Cloaked Phaser mines

[Kitsune]

I'm sorry that canon visual evidence doesn't suit you, but that's the evidence that counts.

Let me try a specifc way of stating this. I do not watch "Star Trek" regularly, I am not a Trekker or a Trekkie. Most of the Sci-Fi I read has ranges in the 100,000 of kilometers to the distance of several light seconds. The mines in one of those universes are bomb plumbed x-ray lasers with ranges of at least 20,000 km. I do not really recall the ranges that the fights show and was looking for numbers, say 5 km, 10 km, 100 km, 1000 km, or whatever you think the distances are.

Presumably a gravitic mine does this already.

I am not sure on your reference as it compared to star trek, are you saying that "stationary" mines really are not startionary?

Mines complicate navigational problems for an attacker, and as every object in space is already in motion, the chance of hitting a small object among thousands scattered within a ship's flight zone is fairly reasonable.

Damn the Torpedoes, full speed ahead. In other words, non mobile mines would cover a small enough percentage of space for this to be unlikely. There is a tiny (I would use the term remote) chance of striking a mine. The problem is that unless you just want all your mines drifting out of the area they are protecting, they either must have drives to keep station (which should have been the case with the DS-9 mines) or they use local gravity conditions (ie: they orbit the planet) to keep a known position. You don't want a mine to drift and hit that shipyard you are protecting, for example.

Then all you need at most are thrusters and a warhead, not a phaser platform.

The reason why I support "Phaser Platform" mines is because they are reusable. Guided warhead type mines are a different category which I am arguing would be far more effective than purely stationary mines. It is a simple matter of distance.

Neither SLMM or CAPTOR quite fit the same description of independently mobile mines that manoeuvre to targets within a mine zone; one simply delivers surface-bob warheads from a submarine launch platform, the second is more accurately described as a remote torpedo launcher and is an antisubmarine weapon. And SLMM is useless outside littoral waters.

There is little reason why software changes (and maybe some sensor changes) would not allow the Mk 46 torpedo to go after surface targets as well.

[Kitsune]

How so?
Mines take no active role.
Literally you're adding an option to a device that isn't meant to anything but a deterrent for oncoming enemies.

basically, space is so vast that stationary mines would be no deterrant unless they are put down in overwelming numbers which a smaller number of mobile mines is more effective at covering an area. basically it is simple math.

Plus with the mobile mines you have the immediate problem of them requiring maintience something which a stationary mine does not require. So you now have to waste manpower and more resources because it moves.

Even a static mine will require maintance. It will be hit by micro-meteorites and have to be chacked once in a while to make sure it is operating.

Think of the mine something like a modern missile, it is protected until it fires at the enemy ship. The drive is only used once and could be the type that even burns itslef out, it does not matter. It does not move around on a regular basis.

[Sarevok]

The reason why I support "Phaser Platform" mines is because they are reusable. Guided warhead type mines are a different category which I am arguing would be far more effective than purely stationary mines. It is a simple matter of distance.

The problem with a "phaser mine" is that they would lack the punch to hurt starships compared to a similar sized explosive mines. Due to their small size mines can not mount powerful phasers or power sources. They would also lack shields which means once detected a capital ship could instantly destroy them.

[Kitsune]

That is good idea. How about using modified photon torpedoes with small impulse engines attached to them ?

Something very much like that, I am not sure if Trek probes use the "thow" of a photon torpedo launcher or they have their own drive but if they do, that might be something workable.

[Kitsune]

The problem with a "phaser mine" is that they would lack the punch to hurt starships compared to a similar sized explosive mines. Due to their small size mines can not mount powerful phasers or power sources. They would also lack shields which means once detected a capital ship could instantly destroy them.

Alot of this ties in with hard numbers which Trek just does not seem to have, something like these are effective (for example) in the B-5 universe with the weapon platforms.

[Ghost Rider]

basically, space is so vast that stationary mines would be no deterrant unless they are put down in overwelming numbers which a smaller number of mobile mines is more effective at covering an area. basically it is simple math.

But the reason one uses mines is because one can establish chokepoints.

And simple math also dictates that mobile object cost dramatically more and require more manpower to maintain than a stationary warhead.

Even a static mine will require maintance. It will be hit by micro-meteorites and have to be chacked once in a while to make sure it is operating.

Think of the mine something like a modern missile, it is protected until it fires at the enemy ship. The drive is only used once and could be the type that even burns itslef out, it does not matter. It does not move around on a regular basis.

And this even begin to cover the fact I need a team out there to maintain a pack of mobile warheads?

Not only that stationary warheads have none of the guidance systems nor any of the materials(fuel, engine parts...etc) required in a mobile mine.

