Star Trek Armour

[lorddreaman]

I am just wondering if Star Trek ships are armoured at all. I know the Defiant is but what about the rest of the ships, what about other races' ships? It seems that in Endgame that armour is a lot more effective than shielding is.

[Havok]

Nope. No armor at all. Just drywall.

[Captain Seafort]

Nope. No armor at all. Just drywall.

They're almost certainly armoured (or at least have tough hulls) to some degree, or the E-D wouldn't have been able to shrug off a Galor without shields as she did in The Wounded. The armour is just vastly less effective than shields.

[Crazedwraith]

Most don't. Certain ships were stated to have Ablative Armour. The Defiant and the Prometheus as far as I recall.

[Captain Seafort]

Most don't. Certain ships were stated to have Ablative Armour. The Defiant and the Prometheus as far as I recall.

If a pre-war GCS is well-protected enough to shrug off a Galor, I think we can be confident that most, if not all, Fed ships have some for of armour. It'll be crap compared with the armour of a Klingon ship, or the later warships, but it's obviously not completely absent.

[Havok]

Nope. No armor at all. Just drywall.

They're almost certainly armoured (or at least have tough hulls) to some degree, or the E-D wouldn't have been able to shrug off a Galor without shields as she did in The Wounded. The armour is just vastly less effective than shields.

[Sea Skimmer]

The shear number of windows on Federation ships means armor can't be a very serious a consideration, but they are built strongly.

If they have armor is likely done in the same manner as armor on say, a helicopter drivetrain. Rather then adding specific armor plates, the actual housing of key components and key structural pieces around them are overbuilt and made of armor grade materials. The result is a system which is more intended to localize damage then entirely avoid it, but you get very good weight economy and consume only small amounts of additional volume.

[Prometheus Unbound]

Circa 2365

[avatarxprime]

All Federation ships sport armored hulls, but generally do not have an actual armor layer over that hull, with notable exceptions being the Defiant and Prometheus class ships. Ablative armor was something new and used because it was effective against beams used by the Borg, as Borg made shields largely useless since they could drain shields extremely quickly and their cutting lasers went right threw Federation ships as shown in Prometheus Unbound's pic. Later with the Dominion War it was shown that the ablative armor was actually pretty useful against people who aren't the Borg and was kept around. Based on Endgame, this eventually results in the Federation developing Batman armor that is effective against beams and torpedoes.

I also wouldn't necessarily say that shields are weaker than armor, they're just different. The beam weapons used in ST are quite effective against matter, although as the infamous storage crates show, a dense enough material will stop them. When we've seen unshielded ships hit by phasers/disruptors/other they do seem to hold up reasonably well (in that the beam doesn't gut them, Future-D and Defiant pulse phasers aside) and likely pre-Borg the Federation (and most other powers) felt their armor was good enough for the enemies they had. It's really only post-Wolf 359 that the Federation starts investing resources in armor. I mean the Defiant was designed around anti-Borg and features the first appearance of ablative armor. Later in Endgame, Future-Janeway brings a bunch of anti-Borg tech and looky, she's packing even better armor.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Do they actually need armour? They have their magic structural intergrity field which is enough to hold the ship together at warp speeds and when crashing into planets (as Generations shows). Perhaps they use the SIF in place of armour?

[Enigma]

Do they actually need armour? They have their magic structural intergrity field which is enough to hold the ship together at warp speeds and when crashing into planets (as Generations shows). Perhaps they use the SIF in place of armour?

In other words, shields?

[Prometheus Unbound]

Do they actually need armour? They have their magic structural intergrity field which is enough to hold the ship together at warp speeds and when crashing into planets (as Generations shows). Perhaps they use the SIF in place of armour?

In other words, shields?

they're not quite the same. Shields have something to do with gravitons / graviton based (ST:GEN)





Force fields seem to rely on some anti-static / static technology. "Static forcefields". I'm sure I've heard that, I'll need to dig into it, if anyone's interested?

I just mean, they're not one and the same. NOT that I'm suggesting forcefields are more like armour than shields, of course.

Interestingly, and just by-the-by, in Q-Who, where the screenshot was from, after those 3 decks are sliced out, it is commented:

"Tractor beam is released, sir. Forcefield is maintaining our hull integrity"

So a forcefield is at least on par with normal non-armour hull.

In ST:NEM they did put a forcefield around the warp core and Voyager has put Level 10 forcefields around its core to help it stop breaching. Not really sure how/why, though, since it seems entirely external, and the forcefield in NEM went down on the first hit.

