thing you didn't bring up that would make a huge difference in the number of fighters a side to bring up is the material used to make a power plant. Specifically, can you sacrifice starship numbers for fighters when all depend on dilithium for their warp cores? I mean, if I had the choice to make a Sovereign vs two squadrons of peregrine with the dilithium I had in a shipyard, I would make the Sovereign and maybe some Peregrine if I have leftover material.
Also, even finding people is a factor as well for not everyone would be skilled enough pilot to fly a Peregrine, so can I sacrifice helmsmen needed for fast maneuverable starships for fighters treated as disposable units?
Multiple target, i have to choce, main target (galaxy) oder 10 fighter, when i focus the fighter, and hit every one, the galaxy is 10 shots in advance. You don't need to equipt fighter with a worp engine, when you can carry them.
And when i can hit with every shot a figther, used as a drone, so i have 10 shots in advance for the galaxy, ore 10 shot more because my fighter werent targetet.
Historic precedent: ww2 in the pacific. Many a ship of both USN and IJN met the sea floor at the hands of small single engine aircraft and not from the primary battery the other side’s ships. Prior to DS9 I found it odd that star fighters weren’t used in trek.
The two of you should have a live conversation discussing this.
nah don't think thats a good idea, lore reloaded is a total amateur a rookie compared to this guy here lol venom is a PHD veteran lore reloaded is a 7th year freshman 😂
@@Big_Black_Dick Worse is Lore Reloaded is also not the nicest person either, He also shoves politics and his hatred of certain politicians into every video. I use to watch him but after a while he became not enjoyable to watch. He lost the plot.
Couple of other examples: Enterprise and Soloban, Voyager and swarm, Voyager in Dragon's teeth where many fighters can overwhelm a starship.
I usd to play Star Fleet Battles where they had 'pseudo fighters' which were like the Condor in terms of size and tactics. And man did they not survive long against phasers. They did massive damage and died. Weaker weapons are usually much shorter range so they'd be sitting ducks on the approach against ships which could one hit them from multiple phaser banks. And anyone playing homeworld knows to take out the weaker ships first ... usually. Finally, I don't see neural jell packs having trouble tracking six thousand fighters, not just 16. Maybe if they had countermeasures we haven't seen, maybe against lighter ships or with a heavy carrier they might be kinda okay in a small number of situations. But I wouldn't want to fly one in anger. The Enterprise didn't carry sixteen peregrines for a reason and I doubt it was due to Starfleet pinching pennies (given the scarcity free society). I gotta go with reloaded on this one.
I argued all these points on that same video, but Venom did add a lot of good additional points. The points used against the use of fighters I find are similar points used against the Defiant as a failed ship in it's design "to fight and defeat the Borg". Both are small ships that punch well above its own weight, and a loss of them won't hurt the fleet anywhere near as bad as losing all those larger ships that Starfleet loved using in that era. And the survivability point used against fighters were based on the few times we see fighters engaging thr Borg Cube and the Enterprise. In both cases the fighters just ran straight for their target, and were hilariously outclassed anyways. The Peregrines harassing enemy positions in Sacrifice of Angels wasn't the best use, but we do see them avoiding enemy fire. But seeing them act as a screen while the fleet pushes through the line was proper use of fighters.
It can also help if the fighters have any kind of ECM/Sensor Jammers.
Help with survivability and can create a wall of ECM to mark friendly ships.
If it was up to me, I'd install a single scaled down phaser lance on them for firepower with lots of missiles/torpedos.
Fighters are swarmers, not only are they useful for harassing the enemy, but can rapidly circumvent a front line and attack things in the rear such as support/CnC/Carriers that sit at the back but provide essential fleet services, destroy them with fighters and a fleet is severely hampered, it stalls and is of limited use.
The Oberth class is not a bad ship. What most seem to overlook is the simple fact that IT WAS NEVER designed as a warship. It was a STRICTLY a SCIENCE ship. Most commenters use the fact that a smaller type of Klingon Bird of Prey, a WARSHIP, was able to blown it up. That logic fallacy would be like someone taking a modern commercial vessel putting a pop gun on it and claim it's a warship and then complain about it being a bad warship after it gets blown to bits by an actual warship
I follow this logic:
Runabouts are essentially scaled up shuttles and they can pack quite a punch, especially with weapon-pod rollbar.
Galileo, Type 6, 6A, 7, 8, 11, & Delta Flyer, Class 2 are almost all seen at one point or another as support weapons platforms.
Thing is, they're all made with passengers and scientific or diplomatic missions in mind.
Cut down on the passenger space and crew amenities, so that there's only a single seat cockpit, you'll end up with a tiny platform with a lot of power for it's size, with shields that covers a smaller area, and weapons gaining from surplus power.
A small glass-cannon if you will since a direct hit from a capital-class beam weapon could possibly take it out, but it's small mass and size would help it to avoid getting hit and the shields would protect against glancing hits.
The weapons wouldn't need to be too complicated. Just pump out as much power out as possible, not unlike the mindset behind the Defiant class Pulse-phase cannons.
One way to compare a carrier with fighters vs a capital ship is as follows:
Assume both ships are the same mass/tech base/mass fractions for equipment (so if a Galaxy ship has 20% of its mass allocated to weaponry, then the carrier would be similar mass as the Galaxy, and have 20% of its mass allocated to fighters and self-defense weaponry)
Fighter advantages:
1) Low strategic capability needed - fighters only need to be powerful for a few hours/days/weeks, meaning less mass is needed for long-term capability
2) greater surface area for their volume - they can dissipate heat better, which per 'Yesterday's Enterprise' is a key factor in long-term combat. This means a fighter group can sustain higher firing rates for their weapons without roasting the pilot(s)
3) relative expendability - fighters can be launched as stand-off, while the controlling ship remains out of enemy firing range. If the fighters are defeated, the carrier can leave
4) Easy upgrades - if you develop a better fighter, you just have to fly off the older fighters and replace them with newer fighters. Compare that with a capital ship that needs to have the old weapons removed and new weapons take their place. It also means that any integration problems can be tested by the fighters themselves, rather than having to wait until the weapons are mounted on the capital ship.
