Delta Flyer vs X-Wing

[The Silence and I]

Range may be important, but Federation ships fight at ranges very similar to its enemies, so waiting for a target lock and guaranteed hit should be an option for its enemies as well. If so facto, they suck at it, as they still miss far more often than Star Fleet. How do they make up for it? I believe it is a combination of firepower, and rate of fire (in particular this). Many alien vessels have significantly greater fire volume over a given course of time, and can score just as many hits despite more misses.

I am thinking maybie the arrays' design holds the key to Star Fleet's accuracy. They are significantly unlike other weapon systems... Without visible emmiter points or movable hardware they may well electronically aim shots through the use of force fields (be they magnetic, gravitic or psuedo-scientific). This could possibly provide two primary benifits: Greater precision (along with faster retargeting-no need to accel. a barrel) and possibly a distribution of recoil forces, or just a more effective way to dampen them(accross the enitre array). IIRC the Defiant had an early problem with recoil, --I believe it heavily stressed the nacelles-- perhaps single emission points cannot deal with the recoil as well?

[Kamakazie Sith]

As for Wayne's examples, that depends on relative technical capabilities of the Federation and its allies/enemies. Some perhaps can be technologically inferior (I believe the KAzon were, the Klingons probably are in the modern day, and I think the Cardassians were - but does this also mean the Romulans and Dominion are? The Borg? ) I find it hard to believe that everyone has vastly more powerful weapons to compensate for their relatively poorer accuracy.

That's a good point. And contrary to popular belief, I don't own every Trek episode ever made. And when "Trekmiss" was made a year or two ago, the prevailing opinion from Trekkies were %100 accuracy of Star TREK ships. Not just Federation, not just beam weapons. When the video was released, suddenly the claims shifted to a tiny niche argument. Now it's Starfleet beam phasers on large ships. On Tuesday.

Saying the PPCs don't "count" for some reason is silly.

I think this is a misunderstanding for the same reason people think Star Trek vs. Star Wars means exactly that and not Empire vs. Federation which is usually the prime subject.

Though I'm sure there are people out there that believe ST has 100% accuracy. Those people simply haven't really watched the movies or episodes.

[Darth Wong]

Rather than explaining the Defiant's poor accuracy by simply saying that this upgraded pure-war spaceship has vastly inferior targeting to its predecessors (a curious argument), why not adopt the simpler theory that we saw it in far more desperate combat situations, hence they could not be as conservative with their fire?

It's pretty easy to avoid missing your targets when you can casually allow them to fly so close to your ship that your targeting would have to be out by 20 degrees in order to miss.

[Alyeska]

Rather than explaining the Defiant's poor accuracy by simply saying that this upgraded pure-war spaceship has vastly inferior targeting to its predecessors (a curious argument), why not adopt the simpler theory that we saw it in far more desperate combat situations, hence they could not be as conservative with their fire?

It's pretty easy to avoid missing your targets when you can casually allow them to fly so close to your ship that your targeting would have to be out by 20 degrees in order to miss.

Mike, look at the design behind the Defiant. It was meant to fight cubes that are 3km^3. Thats a bigass target. Using it against much smaller targets would naturaly result in much lower accuracy rates. Although your theory also works. Given the nature of the Defiant class its likely to be put into much more dangerous battles.

[Connor MacLeod]

Range may be important, but Federation ships fight at ranges very similar to its enemies, so waiting for a target lock and guaranteed hit should be an option for its enemies as well. If so facto, they suck at it, as they still miss far more often than Star Fleet. How do they make up for it? I believe it is a combination of firepower, and rate of fire (in particular this). Many alien vessels have significantly greater fire volume over a given course of time, and can score just as many hits despite more misses.

But it certainly does not apply in all cases, does it? Hence, the problem still exists.

For that matter, we have yet to establish the validity of this 99% accuracy claim, insofar as I am concerned. (No, I am not convinced and I have very good reason *not* to be. I think alot of people have been taking this to erroneously be established canon fact when this is apparently not the case.)

I am thinking maybie the arrays' design holds the key to Star Fleet's accuracy. They are significantly unlike other weapon systems... Without visible emmiter points or movable hardware they may well electronically aim shots through the use of force fields (be they magnetic, gravitic or psuedo-scientific). This could possibly provide two primary benifits: Greater precision (along with faster retargeting-no need to accel. a barrel) and possibly a distribution of recoil forces, or just a more effective way to dampen them(accross the enitre array). IIRC the Defiant had an early problem with recoil, --I believe it heavily stressed the nacelles-- perhaps single emission points cannot deal with the recoil as well?

