Sovereign V Negh'Var
Cpt Clen
about a battle which is quite passible.
How about USS Enterprise-E V IKS Negh'Var?
The Negh'Var has an obscene compliment of Disruptors (265,000terawatts total
output), and an obscene amount of pho-torps (2,200).
However the Sovereign has Ablaitive armour, and quan-torps (not those
piddley pho-torps).
So what do you think?
Dan,
-------------------------
This Signature is sponsored by the 'Rude Gnome Company'
"Sir! This ship will not survive the formation of the cosmos."
"No guff! I doubt it'll survive a gentle rinse cycle."
"We run alright, straight at 'em!"
"Ahhh, pattern suicide..."
"I must protest captain! I am not a merry man..."
"What the smeggin' smeg's he smeggin' done?
He's smeggin' killed me!"
--------------------------
STEVEN MORGAN
: Enough of this futile banter about a battle which is never gonna happen how
: about a battle which is quite passible.
: How about USS Enterprise-E V IKS Negh'Var?
: The Negh'Var has an obscene compliment of Disruptors (265,000terawatts total
: output), and an obscene amount of pho-torps (2,200).
: However the Sovereign has Ablaitive armour, and quan-torps (not those
: piddley pho-torps).
: So what do you think?
: Dan,
Well, considering what we've seen the Defiant do against the Negh'Var, I'd
say that it would be a good match.
~Captain Trippz~
wrote:
>Cpt Clen (cpt...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>: Enough of this futile banter about a battle which is never gonna happen how
>: about a battle which is quite passible.
>
>: How about USS Enterprise-E V IKS Negh'Var?
>
>: The Negh'Var has an obscene compliment of Disruptors (265,000terawatts total
>: output), and an obscene amount of pho-torps (2,200).
>
>: However the Sovereign has Ablaitive armour, and quan-torps (not those
>: piddley pho-torps).
>
>: So what do you think?
Negh'Var would woop-ass, it has an advantage if is cloakable.
John Norris
~Captain Trippz~ wrote:
Yea right,
The Sovereign class vessels are the most powerful ships starfleet has ever
produced.
Type XII Phasers
Quantum torpedoes
Ablative armor
Good mobility and dexterity
Sheer strength
These features alone could put any vessel over the V Negh' Var.
The Defiant was able to systematically break apart and wear down the V Negh' Var in
battle
so what do you think a Sovereign class vessel could do to the Klingon vessel,
considering the fact
that it out-guns the Defiant 2 to 1.
Also,
Cloaking ability has never been proven to be an effective weapon against Federation
ships in the past 10 years.
CashBailey
>From: John Norris <jno...@bellsouth.net>
>Date: 4/21/99 1:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <371DC150...@bellsouth.net>
>
>
>
>~Captain Trippz~ wrote:
>
>> On 9 Apr 1999 18:06:13 GMT, swm...@u.cc.utah.edu (STEVEN MORGAN)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Cpt Clen (cpt...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>> >: Enough of this futile banter about a battle which is never gonna happen
>how
>> >: about a battle which is quite passible.
>> >
>> >: How about USS Enterprise-E V IKS Negh'Var?
>> >
>> >: The Negh'Var has an obscene compliment of Disruptors (265,000terawatts
>total
>> >: output), and an obscene amount of pho-torps (2,200).
>> >
>> >: However the Sovereign has Ablaitive armour, and quan-torps (not those
>> >: piddley pho-torps).
>> >
>> >: So what do you think?
>>
>> Negh'Var would woop-ass, it has an advantage if is cloakable.
>
> Yea right,
>The Sovereign class vessels are the most powerful ships starfleet has ever
>produced.
Agreed. Their torpedo firepower easily
puts them ahead of the other big
guns, Galaxies and Nebulas, from the
number of tubes reported + apparent
firing rates.
But...
>Type XII Phasers
>Quantum torpedoes
>Ablative armor
>Good mobility and dexterity
>Sheer strength
>These features alone could put any vessel over the V Negh' Var.
I disagree with this. For one, I don't
think the Sovereign is appreciably
more manueverable than SF's other
top capital ships. She may well have
a higher top warp speed, but in sublight
combat--the typical Trek battle scenario--
she wouldn't have all that great an edge
over even the Negh'Var, not like the
mirror Defiant did.
>The Defiant was able to systematically break apart and wear down the V Negh'
>Var in
>battle
>so what do you think a Sovereign class vessel could do to the Klingon vessel,
>considering the fact
>that it out-guns the Defiant 2 to 1.
That's true, but if you also remember,
the mirror Defiant was just a hit or two
away from being utterly destroyed--
by the m. Negh'Var's weaker batteries,
no less. Negh'Var's got 20 of those
disruptors, a large forward cannon,
and the really powerful torp launchers
on its keel...the only reason m. Defiant
survived was because she was able
to get in to close for the N'V to use
the bigger guns, which a Sovereign couldn't
do.
As for sheer strength, the Negh'Var
in "Way of the Warrior" seemed to have
that and plenty more to spare. It
demolished DS9's shields, after all.
>
>Also,
>Cloaking ability has never been proven to be an effective weapon against
>Federation
>ships in the past 10 years.
>
Not that we've seen, though I suspect
some races, like the Romulans, have
used it (or would use it) to great effect.
A Warbird that's able to decloak and get
off a couple of shots on a Starfleet
cruiser w/ only nav deflectors running
would be guaranteed a win, IMHO.
Sean
bob mercer
--
R Mercer
Read the Tech Manual, the Tech Manual is your FRIEND.
Credis quod habes et habes
wub...@lvcm.com
CashBailey wrote in message <19990421161722...@ng09.aol.com>...
>>Subject: Re: Sovereign V Negh'Var
>>From: John Norris <jno...@bellsouth.net>
>>Date: 4/21/99 1:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <371DC150...@bellsouth.net>
>>
>>
>>
>>~Captain Trippz~ wrote:
>>
>>> On 9 Apr 1999 18:06:13 GMT, swm...@u.cc.utah.edu (STEVEN MORGAN)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Cpt Clen (cpt...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>>> >: Enough of this futile banter about a battle which is never gonna
happen
>>how
>>> >: about a battle which is quite passible.
>>> >
>>> >: How about USS Enterprise-E V IKS Negh'Var?
>>> >
>>> >: The Negh'Var has an obscene compliment of Disruptors
(265,000terawatts
>>total
>>> >: output), and an obscene amount of pho-torps (2,200).
2,200 torps is very doubtful.... a Galaxy carries less than 300 (besides,
after the first salvo or so, it is immaterial how many you have left,
because the battle is over). Also the hegh'Var is classed as a Heavy
Carrier, not a battleship... which means that thereis a lot of internal
space taken up by whatever kind of small ships it is carrying, docking and
repair facilities, flight crew living space, additional life support, etc.
While not cannon, Riker, in the Captain's Chair CD-ROM, states that the E-E
has maneuverability equal to a ship 1/4 its size... which is probably just
in the sub 1 million metric ton range (which would put it close to an
Intrepid as far as maneuverability goes). The Negh'Var would look like a
wallowing pig next to it.
>
>>The Defiant was able to systematically break apart and wear down the V
Negh'
>>Var in
>>battle
>>so what do you think a Sovereign class vessel could do to the Klingon
vessel,
>>considering the fact
>>that it out-guns the Defiant 2 to 1.
>
>That's true, but if you also remember,
>the mirror Defiant was just a hit or two
>away from being utterly destroyed--
>by the m. Negh'Var's weaker batteries,
>no less. Negh'Var's got 20 of those
>disruptors, a large forward cannon,
>and the really powerful torp launchers
>on its keel...the only reason m. Defiant
>survived was because she was able
>to get in to close for the N'V to use
>the bigger guns, which a Sovereign couldn't
>do.
>
1) I have to be both STL and in disrupter range for the disrupters to be
able to hit/damage me... if I can stand off outside of beam weapon range
(which my superior speed and maneuverability allows me to do), the Negh'Var
is toast.
Mike Dicenso
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, bob mercer wrote:
> 2,200 torps is very doubtful.... a Galaxy carries less than 300 (besides,
The Negh'Var has a fair amount of internal volume, even when compared to
the Galaxy class starships. Most of that would probably be optimized for
weapons, and torpedo stores. So it is possible that the Negh'Var carry
carry more than the 250 torps of the Galaxy class in it's inventory.
> after the first salvo or so, it is immaterial how many you have left,
> because the battle is over). Also the hegh'Var is classed as a Heavy
> Carrier, not a battleship... which means that thereis a lot of internal
> space taken up by whatever kind of small ships it is carrying, docking and
> repair facilities, flight crew living space, additional life support, etc.
The Negh'Var is classed as a Heavy Carrier? Says who? What's your basis
for this?
> While not cannon, Riker, in the Captain's Chair CD-ROM, states that the E-E
> has maneuverability equal to a ship 1/4 its size... which is probably just
> in the sub 1 million metric ton range (which would put it close to an
> Intrepid as far as maneuverability goes). The Negh'Var would look like a
> wallowing pig next to it.
The manuvers pulled by the E-E in ST:I, would seem to support that.
-Mike
bob mercer
>
>
>On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, bob mercer wrote:
>
>> 2,200 torps is very doubtful.... a Galaxy carries less than 300
(besides,
>
>The Negh'Var has a fair amount of internal volume, even when compared to
>the Galaxy class starships. Most of that would probably be optimized for
>weapons, and torpedo stores. So it is possible that the Negh'Var carry
>carry more than the 250 torps of the Galaxy class in it's inventory.
>
>
>> after the first salvo or so, it is immaterial how many you have left,
>> because the battle is over). Also the hegh'Var is classed as a Heavy
>> Carrier, not a battleship... which means that thereis a lot of internal
>> space taken up by whatever kind of small ships it is carrying, docking
and
>> repair facilities, flight crew living space, additional life support,
etc.
>
>The Negh'Var is classed as a Heavy Carrier? Says who? What's your basis
>for this?
Says Herman Zimmerman, Rick Sternbach and Doug Drexler--see page 162 of the
DS9 TM.
Stats:
Type: Heavy Carrier
Crew: 2,500 plus flight crew and troops (seems to be much more manpower (or,
rather, klingonpower) intensive.
Power Plant: 2 M/A WPS, 4 IPS
682 m x 470 m x 137 m (rounded)
Mass: 4,310,000 metric tons
Speed: Wf 9.6
Versus a Galaxy:
Type: Explorer (actually, a battleship)
Crew: 1,012
Power: 1 M/A WPS, 3 IPS
642.5 m x 464 m x 195 m
Speed; Wf 9.9 (Uprated)
It is smaller than a Galaxy with more than twice the crew (obviously not
living in the same degree of luxury as the Feds based upon what we have seen
of klingon ships, but they still eat food and breathe air)... A Galaxy could
probably take one... an uprated Galaxy would certainly win (if only due to
its superior speed)... a Sovereign would splatter it....
John Norris
>
> >
> >Also,
> >Cloaking ability has never been proven to be an effective weapon against
> >Federation
> >ships in the past 10 years.
> >
>
> Not that we've seen, though I suspect
> some races, like the Romulans, have
> used it (or would use it) to great effect.
> A Warbird that's able to decloak and get
> off a couple of shots on a Starfleet
> cruiser w/ only nav deflectors running
> would be guaranteed a win, IMHO
Only if the crew where taking a fat nap.
Even a ship filled with first year cadets can raise shields before an enemy
vessel could get off a shot after coming out of cloak.
However, they do lose first strike capability, putting the enemy a few shots
ahead.
And that still does not guarantee a win. A Sovereign class vessel could easily
incapacitate a Romulan war bird or any Klingon vessel if they attempted to
initiate a cloaked attack.
Personally I don't think cloaking a vessel gives it some sort of magic win ticket.
No conventional vessel could out-gun a Sovereign class starship
without a buddy. Considering the fact that its Starfleet's premier assault vessel.
S. Larocque
> That's true, but if you also remember,
> the mirror Defiant was just a hit or two
> away from being utterly destroyed--
When you think about it, that's probably only because the
mirror Defiant didn't have any of the Federation's top-of-the-
line shielsd or even ablative armor ... who knows if they even
had quantum torpedoes!
Sean
--
Please feel free to check out my Star Trek RPG site at:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/1223/
We're always looking for new crew members...
CashBailey
>Date: 4/21/99 10:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7fm38e$q...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
>
>
>> That's true, but if you also remember,
>> the mirror Defiant was just a hit or two
>> away from being utterly destroyed--
>
>When you think about it, that's probably only because the
>mirror Defiant didn't have any of the Federation's top-of-the-
>line shielsd or even ablative armor ... who knows if they even
>had quantum torpedoes!
>
> Sean
Perhaps, mein doppleganger : ), but
I know for sure they had quantum
torpedos: one of the Klingon officers
told Regent Worf something about
how the rebels had a ship with "some
kind of improved photon torpedos."
I could easily see the mirror Defiant
as inferior to our version, but it would
be just as possible, if not more likely
so, that the mirror Negh'Var was
weaker too. It would have been built
during the alliance with the Cardassians,
which would easily take some burden
off the designers to build a ship capable
of facing off against any force in the
quadrant. The Klingons in our universe
only had a tentative alliance with the Feds...
they would've been under the gun, haha,
to make more efficient warships so the
Empire could stand on its own, etc.
Sean
CashBailey
>Date: 4/21/99 9:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <92474428...@news.remarQ.com>
>
>See below:
>
>--
>R Mercer
>Read the Tech Manual, the Tech Manual is your FRIEND.
>Credis quod habes et habes
>wub...@lvcm.com
>>>> >: The Negh'Var has an obscene compliment of Disruptors
>(265,000terawatts
>>>total
>>>> >: output), and an obscene amount of pho-torps (2,200).
>
>2,200 torps is very doubtful.... a Galaxy carries less than 300 (besides,
>after the first salvo or so, it is immaterial how many you have left,
>because the battle is over).
Not that it's important, but I actually didn't
say that about 2,000 torps : ) I'm sure Negh'Var carries a large amount, of
course...assuming it *is* a heavy carrier,
it would probably have an independent
supply for the ships that dock in her, too.
Also the hegh'Var is classed as a Heavy
>Carrier, not a battleship... which means that thereis a lot of internal
>space taken up by whatever kind of small ships it is carrying, docking and
>repair facilities, flight crew living space, additional life support, etc.
>
That is what the DS9 TM says, and I'm
not apt to disagree with that part of the
book. But from what we have seen onscreen,
the "heavy carrier" bit would seem to imply
it has a large troop complement for landing
troops on planets and space stations. It
certainly has the firepower to knock down
highly powered shields, then beam over
lots of soldiers.
>>
>>I disagree with this. For one, I don't
>>think the Sovereign is appreciably
>>more manueverable than SF's other
>>top capital ships. She may well have
>>a higher top warp speed, but in sublight
>>combat--the typical Trek battle scenario--
>>she wouldn't have all that great an edge
>>over even the Negh'Var, not like the
>>mirror Defiant did.
>
>While not cannon, Riker, in the Captain's Chair CD-ROM, states that the E-E
>has maneuverability equal to a ship 1/4 its size... which is probably just
>in the sub 1 million metric ton range (which would put it close to an
>Intrepid as far as maneuverability goes). The Negh'Var would look like a
>wallowing pig next to it.
Interesting. It's not canon, as you said,
but in the absence of other, contradictory
information, would it at least be official?
I _could_ accept the Sovereign as close
to that manueverability...
However, and a big one at that, I honestly
don't see manueverability as an important
factor in sublight Trek combat unless you're
in a ship that's less than 200m, like Defiant
or Jem'Hadar fighters. One of those
great big Kazon monstrosities was able
to target an evading Voyager and repeatedly
hit the same area in her shielding...Negh'Var
should be able to do the same w/out appreciable trouble in fighting a Sovereign
(just like the Son'a ships did).
>>That's true, but if you also remember,
>>the mirror Defiant was just a hit or two
>>away from being utterly destroyed--
>>by the m. Negh'Var's weaker batteries,
>>no less. Negh'Var's got 20 of those
>>disruptors, a large forward cannon,
>>and the really powerful torp launchers
>>on its keel...the only reason m. Defiant
>>survived was because she was able
>>to get in to close for the N'V to use
>>the bigger guns, which a Sovereign couldn't
>>do.
>>
>
>1) I have to be both STL and in disrupter range for the disrupters to be
>able to hit/damage me... if I can stand off outside of beam weapon range
>(which my superior speed and maneuverability allows me to do), the Negh'Var
>is toast.
