The Transporter Bomb: Did the writers never think of this?

[Lord Revan]

Although as Nemesis showed, it wouldn't necessarily take much fire to get the core shields to fail! During red alert Fed ships could have some form of transport inhibitor system in place so that even if the shields fail the enemy can't simply beam stuff on or off. Seeing as the ones the Feds used were battery-powered they clearly can't be much of a power drain.

Transporter scramblers are another option, apparently they were even capable of friend/foe recognition so the ship using them can still use their own systems.

Honestly the built in electronic warfare suit could be enough to prevent beaming stuff in or beaming stuff out, also places like main engineering could have additional shielding not to prevent weapons fire or transporters but to protect against things like radiation leaks.

Transporters don't seem like they'd be harder to jam/confuse then the tactical sensors of the ship, so you might need a dedicated anti-transporter methods since you're normal "I don't want to get hit" or "I don't want the whole ship end irradiated if there's a minor coolant leak in engineering" methods will do the job just fine in addition to their intended uses.

Problem is that the Feds are most often on the receiving end of electronic warfare as opposed to dishing it out. Apart from one instance on the Siege of AR-558 where Starfleet and Dominion forces would jam one another's sensors I can't recall the Feds ever using EW. The Starfleet Command games at least made use of it, with ECM, ECCM and Wild Weasel shuttles.

the thing to remember is that in the end Star Trek is a work made to entertain people, not give 100% complete picture of how the technology is used. Starfleet not using EW except when the plot says so goes dangerously close to "they're all morons" explanation and a more logical explanation is that there's a standard version of EW that's used always when "red alert" is called (possible even when "yellow alert" is called) but no attention is drawn to it as it's business as usual.

This would also explain the difference between the theoretical ranges in hundreds of kilometers and actual observed combat ranges in few thousand meters. We know from the TNG episode "The Wounded" that those theoretical ranges are avaible to Starfleet vessels so the most logical explanation is that rather then everyone using only 1/100 of their potential range to "be fair" is that normally EW makes it so that those long ranges are unviable to use in combat and jamming and what not is only mentioned when it's atypical either thru presence (aka sensors are jammed when there's no logical source for the jamming) or strength.

[NecronLord]

And, honestly, I think this tactic and variants of it would work just fine on Star Wars ships.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

And, honestly, I think this tactic and variants of it would work just fine on Star Wars ships.

That assumes transporters can penetrate SW shields.

[NecronLord]

Not really. Tactics do not have to be silver bullets to be effective. Get them when the shields are down.

Incidentally, Star Destroyers even run with shields down when pursuing the Falcon (perhaps to route power to engines) in ESB, and we've no real grounds in the current canon to think they keep them up all the time, for instance when on patrol missions, or when station-keeping above some occupied city.

There are endless scenarios where a Star Trek ship could plausibly encounter a SW ship with its shields down, particularly taking into account the wide availability of cloaking devices.

Doctrine would certainly evolve, but this tactic is more than enough to plausibly put an end to the 'one star destroyer vs the Federation' ideas.

[Lord Revan]

Not really. Tactics do not have to be silver bullets to be effective. Get them when the shields are down.

Incidentally, Star Destroyers even run with shields down when pursuing the Falcon (perhaps to route power to engines) in ESB, and we've no real grounds in the current canon to think they keep them up all the time, for instance when on patrol missions, or when station-keeping above some occupied city.

There are endless scenarios where a Star Trek ship could plausibly encounter a SW ship with its shields down, particularly taking into account the wide availability of cloaking devices.

Doctrine would certainly evolve, but this tactic is more than enough to plausibly put an end to the 'one star destroyer vs the Federation' ideas.

the funny this is that this tactic doesn't even have to really work. All it really needs is for the Star Destroyer to be forced to keep shields active 24/7 as I'm pretty sure those systems aren't built to be "always active" so keeping them always active could drastically reduce the lifespan of the components and when something breaks it cannot really be replaced, except with spareparts the stardestroyer has in its cargoholds. salvaging destroyed trek ships would most likely not work due to totally different engineering.

