Do phaser arrays amplify energy, or merely direct it?

[Matt4511]

Putting these together, it seems clear to me that different starships in any given era will mount different Types of phaser, most probably so that bigger ships mount phasers of higher Type - and the destructive capabilities of the phasers grow systematically with the Type number. We can't argue that Type 10 is merely a more advanced version of the older Type 6, with comparable even if slightly higher power, because we know that Type 2 is not a newer version of Type 1, but that Types 1 and 2 exist for all eras. And it does not seem likely to me that every starship in any given era would be mounting the same Type of phaser, even if we may lack direct evidence of two different Types being in simultaneous use.

Timo Saloniemi

This is logical, but since Starfleet clearly reuses its numbers — updates the type-1 but still calls them type-1, I'd imagine the phaser types refer more to function than to power output.

I tend to think of type-8 as being as big as phaser "banks" ever good, with type-9 being the early phaser strips we saw on the Ambassador-class, and type-10 being the giant Galaxy/Sovereign-class kind of arrays.

But I'd imagine a modern type-8 phaser might pack a stronger punch than an early type-9, for example, given the updates they give to the type families.

 

[Deks]

On-screen evidence never suggested even a slightest hint that the longitude of phaser strip is connected to their maximum power output.
The Type of the phasers on the other hand more or less was correlating with power output.
The only reason a Galaxy class has a single long strip on the top and bottom of it's saucer is because it covers most surface area (which is not separated by design features and can accommodate 1 long strip). The rest is covered by the smaller strips that 'fill' the gap and are positioned in a manner where they can also fire backwards.

The Sovereign also has a singular 'longer' Phaser strip on the top portion of the saucer.
Bottom saucer section has plenty of extrusions etc which prohibit it from having a 'connected' strip like on the top portion of the saucer.

Other surface areas of the ship have smaller strips because of the ships design (which doesn't imply that they are weaker than the longer strips).

 

[blssdwlf]

Let's remember that we hear of hand phaser Types 1 and 2, with different ranges of application (unrelated to the specific design, as there apparently are half a dozen models of Type 2 in Trek history, and several Type 1 models as well). Something in their design sets them apart from each other; somehow, Starfleet builds "light" and "heavy" hand phasers and gives them "Type" numbers.

In TOS, it meant a Type 1 was less powerful than a Type 2. It was stated as such in "Devil In The Dark". The Type could just be "gun calibers" with each one being more powerful and longer-ranged regardless of the Trek era.

(And never mind that the division to "main" and "non-main" has only been explicated once IIRC, for the Constellation class in "The Battle".)

I just checked and and I'm not sure what was explained in "The Battle" as the dialogue doesn't go into any detail about the "main phasers".

It does bear mention that the Voyager often fights her opponents with her full arsenal of strips, long and short alike, without any sort of segregation:

Wouldn't Voyager suggest that phaser strip length is irrelevant?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I guess the question, though, and it ties right back to my original post, is what determines the destructive power of a phaser blast? Is it the size of the array? The total output of the warp reactor? The impulse engines? Are starships capable of directing up to 100% of the ship's total energy output through the phaser arrays, with total phaser output mid-battle depending on the other energy demands being placed on the ship's systems?

Realistically it should be a combination of several factors, of which the length of the array is only one of many. Peak power output from the ship's reactors is another, but almost as important is that energy transfer pathway from the reactor to the phasers themselves and how much current it can handle. For example, it is apparently a pretty common trick to channel phaser power directly from the engines instead of drawing it indirectly from some sort of "defense system power bus" that also supplies shields and photon torpedoes and whatnot; the refit Constitution and Defiant class are setup this way, though most other ships are not.

Another factor to consider is the fact that starships don't always NEED maximum phaser output. This is Starfleet we're talking about; they'd much rather disable your shields and force you to reach a peaceful settlement than pound you to bits with concentrated phaser fire.

Or does the destructive potential lay somehow in the hardware of the array, with tremendous destructive potential contained within special crystals or ores or something, that can only be released when stimulated by the properly tuned energy of a starship?

