View Single Post
Old July 11 2013, 03:16 PM   #48
Lieutenant Commander
KGator's Avatar
Location: Mentally? . . . that's debatable.
Re: Federation vs The Dominiom: The Rematch.

Timo wrote: View Post
Imagine a ship comprised of nothing but an engine, shield, computer, weapon (phaser or photon torpedo or some combination thereof) and other ancillary systems (commo, sensors, etc).
I do. And what I see is one of the automated sections of the Prometheus.
Not exactly, a truly automated ship would not need areas like crew quarters, mess halls, bathrooms, sick bays, corridors, turbo lifts, storage for crew supplies, holodecks, etc. While the Prometheus was the basis of a story/episode, some of the ship's functions seem fantastic and unnecessary. Why design and build a ship that splits in three tactical components when it would probably be far cheaper to build three ships? I mean, wouldn't it be cool if modern aircraft carriers could fly and submerge underwater? Yeah, of course. But WTF would be the point?

Timo wrote: View Post
Anything smaller would not have an engine, because combat-credible engines are big things.
I'm not familiar with the term "combat credible engine". What is that? Is that an engine that is fast enough to outrun a phaser beam or photon torpedo? I can't recall that term ever being used in Star Trek so perhaps you can reference me to this term. Would this mean that automated defensive satellites have no place in battle since they probably have no significant means of propulsion? I do believe the vast majority of battles are fought at subwarp so is it the impulse or warp engine that need to be "combat credible"?

Timo wrote: View Post
It might not even have a weapon, because we haven't seen evidence that ship-killing weapons could be made particularly compact.
Try to imagine a runabout without the need for all the area given to the crew (saving about 70-80% of space). It seems to have a capable array of weaponry. A large starship attacked by dozens of small, runabout type ships armed with phasers and microtorpedos. This is essentially what happened in World War II when groups of fighters launched from aircraft carriers proved to be more lethal in combat than the gigantic, heavily armed battleships.

Timo wrote: View Post
Take a look at today's drones.
Yup - aircraft that are just as large and heavy as their crewed counterparts, and thrice as expensive.
Ummm, I'm not sure if you are talking about current drones or your imagined drones of the future because the specifications of current aircraft in production for the US are:

MQ-9 Reaper (Drone): Cost=16.9 million, Size=36'x11', Weight=4,900lbs
MQ-1C Gray Eagle (Drone): Cost=21.5 million, Size=28'x7', Weight=3,600lbs
F-22 Raptor (Manned): Cost=150 million, Size=62'x17', Weight=43,300lbs
F-35 Lightning (Manned): Cost=150-200 million, Size=51'x14', Weight=49,500lbs

So that is completely inaccurate. I'm going to assume you either had bad information or misstated what you actually meant to say.

Timo wrote: View Post
Because they have to be. Anything smaller would be unable to carry the weapons and sensors or mount the engine.
Refer to the data above. Current drones don't have to be the same size or larger than manned aircraft. In fact the available data suggests the exact opposite is true.

Timo wrote: View Post
they'd be in the wrong
Which is completely separate from the issue of whether or not they would have a cause to launch another war. Right and wrong don't enter the picture at all - especially not right and wrong as defined by the enemy.

Timo Saloniemi
I'm not sure who this is directed at, that doesn't seem to be a quote from me.
KGator is offline   Reply With Quote