Adding a third nacell?

[Teaos]

When seperated the over all power of the ships go up not down. The extra cores would fire up to full power more weapons are exposed and several attack angles make for a very good ship.

[mlsnoopy]

I don't see why, thay are all capable of flying by them selves while detached. If there isn't an aux control room in each then the designer is mad. You could even join the middle and bottom parts together if the top is destroyed, equally the top and middle can join. The only part the stops you joining is the middle. Even so they could still operate separately

But think of the performence lost. when joined it is one of the fastes ships in the fleet but if you lose 1/3 of the ship that puts a lot of stres on other two parts. And if you lose fleet engaement the ship is an easy picking.

[IanKennedy]

I don't see why, thay are all capable of flying by them selves while detached. If there isn't an aux control room in each then the designer is mad. You could even join the middle and bottom parts together if the top is destroyed, equally the top and middle can join. The only part the stops you joining is the middle. Even so they could still operate separately

But think of the performence lost. when joined it is one of the fastes ships in the fleet but if you lose 1/3 of the ship that puts a lot of stres on other two parts. And if you lose fleet engaement the ship is an easy picking.

There is absolutely no canon evidence for that assumption. You seem to be thinking of the it as one ship that can break up onto parts. Where it seems to be more like three ships that just happen to be able to dock together for convenience. The on screen evidence directly shows the following:

• We can see that each ship has it's own nacelles and thus they must have their own warp core, otherwise the nacelles would be useless. Also, they wouldn't glow blue and clearly on screen they do glow.

• The separation facility is specifically designed for use in battle, so the individual parts must be at least as powerful as the whole while joined.

• The three separate parts are able to shoot from multiple directions at once, a significant advantage over being in one place.

So, I can't see the issue even if one part is destroyed.

[mlsnoopy]

So, I can't see the issue even if one part is destroyed

When the ship is joined it must have some advatage over single section. The most obious thing is speed and endurance.
While the MATV looks cool it is unpratical and in my mind leds to more disadvatages then advatages.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

So, I can't see the issue even if one part is destroyed

When the ship is joined it must have some advatage over single section. The most obious thing is speed and endurance.
While the MATV looks cool it is unpratical and in my mind leds to more disadvatages then advatages.

I assume you meant MVAM? So it has some loss in speed, at least it still limps home with far more damage then any comparable vessel. IMO, the advantages are worth adding the MVAM. It may not be best for every situation but it has shown its effectiveness in its first appearance

[IanKennedy]

So, I can't see the issue even if one part is destroyed

When the ship is joined it must have some advatage over single section. The most obious thing is speed and endurance.
While the MATV looks cool it is unpratical and in my mind leds to more disadvatages then advatages.

Yes, it would have the advantage of having a larger crew. It would also be able to house science labs, astrometrics, meeting rooms etc. These are none essential and so would not be duplicated in triplicate between the tree parts. Although I'm sure they would be dispersed over the ship, doing so adds resilience to the ship. As a ship of exploration it certainly would have more value while in the joined state.

As far as warp cores go you could use more than one at a time on the joined ship, that would allow you to allow higher energy requirements, however, warp drive is about the highest energy requiring system on the ship. The only other advantage of the multiple cores is redundancy, if a core fails or has to be ejected then the ship still had spares to keep it going, not something that can be said of may other ships, even the Enterprise.

As for MVAM (Multi Vector Assault Mode) it is clearly designed to overcome the the shields of a vessel by forcing them to spread across multiple directions. After all how often has the Enterprise, and indeed other ships, had to transfer shields from one location to another. We even see the E-E turning it's dorsal side away from the enemy to protect it's self because it's shields were weakened. With MVAM you are attacking multiple shield areas at the same time. It also gives you the ability to use weapons what would otherwise be facing away from the enemy. No only does it look cool, but it has significant advantages over a single ship in a single location.

[mlsnoopy]

We don't know if it has more than one warp core.
We don't know how much range single sections have.
You must put matter/atimatter storage on multiple locations on the ship.
You must put shild generators in every section and becise you have smaller power suply the shilds are weaker.
You devide your power among three sections. If you take this int acaunt the enemy with the ship of the same size has 3 times more power that it can use on shilds or weapons.

I see the value of the MVAM in one on one situation but when you have fleet action of hundret of ships the advatage is not signifitant,

[Blackstar the Chakat]

We don't know if it has more than one warp core.
We don't know how much range single sections have.
You must put matter/atimatter storage on multiple locations on the ship.
You must put shild generators in every section and becise you have smaller power suply the shilds are weaker.
You devide your power among three sections. If you take this int acaunt the enemy with the ship of the same size has 3 times more power that it can use on shilds or weapons.

I see the value of the MVAM in one on one situation but when you have fleet action of hundret of ships the advatage is not signifitant,

We do know it has more then one warp core because all three section can travel at warp.
If it's the same amount as it would be on a normal ship what difference does it make? So the internal configuration is a little different. They had to change it anyway to accomidate the MVAM systems anyway
There are multiple sheild generators anyway, and when split the shields only have to cover 1/3 of the ship so you only need 1/3 the normal power in each section.
The power is the same, it's just being used in a different configuration.