Err, so why can't they also guide the Defiant's phaser pulses by these force fields? ITs still a fricking phaser! And if there are recoil problems, they can't be THAT significantly greater than what a phaser beam can output, given that both weapons systems can damage/destroy enemy capital ships within a reasonable degree of effiency. (this doesnt even address the fact beams appear to travel far faster than pulses, which is defintely one component of recoil, the other being mass.)

[Alyeska]

Range may be important, but Federation ships fight at ranges very similar to its enemies, so waiting for a target lock and guaranteed hit should be an option for its enemies as well. If so facto, they suck at it, as they still miss far more often than Star Fleet. How do they make up for it? I believe it is a combination of firepower, and rate of fire (in particular this). Many alien vessels have significantly greater fire volume over a given course of time, and can score just as many hits despite more misses.

But it certainly does not apply in all cases, does it? Hence, the problem still exists.

For that matter, we have yet to establish the validity of this 99% accuracy claim, insofar as I am concerned. (No, I am not convinced and I have very good reason *not* to be. I think alot of people have been taking this to erroneously be established canon fact when this is apparently not the case.)

I am thinking maybie the arrays' design holds the key to Star Fleet's accuracy. They are significantly unlike other weapon systems... Without visible emmiter points or movable hardware they may well electronically aim shots through the use of force fields (be they magnetic, gravitic or psuedo-scientific). This could possibly provide two primary benifits: Greater precision (along with faster retargeting-no need to accel. a barrel) and possibly a distribution of recoil forces, or just a more effective way to dampen them(accross the enitre array). IIRC the Defiant had an early problem with recoil, --I believe it heavily stressed the nacelles-- perhaps single emission points cannot deal with the recoil as well?

Err, so why can't they also guide the Defiant's phaser pulses by these force fields? ITs still a fricking phaser! And if there are recoil problems, they can't be THAT significantly greater than what a phaser beam can output, given that both weapons systems can damage/destroy enemy capital ships within a reasonable degree of effiency. (this doesnt even address the fact beams appear to travel far faster than pulses, which is defintely one component of recoil, the other being mass.)

Connor, you are saying PPCs are similar enough to beam phasers although observed capabilities are far different. Shit, they fire from different emission points, they ACT different (no NDF) and they've never been fired with the accuracy of beam phasers. This alone proves they can not be compared to beam phasers when it comes to accuracy. Beam disrupters ALSO have better accuracy over pulse disrupters and we KNOW that pulse disrupters must be physicaly aimed.

[Crown]

Okay does anyone have any figures of firepower and shields for the two? Cause I am thinking that would be the first and most important part of this debate...

[Darth Wong]

Okay does anyone have any figures of firepower and shields for the two? Cause I am thinking that would be the first and most important part of this debate...

Given that the Queen's small personal yacht (from AOTC:ICS) has orders of magnitude greater shield heat dissipation than the Enterprise-D (from the TM), and the fact that SW fighter-borne missile warheads pack many times more firepower than full-blown ST capital ship weapons ...

[Ghost Rider]

Okay does anyone have any figures of firepower and shields for the two? Cause I am thinking that would be the first and most important part of this debate...

I thought aside from what AoTC showed us...that we had KT figures of the X-Wing on what ANH showed use in both Firepower and KT level shielding.

For the Delat Flyer...I don't believe anyone has any concrete anything but to assume it's going to outmatch a Galaxy Class is a huge leap of logic.

[Connor MacLeod]

Connor, you are saying PPCs are similar enough to beam phasers although observed capabilities are far different.

Sort of, although the point I am trying to make actually is that you are supporting a conclusion that is not only based on research whose accuracy is questionable and verifiability (short of me going through every episode of Trek myself - something I have no interest in doing whatsoever.) is nonexistent, but also makes little practical sense (And while I know the Federation is not among the most practical of organizations, I do not see a reason to assume the extreme impracticality required by the conclusions you adovcate.)

Shit, they fire from different emission points, they ACT different (no NDF) and they've never been fired with the accuracy of beam phasers.
This alone proves they can not be compared to beam phasers when it comes to accuracy.

No, it doesn't. They're both still phasers. Logically there is nothign preventing whatever aiming mechanisms you attribute to improving beam phaser accuracy (magical forcefields, little phaser elves kicking the phaser particles onto new locations, whatever.) applying to pulse phasers (or is it they are just both coincidentally named "phaser?") Same with the targeting system.

What *CAN* influence their targeting/tracking ability is the potential recoil the phasers might have to compensate for, but I've already discussed this. The only further point I can add is that for the Defiant, it can easily be dealt with by reducing the power of the individual shots - after all, as you say, they were designed to fight against Borg Cubes, so they don't neccessarily have to pump out full-power shots against a smaller target like a Jem'Hadar bug, do they? Or am I to believe all pulse weapons have one power setting, horribly inferior targeting systems, and poorer aiming mechanisms than beam phasers?

