The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Trek Tech (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Starship Phasers (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=211576)

James Wright May 3 2013 10:10 PM

Starship Phasers
 
Having the number of ship mounted phasers that it has, how many targets can the refit Enterprise engage in battle?
Also, apply this question to the K't'inga.

James

CorporalCaptain May 3 2013 10:17 PM

Re: Starship Phasers
 
Quote:

James Wright wrote: (Post 8039734)
Having the number of ship mounted phasers that it has, how many targets can the refit Enterprise engage in battle?
Also, apply this question to the K't'inga.

James

What to you mean by "engage"?

Do you mean "fire on simultaneously"? Do you mean "have 50% or greater odds of surviving in combat against", in which case, what kind of targets are we talking about? Or, what?

James Wright May 3 2013 10:40 PM

Re: Starship Phasers
 
Example, 4 K't'inga class battlecruisers engage the Enterprise in a battle simltaneously, can the Enterprise cope or would it need help?

James

blssdwlf May 4 2013 02:56 AM

Re: Starship Phasers
 
Quote:

James Wright wrote: (Post 8039734)
Having the number of ship mounted phasers that it has, how many targets can the refit Enterprise engage in battle?
Also, apply this question to the K't'inga.

I think the Enterprise (refit) could engage potentially 18 targets simultaneously or basically one for each phaser emitter or 9 targets if they fired as pairs. Depending on the bearing of the target(s) it would limit the number of available emitters that can fire.

With that being said, it also depends on how much power they need to put into the phaser attack. In TOS they could put all their power (all four phaser energy banks) into one pair of phasers firing. (Note that they did this while not under attack. So they didn't have to divert some energy for shields.) So they could fire all banks through one pair, or split their power among multiple banks. If all 18 emitters fired, they would be at a much weaker output.

The K'tinga would also have similar issues and that is probably why they fire two disruptors in TOS so the movie versions would likely be similar.

Also, remember that the available power to attack depends on how much power is being used for defense and maneuver. If the Enterprise came under sustained attack from 4 K'tingas it may not have enough power to mount a full power phaser attack since it's shields would be sucking up most of the power. She would have to run and buy time and distance to let her shields rest so power can be diverted back to phasers. If she stayed to fight more than likely she would run out of power for weapons and engines and eventually her shields would go and she would be destroyed, IMHO.

Albertese May 4 2013 05:04 AM

Re: Starship Phasers
 
In the bridge simulator at the start of Star Trek II pitched a refit against three K-Tinga's and the whole point of the mission was that the ship was doomed. So I'm gonna say 3:1 is pretty poor odds...

--Alex

Saturn0660 May 4 2013 05:33 AM

Re: Starship Phasers
 
All of them??

CorporalCaptain May 4 2013 06:31 AM

Re: Starship Phasers
 
Quote:

Albertese wrote: (Post 8041021)
In the bridge simulator at the start of Star Trek II pitched a refit against three K-Tinga's and the whole point of the mission was that the ship was doomed. So I'm gonna say 3:1 is pretty poor odds...

--Alex

Good point.

Sheet 6, of 14, of the Star Trek: The Motion Picture Blueprints says that the Enterprise (upgrade) class promises to even the odds for one Federation starship versus three "Drell-4" (K't'inga) Klingon heavy battle cruisers.

I see three main possibilities:
1. The hope that the odds for 3:1 would be even was optimistic.

2. The Klingons didn't stand still when the Connie refits started rolling out. If the odds for 3:1 really were even when the upgrades first came out, then only relatively minor upgrades on individual K't'inga's would have tipped the balance back in their favor, especially when patrolling in packs of three or more.

3. The Kobayashi Maru scenario invariably depicted the worst-case performance for the Federation starship.
Any, some, or all of these could be true.

Timo May 4 2013 04:11 PM

Re: Starship Phasers
 
We don't know the true limiting factors in TOS style starship fights, but both TOS and the TOS movies had our heroes engage only individual enemy ships in phaser fights. Engagements against multiple enemies did not include exchanges of fire, but rather a desperate attempt to avoid such ("The Enterprise Incident", "The Deadly Years", the simulation in ST2).

On the other hand, the ability to target a small and maneuvering enemy existed in TOS already; the hero ship was at a disadvantage only when deprived of warp maneuverability, which somehow affected targeting, or otherwise suffering from significantly lower speed than that of the opponent ("Elaan of Troyius", "Journey to Babel"). Given a properly working warp drive, the ship could maneuver extensively (including "pivoting") and defeat a foe with phasers or even with a point-and-shoot volley of torpedoes.

This would suggest that Kirk's avoidance of multiship fights was not due to his ship being unable to target multiple opponents, but rather due to multiple opponents possessing too much firepower for the hero ship's shields to withstand. Then again, in the M-5 simulation against multiple strong opponents, the rapid, accurate and tactically well thought out switching of fire from target to target seemed to be the main advantage provided by the new computer. Perhaps the crucial issue would be avoidance of enemy fire and finding the right openings for one's own volleys, using elegant maneuvering and timing, rather than anything as brutally technological as the raw targeting power of one's sensors and guns?

