On Ship Design Longevity

[Saquist]

Well, a carrier is obviously classified more based on role than size. Otherwise we have to start including logistics ships in this conversation as well. I am sure there are fuel tenders and such that dwarf destroyers.

I have to concur. Star Fleet vessels aren't role oriented either. There are no carriers, destroyers, frigates, escorts that operate in fleets.

Star Fleet ships operate independently as a matter of rule, thus the cruiser designation on the TMP designs and the Heavy Cruiser Designation seen on Scott's plans of the ENT-A in TUC

That makes the Klingon's commentary in TSFS that much more relevant. "Battlecruiser"

While not canon, if you believe that the Enterprise's official designation was a "Heavy Cruiser" that means she was slightly above medium sized in comparison to the rest of the ships in the fleet.

The American and to some extent British and int'l definition of heavy cruiser was a cruiser with 8in guns or bigger, without specific mention of length or displacement or any other dimension. And that was only the third-biggest gun combat type anyway, there being battle cruisers (never built) and battleships above it. Starfleet could have had those in TOS, too. So,

In TMP she was the most powerful ship in service, more powerful then the best the Klingons could dish out for example.

Not necessarily. At least nothing of the sort was ever mentioned in that movie, or in any other movie. Starfleet could well have had larger and/or more powerful ships at its disposal, only none of them anywhere near interception range (perhaps more powerful ships were slower, too?).

And while the Klingons in TOS typically wanted at least 2:1 odds or an inside man doing sabotage before daring to challenge Kirk's ship with their battle cruisers, the Klingons in TOS movies had fewer reservations. A single cloakship of theirs was a deadly threat in three movies; a single wounded battle cruiser was seen as a threat in one. Who knows how a single modern Klingon battle cruiser would have fared against the upgraded Enterprise in TMP, had a battle occurred?

Defiant is a difficult classification

Or one of the easiest. Starfleet calls her "escort", which matches historical precedent pretty well: poor spacekeeping (seakeeping), poor habitability, limited weaponry, a powerful forward-firing weapon unique to the type (hedgehog), general ruggedness, slow speed, lack of multimission capabilities...

Timo Saloniemi

TMP Enterprise carried 18 phasers on 12 banks.
As compared to Reliant with 12 on 6 banks and two canons.

As for Escort...
I can't go with that description. I wouldn't call the destroyer escort heavily armed. Having 4 guns doesn't cut and no missles (not from what I saw)

Defiant isn't slow either. We're not talking warp here we're talking about it's combat abilities and we rarely see warp combat in Trek.

With Defiant we're talking about a ship whose weapons aren't merely unique they are capital ship equivalent and higher. Those DE can't maneuver like that...only the Pegasus can and only the Pegasus could carrier exocett missles at it's size. These were lethal little ships just like the Defiant fast and deadly..

 

[Unicron]

Well, the BOP designs aren't really treated as a distinctive ship type in sources like FASA; it's just part of the name. The Romulan vessel from TOS was a cruiser, more or less equivalent to a Constitution, and the movie era design originated as a small scout vessel.

 

[Timo]

TMP Enterprise carried 18 phasers on 12 banks. As compared to Reliant with 12 on 6 banks and two canons.

Actually, a closer examination of the models would reveal either 16 or 18 turret-style phaser emitters on the Reliant (12 on the saucer, two on each of the cylinder pods on the roll bar, possibly two beneath the impulse engine), and a closer examination of ST2 visuals would suggest that the "cannon" never were phasers at all, because they aren't seen firing anything. Instead, the fire from the roll bar is emerging from the small ball turrets on the outer surfaces of the cylinders, while the forward barrel-thing only emits white light and the aft barrel-thing isn't seen emitting anything.

A more interesting question is, are the ball turrets of the Reliant as powerful as the ball turrets of the Enterprise? That is, does the Reliant perhaps carry "6in" guns against the "8in" ones of the Enterprise? And are all the guns on one of the ships of the same "caliber", or is there a division to primary and secondary phasers there? The Stargazer from the same era was said to have main phasers in "The Battle", suggesting the existence of secondary ones... (And indeed the model suggestively features both paired and single turrets.)