5) relatively cheaper components - a fighter doesn't need to have a warp core, or Structural Integrity field, or life support system that can run for weeks/months/years with minimal support. This means their systems can be made cheaper/simpler, easing maintenance and replacement issues.
6) Better structural support - structural strain is based on mass, while structural strength is based on cross-section. This means fighters can use smaller structural members, or provide higher acceleration capability (making them more zippy and hopefully harder to hit).
7) Ease of deployment - fighters can be disassembled and sent via freighter to a planet needing protection. This allows for packing a cargo hold full of the fighters and assembling them on-site, rather than needing to send a combat vessel to the planet. In areas where you can guarantee there will be no commerce raiders, this allows strengthening planets while the combat ships are busy elsewhere.
Capital ship advantages
1) High strategic capability - a hundred fighters might have a hundred copies of 'Basic Repair Kit #37', while a capital ship will have multiple levels of repair capability. So a fighter that loses its warp drive is stuck, while a capital ship can repair its warp drive.
2) Lower surface area for their volume - assuming two ships, both the same shape, where the larger is 2* as wide, tall, and long, the larger ship will have 4* the surface area and 8* the volume (and mass). This means that for the same mass fraction, the larger ship's external armor will be ~2* as thick as the smaller ship, with similar enhanced protection capability from shields
3) Coordinated defense - the fighters are vulnerable to each one getting their shield and hull popped individually by an attacker, while a capital ship means the opponent has to punch through all of its shields to damage the hull.
4) Coordinated support - fighters can't help each other if another is damaged, but of one part of a ship is damaged then personnel from another part of the ship can go to that location and help out.
5) Better targeting/ECM - a capital ship's targeting system will often mass more than an entire fighter, giving the capital ship an effectively greater range for its weapons. Similarly, capital ships can put out more ECM than a fighter swarm, forcing the swarm to have to get closer to aim properly
6) Better sensors - a capital ship can mount single sensor systems that are bigger and better, plus have the capability to have dedicated specialists for that sensor system to get more information out of it. This means that a capital ship can see targets that a fighter squadron might miss.
7) No unpacking - a starship is ready to protect a planet as soon as it arrives. It does not need to launch its weapons, it is a weapon.
The big problems that Star Trek fighters have is that they are not used in enough numbers. An early war US fleet carrier packed an air group of 4 squadrons of aircraft (a fighter squadron, 2 bomber squadrons, and a torpedo squadron) along with 50% spares. A late war light carrier carried about the same number of active aircraft. Meanwhile, Starfleet 'carriers' barely carry a dozen craft with no spares. It just doesn't make for a serious threat.
I cansee 2 reasons for that small complement.
1. A dozen is the peacetime complement that Starfleet CV's tend to (admit to) have, in wartime that number increases notably (2x to 4x).
2. Starfleet brings a lot of ships that carry fighters to any fight, the CV's are just the dedicated refuel/rearm ships. When every heavy brings a dozen fighters, that starts to add up quickly.
@@IO-hh2fz actual real world experience shows that battleship carriers (BBV) are less valuable then even a dedicated light carrier (CVL) with less combat ability then either a battleship or a light carrier. They give less ability in a straight fight and have a compromised defenses, have an airgroup that wouldn't even be able to provide CAP, and would be unable to service strike missions with that airgroup. Starfleet needed proper fleet carriers and light carriers.
In Trek lore, Lt. Parris radically upgraded the Voyager’s shuttles to deal with the situations Voyager encountered. I’d have to look at the timelines to see if the Peregine was online while Voyager was away, but it bears consideration. There have been many Star Trek episodes where a shuttle was used for covert or exploratory purposes, but was underpowered for the job.
From a storytelling standpoint, a Peregine is a great plot device for covert ops stories where having the full might of a starship behind you undercuts dramatic tension.
I would need to think hard about how the Peregine fits into the engineering narrative of Starfleet. There’s a subtle story being told by the ships of Starfleet, as they transform from an exploratory force into a military one. It’s interesting to see how the Peregine fits into that story. Perhaps Admiral Janeway’s yacht is the final expression of where the Peregine ends up.
The areoshuttle we never got.
While you do have good points.... When I was younger and DS9 first aired, I loved the fighters, but as the years go on, I've come around to the idea that this is Star Trek, not Star Wars, and shouldn't have "fighters." Somewhat closer to Age of Sail than WW2 in feel compared to Star Wars.
A war time contingency created at some point that was activated for the Dominion War and deactivated afterwards, sure. Something more permanent, nah.
In modern naval combat, fighters have a few advantages in combat.
Speed - fighters can fly ten to twenty times faster than a surface vessel
Maneuverability - Surface ships are stuck in two dimensions and take forever to turn. Fighters can move in three dimensions.
Range - fighters can launch ship-killer missiles (each one capable of sinking a destroyer) from over a hundred miles out, while the target ships can't even return fire until the fighters are thirty miles out.
Cost - as expensive as modern fighters are, they're still cheaper than a modern cruiser and only have one or two pilots aboard.
In Star Trek, fighters have ONE of those advantages.
Speed - warp drive starships can actually OUTRUN a fighter at both sublight and warp.
Maneuverability - Starships can move in all three dimensions. Fighters can _out accelerate_ a starship at sub-light, but starships have very fast, very accurate guns.