Again, it's a combination of factors, and the hardware of the phaser array itself is only one of many. Two phaser arrays of the same length may have an enormous power disparity if one of them is being fed directly from a plasma conduit and the other from the ship's general power grid; on the other hand, two arrays with the same power supply and the same length could also have a disparity if one of them is built using more advanced materials and has a higher gain from the same input power, which might allow you to get the same power output from a shorter array (which might also have the advantage of accuracy and efficiency).

Personally, I feel that starship's total energy output during a battle (less the energy necessary to run the shields, engines and all other ship's systems that cannot be turned off) is available to be directed out at an enemy through the phaser arrays, and that the limitations placed on beam power rest more on the arrays overheated or internal power transfer conduits blowing out.

There's that, but there's also efficiency losses to consider and the fact that directed energy weapons aren't necessarily the sum of their input power. With real world lasers, for example, two laser weapons hooked up to the same power supply can have VERY different outputs depending on the gain medium and on how much of that energy is actually going to the cooling system. A starship whose power grid revolves around its weapon systems (Defiant et al) is going to be able to put a lot more force into its phaser arrays than a starship that is designed to efficiency operate five hundred sensor pallets and forty five scientific laboratories simultaneously. If you can't use the "brute force" method of simply channeling all your power into the system, an easy way to boost output is to put a stack of amplifiers in front of the emitter and kick the gain as high as you can.

Actually, amplifying a signal is usually a lot easier than providing more power to the original transmitter. I actually believe that of all factors involved, the power output of a starship is considerably less important than the configuration of its phaser/shield arrays.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It does bear mention that the Voyager often fights her opponents with her full arsenal of strips, long and short alike, without any sort of segregation: small fighters get blasted with the long strips, and big capital ships get a taste of the short ones, whenever this choice of strips provides the optimum firing angle, and even when an only slightly less optimal angle would be available from a seemingly more suitably sized strip. That makes me feel the Intrepid class only carries one Type of phaser, which I'd place around Type 8 or Type 9, just because.

I seem to recall Voyager firing almost directly aft in order to hit the Equinox, among other times. Otherwise, I would tend to think that firing off the smaller banks is always appropriate in situations where only the smaller ones can reach them (i.e. you're running from them, in which case you're either about to hit them with photon torpedoes or turn around to face them anyway).

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Wouldn't Voyager suggest that phaser strip length is irrelevant?

You'd like to think so, but then you have to consider the fact that even the shorter strips can apparently fire in any arbitrary direction from the emitter and not strictly as a matter of elevation from the strip. That being the case, even a Constitution class could have 360 degree coverage if you replaced its dual phaser banks with those ultra-short phaser strips. There would, in that case, be no advantage to installing the longer wrap-around strip UNLESS it was capable of a higher power output.

 

[Deks]

There is obviously an advantage to long phaser strips because you can cover more surface area for that particular part of the ship (usually the saucer) and switch the beam over to somewhere else in the strip if your target moves.

There was no mentioning or indication that the length of strips is related to their power output at all.

Furthermore, Voyager disabled 2 alien warships with rapid firing from it's aft phaser strips in early season 1 (the episode where Tom Paris was accused of murdering a scientist and was implanted with the guys research into his memory - which would show up while reliving the faked memories).

Kirk's era emitters were paired balls placed on various sections of the ship.

If you recall from Ds9, the USS the Lakota (an Excelsior class), that ship also had ball emitters and were upgraded to churn out a lot more power than it was previously able to, but they also pretty much covered majority of the ship (as seen in a fight with the Defiant).

 

[Timo]

I'd imagine the phaser types refer more to function than to power output.

Would there be a difference? With phasers 1, 2 and 3, the design may change, and that apparently doesn't alter the function, which as far as we know is purely "1 is weaker than 2 is weaker than 3".

If phaser turrets went up to Type 8, and Type 10 was a strip exclusively, then we'd essentially be seeing turrets of increasing power from 4 to 8, then a sudden drop to weak strips at 9, right? Which would mean that runabouts and shuttles have Type 9 phaser strips against the Type 10 of a Galaxy... Sounds wrong to me.

