Starfleet Jedi

I was arguing about F22 and modern air combat at Spacebattles for quite some time now, and I recently made an account at Indiandefence forum and also got myself involved into threads about modern air combat.

In short, conclusion that I reached throught all research I did was that, due to fighters' manouverability and countermeasures, as well as inherent unrealiability of BVR shots, Pk for BVR missiles is below 10% against fighters, making any claims about WVR combat being outdated stupid at best.

It also occured to me that same rules may apply for Star Trek too - while extreme ranges may be possible, speed of ships as well as heavy - probably "across the board", that is, jamming of both subspace and realspace sensors - jamming may mean that probability of actually hitting enemy ships is too low to be useful, especially in large-scale engagements.

So, how does Star Trek spaceship combat would relate to modern air combat in terms of tactics and strategy, given that spaceship is still a ship? What would that mean in any Star Trek versus Star Wars scenario?

Picard wrote:I was arguing about F22 and modern air combat at Spacebattles for quite some time now, and I recently made an account at Indiandefence forum and also got myself involved into threads about modern air combat.

In short, conclusion that I reached throught all research I did was that, due to fighters' manouverability and countermeasures, as well as inherent unrealiability of BVR shots, Pk for BVR missiles is below 10% against fighters, making any claims about WVR combat being outdated stupid at best.

It also occured to me that same rules may apply for Star Trek too - while extreme ranges may be possible, speed of ships as well as heavy - probably "across the board", that is, jamming of both subspace and realspace sensors - jamming may mean that probability of actually hitting enemy ships is too low to be useful, especially in large-scale engagements.

So, how does Star Trek spaceship combat would relate to modern air combat in terms of tactics and strategy, given that spaceship is still a ship? What would that mean in any Star Trek versus Star Wars scenario?

You may want to look at blue and brown water navies as well.

"The Balance of Terror" and "Star Trek: Nemesis" portray fighting cloaked ships as being similar to anti-submarine combat for example.

In many ways ships in Star Trek are similar to PT-boats.

I know; but TOS is one thing, TNG completely another. In TNG, starship battles look more like air battles in slow motion - get in close, and blast at the enemy - whereas TOS battles really are like battles between submarines or missile cruisers - keep your distance and pound the enemy, not up-close and personal battles we see in TNG era.

Picard wrote:I know; but TOS is one thing, TNG completely another. In TNG, starship battles look more like air battles in slow motion - get in close, and blast at the enemy - whereas TOS battles really are like battles between submarines or missile cruisers - keep your distance and pound the enemy, not up-close and personal battles we see in TNG era.

Star Trek Nemesis is TNG era.

We see combat in TNG/DS9/Voyager, and we see what looks similar to PT-boats fighting. You are limiting yourself by only looking at fighters. The only thing that is uniquely airplane like is the three dimensional battle field.

Actually, both Enterprise, Scimitar and warbirds pull off some serious dogfighting at moments.

Picard wrote:Actually, both Enterprise, Scimitar and warbirds pull off some serious dogfighting at moments.

Like speed boats that can move in a three dimensional environment. If you actually compare the shapes of Star Trek ships you will find the are actually similar in many ways to boats.

Lucky wrote:Like speed boats that can move in a three dimensional environment. If you actually compare the shapes of Star Trek ships you will find the are actually similar in many ways to boats.

Forget shapes.

Just take a look at this:

Modern fighter combat:
a) Combatants move at high speeds in 3D environment? Check.
b) Long-range engagements are possible, but rarely happen, and when they do, are largely inconsequental? Check.
c) Despite having ability to cover all 360 degrees in all 3 dimensions with weapons, combatants still seek to point nose at each other? Check.
d) Formations are rarely used, and when they are, quickly break up? Check.
e) Identification of enemy at long range is possible, but unreliable? Check.
f) Regarding point "e", forgery of IFF and other identifying signals is possible? Check.

Star Trek starship combat:
a) Combatants move at high speeds in 3D environment? Check.
b) Long-range engagements are possible, but rarely happen, and when they do, are largely inconsequental? Check.
c) Despite having ability to cover all 360 degrees in all 3 dimensions with weapons, combatants still seek to point nose at each other? Check.
d) Formations are rarely used, and when they are, quickly break up? Check.
e) Identification of enemy at long range is possible, but unreliable? Check.
f) Regarding point "e", forgery of IFF and other identifying signals is possible? Check.

From that we can conclude that:
a) jamming is heavily in use
b) even when it is not, ability of combatants to close range quickly means that fights often end up as knife fights in phone booth, unless one side is purpusefully trying to avoid that.

Also, ships move at cca. 500 to 1000 meters per second during knifefight, and several thousands of kilometers per second when further apart (both relative to each other). In modern fighter combat, speeds of dogfighting planes rarely exceed speed of sound (343 m/s) and are usually half or less than half of that.