Photon Torpedoes vs Nukes

[Oddity]

We know from the TM that each Photon Torpedo carries 1.5 kg of antimatter.

But why did the Feds invent a totally new type of torpedo (the Quantum) rather than simply increase the amount of antimatter carried by the Photon? The answer could be that 1.5 kg of antimatter is the maximum amount they can safely store.

So, isn't it possible that good old fashion nukes could be just as, or even more, powerful than both the Photon and the Quantum Torpedo?

I was thinking of laser-triggered fusion warheads. It is far easier to extract deuterium and tritium than fabricating antimatter. Not to mention storing the stuff!

Your thoughts?

[Failed Glory]

The most powerful atomic weapon was about 25 megatons.

What are torpedoes at?

[Sea Skimmer]

By many calculations the real world has had missiles with greater range, accuracy and yield then the Photon since the late 50's and early 60's. Course they are much larger and without vectored thrust wouldn't work in space.

Nuclear bombs of equal in yield to the 1.5 kilo anti matter torpedo however would today be at least five times larger when a whole photon torpedo. However it should be easy enough to shrink them down.

Really nuclear weapons would be a better option, and 50's radar would give better guidance then Photons have have. A modern X band radar and the guidance system from the Harpoon would give near 100% Accuracy against Trek ships.

[Sea Skimmer]

The most powerful atomic weapon was about 25 megatons.

What are torpedoes at?

57 megatons actually for a thermnuclear bomb, and the weapon could have given an yield of over 100 if the third stage had not been replaced with lead to reduce fallout.

Biggest Atomic bomb was around 180 kilotons IIRC.

Photons are tens to hundreds of kiloton or dozens of megatons, depending on if you accept stuff based off onscreen calcs or the tech manual.

[Kuja]

Nuke would be better for collateral damage.

[Australopithicus]

At one end of the scale, a photon torpedo is at 200 isotons (probably a million megatons, though the actual isoton does not exist in our world to my limited knowledge), and at the other end, it's 25 isotons.

A little more than a nuke if it's only at 180 megatons, don't you think?

[TheDarkling]

Take pity on him.

Theres no yeild for Torps it ranges from low KT upto TT (I even some PT once but that didnt account for NDF of Disruptors).

Someone should do a study - put a sticky up (Bring your Photon firepower examples here)

[Failed Glory]

You kidding? isoton? ton? They're the same thing. You're a funny dude.

Ya, I just read something on a 60 something megaton thermonuclear weapon. Plus you can have multiple warheads, good fun all round.

I think we may have found a better challenge to the Empire than ST, us.

[Alyeska]

From what I read in the DS9 TM I was under the impression that Q-Torps could increase the yield of a warhead while using the same amount of reactant. Makes for more efficancy. You can only cram so much reactant into the torpedo before you run out of room. If you can come up with new ways of using the same material that increases the yield while still using the same size casses, thats all the better. Its the same way with the current military. Most civilians don't care about super efficent explossive such as Octol, they just drill larger holes and stick in more TNT or dynamite. But the military has size restrictions based on barrel size. Kinda hard to have standardized weapons if your constantly changing the size of a tank barrel every time you create a new shell with new propellent. So what the military does it is researches the explossive material and finds the best combinations for the most firepower. From what I can see, the Q-Torps are along the same lines. Using the size restriction of torpedo launchers and the torpedoes, they came up with a new way of using a limited amount of space for more firepower.

[Alyeska]

It is the exact same reason why we build 2 and 3 stage nuclear weapons rather then really insanely large single stage weapons. Which is better, a small 2 stage 500 KT device, or a massively large and bulky 1 stage 500 KT device? Which is easier to place on a missile? 1 bulky 1 stage 500 KT weapon, or a MIRV with 8 2 stage 500 KT weapons? Its all about size.

[The Yosemite Bear]

gee 157 mt, I thought that the Czar Bomba was rated at close to 200mt, that's still bigger then the ratings on a Photon torp.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

You kidding? isoton? ton? They're the same thing. You're a funny dude.