You like this tactic, Bob ; )
I agree with you fully in that these kinds
of FTL torpedo battles _should_ be the
way Trek ships fight. But in traditional
Trek, this is never done...not against
DS9 in several engagements, not
against the E-D, not against the big Dominion
fleet in "SoA"...I'm thinking there must
be some inherent disadvantage in trying
to photorp a powerful opponent at long
range distances. Could phasers be more
effective against shields? Could targetting
of a STL ship while you're warping around
torping them be hard to do, or something?
I would like to know a reasonable explanation
beyond "the writers are just too stubborn
to show it onscreen!" : )
In sub-light, I think a Sovereign would
stand up well to a Negh'Var, but I don't
think it would be able to win, especially
decisively, if the Klingons fight with
a modicum of intelligence. FTL...I'd be
tempted to give the SCS the advantage
also, but that begs the question as to why
similar tactics haven't been used before--
*especially* against the Borg.
Sean
CashBailey
>Message-id: <92475384...@news.remarQ.com>
>>
>>The Negh'Var is classed as a Heavy Carrier? Says who? What's your basis
>>for this?
>
>Says Herman Zimmerman, Rick Sternbach and Doug Drexler--see page 162 of the
>DS9 TM.
>
>Stats:
>
>Type: Heavy Carrier
>Crew: 2,500 plus flight crew and troops (seems to be much more manpower (or,
>rather, klingonpower) intensive.
>Power Plant: 2 M/A WPS, 4 IPS
>682 m x 470 m x 137 m (rounded)
>Mass: 4,310,000 metric tons
>Speed: Wf 9.6
>
>Versus a Galaxy:
>
>Type: Explorer (actually, a battleship)
>Crew: 1,012
>Power: 1 M/A WPS, 3 IPS
>642.5 m x 464 m x 195 m
>Speed; Wf 9.9 (Uprated)
>
>It is smaller than a Galaxy with more than twice the crew (obviously not
>living in the same degree of luxury as the Feds based upon what we have seen
>of klingon ships, but they still eat food and breathe air)... A Galaxy could
>probably take one... an uprated Galaxy would certainly win (if only due to
>its superior speed)... a Sovereign would splatter it....
Bob, I think you're getting too hung up
on ship designations...a Borg "scout" might
not have the luxury of the fearsome
"battleship" tag, but it would certainly
tear up most any battleship it went up
against (by scout, I'm thinking of the "Drone"
sphere).
Granted, the Borg are many orders of
magnitude beyond anything the Federation
or Klingons--roughly equal powers--have
ever fielded, but I think the analogy still
holds to some degree. As you pointed out,
the Negh'Var has *two* M/AM cores to
the GCS's one, for potentially double the
power output. That translates to much more
powerful shields, SIFs, and combat endurance,
not to mention more powerful disruptors.
It does have slightly less mass than a GCS,
but Federation ships, IIRC, have _very_
heavy warp coils, perhaps accounting for
their more efficient use of warp drive.
The Negh'Var is heavily armored, and though
it might have a great deal of volume dedicated to troops and crew, the GCS
could easily
maintain the same number of crewmen/
troops but doesn't as it's traditionally a ship
of peace.
Barring torps, I put my money on the
Negh'Var. With torps, the grand 10 torp
salvos that'd do in a fearsome enemy
would most likely not be able to hit the
N'V--maybe a third or half might impact,
at best. 3 torps launched simultaneously,
a more reasonable attack to expect of
a GCS, can't penetrate the shielding
of a K'Vort cruiser ("Yesterday's Enterprise"),
so I doubt it would do much to a Negh'Var,
either.
With torps *and* FTL tactics...I dunno : )
I still say there must be something wrong
with fighting a STL target like that since
we've never really seen it done (when
it would have been beneficial, too).
Sean
CashBailey
>Date: 4/21/99 10:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <371E40ED...@bellsouth.net>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Also,
>> >Cloaking ability has never been proven to be an effective weapon against
>> >Federation
>> >ships in the past 10 years.
>> >
>>
>> Not that we've seen, though I suspect
>> some races, like the Romulans, have
>> used it (or would use it) to great effect.
>> A Warbird that's able to decloak and get
>> off a couple of shots on a Starfleet
>> cruiser w/ only nav deflectors running
>> would be guaranteed a win, IMHO
>
> Only if the crew where taking a fat nap.
LOL. I liked that : )
>Even a ship filled with first year cadets can raise shields before an enemy
>vessel could get off a shot after coming out of cloak.
>However, they do lose first strike capability, putting the enemy a few shots
>ahead.
But to fully power the shields, and keep
the beams/torps from impacting the hull?
I tend to agree with you but this is a gray
area.
>
>And that still does not guarantee a win. A Sovereign class vessel could
>easily
>incapacitate a Romulan war bird or any Klingon vessel if they attempted to
>initiate a cloaked attack.
>Personally I don't think cloaking a vessel gives it some sort of magic win
>ticket.
Nor do I, but I think those first few shots
would prove a pretty big advantage for
Klingon and Romulan battlecruisers,
which tote some serious firepower.
>
>No conventional vessel could out-gun a Sovereign class starship
>without a buddy. Considering the fact that its Starfleet's premier assault
>vessel.
Yeah, but the Negh'Var is the *Klingon*
premiere assault vessel, and I very much
think it could outgun a Sovereign-class
starship. Remember how well it fared
against DS9...a station that has the
effective firepower of over 20 GCSs.
For that matter, a SCS would have a very
tough opponent in the Dominion battleship,
thrice the strength of a GCS. It, like Negh'Var, seems designed to be a big
battlewagon to smash space stations and
planets, then land massive numbers of troops
to occupy...such ships might be slow and
sluggish, but they pack one hell of a punch.
Sean
Graham Kennedy
>
> Not that it's important, but I actually didn't
> say that about 2,000 torps : ) I'm sure Negh'Var carries a large amount, of
> course...assuming it *is* a heavy carrier,
> it would probably have an independent
> supply for the ships that dock in her, too.
I have a hard time believing that the Neigh'Var is a carrier.
We've never once seen it launch or recover fighters of any
kind, nor did we see fighters operate during "Way of the
Warrior", when the Neigh'Var was present and acting like a
battleship.
I'd discard this particular DS9 TM reference - that section
is riddled with errors, after all. Or, if you want to go
with it then I'd go with the suggestion below and say
that it's a sort of heavy assault troopship.
Hey, there's a thought - maybe heavy carrier means heavy
weapons carrier, referring to those mondo disrupters on the
underside. Maybe heavy carrier it's just the Klingon version
of battleship.
> That is what the DS9 TM says, and I'm
> not apt to disagree with that part of the
> book. But from what we have seen onscreen,
> the "heavy carrier" bit would seem to imply
> it has a large troop complement for landing
> troops on planets and space stations. It
> certainly has the firepower to knock down
> highly powered shields, then beam over
> lots of soldiers.
>
> I agree with you fully in that these kinds
> of FTL torpedo battles _should_ be the
> way Trek ships fight. But in traditional
> Trek, this is never done...not against
> DS9 in several engagements, not
> against the E-D, not against the big Dominion
> fleet in "SoA"...I'm thinking there must
> be some inherent disadvantage in trying
> to photorp a powerful opponent at long
> range distances. Could phasers be more
> effective against shields? Could targetting
> of a STL ship while you're warping around
> torping them be hard to do, or something?
Perhaps the extra flight time incurred by firing from long
range gives the defender sufficient time to shoot the torp
down. We saw the E-D shoot a torp down in "The Price". Or
alternately, there may be jammers running during battle which
make it virtually impossible to target a ship from long range.
> In sub-light, I think a Sovereign would
> stand up well to a Negh'Var, but I don't
> think it would be able to win, especially
> decisively, if the Klingons fight with
> a modicum of intelligence. FTL...I'd be
> tempted to give the SCS the advantage
> also, but that begs the question as to why
> similar tactics haven't been used before--
> *especially* against the Borg.
I think it could well depend on the targeting abilities
of the Neigh'Var. Fed ships seem to be able to hit just
about anything, but Klingons appear to miss a good deal
more. The Neigh'Var is new, so may have targeting abilities
equal to Fed ships of the Galaxy-era. If so, then the Sov
might be in trouble.
You can't really say that the Shattered Mirror ship missed
the Defiant a lot, because that was an alternate version
which appeared to be several km long - who knows how it
compares to our own universes version.
I'd say we know far too little about either ship to make
a solid judgement, but historically it seems that Federation
Starships have always had the edge on their Klingon
counterparts because greater speed, agility and shielding
win out over heavy weapons. My feeling is that the Sov
continues this trend, so probably would win.
--
Graham Kennedy
bob mercer
much of the energy is radiated away from the target and you loss warhead
yield the further the torp has to travel... however, with torps, you can
get into a situation where you can shoot at the enemy and he cannot shoot at
you (and this can be done even in the STL regime)... so I am willing to use
a less effective weapon, if it means I can paste you and you can't hit
back... So it takes 30 or 40 torps, instead of 10 seconds of phaser fire, I
can always replicate more torp casings once the battle is over.
bob mercer
--
R Mercer
Read the Tech Manual, the Tech Manual is your FRIEND.
Credis quod habes et habes
wub...@lvcm.com
CashBailey wrote in message <19990422122157...@ng40.aol.com>...
>>Subject: Re: Sovereign V Negh'Var
No, I apply the apellation that fits the capabilities of the class...
mainly because Explorer could mean anything from a ruinabout sized ship to
something that is several km long.... Borg cubes/ships in general defy
classification, so far as i am concerned, because of the hugh technology
gap.
>
>Granted, the Borg are many orders of
>magnitude beyond anything the Federation
>or Klingons--roughly equal powers--have
>ever fielded, but I think the analogy still
>holds to some degree. As you pointed out,
>the Negh'Var has *two* M/AM cores to
>the GCS's one, for potentially double the
>power output. That translates to much more
>powerful shields, SIFs, and combat endurance,
>not to mention more powerful disruptors.
>It does have slightly less mass than a GCS,
>but Federation ships, IIRC, have _very_
>heavy warp coils, perhaps accounting for
>their more efficient use of warp drive.
>The Negh'Var is heavily armored, and though
>it might have a great deal of volume dedicated to troops and crew, the GCS
>could easily
>maintain the same number of crewmen/
>troops but doesn't as it's traditionally a ship
>of peace.
It doesn't seem to have twice the power output, since the speed is listed as
only Wf 9.6... you aren't using shields or weapons all the time (and they
are actually quite small power loads... GCS total power load for shields at
alert condition is 5.11 GW... 3.311 TW, if all shields are drawing at
peak... total phaser power is less than 3 GW with all arrays firing... and
the warp core puts out energy in the petawatt range... all mostly soaked up
by the WPS). If the 2 cores provided so much extra power, then the ship
should be faster.
>
>Barring torps, I put my money on the
>Negh'Var. With torps, the grand 10 torp
>salvos that'd do in a fearsome enemy
>would most likely not be able to hit the
>N'V--maybe a third or half might impact,
>at best. 3 torps launched simultaneously,
>a more reasonable attack to expect of
>a GCS, can't penetrate the shielding
>of a K'Vort cruiser ("Yesterday's Enterprise"),
>so I doubt it would do much to a Negh'Var,
>either.
>
Hit probability has nothing to do with the number of torps launched... each
torp has an equal probability of hitting the target, therefore, the more
torps you fire, the more torps will hit... remember that torps are NOT
direct fire weapons, they are seekers/homing weapons (and the hit
probabilities seem to be very high.. at least 60% or better). A salvo isn't
fired at some chosen angular spread (like torps in WWII sub movies), each
torp is targeted (and torps in the same salvo can even be fired at different
targets) and can scan on its own for its target.
Torps are essentially the equivalent of contemporary Air to Air missiles
(Like the AMRAAM or R-73), not naval torpedoes.
>With torps *and* FTL tactics...I dunno : )
>I still say there must be something wrong
>with fighting a STL target like that since
>we've never really seen it done (when
>it would have been beneficial, too).
>
Rick has basically come out and said, yes, most battles would actually be
fought FTL with torps... but this doesn't make for good TV so it is done
the way we usually see it. Nowhere in the ST tech or in military science
can I find a good reason to not do it that way...
bob mercer
>CashBailey wrote:
>>
>> Not that it's important, but I actually didn't
>> say that about 2,000 torps : ) I'm sure Negh'Var carries a large amount,
of
>> course...assuming it *is* a heavy carrier,
>> it would probably have an independent
>> supply for the ships that dock in her, too.
>
>I have a hard time believing that the Neigh'Var is a carrier.
>We've never once seen it launch or recover fighters of any
>kind, nor did we see fighters operate during "Way of the
>Warrior", when the Neigh'Var was present and acting like a
>battleship.
>
>I'd discard this particular DS9 TM reference - that section
>is riddled with errors, after all. Or, if you want to go
>with it then I'd go with the suggestion below and say
>that it's a sort of heavy assault troopship.
>
>Hey, there's a thought - maybe heavy carrier means heavy
>weapons carrier, referring to those mondo disrupters on the
>underside. Maybe heavy carrier it's just the Klingon version
>of battleship.
I would agree with this... a better terminology would be heavy assault
ship. The Negh'Var seems to be designed to take on large, fixed
installations or planetary defenses... battering them down and then sending
in the troops.
Torpedo flight times at warp velocities are measured in milliseconds... it
actually takes a STL torp longer to get there than a torp traveling at warp
velocities... a torp fired at warp 6 will traverse its 4,050,000 km range
in 34.4 msec... at warp 9 it takes 8.9 msec... a tough target and an
impossible target if you don't have warp capable phasers.
>> In sub-light, I think a Sovereign would
>> stand up well to a Negh'Var, but I don't
>> think it would be able to win, especially
>> decisively, if the Klingons fight with
>> a modicum of intelligence. FTL...I'd be
>> tempted to give the SCS the advantage
>> also, but that begs the question as to why
>> similar tactics haven't been used before--
>> *especially* against the Borg.
The Borg are faster, even in warp (one of the benefits of limitless power
and not having to worry about running out of fuel)... it is probably MORE
beneficial to engage them STL than FTL and I sort of hate to think of what a
Borg torpedo could be capable of.... even though we have never had any sign
that they use such technology, I am sure they could whip something nasty up
in fairly short order.
>
>I think it could well depend on the targeting abilities
>of the Neigh'Var. Fed ships seem to be able to hit just
>about anything, but Klingons appear to miss a good deal
>more. The Neigh'Var is new, so may have targeting abilities
>equal to Fed ships of the Galaxy-era. If so, then the Sov
>might be in trouble.
>
>You can't really say that the Shattered Mirror ship missed
>the Defiant a lot, because that was an alternate version
>which appeared to be several km long - who knows how it
>compares to our own universes version.
>
>I'd say we know far too little about either ship to make
>a solid judgement, but historically it seems that Federation
>Starships have always had the edge on their Klingon
>counterparts because greater speed, agility and shielding
>win out over heavy weapons. My feeling is that the Sov
>continues this trend, so probably would win.
>
Agreed
Andrew Wright
> should be faster.
Perhaps Klingon engineers can't make a faster warp drive for any number
of reasons.
John Norris
>
> However, and a big one at that, I honestly
> don't see manueverability as an important
> factor in sublight Trek combat unless you're
> in a ship that's less than 200m, like Defiant
> or Jem'Hadar fighters. One of those
> great big Kazon monstrosities was able
> to target an evading Voyager and repeatedly
> hit the same area in her shielding...Negh'Var
> should be able to do the same w/out appreciable trouble in fighting a Sovereign
> (just like the Son'a ships did).
It bothered me for months, I just couldn't understand how those vessels could have
giventhe Sovereign class so much trouble. The mere fact that they ejected the core
is what got me mad.
( The core is sacred, ask anyone, I don't know why but its kinda like an unspoken
oath. Its kinda like admitting defeat. )
But anyway, after months of thinking I could only make these assumptions:
-The Son'a ships has a host of illegal weaponry that they used in their attacks.
-The Enterprise was also trying to run and not fight, allowing the smaller Son'a
vessels to attack from the rear, causing a considerable amount of damage. Damn you
Riker{{{
-The Enterprise- E didn't utilize their Quantum torpedoes, ( Probably because they
would have had some sort of adverse effect in that sector because of the conditions
in the system. ) { Just a guesstimation }
- The makers of the movie wanted to make it easy to watch for non trekers.
Which means that they probably just lowered the Sovereign's ability to make it seem
more dramatic in battle.
( The Son'a where portrayed as people with conflicting emotions and deep
comparisons, it just wouldn't be right to had just
killed them all without them nearly destroying you first, thus giving you a reason
to defend yourself and still come out as non barbaric.