BTW I should point otu that claiming that "PPCs do not apply to beam phaser accuracy because PPC's don't fire as accurately as beam phasers" is quite probably circular logic, especially as the uncertainty in the "99% beam accuracy" statement has been established.

Beam disrupters ALSO have better accuracy over pulse disrupters and we KNOW that pulse disrupters must be physicaly aimed.

Proof that this is true in all cases, and that this automatically applies to the Federation? And further, I have been under the impression we are discussing the Federation solely, not other groups in general (I believe the other examples of the Romulans and such were also considered irrelevant, were they not?)

[Connor MacLeod]

Okay does anyone have any figures of firepower and shields for the two? Cause I am thinking that would be the first and most important part of this debate...

Given that the Queen's small personal yacht (from AOTC:ICS) has orders of magnitude greater shield heat dissipation than the Enterprise-D (from the TM), and the fact that SW fighter-borne missile warheads pack many times more firepower than full-blown ST capital ship weapons ...

But isn't the Queen's Yacht closer in size to the Falcon than it is to a snubfighter? I'd assume that they might be able to handle low megaton-range energy outputs, but nothing quite *that* severe.

[Connor MacLeod]

Incidentally, if this "phaser accuracy" thing continues, should it not be split off from this thread and moved, since it does not seem to bear much on the acutal discussion?)

[Darth Wong]

Okay does anyone have any figures of firepower and shields for the two? Cause I am thinking that would be the first and most important part of this debate...

Given that the Queen's small personal yacht (from AOTC:ICS) has orders of magnitude greater shield heat dissipation than the Enterprise-D (from the TM), and the fact that SW fighter-borne missile warheads pack many times more firepower than full-blown ST capital ship weapons ...

But isn't the Queen's Yacht closer in size to the Falcon than it is to a snubfighter? I'd assume that they might be able to handle low megaton-range energy outputs, but nothing quite *that* severe.

Of course. But the ratio in size between a snubfighter and the Queen's yacht vs a shuttle and the E-D is much smaller, so it remains a fair comparison (generous to Trek, in fact).

[Connor MacLeod]

Of course. But the ratio in size between a snubfighter and the Queen's yacht vs a shuttle and the E-D is much smaller, so it remains a fair comparison (generous to Trek, in fact).

True. I'm still waiting to get some figures on accelrative abilities as well as offensive and defensive capability (something I've asked for before.)

[The Silence and I]

Connor, I know you have watched many hours of Startrek, why do you argue against something that I always thought was obvious?!

I have no idea how often beam phasers have fired, but I bet the number is high. I also do not know of every example of beam phasers missing, but I do know the number is low. Unimpressed with the precision of that statement? Me too... but it is accurate.

Now, I have thought about challenging targets for beam phasers, and remembered something: TNG "The Price" The Ferengi fire a missle at the Barzan wormhole. Worf scambles the phasers and fires a two shot burst, catching the missle with the second shot. Total time was no more than a few seconds. I do not believe for one moment the Defiant could match that accuracy. The missle did not maneuver, but it did move fast, and Worf destroyed it in less than a second (two unusually quick bursts). If Worf fired manually he is good, real good, if that was a target lock, then it was fast, and not infailable. Use it how you like.

[Connor MacLeod]

Connor, I know you have watched many hours of Startrek, why do you argue against something that I always thought was obvious?!

Err.. I'm not "completely" ignorant of Trek, and I used to watch alot of it, but I havent watched alot since the early years of Voyager, and I have rarely watched anything else since.

I have no idea how often beam phasers have fired, but I bet the number is high. I also do not know of every example of beam phasers missing, but I do know the number is low. Unimpressed with the precision of that statement? Me too... but it is accurate.

Which sums up one of my key points precisely. How the hell do you expect an educated guess or assumption to be taken as fact? Does "I can't be sure but I think the accuracy is really really high" sound very objective to you?

And you just contradicted yourself? How can it be imprecise and yet accurate? (even ignoring that its an obvious opinion.)

Now, I have thought about challenging targets for beam phasers, and remembered something: TNG "The Price" The Ferengi fire a missle at the Barzan wormhole. Worf scambles the phasers and fires a two shot burst, catching the missle with the second shot. Total time was no more than a few seconds. I do not believe for one moment the Defiant could match that accuracy. The missle did not maneuver, but it did move fast, and Worf destroyed it in less than a second (two unusually quick bursts). If Worf fired manually he is good, real good, if that was a target lock, then it was fast, and not infailable. Use it how you like.