Khan for some reason only uses the ball turrets on the roll bar of his ship, never the saucer guns. Should we infer that the roll bar guns are are heavier than the other ball turrets elsewhere on his ship? Or should we assume he lacked the expertise to operate all the phasers of the ship in the most efficient manner possible, and settled for mastering the roll bar ones?

I wouldn't call the destroyer escort heavily armed.

I wouldn't call the Defiant heavily armed, either - so the description fits. The DS9 hero ship has a very limited number of guns, and the ones we see in action don't seem to produce damage that would be superior to the guns of other ships. The torpedoes of the Defiant seem to have very limited punch as well: a volley of four produces little or no visible damage to a Cardassian capital ship in the ship's titular adventure, even if the little escort fares well against small Dominion battlebugs or Klingon BoPs.

Defiant isn't slow either. We're not talking warp here we're talking about it's combat abilities and we rarely see warp combat in Trek.

That's also keeping with the escort definition. The Defiant is inferior at high warp, as indicated in "The Sound of Her Voice". At sublight, she fares as well as any other ship - but that's also true of the classic WWII escort, which required excessive time to cross the Atlantic but nevertheless easily triumphed over Nazi submarines in combat speed.

With Defiant we're talking about a ship whose weapons aren't merely unique they are capital ship equivalent and higher.

Which episode would suggest that? The Defiant only tackles capital ships on three occasions: in "Defiant", she merely disables a Cardassian cruiser with a volley of four of her torpedoes, in "Paradise Lost" she fights a Starfleet cruiser (?) to a draw of sorts when both sides are pulling their punches, and in ST:FC she tackles a Borg Cube and doesn't seem to damage it much. The sister ship Valiant fares miserably against a Dominion capital ship in her titular episode. And in the fleet battles of late DS9, ships of this class concentrate on the smallest enemy types, such as the Dominion battlebugs and Breen ships.

Those DE can't maneuver like that...

Maneuverability never counted for zip in Trek battles. And in any case, the loops the DS9 hero ship can loop aren't demonstrably better than the ones the enemy ships can do. The Breen and the Dominion battlebugs give the ship a run for her money; the Klingon BoPs dodge and swerve nicely, too.

And I trust you haven't seen a Garcia or a Perry pull a tight one if you think DEs can't maneuver...

Well, the BOP designs aren't really treated as a distinctive ship type in sources like FASA; it's just part of the name. The Romulan vessel from TOS was a cruiser, more or less equivalent to a Constitution, and the movie era design originated as a small scout vessel.

Granted. But in canon, both Warbird and Bird of Prey are treated as names for "mission types", applicable to any design that performs the mission or otherwise fits the criteria. We could just as well speculate that Raptor is similar, and that there might exist TOS or TNG era designs in that category. Perhaps things like Bird of Burden or Vulture as well, more readily designated something like Transport and Planetary Assault Ship, respectively, when humans are speaking...

I do wonder, though. The designation Warbird was first used by Vulcans when referring to the Klingon arsenal. Perhaps the Klingons are not using a bird thematic at all, but the Vulcans (and especially Romulans, who could be treated as the archetype of the Vulcan warrior) are - and their terminology is adopted by humans as the customary way of finding equivalents to obscure Klingon expressions, for historical reasons?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Unicron]

The Romulans certainly had a lot of avian themes in the FASA verse, which would be consistent with warbirds and similar names. The Klingon BOPs had very similar names, with the scaled up versions (something the Klingons weren't supposed to build to begin with) being the "Great Bird" and so forth.

 

[Longinus]

I think that only reason Federation calls certain Klingon ships Birds of Prey, is that it was originally a term for cloaked Romulan ships. Once Klingons got the cloak, Feds started calling those ships BoPs as well. Later all sorts of ships were equipped with the cloak, but by then the term Bird of Prey had already become associated with this certain type of Klingon vessel.

 

[Saquist]

TMP Enterprise carried 18 phasers on 12 banks. As compared to Reliant with 12 on 6 banks and two canons.

Actually, a closer examination of the models would reveal either 16 or 18 turret-style phaser emitters on the Reliant (12 on the saucer, two on each of the cylinder pods on the roll bar, possibly two beneath the impulse engine), and a closer examination of ST2 visuals would suggest that the "cannon" never were phasers at all, because they aren't seen firing anything. Instead, the fire from the roll bar is emerging from the small ball turrets on the outer surfaces of the cylinders, while the forward barrel-thing only emits white light and the aft barrel-thing isn't seen emitting anything.