-The conditions in the system where probably playing hell with their vessel
operations and fighting ability.
-Riker was at the helm playing cow boy.
That it why the Son'a ships could fight the Sovereign so well.
>
>
> >>That's true, but if you also remember,
> >>the mirror Defiant was just a hit or two
> >>away from being utterly destroyed--
> >>by the m. Negh'Var's weaker batteries,
> >>no less. Negh'Var's got 20 of those
> >>disruptors, a large forward cannon,
> >>and the really powerful torp launchers
> >>on its keel...the only reason m. Defiant
> >>survived was because she was able
> >>to get in to close for the N'V to use
> >>the bigger guns, which a Sovereign couldn't
> >>do.
> >>
> >
I agree, but there is one thing that was not taken into consideration, the sheer
firepower of the Sovereign class vessel.Their type XII Phasers could slice threw
Klingon shields within seconds upon impact. And their Quantum torpedoes could
do 2 times more damage than the Defiants Quantum torpedoes and in half the time.
>
CashBailey
>Message-id: <92482301...@news.remarQ.com>
>
>See below:
>
>--
>R Mercer
>Read the Tech Manual, the Tech Manual is your FRIEND.
>Credis quod habes et habes
>wub...@lvcm.com
>>Bob, I think you're getting too hung up
>>on ship designations...a Borg "scout" might
>>not have the luxury of the fearsome
>>"battleship" tag, but it would certainly
>>tear up most any battleship it went up
>>against (by scout, I'm thinking of the "Drone"
>>sphere).
>
>No, I apply the apellation that fits the capabilities of the class...
>mainly because Explorer could mean anything from a ruinabout sized ship to
>something that is several km long.... Borg cubes/ships in general defy
>classification, so far as i am concerned, because of the hugh technology
>gap.
You have a very good point in both,
I follow you...my upshoot was just that
"heavy carrier" need not imply that
the Negh'Var class isn't really a Klingon
battleship.
A few things : )
Again, I follow ya, though I have found
the idea of defensive systems' low allocation
of power to be rather strange in the TMs...
on one page, Type III EPS taps are supposed to feed something like 10% of the
total
output to "high energy applications," of
which type shields and weapons would
seem to fit--they're certainly more energy
intensive than a holodeck or replicator.
That makes the GW phasers seem a bit
laughable, though I've conceded they
do their petawatt-range damage partly
through NDF and subspace effects (when
in Rome, eh?). This is more of an aside
than anything else, but I think the TM
needed a slight update in the phaser and
shield figures...since "The Mind's Eye"
established a maximum handheld phaser
weapon was putting out near 1.05 MW,
if the ratio of Type X emitter to handheld
still stood, the GCS main array would put
out more like 100 GW. (I did figures for
this elsewhere if you'd like to see 'em.)
Anyway, that's a minor thing, and a beef
with the TMs, not you by any means.
About the extra power = faster speed,
that would seem to suggest various SF
ships of minor apellations--destroyers,
light cruisers, scouts, etc.--would have
an output equivalent to a GCS; moreover,
it would mean Voyager has a higher power
output than a GCS, since she has a higher
warp speed! That can't be right...she couldn't
carry as much fuel, for one thing.
Also, Klingon warp systems might not be
as efficient as Federation counterparts...
and/or, they may well devote a lot more
power to defenses and such than Federation
ships do. They'd have two cores for a reason,
certainly other than speed; I mean, Negh'Var
is really big and all, but it's not much more
massive than a Vor'cha, and it's not really
longer than these monster K'Vorts from
the TM. The additional core certainly
wouldn't hurt in superluminal travelling/speeds, but my thinking is that
it's there to feed those monster guns
to smash down powerful shields, like it
did at DS9.
If the 2 cores provided so much extra power, then the ship
>should be faster.
>
>>
>>Barring torps, I put my money on the
>>Negh'Var. With torps, the grand 10 torp
>>salvos that'd do in a fearsome enemy
>>would most likely not be able to hit the
>>N'V--maybe a third or half might impact,
>>at best. 3 torps launched simultaneously,
>>a more reasonable attack to expect of
>>a GCS, can't penetrate the shielding
>>of a K'Vort cruiser ("Yesterday's Enterprise"),
>>so I doubt it would do much to a Negh'Var,
>>either.
>>
>
>Hit probability has nothing to do with the number of torps launched... each
>torp has an equal probability of hitting the target, therefore, the more
>torps you fire, the more torps will hit... remember that torps are NOT
>direct fire weapons, they are seekers/homing weapons (and the hit
>probabilities seem to be very high.. at least 60% or better). A salvo isn't
>fired at some chosen angular spread (like torps in WWII sub movies), each
>torp is targeted (and torps in the same salvo can even be fired at different
>targets) and can scan on its own for its target.
You are very much right, of course,
but I was trying to rationalize why
we never see those 10 torp spreads
against enemies when we knew good
and well that a GCS could fire 'em.
We really agree on all of these things,
it just becomes a matter of what context
we think the battle should/would be
fought in : )
>
>Torps are essentially the equivalent of contemporary Air to Air missiles
>(Like the AMRAAM or R-73), not naval torpedoes.
>
>
>>With torps *and* FTL tactics...I dunno : )
>>I still say there must be something wrong
>>with fighting a STL target like that since
>>we've never really seen it done (when
>>it would have been beneficial, too).
>>
>
>Rick has basically come out and said, yes, most battles would actually be
>fought FTL with torps... but this doesn't make for good TV so it is done
>the way we usually see it. Nowhere in the ST tech or in military science
>can I find a good reason to not do it that way...
>
Except against space stations, which I've
_guessed_ might put out some kind of
subspace nullification field (like the
"Interdictors" in Star Wars) to keep
from being pounded from long distance,
I would have to agree with you, Bob.
In a FTL torp battle, a SCS would be
the most fearsome opponent of all
the conventional powers. The Negh'Var's
torps might be really honking photorps,
but the Sovereign would have the speed
advantage and torp tube count on 'em.
Shields being roughly equal, with an
armor edge to the Negh'Var, that would
undoubtedly put the SCS on top. STL,
I would probably favor the Klingon
ship, but not by as much as I might have
indicated in the previous few posts...
Sean
Mike Dicenso
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, bob mercer wrote:
> It doesn't seem to have twice the power output, since the speed is listed as
> only Wf 9.6... you aren't using shields or weapons all the time (and they
> are actually quite small power loads... GCS total power load for shields at
> alert condition is 5.11 GW... 3.311 TW,
The GCS has already been calculated to produce far more shield dissapation
capacity than a mere 3.311 TW. The upper ranges go from 20TW all the way
to well over a 100TW on a steady state basis. New evidence may be
forthcoming in the form of the E-D's ability to stave off the massive
energy ouput of a pulsar (see TNG's "Allegences") while in close relative
proximity.
if all shields are drawing at
> peak... total phaser power is less than 3 GW with all arrays firing... and
There are at least two references to the phasers being well above the
paltry 3 GW your suggesting here. "Matter of Time" being the most famous
quote for the 0.06 TW reference for a slight variance in the phaser's
discharge output.
> the warp core puts out energy in the petawatt range... all mostly soaked up
> by the WPS). If the 2 cores provided so much extra power, then the ship
> should be faster.
But the rate of power consumption may be greater depending on variables
such as mass, and optimal shape of the ship's hull. Further one ship
design may place more emphasis on power to weapons, and shields than
another.
> Rick has basically come out and said, yes, most battles would actually be
> fought FTL with torps... but this doesn't make for good TV so it is done
> the way we usually see it. Nowhere in the ST tech or in military science
> can I find a good reason to not do it that way...
Yet the ultimate canonical source disputes that, so we're left trying to
figure out WHY in the series they would choose to fight DS9 at close
sub-light range, rather than at warp.
-Mike
Mike Dicenso
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, bob mercer wrote:
> Mike Dicenso wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, bob mercer wrote:
> >
> >> 2,200 torps is very doubtful.... a Galaxy carries less than 300
> (besides,
> >
> >The Negh'Var has a fair amount of internal volume, even when compared to
> >the Galaxy class starships. Most of that would probably be optimized for
> >weapons, and torpedo stores. So it is possible that the Negh'Var carry
> >carry more than the 250 torps of the Galaxy class in it's inventory.
> >
> >
> >> after the first salvo or so, it is immaterial how many you have left,
> >> because the battle is over). Also the hegh'Var is classed as a Heavy
> >> Carrier, not a battleship... which means that thereis a lot of internal
> >> space taken up by whatever kind of small ships it is carrying, docking
> and
> >> repair facilities, flight crew living space, additional life support,
> etc.
> >
> >The Negh'Var is classed as a Heavy Carrier? Says who? What's your basis
> >for this?
>
> Says Herman Zimmerman, Rick Sternbach and Doug Drexler--see page 162 of the
> DS9 TM.
>
> Stats:
>
> Type: Heavy Carrier
True, but this is one of those instances, which is not borne out by the
series in any way. What ships does the Neg'Var carry, which we've seen
them launch in the show? Is she maybe a TROOP carrier instead? That would
at least be some what bourne out by the beaming of Klingon troops on board
DS9 after the shield generator was hit.
> Crew: 2,500 plus flight crew and troops (seems to be much more manpower (or,
> rather, klingonpower) intensive.
> Power Plant: 2 M/A WPS, 4 IPS
> 682 m x 470 m x 137 m (rounded)
Silly me, I thought that the larger the linear measurements, the bigger
the ship usually (volume-wise).
> Mass: 4,310,000 metric tons
> Speed: Wf 9.6
>
> Versus a Galaxy:
>
> Type: Explorer (actually, a battleship)
> Crew: 1,012
> Power: 1 M/A WPS, 3 IPS
> 642.5 m x 464 m x 195 m
BTW, the 195m number for the GCS' height is dead flat wrong, it should be
not much more than 142m tall. But this is'nt the only serious screw up in
the DS9 TM either....
> Speed; Wf 9.9 (Uprated)
>
> It is smaller than a Galaxy with more than twice the crew (obviously not
> living in the same degree of luxury as the Feds based upon what we have seen
> of klingon ships, but they still eat food and breathe air)... A Galaxy could
> probably take one... an uprated Galaxy would certainly win (if only due to
> its superior speed)... a Sovereign would splatter it....
The Neg'Var according to the TM stats is longer, and wider than the GCS,
and only weighs slightly less (another mistake no doubt). The GCS only has
a slight advantage if their at warp, but in a straight sub-light battle,
they seem pretty evenly matched.
-Mike
Derek Clarke
wrote:
> Torps ARE less effective against shields than phasers... basically
> because
> much of the energy is radiated away from the target and you loss warhead
> yield the further the torp has to travel... however, with torps, you
> can
> get into a situation where you can shoot at the enemy and he cannot
> shoot at
> you (and this can be done even in the STL regime)... so I am willing
> to use
> a less effective weapon, if it means I can paste you and you can't hit
> back... So it takes 30 or 40 torps, instead of 10 seconds of phaser
> fire, I
> can always replicate more torp casings once the battle is over.
But if you are sufficiently far away, then 40 torpedoes are as easy to
dodge as 1 because they're all coming from the same angle.
Stealth torpedoes don't exist because they don't have engines, so you
can't avoid continuous use of power to sustain the warp field. So the
launch will be detectable from a long way away.
Derek Clarke
cashb...@aol.com (CashBailey) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Sovereign V Negh'Var
> >From: "bob mercer" <wub...@lvcm.com>
> >Date: 4/21/99 9:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <92474428...@news.remarQ.com>
> >
> >See below:
> >
> >--
> >R Mercer
> >Read the Tech Manual, the Tech Manual is your FRIEND.
> >Credis quod habes et habes
> >wub...@lvcm.com
>
> >>>> >: The Negh'Var has an obscene compliment of Disruptors
> >(265,000terawatts
> >>>total
> >>>> >: output), and an obscene amount of pho-torps (2,200).
> >
> >2,200 torps is very doubtful.... a Galaxy carries less than 300
> (besides,
> >after the first salvo or so, it is immaterial how many you have left,
> >because the battle is over).
>
> Not that it's important, but I actually didn't
> say that about 2,000 torps : ) I'm sure Negh'Var carries a large
> amount, of
> course...assuming it *is* a heavy carrier,
> it would probably have an independent
> supply for the ships that dock in her, too.
>
> Also the hegh'Var is classed as a Heavy
> >Carrier, not a battleship... which means that thereis a lot of
> internal
> >space taken up by whatever kind of small ships it is carrying, docking
> and
> >repair facilities, flight crew living space, additional life support,
> etc.
> >
>
> That is what the DS9 TM says, and I'm
> not apt to disagree with that part of the
> book. But from what we have seen onscreen,
> the "heavy carrier" bit would seem to imply
> it has a large troop complement for landing
> troops on planets and space stations. It
> certainly has the firepower to knock down
> highly powered shields, then beam over
> lots of soldiers.
>
> >>
> >>I disagree with this. For one, I don't
> >>think the Sovereign is appreciably
> >>more manueverable than SF's other
> >>top capital ships. She may well have
> >>a higher top warp speed, but in sublight
> >>combat--the typical Trek battle scenario--
> >>she wouldn't have all that great an edge
> >>over even the Negh'Var, not like the
> >>mirror Defiant did.
> >
> >While not cannon, Riker, in the Captain's Chair CD-ROM, states that
> the E-E
> >has maneuverability equal to a ship 1/4 its size... which is probably
> just
> >in the sub 1 million metric ton range (which would put it close to an
> >Intrepid as far as maneuverability goes). The Negh'Var would look
> like a
> >wallowing pig next to it.
>
> Interesting. It's not canon, as you said,
> but in the absence of other, contradictory
> information, would it at least be official?
> I _could_ accept the Sovereign as close
> to that manueverability...
>
> However, and a big one at that, I honestly
> don't see manueverability as an important
> factor in sublight Trek combat unless you're
> in a ship that's less than 200m, like Defiant
> or Jem'Hadar fighters. One of those
> great big Kazon monstrosities was able
> to target an evading Voyager and repeatedly
> hit the same area in her shielding...Negh'Var
> should be able to do the same w/out appreciable trouble in fighting a
> Sovereign
> (just like the Son'a ships did).
>
> >>That's true, but if you also remember,
> >>the mirror Defiant was just a hit or two
> >>away from being utterly destroyed--
> >>by the m. Negh'Var's weaker batteries,
> >>no less. Negh'Var's got 20 of those
> >>disruptors, a large forward cannon,
> >>and the really powerful torp launchers
> >>on its keel...the only reason m. Defiant
> >>survived was because she was able
> >>to get in to close for the N'V to use
> >>the bigger guns, which a Sovereign couldn't
> >>do.
> >>
> >
> >1) I have to be both STL and in disrupter range for the disrupters to
> be
> >able to hit/damage me... if I can stand off outside of beam weapon
> range
> >(which my superior speed and maneuverability allows me to do), the
> Negh'Var
> >is toast.
>
> You like this tactic, Bob ; )
>
> I agree with you fully in that these kinds
> of FTL torpedo battles _should_ be the
> way Trek ships fight. But in traditional
> Trek, this is never done...not against
> DS9 in several engagements, not
> against the E-D, not against the big Dominion
> fleet in "SoA"...I'm thinking there must
> be some inherent disadvantage in trying
> to photorp a powerful opponent at long
> range distances. Could phasers be more
> effective against shields? Could targetting
> of a STL ship while you're warping around
> torping them be hard to do, or something?
> I would like to know a reasonable explanation
> beyond "the writers are just too stubborn
> to show it onscreen!" : )
>
> In sub-light, I think a Sovereign would
> stand up well to a Negh'Var, but I don't
> think it would be able to win, especially
> decisively, if the Klingons fight with
> a modicum of intelligence. FTL...I'd be
> tempted to give the SCS the advantage
> also, but that begs the question as to why
> similar tactics haven't been used before--
> *especially* against the Borg.
My feeling is that a torpedo attack at long range and FTL is easy to
evade, and that's why combat is usually at impulse speeds.
Torpedoes are severely disadvantaged by not having a true warp drive, and
a large energy signature must make them easy to spot.
In a full-blown tailchase they would be useful, because the fleeing ship
wouldn't be able to evade for fear of the pursuing ship cutting the corner
so to speak, and the pursuing ship would likewise be reluctant to allow
the pursued to widen the gap.
But if the target is stationary but warp-capable, or just under warp in no
particular direction, then you would have to get close to prevent the
target being able to flee or evade.