Range - fighters don't have the power to use weapons with the range of a starship. They actually have to close INSIDE a starship's range to fire their weapons, and the starship only needs to get one or two hits to erase a fighter. The fighter still has to penetrate it's target's shields and armor.
Cost - yes, fighters are still a lot cheaper than a starship and only have a couple of people on board you'd have to replace when they inevitably get blown out of the sky.
Starships have a few advantages against fighters:
SHIELDS that can take another capital ship's phasers and torpedos, let along the tiny, underpowered pop-guns on a fighter.
WEAPONS that can crack planetary crusts and travel at light speed (you can't see them coming to dodge them until AFTER they've hit you - and they only have to hit you once) and start hitting you well before you can shoot back. (And, because fighters have never really been a thing in Trek until DS9 we've never seen dedicated anti-fighter point defense weapons systems or AOE attacks - like you use when facing fighters in Star Trek Online - that can take out fighters by the squadron.)
TARGETING: Those phasers are aimed by sensors that can track micrometors traveling at relativistic velocities
COMPUTERS: Those weapons are guided by AI computers that outmass the fighter's entire squadron and can process information at FTL speeds.
ENGINES and navigational deflectors that can actually outrun your fighter at both sub-light and warp speed.
POWER Antimatter warp cores and redundant fusion plants that can power ALL those systems.
Against this, the only advantage fighters _might_ have is overwhelming numbers
Star Trek's tech base isn't very kind to any ship smaller than a Defiant or Bird of Prey sized ship (which can maneuver as quickly as a fighter, but have the reactor to power starship grade weapons, shields, computers, sensors, and engines). Fighters would only be effective ships against unarmed civilian ships, other fighters, or to mop up already near-crippled ships.
To give you an analogy, imagine if you could go back in time and stick a couple of Phalanx point defense systems on the Arizona and a couple of her fellow battleships at Pearl Harbor. How effective would the Japanese planes have been against point defense turrets that can hit something as slow as a prop plane two kilometers away from the ship? (And the Japanese planes didn't have to penetrate shields before getting actually damaging hits on hull).
If they didn't work they wouldn't be there? That's your argument? They're there, not because they work or fit in lore, but because some studio executives thought they would LOOK COOL on screen, because they looked cool in Star Wars, even though the lore doesn't work.
I love the idea of fighters in Star Trek. The Peregrine may not be the super best one, but I think it still does what it needs to do. As I commented on his page, the fact that starships aren't always able to target other starships in battle should, theoretically, mean that targeting fighters should be harder. The fact that we see fighters get hit hard in the shows is more a product of the show-making, not what the ship class could be like.
And even when figter get hit hard, you can have 100 of figther for the price of one capital ship. (Price= personel, construction time, material, training, ect)
A WWII analogy for the fighters would be MTB's (Motor Torpedo Boats) in the fleet. Did these boats sink capital ships? Not in any significant way. Could they be used to harass fleets in certain situations? Yes, in the battle of Leyte, they were used to harass and managed to put the Southern Japanese force in some disarray prior to the big guns coming in to play. MTB's also performed many other roles that large capitol ships couldn't, especially inshore and river patrols.
MTB's were wooden for the most part and had very low survivability, but with a couple of torpedoes they could pose a threat to any ship they came across. Their mere presence altered how capital ships were used in areas with complicated shorelines or islands that could be used as cover.
Many of the arguments against Star fighters could have been applied to MTB's, but MTB's were a very valuable part of naval operations in WWII nevertheless.
Which episode is the battle between the Cardasian ship and the Maqui, he says the episode first strike but it doesn’t seem to be the right one
Good video love your explanation but you're not taking into account that the the Cardassian Union Fire Control System was a joke compare to the Federation Fire Control when it came to those size of vessels.
(Case in point the USS Enterprise D destroyed a dozen perimeter defense drones that were smarter than a Peregrine during the episode Conundrum.)
but when the Crdassians join the Dominion I'm pretty sure Dominion Engineers upgraded every single one of those systems before the War started that's why when we see in operation return those cardassian vessels picking off I think 3 out of 5 Federation Fighters per Squadron in every wave
Now granted the Federation fighter and other fighter craft are still very powerful in what you've given us in this video by think mortality rates with Federation Fighters are probably a little bit higher than those suffered on the larger vessels but that's just my opinion from what I've seen
Mortality rates would be higher, but overall mortality in relation to damage done to the enemy is probably lower as you're putting far fewer people at risk. Even a small star ship, like a Sabre class, would have a crew in the dozens. If a Sabre were destroyed or disabled while fighting an enemy it's personnel losses could also be in the dozens. Meanwhile, losing 3 out of 5 fighters in exchange for disabling an enemy ship costs only half a dozen lives. That's one of the ways the federation adopting fighter tactics during the dominion war makes a horrible kind of sense. Even high loss rates among the fighters meant far fewer losses in men and material overall.
@@theodoremccarthy4438 quality over quantity, call me an unreal list or something but I'd rather those men and women be on a vessel which gives the a better chance of seeing their loved ones again then ask them to flying a fighter knowing that they most likely wouldn't make it back because their enemies has a targeting system they can take down three fighters every few seconds in a major Fleet battle
Remember the Dominion has been around for 2,000 years before the Dominion War. I refuse to believe that Dominion tactical sensors don't have the capability of tracking that many small craft in a Squadron of 5 and not be able to destroy most of them.
But again this is my opinion on the matter. Feel free to believe what y'all like.
PS I also believe that all the Miranda's we saw in the Dominion War we're run by skeleton Crews
But if they created a vessel similar to the Condor that would be different it's larger than the Peregrine fighter but smaller than the Define class
to be fair tho, in Conundrum, the Lysian tech(including weapons and shields) was at least 100 yrs behind, so even the Cardassians could have walked thru them
and we have scenes in the TNG/DS9/VOY episodes where the Federation ships are missing shots
I actually had a thought regarding small ship combat like with a runabout and or peregrine.