But I'd imagine a modern type-8 phaser might pack a stronger punch than an early type-9, for example, given the updates they give to the type families.

This is quite likely, yes. But if the Types are akin to "gun calibers", then I guess that for any given era, the punch goes up in a monotonic manner from 1 to 10 - and for a mixture of phasers from any immediately adjoining eras, this holds true, too.

I just checked and and I'm not sure what was explained in "The Battle" as the dialogue doesn't go into any detail about the "main phasers".

It's part of Picard's false logs: regarding the conclusion of the original battle, "he" says that "Unfortunately, I fired our main phasers and our direct hit destroyed the unknown vessel". Admittedly, that's really a Ferengi speaking, but Picard would notice something amiss if "his" terminology were incorrect.

I seem to recall Voyager firing almost directly aft in order to hit the Equinox, among other times.

Quite true - and two of the four long strips on the primary hull (depending on nacelle position) and the ventral transverse strip can all fire directly aft. Which means using the shorter stern strips is a deliberate choice.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[blssdwlf]

There would, in that case, be no advantage to installing the longer wrap-around strip UNLESS it was capable of a higher power output.

Perhaps. Its just the lack of dialogue to indicate longer strips = higher power output combined with Voyager's use of her phasers which suggests that length of strip doesn't equal power output. It would appear that the strips are there just to enhance coverage.

I guess the question, though, and it ties right back to my original post, is what determines the destructive power of a phaser blast? Is it the size of the array? The total output of the warp reactor? The impulse engines? Are starships capable of directing up to 100% of the ship's total energy output through the phaser arrays, with total phaser output mid-battle depending on the other energy demands being placed on the ship's systems?

From what we know from the series...
TOS: Kirk's Enterprise phasers could draw the full power of the ship's engines at likely the equivalent of Warp 9 power levels (or basically the phasers could burn out the engines.)

TOS Movies: Kirk's movie Enterprise apparently increased phaser power by channeling it from the engines which would suggest that the TOS Enterprise's phasers even drawing full power from the ship's engines weren't as efficient as the movie method.

In both TOS cases, power allocation to other systems and ability to output power could impact the total phaser outout.

TNG+: Phaser power for the E-D appears to be drawn from the EPS Taps ("A Matter of Time") and the total output is less than the discharge of the main deflector ("Best of Both Worlds"). It would appear that the E-D's phasers aren't as directly impacted by shield expenditure, etc.

DS9: Defiant doubles her phaser power by "running the plasma conduit through the primary phaser coupling". Apparently it also enhanced the warp drive efficiency at the same time. Even then, she keeps a "phaser reserve".

During the Dominion War, many ships appear to receive upgrades, the most notable being the Lakota. It wouldn't be surprising if the Galaxy-class also received an upgrade explaining seeing them firing multiple phasers from the same strip at the same target in combat.

Voy: Doesn't appear (AFAIK) to have phasers any different than the Galaxy-class.

To me, it's a combination of ship's current power output, efficiency or design of the power transfer to the phasers and phaser equipment contribute to the damage potential. (Also TOS suggests that range can reduce phaser damage as well.)

If phaser turrets went up to Type 8, and Type 10 was a strip exclusively, then we'd essentially be seeing turrets of increasing power from 4 to 8, then a sudden drop to weak strips at 9, right? Which would mean that runabouts and shuttles have Type 9 phaser strips against the Type 10 of a Galaxy... Sounds wrong to me.

It would make more sense that Type 9 and 10 refer to strength/caliber and not design. That would be in keeping with the Type number staying the same between eras and only the aesthetics changing.

I just checked and and I'm not sure what was explained in "The Battle" as the dialogue doesn't go into any detail about the "main phasers".

It's part of Picard's false logs: regarding the conclusion of the original battle, "he" says that "Unfortunately, I fired our main phasers and our direct hit destroyed the unknown vessel". Admittedly, that's really a Ferengi speaking, but Picard would notice something amiss if "his" terminology were incorrect.