I doubt that the Reliant has all those implacements. But I'll look. As for the canon I'm not talking about the sensors sitting on the saucer section's upper disk.

A more interesting question is, are the ball turrets of the Reliant as powerful as the ball turrets of the Enterprise? That is, does the Reliant perhaps carry "6in" guns against the "8in" ones of the Enterprise? And are all the guns on one of the ships of the same "caliber", or is there a division to primary and secondary phasers there? The Stargazer from the same era was said to have main phasers in "The Battle", suggesting the existence of secondary ones... (And indeed the model suggestively features both paired and single turrets.)

Reliant's phaser canon's readily penetrated the Hull in main engineering. Enterprises phasers did seem to penetrate but not to cripple reliant on the first pass.

I wouldn't call the Defiant heavily armed, either - so the description fits. The DS9 hero ship has a very limited number of guns, and the ones we see in action don't seem to produce damage that would be superior to the guns of other ships.

Hero status is irrelevant and unquantifiable.
It's a critique and usually one borne of annoyance.

1-Defiant is clearly superior
Pitted against the same ships Defiant's guns were around 500% more effective....perhaps more. The Odyssey has been up against the same number of Attack ships as Defiant and never physically damages it's target. Both ships were at a shield disadvantage.

2-Defiant and the Galaxy have both been pitted against the Bird of Prey. Defiant has never gone down to a bird of prey. The Galaxy has. Defiant misses twice. One shot severely compromises the hull and three shots decimates the BoP completely. In the same amount of Time the Enterprise enjoying Hero ship status goes down to a lowly BoP.

3-Defiant is the Only Federation ship to destroy a Attack ship or Jem'Hadar Cruiser on screen.

4.-Defiant destroys a Breen Warship with Four Quantum Weapons elapsed time 3.2 seconds.

5-Defiant damages a Breen Warship with a sustained Volley

6-Defiant Mirror Universe incarnation cripples a 4000 meter long Negh'var twice.

7-Defiant has more kills than any Ship in Trek.

The torpedoes of the Defiant seem to have very limited punch as well: a volley of four produces little or no visible damage to a Cardassian capital ship in the ship's titular adventure, even if the little escort fares well against small Dominion battlebugs or Klingon BoPs.

I had a problem with that too.
However despite the visuals the reports from the Enterprise and Defiant are the same in the same amount of time. The Galors were instantly crippled.

That's also keeping with the escort definition. The Defiant is inferior at high warp, as indicated in "The Sound of Her Voice". At sublight, she fares as well as any other ship - but that's also true of the classic WWII escort, which required excessive time to cross the Atlantic but nevertheless easily triumphed over Nazi submarines in combat speed.

I can't agree no DE maneuvers around capital ships like that.
It's in no way equitable to Defiant's "aerial feats. It's more like Voyager compared to an Excelsior.

Which episode would suggest that? The Defiant only tackles capital ships on three occasions: in "Defiant", she merely disables a Cardassian cruiser with a volley of four of her torpedoes, in "Paradise Lost" she fights a Starfleet cruiser (?) to a draw of sorts when both sides are pulling their punches, and in ST:FC she tackles a Borg Cube and doesn't seem to damage it much. The sister ship Valiant fares miserably against a Dominion capital ship in her titular episode. And in the fleet battles of late DS9, ships of this class concentrate on the smallest enemy types, such as the Dominion battlebugs and Breen ships.

Actually Defiant as described above does legitimately destroys the Jem Hadar Cruiser (and over sized at that) in seconds in Sacrifice of Angels, So that's four and...five and six would be the Mirror universe episodes. Not to mention the Defiants in Voyager taking on the 3 Warbirds with no apparent problems

Maneuverability never counted for zip in Trek battles. And in any case, the loops the DS9 hero ship can loop aren't demonstrably better than the ones the enemy ships can do. The Breen and the Dominion battlebugs give the ship a run for her money; the Klingon BoPs dodge and swerve nicely, too.

I can't concur. The on screen shows Defiant dodging enemy fire constantly. I'm not dismissing the evidence just because you think it's Hero worship...sorry. The facts are what they are. Federation ships tend not to manuver in battle they sit and trade blows...TNG VOY

And I trust you haven't seen a Garcia or a Perry pull a tight one if you think DEs can't maneuver...