This doesn't tell me a whole lot (like range, for example, or how fast the missile moved, or if EW was involved....), nor does it ignore the fact that its still basically your "opinion" in relation to the Defiant.

[Darth Wong]

Connor, I know you have watched many hours of Startrek, why do you argue against something that I always thought was obvious?!

I have no idea how often beam phasers have fired, but I bet the number is high. I also do not know of every example of beam phasers missing, but I do know the number is low. Unimpressed with the precision of that statement? Me too... but it is accurate.

Generally speaking, when they use beam phasers, they fire sparingly, at ranges and targets that they'd have to be blind to miss. The problem is not the "99% hitrate" figure, but the fact that it is actually regarded as an accuracy figure.

Sorry, but you can look up "accuracy" and that's not it. A method of determining accuracy would be to look at the size and range of a target that can be reliably hit, not simply looking at a hitrate with no regard for the size or range of the target. And even that would be dependent on context; accuracy against a fixed target with settle time would be much greater than accuracy against a dynamic moving target.

In short, the biggest problem with "99% accuracy" is that it's a pure bullshit figure which doesn't even make sense, because it uses an unqualified hitrate figure as a measure of "accuracy". Why not use a measure of length in order to estimate weight?

[The Silence and I]

I agree it is difficult/impossible to really come up with a great, researched answer. However conditional beam phaser accuracy may be, those conditions apply in large part to the Defiant's pulse phasers. Both wait for conveniant ranges before firing, at targets "they'd have to be blind to miss" Yet, while beam phasers get a very good hit rate, pulse phasers do not. The only conditional differences involve rate of fire.
Something is fundamentally different between the two systems.

[Darth Wong]

I agree it is difficult/impossible to really come up with a great, researched answer. However conditional beam phaser accuracy may be, those conditions apply in large part to the Defiant's pulse phasers. Both wait for conveniant ranges before firing, at targets "they'd have to be blind to miss"

You forgot the third part of the description about how they "fire sparingly" in TNG. The Defiant never fired sparingly; its typical combat behaviour tended to follow the "spray and pray" technique. When Sisko commanded it in TDiC, he ordered them to close to 500 metres before firing so they could get sure hits, and they did. It's arguably a matter of command preferences.

Something is fundamentally different between the two systems.

The pulse phasers should hit harder because they don't need dwell time to impart a lot of energy to a small point. It would help if there were internal schematics of the ship so we could see if they use some kind of long fixed-axis particle accelerator inside. This would limit its off-axis ability and hint at even greater firepower.

[Patrick Ogaard]

--snip--
The pulse phasers should hit harder because they don't need dwell time to impart a lot of energy to a small point. It would help if there were internal schematics of the ship so we could see if they use some kind of long fixed-axis particle accelerator inside. This would limit its off-axis ability and hint at even greater firepower.

I hesitate to bring up the DS9 TM, based as much on its sloppiness as on its lack of official standing, but I do so nonetheless.

The illustrations of the Defiant's layout, in the pullouts at the back of the book, do show that the pulse phaser cannon are in fact large cylindrical structures with dimensions closely comparable to those of the torpedo launchers of the vessel. The illustrations also show that the majority of the length appears to be dominated by structures that look vaguely like the coils of a coil gun, while the rear of the weapon looks like it is composed of a short series of large, oval or spherical emitter crystals, with some kind of phaser coil doohickey between the emitter crystals and the "beam-focusing coils" referred to in the book. Page 133 of the same book shows a cutaway view of a pulse phaser, and it does no look like there is any flexibility in the mount itself, meaning that the only way to get the pulses to converge on a target or move off the fixed axis of the pulse phasers themselves should be to make adjustments at the muzzle end of the focusing coils.

(Unfortunately, this information is from the same book that gives Bajoran impulse ships six or more phase polaron beam weapons and claims that the Cardassian fighters/destroyers (Hideki class) have a mass of 120,000 metric tonnes while the Jem'Hadar attack ships are supposed to have a mass of just 2,450 metric tonnes. (Which brings up the further point that they should have just made up their minds and either said "metric tons" or just plain old "tonnes.") According to the information in the book, the Defiant outmasses a Jem'Hadar attack ship by nearly 145 to 1...)

[Paris]

The X-Wing would loose. The shields of an X-Wing can't even block laser fire. Phaser fire would penetrate them instantly. Most of the time there are is a small crew on the DF. For example Paris could fly and Tuvok could shoot! The DF wouldn't be affected by laser fire. As I stated above even navigational deflectors can block laser fire. Proton torpedoes would be destroyed by the normal countermeasures of a Star Fleet ship.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Don't resurrect dead threads, moron.

[Colonel Olrik]

locked.