Hmm, how is this different from the dozens of other TNG references to "main phasers" on the E-D, or even "main phasers" on the TOS Enterprise?

 

[Timo]

I'd love to hear some of those other references - I can't recall any.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[blssdwlf]

Here you go Timo

TNG

"Encounter at Farpoint"

PICARD: Thank you. That was the missing part. Lieutenant Yar, rig main phaser banks to deliver an energy beam.
​

"Justice"

LAFORGE: Shields and deflectors up full, sir. Main phaser banks ready.
​

"The Battle" (referencing Stargazer's phasers)

PICARD: I admit I must have mistaken their subspace antenna for a weapons cluster. Unfortunately, I fired our main phasers and our direct hit destroyed the unknown vessel.
​

"Datalore"

PICARD: Bring photon torpedoes to ready. Main phasers to ready. Go to Red Alert, please.
​

"Yesterday's Enterprise" (Referencing E-C's phasers. Notice that the mains cover forward and aft - so it isn't exclusively the forward phasers)

TASHA: What are the stats on main phaser banks?
CASTILLO: Emitters available, sixty percent forward, fifty two percent aft.
TASHA: Good. Let's take a look at the torpedo launchers.
​

"Redemption Part 2" (referencing the Sullivan?)

DATA: Make a full report to the flagship. Take the main phasers offline and begin radiation clean up on the affected decks.
​

"Chain of Command Part 1"

JELLICO: I want you to install a bypass between the main phaser array and the secondary generators. I also want to run the main deflector pathway through the warp power grid and the auxiliary conduits through the lateral relays. You may have to reconfigure the transfer interface.
DATA: Sir, the transfer interface was not designed for that configuration. It will take seven hours to make those changes.
RIKER: Sir, you may not be aware that our normal interface already routes auxiliary power through three separate relays.
JELLICO: I'm aware of your current design system. It's not good enough. If these negotiations fail, we could find ourselves in a war zone and if that happens I want to be loaded for bear.
​

(I'd also point out that Jellico bumps up the power transfer and warp coil efficiency by 15% in this episode. More power to the weapons and maneuverability?)

JELLICO: Power transfer levels need to be upgraded by twenty percent. The efficiency of your warp coils is also unsatisfactory.
LAFORGE: Coil efficiency is well within specifications, Captain.
JELLICO: I'm not interested in the specs, Geordi. The efficiency needs to be raised by at least fifteen percent.
LAFORGE: Fifteen percent.
DATA: That is an attainable goal, but it will require realigning the warp coil and taking the secondary distribution grid offline.
JELLICO: Very good, Data. That's exactly what I want you to do.

​

In TOS, "Main Phasers" were called out in:
"The Corbomite Maneuver", "The Balance of Terror", "The Doomsday Machine", "Mirror, Mirror", "The Trouble with Tribbles", "Journey to Babel", "The Ultimate Computer", "The Enterprise Incident", "That Which Survives", and "The Lights of Zetar".

In DS9, "Main Phasers" were used for the Defiant's phasers in "Favor the Bold".

In Voyager, there were no references to "Main Phasers".

 

[Crazy Eddie]

There is obviously an advantage to long phaser strips because you can cover more surface area for that particular part of the ship (usually the saucer) and switch the beam over to somewhere else in the strip if your target moves.

This isn't an actual advantage if phaser strips can direct beams in any arbitrary direction from their surface, and they can. The Galaxy class would therefore have the exact same coverage from three small strips as it would from one incredibly long strip.

There was no mentioning or indication that the length of strips is related to their power output at all.

Strictly speaking, it has never been mentoined or indicated that starship phasers are more powerful than shuttlecraft phasers, let alone phaser strips being more powerful than their 23rd century counterparts.

Furthermore, Voyager disabled 2 alien warships with rapid firing from it's aft phaser strips in early season 1

Which proves what, exactly? A naval vessel can disable an enemy ship with a 57mm just as well as it can with a 76 or a 127. That doesn't mean a fast-firing 57mm gun is going to be exactly as powerful as the 127.