It's still not equivalent.
Defiant's maneuvers are literally fighter like.
I'd say your memory is a bit....selective.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Well, if you combine the cloaking device with its high power and maneuverability, the closest naval equivalent to the Defiant would be a Virginia class SSN. The armament is equivalent; if you load its VLS tubes with TASM missiles, you have a platform that can nail you with two different types of weapons--torpedoes and cruise missiles--from just about any range. If you're taking the Quantum torpedoes to be some kind of advanced high-powered warhead, those would be TASMs armed with tactical nukes or neutron bombs or something. Add to that the fact that the Virginias are (supposedly) nimble enough to actually dodge enemy torpedoes, and you've got something close to Defiant's jink speed.

In which case, the term you're looking for is "hunter-killer space craft."

 

[Saquist]

I don't know if I'd call those equivalent to Defiants Quantums.

The Quantums aren't known for thier range I guess...Defiant could be likened to a Sub but it would litterally be the only sub in the fleet. Maneuvering wise I could go with it better than an underpowered destroyer escort.

 

[Timo]

I think that only reason Federation calls certain Klingon ships Birds of Prey, is that it was originally a term for cloaked Romulan ships.

Except that it wasn't - or at least we have never heard the term being applied to cloaked Romulan ships on screen.

Hero status is irrelevant and unquantifiable.

I wasn't using "hero status" as an argument for anything, just a nifty way to designate the ship I was talking about. But you do seem to use "hero status" as an argument, because you think the number of kills is relevant. However, the number of kills is very much an artifact of the killer being a hero ship: if the heroes flew another kind of ship, that one would get the kills, and if ships flown by others made the kills, they wouldn't be shown on screen.

Pitted against the same ships Defiant's guns were around 500% more effective....perhaps more.

From what hat did you pull those percentages?

The Odyssey has been up against the same number of Attack ships as Defiant and never physically damages it's target.

Yet this comparison only applies to the first and second encouhters with this particular enemy, respectively. In later engagements, the attack ships (or other Dominion vessels) no longer are invulnerable to Starfleet or Klingon weaponry; a BoP can kill an attack ship as easily as the Defiant can. Seems that it all depends on learning some secret trick that negates the initial Dominion advantage.

Defiant and the Galaxy have both been pitted against the Bird of Prey. Defiant has never gone down to a bird of prey. The Galaxy has.

From this, we might conclude that the BoP and the Defiant are both very powerful. Yet we also know that a Galaxy can make short work of a BoP. Or that a BoP can destroy a Constitution, while a Constitution can destroy a K't'inga, while a K't'inga can destroy a Dominion attack ship, while an attack ship can destroy a BoP...

By looking at such comparisons, then, the only thing we can conclude is that all starships are more or less equally capable of hurting each other, regardless of design or size. The crucial factor in any battle seems to be "fortunes of war"...

I can't agree no DE maneuvers around capital ships like that.

Hmh? The real-world DEs were certainly significantly more maneuverable than the real-world capital ships they were tasked to protect. An old Fletcher or Gearing could already do circles around the battleships of the WWII fleets, and a Garcia could turn 360 degrees thrice or more in the time it took for, say, the Long Beach to do one turn. Of course, a DE would have lower top speed and weaker engines and reduced endurance - all features present in the Defiant as well.

It's in no way equitable to Defiant's "aerial feats.

Which amounted to exactly nothing. Just watch "Paradise Lost": for all the fancy spinning the Defiant does under Worf's command, not a single shot from the Lakota is evaded.

Cardassians are more or less as good as Feds in the aiming business. Their beam weapons easily track the small Maquis or Starfleet fightercraft, sustaining an almost 100% hit rate; the Defiant fares no better or worse there than the fighters or the bigger ships.

Evading Klingon shots is a whole another ball game, because Klingons apparently don't waste time aiming. Their BoPs are perfectly capable of missing a Galaxy with the first few shots!

Not to mention the Defiants in Voyager taking on the 3 Warbirds with no apparent problems

The Defiants, and the Akira, and the Prometheus. Nothing specific to the Defiant design there.

The on screen shows Defiant dodging enemy fire constantly.