Both are one shot...one just cost a hundred time more and requires more maintence and unless it's larger will offer far less bang for the buck...because it now can track a target

So in that case...Why don't I have a garrison there which will servie the same need as the mobile warhead...have far greater mobility and accuracy and can be reused many more times if need be?

[Sarevok]

Something very much like that, I am not sure if Trek probes use the "thow" of a photon torpedo launcher or they have their own drive but if they do, that might be something workable.

Photon torpedoes dare not self propelled They have small warp engines that are charged by the torpedo launcher. That is why it would be necessary to refit them with impulse engines

[Sea Skimmer]

That is good idea. How about using modified photon torpedoes with small impulse engines attached to them ?

Great, your mobile mine is in fact a guided missile. In real life the disparity in cost between basic naval mines and torpedoes runs is a factor of about 200-300. In space that disparity would be much larger since you need a very powerful engine to interceptor passing starships, which would probably just blast them out of space anyway. A stealth system which hides what's basically an inert object would also be far cheaper then one which tires to hide something which must keep a sensor and computer active and then its engine emissions as well.

[Sarevok]

Alot of this ties in with hard numbers which Trek just does not seem to have, something like these are effective (for example) in the B-5 universe with the weapon platforms.

Your idea is not bad. The Federation might be able to build a phaser mine that is shielded and has enough firepower. However the costs for it would run very high. It might be better to go with the weapon platform idea and build small unmanned heavily armed battlestations.

[Kitsune]

But the reason one uses mines is because one can establish chokepoints.
And simple math also dictates that mobile object cost dramatically more and require more manpower to maintain than a stationary warhead.

Other than the wormhole on DS-9, show me a location in Star Trek which ships have to go through a 10 km (or so) chokepoint to get to an objective. There are not many. Even to put a layer of static mines all around the earth is an incredibly vast number.

And this even begin to cover the fact I need a team out there to maintain a pack of mobile warheads?

Not only that stationary warheads have none of the guidance systems nor any of the materials(fuel, engine parts...etc) required in a mobile mine.

Both are one shot...one just cost a hundred time more and requires more maintence and unless it's larger will offer far less bang for the buck...because it now can track a target

So in that case...Why don't I have a garrison there which will servie the same need as the mobile warhead...have far greater mobility and accuracy and can be reused many more times if need be?

Why does many ships carry missile launchers instead of fighters, because the missile is still much cheaper than the fighter. They also require far less maintance than a fighter and they to require "warheads" to be effective.

I have never read any sources on maintance required for CAPTOR style weaponry but the assumption is that they are protected partially against the environment.

[Sarevok]

Great, your mobile mine is in fact a guided missile. In real life the disparity in cost between basic naval mines and torpedoes runs is a factor of about 200-300. In space that disparity would be much larger since you need a very powerful engine to interceptor passing starships, which would probably just blast them out of space anyway. A stealth system which hides what's basically an inert object would also be far cheaper then one which tires to hide something which must keep a sensor and computer active and then its engine emissions as well.

Good point. I forgot that a mobile mine would have to keep sensors and electronics running which could give away it's position.

[Kitsune]

Great, your mobile mine is in fact a guided missile. In real life the disparity in cost between basic naval mines and torpedoes runs is a factor of about 200-300. In space that disparity would be much larger since you need a very powerful engine to interceptor passing starships, which would probably just blast them out of space anyway. A stealth system which hides what's basically an inert object would also be far cheaper then one which tires to hide something which must keep a sensor and computer active and then its engine emissions as well.

Specifically, do you have any sources that list the cost differences between a basic naval mine and a torpedo (and or CAPTOR).

The reality is that even if we are talking 1000 times, the vastness of space cancells that out.

[Ghost Rider]

Other than the wormhole on DS-9, show me a location in Star Trek which ships have to go through a 10 km (or so) chokepoint to get to an objective. There are not many. Even to put a layer of static mines all around the earth is an incredibly vast number.

Gee I guess Picard's chokepoint was something made up then

Literally you are the one proposing to use a one shot deterrant in space.

And like Patrick said...Trek has established chokepoints...if you don't like then cry about it to canon.

Why does many ships carry missile launchers instead of fighters, because the missile is still much cheaper than the fighter. They also require far less maintance than a fighter and they to require "warheads" to be effective.

I have never read any sources on maintance required for CAPTOR style weaponry but the assumption is that they are protected partially against the environment.

Huh...so your analogy of an offensive weapon is of course an obvious given that a MINE is a deterrent.

So you're adding material and problems to a deterrent to convert it into an offensive design.

[Kitsune]

Good point. I forgot that a mobile mine would have to keep sensors and electronics running which could give away it's position.

Why are we making the assumtion that passive sensors cannot detect starships coming byeven an old fashion motion senor improved. The mine detects motion, powers up subspace detection sensors sensors (who knows if they are passive or active) and then does a target selection.