OTOH, even if somehow they both had the same destructive power, the larger cannon still has a farther effective range.

If you recall from Ds9, the USS the Lakota (an Excelsior class), that ship also had ball emitters and were upgraded to churn out a lot more power than it was previously able to, but they also pretty much covered majority of the ship (as seen in a fight with the Defiant).

Which, again, negates the whole "longer strips for better coverage" idea. A set of ball turrets firing from a single point could do that, as could short strips, which means there would be no other reason to install a single large strip UNLESS the longer strip provided some advantage in either firepower or range.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In TOS, "Main Phasers" were called out in:
"The Corbomite Maneuver", "The Balance of Terror", "The Doomsday Machine", "Mirror, Mirror", "The Trouble with Tribbles", "Journey to Babel", "The Ultimate Computer", "The Enterprise Incident", "That Which Survives", and "The Lights of Zetar".

In DS9, "Main Phasers" were used for the Defiant's phasers in "Favor the Bold".

In Voyager, there were no references to "Main Phasers".

I've been thinking that for any given (Federation) starship, the "main phasers" are always the phaser banks mounted on the saucer section with all others being secondary weapons, either with reduced output or reduced range. Not all of these ships actually HAVE the ability to fire aft, but this doesn't matter a whole lot since the ship is intended to fight with its bow facing the enemy.

 

[Deks]

This isn't an actual advantage if phaser strips can direct beams in any arbitrary direction from their surface, and they can. The Galaxy class would therefore have the exact same coverage from three small strips as it would from one incredibly long strip.

Except that you are dealing with interruptions when using smaller strips in a row, and would likely have to rearrange internal circuitry to put in multiple hardware instead of connecting it all.
SF used the strips to cover one end of the ship to the other if the surface area allowed for it.

Strictly speaking, it has never been mentoined or indicated that starship phasers are more powerful than shuttlecraft phasers, let alone phaser strips being more powerful than their 23rd century counterparts.

In fact, we HAVE seen a shuttle-sized Cardassian ship being equipped with a star-ship grade weapons (in TNG if I'm not mistaken).

Which proves what, exactly? A naval vessel can disable an enemy ship with a 57mm just as well as it can with a 76 or a 127. That doesn't mean a fast-firing 57mm gun is going to be exactly as powerful as the 127.

OTOH, even if somehow they both had the same destructive power, the larger cannon still has a farther effective range.

Earlier discussion involved usage of aft arrays and their supposed weakness when compared to the longer arrays.
Point being, aft strips were used to as much success as forward arrays were.

Which, again, negates the whole "longer strips for better coverage" idea. A set of ball turrets firing from a single point could do that, as could short strips, which means there would be no other reason to install a single large strip UNLESS the longer strip provided some advantage in either firepower or range.

Not necessarily.
If you place ball turrets on a sufficiently curved surface of a starship, you will be blocking a specific portion of it's coverage.
A single strip that 'flows' with the curvature on the other hand can project a beam and follow the target along the strip (as evident per on-screen evidence).

Besides, ball turrets as seen on the Lakota were placed in strategic places already.
That ship was DESIGNED with sufficient coverage in mind.
Most other ships of that era had ball emitters on the saucer.
Plus, as far as I recall, there were no ball emitters on the nacelle pylons or the lower secondary hull.

Phaser strips on the other hand could be a revision of the ball turret technology allowing starships to have them in locations where earlier designs (such as those from the 23rd century) couldn't.
Also, ball-type phasers could have a limit in terms of how much power they could output... so Type X phasers for example could be the last weapons upgrade these ships could see before SF decides to retire them all-together.

That could explain why small ships such as the Intrepid and Nova class were stated off-screen (which agreed is NOT canon) to carry Type-X phasers (not to mention their formidable coverage as opposed to 23rd century counterparts which mostly had them on the saucer).

 

[blssdwlf]

Interestingly, the Enterprise-C's saucer looks like it could have had a super-long phaser array installed like the E-D since there are no physical obstructions preventing it. But for whatever reason, the E-C has several short strips instead and 2 short strips at the top back of the saucer for top and to the rear coverage.