~Captain Trippz~
wrote:
>Type: Heavy Carrier
>Crew: 2,500 plus flight crew and troops (seems to be much more manpower (or,
>rather, klingonpower) intensive.
>Power Plant: 2 M/A WPS, 4 IPS
>682 m x 470 m x 137 m (rounded)
>Mass: 4,310,000 metric tons
>Speed: Wf 9.6
>
>Versus a Galaxy:
>
>Type: Explorer (actually, a battleship)
>Crew: 1,012
>Power: 1 M/A WPS, 3 IPS
>642.5 m x 464 m x 195 m
>Speed; Wf 9.9 (Uprated)
>
>It is smaller than a Galaxy with more than twice the crew (obviously not
>living in the same degree of luxury as the Feds based upon what we have seen
>of klingon ships, but they still eat food and breathe air)... A Galaxy could
>probably take one... an uprated Galaxy would certainly win (if only due to
>its superior speed)... a Sovereign would splatter it....
If it is a Carrier then you must take into account the ships it
carries as well. This with the Cloaking ability give it the edge.
~Captain Trippz~
wrote:
It doesn't seem to have twice the power output, since the speed is
listed as
only Wf 9.6... you aren't using shields or weapons all the time (and
they
are actually quite small power loads... GCS total power load for
shields at
alert condition is 5.11 GW... 3.311 TW, if all shields are drawing at
peak... total phaser power is less than 3 GW with all arrays firing...
and
the warp core puts out energy in the petawatt range... all mostly
soaked up
by the WPS). If the 2 cores provided so much extra power, then the
ship
should be faster.
But..............
Why would a warrior race implement speed over power? Anyone who needs
to die in battle would focus there tech to weapons not speed.
~Captain Trippz~
>I could easily see the mirror Defiant
>as inferior to our version, but it would
>be just as possible, if not more likely
>so, that the mirror Negh'Var was
>weaker too. It would have been built
>during the alliance with the Cardassians,
>which would easily take some burden
>off the designers to build a ship capable
>of facing off against any force in the
>quadrant. The Klingons in our universe
>only had a tentative alliance with the Feds...
>they would've been under the gun, haha,
>to make more efficient warships so the
>Empire could stand on its own, etc.
>
>Sean
Wasnt the Sovereign dropkicked by the Sona In
Star Treck: Insurrection?
Didnt seem like a tought ship in that battle.
CashBailey
>Date: 4/23/99 4:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3720d820...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
Well, it was beaten up pretty badly by
the two Son'a ships...but then again, it
didn't really fight back, either. Had
it turned around and exchanged shot
for shot, I think she could've taken 'em
with heavy damage. It was another disappointing battle, like the one
in "Generations."
Sean
John Norris
>
> Wasnt the Sovereign dropkicked by the Sona In
> Star Treck: Insurrection?
> Didnt seem like a tought ship in that battle.
It wasn't just drop kicked but it was hit with the " STONE COLD
STUNNER "
then put in the " SHARP SHOOTER " and finished off with the " DDT " but
not before it was
crippled by the " FIGURE FOUR LEG LOCK "
It made me embarrassed to be in the theater.
John Norris
>
> Well, it was beaten up pretty badly by
> the two Son'a ships...but then again, it
> didn't really fight back, either. Had
> it turned around and exchanged shot
> for shot, I think she could've taken 'em
> with heavy damage. It was another disappointing battle, like the one
> in "Generations."
>
Sean, its a movie ship, not a series ship.
If it was a series ship then it would be taggin and baggin left and
right, just like the Defiant.
But because millions and millions of dollars are depending on this ship
to appear as dramatic as possible, stricter restraints are put on it. So
we just cant compare it to a series ship. Remember in GENERATIONS what
happened to the Enterprise-D.
Mike Dicenso
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, John Norris wrote:
> It bothered me for months, I just couldn't understand how those vessels could have
> giventhe Sovereign class so much trouble. The mere fact that they ejected the core
> is what got me mad.
The E-E was at a serious disadvantage in the so-called "Briar Patch",
which had an adverse effect on ships not properly equipped. The Son'a
warships were outfitted to operate in that enviroment, and they took full
advantage of it.
> -The Son'a ships has a host of illegal weaponry that they used in their attacks.
Remember that isolitic weapon they tossed out at the E-E? That's about as
illegal as they get!. The isolitic weapon produced a hugh subspace tear,
which threatened to destroy the E-E, unless the found a way to seal it.
The ejection of the warpcore WAS the only option available to them at the
time to seal up the tear.
> -The Enterprise was also trying to run and not fight, allowing the smaller Son'a
> vessels to attack from the rear, causing a considerable amount of damage. Damn you
> Riker{{{
Riker was only trying to carry out Picard's last order to him to get the
E-E clear of the Briar Patch, and communicate what was really going on to
Starfleet and the Federation council. Also remember that the E-E was
firing aft torpedos at the Son'a ship chasing them, while running the
E-E's engines to the danger point in the Briar Patches hostile enviroment.
> -The Enterprise- E didn't utilize their Quantum torpedoes, ( Probably because they
> would have had some sort of adverse effect in that sector because of the conditions
> in the system. ) { Just a guesstimation }
Possible, but a QT is really just nothing more than an a ZPE enhanced
photo torp, so why would that make a difference? It would have to of
course be related to the ZPE enhancement somehow being inhibited, or
causing a dangerous side-effect.
> - The makers of the movie wanted to make it easy to watch for non trekers.
> Which means that they probably just lowered the Sovereign's ability to make it seem
> more dramatic in battle.
Which they did through use of the Briar Patch's effects on the E-E.
Oddly enough though, the E-E performed amazingly well against the Son'a
battleship, and was able to cripple it with out the power provided by the
WC.
-Mike
~Captain Trippz~
wrote:
LOL
I thought it was the Atomic Elbow Smash?
bob mercer
written down, somewhere and I am too lazy to break out my prints and
re-figure it. I copied the DS9 TM w/o looking at the numbers
let's see... 42 decks at 3.5 m/deck yields 147 m
42 decks at 4 m/deck yields 168 m... so it will be
somewhere around those figures...
I said that the Galaxy is bigger because the linear sizes are roughly the
same, but the Galaxy shape seems to have less waste space than the Negh'Var
and the mass is greater (even though the Negh'Var appears to have 4
nacelles... and warp coils weigh a LOT).
--
R Mercer
Read the Tech Manual, the Tech Manual is your FRIEND.
Credis quod habes et habes
wub...@lvcm.com
Mike Dicenso wrote in message ...
>
>
>On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, bob mercer wrote:
>
>> Mike Dicenso wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >
>> >On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, bob mercer wrote:
>> >
>> >> 2,200 torps is very doubtful.... a Galaxy carries less than 300
>> (besides,
>> >
>> >The Negh'Var has a fair amount of internal volume, even when compared to
>> >the Galaxy class starships. Most of that would probably be optimized for
>> >weapons, and torpedo stores. So it is possible that the Negh'Var carry
>> >carry more than the 250 torps of the Galaxy class in it's inventory.
>> >
>> >
>> >> after the first salvo or so, it is immaterial how many you have left,
>> >> because the battle is over). Also the hegh'Var is classed as a Heavy
>> >> Carrier, not a battleship... which means that thereis a lot of
internal
>> >> space taken up by whatever kind of small ships it is carrying, docking
>> and
>> >> repair facilities, flight crew living space, additional life support,
>> etc.
>> >
>> >The Negh'Var is classed as a Heavy Carrier? Says who? What's your basis
>> >for this?
>>
>> Says Herman Zimmerman, Rick Sternbach and Doug Drexler--see page 162 of
the
>> DS9 TM.
>>
>> Stats:
>>
>> Type: Heavy Carrier
>
>True, but this is one of those instances, which is not borne out by the
>series in any way. What ships does the Neg'Var carry, which we've seen
>them launch in the show? Is she maybe a TROOP carrier instead? That would
>at least be some what bourne out by the beaming of Klingon troops on board
>DS9 after the shield generator was hit.
>
>
>> Crew: 2,500 plus flight crew and troops (seems to be much more manpower
(or,
>> rather, klingonpower) intensive.
>> Power Plant: 2 M/A WPS, 4 IPS
>> 682 m x 470 m x 137 m (rounded)
>
>Silly me, I thought that the larger the linear measurements, the bigger
>the ship usually (volume-wise).
>
>
>> Mass: 4,310,000 metric tons
>> Speed: Wf 9.6
>>
>> Versus a Galaxy:
>>
>> Type: Explorer (actually, a battleship)
>> Crew: 1,012
>> Power: 1 M/A WPS, 3 IPS
>> 642.5 m x 464 m x 195 m
>
>BTW, the 195m number for the GCS' height is dead flat wrong, it should be
>not much more than 142m tall. But this is'nt the only serious screw up in
>the DS9 TM either....
>
>
>> Speed; Wf 9.9 (Uprated)
>>
>> It is smaller than a Galaxy with more than twice the crew (obviously not
>> living in the same degree of luxury as the Feds based upon what we have
seen
>> of klingon ships, but they still eat food and breathe air)... A Galaxy
could
>> probably take one... an uprated Galaxy would certainly win (if only due
to
>> its superior speed)... a Sovereign would splatter it....
>
bob mercer
requirements and effectiveness using the figures laid out in the TM... (I
posted this in Rick's NG over at PDE a while back):
I have crunched these numbers umpteen different ways trying to match the
tech and numbers given in the TM with observed effects. The ratings are
based upon the fact that the shield generators and the tractor beam tech are
essentially the same thing (which gave me a handle on what the MW ratings of
the generator actually meant in regards to normal space physics).
This is the short, simplified version, primary emphasis is on tactical
considerations and effects.
(1) each generator has a baseline Primary Energy Dissipation rate (PEDR) of
730 MW versus NDF effect weapons (phasers/disruptors).
(2) During cruise mode, 2 generators are on-line. One covers the saucer and
nacelles, the other covers the engineering hull.
(3) During alert mode, 7 (of 12) generators are on-line, output distributed
as follows:
a) Saucer: 3 generators
b) Engineering hull: 2 generators
c) Nacelles: 1 generator each
RATINGS:
Alert mode:
Saucer: 2190 MW PEDR continuous service (18,000 TW versus simple EM)
2.7e6 MW PEDR for 170 msec (22,191,780 TW EM equivalent for 170
msec)
99 Isotons versus torps
Eng: 1460 MW PEDR continuous service (12,000 TW)
1.8e6 MW PEDR for 170 msec (~14,868,493 TW EM equivalent for
170 msec)
66 Isotons
Nacelles: 730 MW PEDR continuous service (6,000 TW)
8.99e5 MW PEDR for 170 msec (~7,434,247 TW EM equivalent
for 170 msec)
33 Isotons
The same translation applies to the phasers... the 1.02 GW saucer dorsal
array has a standard EM equivalence of roughly 8384 TW... these numbers are
not the actual power outputs or requirements, they are the result of the
difference between normal EM weaponry/phenomena and NDF (Nuclear Disruption
Force)effect weaponry such as phasers or disruptors... the variance
technobabble may have been in reference to the equivalent EM output of the
phasers...(rather than a screw-up on the part of the writers, which is
probably what it actually is) a variance of 0.6 TW in this figure isn't
very much at all (0.007%).
I tend to take most of what is said in the throw-away technobabble with a
rather sizeable grain of salt.. the dialog is just that--throw away, added
for ambience and effect, generally with no reference to the background tech
or previously established figures, etc.... I tend to pay more attention to
the TMs (more so to the TNG TM than the DS9 TM, because it seems to have
fewer inconsistencies and blatant errors in it) than to minor aspects of the
episodes... I believe that the whole idea of canon, as applied to the
technological details rather than chronology or the validity of an event
happening/not happening is a poor idea... you have a choice between
something that a couple of knowledgeable people put together and tried to
make consistent (the TM) or some dialog written by the writer of the week to
fill in some dead air time or to help sustain a (sometimes lame) plot...
guess which one I am going to choose, particularly if I can explain away the
discrepancy?
--
R Mercer
Read the Tech Manual, the Tech Manual is your FRIEND.
Credis quod habes et habes
wub...@lvcm.com
Mike Dicenso wrote in message ...
<snip>
bob mercer
>A few things : )
>
>Again, I follow ya, though I have found
>the idea of defensive systems' low allocation
>of power to be rather strange in the TMs...
>on one page, Type III EPS taps are supposed to feed something like 10% of
the
>total
>output to "high energy applications," of
>which type shields and weapons would
>seem to fit--they're certainly more energy
>intensive than a holodeck or replicator.
Actually, I think that replicators and transporters would be higher energy
applications than weapons or shields... just a thought, I would have to go
back and run through whatever numbers were available... but transporter tech
does seem to require lots of energy...
The power requirements for warp flight are based upon ship size/mass... a
bigger ship requires more power to go the same speed as a smaller ship...
based upon my calculations of fuel use and warp durations that we have for
various classes of ships, something the size of Defiant uses FAR less energy
to reach warp 9 than does a Galaxy (I have a chart comparing the energy
requirements for the various ship classes, but I seem to have left it on a
disk at work, otherwise I would post it)... as you continue to approach the
warp 10 limit, the curves get closer and closer together... above warp 9.9,
they are pretty much the same... which means you will need a bigger ship,
with a big warp core and lots of fuel tankage to travel above warp 9.9 for
extended periods.
bob mercer
launched at high warp.... 4.46 msec if the torp is launched at warp 9 and
you are 4,050,000 km away (max range) and our relative velocity is zero
(meaning you are traveling in the same direction at the same speed and I am
in front of you, which is the best place to be in that situation)... 8.91
msec if you are sitting still... I don't think you are going to be able to
dodge, if a human is piloting the ship... you probably won't be able to
dodge even if the computer is flying the ship. The torp doesn't need to be
stealthy, because it is there almost before you can see it.
--
R Mercer
Read the Tech Manual, the Tech Manual is your FRIEND.
Credis quod habes et habes
wub...@lvcm.com
Derek Clarke wrote in message ...
Mike Dicenso
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, ~Captain Trippz~ wrote:
> Wasnt the Sovereign dropkicked by the Sona In
> Star Treck: Insurrection?
No, not really. Concidering the disadvantages she faced while in the Briar
Patch, I'd say she kicked some serious ass!.
> Didnt seem like a tought ship in that battle.
She manuevered like a fighter in order to disable Ru'afo's battleship, and
rescue Picard from the self-destructing array. All that, and without the
extra power from the warp core to boot!
-Mike
bob mercer
be chasing me<eg>. Consider the following (given that the ships have an
equal top speed):
1) My torp range has effectively doubled... because you are moving towards
the torp at or near the same speed it is coming at you... this means that I
could open fire on you when you were 9,100,000 km away. Transit time for
the torp at that range and speed is 0.00891 seconds... it is hitting you
almost before you see it.
2) Your range is GREATLY reduced... since the torp max velocity equation
given in the TNG TM doesn't work right (still waiting for an answer from
Rick on that issue), I assume that the launch process adds an additional 10%
to the ships velocity for the torps max velocity (which is far more than the
equation adds, if you ignore its unit analysis problem)... so, the chasing
ship's torp, launched at warp 9, has a velocity of 1668c... the relative
velocity between the torp and the lead ship is 152 c and the torp can
sustain this speed for 8.91 msec (based on torp max range)... which means
that it can only make up 406,296 km due to the relative velocity before its
fuel is gone... thus, you have to be within 406,296 km of me to have ANY
chance of hitting me, while I am shooting at you from 9 million km away...
I don't like your chances of being able to get that close to me, if I decide
to let you close the range (and the choice would be mine, if you were
determined to chase me and our speed capability was equal).
3) Evasion, in general, is going to be very difficult, given the small
amount of time you have between launch detection and torp arrival... no
human(oid) being would be capable of pushing the button to engage evasive
maneuvers in sufficient time (let alone actually have the ship actually
start the maneuver) to evade the torp. if you are STL and not using FTL
sensors, you will never see the torp coming at all...
--
R Mercer
Read the Tech Manual, the Tech Manual is your FRIEND.
Credis quod habes et habes
wub...@lvcm.com
Derek Clarke wrote in message ...
>
bob mercer
to choose your battle ground and the tactical geometry of the situation...
even if you don't care if you live or die, you want to be the fastest thing
around for the edge that it gives you in killing your enemy.
Mike Dicenso
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, bob mercer wrote:
> (1) each generator has a baseline Primary Energy Dissipation rate (PEDR) of
> 730 MW versus NDF effect weapons (phasers/disruptors).