If I recall correctly larger ships need to turn down their inertial dampeners in combat to limit being pushed around from being hit by fire.
But I think such a thing could be used for fighting in a runabout...
If say you go and take a runabout sized ship and max out its inertial dampeners its gonna be pushed about by the smallest impact ... So you plan for that by reinforcing the equipment that gives you feed back from the shields and deploying a shield designed in such a way to generate a maximum of glancing blows when hit...
Any hit will then most likely push the craft out of the danger of said hit.. most likely before the shield dies granted that wont be far off but it could be mitigated by fitting a second shield generator that gets activated while the first one recharges ...
Over all the shield strength would probably be lower but the longlivability would increase....
Add to that some holo emitters and maybe some reflective smart dust you can tow around with a tractor and you got some interesting ECM possibilities
Perigones functioning like world war 2 float planes would be massively valuable even discounting any combat ability as scouts or a screen. The ability to push sensors out gives the ship's captain or the taskforce commander something absolutely invaluable in combat, reaction time.
I don't really like fighters in star trek. I prefer to think of them as being planetary defence. That is, like runabouts, but where the local area has already been thoroughly explored.
Currently an Aegis cruiser can track over 100 air contacts at one time. How many can a Galaxy class starship track? Far many more than an aegis cruiser.
Twenty or even eighty Peregines vs the Defiant, the Defiant still wins due to Plot Armour.
Fighters absolutely have a role in the trekverse. Like all things Starfleet though, as much as I love the home team, they aren't particularly good with combat doctrine. Which, to Lores credit, he does point out, on the regular.
Starfleet after Kirks era, got pretty high and mighty on their hubris, and it reflects in their ship design. A lot of science vessels, some cruisers, mostly CL's CA's and the occasional BC if we dare to give Excelsior a BC rating at time of initial deployment, versus the Connie being a Heavy Cruiser (CA) designation. Starfleet was always a organization geared towards exploration and growth through trade/Commerce and Diplomacy. Not hostile enforcement like the Klingons, Cardassians, Romulans. And it reflects that doctrine in ship design.
However things begin to change again after the Enterprise-C gets smacked off the map at Khitomer and we see the Big D. She is massive, she has the best equipment starfleet has to offer, just like her Excelsior shipmate before her, and hailed as the next, best thing.
Fighters and Carrier designs were never really at the forefront of Starfleets doctrine, unless you include some very old Fasfa material or the old Starfleet starship Design journals from TMP era, where that really fleshes out Frigates, Destroyers, CV's, BC's and the like. And this does raise fairly good questions, like why do we never see, any of the "other" models of ships Starfleet should have in their stable?
That's all VFX budgeting. But let's discontinue that reasoning and let's assume for a minute, this universe actually, factually exists. History, our history, has clearly shown the devastating potential of what a fighter/torpedo bomber can do to a groups of unsuspecting surface ships. But let's take the effectiveness of those fighters which effectively can only interact with a target on a couple of axis' (you know with water not being something a fighter plays well with when engaging a naval target) and transpose those same elements into the full multiple axisies of space....
It's a no brainer. If you can have a small, very fast moving, very agile ship, that has similar weaponry available to it as it's mothership does. And it can use these weapons at harder to hit angles, maneuver between multiple objects a starship would be mad to try to maneuver through.... Where's the second guessing to that?
And we've seen in trek that all starships have inertia dampeners, so starfighters should be able to perform some pretty insane moves, which could easily bunk a lot of sophisticated targeting computers. This isnt even taking into account if you were to have fighters that would, and should definitely be equipped with ECM suites and Jamming suites onboard to help defeat targeting and scanning capabilities of the ships they are trying to fight against.
Remember, Japan had two of the most dreaded surface vessels ever put to water, both were skunked by vehicles waaaaay smaller and cheaper to build.
Also worth considering that even a galaxy class can instantly fire about 10 photon torpedoes. A feat that just five peregrines can match. That kind of instant firepower (albeit with very long reload times) is probably very worthwhile in some situations. Especially if you have twenty or thirty perigrines, rather than just five.
The problem with star fighters is anyone piloting it in combat is on a suicide mission.
To be fair to Lore, if you look at the VFX of the scaled-down Raider that we see sometimes, it isn't exactly the same model as the Condor. Its cockpit detailing looks modified to suggest a smaller-sized ship about on par with the Peregrine in size.
Since the "Star Trek: Invasion" game, the Valkyrie has become a fixture of the Star Trek Fandom. It is about the size of a modern air superiority fighter, like the F-22, a F/A-18, or an F-14 at most. It is also well designed to function in atmosphere. The Valkyries does share an issue with the Peregrine, unlike carrier based fighters, the Valkyrie can not be folded up to save space.
The BSG Viper could not be fold up either, but had the advantage of being tiny, compared to other Space fighters in other franchises, and the Battlestars they were assigned to are GIGANTIC. Just one Jupiter Class flight pod was easily as long as an entire Excelsior Class, at least. Never mind the Double stacked Pods on the Mercury Class. Battlestars were just generous. Starfleet vessels, at least in the original continuity, are not nearly so generous with space or amenities.
To make things worse the Peregrine is a very spread out design. The Sub-light engines are bulky and given way too much space. This in opposition to the warp drives which are slim and compact. But everything is spread out wasting valuable space the frame and worse requiring much more material to be so spread out. This makes the fighter heavier and so less maneuverable. Further as seen with SHUTTLES, a smoother hull is easier to shield, make tougher, and can be made to be more stealth by defusing and deflecting sensor signals, just as real world Stealth technology works today.