[Imperial528]

I doubt the systems endurance on an ISD's shields is that low; especially given the energies they need to handle (this goes for Trek shields as well, as even the low end calcs are nothing to laugh at in terms of the energy the components will be throwing around while in action)

Most importantly, it will make the ISD run out of fuel faster. Star Destroyers are powerful and have impressive fuel endurance for warships, but they aren't designed for operation outside of a logistics chain. IIRC their reactors can only do peak output for a day or two; and forcing the ISD to keep its shields up at all time will eat into its fuel reserves faster than standby would.

Not to mention psychological effects on the crew, given that the ISD won't be able to keep its shields up at all times if the crew wants to maintain the ship.

[Lord Revan]

I doubt the systems endurance on an ISD's shields is that low; especially given the energies they need to handle (this goes for Trek shields as well, as even the low end calcs are nothing to laugh at in terms of the energy the components will be throwing around while in action)

Most importantly, it will make the ISD run out of fuel faster. Star Destroyers are powerful and have impressive fuel endurance for warships, but they aren't designed for operation outside of a logistics chain. IIRC their reactors can only do peak output for a day or two; and forcing the ISD to keep its shields up at all time will eat into its fuel reserves faster than standby would.

Not to mention psychological effects on the crew, given that the ISD won't be able to keep its shields up at all times if the crew wants to maintain the ship.

there's a reason why I said "something" instead of "shield systems", it could be a power relay on deck 12 that got busted, you got remember that shield systems aren't isolated from the rest of the ship. Just because the shields are built withstand very high energy out for a short duration it doesn't mean the supporting systems are built to withstand shields being up 24/7.

Also the point about the fuel is a good one.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I doubt the systems endurance on an ISD's shields is that low; especially given the energies they need to handle (this goes for Trek shields as well, as even the low end calcs are nothing to laugh at in terms of the energy the components will be throwing around while in action)

Most importantly, it will make the ISD run out of fuel faster. Star Destroyers are powerful and have impressive fuel endurance for warships, but they aren't designed for operation outside of a logistics chain. IIRC their reactors can only do peak output for a day or two; and forcing the ISD to keep its shields up at all time will eat into its fuel reserves faster than standby would.

Not to mention psychological effects on the crew, given that the ISD won't be able to keep its shields up at all times if the crew wants to maintain the ship.

there's a reason why I said "something" instead of "shield systems", it could be a power relay on deck 12 that got busted, you got remember that shield systems aren't isolated from the rest of the ship. Just because the shields are built withstand very high energy out for a short duration it doesn't mean the supporting systems are built to withstand shields being up 24/7.

Also the point about the fuel is a good one.

It also depends on how quickly shields can be raised, either by ST or SW ships. There's a whole laundry list of things that can interfere with ST sensors and by extension, transporters.

[Batman]

There's systems endurance, and there's systems endurance under permanent load with zero maintenance. Sure, imperial shield generators may be designed to last millions of hours...if mollycoddled from time to time, be it replacing the ziggurax crystals, refilling the Gargleblaster tank, have a flatcat purr at them so they feel better, or just simple cooldown time. Having to permanently have the shields up may very well significantly cut down on that service life. And the only way to be 100% certain a transporter bomb attack won't happen IS to keep the shields up 24/7.
Is it a viable tactic in a combat situation the Wars side knows is a combat situation? Most likely not. But that doesn't mean it can't work.

[bilateralrope]

Would the Wars side need to keep their shields up 24/7 to prevent transporter bombs ?

There are areas where the Wars side will consider themselves safe enough to lower shields:
- While in Hyperspace.
- When far enough away from Trek space that the Trek ships can't reach them.
- When they can't detect any Trek ships. At least until they find out about cloaking devices. Can a cloaked ship use a transporter bomb before the Wars ship defends itself ?

[Batman]

The only area where they're 'perfectly' safe is hyperspace and given how fast that is they're not going to be spending all that much time under hyperdrive, unless you want them randomly hopping around the galaxy all the time which is likely an even worse resource drain than shields always up.
Unless they purpously stay away from all but the Delta Quadrant they virtually always have to expect attacks from cloaked ships '(unless you want to posit Trek cloaks are useless against Wars sensors). Alpha/Beta Quadrant Romulans/Klingons, Gamma Quadrant same thanks to the wormhole.
Beaming onto/off a cloaked ship seems to be a nonissue and the transporter cycle isn't long enough to offer much in the way of response time even if the Imperials can detect it.