The supposedly added number of phaser emitters in the refit might not affect the outcome much, then. Coverage blind spots might be eliminated, and perhaps phasers and shields would gain in absolute power or even in relative power against their Klingon equivalents, but battles would still be decided on the two sides maneuvering cleverly to avoid being hit. This would be much like WWI fights where even a single hit might cripple you or your opponent - and completely different from TNG battles where, Horatio Hornblower style, the side that withstood incessant and unavoidable point-blank pounding longer would triumph.

Applying this to the original question, I'd think Kirk's ship would perform much the same before and after the refit in terms of capital ship adversaries: nobody in the 'hood would dare challenge her one on one, but a formation of three would still guarantee victory to the opponent, and presumably 2:1 odds would be good enough for an attack already even if not a surefire way to defeat Kirk.

It's too bad we never saw Kirk take on a large number of small opponents either before or after the refit (this happens in several novels, but never on screen).

Timo Saloniemi

CorporalCaptain May 4 2013 04:37 PM

Re: Starship Phasers
 
Not involving the refit, I know, but another 3:1 situation, besides the Kobayashi Maru scenario, was in The Enterprise Incident (original effects), when the Enterprise was surrounded by three Klingon-type Romulan ships. Everyone seemed to accept that the Enterprise would go down fighting, and that she would have, were it not for the stolen cloaking device.

On the other hand, in The Deadly Years, it took perhaps ten Romulan Birds of Prey to really threaten the Enterprise, but they got out-Kirked. No doubt, the Klingon ships were better than the Romulan ships.

James Wright May 4 2013 06:11 PM

Re: Starship Phasers
 
Which is better covered by their ship mounted weapons along the centerline lenthwise both dorsal and ventral the Enterprise or the K't'inga?

James

Timo May 4 2013 06:25 PM

Re: Starship Phasers
 
The canon weapons layout of the Klingon ship is unknown: the weapons fire from TNG "The Emissary" doesn't quite match Probert's ideas...

http://tng.trekcore.com/hd/albums/2x...ary_hd_344.jpg

I would imagine, though, that the Klingons would give their ships good coverage for forward angles. Possible gaps in rear angles, as in the BoP models, and reflecting Klingon ideas on fighting, but not serious ones. And the narrowness of the neck and the small dimensions of the bow section would give extra coverage for any weapons mounted in the wings or nacelles, whereas the Federation saucer obscures any emitters on the opposite side of the saucer surface quite completely.

Timo Saloniemi

James Wright May 5 2013 09:34 PM

Re: Starship Phasers
 
Quote:

Timo wrote: (Post 8042854)
The canon weapons layout of the Klingon ship is unknown: the weapons fire from TNG "The Emissary" doesn't quite match Probert's ideas...

http://tng.trekcore.com/hd/albums/2x...ary_hd_344.jpg

I would imagine, though, that the Klingons would give their ships good coverage for forward angles. Possible gaps in rear angles, as in the BoP models, and reflecting Klingon ideas on fighting, but not serious ones. And the narrowness of the neck and the small dimensions of the bow section would give extra coverage for any weapons mounted in the wings or nacelles, whereas the Federation saucer obscures any emitters on the opposite side of the saucer surface quite completely.

Timo Saloniemi

I'm going by the Klingon ship in TMP blueprints which has 8 disrupter mounts, I'm assuming that since Andrew Probert designed both ships for TMP he drew the blueprints for both ships?

James

CorporalCaptain May 6 2013 02:57 AM

Re: Starship Phasers
 
I don't see any reason to assume that the armament on the T'Ong is the same as the armament on the three Klingon cruisers seen in TMP. The T'Ong was sent on its mission in 2290, but TMP takes place in the 2270's. Plenty of time for upgrades.

Albertese May 6 2013 03:26 AM

Re: Starship Phasers
 
And I'm personally of the opinion that Klingon ships are managed by individual houses rather than a central KDF, and, therefore, individual ships equipment varies widely...

--Alex

Timo May 6 2013 11:18 AM

Re: Starship Phasers
 
The external signs of weapons emplacements on a battle cruiser are basically nonexistent, save for the torpedo tubes. Sure, the phaser pimples on Federation ships are tiny, too - but the Klingon vessels don't even have a specific design for a weapon.

The "turrets" at the stem of the hull boom look more like the Phalanx CIWS guns of current USN warships, in placement and design both. Naturally, all incarnations of the physical model from TMP on feature them, but they are never seen firing, so we might just as well assume they are secondary, defensive weapons that have no offensive uses.

The similar "gun" greeblies at the bottom of the bow flarings are never seen firing, either, and could be further CIWS emplacements. The four emitters put together would give good CIWS coverage for the forward hemisphere; further greeblies next to the aft top structures ("intercoolers"?) may take care of aft threats, even if they aren't identical to the other four turrets.

Heftier greeblies are to be found at the bottoms of the forward corners of the wing structure. These don't match either the TNG mid-wing disruptors or the TOS nacelle-tip ones, though.

Perhaps the main guns of these ships are less standardized than the secondary ones, due to being more important in combat and in giving the edge to a particular House against another? It is difficult to accept that the placement of "main" weapons would be more easily altered than that of "secondary" ones, though: how small are these heavy disruptor banks supposed to be? Invisibly small?

Timo Saloniemi


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.