Adding a third nacell?

[mlsnoopy]

Let's look at the situation a diffrent way.

Prometheus was at the time of the episode the fastes ships in the fleet.
There are three factors that define high warp speeds.
- design of the necells
- shape of the ship
- size of the warp core

If the prometeus was the fastes thing SF has ever build than it requiers one big warp core. To reach speeds that were stated in the show.
Until now we haven't had a ship with more than one warp core. And until shown diffrent the same must be true for prometheus.

Yes, we do know it has more than one core. Otherwise how is it getting plasma to the nacelles. No warp core no warp plasma, no blue glow in the nacelles.

That just shows us that plasma is in the necells. They may have a storage tank in every section that stores an amaunt of plasma so that a section can have limited warp capabilities. As far as we have seen on screen each section has only minutes of warp capability.

Taking the shields into account, you do not have less shields in any one section than you do in the ship as a whole. As long as you have enough power to run the shield that covers that area to full power then you have the exact same shield capability joined or not joined

You are again thinking that you have 3 WC which hasn't been proven.
As I see it if you have one WC one sectionkeeps that WC it has full use of it. The other two must relay one fusion reactors.
That means that two sections have weker shilds and weapons.

As for the rest, the effectiveness is shown in the battles seen in the episode. Plus the fact that the Romulans wanted to steal the ship tells you that it was sufficiently good

Yes the most powerfull ship at the time could severly damaged or destroy the 5th powerfull ship in the fleet. Romulan warbirds are also preaty weak compared to the recent SF designes.

You know it was a test bed. It had type 12 PA, new shild systems, it had the most recent warp drive developments. Sure it was worth a stealing.

[Jordanis]

I believe some details of the model (ejection ports and such) point to the top and bottom sections splitting the main warp core during MVAM. More writer as far as I'm concerned, but.

The thing is, the thing IS... you have three ships of 700kt mass. You have one ship of 2100kt mass. They are built to identical standards with identically advanced systems. If the three ships can beat the one ship you have more or less made an enormous and huge change to the Star Trek Universe. You have shown that smaller ships are better than bigger ships. So there shouldn't be a reason to build bigger ships, just groups of smaller ships. Which is not how Star Trek has worked, up til now.

[IanKennedy]

No, but it does mean that the uber-shuttle is, well, uber. I.e. superior to the individual shuttles.

The uber was a joke (ok pointedly aimed at those who think the ship is better joined).

But still does very well at demonstrating my point - that the combined uber-shuttle would be a superior ship to the individual orgininal shuttles.

Actually, no. I mean joke as in gluing a few shuttles together doesn't not in any way make for an uber ship. It would loose all it's manoeuvrability for a start. Compared with the separate ships it would only be able to fire in one direction and just be plain rubbish.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

I believe some details of the model (ejection ports and such) point to the top and bottom sections splitting the main warp core during MVAM. More writer as far as I'm concerned, but.

The thing is, the thing IS... you have three ships of 700kt mass. You have one ship of 2100kt mass. They are built to identical standards with identically advanced systems. If the three ships can beat the one ship you have more or less made an enormous and huge change to the Star Trek Universe. You have shown that smaller ships are better than bigger ships. So there shouldn't be a reason to build bigger ships, just groups of smaller ships. Which is not how Star Trek has worked, up til now.

Well, it's not that huge. The Defiant was pretty powerful and that was a small ship. The Prometheus is just a cost-effective and versitile vessel capable of defeating any ship of the same size a/o firepower.

I'd also like to point out that the MVAM can bring more of it's weapons to bear on the enemy.

[Mikey]

And ( I'm getting such deja vu!) both fire on a bogey from three different points, as well as force an enemy bogey to split it's fire three different ways.

[sunnyside]

Maybe try thinking of it this way.

You think the Defiant was awesome right?

Well what if you could modify those defiant class ships slightly so that they could link together in order to have more capabilities due to not duplicating some components and so that when linked together they could travel faster and/or further or what have you?

That seems like a good idea right?