[Prometheus Unbound]

Also I should point out, other than the Defiant, the Prometheus or Voyager's bat armour, has the phrase "armour" been used when describing starfleet ships?

As far as I can remember, it's always been hull. "hull breach" or "hull integrity at 50%" etc. Even archer's time was "hull plating", not armour plating.

Is there a difference or is it just a choice of words? Do US navy carriers have armour on top of the hull?

Borg have armour - at least the tactical cubes do.

It does seem, each time "armour" is used, it's used as a magic extra - there's emphasis on "armour", over hull. "Ablative armour", "Borg Ablative armour". The one in Endgame was "armour". It's always specifically "armour" and it's usually very visible, compared to normal "hull".

[Enigma]

Funny, Memory Alpha classifies shields as force fields.

[Prometheus Unbound]

Funny, Memory Alpha classifies shields as force fields.

It is a type of force field.

Just not the same.

[avatarxprime]

Also I should point out, other than the Defiant, the Prometheus or Voyager's bat armour, has the phrase "armour" been used when describing starfleet ships?

As far as I can remember, it's always been hull. "hull breach" or "hull integrity at 50%" etc. Even archer's time was "hull plating", not armour plating.

Is there a difference or is it just a choice of words? Do US navy carriers have armour on top of the hull?

Borg have armour - at least the tactical cubes do.

It does seem, each time "armour" is used, it's used as a magic extra - there's emphasis on "armour", over hull. "Ablative armour", "Borg Ablative armour". The one in Endgame was "armour". It's always specifically "armour" and it's usually very visible, compared to normal "hull".

1) The closest I could find for another example was the Delta Flyer and Parametallic hull plating beyond that only non-Starfleet ships are described as having/using armor.

2) There is a difference, the hull is the outside body of the ship. It can incorporate materials that could be considered "armor" but really, it's the ship's skin and its main requirement is that it be watertight. Armor is specifically some kind of material being used as a form of passive defense (although I guess reactive armor plays jump rope with that line). Modern warships do not particularly sport specific armor anymore and instead rely on active defense. Old school ships from WW2 did have armor belts that wrapped around sections of the hull to grant them additional defense.

As to the issue of the SIF, ever since Enterprise I've always considered it to be an evolution of the polarized hull plating used on the NX, an active system that enhances the strength of the hull. Although according to Memory-Alpha, the SIF serves to take the stress off the existing structural material completely (structural integrity at 100%) with the existing material only having to bear the brunt of the stresses the ship would face when its failing (structural integrity at anything <100%).

[Prometheus Unbound]

Also I should point out, other than the Defiant, the Prometheus or Voyager's bat armour, has the phrase "armour" been used when describing starfleet ships?

As far as I can remember, it's always been hull. "hull breach" or "hull integrity at 50%" etc. Even archer's time was "hull plating", not armour plating.

Is there a difference or is it just a choice of words? Do US navy carriers have armour on top of the hull?

Borg have armour - at least the tactical cubes do.

It does seem, each time "armour" is used, it's used as a magic extra - there's emphasis on "armour", over hull. "Ablative armour", "Borg Ablative armour". The one in Endgame was "armour". It's always specifically "armour" and it's usually very visible, compared to normal "hull".

1) The closest I could find for another example was the Delta Flyer and Parametallic hull plating beyond that only non-Starfleet ships are described as having/using armor.

2) There is a difference, the hull is the outside body of the ship. It can incorporate materials that could be considered "armor" but really, it's the ship's skin and its main requirement is that it be watertight. Armor is specifically some kind of material being used as a form of passive defense (although I guess reactive armor plays jump rope with that line). Modern warships do not particularly sport specific armor anymore and instead rely on active defense. Old school ships from WW2 did have armor belts that wrapped around sections of the hull to grant them additional defense.

As to the issue of the SIF, ever since Enterprise I've always considered it to be an evolution of the polarized hull plating used on the NX, an active system that enhances the strength of the hull. Although according to Memory-Alpha, the SIF serves to take the stress off the existing structural material completely (structural integrity at 100%) with the existing material only having to bear the brunt of the stresses the ship would face when its failing (structural integrity at anything <100%).

Thanks for the info there, much appreciated

Maybe the SIF is an outgrowth of energised hull plating? Don't we have tech now (the active armour you mentioned, on tanks?) that can electrify and being "harder" or "stronger" as a material?

I think it's more meant to be like that, than an actual force field.

I find issue with the SIF according to memory alpha. I may be wrong but I have vivid memories, esp. of Voyager, where during battles Tuvok or Harry would yell "Structural integrity at 10%" or something similar - and it would be very dramatic, as if it went to zero, the ship would blow up. That's the impression I took from it, at any rate. I don't think they've outright said "once it goes to zero, the ship will explode".