Ya, I just read something on a 60 something megaton thermonuclear weapon. Plus you can have multiple warheads, good fun all round.

I think we may have found a better challenge to the Empire than ST, us.

Ah, yes. The Tsar Bomba. That was a 55-62 MT hydrogen bomb.

Uh, I think. I'm about 95% sure.

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

The most powerful atomic weapon was about 25 megatons.

What are torpedoes at?

IIRC the most powerful was 58-60 megaton H-bomb built and tested by the Russians in the 60's. It was a scaled down version of an 100 megaton prototype they were conceiving.

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

Oh, I was redundant.

Since I'm rejecting all ST tech manuals (since they all have been contradicted onscreen on numerous occasions) I'll say that the P-torps and Q-torp would have to be at most in the Kiloton range.

[Kamakazie Sith]

By many calculations the real world has had missiles with greater range, accuracy and yield then the Photon since the late 50's and early 60's. Course they are much larger and without vectored thrust wouldn't work in space.

What are you smoking? Did those calculation take into considering the events from the episode TNG "The Wounded"?

The yield would be about even with the 64MT photon torpedo, however those nukes are much larger.

[Alyeska]

Oh, I was redundant.

Since I'm rejecting all ST tech manuals (since they all have been contradicted onscreen on numerous occasions) I'll say that the P-torps and Q-torp would have to be at most in the Kiloton range.

No, the low-mid range calcs put it in the KT range. The mid range calcs put it in the MT range while the mid-high put it in the high MT to low GT while the high range calcs are GT and above.

To get KT level weapons one would also have to reject canon sources. Yes I know there are sources above and below KT range.

[greenmm]

Easiest way:

1.5g AM interact with 1.5g AM, assuming 25% efficiency, would be equivelent to a 16 kT nuclear warhead. 100% efficiency would put it at about 65 kT.

That's actually not bad, considering that photon torpedoes should be more analogous to a conventional-warhead antiship missile or the old 1 kT warheads used in the nuclear ASROC and the old AIR-2A Genie AAR.

Bump it up to 1.5kg of AM, and you boost them from 16 to 65 kT to 16 to 65 MT.

Now, sure, we've had nuclear bombs tested that were bigger than that. And sure, the Soviets had hundreds of missiles in the Cold War with nuclear warheads in the 20-25 MT range deployed. But consider the size factor:

-- ICBM: couple of hundred feet long, hundreds of tons in mass, limited to a few thousand miles in range. Majority of the missile is taken up with the engines and fuel, so that the payload is a very small part of the mass.
-- photon torpedo: about 7 ft long (used one for Spock's coffin), maybe at most a ton in mass, if that, apparantly tens of thousands of miles in range, potentially farther. Actual AM payload is still only a very small part of the mass, but the warhead also includes the magnetic containment system, so the ratio of warhead/RV mass to torpedo mass is higher than from an ICBM.

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

Oh, I was redundant.

Since I'm rejecting all ST tech manuals (since they all have been contradicted onscreen on numerous occasions) I'll say that the P-torps and Q-torp would have to be at most in the Kiloton range.

No, the low-mid range calcs put it in the KT range. The mid range calcs put it in the MT range while the mid-high put it in the high MT to low GT while the high range calcs are GT and above.

To get KT level weapons one would also have to reject canon sources. Yes I know there are sources above and below KT range.

Well I'm basing all my assumption on purely onscreen evidence. which contradicts all the tech journals over and over. In eps of DS9 and Voyager, in Star Treks V and VIII (FC) we see that clearly. I just don't see how your calcs can be supported based on onscreen evidence.

[TheDarkling]

Well I have heard that explosions viewable from orbit are MT upto TT and we have seen several example of PT/QT's exploding on a planetary surface and the exlposion being visable.

Can anyone confirm if that range is correct? because I havent got a clue how to.

[Master of Ossus]

-- ICBM: couple of hundred feet long, hundreds of tons in mass, limited to a few thousand miles in range. Majority of the missile is taken up with the engines and fuel, so that the payload is a very small part of the mass.
-- photon torpedo: about 7 ft long (used one for Spock's coffin), maybe at most a ton in mass, if that, apparantly tens of thousands of miles in range, potentially farther. Actual AM payload is still only a very small part of the mass, but the warhead also includes the magnetic containment system, so the ratio of warhead/RV mass to torpedo mass is higher than from an ICBM.