[Jordanis]

The Defiant you can write off on the basis that it's built for pure combat while most starfleet ships are built for general purposes. I mean, that's fine. A smaller ship dedicated to combat can beat a larger ship that isn't.

As far as bringing more weapons to bear, though, given the firing arc of phaser strips, I'm not sure the solid Prometheus would have much trouble with that.

I don't know why it's reasonable to assume the sections would have stronger shields, to address an earlier point. The ship's energy budget is the energy budget, and as far as I know we don't have any indication that shield capacity is limited by anything other than how much power you can feed them. The only thing is surface area (which would still not affect total shield strength, just strength per square meter), which would be smaller on the solid Prometheus than on all three sections put together.

It's just, with the sections, you're stretching the same energy budget to defend a larger surface area. It just plain doesn't make SENSE in a universe where up til now the bigger ship has been better. A universe where MVAM makes good tactical sense is one where militaries would be primarily carrier and fighter based, because it's one where offensive capabilities outpace defensive.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

And isn't the Prometheus built for combat? It might be more comfortable, but it's still a formidable vessel built for combat. Each section seems to have high firepower, like the Defiant, and reduces the cost by not having to duplicate a lot of secondary systems.

And if its shields suffer from less power this is probably compensated by this 'regenerative shielding' listed in the episode as well as the ablative armor. Seems to have stronger defences for one section then most solid ships.

[sunnyside]

The Defiant you can write off on the basis that it's built for pure combat while most starfleet ships are built for general purposes. I mean, that's fine. A smaller ship dedicated to combat can beat a larger ship that isn't.

Look. Here's the deal. We don't know the details of how shields work. Or SIF fields really. And there are a lot of variables and possibilities. For one thing it seems like the idea that shields are fed power to absorb power is wrong because then they wouldn't fall under constant attacks.

The fundamental question you are posed with is "was the defiant a stupid design". (Or maybe a design only good in the short run).

Because it is a small ship designed for war. Apparently it would have been purely better to design a ship like the defiant but bigger.

However I would contend that in Trek there is a move towards "mobility matters". And possibly a move toward smaller ships since a bigger one can't neccesarily take that many more hits. (For example the big ships the defiant class vessels cut through like butter).

This doesn't have to be a move to purely carrier based combat, but perhapse a move toward an optimum size for combat.

[Jordanis]

And isn't the Prometheus built for combat? It might be more comfortable, but it's still a formidable vessel built for combat. Each section seems to have high firepower, like the Defiant, and reduces the cost by not having to duplicate a lot of secondary systems.

And if its shields suffer from less power this is probably compensated by this 'regenerative shielding' listed in the episode as well as the ablative armor. Seems to have stronger defences for one section then most solid ships.

Nothing you say here is an advantage the sections would have over a solid prometheus. In fact,

and reduces the cost by not having to duplicate a lot of secondary systems.

is an argument in favor of a solid Prometheus. A solid ship is the best way to reduce component duplication. There are some things that you must duplicate to make the three ships even remotely operable separately. Let alone having to come up with that many warp coils.

[Jordanis]

Look. Here's the deal. We don't know the details of how shields work. Or SIF fields really. And there are a lot of variables and possibilities. For one thing it seems like the idea that shields are fed power to absorb power is wrong because then they wouldn't fall under constant attacks.

I think it's been mentioned, but 'more power to the shields' is something that comes up. Incidentally, to address something else that's been brought up, being able to fire from three directions at once is probably not a good way to defeat Trek shields. They seem to be subject to burn-through. That is, being overloaded at one point by a sufficiently large attack. That means that the fastest way to get through a ship's shields is to direct all fire at a single point.

The fundamental question you are posed with is "was the defiant a stupid design". (Or maybe a design only good in the short run).

Because it is a small ship designed for war. Apparently it would have been purely better to design a ship like the defiant but bigger.

It was also designed as a testbed ship. You don't want to dump resources into something huge that might not work when you can test it with something small that might not work. Beyond that, small hulls have their place. Since they consume less resources, you can produce more of them and have them in more places at once. There's a reason the US Navy is not composed of as many aircraft carriers as their budget could buy. Since, however, the Prometheus sections do not seem to be designed to operate independently of each other, this does not apply to that class.

