Yes. What's the point? If you need three ships, then build three ships. If you need them to be in one package, then have one large carrier ship that can disgorge the other two as needed. Something that's designed to switch between being a single ship and a small fleet is not going to be especially good at being either one. There's have to be too many structural and design compromises. Either the redundancy of features for the three ships would make the single-ship configuration unwieldy and wasteful, or the separate ships would be incomplete and weak. Besides, what happens if one of the three divided shiplets gets crippled or destroyed? That would make it impossible to put the whole ship back together as a functional unit. That strikes me as a pretty serious Achilles heel -- lose 1/3 of your force and you basically lose the whole thing.
Much like the unknown medical advances of the 24th century, the engineering advances must also be staggering, and very much unknown to us. We have no idea if any structural or design compromisies were even made (we just assume), just as we don't know whether or not the ship can still function when one of it's three ship components is destroyed or incapacitated. It's never been stated on screen. I think Starfleet would have assumed that 1/3 or even 2/3 of the ship could be incapacitated, as it is a multi-vector attack ship, and would have planned accordingly. Don't you? You pointed out when I was making assumptions the other day...don't you go and do the same thing now
Yes, I notice "Deep Space Nine" never followed up on it. We never saw the Prometheus deployed during the later stages of the Dominion War, when you'd think the Federation would be eager to get every functioining warship out into battle.
Really ? When did they say that? I always did wonder why we never saw it in DS9 when it would have been perfect for the dominion War...
I believe there was a Prometheus in that fleet at the conclusion of 'Endgame' that was waiting in the Sol system for Voyager. I would think that each section of the ship has its own bridge, although apparently the sections can be automated as well, judging from 'Message in a Bottle'. I also think that MVAM makes sense if the ship is outnumbered or in a fleet such as Voyager will be shortly. You never know how many ships you might run into in un-or-underexplored territory.
I don't. How does splitting one ship up into three ships with only 1/3 the strength of the original help? Say you're in a group of three people confronted by a pack of wolves. Do you know what's going to happen if you split up and run in three directions? You'll get picked off and killed one at a time. Staying together in a group makes you stronger.
I do believe, though, that the point of the Prometheus class is to attack from three different directions, not to run away. Also, I should think that each section is properly armed and capable of defending itself, so comparing them to people pursued by a pack of wolves seems a bit of a stretch.
As I recall, some of the weapon mounts were on areas covered by the other segments when the ship is whole, so seperation allows for more weaponry to be brought to bear (it's a ship that, by itself, can create a crossfire); it also forces the enemy vessel or vessels to divide their attention instead of being able to focus their pursuit and firepower on one point. Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
But power doesn't come out of nowhere. Each of those three ships has only 1/3 the power capacity of the first. So it's impossible by simple arithmetic for any one of those ships to be equally as well-protected as the intact ship. It's false to paint it as a choice between one ship or three ships. It's a choice between one strong ship and three weaker ships. And I still say there would have to be design compromises to make the ships work both as independent ships and part of a greater whole. It's just a basic principle that if you're trying to be two things at once, you won't excel at either of them. If having three ships in one is such a great idea, then do what I said: have one carrier ship that can deploy two other complete ships. That way you have three ships designed to function as independent ships. There's no need for the flashy, toylike gimmickry of one ship that can split into three. That was only done to "look cool" on screen, but I just found it silly and overcomplicated. There are simpler, more straightforward ways of achieving the stated goal, and the more straightforward approach is always better engineering.
We've been shown that the Defiant is on par with at least an Excelsior-class ship, and it's gone toe-to-toe with Jem'Hadar ships. So, Starfleet clearly has some faculty with building small, warp-powered gun platforms. (I tend to think that the Dominion War didn't last long enough to break Starfleet of the tactical paradigm that favored capital ships. A longer war, and larger losses, would have forced a change toward smaller ships, along the lines of the Defiants. It's quicker to build flying torpedo launchers than it is to build large ships. And you don't lose as many crew when you lose a flying torpedo launcher than you do when you lose a capital ship. That's one of the lessons of war; you always refight the last war until you need to learn new lessons. Our tactical lesson for today, however, is finished.) If Starfleet can build Defiant-class vessels, then they have some experience with building small, but extremely powerful, warp cores that can power phasers and quantum torpedoes. Using the lessons of the Defiant, I don't see why Starfleet can't "chain" three vessels together. Yes, each would carry its own warp core, and each would be largely separate. But I also see it as being like the Constructicons or the Aerialbots; while the individual parts can function individually and quite well, they can also combine to create something with even more power and punch. I assumed that the three warp drives, chained together, could produce a massive power spike that could be driven through the phasers or quantorps. Or, one vessel's warp drive was sufficient for motive power, leaving two warp drives free to power the weapons systems (since ST:TMP established that phasers were powered through the warp core). Suffice it to say, if the Defiant is on par with an Excelsior, I would assume that the three component ships of a Prometheus are likewise there, at the very least.
Instead of having one large ship that can separate into three smaller ships, they should design small ships that are capable of joining together into one larger, more powerful unit. Ideally, one shaped like a giant robot.
I think Chris is right that you have a choice between one powerful (perhaps over-powerful) ship and three (slightly) weaker ships, but if each of the sections is roughly on par with a Defiant, then it gives you added tactical flexibility when you need it, especially as Star Trek vessels have been shown to have defenses which vary in strength along different axes and sections of the ship. Use a split-up Prommie to catch the enemy from various angles or in a crossfire as Trent suggests. This especially makes sense when dealing with an enemy like the Jem'Hadar who tend to swarm and you need to be as flexible and adaptable as possible, being in many places at once.
And what about the moment when the ship is in the process of separating or recombining -- when shield envelopes are in flux, power systems are adjusting, computers are switching control, ship mobility is limited due to the need for precise maneuvering, etc.? That's a moment of great vulnerability. In a real battle situation, the enemy wouldn't observe the kind of henshin etiquette that you see in something like Power Rangers where the evil monster just sits around twiddling its thumbs while the good guys' giant robot goes through its elaborate transformation/assembly sequence. If their commanders aren't idiots, they'll know that the moment of separation or reassembly is when they can do the most damage, and that's when they'll hit the hardest. It's just making things needlessly complicated. It's still simpler, and safer, to have a carrier ship with smaller ships aboard, or just to have three ships travel together as a matter of course.
Hmm... Interesting. What do you think Mr. Spock? Fascinating. I would wheather have one ship instead of 3 perfectly for that reason, Captain. If we lost one half of the ship, what would be the purpose of the other 2? No idea which half could be destoryed, would screw everything up.
Good points all... I would say maybe it happens fast enough that Starfleet Command thinks the vulnerability is low enough to be worth the tactical advantage? Though I think "Message in a Bottle" put the lie to that...Besides, if you have three ships, then you can have NINE!!11! Hmm... guess not.