In a trek mine, unless they go back to old fashion nuke warheads, they have to keep a magnetic bottle to contain the anti-matter, so they require power as well.

[Sea Skimmer]

I have never read any sources on maintance required for CAPTOR style weaponry but the assumption is that they are protected partially against the environment.

Once deployed you can't maintain CAPTOR, its batteries run dead after not to long and then its useless, eventually it would spring leaks and sink to the bottom. It's the same story for all acoustical mines, they also cost far more, though CAPTOR is much worse since its an acoustical mine plus a torpedo.

Which don't rely on batteries of any form,can last for a considerable period of time, decades in rare cases. But any mobile space mine is going to need all sorts of powered systems.

[CDiehl]

Let's think about what we need to make this work. We will need an explosive device capable of damaging or destroying a starship, a propulsion device (maneuvering thrusters or equivalent, impulse and/or warp drive) with navigation systems, a cutting phaser, sensors capable of recognizing Federation ships, and a cloaking device. I imagine such a mine would sit, cloaked, until an enemy ship approaches within range of its engine, then it maneuvers alongside the ship, cuts a hole in the hull, then flies in and detonates, wasting at least part of the interior of the ship. If a way can be found to build these things cheaply and quickly, tens of thousands of them could be set up in each system. With a cheap warp drive, or a means to accelerate them to warp externally, they can be quickly deployed to attack anywhere in the system or beyond.

[Rogue 9]

Damn the Torpedoes, full speed ahead.

Not quite sure where you're getting this, but the quote as I remember it is "Damn the submarines! Turn on the lights!" in reference to turning on the deck lights on a World War II carrier in order to help their air wing find its way back. Intelligence indicated Japanese submarines in the area which made lighting the ship dangerous.

[Isolder74]

Damn the Torpedoes, full speed ahead.

Not quite sure where you're getting this, but the quote as I remember it is "Damn the submarines! Turn on the lights!" in reference to turning on the deck lights on a World War II carrier in order to help their air wing find its way back. Intelligence indicated Japanese submarines in the area which made lighting the ship dangerous.

The phrase come from the Civil War when the Navy was attacking Vicksburg. The offocer said Damn the Torpedos(mines in those days) Full speed ahead.

[Patrick Degan]

Damn the Torpedoes, full speed ahead.

Not quite sure where you're getting this, but the quote as I remember it is "Damn the submarines! Turn on the lights!" in reference to turning on the deck lights on a World War II carrier in order to help their air wing find its way back. Intelligence indicated Japanese submarines in the area which made lighting the ship dangerous.

The phrase come from the Civil War when the Navy was attacking Vicksburg. The offocer said Damn the Torpedos(mines in those days) Full speed ahead.

Slight error: Although Farragut was at Vicksburg, he uttered the famous quote at Mobile Bay in 1864.

[Isolder74]

Slight error: Although Farragut was at Vicksburg, he uttered the famous quote at Mobile Bay in 1864.

That's right got them mixed up( the locations)

[Kitsune]

Gee I guess Picard's chokepoint was something made up then
Literally you are the one proposing to use a one shot deterrant in space.
And like Patrick said...Trek has established chokepoints...if you don't like then cry about it to canon.

Since we are talking about conversation, we can also assume that Picard really does not know what he is talking about. Since his statement flys against the reality of space, I go with reality vice his conversation. Face it, you sometimes watch star trek and their characters do something or something is shown and you are left scratching your head.

The simple facts are this, space is three dimensional where the ocean usually is usually a two dimensional problem. As well, space involves volumes that are millions (at least) time more than any Naval problem. I don't see any means that and form of stationary contact mines could effectively cover that kind of volume. This means that a different solution must be needed, these include mobile mines, energy weapon platforms, and missile platforms.

Huh...so your analogy of an offensive weapon is of course an obvious given that a MINE is a deterrent.

So you're adding material and problems to a deterrent to convert it into an offensive design.

I really don't know how to answer this one, but I will try
In the early part of the Twentieth Century and prior to that as well, there were massive cannon implacements on shoreside fortresses. They are an offensive weapon but their purpose is to deter attacks at a fixed location or prevent passage. This is a similar situation. For example, you might put enough mobile mines or weapon platforms around a planet to protect it.

[Kitsune]

Let's think about what we need to make this work. We will need an explosive device capable of damaging or destroying a starship, a propulsion device (maneuvering thrusters or equivalent, impulse and/or warp drive) with navigation systems, a cutting phaser, sensors capable of recognizing Federation ships, and a cloaking device. I imagine such a mine would sit, cloaked, until an enemy ship approaches within range of its engine, then it maneuvers alongside the ship, cuts a hole in the hull, then flies in and detonates, wasting at least part of the interior of the ship. If a way can be found to build these things cheaply and quickly, tens of thousands of them could be set up in each system. With a cheap warp drive, or a means to accelerate them to warp externally, they can be quickly deployed to attack anywhere in the system or beyond.