[NecronLord]

The Delta Quadrant is home to the Voth, with functioning phase cloaks and who can beam through shields.

Would the Wars side need to keep their shields up 24/7 to prevent transporter bombs ?

There are areas where the Wars side will consider themselves safe enough to lower shields:
- While in Hyperspace.
- When far enough away from Trek space that the Trek ships can't reach them.

Forcing them to back the fuck off is also a benefit of using this tactic.

- When they can't detect any Trek ships. At least until they find out about cloaking devices. Can a cloaked ship use a transporter bomb before the Wars ship defends itself ?

Yes, transporters function when cloaked. The most famous example is the ST IV beaming of four hundred tonnes of water (plus two whales) onto the Klingon Bird of Prey rechirstined Bounty while she was cloaked.

[DarthPooky]

Don't forget all the ECM that the imperials would be putting out weather or not the shields are up or down. Which I assume would require far less power than shields.

[NecronLord]

What makes you think they run ECM all the time?

Does a star destroyer sitting above a city it wants to exploit have ECM blasting out on all frequencies? How does anyone get their civilian messages through?

[Rogue 9]

Can you name any instances from any of the trek TV shows or movies where teleporting over a bomb would have been a good idea ?

The Voyager pilot, but then they wouldn't have had a series.

[Batman]

Yes, transporters function when cloaked. The most famous example is the ST IV beaming of four hundred tonnes of water (plus two whales) onto the Klingon Bird of Prey rechirstined Bounty while she was cloaked.

Actually she wasn't. They uncloaked, presumably to scare the shit out of the whaler, and never recloaked until the end of the movie. They were definitely uncloaked when they beamed the whales aboard.

[Imperial528]

To clarify my earlier post, I don't think the systems maintenance issue is without merit.

I just think that by the time constant shield power has burned out their redundancies and spares, they ran out of fuel two weeks prior. Especially if they keep hyperspace jumping.

[DarthPooky]

I thought it was known that Star Wars ships in combat put out ECM.

[Lord Revan]

I thought it was known that Star Wars ships in combat put out ECM.

in combat yes, but the point several people have made so far is that stardestroyers aren't and most likely even cannot be always in "full combat" status.

Not without causing major logistical issues to themselves, which is a victory in and of itself.

[NecronLord]

Actually she wasn't. They uncloaked, presumably to scare the shit out of the whaler, and never recloaked until the end of the movie. They were definitely uncloaked when they beamed the whales aboard.

You are correct. But they do beam people onto the USS Enterprise (CVN) while cloaked, and back. Beaming while cloaked does compromise the Bounty's cloak in STIII though.

KRUGE
Bring me up!

We're on Saavik and David and the uncomprehending
Vulcan as the sound and reflected light of a BEAM-UP
take place.

165 INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE - FAVORING CHEKOV 165

At the science station, the blue light of the scanner
flickering on his face.

CHEKOV
I'd swear something was there sir,
but I might have imagined it.

KIRK
What did you see, Chekov?

CHEKOV
For an instant... A scout class
vessel.

Of course, there are other alternatives, the prime timeline's transwarp transporter must be developed at some point, the dominion also has transporters that work through shields, at least initially, and had a range in the light years (though with a transponder) and could perhaps be used to attack from beyond engagement range.

Shinzon of course, had a ship that could fire when cloaked, and arguably the older one version could be rebuilt - as there's no sign that Star Wars has anything other than magnetic torpedos that can detect any sort of cloaked ship.

And beyond that, there's an even simpler option. If I were a klingon commander, I'd be quite happy to order birds of prey to ram the hangar decks of star destroyers while cloaked. Or even shuttles, like the Romulan "Kestrel" type.

[Lord Revan]

Remember that "victory" doesn't mean "the enemy is dead" but rather that "the enemy is defeated", tricking or forcing the enemy to waste his resources until they have to surrender due to not having the means to keep on fighting is still a victory.