Which just happens to make the shields absolutely useless against the
energy absorbed by the shields in "Allegences", "Relics", "I, Borg",
"Redemption Part II", and other "star surfing" episodes. Nothings been
done to explain *how* a 750 MW shield could withstand 2.5 to well over 100
TW on a steady state basis.
<<stuff snipped about equivelancies>>
> The same translation applies to the phasers... the 1.02 GW saucer dorsal
> array has a standard EM equivalence of roughly 8384 TW... these numbers are
> not the actual power outputs or requirements, they are the result of the
> difference between normal EM weaponry/phenomena and NDF (Nuclear Disruption
> Force)effect weaponry such as phasers or disruptors...
Bob, this really is'nt about equivalency though. We know from "Who Watches
The Watchers", that a small phaser bank needs 4.2 GW of power. Even if we
were to assume massive inefficencies on the order of 50% or more, the a
small phaser still produces as much power output as a type X 1.02 GW
phaser array (at least according to the TNG TM)!
the variance
> technobabble may have been in reference to the equivalent EM output of the
> phasers...(rather than a screw-up on the part of the writers, which is
> probably what it actually is) a variance of 0.6 TW in this figure isn't
> very much at all (0.007%).
Data could have easily have had a line written in saying that it was the
equivalent of 0.06 TW, but he did'nt. granted that the writers make all
kinds of goofups, but these are one of the rare times that any kind of a
reference has been made towards phaser power output. Both "A Matter of
Time", and "Who Watches The Watchers" are consistant in stating higher
power ranges for the phasers than the TM. 1.02 GW is absolutely paltry
compared the 60 GW variance mentioned in AMoT. A writer screw-up is
something like Riker's 1TW power output for the E-D in "The Daupin", only
to be later contradicted by "True Q" (12.75 billion GW warpcore power
quote), and "Revulsion" (conduit with 5 million GW running through it).
> I tend to take most of what is said in the throw-away technobabble with a
> rather sizeable grain of salt.. the dialog is just that--throw away, added
> for ambience and effect, generally with no reference to the background tech
> or previously established figures, etc....
But in the case of ship bourne phasers we really only have two usable
quotes here, and they suggest a much higher range than the TM does.
Further they are consistant in with each other. Now what may really be
happening is that the phasers are in the TW to low PW range, but they can
produce effects in the mid PW range to low YW range. For example, a phaser
may output 100-1000 TW, but against shields, armor, rock , ect produces
effects in the 10,000 to 100,000 + TW range.
I tend to pay more attention to
> the TMs (more so to the TNG TM than the DS9 TM, because it seems to have
> fewer inconsistencies and blatant errors in it) than to minor aspects of the
> episodes...
Your darn tootin right the DS9 TM has some serious errors in it!
> fill in some dead air time or to help sustain a (sometimes lame) plot...
> guess which one I am going to choose, particularly if I can explain away the
> discrepancy?
Unfortunately, with some exceptions, the filmed material is supposed to be
the final arbitor.
-Mike
Mike Dicenso
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, bob mercer wrote:
> I think the Galaxy class is between 130-160 m high.... used to have it
> written down, somewhere and I am too lazy to break out my prints and
> re-figure it. I copied the DS9 TM w/o looking at the numbers
The Sci Pub Tech cutaway poster places it at 137.5m tall, that's in the
right range but it's still a bit on the smallish side. The width, and
length are consistant with the DS9 TM, and the E-D blueprints.
>
> let's see... 42 decks at 3.5 m/deck yields 147 m
> 42 decks at 4 m/deck yields 168 m... so it will be
> somewhere around those figures...
147m sounds about right. I just simply measured the heights of the 1/1400
scale model and 1/2500 scale models and came up with a possible range of
138 to 152m. Still no matter how it's worked out, the GCS is not by any
means 192m tall!.
> I said that the Galaxy is bigger because the linear sizes are roughly the
> same, but the Galaxy shape seems to have less waste space than the Negh'Var
> and the mass is greater (even though the Negh'Var appears to have 4
> nacelles... and warp coils weigh a LOT).
The problem is that the DS9 TM has so many errors in it that it is
questionable as to whether, or not the mass numbers for the Neg'Var are
correct. The Neg'Var also instead of having four warp nacelles just may
instead have each of two nacelles partly submerged in the engineering hull
structure. I'd have to go back and look at "Shattered Mirror" to see if
there are really four, or two nacelles. As someone else pointed as well
two, the warp coils on the Neg'Var may not weigh as much as their GCS
counterpart, thus contributing to the alleged lower speed. Or conversely,
if the Neg'Var is a troopship, it may have that empty space filled up in
short order with equipment, and supplies. That would probably allow the
Neg'Var to outweigh the GCS when loaded mass it taken into account.
-Mike
bob mercer
the shield can re-direct... the how:
The shield is essentially a field of gravitons suspended in a subspace
distortion... think of it as a sort of event horizon. Incoming energy (and
physical objects) is/are bent around the ship or (deflected, which is why
they are called deflector shields). The amount of energy that can be
re-directed is a function of the amount of gravitons that are present and
how fast they can be replaced as they are consumed by the bending process.
The replacement rate (and initial strength) is determined by the generator
rating and the generator cooling capacity (heat is generated as the
gravitons are produced... as the heat builds up, the generator loses
efficiency, until the heat reaches a level that causes shutdown of the
generator due to thermal overload)... this progressive loss of strength is
called withering (shields are down to 40%... ).
--
R Mercer
Read the Tech Manual, the Tech Manual is your FRIEND.
Credis quod habes et habes
wub...@lvcm.com
Mike Dicenso wrote in message ...
>
>
>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, bob mercer wrote:
>
Reliant39
> Why would a warrior race implement speed over power? Anyone who needs
> to die in battle would focus there tech to weapons not speed.
Being a warrior race does not imply you *need to die
in battle*, quite the contrary. Klingons do not fear death,
and death in battle is considered honourable. But some-
times, the wisest thing to do is to run off (some things
just aren't worth dying for) so you live to fight (and possibly
die) another day.
There's a fine line between courage and stupidty.
--
Reliant39 -- A TOS and ST1-ST6 fan
E-mail address: reli...@lance.demon.nl
~Captain Trippz~
<reli...@lance.SPAMdemon.nl> wrote:
>~Captain Trippz~ <NyQu...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3731cfa7...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>> Why would a warrior race implement speed over power? Anyone who needs
>> to die in battle would focus there tech to weapons not speed.
>
>Being a warrior race does not imply you *need to die
>in battle*, quite the contrary. Klingons do not fear death,
>and death in battle is considered honourable. But some-
>times, the wisest thing to do is to run off (some things
>just aren't worth dying for) so you live to fight (and possibly
>die) another day.
>
>There's a fine line between courage and stupidty.
Agreed.... but try telling Gowron and the High Council your ship
design needs to be faster so you can run away. Im not saying speed
isnt important on a Klingon ship, but givin a choice they would rather
stay and blow stuff up.
~Captain Trippz~
<mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, ~Captain Trippz~ wrote:
>
>> Wasnt the Sovereign dropkicked by the Sona In
>> Star Treck: Insurrection?
>
>No, not really. Concidering the disadvantages she faced while in the Briar
>Patch, I'd say she kicked some serious ass!.
Ok.....I hope Starfleet has all its battles in a gas nebula. They were
smart in taking advantage of the gas but thats about it, other than
that they fought about as vicious as a girlscout troop.
>> Didnt seem like a tought ship in that battle.
>
>She manuevered like a fighter in order to disable Ru'afo's battleship, and
>rescue Picard from the self-destructing array. All that, and without the
>extra power from the warp core to boot!
>-Mike
I always wondered? how did the enterprise make it back to the planet
without a warpcore?? On Impulse power? That would take forever. The
writers lost me on that one.
P.S At least the Klingons dont use joysticks
Andrew Wright
> figure out WHY in the series they would choose to fight DS9 at close
> sub-light range, rather than at warp.
Perhaps it's because DS9 is not only inside a solar system, but in the
Denorios Belt, a great ring of charged plasma around the Bajoran sun.
Andrew Wright
> design needs to be faster so you can run away. Im not saying speed
> isnt important on a Klingon ship, but givin a choice they would rather
> stay and blow stuff up.
A wise Klingon engineer might say the speed is for reaching the
battlefield more quickly, not running away, even if it's really for
both.
Reliant39
> Agreed.... but try telling Gowron and the High Council your ship
> design needs to be faster so you can run away. Im not saying speed
> isnt important on a Klingon ship, but givin a choice they would rather
> stay and blow stuff up.
You have to consider the tactical advantage that a
faster ship gives you in battle. The faster the vessel,
the less chance the enemy has of hitting you, and so
on.
Reliant39
> I always wondered? how did the enterprise make it back to the planet
> without a warpcore?? On Impulse power? That would take forever. The
> writers lost me on that one.
Writer oversight? Was it ever stated how far they were
from the planet? I could also imagine Geordi making a
few adjustments to the impulse engines to make them
run faster (near c or something).
> P.S At least the Klingons dont use joysticks
Not yet...
Andrew Wright
> > without a warpcore?? On Impulse power? That would take forever. The
> > writers lost me on that one.
>
> Writer oversight? Was it ever stated how far they were
> from the planet? I could also imagine Geordi making a
> few adjustments to the impulse engines to make them
> run faster (near c or something).
Were they even AT warp speed to begin with? I don't remember clearly,
but perhaps you couldn't even travel at warp in the Briar Patch.
As far as Geordi adjusting the impulse engines to travel near light
speed, well, it wouldn't even take an adjustment. Impulse engines can
always do this. The reason they don't is to avoid relativistic effects.
If the Enterprise tried to get back to the Bak'u planet at near light
speed impulse, time would travel faster on the planet than on the ship,
and the speed would defeat its own purpose.
~Captain Trippz~
<reli...@lance.SPAMdemon.nl> wrote:
>~Captain Trippz~ <NyQu...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:372f3d80...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>> Agreed.... but try telling Gowron and the High Council your ship
>> design needs to be faster so you can run away. Im not saying speed
>> isnt important on a Klingon ship, but givin a choice they would rather
>> stay and blow stuff up.
>
>You have to consider the tactical advantage that a
>faster ship gives you in battle. The faster the vessel,
>the less chance the enemy has of hitting you, and so
>on.
In most startrek episodes ive seen they just kinda sit there and
phaser each other? Also, with onboard battle computers calculating the
ships every move and phasers being instantaneous how would you dodge
fire? Even FT can home in on a target.
Derek Clarke
mercer) wrote:
> Yes, but you have only a few milliseconds to dodge the torp, if it is
> launched at high warp.... 4.46 msec if the torp is launched at warp 9
> and
> you are 4,050,000 km away (max range) and our relative velocity is zero
> (meaning you are traveling in the same direction at the same speed and
> I am
> in front of you, which is the best place to be in that situation)...
> 8.91
> msec if you are sitting still... I don't think you are going to be
> able to
> dodge, if a human is piloting the ship... you probably won't be able to
> dodge even if the computer is flying the ship. The torp doesn't need
> to be
> stealthy, because it is there almost before you can see it.
>
If the two ships are at equal warp factors then how does a torpedo get to
a crossing speed of warp 9?
It would need a fabulous warp drive of its own to get to a factor of 9.99
if the trailing ship fired at the leading ship, or to dump the warp field
if the leading ship fired.
I'm pretty sure in that situation the relative crossing speed of the
torpedo will be the same as if the two ships are stationary, and the warp
sustainer field just keeps the torpedo at the correct warp factor.
No. the only way to deliver a torpedo at warp speed is if the relative
warp factors of the two ships are different, with the attacking ship being
at higher warp than the target ship.
In those circumstances the attacked ship will be pretty sure something is
going on because it's being approached by a ship at a higher warp factor.
Long before the attacker gets into torpedo range, the target will be
running or hiding behind something solid.
So the only hope of a long range torpedo attack working is from a cloaked
ship that can decloak and fire at warp with high precision. The sort of
thing that is trivial for our computer software but is very hard in the ST
universe :-)
> Derek Clarke wrote in message ...
Derek Clarke
mercer) wrote:
> The ideal warp combat situation is a tailchase... and I want the enemy
> to
> be chasing me<eg>. Consider the following (given that the ships have an
> equal top speed):
>
> 1) My torp range has effectively doubled... because you are moving
> towards
> the torp at or near the same speed it is coming at you... this means
> that I
> could open fire on you when you were 9,100,000 km away. Transit time
> for
> the torp at that range and speed is 0.00891 seconds... it is hitting
> you
> almost before you see it.
I don't agree. There's no evidence that the warp factor of a torpedo can
be much higher than that of the firing ship, and to claim that a torpedo
is capable of coming out of warp and still steering into a ship that is at
the original warp factor is optimistic to say the least!
Far more likely is that the warp sustainer can make small alterations in
the warp factor only, so a torpedo fired aft or forwards will have the
same relative speed to the firing ship.
So the only time when your 4ms figure comes into play is when the target
is stationary and the attacker is at warp 9. Then the attacker has just a
few aiming problems of his own, let alone getting the time of the torpedo
launch right.
And that makes no allowance for what the ship being attacked will be doing
when it detects a hostile ship approaching at high warp with no sign of a
warp deceleration profile.
>
> 2) Your range is GREATLY reduced... since the torp max velocity
> equation
> given in the TNG TM doesn't work right (still waiting for an answer from
> Rick on that issue), I assume that the launch process adds an
> additional 10%
> to the ships velocity for the torps max velocity (which is far more
> than the
> equation adds, if you ignore its unit analysis problem)... so, the
> chasing
> ship's torp, launched at warp 9, has a velocity of 1668c... the
> relative
> velocity between the torp and the lead ship is 152 c and the torp can
> sustain this speed for 8.91 msec (based on torp max range)... which
> means
> that it can only make up 406,296 km due to the relative velocity before
> its
> fuel is gone... thus, you have to be within 406,296 km of me to have ANY
> chance of hitting me, while I am shooting at you from 9 million km
> away...
> I don't like your chances of being able to get that close to me, if I
> decide
> to let you close the range (and the choice would be mine, if you were
> determined to chase me and our speed capability was equal).
The only on-screen evidence of tail chases has torpedoes exchanged between
chaser and chased with no distinction between them.
This makes me think that the increment you can give a torpedo is much
smaller than .1 of a warp factor and in fact is exactly the equivalent of
the torpedo's normal sublight speed :-)
>
> 3) Evasion, in general, is going to be very difficult, given the small
> amount of time you have between launch detection and torp arrival... no
> human(oid) being would be capable of pushing the button to engage
> evasive
> maneuvers in sufficient time (let alone actually have the ship actually
> start the maneuver) to evade the torp. if you are STL and not using FTL
> sensors, you will never see the torp coming at all...
If you stab a blind man in the back he won't see you coming. What on earth
makes you think that starships don't use FTL sensors when not at warp?
I remember the Enterprise D sitting in orbit and still detecting a Borg
ship at 38 hours away at warp 7. These sensors are incredibly long ranged
compared to the range of a torpedo.
Again, by the time the attacker reaches torpedo range, the attacked will
be doing something, whether fleeing or hiding.
> Derek Clarke wrote in message ...
>
> >
> >My feeling is that a torpedo attack at long range and FTL is easy to
> >evade, and that's why combat is usually at impulse speeds.
> >
> >Torpedoes are severely disadvantaged by not having a true warp drive,
> and
> >a large energy signature must make them easy to spot.
> >
> >In a full-blown tailchase they would be useful, because the fleeing
> ship
> >wouldn't be able to evade for fear of the pursuing ship cutting the
> corner
> >so to speak, and the pursuing ship would likewise be reluctant to allow
> >the pursued to widen the gap.
> >
> >But if the target is stationary but warp-capable, or just under warp
> in no
> >particular direction, then you would have to get close to prevent the
> >target being able to flee or evade.
>
>
>
Reliant39
> >faster ship gives you in battle. The faster the vessel,
> >the less chance the enemy has of hitting you, and so
> >on.
>
> In most startrek episodes ive seen they just kinda sit there and
> phaser each other? Also, with onboard battle computers calculating the
> ships every move and phasers being instantaneous how would you dodge
> fire? Even FT can home in on a target.
Yeah, but that's the episodes. *G* Yup, you're right, but
that's because it's apparantly visually more pleasing to
see two ships try and slug it out together.
And computers doing most of the targeting and such is
something that is noticably lacking in Trek (why else do
we need a Tactical Officer to fire the weapons?). It does
not make sense, it's there for dramatic effect. As is space
combat periode, since there is no logical reason to fight
in space the way Trek shows (ie, one could fire upon the
enemy without ever actually coming face to face with him
-- it happens in RL, but it doesn't on Trek, again for drama-
tic reasons).