And apparently wasting time and resources, because the dodging doesn't stop the fire from hitting...

The Defiant has a good reason to maneuver, of course: her most powerful guns are fixed forward (although with the ability to traverse vertically, it seems, as per "Paradise Lost"), and have to be aimed by turning the entire ship. Few other Starfleet vessels have to resort to such a thing, which would tend to make them superior combatants.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Saquist]

Hero status is irrelevant and unquantifiable.

I wasn't using "hero status" as an argument for anything, just a nifty way to designate the ship I was talking about.

The ship has a designation. Anything else is superfluous. I don't see the point. What is the purpose in this additional designation

But you do seem to use "hero status" as an argument, because you think the number of kills is relevant. However, the number of kills is very much an artifact of the killer being a hero ship: if the heroes flew another kind of ship, that one would get the kills, and if ships flown by others made the kills, they wouldn't be shown on screen.

Firstly, I wouldn't have though kill would be indicative of anything but success.

Secondly, Is not the survivability of said ship more of claim to the Hero?

From what hat did you pull those percentages?

I thought that would be obvious.
Kill/Time ratio (Defiant & Odyssey)

Yet this comparison only applies to the first and second encouhters with this particular enemy, respectively. In later engagements, the attack ships (or other Dominion vessels) no longer are invulnerable to Starfleet or Klingon weaponry; a BoP can kill an attack ship as easily as the Defiant can. Seems that it all depends on learning some secret trick that negates the initial Dominion advantage.

Firstly, no invulnerability is ever applied to Dominion Attack ship.

It has been establish that not all evidence from canon will consistent. I under you searching out the reasoning but I prefer to stay with the facts unless a numerical anomaly is discovered.

One anomaly maybe the BoP's apparent strength against the Attack ship in two different occasions Martoks Bird Of Prey is seen destroying Attack ship in the same number of shots as the Defiant. However in three such incidents it must be noted that the Attack ships were already engaged in battle. We never get a baseline comparison.

(I bring this up because the books (Dominion War 1 & 2) speculate the ships were either engaged in battle before such as Martoks defense of Defiant during Call to Arms or Martoks Defense of Defiant during a bait match) Status of the ships was never established. It's possible but in the end we don't know but the lack of a true base line is quite apparent.

From this, we might conclude that the BoP and the Defiant are both very powerful. Yet we also know that a Galaxy can make short work of a BoP. Or that a BoP can destroy a Constitution, while a Constitution can destroy a K't'inga, while a K't'inga can destroy a Dominion attack ship, while an attack ship can destroy a BoP...

I Protest.
Have we ever seen the Galaxy make short work of a BoP in a fair fight?


So the majority of work (thus a pattern) suggest that the visual effects when not favoring time friend methods, that Defiant is particularly stronger than even the strongest Federation ship Sovereign or Galaxy.

(We don't know how long Defiant battled the Cube)

Hmh? The real-world DEs were certainly significantly more maneuverable than the real-world capital ships they were tasked to protect. An old Fletcher or Gearing could already do circles around the battleships of the WWII fleets, and a Garcia could turn 360 degrees thrice or more in the time it took for, say, the Long Beach to do one turn. Of course, a DE would have lower top speed and weaker engines and reduced endurance - all features present in the Defiant as well.

My mistake. I was distracted by the use of the term escort. The wiki seems to merely lump the Fletcher in with all destroyers.

It's speed was a bit better than the Spruance, Farragut and Kidd but it was smaller by 20 meters. The problem is that Pegasus class is only 41 meters long and average of 120 something meters shorter than most Destroyers, Far Better equipped than ships it's size. It was even cancelled (like Defiant) because of the lack of impelling need and far faster and manuverable than Captial ships. Those details fit Defiant beter than the Destroyer escorts you mentioned.

I'll stick with the Pegasus PHM. But thanks for the comparison.

Which amounted to exactly nothing. Just watch "Paradise Lost": for all the fancy spinning the Defiant does under Worf's command, not a single shot from the Lakota is evaded.

Really nothing? Lets just put aside the initial problems of vaccine arguments. Defiant is actually able to be more offensive than Lakota.

Defiant utilizes 100% of it's firing arcs
Lakota utilized 21% of it' firing arcs

Cardassians are more or less as good as Feds in the aiming business. Their beam weapons easily track the small Maquis or Starfleet fightercraft, sustaining an almost 100% hit rate; the Defiant fares no better or worse there than the fighters or the bigger ships.