I think that the secondary hull's phasers should be on par with the saucer phasers just to have parity in delivered phaser power otherwise everyone would just attack the ships from the lower aft direction.

 

[Deks]

But think about when the Enterprise-C was commissioned.
It was 18 years before the Enterprise-D.
That ship probably was the closest 'test' subject as we could ever hope to get (in terms of new phaser technology from a time we know nothing about.

So by that analogy alone, the Enterprise-C and other ships from the era in question probably would sport short strips as opposed long ones.
Perhaps it was an early design limitation in the strips themselves until SF managed to pull off a premise that making a fully connected strip instead of short ones might be better.

And, I see no reason why aft or short strip would deliver much less powerful beams compared to long phaser strips.

'Main phaser array' was referred to as the 'saucer based arrays', but that doesn't implicate that they are capable of churning out more powerful phaser beams than the shorter strips elsewhere on the hull.
Why bother in that case? Because the enemy would then probably pound you where your weapons are the weakest... and nothing in Trek we've seen indicates that short strips are less powerful than the longer ones.

 

[blssdwlf]

I see your point.

I'm also in agreement that the length of the phaser strip doesn't indicate power output.

The "main phaser" description I don't think we'll know what that means until someone identifies a "secondary phaser" or "auxiliary phaser" to figure out if "main" means "saucer" or the "main phaser coil" or "main phaser banks" or "main power feed phaser" instead of "bypassed", etc...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

This isn't an actual advantage if phaser strips can direct beams in any arbitrary direction from their surface, and they can. The Galaxy class would therefore have the exact same coverage from three small strips as it would from one incredibly long strip.

Except that you are dealing with interruptions when using smaller strips in a row, and would likely have to rearrange internal circuitry to put in multiple hardware instead of connecting it all.

Why? If a single phaser strip can act as a huge power bus, it's not that complicated to install an actual power bus.

Which proves what, exactly? A naval vessel can disable an enemy ship with a 57mm just as well as it can with a 76 or a 127. That doesn't mean a fast-firing 57mm gun is going to be exactly as powerful as the 127.

OTOH, even if somehow they both had the same destructive power, the larger cannon still has a farther effective range.

Earlier discussion involved usage of aft arrays and their supposed weakness when compared to the longer arrays.
Point being, aft strips were used to as much success as forward arrays were.

Yes, in the same way a 76mm gun can be used to as much success as a 127 if all you're doing is disabling an enemy ship or shooting down a smaller lightly-armored craft.

Not necessarily.
If you place ball turrets on a sufficiently curved surface of a starship, you will be blocking a specific portion of it's coverage.

Which is why ball turrets AREN'T placed in awkward places that have no coverage. Significantly in this case, the same places you would put one very long phaser strip would work just as well for three short ones, for precisely the same reason. If the beam is steerable away from perpendicular from the strip--and it pretty much HAS to be--then the short strip is equivalent to a longer one when it comes to coverage.

So if the longer strips DO have an advantage, it isn't placement/coverage. What else does that leave us, then?

That ship was DESIGNED with sufficient coverage in mind.
Most other ships of that era had ball emitters on the saucer.
Plus, as far as I recall, there were no ball emitters on the nacelle pylons or the lower secondary hull.

Not in TOS, but there were in TMP. Interestingly, the phaser banks in the TMP refit are--by some admittedly non-canon sources--described as being a slightly different type than the ones mounted on the saucer. This, again, would imply a division between "main phasers" and secondary weapons.

Phaser strips on the other hand could be a revision of the ball turret technology allowing starships to have them in locations where earlier designs (such as those from the 23rd century) couldn't.

Doesn't work, since you can put a phaser strip in the same kinds of places you can put a ball turret. The only real advantage would be if the strip is mounted ENTIRELY on the outer hull with no internal machinery within the starship, but in that case there is again no advantage to a longer strip from coverage alone (in fact a series of smaller strips with independent power supplies would be better, reducing your chance of disabling the entire weapon system with one shot).