I don't see any way of "Drilling" through a hull. The brute force approach is most likely the only way that works. There may be a few ways of doing this. One is to mount essentally a photon torpedo warhead on the impulse engine of a probe (which according to the DS-9 book they have - not cannon the only souce we have), come up with some type of phaser mount, and/or maybe a sort of box launcher which launches photon torpedoes

[Kitsune]

Your idea is not bad. The Federation might be able to build a phaser mine that is shielded and has enough firepower. However the costs for it would run very high. It might be better to go with the weapon platform idea and build small unmanned heavily armed battlestations.

Problem with Semantics, when is something a "weapons platform" and when is something a "mine." We have to decide which is which for ourself and what you might consider a weapons platform and I might consider a mine and vice versa might be two different things.

[Ghost Rider]

Since we are talking about conversation, we can also assume that Picard really does not know what he is talking about. Since his statement flys against the reality of space, I go with reality vice his conversation. Face it, you sometimes watch star trek and their characters do something or something is shown and you are left scratching your head.

Nice way to side step the very fact that visuals back his statement up or the ROMULANS would've went around it .

So you're saying that the canon of the show is not proof but that they should've used reality instead? I guess the usage of "Suspension of Disbelief" isn't quite getting through.

The simple facts are this, space is three dimensional where the ocean usually is usually a two dimensional problem. As well, space involves volumes that are millions (at least) time more than any Naval problem. I don't see any means that and form of stationary contact mines could effectively cover that kind of volume. This means that a different solution must be needed, these include mobile mines, energy weapon platforms, and missile platforms.

So fancier one shot weapons are better then the simple explosive because they take more resources but accomplish the same thing?

Let's see...with all these defenses...I still can approach from a different side of said planet or objective....unless I MUST go to that point...in which floating explosives will work just as well as a deterrent.

Giving mines cloacking and mobility is the same as the pointless subspace Jem' Hadar minefield...more expensive fancier bullshit in which the simpler solution is more cost effective and efficent.

I really don't know how to answer this one, but I will try
In the early part of the Twentieth Century and prior to that as well, there were massive cannon implacements on shoreside fortresses. They are an offensive weapon but their purpose is to deter attacks at a fixed location or prevent passage. This is a similar situation. For example, you might put enough mobile mines or weapon platforms around a planet to protect it.

A cannon is the same thing as a floating explosive which requires an enemy to happen upon it, and once struck is used up. gee...guess they never reloaded the object .

Literally your mobile mine or cloaked phaser platform would be better used either as mobile vessel or as inexpensive explosives which act as choke points(which canon has established in that particular universe...unless you have proof otherwise)

Adding pointless and expensive frivolities do not improve a weapon and make it seem more inane when put toward any practical use.

[Kitsune]

Nice way to side step the very fact that visuals back his statement up or the ROMULANS would've went around it .
So you're saying that the canon of the show is not proof but that they should've used reality instead? I guess the usage of "Suspension of Disbelief" isn't quite getting through.

We have no way of knowing if this is really normal. A possible explanation might be, for example, the possition which the Federation ships positioned themselves was a sensor blind spot. For example, there is some sort of large sensor arrays convering to each side of the zone. That means, this is a one time situation and not likely to repeat in 20 years of combat

Now, it has been somthing like 15 years since I have seen the episode but I remeber is was a big area, at least in the thousands of kilometers which would be impractical to mine and in this case, it would be the risk of detection that is the cause.

So fancier one shot weapons are better then the simple explosive because they take more resources but accomplish the same thing?

Let's see...with all these defenses...I still can approach from a different side of said planet or objective....unless I MUST go to that point...in which floating explosives will work just as well as a deterrent.

Giving mines cloacking and mobility is the same as the pointless subspace Jem' Hadar minefield...more expensive fancier bullshit in which the simpler solution is more cost effective and efficent.

I am asking specifically if you are talking about contact mines because the odds of a collision are basically non-existant or close to it. Now, a mine which can sprint at a target or fire beams can cover alot more space.

A cannon is the same thing as a floating explosive which requires an enemy to happen upon it, and once struck is used up. gee...guess they never reloaded the object

Literally your mobile mine or cloaked phaser platform would be better used either as mobile vessel or as inexpensive explosives which act as choke points(which canon has established in that particular universe...unless you have proof otherwise)

Adding pointless and expensive frivolities do not improve a weapon and make it seem more inane when put toward any practical use.

I a Janes book on ground systems, it lists ground platform harpoon type system, that is the modern equivelent of shore cannon mounts and is similar in many respect to my concepts.