Why no Carriers?

Overheal

I've heard a couple theories about why Star Trek has no carrier ships, but nothing really satisfactory.

Star Wars came out a decade after Star Trek, and got the idea of fighters in the mind of sci fi, then BSG came out and Lucas actually tried and failed to sue them. The rebels didn't have carriers to be fair, it was all the Empire.

Some trekkies argue it was against Starfleet's mandate of exploration, but so what? Was it against the Klingons? I mean, we see in Into Darkness, that some starships are relatively small, they're bigger than our own modern aircraft but still small and maneuverable. But still, the Scimitar warship had fighters that were never in use.

And Starfleet? Well they explore planets right. Relocate people from time to time eh? You'd think it might be, you know, efficient, to have a larger ship that can carry a large compliment of shuttlecraft for operation on a planet-wide scale. I suppose a galaxy class ship carried, theoretically, around 10 shuttlecraft? 5 bays? But it's not exacly a wing of vipers or the amount of resources Starfleet might want to deploy somewhere. Am I thinking of this right?

Greyjoy

I don't think the lack of carrers in Trek stemmed from a reason in the setting itself but more from a different ethos between Trek & Star Wars. SW is more about personal heroism and took its inspiration for the battle scenes from WWII dogfights. Trek emphasises teamwork - hence a bridge crew working together. Roddenberry compared TOS to the novels of Horatio Hornblower, old fashioned naval battles set during the Napoleonic era.

From a practical standpoint you could argue that having fighters would force the starships to engage each other at pretty much point blank distance (indeed that's what you see in the BSG battles). But weaponry such as phasers & photon torpoedoes have such a longer distance as to make fighters redundant.

Goldstein

The Akira class is a shuttlecraft carrier. It has multiple forward and aft bay doors all connected to a single huge shuttlebay running right through the saucer.

Starfleet's attack fighters (Federation vessels modified by The Maquis and by Starfleet for the Dominion war) crop up in various DS9 battles (or the same battle over and over again ) usually referred to en masse as fighter wings but they seem to operate independently of any obvious carrier role starship.

There's huge scope for reimagining all aspects of the Star Trek universe for the small screen to make it more realistic and updating our best and most educated guesses about the physics/astronomical knowledge regarding space travel and how technology could evolve. Combat is one area they could totally revamp - the distances involved, fleet tactics and strategy, realistic sizes for fleets, the weapons hardware itself, a diversified range of ships/vessels with different specialities/abilities etc.

Rawr

As well as the Akira Class, the Galaxy Class had a very large shuttlebay which took up a large segment of the saucer section and housed something like 15-20 shuttles and 3 runabouts.

I had seen this in the Enterprise D blueprints pack published a long while back. That shuttle-bay was about 2-3 decks high and had a 'control tower' running through the center. The entrance to this bay was the large 'vent' to the back of the 'bridge island' on the saucer section.



This was the 'main shuttlebay'. The other two smaller shuttlebays appeared to have most been used in the actual episodes.

degrassinoel

There is an episode of DS9 that also shows federation fighters attacking the dominion in a massive battle, or maybe it's my imagination.. i cant remember the episode or even season at this point (would have been near the end i guess) but i do remember Bashir and O'Brien quoting 'Charge of the Light Brigade' because they figured the fighters were going to be smashed to bits - they were iirc

But yeah, no carriers is a bit odd, could be that warp drive is so common that there's no need for them in starfleet. ie: getting into a pitched fleet battle doesnt generally happen as starships have immense firepower anyway?

Gbear

Given the gulf in firepower, the little peashooters of the fighters wouldn't do much damage, whereas the capital ships, coupled with the hi-tech targeting software they presumably have, could wipe them out in very short order.

Mostly, the shows involve a few heavy hitters punching each other until one falls over. Manoevering is useful when there's a convenient asteroid to hind behind or whatever, but with powerful guns that seldom miss, being able to survive a beating is more important than being quick.

You could see them having a place at harrying poorly armed ships (civilian, medical supplies, supply lines), especially if they had cloaking, but in straight up fights it doesn't seem like they do much good except as arrow fodder.

Also, some races seem to stick to more projectile-like weapons (Klingon disruptors) so maybe they'd actually be able to dodge them?