And homing missiles (with "missiles" used in the broadest
sense of the word) have, to my knowledge, only been used
once (in ST6). It would make sense, but I guess (again for
dramatic purposes) that dodging pho-torps and phasers
is a lot more fun to look at.
The only instance I can recall a ship actually doing some-
thing remotely smart (tactical-wise) was in VOY's "Message
in a Bottle". Other than that...
Reliant39
> Were they even AT warp speed to begin with? I don't remember clearly,
> but perhaps you couldn't even travel at warp in the Briar Patch.
> As far as Geordi adjusting the impulse engines to travel near light
> speed, well, it wouldn't even take an adjustment. Impulse engines can
> always do this. The reason they don't is to avoid relativistic effects.
> If the Enterprise tried to get back to the Bak'u planet at near light
> speed impulse, time would travel faster on the planet than on the ship,
> and the speed would defeat its own purpose.
Good points, I forgot about those relativistic effects...
Mike Dicenso
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, ~Captain Trippz~ wrote:
> >No, not really. Concidering the disadvantages she faced while in the Briar
> >Patch, I'd say she kicked some serious ass!.
>
> Ok.....I hope Starfleet has all its battles in a gas nebula. They were
> smart in taking advantage of the gas but thats about it, other than
> that they fought about as vicious as a girlscout troop.
Wow! They nearly got plastered by the use of an illegal isolitic subspace
weapon, and they were brave enough on impulse power only to turn around,
and scoop up the metrion gas, and ignite it. Thus destroying one Son'a
ship, and severely damaging the other. Yeah, that's "fighting like girl
scouts" alright.
>
> >> Didnt seem like a tought ship in that battle.
> >
> >She manuevered like a fighter in order to disable Ru'afo's battleship, and
> >rescue Picard from the self-destructing array. All that, and without the
> >extra power from the warp core to boot!
> >-Mike
>
>
> I always wondered? how did the enterprise make it back to the planet
> without a warpcore?? On Impulse power? That would take forever. The
> writers lost me on that one.
Warp drive was severely limited in use anyway while in the Briar Patch.
At least not without special modifications like those on the Son'a ships.
It probably took 'em a little while longer, but not too much more.
-Mike
Mike Dicenso
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, Reliant39 wrote:
> ~Captain Trippz~ <NyQu...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:372f3d80...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> > Agreed.... but try telling Gowron and the High Council your ship
> > design needs to be faster so you can run away. Im not saying speed
> > isnt important on a Klingon ship, but givin a choice they would rather
> > stay and blow stuff up.
>
> You have to consider the tactical advantage that a
> faster ship gives you in battle. The faster the vessel,
> the less chance the enemy has of hitting you, and so
> on.
Although it is interesting that the Defiant is limited to warp 9.5, and
then only by sacrificing the defense reserves.
-Mike
Mike Dicenso
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, bob mercer wrote:
> Superior speed means superior tactical and strategic mobility, the ability
> to choose your battle ground and the tactical geometry of the situation...
> even if you don't care if you live or die, you want to be the fastest thing
> around for the edge that it gives you in killing your enemy.
But interesting to note that the Defiant is limited to warp 9.5, and then
only after having dumped her defensive reserves into the effort. It
appears that there is indeed a philosophy in starship design of trading
warp drive efficency for greater weapons, and shield strength in combat.
The Defiant may also be optimized for high manuverbility, and speed at
impulse as well. Conversely this may also be the design philosophy that
the Neg'Var employs as well too.
-Mike
bob mercer
>mercer) wrote:
>
>> The ideal warp combat situation is a tailchase... and I want the enemy
>> to
>> be chasing me<eg>. Consider the following (given that the ships have an
>> equal top speed):
>>
>> 1) My torp range has effectively doubled... because you are moving
>> towards
>> the torp at or near the same speed it is coming at you... this means
>> that I
>> could open fire on you when you were 9,100,000 km away. Transit time
>> for
>> the torp at that range and speed is 0.00891 seconds... it is hitting
>> you
>> almost before you see it.
>
>I don't agree. There's no evidence that the warp factor of a torpedo can
>be much higher than that of the firing ship, and to claim that a torpedo
>is capable of coming out of warp and still steering into a ship that is at
>the original warp factor is optimistic to say the least!
The torpedo's Wf is the same (in this instance) as the firing ship... Wf
9... and the torp doesn't ever come out of warp... why would it need to?
Does an AAM come to a stop so it can blow up?
>
>Far more likely is that the warp sustainer can make small alterations in
>the warp factor only, so a torpedo fired aft or forwards will have the
>same relative speed to the firing ship.
The sustainer picks up the warp field of the firing ship during the launch
process and can augment it slightly... this is primarily so that the torp
can clear the firing ship before initiating any maneuvers. The direction in
which the torp is launched is immaterial... (as can be observed in any
number of the aftward fired torp sequences that we have seen). The torp has
a warp field (in this case, a 1516 cochrane field) capable of sustaining
whatever speed is set for it at launch (usually slightly more than the
launching ship's speed). The relative velocity between the launching ship
and the torp in this case is -3032c (since they are separating).
>
>So the only time when your 4ms figure comes into play is when the target
>is stationary and the attacker is at warp 9. Then the attacker has just a
>few aiming problems of his own, let alone getting the time of the torpedo
>launch right.
No... I fire a torp and am traveling at warp 9... the torp is traveling at
warp 9.00001 (or whatever)... you are traveling towards me and the torp and
the torp is traveling towards you. The relative velocity between you and
the torp is the sum of that vector component of your velocity that is in the
direction of the torp and that vector component of the torp's velocity that
is in your direction. In this case, since you are both traveling directly
towards each other (at Wf 9) the sum is 1516c + 1516c = 3032c. Is this
difficult to understand or is my explanation inadequate? Remember that we
are not dealing with Newtonian physics here. Even if I kick the torpedo out
of an airlock on the back of the ship (it has no intrinsic velocity), once
it leaves the warp field it will decelerate to essentially a standstill if
it does not have a sustainer field (it would also be VERY difficult for you
to see)... which means that you will run into it at Wf 9 (or whatever speed
you are traveling at)... if I kick it out when you are 9,100,000 km away,
you will hit it in 0.02 seconds... still not enough time for a human pilot
to dodge it, though you have increased the chances that the computer might
see it and dodge it.
>
>And that makes no allowance for what the ship being attacked will be doing
>when it detects a hostile ship approaching at high warp with no sign of a
>warp deceleration profile.
No, it doesn't--but we are talking about the geometry of a particular
situation, not the correct tactical procedures to undertake in that case.
The necessary tactical response is to accelerate to match the incoming
vessel (if you can) while turning away to place the incoming vessel at your
180 (in order to maintain separation and allow time to accelerate to combat
speed)... at this point, the incoming vessel SHOULD either 1)shear off, in
order to avoid being on the downhill side of bad warp geometry or 2)
maneuver around you to take up residence at your 000, just out of your torp
envelope (this would be done only if the enemy CO knew he was faster than
you). The two ships then attempt to jockey for superior position...
fastest ship will win that battle, establishing superior position and
forcing the slower ship to either be destroyed, break off the action, or
surrender.
That's because the writers don't understand elementary physics or positional
advantage in tactical situations... ask a fighter pilot about the
differences in shooting a missile at a plane that is moving away from him
and ons moving towards him... or what differences in altitude and baseline
velocity do to firing solutions and effective weapons ranges.
>
>This makes me think that the increment you can give a torpedo is much
>smaller than .1 of a warp factor and in fact is exactly the equivalent of
>the torpedo's normal sublight speed :-)
The increment you give the torp is immaterial... it just has to be enough
to clear the ship when the torp is launched in the forward direction... it
strikes me, however, that the increment added would have to be, as a
minimum, a few percentage points... otherwise, you and the torpedo would
both reach the target at the same time. If the increment is too small (if
you use the equation given in the TNG TM) the mouth of the launcher (NOT the
forwardmost part of the ship) has to be within **1 meter** of the target...
if you are in a Galaxy class, this would mean that the saucer section would
have to be overhanging the enemy ship before you could fire a torp in the
forward direction that would hit him.
>
>>
>> 3) Evasion, in general, is going to be very difficult, given the small
>> amount of time you have between launch detection and torp arrival... no
>> human(oid) being would be capable of pushing the button to engage
>> evasive
>> maneuvers in sufficient time (let alone actually have the ship actually
>> start the maneuver) to evade the torp. if you are STL and not using FTL
>> sensors, you will never see the torp coming at all...
>
>If you stab a blind man in the back he won't see you coming. What on earth
>makes you think that starships don't use FTL sensors when not at warp?
Nothing, but it has been done in the past, notably by the Ferengi IN A
BATTLE SITUATION. If the Ferengi had been using FTL sensors when fighting
Picard aboard the Stargazer, the famous Picard Maneuver would not have
worked and the Stargazer would be a debris field somewhere and the crew
would be dead.
>
>I remember the Enterprise D sitting in orbit and still detecting a Borg
>ship at 38 hours away at warp 7. These sensors are incredibly long ranged
>compared to the range of a torpedo.
What episode was this? I remeber something vaguely like this, but don't
remember where it is from (I, Borg, maybe?)
Yes they are... but the pulse return time is quite long as well (45 minutes
at max range) and I am sure that the Borg tend to stick out like a sore
thumb in that they are quite large and have a massive energy signature and
aren't really concerned about sneaking up on people... you also have to be
facing in the right direction to see them, since the lateral arrays don't
have multiple LY ranges. This still doesn't mean that you are going to see
the torp in time to do something about it... if you see it at the moment of
launch, amid all the jamming and ECM that the other ship is throwing at you,
you still have only 4-20 milliseconds to react, depending upon the torp
launch speed and range at which it is launched (if you are at warp 9).
>
>Again, by the time the attacker reaches torpedo range, the attacked will
>be doing something, whether fleeing or hiding.
IF he is smart and if he is fast enough to get away from me, yes... what if
he has to stay and defend something? What if I approach from a direction he
is not watching (though the CO should be shot for gross incompetance if he
lets me sneak up on him w/o me using a cloak)... what if I have a cloak and
uncloak in front of you at matched course and speed and start firing torps?
(or how about I just open a cargo bay door and drop a couple of dozen
cloaked mines in your path?)
bob mercer
dogfighting, given the massive amount of forward-only firepower tied up in
the PPC's and the EXTREMELY limited torp magazine space... those are not
design choices that I would have made, frankly... but it looks good on TV.
--
R Mercer
Read the Tech Manual, the Tech Manual is your FRIEND.
Credis quod habes et habes
wub...@lvcm.com
Mike Dicenso wrote in message ...
>
>
Graham Kennedy
>
>
> > - The makers of the movie wanted to make it easy to watch for non trekers.
> > Which means that they probably just lowered the Sovereign's ability to make it seem
> > more dramatic in battle.
>
> Which they did through use of the Briar Patch's effects on the E-E.
> Oddly enough though, the E-E performed amazingly well against the Son'a
> battleship, and was able to cripple it with out the power provided by the
> WC.
Was the Baku system located in some kind of clear spot
within the Briar Patch? IIRC we didn't see any of the
nebula-like gases in the sky around the planet, so I
would guess that it was. If so, it may be that once
clear of the effects even a crippled Sovereign was more
than a match for the So'na.
--
Graham Kennedy
Graham Kennedy
>
> On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 16:29:54 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> <mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, ~Captain Trippz~ wrote:
> >
> >> Wasnt the Sovereign dropkicked by the Sona In
> >> Star Treck: Insurrection?
> >
> >Patch, I'd say she kicked some serious ass!.
>
> Ok.....I hope Starfleet has all its battles in a gas nebula. They were
> smart in taking advantage of the gas but thats about it, other than
> that they fought about as vicious as a girlscout troop.
>
> >
> >She manuevered like a fighter in order to disable Ru'afo's battleship, and
> >rescue Picard from the self-destructing array. All that, and without the
> >extra power from the warp core to boot!
> >-Mike
>
> I always wondered? how did the enterprise make it back to the planet
> without a warpcore?? On Impulse power? That would take forever. The
> writers lost me on that one.
At least three possibilities :
First, they used impulse only the whole time they
were in the Briar Patch, including their initial
trip to the planet. Hence they weren't all that
far away, and where able to get back in a matter
of hours. Not sure I like this one, as IIRC they
appeared to get back to the planet in more like
minutes - but it's been a while since I saw it,
so I may well be wrong about the timeline.
Second - they could have used the ships fusion
reactors to power the warp drive. There's nothing
I know of that says you *must* use M/AM for this,
and certainly I doubt that ships like the Phoenix
had a M/AM drive. Sure it would probably be much
slower, but then you can't run at high warp within
the Briar Patch anyway so that doesn't matter.
Third, Starships are known to have battery backups;
Scotty mentioned them in ST:II during Khan's initial
attack. Those were enough for "a few shots", but the
batteries of the Sovereign may be enough for a few
hours at warp and a few minutes worth of combat,
especially if she is a more military-oriented design
than most Starships.
Personally I like the third one best.
--
Graham Kennedy
bob mercer
velocities aren't what you think they might be is a little lacking... I
will attempt to lay out my thinking on this matter:
In real space, the velocity differentials that you are assuming would seem
to hold... but the same is NOT true when dealing with warp regime torpedoes.
It is crucial that we keep in mind that we are dealing with non-Newtonian
physics.
The ship has an intrinsic warp field, generated by the WPS... the velocity
of the ship is determined by the strength and geometry of that field.
Ignoring environmental effects, a ship with a 1516 cochrane field will be
traveling at Wf 9, and so on.
When fired at warp, the torpedo is provided with a warp field (the strength
of that field will be determined by the desired torp velocity--it can range
from much less than that of the launching ship to slightly more... there is
insufficient data at this time to determine exactly how much more it could
be). The geometry of this warp field will be determined by the intrinsic
geometry of the torp sustainer coils... since this is what holds the field.
This is fixed and is directed towards the forward end of the torpedo (torp
warp field geometry cannot be changed to alter course, unlike a ship's warp
field geometry. Maneuver is accomplished by changing where the fwd end of
the torp is pointed via differential constriction of the M/A reaction
exhaust ports).
Once the torp is clear of the launcher/launching ship's warp field it is
traveling at the Wf congruent with the field strength in the direction that
the torp is pointed... this is irrespective of the launching ship velocity,
because the reference point is not the launching ship, but the real space
referential framework. The torp and ship velocities have little to do with
each other except for the fact that the field strengths should be related
(because the torp field is grabbed from the ship field). If I launch a torp
in the aft direction, I DO NOT subtract the ship's initial velocity from the
torp velocity (thus slowing the torp down in reference to its axis of
movement), the relative velocity between the launching ship and the torp (if
ship is at Wf 9 and torp desired velocity is Wf 9) will be 3032c. Again,
this is because the torp has a 1516 cochrane warp field--and the field
strength is what determines the velocity. The torp does not need to provide
massive amounts of energy to do this, only enough energy to sustain the grab
field--it does not accelerate, in some manner, an additional 1516c in order
to get this relative velocity in reference to the launching ship.
The same thing is operative for torps fired in the fwd direction (relative
to the ship). Once the torp is fired and is outside the warp field of the
launching ship, it is traveling at a Wf congruent with its field strength.
At torp launched with a 1517 cochrane field will be traveling roughly at Wf
9, but its relative velocity to the launching ship will be 1c... this makes
head on attacks in the warp regime very dangerous to the attacking ship,
thus most attacks will be off-axis (fired at off angles or broadside angles)
or the firing ship will immediately break away from the torp course or
decelerate... otherwise it would be in the blast radius when the torp
arrived.
Remember that the above DO NOT apply to torps launched at impulse, observed
behavior of torps at impulse is not a guide to torp behavior in the warp
regime. Torps at impulse will obey the "standard" rules of physics.
I hope this is somewhat clearer:)
--
R Mercer
Read the Tech Manual, the Tech Manual is your FRIEND.
Credis quod habes et habes
wub...@lvcm.com
bob mercer wrote in message <92498705...@news.remarQ.com>...
John Norris
bob mercer wrote:
> This may be because the Defiant design is obviously optimized for STL
> dogfighting, given the massive amount of forward-only firepower tied up in
> the PPC's and the EXTREMELY limited torp magazine space... those are not
> design choices that I would have made, frankly... but it looks good on TV.
>
It would look even better if Worf wassnt on the bridge.
In my opinion he is the worst Captain ive ever seen.
Robert Brady
: Here is the chart I talked about in the last post, found a copy of it on a
: zip disk. My apologies for posting a pic, but it is fairly small.
