How powerful are photon torpedoes, really?

[Mikey]

There are most definitely different types of photons... mark this and mark that. Janeway had specifically mentioned that Voyager was carrying a newer model of photons than had been in service at the time the Cardassian dreadnought weapon was designed, and so they might be able to punch through its shields even though the weapon had been designed to withstand photons.

Combine that with the variable yields, and the answer to the title of this thread is canonically "anything and everything," I guess.

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

There are most definitely different types of photons... mark this and mark that. Janeway had specifically mentioned that Voyager was carrying a newer model of photons than had been in service at the time the Cardassian dreadnought weapon was designed, and so they might be able to punch through its shields even though the weapon had been designed to withstand photons.

Combine that with the variable yields, and the answer to the title of this thread is canonically "anything and everything," I guess.

It's what I've always thought. How powerful are they? As powerful as they need to be.

[stitch626]

Well, they most likely have an upper range (some physics has to apply to Trek, )

[Mikey]

The only physical law that consistently applies to 'Trek is "Physics shall be applied in such a manner as is most convenient to the plot purposes of the writer."

[Sionnach Glic]

Right, we've established that photorps have a variable yield. Going from the incident Thorin posted about earlier, we have an upper limit of around a gigatonne. It's probably likely that few torps are actualy in this range, however, as we don't see them that often, and they can't be easy to make.

[Teaos]

It might not be that they are easy or hard to make. Its that the Federation doesnt like using something that powerful since it lacks control.

[mlsnoopy]

The most powerfull PT type is probably the one used foe planatery bombardment. But such a weapon is probably useless in ship to ship combat.

[Sionnach Glic]

I'd imagine it'd be the opposite. Such weapons would be phenomenally useful in ship to ship combat, simply for their power. Where as the Federation would be less likely to lob such powerful weapons at a planet.

[Teaos]

We've seen the Feds and almost evryone tries to disable rather than blow up.

Thus they wouldnt want to use a powerful torpedo since it would not have the same control.

[mlsnoopy]

But you don't use a tomahawk to shoot down a plane.

[Sionnach Glic]

We've seen the Feds and almost evryone tries to disable rather than blow up.

Thus they wouldnt want to use a powerful torpedo since it would not have the same control.

Ah, of course. I forgot that the Feds are idiots when it comes to anything pertaining to war.

[Mikey]

True, but I would say it in terms that civilian purposes dictate the UFP's waging of war.

The Fed philosophy has always seemd to have been "the minimum amounf of force required;" in addition, increasing the yield of torp would reduce its range, speed, mobility, etc. - aren't the sustainer engines powered by the same M/AM stock which the PT uses for its warhead?

[Teaos]

We've debated this Rochey. Disabling a enemy ship is almost always better than blowing it up.

[Sionnach Glic]

Not in open warfare such as the Dominion War it isn't.

[Teaos]

Were we talking about the Dominion war?

I thought we were just talking about generic ship to ship combat.