The Peregrine has all the hallmarks of a older generation fighter. Meanwhile, the Valkyrie is a much more advanced fighter in every sense, smaller, lighter, more compact, less wasteful, quicker, faster, better armed and shielded, easier to defend, tougher. It is like comparing the F-86 Saber (3rd gen) to the F-22 (5th Gen). The Peregrine is not meant to be a heroic ship, not very cool, and more tragic that such a deficient vessel is "sent out to die". I have A LOT of baggage on why I hate the writers' mindsets and how they hand even the concept of "the military in space". But one way to fix most of it, for the Space fighters in Star Trek, is to make the retire the Peregrine for a more advanced fighter, such as the Valkyrie. Much as Trek tends to retire still new starship for something new for no good reason except its new and shiny.
I had a concept carrier class ship, ISS Conqueror that is slightly over four times the size of a Galaxy Class ship.
With 200 fighter type and 100 transport (with cloaking) type craft.
9:40 given the border wars that "civilian" use seems like a cover up story to ship them into the DMZ and then smuggle the phasers and photon torpedos later in that coincedently fit just perfectly
I do not like fighters in Star Trek. Putting precious Starfleet crews in small, easily obliterated space vehicles in an era of hyper-accurate computer-driven weaponry does not feel right to me. But they are part of the core canon as of DS9, so 🤷♂
In reality, when aircraft became commonly used by navies it forced navies to mount ever more specific weapons to deal with them. Nowadays, most of a ships weapons are air defense ones. I think a similar dynamic might be at play in a Star Trek combat environment but not the same. The main weapons of a starship are not as unwieldy as something like a 14 inch gun. Also, the phasers mounted on a fighter are far more threatening to a starship than a .50 mg or 20mm cannon might be. It is a interesting thing, one I'm kind of on the fence about. Fighters work in SFB...
Battleships were the king of the sea, until a lonely bomber could sink her. AKA 22nd and 23rd century star trek
Then the 50 isoton photon showed up, 4 to 6 per fighter in the 24th century, and can cripple a starship.
On screen evidence, Sacrifice of Angel's. Note the chucks blown out of the Galors hull.
For the cost of 12 pilots a crippled Galor and hundreds of casualties.
Do not forget the fighters have escape transporters increasing survival
Just one point, under impulse engines, the ship with the greater thrust to weight ratio will reach a higher top speed -- assuming they have enough fuel. It all comes down to simple (Newtonian physics adjusted for relativity). An efficient warp field is not a consideration. In normal space, there is a fixed "top" speed. 😏
Of course, a starship can warp ahead.
Where I see these fighters being deficient is if combat occurs at warp speed or if starships use bursts of warp to maneuver.
Yes but most fighters also have a low warp capacity so short bursts wouldn't be so effective.
@@venomgeekmedia9886
Yes. I really do not see fighters being useful unless a battle is tied to a fixed lcoation or for in a defensive capacity. I really do not see them beiung useful in a running battle.
A few points, first there's a reason most rl "first rate" Navy's use aircraft carriers as the value of a Navy. Much like battleships of pre WW2.
Yes in a 1v1 a fighter/bomber small craft isn't going to do much but die. So swarm tactics are the order of the day with them. The Maquis raiders; much like the Toyota's you mentioned, rl Toyota trucks are repurposed for use as support and heavy gun carriers in certain places. Tho I believe the raiders are more along like cigarette boats with a few heavy mg's and some torpedoes strapped on. Again not really a 1v1 type of ship, but swarm tactics with some fighter ships can do some damage especially to single or small task groups with limited support.
I would assume that the Peregrines could followed, or hitch, on the starship warp bubble or something to allow them to travel at the same speed as their support ship could. Through I find the idea a bit pointless as sense drones would do a much better job then fighters in evading enemy fire and much more compact. I could guess they are also used for other roles then support attackers or sent to discharge all their weapons payloads and escape, that wouldn't warrant the presence of a full starship but is also beefier then a shuttle or Runabout.
The only way a fighter craft could work in the Star Trek universe is by having a quasi cloaking system which a Star ship can't get a lock on therefore wouldn't be targeted. With the inability to target such a smaller attack craft a fighter can make its attack run and deliver its payload of photon torpedoes with impunity.
Your videos have completely changed my mind on the necessity of fighters in Trek. I used to disregard them but deeply appreciate how much you detail you have given them.
This always comes up in science fiction. 1- or 2-person fighters in an active combat role will exist in science fiction, ONLY IF they can materially damage larger vessels in numbers. Swarm tactics work in real life - look no further than Coral Sea or Midway - so if small craft can carry ship damaging/killing weapons (like photon torpedoes, in Trek), they _will_ be out there. Also, warp speed is largely irrelevant, because the _vast_ majority of space combat in Trek takes place at Impulse speeds. While we don't see fighters very often in the Federation, that can be written off as a cultural thing (because casualties among fighter crews will be very high, proportionally speaking), but the _Klingons_ not using them would indicate that either fighters cannot carry those weapons (which is silly, when you see the size of the weapons), or that the Klingons are stupid, which is even sillier.
I think a lot of people underestimate the value of harassment in conflicts. Even if you're only able to slow them down, there's still value because that's time they didn't spend hitting something more valuable.
I would add that fighters are useless against certain targets, Borg craft for example. Given the Borg can generate any amount of wepions or tractor beam emitters or anything else it wants in any direction it wants. So swarm tactics are next to useless inless you have some means to fuck over the hive mind
Also the lack of carriers and fighter support crafter
Well i believe the cude has limits. But apparently they are capable of engaging 24 starships at the same time. I would argue they would be effective or complimentary to a fleet attacking a cube the borg would target the biggest treat. Remember in best of both worlds enterprise separated and then they ignored the shuttle with data and wolf . They could target the weapons or tractor beams . ? 24 is the basic cube i imagine different types have different weapons. ( tactical or sphere) would be different
Swarm tactics are exactly what the Federation adopted to fight the Borg. The Defiant was supposed to operate in packs. But, there is of course a limit, as the swarm needs to actually be able to harm to target, not just annoy it.
