That's probably false. Just think about it. 3 times the power production, means more power to go around. Shields should be able to withstand a LOT more, as you can keep full power to them longer. Phaser power would be fairly unlimited, as you can send the full power of a warp core into each burst, and still have a pair available for shields, SIF, manuevering, etc. Can't see how there WOULDN'T be more power available as one big ship.
Then why exactly star-ships don't come equipped with 2 or 4 warp cores as a standard since it would be better?
Regarding the shields ... only that argument could hold in terms of a prolonged conflict, but then again, the ship in separated mode would have identical shield capabilities while the only difference would be in terms of not being able to pump the extra power into them.
And being a pinnacle of Federation technology, the shields would likely be Sovereign type, if not better.
Phasers MIGHT have that max power, but do you have anything that shows that max power = less than 1 full warp core? Even if that IS true, you just double up on the phaser strips (and associated power management systems), and you can make the ship look like a phaser porcupine! And since they are always rerouting power to shields, they'd have more to spare before they had to do that.
Why is the Defiant such a little super-ship (aside from plot holes and it being a Hero ship)? Too big a warp core, far more power than the size/class should need.
You wouldn't be able to pump more power out of the phasers separated or connected.
The differential in this case is that you get more strips capable of firing equal output and delivering more damage in less time.
As for the Defiant ... ok, so it has a large warp core and more power than it can actually use effectively ... that could also translate into an engineering failure because you have all that power at your disposal and you can't use it properly.
The "equally" part isn't right, because if you break it into 3 parts, they're no longer equal to the original.
'Equal' in terms of firepower, not necessarily everything else.
Shields could suffer a little due to this, but hardly enough to put them in a critical jeopardy since the hardware in each section is already state of the art.
Don't believe warp power, especially redundancy, has ever been tied to max velocity. More to do with warp geometry, shape of the ship, SIF, etc. Max power may sustain the warp speed longer, but shouldn't have a lot to do with going much faster.
Valid arguments, but you also need something to power all those systems ... and on numerous occasions we witnessed ships consuming more power the higher warp velocities they hit.
The Nebula likely considered it a "friendly" and was pulling its punches. And the example with the Romulans is what has been talked about. This is a gimmick that will/should work once, and then it's pointless. If the Romulans know that ships with that profile can break into 3, will they be shocked next time? Not so much. And how would the firepower have changed if the Romulans were facing 3 Defiants instead? Same result, really, just no surprise.
If you re-watch the episode, you will see the Nebula was firing at the Prometheus the moment it was in firing range (this was before the Prometheus activated it's MVAM) and therefore was NOT considering it friendly.
Also, SF likely briefed the pursuing ship of the Prometheus capabilities so they can be better prepared ... which of course failed.
The Romulans who stole the ship already knew about it's capabilities, as did the Warbirds it came in contact with.
The Romulans knew quite well what to expect, and they still failed.
Again, depends on making a shaky claim at the beginning that the 3 pieces are stronger than the 1 big piece, and hoping the enemy doesn't know about the MVAM.
If the enemy knows about the MVAM, that doesn't necessarily put the Prometheus at a disadvantage (and the Prommie defeated both the Nebula class and a Warbird in MVAM).
3 Defiants would accomplish the same thing.
That's speculation of course since the ships in question lack phaser strips coverage and by that time period, phaser strips were likely on the same if not higher power output.
That, and the Defiants were not made for deep space tactical assignments, whereas the Prometheus was.
Can't speak to what the crew requirements would be, as we've never seen it really staffed. Would think you'd need to go heavier than normal on command, tactical, and pilots, though, as when you split up, you'd want able people on all 3 parts.
No ... as demonstrated, the MVAM coordinates with the main section in combat via the computer.
Only 10 people in the entire SF were originally trained to operate the ship.
I would hypothesize the ship would likely need a bit more, but I suspect it would be able to handle fine with 10 people in each section, equating to 30 people on the entire ship, and other sections wouldn't have to be commanded by high ranking officers.
Once they split and seperate, they'd be safe, but there has to be more danger when they are starting it. The shields of the overall ship are geared for the big ship, when you start to seperate, that shield has to expand, which makes it bigger but weaker. None of the parts are going to dodge a shot right then, either, they'd have to maintain the course for a few seconds, making them sitting ducks.
And I suppose that a different way of protecting the sections while in separation mode is out of the question?
For example, instead of expanding the shields you could also just retain skin type shields on each section and activate the shield grid in other sections the moment each part disengages from the other.