[uote]That could explain why small ships such as the Intrepid and Nova class were stated off-screen (which agreed is NOT canon) to carry Type-X phasers (not to mention their formidable coverage as opposed to 23rd century counterparts which mostly had them on the saucer).[/QUOTE]
And yet even 23rd century starships had phasers in their secondary hulls.

More to the point, even the diminutive Nova class has longer phaser strips on its forward-facing/saucer section than it does on its rear-facing/secondary hull. The strips aren't THAT much longer, and the arrowhead-shaped hull makes it so these strips are virtually straight lines with almost no curvature at all, COMPLETELY eliminating any coverage advantage for the longer strip. In this case the ONLY visible difference between the forward and aft phasers is their length. If there is a reason for this length difference, it is either maximum output, effective range or endurance. Otherwise, there IS no reason for this length difference and Starfleet just builds them longer because tiny phasers are for wussies.

I think that the secondary hull's phasers should be on par with the saucer phasers just to have parity in delivered phaser power otherwise everyone would just attack the ships from the lower aft direction.

Everyone DOES attack from the lower aft direction, especially in sneak attacks. On the other hand, you cannot always--or even usually--control the direction you attack from unless you can convince your opponent to hold still for a couple minutes so you can get into an ideal attack position.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So by that analogy alone, the Enterprise-C and other ships from the era in question probably would sport short strips as opposed long ones.
Perhaps it was an early design limitation in the strips themselves until SF managed to pull off a premise that making a fully connected strip instead of short ones might be better.

Then why are the arrays on Voyager, Equinox and Enterprise-E NOT connected when they easily could be? Does Starfleet really believe that having five floor-to-ceiling windows on the front of the saucer section is more important than full defensive capability?

And, I see no reason why aft or short strip would deliver much less powerful beams compared to long phaser strips.

Probably the same reason a type-1 phaser would deliver a less powerful beam compared to a phaser rifle.

'Main phaser array' was referred to as the 'saucer based arrays',

When?

Why bother in that case? Because the enemy would then probably pound you where your weapons are the weakest...

Assuming your enemy has a choice in the matter, which--if your ship is capable of maneuvering at all--they usually don't. In point of fact MOST races don't bother to have complete 360 degree weapon coverage in all directions (Klingons in particular).

OTOH, phaser coverage is a lot less important in that case than SHIELD coverage.

 

[blssdwlf]

Not in TOS, but there were in TMP.

I'd argue that there was equivalent phaser coverage in TOS. "Balance of Terror" called out "forward, port, starboard and midships" phasers and "Arena" called out "aft phaser". It might not be the same number of phasers, but it was likely in the same locations between the TOS and TMP versions.

I think that the secondary hull's phasers should be on par with the saucer phasers just to have parity in delivered phaser power otherwise everyone would just attack the ships from the lower aft direction.

Everyone DOES attack from the lower aft direction, especially in sneak attacks. On the other hand, you cannot always--or even usually--control the direction you attack from unless you can convince your opponent to hold still for a couple minutes so you can get into an ideal attack position.

Are you sure about the attack direction?

The times when a starship opponent fighting the TOS / TMP Enterprise could control the attack direction we didn't see them sneaking up on the Enterprise from the lower aft. (Original TOS FX referenced.)

"Journey to Babel" - Orion ship strafed them consistently at high rate of speed from high to low, approaching even from the front of Enterprise. Even when the Enterprise was thought to be crippled, approached from the front of Enterprise.

"Elaan of Troyius" - The Klingon Battlecruiser attacked from aft (yes) but above not below targeting the aft shields. No mention of weaker aft phaser weapons.

"The Enterprise Incident" - Romulan ships surrounded Enterprise. They might not have cared for positioning as much since they had numerical superiority.

"The Search for Spock" - Kruge's BOP decloaked head-on with the Enterprise. (But they did decloaked and attacked the Grissom from behind.)

"The Undiscovered Country" - Chang's BOP attacked from all directions. The opening attack was from forward below.