[Jordanis]

The problem with three ships with 1/3 the power is that now it only takes 1/3 the power to make it so Starfleet has to build what is more or less one new ship.

The other thing is propulsion. As a rule, one of the advantages of one ship of 3x mass vs three ships with x mass is that the one ship will require less mass/volume to travel at the same speed. When you build three ships, there's a bunch of stuff that has to be duplicated that the one ship doesn't have to waste space on. This has been true since, like, forever.

However effective the MVAM Prometheus is, I would be willing to bet a lot that the same hull, built as one ship and then armed the same as the MVAM version, would kick the MVAM version's butt. It would be what we've always wanted: a Defiant writ large.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

However effective the MVAM Prometheus is, I would be willing to bet a lot that the same hull, built as one ship and then armed the same as the MVAM version, would kick the MVAM version's butt. It would be what we've always wanted: a Defiant writ large.

Well, it wouldn't be as manuverable, and we haven't seen ships doing to well against multiple targets. They tend to focus on one ship at a time. In a strait-up fight your idea might work, but the MVAM would win if you use the right stratagies.

[Jordanis]

Focusing on one ship at a time is the correct tactic. You want to concentrate fire on one target until it is no longer a threat, then move on. The theoretical solid Prometheus has enough phaser arrays that the maneuverability wouldn't be much of a problem. There's no blind areas by virtue of sheer number of arrays. And it's not like the combined hull is a slug.

The thing is, you have two opposing forces matched in weapons. The MVAM ships are individually more vulnerable, however. The solid Prometheus would be able to batter down the shields of one section (which has 1/3 shield strength of the solid) long before the three sections could batter down her shields. From there, it's a quick matter to destroy that section.

Suddenly, your firepower equation is a lot less balanced. The solid Prometheus would still be more or less intact and firing all her weapons. The MVAM is at 2/3 combat strength. The solid can still take down shields at the same rate, but the MVAM can only do it 2/3 as fast now. In the end: MVAM Prometheus is screwed.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

Focusing on one ship at a time is the correct tactic. You want to concentrate fire on one target until it is no longer a threat, then move on. The theoretical solid Prometheus has enough phaser arrays that the maneuverability wouldn't be much of a problem. There's no blind areas by virtue of sheer number of arrays. And it's not like the combined hull is a slug.

The thing is, you have two opposing forces matched in weapons. The MVAM ships are individually more vulnerable, however. The solid Prometheus would be able to batter down the shields of one section (which has 1/3 shield strength of the solid) long before the three sections could batter down her shields. From there, it's a quick matter to destroy that section.

Suddenly, your firepower equation is a lot less balanced. The solid Prometheus would still be more or less intact and firing all her weapons. The MVAM is at 2/3 combat strength. The solid can still take down shields at the same rate, but the MVAM can only do it 2/3 as fast now. In the end: MVAM Prometheus is screwed.

That's assuming the MVAM ships are sitting still. If one section's shields get too low, it would retreat with the other two covering it. Then this rotating ships stratagy would allow the the MVAM ships to recover their shields, while the solid ship would be constantly being hit unable to rest and recover it's shields. And about the shield thing, the shielding for one section is equivilent to 1/3 of the solid ship's shields, requiring 1/3 the normal power, and since each ship has 1/3 the normal power of the full ship the shields would be relativly the same strength as the solid ship.

[Thorin]

Look at it this way. They both have the same accumulated shields, however.

On the solid one, you take down 1/3 of its [cumulative] shields - no effect
On the MVAM one, you take down 1/3 of its [cumulative] shields - section destroyed and 1/3 less firepower.

Tactics involved therein are quite irrelevant - as of course you say about any car race; the cars are only as good as their drivers. But assuming all commanders are equal, going on simply the numbers (as shown above), the solid one is better.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

Look at it this way. They both have the same accumulated shields, however.

On the solid one, you take down 1/3 of its [cumulative] shields - no effect
On the MVAM one, you take down 1/3 of its [cumulative] shields - section destroyed and 1/3 less firepower.

Tactics involved therein are quite irrelevant - as of course you say about any car race; the cars are only as good as their drivers. But assuming all commanders are equal, going on simply the numbers (as shown above), the solid one is better.

I suppose if you look at it like that it might look bad, but it's maneuverability would make it superior in battle. And I'd assume they'd make sure that the captain knows some multi-ship strategy as a requirment.

In any case, there are advantages and disadvantages to both versions. When the stats are that close any arguement about who would win would have to be pure speculation.

[Thorin]

I suppose if you look at it like that it might look bad, but it's maneuverability would make it superior in battle. And I'd assume they'd make sure that the captain knows some multi-ship strategy as a requirment.

How did you figure that? All three have the same impulse/thruster/acceleration/drive:mass ratio. We can only assume thus, that they all have the same manoeuvrability. Drive:mass ratio defines how much manoeuvrability a ship has - smaller ships are more manoeuvrable because they have a higher drive:mass ratio.

In any case, there are advantages and disadvantages to both versions. When the stats are that close any arguement about who would win would have to be pure speculation.

Indeed there are. But with equally skilled commanders, the numbers give it to the solid Prommy.