Good Point.

Evading Klingon shots is a whole another ball game, because Klingons apparently don't waste time aiming. Their BoPs are perfectly capable of missing a Galaxy with the first few shots!

We don't know that. That could be tracking issues.

The Defiants, and the Akira, and the Prometheus. Nothing specific to the Defiant design there.

I won't argue other wise but I will use as much of the information as possible.

And apparently wasting time and resources, because the dodging doesn't stop the fire from hitting...

It has.

Sacrifice of Angles
First Contact...and many other examples.

The Defiant has a good reason to maneuver, of course: her most powerful guns are fixed forward (although with the ability to traverse vertically, it seems, as per "Paradise Lost"), and have to be aimed by turning the entire ship. Few other Starfleet vessels have to resort to such a thing, which would tend to make them superior combatants.

Yes you're right most Star Fleet vessel remain a fix target and...bring far less of their full armament to bear. In the worse example Galaxy vs small competitive targets (Generations) The enterprise turns the strongest arc of it's fire power away from the BoP. (Torpedo) in the best example (Yesterdays Enterprise) the Galaxy is bested by three smaller BoP's K'vort Class. It only gets to bring it's photon's to bear once.

Maneuverability is both Offensive and Defensive. Bring up what most Star Fleet ships resort to actual help my position.

 

[Timo]

I don't get the "only uses a fraction of firepower" argument. Starships never fire broadsides. They always only fire one or, in ye olden days, two beams. So it doesn't matter if 99 out of of 100 emitters point in the other direction, since only the 1 would be fired in any case.

That's how the ships are built, and that's how they are used. Torpedoes may need to be pointed (but they can't be used at close ranges anyway, unless they are quantums, and the only known quantum-firing ships do point their torp tubes: the Defiant maneuvers, and the Sovereign has what looks like a turret). But phasers don't benefit from being pointed, since a well-built starship can fire in every direction without needing to waste time and energy by turning.

It's not a case of a ship having dozens of "guns". It's a case of a ship having dozens of "firing ports" for a single "gun"...

...Only in very special cases may a skipper opt to have the phasers specifically "rigged for simultaneous firing", such as stated in "Paradise Syndrome". And the results don't seem outstandingly more destructive or anything.

So much for the offensive use of maneuvering, then: it's for losers who don't have enough phaser emitters on their ships. How about defensive maneuvering?

Dodging just isn't all that effective in terms of shots fired versus shots connecting. The Defiant has dodged precious few Dominion polaron beams and virtually no hits from any other opponent (unless we include trickery such as the tractor beam diversion in "Way of the Warrior"). OTOH, by dodging, she has lost firing opportunities. The interesting question here is, does dodging affect the number of shots fired? That is, does the enemy hold his trigger finger if the heroes maneuver drastically enough? That just doesn't seem to be true in the case of the Defiant: even during the wildest loops in "Paradise Lost", the Defiant was being hit constantly and consistently. And we didn't witness higher firing rates when enemies fired on other Starfleet ships in the Dominion War than when they fired on the Defiant.

OTOH, it might be that the small fightercraft were indeed benefiting from being small and agile, because even though they were unable to dodge fired beams, they weren't being fired at quite so much as one would expect. Nothing the Dominion did in "Sacrifice of Angels" came close to the rapid-fire sequence of the E-D in "Conundrum"...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Saquist]

I don't get the "only uses a fraction of firepower" argument. Starships never fire broadsides. They always only fire one or, in ye olden days, two beams. So it doesn't matter if 99 out of of 100 emitters point in the other direction, since only the 1 would be fired in any case.

That's how the ships are built, and that's how they are used. Torpedoes may need to be pointed (but they can't be used at close ranges anyway, unless they are quantums, and the only known quantum-firing ships do point their torp tubes: the Defiant maneuvers, and the Sovereign has what looks like a turret). But phasers don't benefit from being pointed, since a well-built starship can fire in every direction without needing to waste time and energy by turning.

It's not a case of a ship having dozens of "guns". It's a case of a ship having dozens of "firing ports" for a single "gun"...