However I would contend that in Trek there is a move towards "mobility matters". And possibly a move toward smaller ships since a bigger one can't neccesarily take that many more hits. (For example the big ships the defiant class vessels cut through like butter).

This doesn't have to be a move to purely carrier based combat, but perhapse a move toward an optimum size for combat.

Given the targeting abilities of Federation weapons, I don't think mobility matters much. In the Lakota/Defiant matchup (being the only matchup between ships of the same advanced tech base we know of), the Lakota landed almost all of it's hits, as I recall the DITL article noting. 'Mobility' didn't save Defiant from taking damage, having all its space dedicated to defense and weapons is what saved the Defiant, As opposed to large crew quarters, serious sensors, labs, and large fuel tanks as the Lakota would still have, since it's an Excelsior uprate and obviously doesn't have the weapons density that it's possible to put on a ship.

Mobility does matter in terms of maneuvering for targeting, which is why it's worthwhile to improve it, but with the firing arcs of phaser strips, it's not as crucial as it might otherwise be.

[Captain Seafort]

Comparing the Prommie and the Defiant is probably a good idea in a general sense, since they both have the same general purpose as dedicated warships. To directly compare them would not be such a good idea, however, since they have different roles - the Defiant as a relatively slow, short-range attack ship, and the Prommie as a fast long-range cruiser. The Defiant's maneuverability is certainly an advantage (look at the battle in "Through the Looking Glass" for example), but that's bought at the expense of having a very small ship, with limited firepower relative to a GCS, Neb or Sov, or the Prommie. Also, as Jordanis mentioned, concentrated fire seems to be the best way to get through Trek shields - best shown in "First Contact" and Voyager's "Manouevers".

[mlsnoopy]

The Defiant's maneuverability is certainly an advantage (look at the battle in "Through the Looking Glass" for example)

Isn't that a bad example becuse we are talking abaut a diffren universe and some thing may be diffrent than the standart ST universe.

Given the targeting abilities of Federation weapons, I don't think mobility matters much. In the Lakota/Defiant matchup (being the only matchup between ships of the same advanced tech base we know of), the Lakota landed almost all of it's hits

Like your point. But if it could only draw with a 100 year SF old frame modified to top standarts. Than it should have problem taking on modern frame with similar upgrade.

The fundamental question you are posed with is "was the defiant a stupid design". (Or maybe a design only good in the short run).

The defiant is a good designe for war but becuse of its low speed it would be hard to bring them fast to a truble spot. So in peace time you can mothball them. Or use them as system defence.

[Captain Seafort]

First things first, spellcheckers are your friend, so use 'em.

Isn't that a bad example becuse we are talking abaut a diffren universe and some thing may be diffrent than the standart ST universe.

The mirror Defiant was identical to the original in all respects save the cloaking device, and all evidence points to mirror-universe tech being operationally equivalent to its main-universe counterparts.

Like your point. But if it could only draw with a 100 year SF old frame modified to top standarts. Than it should have problem taking on modern frame with similar upgrade.

It drew against a ship that had not only been heavily refitted but was also considerably larger than it (by about an order of magnitude, IIRC).

The defiant is a good designe for war but becuse of its low speed it would be hard to bring them fast to a truble spot. So in peace time you can mothball them. Or use them as system defence.

True, short-range strikes are the Defiant's primary mission - they'd be best used in squadrons assigned to major starbases and planetary systems. That limitation would also hinder their effectiveness in wartime, since they'd be restricted to specified-objective missions rather than open-ended patrol or search-and-destroy missions.

[mlsnoopy]

all evidence points to mirror-universe tech being operationally equivalent to its main-universe counterparts

The size of the regents flagship, development of federation technology that was shared with the klingons. That the federation is missing in the mirror ubivers Iwould say its a big factor. The defiant might be the same but everything else is similar but not the same.

It drew against a ship that had not only been heavily refitted but was also considerably larger than it (by about an order of magnitude, IIRC).

But it is still a 100 year old designe. I asked if you would modify somethin like an Akira to that standart.