StarDestroyer.Net BBS

With the pulse phasers on the Defiant I'm wondering if it would be possible making phaser turrets, similar to the turrets used on the war version of Voyager.

Imagine turrets from battleships in the real navies of today, and imagine a possible Trek turret that rotates fast, capable to target from capital ships to fighters and fires twin pulse phasers.
Now imagine the old Nebula, slowly being phased out of service. Adding six turrets on top of the saucer and underneath, one turret placed 80 meters to the right of the bridge and one to the left and one 60 meters in front, and underneath placed in the same pattern. Would this make the Nebula a better warship?

Its possible we have seen an example of these weapons. The Galaxy-X had a very strange series of protrusions near the bridge. Two of them are possible turreted pulse phaser cannons.

Dark Primus wrote:With the pulse phasers on the Defiant I'm wondering if it would be possible making phaser turrets, similar to the turrets used on the war version of Voyager.

Imagine turrets from battleships in the real navies of today, and imagine a possible Trek turret that rotates fast, capable to target from capital ships to fighters and fires twin pulse phasers.
Now imagine the old Nebula, slowly being phased out of service. Adding six turrets on top of the saucer and underneath, one turret placed 80 meters to the right of the bridge and one to the left and one 60 meters in front, and underneath placed in the same pattern. Would this make the Nebula a better warship?

Why? Turrets are easy point targets to hit with phaser fire. I've lost count of the times we've heard one of the Starfleet ship Capitans say 'target their weapons and fire' and a few seconds later, reports of their weapons being disabled. The beam arrays look to be able to direct their beam far mroe accuratly and easier then a turret. They don't need a mechnical strearing system. The beam arrays cover such a large arc that its much harder to shut the entire array down.

Chris O'Farrell wrote: Why?

It could provide the ship larger fire coverage and extra firepower

Chris O'Farrell wrote: Turrets are easy point targets to hit with phaser fire.

They will have to get through the shields first.

Look into Sacrifice of Angels, Federation ships mostly fired one phaser beam at one enemy target while there were hundreds of enemy ships out there. If the larger ships had phaser turrets then they might have taken out several Jem'Hadar fighters in much shorter time.

Chris O'Farrell wrote:
Why? Turrets are easy point targets to hit with phaser fire. I've lost count of the times we've heard one of the Starfleet ship Capitans say 'target their weapons and fire' and a few seconds later, reports of their weapons being disabled.

To me, this was always why I hated the phaser strip system. It's obvious from countless episodes that the weapons have no redundancy or independence from a central point- a few sweet hits, heck just one, and you can lose *everything*, even if your weapons are actually physically undamaged. If they added turrets capable of operating independently, this wouldn't be a problem.

The beam arrays look to be able to direct their beam far mroe accuratly and easier then a turret. They don't need a mechnical strearing system. The beam arrays cover such a large arc that its much harder to shut the entire array down.

But as you said, it happens all the time anyway. It doesn't seem to have any redundancy advantage at all. Indeed, we don't even know if the strip system provides for such a 'shut the entire array down' counter-measure. Remember those special effects we see of the two pulses of energy running along the strip, meeting at a certain point, and then emitting the beam? What if the strip is interrupted? What happens? Where does that interrupted phaser pulse go? Whatever happens it can't be good, let me put it that way.

Vympel wrote: But as you said, it happens all the time anyway. It doesn't seem to have any redundancy advantage at all. Indeed, we don't even know if the strip system provides for such a 'shut the entire array down' counter-measure. Remember those special effects we see of the two pulses of energy running along the strip, meeting at a certain point, and then emitting the beam? What if the strip is interrupted? What happens? Where does that interrupted phaser pulse go? Whatever happens it can't be good, let me put it that way.

Not necessarily, we see in...Sacrifice of Angels I think a Galaxy fire two beams from one strip, so if the strip is interrupted by damage it might lessen the overall power but shouldn't shut down the array entirely.

What made me wonder, in the case of phaser turrets in ST, is ST II.

We clearly see that the phasers in ST II
A)are being shot from turrets (Relaint and Enterprise)
and B)are fired in pulses.

I wonder why thy have abbonded that concept.....

Were they being fired from turrets? I seem to recall the phasers firing from fixed batteries set in a 3/4s circle.

Tribun wrote:What made me wonder, in the case of phaser turrets in ST, is ST II.

We clearly see that the phasers in ST II
A)are being shot from turrets (Relaint and Enterprise)
and B)are fired in pulses.

I wonder why thy have abbonded that concept.....

Perhaps the same reason as in Babylon 5. The beams are more powerful.

I found this two statements:

In "Star Trek II : The Wrath of Khan" both the Enterprise and the Reliant fire phasers which are somewhere between the usual continuous beams and pulses. The ships produce rapid fire composed of short streams, each perhaps a couple of hundred metres long.

This time, however, the visible element of the phasers were quite different; instead of the small "ball turret" design, modern Starfleet ships sported "phaser arrays" - strips on the hull which ranged from tens to hundreds of metres in length.

From where?

And how does it pertain?

Got it from http://www.ditl.org/index.htm?daybody=/ ... hasers.htm

I don't think the TOS ever had enough detailed shots to show for certain that ball turrets were ever used.

Oh there are two very good shots, of which I sadly have no picture.

-When in TMP the Enterprise is shown very slow, the turrets can be seen easily.
-In ST IV, when the camere shows the name "ENTERPRISE NCC-1701-A", the front phaser bank is clearly in view.

