Career Officer
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 247
# 101
01-27-2013, 05:50 AM
Hmm Im not sure about this but I don't think star fleet has ever created a "True Carrier" In fact all it's vessels have been a deterrent to war. Huge ships,huge hulls, and their powerful weapons weren't designed to be powerful in fact all the great weapons of the day were either in experimental ships or devised by crews and captains who either had no choice but to make new innovations that went against the prime directive or bent it or from crew members who have no alliance to fleet command only to their ship and to their own lives. Such as Seven, she created just about every advance we take for granted in this game. Not for star fleet, but for her ship and captain.

A Carrier is basically a slap in the face to this code of peace they "Pretend" to uphold. Since a Carrier is basically saying "I am a ship built for nothing but war! Where my counterparts are knives, tools that can be used for both peace and war, I am an AK47 with no other use other then to demand respect and keep peace through fear." Not very Fed to me.

Anywho the argument could be made that this is not star trek so it shouldn't matter then the flip side of it would be then "Why are you asking for star trek things in a non star trek game?"

As far as I know, this is all fan fiction and money grabbing while trying to pretend to be star trek that's why all the carriers belonged to either a warring ally or a long gone or inert race that conveniently does not respond to the so called hailing of the Fed and Klink side to come pick up their superior weapons and ships that is lightyears ahead of their counterparts. And now all of a sudden the JHEC and the JDread fell off the back of a truck and we are supposed to be led to believe that we are doing everything in our power to return these uber vessels to their creators.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,163
# 102
01-27-2013, 07:55 AM
imo feddies should feel lucky they have a carrier at all.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,628
# 103
01-27-2013, 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lasonio View Post
Since a Carrier is basically saying "I am a ship built for nothing but war! Where my counterparts are knives, tools that can be used for both peace and war, I am an AK47 with no other use other then to demand respect and keep peace through fear." Not very Fed to me.
Except not.

Carriers are simply mobile bases to refuel and rearm small craft, they are lightly armed and depend on their attached craft for self defense.

They are not "build for war", they can project force but in Trek that is irrelevant because any starship can project force on its own, smaller craft are really nothing but auxiliary craft to larger ships.
Career Officer
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 247
# 104
01-27-2013, 01:58 PM
That's interesting, I've never seen a carrier built for defense, ever.

It's a statement that says I will bring the pain to you. Your air space is mine, your country is mine. I have a military and a air force on board and will make your life a living hell. Have a nice day.

These things just aren't built for defense.

Just because you use a battleship to defend does not mean that's the purpose it was built. A weapon is a weapon it's not firing nerf darts I'll tell you that much. Though technically we can't compare a game to real life, if in a game a carrier is useless and just a toy, in real life it is a dangerous statement of sovereignty
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 879
# 105
01-27-2013, 02:02 PM
I've always supported making the old Jupiter class a carrier. The boxy shape of the primary part of the ship can be refitted with a TON of shuttle bays or launch hangers. Also, it's bloody massive, and has an awful turn rate. Pretty sure it's a carrier.
CHARACTER GRID (@Lord-Ice):
___ |___ _ Fed ____| ____ _KDF __ ____| Rom
Tac_|_Thomas Hale_| __ __Illusion _____| Silence (K)
Eng | ___Antilles _ _| _ Mirror Rygobeth__| N'Vek (F)
Sci _| __ Rygobeth _| _Lukor Son of Q'Tar | Devala (F)
Republic Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,686
# 106
01-27-2013, 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by icegavel View Post
I've always supported making the old Jupiter class a carrier. The boxy shape of the primary part of the ship can be refitted with a TON of shuttle bays or launch hangers. Also, it's bloody massive, and has an awful turn rate. Pretty sure it's a carrier.
As much as I might like a full carrier, I would rather have none than that ugly box of a ship.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 879
# 107
01-27-2013, 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lianthelia View Post
As much as I might like a full carrier, I would rather have none than that ugly box of a ship.
I agree in that it's ugly, but I DO want a proper Starfleet carrier design, and that's the only thing the Jupiter seems designed to be.

Also, it looks a TON better than the Vo'quv's variant.
CHARACTER GRID (@Lord-Ice):
___ |___ _ Fed ____| ____ _KDF __ ____| Rom
Tac_|_Thomas Hale_| __ __Illusion _____| Silence (K)
Eng | ___Antilles _ _| _ Mirror Rygobeth__| N'Vek (F)
Sci _| __ Rygobeth _| _Lukor Son of Q'Tar | Devala (F)
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,628
# 108
01-27-2013, 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lasonio View Post
That's interesting, I've never seen a carrier built for defense, ever.
I said a carrier have minimum defenses, it relies on its attached craft for self defense.

Quote:
It's a statement that says I will bring the pain to you. Your air space is mine, your country is mine. I have a military and a air force on board and will make your life a living hell. Have a nice day.
How your carriers are working in Afghanistan? Oh right ...

Serious, stop the chest pounding USA! USA! USA! ... carriers can project force as I mentioned but so can submarines these days, we are not in 1943 any more.

In Trek ANY starship can level a planent, carriers are not needed because they carry far less destructive power that any ship of the fleet.

Quote:
These things just aren't built for defense.
You want me start pointing the history of carriers? way back to balloon tenders and the USS George Washington Parke Custis in the American civil war?