@@nunya3163 true the defiant was ment to be used in a swarm but it also packs far far more of a punch the fighters.
fighters are fragile enough that i just dont see them doing annoying thing but any borg craft bigger than a spear inless they were supported by capital ships then i could see them takeing on at least a bassic cube
tatical cube, you need shenanigans to even think about touching that thing with a ten foot poll
i could see fighters being realtively effecive vs borg propes. like the one we saw in the voyager two prater dark frontier
the issue again is that the price is going to be high
@@shmee123ful Fighter might be able to get inside of the Borg weapons arc of fire, and just chip away at them. They also could be used to plant large bomb on, or even within the super structure, opening holes to fly inside of and really go at them.
In the Voyager series, there was on race that used swarms of small single seat craft to hold the Borg at bay. I cannot recall their name at the moment.
If you have read any of David Weber's Honor Harrington series, you can draw a very good analogy between Star Trek's starfighters and the Shrike generation of light attack craft.
The LACs were never meant to go against the wall of battle. They were meant to run down cripples and engage light cruisers and smaller
Eddington cripples Defiant with computer cascade virus, cripples the Malinche with faked sensor readings to pretend that a cardissian freighter was sending out distress signals and got hit with a booty trapped that hit them with a particle beam that punched through their shielding and then hit by three raiders, while their shields were down.
Imagine facing down the Scimitar and thinking "Let's focus on the Scorpions".
Just in a support role during a 1 v 1 battle between cruisers I always thought that fighters could take advantage of the fight. The adversary will usually attenuate shield power against the vector of their main enemies firepower. Keep the fighters a little away until the enemy loses a shield facet and then they pounce. Launch a few torpedos each and that section can be damaged pretty good. If in a no quarter type battle. If trying to disable they can still help damage specific areas to disable the ship. Plus they can always automate several to follow a flight leader whose manned if your worried about crew loss. Holoemitter run pilots could work and now you can consider kamikaze strikes as a last ditch option.
Peregrines have always been one of my favorite ships!
A Peregrine can carry eight Photon Torpedoes on its exterior hardpoints. which means 2 squadrons can carry more than the Akira-class heavy cruiser. and launch these at the Akira without even entering phaser range. Putting less men, and less costly ships at risk. and if it did enter phaser range. 2 squadrons would outshoot an Akira. 40 vs 3.
I saw these fighters as a direct response to the Dominion fighters, especially considering that the Dominion fighter often rammed much bigger ships.
Has he played the Star Trek Homeworld mod, because ive found a fighter screen invaluable in keeping my frigates and cap-ships alive longer... because the enemy ends up having to divide their targets. And as you mentioned in the Dominion War series, frigates and capships do not operate as well in atmosphere, i should know, Ive done Aerial Conflict Zones in Elite Dangerous, Frigates lose maneuverability as compared to Corvettes and smaller.
Yeah it doesn't help that pre-2005 only time we saw UFP use fighters they were unsupported. That said it's not like an X-Wing could take on an Imperial Stardestroyer 1v1 either, that's not the role of starfighters. Like you said if properly supported Trek fighters have enough fire power that they do play an important role.
Oh and something that wasn't directly mentioned in the video but implied is that you can have the bigger ships batter the enemy shields then send in your fighters to target critical targets on the enemy ships like weapon emplacements or engines so that even though the enemy warp core hasn't breached they're useless as far as combat is concerned as they got nothing to fight with, yes you can target those emplacements with a bigger ship too but a bigger ship is a more obvious threat and thus the enemy will be more likely focus their shields towards the bigger ship.
Lore Reloaded is definitely wrong. When used in fleet battles, they are very extremely effective. They split the fire and harass large capitals. If the capitals ignore the fighters , they'll lauch huge salvos of torpedo at them. Thus a power like the Dominion would have to task its attack ships to keep the fighters off the heavy cruisers.
The Federation fleet is heavily based on light to medium cruisers. Strip away the Jem Hadar attack ships from the Dominion heavy cruisers and the Federations more numerous light and medium ships swamp the Dominion heavys.
This is what should have been shown in DS9. Instead of DS9 where they sent in fighters without cruiser support, yet they still did ok.
There is another great use for small ships, harassing a heavily damaged ship that is withdrawing from combat, to keep it out of a battle. Ships like the Peregrine would be great keeping a disabled ship from getting weapons back online and getting back in the fight, freeing up your major ships from having to deal with it.
Yeah and once their in your formation they are a pain to get out without breaking formation.
Where did you get the weapon layout from completely different than Emmanuel I have?
Federasion assault Fighter
Att130,000/ deff 15,000
Shield 15,000 TW
2 shot Galor spiral wave disruptor 7,500tw each Dead.
3 phaser type6 shields down from runabout. 5,000 each type 6
Fighter weapons (Eaglemoss magazines)
2 type8 phaser 30,000 tw 4 per volley
1 Torpedo tubes with 6 torpedo volley 6
Torpedo are 65,000 each
1 type 6 phaser
Note one fighter had DS9 had to be using a Type X phaser to do the damage it did to runabout one shot
yeah i don't put much stock in what eaglemoss say. i used this model here www.deviantart.com/admiral-horton/art/Peregrine-Class-859141230
@@venomgeekmedia9886 thanks
Development of the Peregrine makes more sense if you consider it as a Borg Cube harrier. A personnel commitment of a single Miranda could saturate an entire quadrant of a cube's defenses with a force that can take losses more slowly than the time it would take to disable a single Miranda.