IvySlayer

Why not have mobile Starbases? :P

Imagine seeing this monster turn up to a fight!

Cossax

degrassinoel wrote: »

There is an episode of DS9 that also shows federation fighters attacking the dominion in a massive battle, or maybe it's my imagination.. i cant remember the episode or even season at this point (would have been near the end i guess) but i do remember Bashir and O'Brien quoting 'Charge of the Light Brigade' because they figured the fighters were going to be smashed to bits - they were iirc

But yeah, no carriers is a bit odd, could be that warp drive is so common that there's no need for them in starfleet. ie: getting into a pitched fleet battle doesnt generally happen as starships have immense firepower anyway?

Sacrifice of Angels.

They have attack fighters that make runs at the Cardassians, trying to lure them out of position.

endacl

Because budgets for special effects were limited in the 60s.

Greyjoy

endacl wrote: »

Because budgets for special effects were limited in the 60s.

That reason did occur to me. No fighters means there's no need to construct additional sets for the cockpits or create special effects for the dogfights. You have the action focused on the single set of the bridge with occasional cutaways to exterior shots of the ships firing phasers/torpedoes. Wasn't that the same reason behind the transporters so that they wouldn't need shuttlecraft sets/scenes?

Rawr

Greyjoy wrote: »

Wasn't that the same reason behind the transporters so that they wouldn't need shuttlecraft sets/scenes?

Pretty much. I think they also wanted to avoid 'landing sequences' in the show. Might also explain the design of the Enterprise herself, considering it's shape would have made landing troublesome without very long legs coming out of the saucer section.

I think this may have been referenced in Voyager with the ship's ability to actually land itself. Although I always considered that to be a bit silly, especially when the Voyager was mostly a spoon-shaped saucer section jutting out from a tiny secondary hull. It really should have toppled over when landed

quad_red

To be honest, combat is usually cringe worthy in most star trek series.

Massively ranged, light speed capable ships with super advanced computer cores and weaponry that can fire continually being reduced to firing at the behest of one person picking coordinates off a screen at a pitifully slow rate.

I know the practical reasons (budget etc.) but the thought of ships fighting more ala the Iain M Banks series would be just amazing.

Myrddin

quad_red wrote: »

To be honest, combat is usually cringe worthy in most star trek series.

Massively ranged, light speed capable ships with super advanced computer cores and weaponry that can fire continually being reduced to firing at the behest of one person picking coordinates off a screen at a pitifully slow rate.

If you say so

quad_red

Myrddin wrote: »

If you say so

Ok - DS9 did address it and make it somewhat faster.

Still - most of those ships are going pathetically slowly and they are clunkily close.

The weapons pack no punch. The way people interface with them (given the level and speed of technology) is painfully old hat.

And battles are poorly scripted. Apart from DS9, there was a rarely a narrative to battles. More 3 barely connected sfx shots and allot of narration on the bridge.

Myrddin

quad_red wrote: »

Ok - DS9 did address it and make it somewhat faster.

Still - most of those ships are going pathetically slowly and they are clunkily close.

The weapons pack no punch. The way people interface with them (given the level and speed of technology) is painfully old hat.

And battles are poorly scripted. Apart from DS9, there was a rarely a narrative to battles. More 3 barely connected sfx shops and allot of narration on the bridge.

Fair points DS9 did indeed address things in that respect. The thing about TOS & TNG is, they were all model based physical effects, so as you pointed out above budget limitations were an issue...not to mention the capabilities of the time.

DS9 got it right though, faster pace, more action on screen, more frantic scenes...but that was thanks to how affordable CGI became I think. The Dominion War would probably not have been possible to portray properly without CGI...not for the same budget anyway.

Voyager took a step backward somewhat. CGI was still an option, but the scenes were more TNG like. Slower, less frantic, & overall less impressive.

quad_red

Myrddin wrote: »

Fair points DS9 did indeed address things in that respect. The thing about TOS & TNG is, they were all model based physical effects, so as you pointed out above budget limitations were an issue...not to mention the capabilities of the time.