If that's the case, and it's the SIF they're referring to, then it means starfleet ships can't support themselves (i.e. they just... fall apart(?)) without the field being on? That doesn't make sense to me. Lolling about Trek aside, that's clearly not what was meant. It implies the ships are as weak as the International Spacestation!

Personally I think the SIF and "hull integrity at ..." are different things - one is refering to the actual hull (HI) and the other is the energised plating or whatever through the superstructure (SIF). Though I don't believe it's an actual static force field like we see in the Brig and stuff. More like polarised stuff. The wonders of graphene, no doubt

[Eternal_Freedom]

I don't think that it's "Structural integrity at 0, sihp goes boom" it's more likely to be "structural intergrity (field) at zero, ship will hold together under normal conditions but not under high-G manuevres in combat and/or in extreme environments and/or at warp speed." Since the "strucural integrity at 10%" usually turns up in the aforementioned combat/extrmeme environments/warp speed, it's a bad thing.

Case in point, at the start of Generations Tuvok announces on the E-B "45 seconds to structural collapse" which really doesn't sound good but they'd probably be ok in open space.

Or, whichever episode the original Defiant is lost in, the energy dampener kills power to everything (presumably including the SIF) but the ship doesn't fall apart.

[Ultonius]

Force fields seem to rely on some anti-static / static technology. "Static forcefields".

Static just means unmoving or unchanging, so 'static forcefields' would presumably mean 'forcefields that are static', rather than being a description of their underlying physical nature.

[Prometheus Unbound]

Force fields seem to rely on some anti-static / static technology. "Static forcefields".

Static just means unmoving or unchanging, so 'static forcefields' would presumably mean 'forcefields that are static', rather than being a description of their underlying physical nature.

electrostatic

[Ultonius]

electrostatic

I don't think you could produce the effects we see with forcefields with any kind of electrostatic phenomena. The nearest you might get would be something vaguely similar to Enterprise's 'polarized hull plating', or the 'electric armour' currently being developed to disrupt shaped-charge warheads.

[Purple]

Honestly I always figured that the static was describing the fields function and not its nature. That is to say that it is a field whose purpose it is to keep something (in this case the hull) static as opposed to allowing it to ripple, shear, move around and generally be effected by enemy fire.

[NecronLord]

Throughout the entire run of Star Trek Enterprise polarized hull plating, IE armour with some kind of active defence, is their major protection against enemy weapons.

GARAK
What if we go through this nebula?
We could use it to avoid detection
and get light years closer to the
source of the transmission.

WORF
Our shields would be useless
inside that nebula.

GARAK
But so would Jem'Hadar sensors.

Garak tries his best to win Worf over.

DEEP SPACE NINE: "In Purgatory's... " - REV. 12/04/96 - ACT TWO 27.

27 CONTINUED: (2)

[...]
WORF
(reluctantly)
Setting course for the nebula.

Garak smiles, pleased that he's won this round.

28 EXT. SPACE (OPTICAL)

The Runabout entering a nebula. (Stock from "VORTEX?")
[...]
37 CONTINUED:

There's another violent shake, this one worse than the
other..
GARAK
(urgent, off readouts)
What happened? We've come to a
dead stop.

WORF
They have us in a tractor beam.

GARAK
Re-polarize the hull. Try to
shake us loose.
But before either of them can take action...

Federation Runabout.

While it was unlikely to be the authorial intent to suggest that an older, probably not thought of out-of-universe active-armour technology still exists here, the factg that polarizing hulls is useful as an armour technology, and that starfleet ships retain access to this technology and incorporate it, indicates that they at least have this capacity.

Nonetheless in this scene, they've gone somewhere where the shields do not work, and then they have polarized the hull. A tractor beam comes on, and then Garak says to re polarize it.

A few more 24th century examples here

[Captain Seafort]

While it was unlikely to be the authorial intent to suggest that an older, probably not thought of out-of-universe active-armour technology still exists here, the factg that polarizing hulls is useful as an armour technology, and that starfleet ships retain access to this technology and incorporate it, indicates that they at least have this capacity.

On the subject of active defences less than shields there's also the "defence fields" from TWoK. With hindsight, they might be the same or similar technology as the polarised hulls in Enterprise and IPS.

[Crazedwraith]

A few more 24th century examples here

That's hilarious according to Voyager polarising your hull can a) be used to increase your sensor visibility and make it more likely a downed shuttle be found or b> be used to hide yourself from enemy sensors and approach undetected.

one bit of technobabble, two completely opposite uses.