Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
enlighten me-are these torpedo launchers?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by James Fox: [QB] Ok EdipisReks, one thing at a time... "hitting a ship with a single torpedo from a side tube won't eliminate a target at all." I never claimed it did. What I *do* think however, is that hitting a ship with a single torpedo can weaken the shields, and that if another torpedo hits the shields soon enough afterwards, it will weaken still furthur. Instead of knocking the shields down in one massive blow, the shields would be gradually pounded down until the enemy ship is vulnerable and can be destroyed. "15 single fire tubes makes even less sense than 15 burst fire tubes. thats like putting 15 smoothbore muskets on a humvee instead of a machinegun." Huh? Are you saying that a single-fire tube is to a burst-fire tube what a musket is to a machine gun? That is simply ridiculous, as a machine gun has a fire rate thousands of times that of a musket. A 10-torpedo burst-fire tube, even if you assume it can fire it's bundles of torpedos at the same rate as a single-fire tube, is only 10 times more powerful. Furthurmore, I *don't* think a burst-fire tube has a rate of fire matching that of the quantum single fire launchers we've seen: they often seem to fire multiple times a second. When was the last time you saw a burst fire tube firing multiple times a second. "also, your idea about the galaxy is flawed, as the galaxy has by far the best total phaser coverage of any ship in trek ever seen," On the back of the ship and the bottom of engineering, there are a bunch of piddling small arrays. On the saucer, there are two huge arrays. Though some people seem to think that the strip size has no relation to the power of the beam it can put out, I think it makes more sense to interpret thins as a sign that the designers did not intend to attack powerful targets with phasers from the rear of the ship. "and has 2 burst fire tubes that can cover the entire ship." You *assume* that they can cover the entire ship. Those two tubes are forward facing. Have you ever seen a galaxy fire torpedos to the front that looped around to attack ships behind the Galaxy? "the galaxy is the best ship seen for fighting multiple targets." Actually, I would say that Voyager has been shown to be pretty good at it as well. But how often have we seen the Galaxy attacking muliple *large targets* at the same time? "the bursts of torpedos that the galaxy class fires can actually hit multiple targets, as seen in "yesterday's entreprise" where a single burst hits at least 2 klingon ships." But can the torpedos hit enemy ships on opposite sides of the firing ship? There's a reason why many ships out there have rear firing torpedo tubes you know. "i don't think that making a torpedo maneuver in the 24th century is anymore taxing than making one maneuver in the 21st century." Since we are less than 3 months into the 21st century, I'll assume you meant the 20th century. Here, we come to the crux of the argument, I happen to strongly disagree. I would say a Starfleet torpedo isn't really very much like a 20th century naval torpedo. Naval torpedos a minature submarines that have a fairly long endurance, several minutes at the very least. Starfleet torpedos, by contrast, last no longer than 14-15 seconds according to the TM's. Also, Starfleet torpedos are hurled out of thier tubes at immense speeds, whereas Naval torpedos are not. Why is it that Starfleet torpedos require that large and powerful launcher? Why not just let the torpedos accelerate up to thier cruising speed of 0.75 c? I think it's because they *can't* -- at least not in a reasonable amount of time. To perform a 180 degree turn with no speed loss in the 14-15 seconds allocated would take an acceleration of at least 30 million m/s^2. According the the TM's, an Ambassador class has a maxium acceleration of 10 thousand m/s^2. I find it a bit hard to believe that a torpedo can do 30 thousand times better. And even if they can, to be a maneverable as missiles and the like, their acceleration would have to be far greater, and the fact that they have to be accelerated by tubes in the first place seems to rule this out. Therefore, I don't think they are maneverable enough to prevent rear-firing and side-firing tubes from being a good idea. I know we did see *one* example of a torpedo that maneuvered a lot, in Star Trek VI, but that was a special modification. It ran for longer than any torpedo we've seen, and there may be other factors like a possible slower speed that would make manevering torpedos easier in that situation. We've never seen a torpedo move like that again. "besides, the akira was, if NCC numbers are any real way of determining age, built in a time when the federation had no need for warships. having that many nonsensical tubes makes even less sense given the time frame." I believe other people have already covered this, but I reiterate: just because the Federation was not in danger of being overrun does not mean that there was no need for warships. There *were* several smaller wars then, and if starfleet was to do thier job of defence properly, warships would help greatly. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3