It's interesting that you know this is wrong, but still did it. In future,
please post binaries to alt.binaries.startrek, or place them on a web-page
and send us a cross-reference to them.
--
Robert
Carl Beckom
>> >> Also the hegh'Var is classed as a Heavy Carrier, not a Battleship...
which means that thereis a lot of internal space taken up by whatever kind
of small ships it is carrying, docking and repair facilities, flight crew
living space, additional life support, et...
>
It seems to me that I read some where that the heavy Carriers were planetary
assault ships. They are more heavily armed with a stronger class of
disrupters and higher volume of Torpedoes for the purpose of bombardment of
the planet, before they transport down the assault troops. They carry both
a large number of assault shuttle and a very large number of transporter
rooms. For some reason the number of troops carried is either 5,0000 or
15,000 I can't remember but I will go through the material I have and find
the references for everyone. But I think it was 15,000, because at the time
when read it, I remember thinking that it was an ungodly amount troops to
be carried on one ship.
Carl
Love Robin
>to choose your battle ground and the tactical geometry of the situation...
>even if you don't care if you live or die, you want to be the fastest thing
>around for the edge that it gives you in killing your enemy.
>
or anyway, *we humans* do... average klingons seem to reflect the idea of
sumo... it is better sport and competition for 2 large fighters to stand there
and butt bellies, pound chests, and do dramatic things like a strut around the
grounds carrying the limp (or better still struggling) body of your opponent
over your head before dashing hiim to the ground a final time....
now give them starships, and their average battle tactics are prety much the
same....
lr
Love Robin,
Green Orion Woman (GOW) Extrodinaire
Virtual Djinni, Sex Muse
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Drop "Shields" to email reply)
Mike Dicenso
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, bob mercer wrote:
> The stuff about equivalencies is how much energy (such as solar radiation)
> the shield can re-direct... the how:
>
> The shield is essentially a field of gravitons suspended in a subspace
> distortion... think of it as a sort of event horizon. Incoming energy (and
> physical objects) is/are bent around the ship or (deflected, which is why
> they are called deflector shields). The amount of energy that can be
> re-directed is a function of the amount of gravitons that are present and
> how fast they can be replaced as they are consumed by the bending process.
This is an interestng bit on the mechanics of how the shields work, but
still really does'nt answer exactly my questions. Especially since this
answer is'nt narrow enough in scope on the subject. Now a more likely
explanation, and one supported by the on-screen evidence, as well as the
TNG TM is that the shields "displace" the ship. Metaphasic shields work by
partly "submerging" a ship in subspace rather than rely on gravitons to
displace the vessel by creating a spatial distortion simular to that
created by a planetary body.
> The replacement rate (and initial strength) is determined by the generator
> rating and the generator cooling capacity (heat is generated as the
> gravitons are produced... as the heat builds up, the generator loses
> efficiency, until the heat reaches a level that causes shutdown of the
> generator due to thermal overload)... this progressive loss of strength is
> called withering (shields are down to 40%... ).
Well this would occur whether, or not the shields are MW, TW, or PW.
-Mike
Mike Dicenso
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, Graham Kennedy wrote:
> appeared to get back to the planet in more like
> minutes - but it's been a while since I saw it,
> so I may well be wrong about the timeline.
I remember it took them longer, but the whole thing of course was edited
so that we (the audience) would'nt have to sit there and wait for them to
get back.
>
> Second - they could have used the ships fusion
> reactors to power the warp drive. There's nothing
> I know of that says you *must* use M/AM for this,
> and certainly I doubt that ships like the Phoenix
> had a M/AM drive. Sure it would probably be much
> slower, but then you can't run at high warp within
> the Briar Patch anyway so that doesn't matter.
This is interesting because the Romulan BoP in "Balance of Terror"[TOS],
was apparently capable of low level FTL, dispite the fact that it had only
impulse (read fusion) power to this with. This contradicts the TMs on the
power requirements issue for initiating warp with M/AM reactions only
because the IRC cannot supply the necessary power. It's possible that
current IRC designs traded the ability to send a starship to warp speeds
in turn for using most of their power production for thrust, and powering
other ship systems during STL operations.
-Mike
bob mercer
are suspended are what "displaces" the ship... which is why the shields are
effective against a variety of phenomena in both real and subspace (and why
shields interfere with the warp drive unless the field geometry and shield
geometry are harmonized to account for the possibility of interference).
If I am not exactly answering your question, perhaps you should rephrase it
as I seem to be missing it (or an answer isn't possible on the basis of the
information is available).
--
R Mercer
Read the Tech Manual, the Tech Manual is your FRIEND.
Credis quod habes et habes
wub...@lvcm.com
Mike Dicenso wrote in message ...
>
>
bob mercer
least in a Galaxy class.. and I am sure in a Sovereign, as well). The IRC's
might have problems running the warp drive because no critical pulse
frequency is produced in the fusion reaction, unlike for WPS power
generation via the M/ARA (because of the partial suspension of the M/A
reaction in the dilithium crystal)
--
R Mercer
Read the Tech Manual, the Tech Manual is your FRIEND.
Credis quod habes et habes
wub...@lvcm.com
Mike Dicenso wrote in message ...
>
>
Graham Kennedy
>
> Here is the chart I talked about in the last post, found a copy of it on a
> zip disk. My apologies for posting a pic, but it is fairly small.
Did you assume that power requirement for a given warp
factor is directly proportional to the mass?
--
Graham Kennedy
S. Larocque
<Snip>
If you look at the MSD for the Enterprise-E, you can clearly see that
there are two warp cores. IMO, when Geordi told Picard that they ran
out of WC's, I'm guessing he meant one's that they could spare ... and
that they still had the other left.
Sean
--
Please feel free to check out my Star Trek RPG site at:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/1223/
We're always looking for new crew members...
~Captain Trippz~
<mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, ~Captain Trippz~ wrote:
>
>> >No, not really. Concidering the disadvantages she faced while in the Briar
>> >Patch, I'd say she kicked some serious ass!.
>>
>> Ok.....I hope Starfleet has all its battles in a gas nebula. They were
>> smart in taking advantage of the gas but thats about it, other than
>> that they fought about as vicious as a girlscout troop.
>
>Wow! They nearly got plastered by the use of an illegal isolitic subspace
>weapon, and they were brave enough on impulse power only to turn around,
>and scoop up the metrion gas, and ignite it. Thus destroying one Son'a
>ship, and severely damaging the other. Yeah, that's "fighting like girl
>scouts" alright.
Ummm....hello. Lost warp core, ship damage? And this was the most
modern ship in Star Fleet armada. The Enterprise didnt damage the
Son'a ship, the nebula did. Take that away and they would of lost.
Maybe they should carry around a store of beandip and fart at the
enemy. The crews adaptive intelligence won the battle. The ship
performed half-assed.
>>
>> >> Didnt seem like a tought ship in that battle.
>> >
>> >She manuevered like a fighter in order to disable Ru'afo's battleship, and
>> >rescue Picard from the self-destructing array. All that, and without the
>> >extra power from the warp core to boot!
>> >-Mike
>>
>>
>> I always wondered? how did the enterprise make it back to the planet
>> without a warpcore?? On Impulse power? That would take forever. The
>> writers lost me on that one.
>
bob mercer
--
R Mercer
Read the Tech Manual, the Tech Manual is your FRIEND.
Credis quod habes et habes
wub...@lvcm.com
S. Larocque wrote in message <7fvupj$7...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
bob mercer
TM (questionable accuracy, I know--but you work with what you have). This
is because I have a rough idea of the fuel tankage for the Defiant (~800 m^3
of AM). The resultant curve appears to be proportional to ship mass/size to
a certain degree... the curves for the Akira, etc. are based upon the
Galaxy curve, modified by ship mass.
--
R Mercer
Read the Tech Manual, the Tech Manual is your FRIEND.
Credis quod habes et habes
wub...@lvcm.com
Graham Kennedy wrote in message <3722C5D2...@adeadend.demon.co.uk>...
Mike Dicenso
On 25 Apr 1999, S. Larocque wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>
> If you look at the MSD for the Enterprise-E, you can clearly see that
> there are two warp cores. IMO, when Geordi told Picard that they ran
> out of WC's, I'm guessing he meant one's that they could spare ... and
> that they still had the other left.
>
Sorry Sean, but I don't see this second WC of yours anywhere in the MSD
cutaway diagram. Where's the second located?
-Mike
Mike Dicenso
On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, ~Captain Trippz~ wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 12:54:37 -0700, Mike Dicenso
> <mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, ~Captain Trippz~ wrote:
> >
> >> >No, not really. Concidering the disadvantages she faced while in the Briar
> >> >Patch, I'd say she kicked some serious ass!.
> >>
> >> Ok.....I hope Starfleet has all its battles in a gas nebula. They were
> >> smart in taking advantage of the gas but thats about it, other than
> >> that they fought about as vicious as a girlscout troop.
> >
> >Wow! They nearly got plastered by the use of an illegal isolitic subspace
> >weapon, and they were brave enough on impulse power only to turn around,
> >and scoop up the metrion gas, and ignite it. Thus destroying one Son'a
> >ship, and severely damaging the other. Yeah, that's "fighting like girl
> >scouts" alright.
>
> Ummm....hello. Lost warp core,
They sacrificed the WC to save the ship from the Son'a's dirty trick of
throwing an isolitc subspace weapon at them! It was either that, or die.
> ship damage?
Uh yeah, that sorta thing does occur in battle against two to one odds.
> And this was the most
> modern ship in Star Fleet armada.
One of the most modern, the USS Prometheus is THE premire cutting edge
ship in the fleet right now.
The Enterprise didnt damage the
> Son'a ship, the nebula did.
I'am sorry but the nebula did'nt decide to help the E-E out by suddenly
igniting itself there. The E-E was the one that collected the gas with
it's ramscoops, and used it against the Son'a.
> The crews adaptive intelligence won the battle.
Of course, no ship is very useful, unless it has infinte power shields,
and weapons, if the crew is going to use it to it's full capacity. The
crew did'nt go out and hand toss the metrion gas at the Son'a ships. It
was the crew using the assets of the ship's ramscoops to collect, and
project the gas at the enemy.
>The ship
> performed half-assed.
Actually the better case would be made that the crew, and the ship did
the best they could manage in a very bad set of circumstances. Even if the
E-E was only used to half her capacity in the early stages of the battle,
the latter performance against Ro'afou's battleship, and in rescuing
Picard from the array more than makes up for things. Especially
concidering there was no warp core to provide extra power for the phasers
when they stafed the battleship at close range.
-Mike
Mike Dicenso
On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, bob mercer wrote:
> The combination of the gravitons and the subspace distortion in which they
> are suspended are what "displaces" the ship... which is why the shields are
> effective against a variety of phenomena in both real and subspace (and why
> shields interfere with the warp drive unless the field geometry and shield
> geometry are harmonized to account for the possibility of interference).
But this graviton displacement does'nt entirely explain how shields can
dissapate so much with apparently so little energy output. Now if we were
talking about M-shields, it would make better sense, since it's simply a
matter of reprograming the ship's shields to overlap low-level subspace
fields in the proper manner so as to have it partially exist in subspace.
All without apparently any need to increase power to the system! Of course
M-shields were'nt in use at the time of episodes like "Allegence", and
"Relics".
> If I am not exactly answering your question, perhaps you should rephrase it
> as I seem to be missing it (or an answer isn't possible on the basis of the
> information is available).
I'd say it's a lack of imformation available. If the shield's energy
output is only 750 MW, your explanation still comes up short on explaining
exactly how they are able to dissapate energy/power outputs from stars,
weapons, ect. that are many orders of magnitude greater than the shield's
stated capacity in the TM.
-Mike
Mike Dicenso
On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, bob mercer wrote:
> The IRCs have more than sufficient power for low-level warp operations (at
> least in a Galaxy class.. and I am sure in a Sovereign, as well). The IRC's
> might have problems running the warp drive because no critical pulse
> frequency is produced in the fusion reaction, unlike for WPS power
> generation via the M/ARA (because of the partial suspension of the M/A
> reaction in the dilithium crystal)
It can probably be done without the use of dilithum, or M/AM reactions,
otherwise how did Cochrane's Phoenix reach warp 1 without it? The Romulans
may have had a way use dilithum to regulate their IRC plasma flow, and
thereby increase the effeciences enough to let their ships do low level
warp speeds. This being the case, I wonder what their maximum possible
warp speed was using this unique system?
-Mike
bob mercer
energy? And the weapons capacities aren't usually greater than that of the
shields... the E-D saucer dorsal array is 1.02 GW NDF equivalent or about
8000 TW SEM equivalent... versus a saucer shield rating of 2.19 MW
NDF/18,000 TW SEM.... thus the shields should hold up to that firepower for
at least 2 seconds... more if the computer has selected the optimum
parameters for the weapon that is impacting the shield, less if the match-up
works out to the Threat's benefit.
It seems to me, IIRC, that they never got that close to stars until after
metaphasic shielding was introduced... unless you are skimming the surface,
the energy output should be readily handled by the normal shields... the
shield isn't absorbing the energy, it is bending it around the ship... a
simple gravitic phenomena. If the Romulans can drive their ships with an
artificial singularity (and keep the singularity from eating the ship), it
seems reasonable to me that the UFP can produce a shield that can bend the
energy around a ship. Besides, the shield is, by nature, one of those
magical subspace tech thingies....
Power input to the shields MAY be much greater than the 730 MW rating... it
actually reaches 473,000 MW per generator at peak load (which gives you an
NDF rating of 2,700,000 MW and a SEM rating of 22,191,780 TW... is a star
putting out this much energy that would impact on the shields of a ship?),
so the load does vary....
--
R Mercer
Read the Tech Manual, the Tech Manual is your FRIEND.
Credis quod habes et habes
wub...@lvcm.com
Mike Dicenso wrote in message ...
>
>
>On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, bob mercer wrote:
>
Timo S Saloniemi
>Wasnt the Sovereign dropkicked by the Sona In
>Star Trek: Insurrection?
>Didnt seem like a tought ship in that battle.
Then again, the Son'a boomerangs were about thrice the size of the
Sovereign, and built by a race that was described as technologically
more advanced than the Federation. I guess those ships could eat
Klingon battlecruisers for breakfast, Dominion battleships for lunch,
a Borg scout for dinner, and a Defiant or two for a midnight snack
and still be hungry.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>~Captain Trippz~ <NyQu...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:37303e74...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>> I always wondered? how did the enterprise make it back to the planet
>> without a warpcore?? On Impulse power? That would take forever. The
>> writers lost me on that one.
>Writer oversight? Was it ever stated how far they were
>from the planet?
In fact, it was explicitly said that every time the ship was in
the nebula, she had to run at one-third impulse power. So she had
been heading away from the planet at 1/3 impulse, not at
warp speed, for a couple of hours. She then engaged in battle, and
Riker called for full impulse. It was shown that the ship could
take it, even though her "power manifolds", whatever those are,
were being damaged in the process.
So we have every reason to presume that the ship could have made
the trip back to the planet in one-third the time it took to make
the trip out to the site of the battle, running at the risky but
manageable full impulse on her way back. And one doesn't need a
working warp core to run the impulse engines, as has been shown in
many episodes.
Now, the Enterprise set out at the same time Picard and pals flew
down to the planet. Picard spent at least a couple of hours down
on the planet before the Enterprise was engaged by the Son'a
ships, and then what looked like several more hours until he was
grabbed by the Son'a, beamed up, and eventually rescued by Riker.
So there is no significant problem with the timeframe.
>> P.S At least the Klingons dont use joysticks
>Not yet...
But Klaa and later Lursa had a periscope straight from "Das Boot". And
so did the Romulan ship in "Balance of Terror". I'd take the joystick
over those any time.
Timo Saloniemi
Ryan McReynolds
news:92510636...@news.remarQ.com...
> Why would it necessarily take a great deal of energy to dissipate the
> energy? And the weapons capacities aren't usually greater than that of
> the shields... the E-D saucer dorsal array is 1.02 GW NDF equivalent or
> about 8000 TW SEM equivalent... versus a saucer shield rating of 2.19
> MW NDF/18,000 TW SEM.... thus the shields should hold up to that
> firepower for at least 2 seconds... more if the computer has selected the
> optimum parameters for the weapon that is impacting the shield, less if
> the match-up works out to the Threat's benefit.
