TNG - The Big Goodbye

[Madner Kami]

There are instances, where the Enterprise uses the phasers in ways that are very reminiscent of rapid-fire point defense weaponry, older than the pew pew of the JJ-Verse. TNG, season 5, episode 14, "Conundrum" immediatly comes to mind. The Enterprise is attacked by multiple smaller, quick ships and uses it's disc's ventral phaser stripe to quickly dispatch of 7 attacking vessels within the time-span of less than 2 seconds. At one instance, the Enterprise uses it's phasers to succesfully intercept a missile fired by a Ferengi-ship in season 3's episode 8 "The Price", for example. That we do not see phasers used in this capacity more often, is likely a question of the show's budget, rather than a lack of ability.

As for rapid-fire pew pew, this is also not new and not just happening in the JJ-verse. May I remind you of the USS Ben Sisko's Motherfucking Pimphand? Or both the USS Reliant and the refit Enterprise whenever she fires her phasers during and after "Wrath of Khan"?

Oh and mentioning "Wrath of Khan", there's a very peculiar scene that can be read as softly implying an attempt to intercept a photon torpedo with phasers, as during the surprise attack Reliant fires a single torpedo to which Kirk instantly reacts with "Sulu divert all power to phasers!", to which Spock says: "Too late" as the torpedo is already less than the blink of an eye away from impacting on the Enterprise's unshielded hull.

[Deledrius]

Yes, I mentioned that. I do remember.

[drewder]

The idea that ground vehicles don't exist anymore in the 24th century is extremely suspect to me at least in a military context. That kind of thing is sorely missing on countless ST battlefields. No personnel carriers, no mechanized infantry and no armored vehicles. These seem like they would be very useful as flying equivalents would be easy to shoot down with futuristic sensors and guidance systems. Considering the apparent absence of the transporters on ST battlefields, just moving troops around the lines on foot seems like it would cause more fatigue and attrition than modern troops suffer.

Presumably, you could just have shuttles and the like fly a couple feet off the ground and achieve the same effect.

And people in the 60s thought helicopters would replace APCs for the same reasons. We still have APCs. Air cav has diminished from its old hyped up position since then precisely because the sky is a more lethal environment for slow, lumbering vehicles than the ground and we all know how well Trek shuttles fair when under fire.

* With current technology and costs. Of course.

That is the big disclaimer you forgot to add to your statement. I assume you meant to, and just forgot.

Having slow, lumbering craft hundreds of feet about the ground isn't a good idea in a major war setting. I would not want to be in a shuttle flying around during the Dominion War anymore than I would have been in air cav over the Fulda Gap.

Shuttles are not helicopters though. They are faster, more manoeuvrable, heavily armed, can accelerate and decelerate to and from FTL speeds and insane mach speeds, faster than you can read this sentence, and have sensor suites able to read any potential battlefield in a way that makes any surveillance tech we have now, much less the seventies and eighties you are comparing them to, look like a tin can on a string, so the comparison to 80s helicopters is complete fatuous. And just for the record, tanks and APCs in any hypothetical Fulda Gap scenario would toasted by the nukes dropped there, because the idea of a massive tank or infantry battle was a fiction sold to the public to cover up just how quickly things would go nuclear. Thank you for coming to my TED talk, the exit is to your left, please visit the gift shop on your way out.

Any increase in technology for making the shuttles stronger, faster, more maneuverable than a modern helicopter would be equally compensated by competing technologies designed to target and destroy such a shuttle. We've seen in star trek that power signatures are the main method of tracking enemy vessels and the more energy a shuttle puts out with its powerful engines the faster it would be targeted. A ground vehicle would require less energy and could thereby be more stealthy with the option of completely turning off its engines in the event its being actively scanned for.
Also don't forget "Try to look unimportant; the enemy may be low on ammo and not want to waste a bullet on you."

[pilight]

I find it very odd that this episode prompted a discussion of Federation ground combat tactics

[Deledrius]

I find it very odd that this episode prompted a discussion of Federation ground combat tactics

Discussions are funny that way. Tangents happen because a topic comes up, and then takes on a life of its own. Always fascinating.

[Riedquat]

Any increase in technology for making the shuttles stronger, faster, more maneuverable than a modern helicopter would be equally compensated by competing technologies designed to target and destroy such a shuttle. We've seen in star trek that power signatures are the main method of tracking enemy vessels and the more energy a shuttle puts out with its powerful engines the faster it would be targeted. A ground vehicle would require less energy and could thereby be more stealthy with the option of completely turning off its engines in the event its being actively scanned for.
Also don't forget "Try to look unimportant; the enemy may be low on ammo and not want to waste a bullet on you."

It happens to a degree yet overall change still occurs, which is why warfare these days is nevertheless rather different than it was when people were throwing rocks at each other.

[Fianna]

Any increase in technology for making the shuttles stronger, faster, more maneuverable than a modern helicopter would be equally compensated by competing technologies designed to target and destroy such a shuttle. We've seen in star trek that power signatures are the main method of tracking enemy vessels and the more energy a shuttle puts out with its powerful engines the faster it would be targeted. A ground vehicle would require less energy and could thereby be more stealthy with the option of completely turning off its engines in the event its being actively scanned for.
Also don't forget "Try to look unimportant; the enemy may be low on ammo and not want to waste a bullet on you."

Given that Star Trek scanners can instantly pinpoint every living person on the surface of a planet, I doubt that's a viable option. Plus, if you're going for stealth, why choose the vehicle that will leave behind tracks in the ground?

[McAvoy]

Any increase in technology for making the shuttles stronger, faster, more maneuverable than a modern helicopter would be equally compensated by competing technologies designed to target and destroy such a shuttle. We've seen in star trek that power signatures are the main method of tracking enemy vessels and the more energy a shuttle puts out with its powerful engines the faster it would be targeted. A ground vehicle would require less energy and could thereby be more stealthy with the option of completely turning off its engines in the event its being actively scanned for.
Also don't forget "Try to look unimportant; the enemy may be low on ammo and not want to waste a bullet on you."

Given that Star Trek scanners can instantly pinpoint every living person on the surface of a planet, I doubt that's a viable option. Plus, if you're going for stealth, why choose the vehicle that will leave behind tracks in the ground?

That's the issue there. Trek sensors are pretty good, and the weapons tracking is pretty good.

We have seen natural planetary events and even tech that can defeat those sensors. Angosians come to mind from TNG. Soldiers modified to be super soldiers that cant be seen by sensors.

I am sure there are other examples too.

It seems that in Trek there would be a tech battle between being able to see and not being able to be seen.