...Only in very special cases may a skipper opt to have the phasers specifically "rigged for simultaneous firing", such as stated in "Paradise Syndrome". And the results don't seem outstandingly more destructive or anything.

So much for the offensive use of maneuvering, then: it's for losers who don't have enough phaser emitters on their ships. How about defensive maneuvering?

Dodging just isn't all that effective in terms of shots fired versus shots connecting. The Defiant has dodged precious few Dominion polaron beams and virtually no hits from any other opponent (unless we include trickery such as the tractor beam diversion in "Way of the Warrior"). OTOH, by dodging, she has lost firing opportunities. The interesting question here is, does dodging affect the number of shots fired? That is, does the enemy hold his trigger finger if the heroes maneuver drastically enough? That just doesn't seem to be true in the case of the Defiant: even during the wildest loops in "Paradise Lost", the Defiant was being hit constantly and consistently. And we didn't witness higher firing rates when enemies fired on other Starfleet ships in the Dominion War than when they fired on the Defiant.

OTOH, it might be that the small fightercraft were indeed benefiting from being small and agile, because even though they were unable to dodge fired beams, they weren't being fired at quite so much as one would expect. Nothing the Dominion did in "Sacrifice of Angels" came close to the rapid-fire sequence of the E-D in "Conundrum"...

Timo Saloniemi

I thought the Firing arc percentages would make the case more clear and beyond mere appearances. Not too mention that I'm talking Firing arcs (angles of attack) not the number of attacks per arc. (Defiant dominates that stat too). But just as a reminder: Enterprise on two separate occasions preforms an Alpha Strike, firing almost all of it's forward power in one burst.

Phasers are built to arcs. That's the innovation over the 23rd Century. It doesn't make aiming obsolete merely less critical because of ease of coverage. It's interesting to note that most Federation ships suffer a lack of phaser coverage emphasizing forward fire power. Akira, New Orleans, Norway, Steamrunner, Sovereign, Nebula, Miranda, Ambassador and other were poor on aft firing arcs. Most of those ships were poor on phaser placements period.

As to why Trek doesn't utilize full use of it's array is unknown other than to say that would require more VFX work which is tedious enough.

On Defense Defiant Classes have dodge in numerous episodes. Valient showed that if she didn't dodge (at the end) how quickly it could subcomb to heavy firepower.
Defiant dodged (as said) in Sacrifice of Angels consistently especially when shields were compromised. Defiant in the Mirror universe dodged ALL THE TIME against the Neg'var and it was highly effective since "they couldn't take another hit" Defiant is seen dodging again when coming about in the "Die is Cast" and note that Defiants shields at this time still suffered heavy damage from Dominion weapons.

The problem with saying that Defiant has dodge effectively preciously few times underscores when Defiant chooses to dodge because quite frankly it doesn't need to most of the time. More often than not Defiant OVER powers it's opponents to such an extent that the Dominion felt it necessary to bring in 6 attack ships to stop it the first time and then 50 to make sure there was no chance of Defiant over coming it's escorts.

That's the problem with the vaccine argument strategy. Vaccines take a weaken form of a virus to use as an example to fight. It's clear the majority of the information forms a formidable pattern that says the maneuverability does matter when it's it matters most. Otherwise if we're not going to question why Star Fleet vessel don't use more of their phaser array in combat then why question when they chose to go through the bother of manuevering and misses if they weren't effective?

It's still looking dismissive and selective from here. What's wrong with using all the information instead of outstanding moments and anomalies to make a case?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I don't know if I'd call those equivalent to Defiants Quantums.

The Quantums aren't known for thier range I guess...Defiant could be likened to a Sub but it would litterally be the only sub in the fleet. Maneuvering wise I could go with it better than an underpowered destroyer escort.

Then switch the TASMs with Harpoons or something, shorter range but good hitting power.

Also, Defiant is NO LONGER the only one in the fleet considering the existence of the Sao Palo and the two unnamed vessels in "Message in a Bottle." But if you want to account for their rarity, you could retcon the entire analogy into a WW-II type situation and posit something similar to a GATO class submarine with a nuclear reactor, oxygen torpedoes and a pair of 8-inch deck guns.

 

[Saquist]

I just thinking the cloak factor was symbolized by the underwater stealthiness of a sub.