Quote:
Just because you use a battleship to defend does not mean that's the purpose it was built.
For the last 60 years now, battleships been used for a role they were not build for, heavy fire support.

You could not picked a worst example because the Iowa-class battleships have long stop doing what they were designed to do, that was to escort Fast Carrier Task Forces.

Quote:
A weapon is a weapon it's not firing nerf darts I'll tell you that much.
Do you really want for me to start to go about carriers that started as merchant ships before they were converted into carriers.

Quote:
Though technically we can't compare a game to real life, if in a game a carrier is useless and just a toy, in real life it is a dangerous statement of sovereignty
A carrier is useless by itself, unless you think the Phalanx CIWS and Sea Sparrows are very dangerous.

What is on-board MIGHT be dangerous but look what India did when the USS Enterprise was send to the Indian back in 1971, do we still have the East Pakistan?

Yes, its useless depending on circumstances, the show of force did not worked because the Enterprise was not going to use its nukes.

Also going back to Trek do explain were Carriers are frighting?

Ability to level a planet? any starship can do that and smaller craft are less likely to be able to carry that kind of destruction.

So whats next ... I suppose they can increase the patrol range but that just means they are very good SCOUT and PATROL ships.

Besides that I can only see then ferry personal, meaning they would be good to invade a planet but heck that is hardly new and troops take space, they might as well convert some cargo ships for that.

In Trek I cannot see then as anything as supporting craft because, simply put, the smaller craft simply lack the destructive abilities of larger craft, its not WW II were a single TBF Avenger could sink a ship, things as "airspace" dont exist because of the vastness of space makes it impossible to attempt to control it (planetary lanes are a different matter but orbital defense platforms are cheap).
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 844
# 109
01-27-2013, 03:04 PM
All that post who cares the federation aren't meant to have carriers

Plus whatever comes out of those starfleet docks will never match the mighty voquv
----=====This is my opinion you don't have to listen and no one else has to read them these "OPINIONS" are based on my exploits and my learning other people will have their opinions and that's fine just don't knock my way of doing things thanks=====----
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 281
# 110
01-27-2013, 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by f2pdrakron View Post
I said a carrier have minimum defenses, it relies on its attached craft for self defense.



How your carriers are working in Afghanistan? Oh right ...

Serious, stop the chest pounding USA! USA! USA! ... carriers can project force as I mentioned but so can submarines these days, we are not in 1943 any more.

In Trek ANY starship can level a planent, carriers are not needed because they carry far less destructive power that any ship of the fleet.



You want me start pointing the history of carriers? way back to balloon tenders and the USS George Washington Parke Custis in the American civil war?



For the last 60 years now, battleships been used for a role they were not build for, heavy fire support.

You could not picked a worst example because the Iowa-class battleships have long stop doing what they were designed to do, that was to escort Fast Carrier Task Forces.



Do you really want for me to start to go about carriers that started as merchant ships before they were converted into carriers.



A carrier is useless by itself, unless you think the Phalanx CIWS and Sea Sparrows are very dangerous.

What is on-board MIGHT be dangerous but look what India did when the USS Enterprise was send to the Indian back in 1971, do we still have the East Pakistan?

Yes, its useless depending on circumstances, the show of force did not worked because the Enterprise was not going to use its nukes.

Also going back to Trek do explain were Carriers are frighting?

Ability to level a planet? any starship can do that and smaller craft are less likely to be able to carry that kind of destruction.

So whats next ... I suppose they can increase the patrol range but that just means they are very good SCOUT and PATROL ships.

Besides that I can only see then ferry personal, meaning they would be good to invade a planet but heck that is hardly new and troops take space, they might as well convert some cargo ships for that.

In Trek I cannot see then as anything as supporting craft because, simply put, the smaller craft simply lack the destructive abilities of larger craft, its not WW II were a single TBF Avenger could sink a ship, things as "airspace" dont exist because of the vastness of space makes it impossible to attempt to control it (planetary lanes are a different matter but orbital defense platforms are cheap).
You've been misinformed. Battleships were formerly designed as a naval superiority weapon, not as carrier escorts/pickets. Sometimes they were attached to carrier strike forces as flagships, but for the most part, their mission was to seek out, and destroy other battleships, and provide long range fire support during amphibious operations. Their role has since been supplanted by the guided missle cruiser/destroyer.

The reason you never saw any fighter craft in any canon trek, is that fighters are far to small, and possess no warp core, which would allow the power levels necessary to A) provide adequate shielding from starship weaponry, and B) provide effective weaponry against starship shielding. A Miranda class starship's targeting, and fire control systems, even at low power levels, would be more than sufficient, to toast multiple wings of fighter craft, simultaneously. This is ignored in the silly, views, expressed by Cryptic in STO. So even though some glorious, Klingons wouldn't be adverse to flying kamikaze missions in small craft, the Federation is not in the business of sending young pilots to their death.

Another reason the "Aircraft Analogy" doesn't hold water, is... water. Dive bombers, and torpedo planes had the advantage of being able to move in three dimensional space, over ships, which could only move two dimensionally, over a flat plane. This allowed pilots on attack vectors, "dead spots", where defensive fire could not target them. Starship combat, by way of comparisson, takes place in three dimensional space, with weapons that have 360 degree firing arcs, negating any such advantage.

This is why any type of offensive, carrier vessel in STO, is sillier than an electric blanket mobile.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:25 PM.