Can't see how that's all true. More automated, yes, but that was more a function of the plot than the ship. We've seen all KINDS of ships that require big crews piloted by single people, or small groups. Scotty had the original Enterprise up and running with a crew of 5 or so, and that normally requires more than that many people down in phaser control to just fire the phasers. Ent-D and VOY have also been flown solo, or just about empty.
You are forgetting that ships are capable of repairing/maintaining themselves. Of course this was introduced in TNG with the Galaxy class, and then later dropped for plot reasons.
In any event, the ship is highly automated which likely equates to ability to repair/maintain itself.
Obviously, some repairs will needed to be made by the crew, but it will hardly need as many people to do the job.
You also introduce a FAR bigger problem here: if each portion runs the risk of being stranded, you have to triple-up on the essentials. 3 bridges, (plus Aux control for each section in case of damage to the bridge), 3 sickbays, 3 engineerings, as well as 3 sets of crew able to run each ship individually. You can say that each of the 3 shifts takes a section, but if you lose the ability to recombine, you've now only got enough crew for a single shift, and you're screwed.
Given the level of automation and even with 10 people in each section, you can divide that to 2 or 3 shifts (unless the ship is continuously threatened ... in that particular case, no one will be getting too much sleep anyway).
True, that wasn't well thought out. Then again, it would only be used as a lifeboat, so maybe it's better than nothing, or you use the drive section to buy enough time to run/hide. The INTENT was likely to leave it behind before you start the dangerous mission, but most of the time, you don't know it's dangerous until too late.
Which is likely why SF introduced warp capability in all Prometheus sections, to avoid being stranded.
At least like this you have some kind of option of going back.
True, if you're willing to leave a section as the lifeboat. The saucer section looked to be the least powerful, with a tiny nacelle, but you'd also be leaving behind the main bridge, probably main sickbay, etc. as well as reducing the benefit of your MVAM. Probably worth it if shit happens, but a consideration.
And who is to say the remaining sections of the ship don't have the extra facilities such as the sickbay, another battle-bridge, etc. ?
There are holo-emmitters throughout the entire Prometheus, so one would think that it could also have as many EMH's as needed for each section.
Also, as mentioned, what happens if the top section runs and hides, but the middle section is destroyed in battle? Assuming you aren't next door to a starbase, you're screwed. top and bottom don't line up to connect, and if the bridge crew headed below to man a battle section, they likely stopped at the middle section, being closest. That being the case, it would probably be designed to be the most powerful of the group as well.
Since the vessel is designed for deep space tactical assignments, it's likely they'd make it just fine even if one of the sections is destroyed.
And I think that SF would think a bit better than to arm one of the sections more heavily compared to the others.
It's just as likely the phaser coverage and torpedo capabilities are very close to being the same (the Galaxy also has a concealed phaser strip and a torpedo tube for the saucer section when fully connected ... isn't is a same waste for that ship as well?)
You've now got two tiny ships that can't reconnect, AND you're very likely missing a good chunk of your command crew. Not a plesant scenario. Even if the middle section was only damaged instead of destroyed, could be easy to cause enough damage to prevent reconnection, which opens up plenty of problems.
Yawn ... same can be said for any other ship that can separate ... only they won't have the ability to go to Warp speed or tow the section that was damaged under a warp field to the repair facility.
As for the command crew ... adapt.
Just seems like the ship would be better off as one super-powerful ship, if that's the result of all the warp cores. MVAM means they have to waste space and personnel tripling up redundant systems, and the space for 6 bridges could have been used for other systems.
Oh I agree that there are numerous good arguments against the MVAM being there ... but at the same time, it can serve as a good element of surprise in some cases (but that's hardly the only reason behind the MVAM being usable)
Especially if SF only wants to send 1 ship to do the job instead of 3 and much more manpower.
In this instance, the Prometheus could do better, and besides, I would surmise that the Prometheus only engages it's MVAM mode when outnumbered in battle.
If the ship is designed for deep space tactical assignments, giving it the ability to separate into mobile weapon platforms can increase it's survivability since it would allow one or 2 sections to serve as a decoy while the third one pummels the enemy from a point that is vulnerable.
Or all 3 sections fire from 3 different directions at a singular target.
Or 3 ships vs 3 ships.
In some cases, it can level the playing field.
The AGT design was very sensible for a hospital ship imho. You could put the IC, ED and recovery wards deep in the sphere for protection against hull breach or attack.