Also remember that even if we have "God's eye" view of the conflict (aka we have 100% accurate and complete intel on both sides) it doesn't mean the in-universe people have that so they'll have to pretty much always work with less then perfect intel so the stardestroyer crew wouldn't be able to tell when there's a cloaked ship around and they need to raise shields to stop it from beaming in bombs and when there's just empty space and they can keep the shields lowered (so they would keep them always up).

EDIT:this was meant as "general" observation and not a direct responce to anyone.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Remember that "victory" doesn't mean "the enemy is dead" but rather that "the enemy is defeated", tricking or forcing the enemy to waste his resources until they have to surrender due to not having the means to keep on fighting is still a victory.

Also remember that even if we have "God's eye" view of the conflict (aka we have 100% accurate and complete intel on both sides) it doesn't mean the in-universe people have that so they'll have to pretty much always work with less then perfect intel so the stardestroyer crew wouldn't be able to tell when there's a cloaked ship around and they need to raise shields to stop it from beaming in bombs and when there's just empty space and they can keep the shields lowered (so they would keep them always up).

EDIT:this was meant as "general" observation and not a direct responce to anyone.

The Romulans would be best-placed to use such a tactic, because not only do they have access to Ultritium, but their shuttles have cloaking devices too. Because Ultritium is hard to detect, the enemy has no idea anything is amiss until it goes off. If the yield is high enough/and or beamed into a vulnerable spot you have an enemy wondering why their ships are exploding for no apparent reason. Presumably because of their access to anti-cloak sensors this is why it was never attempted vs the Jem'Hadar during the Dominion War.

On the other hand, SW ships hull comprise Durasteel, which contains Neutronium, a known transport inhibitor.

Such a situation was discussed a few years ago in this thread.

[bilateralrope]

I thought it was known that Star Wars ships in combat put out ECM.

How much power does the ECM take ?

If it drains a lot of power, it will have the same problem as keeping the shields up all the time.

I doubt the Wars powers will be running the ECM at anything less than full power if they are worried about transporter bombs. Well, not until they have learned enough about Trek tech to build/acquire their own transporter inhibitors.

[Formless]

You are asking the wrong question. Its not a matter of how much power a Star Destroyer's ECM puts out, because it can vary. You can blast out enough ECM to disrupt the sensors of an entire Rebel fleet, or you can turn the volume down when facing a single ship. The Millennium Falcon can put out enough ECM to disrupt the sensors of a Tie Fighter at least. So if ships of different sizes can still deploy ECM, it stands to reason that ECM output is not a fixed value. And why should it be? Really you are just blasting out radio noise, or the equivalent of whatever it is that sensors use to detect stuff. Noise is analogue, not binary.

The question you should be asking is how much ECM (or shielding, or disruptive hull elements for that matter) does it take to inhibit transporters. IMO, it can't be that much considering that transporter inhibitors are field equipment that can be carried in a suitcase, deployed by a single person, and run off a battery.

[Lord Revan]

You are asking the wrong question. Its not a matter of how much power a Star Destroyer's ECM puts out, because it can vary. You can blast out enough ECM to disrupt the sensors of an entire Rebel fleet, or you can turn the volume down when facing a single ship. The Millennium Falcon can put out enough ECM to disrupt the sensors of a Tie Fighter at least. So if ships of different sizes can still deploy ECM, it stands to reason that ECM output is not a fixed value. And why should it be? Really you are just blasting out radio noise, or the equivalent of whatever it is that sensors use to detect stuff. Noise is analogue, not binary.

The question you should be asking is how much ECM (or shielding, or disruptive hull elements for that matter) does it take to inhibit transporters. IMO, it can't be that much considering that transporter inhibitors are field equipment that can be carried in a suitcase, deployed by a single person, and run off a battery.

Actually I'd say the correct question is "How much does it take to inhibit transporters and do the imperials know this?" At least for the VS. argument, after all while it's reasonble to assume that klingons, romulans or other ST powers have at least a fairly accurate estimate as to how much ECM inhibiting a transporter would take, for the imperials (unless we take the "act of Q gives full technical specs" route) we're talking about essentially 100% unknown peice of technology, so they wouldn't be taking any risks.