 

[Praetor]

Since 'Balance of Terror' was based on 'The Enemy Below,' about a surface ship fighting a submarine, I think it's certain that the cloak, at least in that episode, was created as a submarine analogy.

How that translates and how valid that is in later series, I'm not totally certain, but in a perfect world I'd think that the comparison would still be viable in later series.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ If we can get over some of these tech limitations grandfathered in for silly reasons (namely, the lack of ability to fire while cloaked) then yes, the comparison becomes valid. I would be happy to stipulate a modification where certain weapons can't be fired while cloaked--energy weapons, for one, or anything that requires alot of targeting precision--but that missiles and torpedoes easily can.

 

[Praetor]

I don't know... I think the 'hit and run' style attacks from 'Balance of Terror' are close enough for me: rapidly decloak, drop a shitload of firepower, recloak, recharge, repeat as needed.

Truly, we don't know exactly why cloaked ships (or at least birds of prey) couldn't fire while cloaked, Romulan bird of prey excluded. Perhaps they always could, but doing so completely compromised their position while the cloak denied them the protection of shields, so hit and runs became the de facto best way to utilize the cloak? Perhaps the Romulan BoP was an exception because of the unique power requirements of the plasma weapon? Alternatively, perhaps the plasma weapon was created specifically for these hit and run tactics.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Right, but then the TUC "bird of prey cannot fire while cloaked" line wouldn't make alot of sense and neither would similar references to this handicap relating to Romulan ships in "The Neutral Zone" and "Contagion." Certain weapons WOULD be incredibly useful while cloaked, especially in situations where you're only going up against a single opponent and all you have to do is kill him before he can fire back.

Decloaking BEFORE firing risks wasting the initiative even if your enemy doesn't know you're there (and more often than not, he does). Decloaking AFTER firing would solve this problem, but if you haven't killed him in the first attack, why bother to decloak at all when you can just skulk away under cloak and hang back out of firing range, reposition yourself and then reengage from a different direction?

Submarines used to have to surface to make attacks only because it was too hard to set up attacks while submerged, and also because torpedoes of the time were less effective than their own deck guns. Using THIS analogy, it's possible torpedoes can still be used while cloaked, but aren't, because they suck and won't kill anything even with shields down. That problem vanishes if you simply add better torpedoes to a cloaked ship, removing the need for it to ever decloak during combat (technically, it already can; there's nothing in a cloaking device that prevents physical objects from leaving the ship, so spitting a torpedo out of a launch tube with some low-power propellant system is already an option).

 

[Timo]

The classic argument for decloaking before fighting has been that cloaks consume a shitload of power. Any ship fighting from under a cloak would then have a handicap - perhaps amounting to a failure to raise shields, or to decreased weapons power for any cloaked shots. Dropping the cloak would solve the power problem while still allowing a little bit of that "element of surprise".

In comparison, adding more power might not work, if power sources shine through the cloak and if any increase in cloaking power has to be matched by such an increase in power production that it shines through even worse.

Of course, we never quite learn that cloaks would really consume a lot of power. And in DS9, they never seem to. Quark twice hauls around a portable cloaking device, the second time around while said device easily cloaks itself!

You might always spit out weakish fire from under a cloak and hope that it gradually weakens your enemy while allowing you at least partial protection so that you can continue your nibbling. But if cloaking deprives you of defensive power, then the firings might pose too big a risk. Even a torpedo fired from under cloak could be tracked to the firing point, allowing the enemy to retaliate; all beam weapons can easily be tracked to that point.

If cloaking doesn't weaken your defense or offense, then it should be common to fight from a completely cloaked position. But one is tempted to think that there indeed is a tech obstacle of the above nature there - and that the Scimitar was the first to break out of the vicious cycle of more power = poorer cloaking. Perhaps that's why she had such a huge number of weapons: so that she could nibble her victim to death without powering up any single weapon to telltale levels that would disrupt the cloak?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm 99% sure that most of scimitar's weapons were actually "duranium shadows" and some such; I'd be surprised if the entire ship had more than a half dozen disruptors on board.

The "power level" issue isn't really an issue at all since it doesn't necessarily require any power to launch a torpedo, especially at close range. You can push a torpedo out of an airlock and have it home in on its target easily enough; the amount of power needed to give it an initial boost could easily be stored as a battery or chemical explosives that wouldn't show through the cloak anyway.