I don't have the DVDs and I don't recall the scenes.

Though in regards to WoK, I'm not seeing the turret. It looks like a port as opposed to a ball turret.

Enterprise forward phaser.

They are in obvious view throughout the Wrath of Khan. The enterprise uses it's forward ventral phaser bank against the Reliant in the first battle, again in it's first shot in the nebula (it misses), and lastly a direct hit is scored on the Reliant's starboard warp nacelle by this bank. The Enterprise also scores a bridge hit on the Reliant with it's starboard phaser banks.

The Reliant, throughout the movie, uses its rollbar forward mounted phaser banks- which are obviously capable of off-axis fire (the Reliant's first surprise strafing against the engineering section).

They aren't turrets, but the two 'balls' placed in each of them are capable of off-axis fire, IMO.

And these weapons were still in use in the TNG/DS9 era: note that the Miranda, Oberth, and Excelsior class were still around. Do we ever see them firing phasers in TNG/DS9?

I know they're capable of off-axis fire, I just don't remember them ever using ball turrets.

Does the ability negate the benefits of using a moving turrets?

I'm not sure, but I think Vympel might be mixing up his terminology. The small balls on the saucer (top and bottom) as well as the secondary hull aren't turrets, per se. They are point (as opposed to strip) phaser emitters, partly protruding from the hull. I don't know about their fire arc (although their spheroid shape suggests that they are capable of off-axis fire).

To me, a turret is something like the big square-sided turbolaser batteries we see in Star Wars. A Star Trek turret would probably be a disc protruding from the hull with point emitters on them. The turret could move through a large arc and elevate, massively increasing the arc of fire of those phasers.

I've always felt that the advantage of the strip phaser system is that every firing chamber added its' energy into the next in the sequence, increasing the maximum output by a hundred times or thereabouts. The disadvantage, of course, is it sets limits on the number of firing points you can have on any given surface of the ship.

Oddly enough, I wonder if the Reliant's roll-bar phasers were more powerful than the standard type (which we see on its' saucer section). The obvious anology is the future Ent-D's axial ship-killer cannon in 'All Good Things...'

BenRG wrote:I'm not sure, but I think Vympel might be mixing up his terminology. The small balls on the saucer (top and bottom) as well as the secondary hull aren't turrets, per se. They are point (as opposed to strip) phaser emitters, partly protruding from the hull. I don't know about their fire arc (although their spheroid shape suggests that they are capable of off-axis fire).

But I didn't call them turrets. I called them banks.

Chris O'Farrell wrote: Why? Turrets are easy point targets to hit with phaser fire. I've lost count of the times we've heard one of the Starfleet ship Capitans say 'target their weapons and fire' and a few seconds later, reports of their weapons being disabled. The beam arrays look to be able to direct their beam far mroe accuratly and easier then a turret. They don't need a mechnical strearing system. The beam arrays cover such a large arc that its much harder to shut the entire array down.

However, the use of the pulse phasers on the Defiant makes it clear that the pulse phasers are considerably more powerful than beam phasers. Presumably a mix would be the preferred fit.

Howedar wrote:However, the use of the pulse phasers on the Defiant makes it clear that the pulse phasers are considerably more powerful than beam phasers. Presumably a mix would be the preferred fit.

I think someone (maybe DW?) calculated that pulse phasers are more effective against shields while beam phasers are more effective against hulls and armour. Maybe you could have 'dual-mode' phasers which you could switch between pulse and beam mode as required.

Here are some close up pics (best i could find) on the movie era phasers:

Pic 1.

Pic 2.

Pic 3.

Pic 4. (just above shuttle bay doors.)

And here is a shot of a Miranda on DS9 firing from the movie era bank.

Pic.

And the Miranda roll bar phasers.

Pic.

Bottom right corner.

Bye bye Majestic.

Dark Primus wrote:With the pulse phasers on the Defiant I'm wondering if it would be possible making phaser turrets, similar to the turrets used on the war version of Voyager.

Imagine turrets from battleships in the real navies of today, and imagine a possible Trek turret that rotates fast, capable to target from capital ships to fighters and fires twin pulse phasers.
Now imagine the old Nebula, slowly being phased out of service. Adding six turrets on top of the saucer and underneath, one turret placed 80 meters to the right of the bridge and one to the left and one 60 meters in front, and underneath placed in the same pattern. Would this make the Nebula a better warship?

Its not official, but this is an interesting concept based on your assertion.

http://www.treknology.org/locust.jpg

The primary weapon being a dual PP turret and the secondary being fixed PPC ala Defient. Any way, Trek would benifit from moving away from the Phaser strip too independent turrets or emplacements. They tend to link all of their systems together and have catestrophic weapons lose when the microwave on deck 8 burns out.

The older Federation ships, I belive the pre-ambassador class era, have the ball turret design for the phasers(from what we have seen). The Ambassador class was the first/oldest ship class we have seen use the phaser strips/arrays.
The "ball turret" designation is accurate because they perform much like the ball turrets found on the underside of the B-17. They can rotate much better than the turrets seen on the Death Star for instance that only go side to side with minimal up and down arcs. The ball turret can go in all directions and is only limited by the hull of the ship itself.
It has been said that the phaser arrays were introduced on order to make them harder to disable and increase power of the phaser, plus they are obviously able to shoot off-axis. Also we have seen one phaser array fire multiple beams at once, so that is yet another advantage.
If anyone has seen an older ship class armed with phaser arrays than the ambassador class please speak up.