I can't agree with the premise for your comparison. ICBMs and PT's are designed to do completely different things. ICBM's are designed to be fired from the ground, up into a very high orbit, and then plumet back to Earth. A torpedo never has to fight gravity and is designed to strike a target in the vacuum of space. Of course it should have much smaller fuel reserves than an ICBM. Also, the "maybe a ton in mass" is clearly wrong. A Klingon torpedo in ST:6 ripped straight THROUGH the E-A at a low relative velocity. The torpedo would have had to have had a much greater mass than one ton in order to do that, since ST hulls have been shown capable of withstanding much more KE than that (ref. Oddyssey's explosion, which did not result in a complete hull failure, and the Klingon torpedoes in ST:Generations, in which Klingon torpedoes that tore through the E-D's shield did not destroy the ship, despite the fact that their warheads appeared to detonate properly).

[Alyeska]

Oh, I was redundant.

Since I'm rejecting all ST tech manuals (since they all have been contradicted onscreen on numerous occasions) I'll say that the P-torps and Q-torp would have to be at most in the Kiloton range.

No, the low-mid range calcs put it in the KT range. The mid range calcs put it in the MT range while the mid-high put it in the high MT to low GT while the high range calcs are GT and above.

To get KT level weapons one would also have to reject canon sources. Yes I know there are sources above and below KT range.

Well I'm basing all my assumption on purely onscreen evidence. which contradicts all the tech journals over and over. In eps of DS9 and Voyager, in Star Treks V and VIII (FC) we see that clearly. I just don't see how your calcs can be supported based on onscreen evidence.

There have been plenty of on screen incidents of greater then MT level firepower. The weakest TDIC calc is in the GT range even.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Well there is certaintly some reason the UFP abandoned nukes, so they should be either A.) much more advanced and efficeitn than nukes, or B.) because of the morals of the Feds, they phased out the nukes becomes of thelong-term radiation effects it has, assuming of course a photorp doesn't have similar effects. Or perhaps (B) because of there bad hisotry with nukes, ya know WWIII.

I would be inclined to accept B, in which case a nuke is superior to a photorp, but for moral reasons was abandoned.

[Master of Ossus]

Nuclear weapons appear to have a few major disadvantages over torpedoes:

1. They require more space specifically dedicates to weapons, whereas torpedoes draw their charges from the warp core.
2. They are heavier, because a ship using nuclear weapons would still need AM, but would also need to carry Uranium/Plutonium, warheads, etc.
3. Perhaps nuclear weapons are more dangerous for the crew than torpedoes due to radiation, but this seems unlikely.
4. Nuclear weapons degrade over time, as their charges do. Torpedoes may not do this, and if AM is left over, it can be used for other things.
5. AM is more environmentally sound than nuclear materials. It can be used in warp cores, whereas U would need to be stored for thousands of years.

It is also possible that they abandoned nuclear weapons following WWIII, by treaty with the countries of Earth, or something like that.

[TheDarkling]

The problem with the Nukes > Torps but were dropped for morals idea is that the Roms/Klings/Cardies etc dont use nukes and they care not for environmental concerns or other such things.

Nukes wouldnt take up that much more space than torps since the torp case is already there, you just pre fill the torps with the material necessary.
I also doubt that the nukes are more dangerous.
Hmm nukes degrading over time - hmm sorta I guess but gain not for the other races since the Klingons wuold just blow something up with the weapons if they were getting low grade.

[Sea Skimmer]

By many calculations the real world has had missiles with greater range, accuracy and yield then the Photon since the late 50's and early 60's. Course they are much larger and without vectored thrust wouldn't work in space.

What are you smoking? Did those calculation take into considering the events from the episode TNG "The Wounded"?

I think the four major battles with dozens if not hundreds of torpedos fired shown on DS9 overrule any single example.