I think a lot of the prejudice against fighters comes from The Next Generation. The Enterprise is shown with excellent point defense phaser arcs and tractor beams, so things like fighters and shuttles are countered almost effortlessly in TNG. Though if I remember correctly most of these encounters were against technologically inferior opponents and against small numbers. So I think you would have to employ them in an ambush or with a large group of friendly ships to take the damage for the fighters until they are close enough. But a large volley of torpedoes followed up by capital ships is bound to make an impact on enemy formations . To combat them it would probably require a fleet to assign some of their limited ships to be dedicated point defense "anti aircraft" platforms.
This really just depends case to case on both sides ability to kill. If your fighters are the equivalent of ww1 biplanes dropping hand grenades and you're sending them against ships with modern ciws, then obviously no. But If a dozen torpedoes can kill a ship and each fighter can carry 2 then it only matters how good the point defence is at killing the fighters. There's also the cost ratio. Even losing 50 fighters (each costing 1mil) to kill one ship (costing a 100 mil) is easily considered a win.
the way Starfleet uses it, ya it is useless... but it has so much potential and the issues largely boil down to doctrine, Starfleet(and basically everyone but the Maquis, which is the outgrowth from the old Bajoran resistance tactics) doctrine is/was equal size ships slug it till the Dominion War and 2 Borg incursions(with exceptions for last stands to protect civilians and such)
so big ships only engaged big ships and everyone else is either supposed to run away or call for help and wait for the Enterprise to save them
part of it is the way they show targeting, one minute you have the ships capable of sniping the heads off randomly moving pins from orbit the next they can't a barn from inside it
the rest of it being arrogance, for the bulk of the 'lost age' or 'golden age' till somewhere in TNG/DS9(culminating with both Wolf 359 and the Dominion) their main ships could mostly trounce everyone in equal size 2+ v 1 and the gap for bigger the smaller the enemy ship got
but the same can be said about a lot of Starfleet not using tactics that have been common since forever(hell AR-558 might as well have been in WWI, at least they used cover unlike Star Wars)
they haven't fought outside the box in so long they forgot how to
a few 'control' fighters backed up with a drone swarm(mix it up, some each of phasers, torpedoes, ecm, and maybe even kinetic(remember Borg were shown to not shield for it, like at all, so imagine what some Federation tech level version of a GAU-8 aka the A-10's gun could do) or kamikaze drones(ram that warp nacelle))
the enemy is trying to retreat their damaged _________(maybe it's only making warp 3 or something), your capital ships are busy still slugging it out, warp a few fighters after and knock it our of warp before it can withdraw completely(we have seen warp combat over the various series)
less so for the Federation(damned treaty), but the Klingons and Romulans since they can't fire cloaked
cloaked carriers even partly eliminate one of the weaknesses of fighters(slow warp speeds so everyone sees you coming in advace)
to be fair tho, even our own history, several normal today tactics were considered garbage, impossible, or whatever else till someone was crazy enough to prove they worked
rockets/missiles on subs(hello, USS Barb would like a word here), carrier assaults on shallow or defended harbors(Taranto, Pearl Harbor, Truk)
It's ridiculous the amount of firepower the Federation can compress into a very tight package with regards to capital ship level firepower.
Fighters should be waaaaaaay more prevalent. They are just so much bang for very little bucks. Just enormous force multipliers. This is just using their shields and tractor beams in combat, to say nothing of deploying capital grade phasers or torpedo.
Well, if you want to use your manpower more inteligently and keep the tactical bonus of swarming tactics with fighters using the heaviest weapons you can fit on them, use fighter drones. You can even pilot them from the mothership, or combine wings of manned fighters with wings of unmanned fighters (one fighter and say 3-5 robots) and let the living pilots order the rest of his/hers robo-wing. Or use of holografic crew members. With that tactics, it would me much preferable, the manned fighters to be as undistinquishable from the drones, as possible.
BTW, i would prefere use of heavy fighters roughly 35 meters long, with two decks, although one would be mostly "bridge", and spaces for crew (transporter, replicator, toilet, faucet, sonic shower, bunkbed, medibed with auto-doctor, life-suport, and the whole segment works as a detachable "lifeboat" for the whole ship) - my sugestion is 3 people - captain (tactical specialist), pilot, and engeneer.
The lower deck would have everything else (weapons in front, energy core in the back, shields, torp magazine and engines.
Immagining overall shape very similar to "Interceptor" class, only the warp nacceles connected by multiple struts, to bulkier and blockier end of the second hull.
The use of said ship is similar to the runaboat, but with primary concern with defense and if different missions needed, the weapons are connected modulary "plug and play" system, therefore the "lower deck" can serve as transport deck, or space for extra sensor racks.
To me they are just manoeuvrable torpedo platforms. Shoot your 6 and skedaddle out of the fight.
But then, if that is possible, you could just beam torpedoes into space and have them lying in wait since they don't need launching tubes, right?
There is also no way a type X phaser on a small fighter can deliver even close to the punch of the same phaser on a big starship.
It would need to generate way too much power for it's size, way more ridiculous than the Defiant.
And another thing; I'm not sure if Star Trek: Armada is seen as canon, but in that game the Federation does seem to have a CIWS ability by using short phaser bursts.
(A bit the same as the Enterprise-D effortlessly vaporised those 3 little ships in a TNG episode).
I would think that the engineers at Utopia Planetia would have thought of that since it would make enemy fighters nearly useless against ships with beam weapons.
(I do not believe that computers 360 years in the future would be unable to track a few targets).