DS9 got it right though, faster pace, more action on screen, more frantic scenes...but that was thanks to how affordable CGI became I think. The Dominion War would probably not have been possible to portray properly without CGI...not for the same budget anyway.

Voyager took a step backward somewhat. CGI was still an option, but the scenes were more TNG like. Slower, less frantic, & overall less impressive.

Definitely - all perfectly natural due to sfx limitations. But also technological and what we could envision.

But Star Trek battles no longer 'feel' right. Like, ST doesn't need to be like BSG. But BSG battles have a 'weight' and on their terms they feel 'realistic'.

Shows like Game of Thrones have transformed fantasy partially because instead of weightless phoney sfx dragons/creatures (ala Hercules tv series) ye have 'real', weighty massive creatures.

It's time ST did the same with space. Why not massively increase the pace of battles. Have bridge crew transition into a hyper fast holodeck control environment for high speed battles so you can still have exposition but also a sense of breakneck pace.

Myrddin

quad_red wrote: »

But Star Trek battles no longer 'feel' right. Like, ST doesn't need to be like BSG. But BSG battles have a 'weight' and on their terms they feel 'realistic'.

Shows like Game of Thrones have transformed fantasy partially because instead of weightless phoney sfx dragons/creatures (ala Hercules tv series) ye have 'real', weighty massive creatures.

It's time ST did the same with space. Why not massively increase the pace of battles. Have bridge crew transition into a hyper fast holodeck control environment for high speed battles so you can still have exposition but also a sense of breakneck pace.

Are you talking about the recent Star Trek movies when you talk about 'feel & weight'? If not, it's somewhat unfair to apply the standards & expectations of today, to a show that hasn't been on screens in over a decade. Again as you rightly point out, times have changed, expectations are higher, & the capabilities of CGI are much higher than before...so I don't see how finished shows can move with the times so to speak.

I actually think large capital ships doing high speed maneuvers & sharp turns etc would look kinda silly on screen. A ship like that has mass, & the higher the mass, the lower speed maneuvers I'd expect to see it do...so Trek always 'felt' right for me in that sense.

I've never really thought about carriers in Trek, I guess I'd agree with a previous poster that due to shield power, & weapon accuracy, fighters are kind of redundant. A ship like the Enterprise-D would wipe the floor with a wing of attack fighters, so what's the point? The closest I've seen to things like that are Dominion Bug Ships...but they don't require a carrier as most everything in Trek has warp power anyway.

quad_red

Myrddin wrote: »

Are you talking about the recent Star Trek movies when you talk about 'feel & weight'? If not, it's somewhat unfair to apply the standards & expectations of today, to a show that hasn't been on screens in over a decade. Again as you rightly point out, times have changed, expectations are higher, & the capabilities of CGI are much higher than before...so I don't see how finished shows can move with the times so to speak.

I actually think large capital ships doing high speed maneuvers & sharp turns etc would look kinda silly on screen. A ship like that has mass, & the higher the mass, the lower speed maneuvers I'd expect to see it do...so Trek always 'felt' right for me in that sense.

I've never really thought about carriers in Trek, I guess I'd agree with a previous poster that due to shield power, & weapon accuracy, fighters are kind of redundant. A ship like the Enterprise-D would wipe the floor with a wing of attack fighters, so what's the point? The closest I've seen to things like that are Dominion Bug Ships...but they don't require a carrier as most everything in Trek has warp power anyway.

I guess I was talking more generically about the way ships and combat are presented in the ST universe.

Like, I know ye have to be fair to series for their time and place. And something like the Wrath of Khan has aged really really well.

But I saw Yesterday's Enterprise on tv recently. One of my favourite TNG episodes. And the battle scene at the end is so painful. The klingon ships crawl up, the enterprise doesn't move and fires painfully slowly.

I know some of it is tech related. But having the Klingon ships fire from BVR, having them make a pass at high speed (with limited shown on screen) would be more effective now.

Voyager was generally poor but Enterprise improved things allot. #

As for the lack of carriers - for the reasons you point out, I think it makes perfect sense. In the BSG universe fighters are there to try and get close enough to launch munitions that might get through the defensive flack wall.

But with shield technology, capital ships are surely impervious to pretty much anything a small weedy fighter can throw at it.