Y'know, Bob, I still think there are better ways to describe or refer to
shields with regards to phasers, or anythign else for that matter. I prefer
the "charge" method. Say the graviton field at 100% has an energy of X
joules with a refresh rate of Y watts. A weapon or phenomenon with a SEM
equivalent rating of Z watts the refresh rate degrades the shield at a rate
of Z-Y watts. So, for example, with numbers I'm just making up off the top
of my head, not counting the pho-torp value... obviously, these directly
contradict the Tech Manuals, but play along for a moment. =)
A ship's shields have a total holdoff of 500 PJ, and a refresh rate of 1 PW.
An attacker fires a 1 GW phaser, SEM equivalent against shields of 100 PW.
The effective drain on the shields is thusly 99 PW, so after 1 second the
shields are at 401 PJ, or ~80%. After a bit over five seconds, the shields
have dropped, the beam hits the hull (SEM equivalent of 2 TW), and voila, it
does it's thing. Likewise, a pho-torp yields around 105 PJ after accounting
for geometric factors, though the wattage is extraordinarily high due to the
extremely brief time involved. In any case, the wattage is far higher than
the refresh rate. Therefore, one torpedo brings the shields down to 395 PJ,
or 79%.
It just seems to me that this method of expmanation works better for me,
even if it may not fit exactly with your personal understanding of shield
ops... maybe its sort of a dumbed down version, I dunno. I still, to this
day, do not understand exactly what your numbers imply. Above, I see 18000
TW shields, versus a 8000 TW phaser, which seems to tell me that the phaser
won't penetrate or do any harm, because it is of less power than the
shields... it seems to me that even a 18000 TW phaser would break even with
the shields, and not degrade them; the input of the phaser is matched by the
output of the generators, so they just sit in stalemate with the phaser beam
successfully deflected. I'm sure I am missing some key concept, but I just
don't get it.
-=Ryan McReynolds=-
Drum1979
>> there are two warp cores. IMO, when Geordi told Picard that they ran
>> out of WC's, I'm guessing he meant one's that they could spare ... and
>> that they still had the other left.
>>
>
>Sorry Sean, but I don't see this second WC of yours anywhere in the MSD
>cutaway diagram. Where's the second located?
MSD?
Dresden45
<a href="http://members.aol.com/drum1979/BOP.htm">Northrop High School BIG
ORANGE PRIDE click to ENTER</a>
A Real Audio G2 site. Sign the guestbook, take the BOP Poll, look up info on
most Class A Finalists, and much more!
David C. Baker
Drum1979 wrote in message <19990426082519...@ng01.aol.com>...
Master Systems Display. The big cross-section of the ship.
David C. Baker
to...@frontiernet.net
~Captain Trippz~
<mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, ~Captain Trippz~ wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 12:54:37 -0700, Mike Dicenso
>> <mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, ~Captain Trippz~ wrote:
>> >
>> >> >No, not really. Concidering the disadvantages she faced while in the Briar
>> >> >Patch, I'd say she kicked some serious ass!.
>> >>
>> >> Ok.....I hope Starfleet has all its battles in a gas nebula. They were
>> >> smart in taking advantage of the gas but thats about it, other than
>> >> that they fought about as vicious as a girlscout troop.
>> >
>> >Wow! They nearly got plastered by the use of an illegal isolitic subspace
>> >weapon, and they were brave enough on impulse power only to turn around,
>> >and scoop up the metrion gas, and ignite it. Thus destroying one Son'a
>> >ship, and severely damaging the other. Yeah, that's "fighting like girl
>> >scouts" alright.
>>
>> Ummm....hello. Lost warp core,
>
>They sacrificed the WC to save the ship from the Son'a's dirty trick of
>throwing an isolitc subspace weapon at them! It was either that, or die.
>
>
>> ship damage?
>
>Uh yeah, that sorta thing does occur in battle against two to one odds.
>
Settle down cowboy, its just a T.V show.
~Captain Trippz~
<reli...@lance.SPAMdemon.nl> wrote:
>
>The only instance I can recall a ship actually doing some-
>thing remotely smart (tactical-wise) was in VOY's "Message
>in a Bottle". Other than that...
Agreed wholeheartedly on that last post.
Help me out here... Is the point of the newsgroup to discuss
A. Startrek how it is in the T.V show?
B. Startrek how it would be in real life?
C. Or Startrek, your opinion how it should be?
And if you could direct me to the FAQ it would be much appreciated.
Mike Dicenso
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, ~Captain Trippz~ wrote:
> >> ship damage?
> >
> >Uh yeah, that sorta thing does occur in battle against two to one odds.
> >
>
> Settle down cowboy, its just a T.V show.
A movie based on a T.V. show actually.
-Mike
WRobert525
>From: tsal...@kastanja.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi)
>Date: 4/26/99 1:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7g0ubp$ntn$1...@nntp.hut.fi>
Timo, ordinarily I wouldn't even think
about questioning you (you wonder,
who in the hell is this guy?! : ), but
I have to disagree here. The Son'a
battlecruisers were obviously powerful
ships, but I seriously doubt they'd
be a one-on-one match for a Sovereign,
Negh'Var, or Dominion battleship. They
dealt a fair amount of punishment--I
guessed they were either firing big
polaron pulses or quantum torps, given
the discharge color--but once the E-E
started to finally fight back, they were
toast. Son'a tech might be more advanced
than the Federation's in some aspects,
and they obviously build their ships with
a more warlike mentality, but I don't think
there's enough to say they're a match
for the top of the line from the major
powers...
Sean
bob mercer
--
R Mercer
Read the Tech Manual, the Tech Manual is your FRIEND.
Credis quod habes et habes
wub...@lvcm.com
Ryan McReynolds wrote in message <7g14mh$o7k$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>...
>bob mercer <wub...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
>news:92510636...@news.remarQ.com...
>
>Y'know, Bob, I still think there are better ways to describe or refer to
>shields with regards to phasers, or anythign else for that matter. I
prefer
>the "charge" method. Say the graviton field at 100% has an energy of X
>joules with a refresh rate of Y watts. A weapon or phenomenon with a SEM
>equivalent rating of Z watts the refresh rate degrades the shield at a rate
>of Z-Y watts. So, for example, with numbers I'm just making up off the top
>of my head, not counting the pho-torp value... obviously, these directly
>contradict the Tech Manuals, but play along for a moment. =)
There probably ARE better ways of describing this whole thing, but ihaven't
really had time as yet to figure out what it might be <g>. One problem is
that since I came up with this whole thing, it seems rather straightforward
to me and I find it easy to work with it as it is (he says, forgetting the
several days of confusion and head scratching that went into figuring it out
<lol>).
As I see it, the weapon has a continual degradation effect on the shield...
the process that the DS9 TM refers to as shield withering, since it seems
(except for the new cardie shields) that weapon input to the shield is
always greater than the refresh rate. One of the problems is that I haven't
figured out what the refresh rate is, except that it is most likely related
to the shield generator heat removal capacity--any suggestions or bright
ideas? The process you describe below is essentially how it would be
described in simple terms.
Using actual numbers: a 1 GW phaser impacting a 730 MW shield (this is the
most convoluted example, which is why I chose it).
At the standard rating, the shield will wither away after 0.730 seconds of
fire at which point the beam will impact the ship's hull (ignoring the
unkown refresh rate--which probably wouldn't add much in all actuality, in
this instance).
BUT, the shield has a surge capacity of 2.7e6 MW for 0.17 sec... so, it can
actually withstand the phaser beam longer than 0.730 sec. Actual time to
shield penetration would actually be 459 seconds (the input energy is 1/2700
of the surge rating... so the shield will take 2700 x 0.17 sec to wither
away). The above figures assume that 1) the shield is at the optimum
setting versus the phaser, 2) no other weapons impact the shield, and 3)
sufficient energy is available to power the shield at the requisite level
for that long. Even if the beam breaks contract, the shield will be reduced
proportional to however long the beam was in contact (until refresh rate can
make up the difference).
If you use torps and phasers in combination, shields can be quickly
overwhelmed:
1) The phaser is used to frequency lock the shield as the shield software
attempts to maximize shield effectiveness versus the impacting weapon.
2) While maintaining phaser beam contact with the shield, a torp (or several
torps) are fired at the same shield. The torp drive fields are configured
to match the locked shield frequency. The torp drive field creates an
interference pattern with the subspace component of the shield, allowing
partial or even full penetration of the shield by the torp... the torp
detonates when it is inside the shield, using the ship's own shield to focus
the blaast, increasing the effective yield of the warhead (essentially
becoming a shaped charge, using the shield to shape the blast). [This is
essentially what the shield dimpling referred to in the TM is].
3) It would also be possible to bring additional phaser beams to bear on the
same shield (but at different frequencies), thus attempting to bypass the
frequency locked shield... the shield will, of course, attempt to
compensate, but will be forced to choose a compromise value, lowering the
overall effectiveness of the shield.
Did any of this make sense?
bob mercer
in progress and who is doing the discussing <g>.
--
R Mercer
Read the Tech Manual, the Tech Manual is your FRIEND.
Credis quod habes et habes
wub...@lvcm.com
~Captain Trippz~ wrote in message
<3725a35c....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
S. Larocque
<Snip>
: I don't think there's enough to say they're a match
: for the top of the line from the major powers...
I'd have to agree with you on this one. I mean, if the Son'a
do infact have better technology then the Fed's, why haven't
the Dominion been using them in the war? I mean, Weyoun said
that they had to pull some of their ship out to help a Son'a
facility ... obviously because the Fed's were kicking some
major butt...
Love Robin
>
>A. Startrek how it is in the T.V show?
>
>B. Startrek how it would be in real life?
>
>C. Or Startrek, your opinion how it should be?
>
>
stand back yall... leta professional question-answerer (read: mother) deal with
this one.....
*ahem*....
"yes"
lr
Love Robin,
Green Orion Woman (GOW) Extrodinaire
Virtual Djinni, Sex Muse
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Drop "Shields" to email reply)
Ryan McReynolds
> There probably ARE better ways of describing this whole thing, but
> ihaven't really had time as yet to figure out what it might be <g>. One
> problem is that since I came up with this whole thing, it seems rather
> straightforward to me and I find it easy to work with it as it is (he
says,
> forgetting the several days of confusion and head scratching that went
into
> figuring it out <lol>).
Understood. =)
> As I see it, the weapon has a continual degradation effect on the
shield...
> the process that the DS9 TM refers to as shield withering, since it seems
> (except for the new cardie shields) that weapon input to the shield is
> always greater than the refresh rate. One of the problems is that I
haven't
> figured out what the refresh rate is, except that it is most likely
related
> to the shield generator heat removal capacity--any suggestions or bright
> ideas? The process you describe below is essentially how it would be
> described in simple terms.
>
> Using actual numbers: a 1 GW phaser impacting a 730 MW shield (this is
> the most convoluted example, which is why I chose it).
See, I think this is the key place where I disagree with your explanation.
The shield values given in the TNG Tech Manual simply don't hold up to what
they have been shown to do. For instance, in "Relics," the Enterprise-D was
easily sustaining around 5 TW when it was in a 150000 km orbit of the Dyson
Sphere's star. Starships routinely survive torpedo hits, which have
incredibly high power, and deliver a good 100,000 TJ.
> Did any of this make sense?
It makes a little sense, but I simply can't accept that the shield
generators only output 730 MW in light of their observed operations, unless
they exhibit a phaser-like increase in effectiveness against certain types
of energy. Wait... is that what you were suggesting all along, and I just
missed it?
-=Ryan McReynolds=-
Reliant39
~Captain Trippz~ <NyQu...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3725a35c....@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 20:40:33 +0200, "Reliant39"
> <reli...@lance.SPAMdemon.nl> wrote:
> >The only instance I can recall a ship actually doing some-
> >thing remotely smart (tactical-wise) was in VOY's "Message
> >in a Bottle". Other than that...
>
> Agreed wholeheartedly on that last post.
Oh, thanks! ;-)
> Help me out here... Is the point of the newsgroup to discuss
>
> A. Startrek how it is in the T.V show?
Yes, and the movies.
> B. Startrek how it would be in real life?
Yes, that too. We try to rationalise Trek.
> C. Or Startrek, your opinion how it should be?
Definately! Nearly everything goes around these parts. ;-)
> And if you could direct me to the FAQ it would be much appreciated.
The group's FAQ? IIRC, all FAQs are posted once every month
or every two month. I believe there's a web site somewhere, but
I have no idea where exactly. Sorry.
--
Reliant39 -- A TOS and ST1-ST6 fan
E-mail address: reli...@lance.demon.nl
bob mercer
energy That is why I state both NDF and SEM ratings. The saucer shields of
a Galaxy class can withstand up to 22,191,780 TW of simple EM energy at peak
load... lasers, gamma rays, x-rays, etc.... this is quite a bit...
100,000 TJ isn't all that much. It would take a simultaneous strike by 6
(actually, 5.3) ptorps at point blank range (with ALL of the warhead yield
transferred to the shield) to penetrate GCS saucer shielding.
5 TW represents 0.083% of the standard load capacity of a single, 730 MW
shield. This is probably less than the refresh rate and exposure could
probably be maintained indefinitely. The shields should also be able to
easily handle an impact with physical object with a mass of 7,500,000
metric tons (probably more)... depending, of course upon the relative
velocity.
--
R Mercer
Read the Tech Manual, the Tech Manual is your FRIEND.
Credis quod habes et habes
wub...@lvcm.com
Ryan McReynolds wrote in message <7g3jqp$c2$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>...
Ryan McReynolds
> Yes, shield effectiveness varies in accordance with the type of incoming
> energy That is why I state both NDF and SEM ratings. The saucer
> shields of a Galaxy class can withstand up to 22,191,780 TW of simple
> EM energy at peak load... lasers, gamma rays, x-rays, etc.... this is
> quite a bit... 100,000 TJ isn't all that much. It would take a
simultaneous
> strike by 6 (actually, 5.3) ptorps at point blank range (with ALL of the
> warhead yield transferred to the shield) to penetrate GCS saucer
> shielding.
Okay...
> 5 TW represents 0.083% of the standard load capacity of a single, 730
> MW shield. This is probably less than the refresh rate and exposure
> could probably be maintained indefinitely. The shields should also be
> able to easily handle an impact with physical object with a mass of
> 7,500,000 metric tons (probably more)... depending, of course upon the
> relative velocity.
Next question... how do you calculate durations if the values are given in
watts? I mean, if its in joules, then you just take the incoming wattage,
multiply by the time, and subtract the answer from the joules to get the
remaining strength. If the value is in watts, how do you find out how much,
say, a phaser beam, affects the shield when the shield has a higher wattage
than the beam?
For instance, let me cut-paste-&-edit one of your earlier messages and maybe
you can elaborate.
You wrote...
> Using actual numbers: a 1 GW phaser impacting a 730 MW shield (this is
> the most convoluted example, which is why I chose it).
Okay, so far so good.
> At the standard rating, the shield will wither away after 0.730 seconds of
> fire at which point the beam will impact the ship's hull (ignoring the
> unkown refresh rate--which probably wouldn't add much in all actuality, in
> this instance).
Okay, here is my first place of non-understandingness. Watts are joules per
second, right? You've never stated an energy, so how can the wattages
"interact?" I see 1 GW of phaser and 0.73 GW of shields. Super. To my
misunderstanding ears, that means that the phaser is 0.27 GW more powerful
than the shields, and that suggests to me that it would drain the shields at
a rate of 0.27 GW, or 0.27 GJ per second. However, that would entail having
an original energy of X GJ to subtract from, which you do not. Obviously my
entire paradigm regarding shields is off. Please educate me... =)
The rest of your explanation makes sense alone, but without understanding
the premise behind it all, it doesn't help much. I can see how you get the
numbers mathematically from the original values, but I don't understand why
that math was used.
-=Ryan McReynolds=-
Mike Dicenso
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, bob mercer wrote:
> 5 TW represents 0.083% of the standard load capacity of a single, 730 MW
> shield. This is probably less than the refresh rate and exposure could
> probably be maintained indefinitely. The shields should also be able to
> easily handle an impact with physical object with a mass of 7,500,000
> metric tons (probably more)... depending, of course upon the relative
> velocity.
I'd have to agree 5 TW on a steady state basis is probably a bit on the
low side of things. The "Relics" calcs are based on shields and nav
deflectors, which were heavily damaged, and only powered on auxilery. Much
of the time the E-D, while using only the nav shields was easily able to
withstand the G-type star even though they were only about 150,000 km
away. Only when the solar flare erupts are the main combat shields used,
and then they were at a mere 23%. Even then it is'nt made clear if this is
23% of nominal, or 23% of what is nominal for the shields when powered
only by auxilery systems.
-Mike