I feel like Star Trek fleets are in a transition phase when in comes to war fighting and are still trying to figure out the role of the fighter. The simple fact is they are easier to build, requiring less resources and smaller construction facilities, and crew in large numbers compared to larger ships and actually offer greater firepower. A Galaxy class has a crew of 1,000+ and 14 Type 10 phasers and 2 torpedo tubes, compare to 300 Peregrines, even if they only had 2 Type 7 phaseres they would still have 600 type 7 phasers and 1,800 torpedoes and only 600 crewmen. Their limiting factor is that they are small and incapable of providing for their crew over long duration missions, things like fuel, food, or even the ability to do routine maintenance are likely beyond the crew in flight require shore facilities and larger numbers of personnel on the ground to support them. Larger ships I would wager are still better offense tools as they can offer better projection of power away from shore facilitates and rapid response capabilities, but attacking a large world with a few thousand fighters would require a huge fleet to break though.
Galaxy class ships are also hideously under armed and under shielded for their size because they spend so much space on exploration equipment, so its not exactly a fair comparison. Compare this to the prometheus, which at minimum matches if not outright beats a galaxy in firepower despite being about one ninth the overall mass, and requiring a crew of only 175, or a Sovereign, which is probably triple the fighting power of a galaxy while again being less than half the mass (and still has a decent amount of exploration equipment shoved into the poor thing) , kinda shows just how under armed and protected the galaxy is. Galaxy is an explorer first, with combat being a distant second consideration.
Things get even dumber when you talk about the defiant. Though defiant is also a short ranged ship which requires a substantial dock side maintenance crew to keep the thing running.
Considering just what starfleet can do with Sovereign, Prometheus and Defiant class designs, id conservatively estimate a full warship galaxy would be at least ten times more powerful than it currently is.
@@ryuukeisscifiproductions1818 While the Galaxy is far from the best warship I would say it is equal to or greater than any Romulan, Klingon, or Cardassian ship in terms of firepower and defenseive ability during the Dominion War, mostly because they are just better scientists and engineers, and the only reason the Federation designed better ships was mostly to deal with the Borg. If the battle of Wolf 359 hadn't happend the Galaxy would have remained the most potent Federation combat ship.
I liked a lot of the points you brought up. I too did a response to Lore Reloaded at one point, I think he's a bit lacking with his military assessments. And I think that you're certainly bringing up at lot that he over looked or wrote off without warrant.
Small mobile ships are functionally very desirable and viable in a military sense for a boatload (no pun intended) of reasons.
Lore Reloaded doesn't do his research. Then has a fit when you call him out for it.
I saw Lore’s video and all I can say is: GET HIS ASS VENOM!! GET ‘EM!! BURY HIM within the mountain of his own ignorance!!! DEWWWWW IT!!! DEWWWWWWW IT!!!
😳🤭 lololol oppsies
My only issue with the peregrine is that the federation needed to make another iteration on it, while the base design works, it could use some improvements based on the runabouts, and a cockpit that looks less like a snowspeeders.
Also, maybe make it smaller, or able to fold up so they could fit more of them in there ships.
I would take exception to the comment about the Oberth. While yes it’s not a “pretty” ship it’s clearly good at it’s intended task or it wouldn’t have been in use nearly as long. It’s just **not supposed to be anywhere near a fight**
Worth noting too that we see them used most in the huge fleet battles of the Dominion war. There the maneuverability is their major advantage as the larger starships are limited by their surrounding fleets and can't give chase as easily as in open space. Furthermore if a starship misses the small target of a fighter there is a high chance of hitting an allied ship!
The Peregrine class has become a favorite of mine, in part, but not exclusively for reasons that may be obvious. I like the design, and I wish that the writers and VFX artists back in the day had made more use of them. Or fighter-like ships in general, really. I get that they wanted to stick to more ship-to-ship scenarios, until the Maquis and the war came along, and differentiate themselves from other franchises, but it would have added some much needed variety to the FX sequences. From a world-building perspective, there's no reason why ships like this wouldn't exist, and fill a much needed niche, as fast, easily deployable support ships.
I have nothing against Lore Reloaded, but I have sort of migrated away from his content in recent years. Though he still shows up in my recommendations from time to time. When I saw him taking a crack at one of my favorite underused designs, I was just... not amused.
I think stargate borrowed the idea of their glider thibgy from this. B5 had interesting fighter ideas and uses. I would put a cloak and subspace weapons on an autopilot driven fighter...quite the kamazie suprise.
Yeah, the Peregrines, despite their size, are quite capable in various fields. Their value as recon scouts & couriers shouldn't be understated, especially given then amount of space in well, outer space. As for combat, they're glass cannons, but those cannons pack a punch. They're also quite good for planetary/starbase defense or anti-piracy and can be acquired & used by civilian militia much easier than starships. IMO though, a hybrid balance of manned fighters, remote drones, and starships would be better.
Oh, and congrats on the sponsorship.
I'd agree with you 100% already but I'll add something that's probably not in cannon. In modern warfare, planes can have electronic warfare capabilities. So imagine 20 Paragrines that can screen for a Galaxy and can spoof your sensors to look like 80 and/or can mask the approach of the Galaxy. All while carrying a type 10 phaser and 6 torpedos. That's a horrifying prospect to be faced with, imo.
To make a long story short I can see a peregrine squadron of 6 disrupting a jemhadar attack run of 3 fighters.on a nebula or galaxy class ship
You can guarantee those paragrine pilots where playing star wars and top gun music during thier often suicidal attack runs. ALSO if Janeway is your favorite captain then remember SHE SAVED THE BORG 😅
Maaan I get that this is a fighter but with it's size in comparison to the delta flyer it would make way more since for it to play the roll of a bomber or torpedo boat kind of like the Raptor from Battlestar Galactica. Fighters need to have small hit boxes for dog fighting, fighters = anti-fighter rolls or also akin to Star Wars fit a bomber escort roll for anti-capital ship. This Federation fighter is just a little large for my taste. I'd rather have a compliment of delta flyers than these things...or maybe even a ton of the fighters with foldable wings from the Constellation class.