Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Depends on the Enterprise, I suppose. The "newest" one has point defense that shoots down torpedoes pretty well, as I recall.

Also, torpedoes travelling at warp speed seems like about the most "informed attribute" thing ever, which is saying a bit for Trek.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

I wouldn't use anything associated with J.J. Abrahms as a source for technical accuracy and/or good design.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

As much as I like Trek, I don't think I'd go to almost anything Star Trek for technical accuracy or good design.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

IIRC, the old d20 Revised Star Wars (or whatever the official name was, the edition just before SAGA) actually had armor give characters and ships DR, and the force fields of the system also had their own DR before you could start stripping them away. Essentially, the shields had DR and HP, and only once you "killed" the shield (depleted its HP) could you start harming the ship. Personally, I favor that version of force fields over the GURPS semi-ablative DR model. Well, sort of - my ideal shield setup is one where the above is typically true, but a really powerful shot can punch through even without completely depleting the shield's HP, and really well-aimed/lucky shots are able to hit outside of their "weight class" with regards to this, but I'm still working out what the mechanics of such a scheme would look like.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Very small guns in large quantities should start running into surface area limits. Look at a late world war 2 warship, and you'll see that there's nowhere to cram in more guns. That should probably be GM fiat, with fewer small guns available on streamlined ships. Note that many real world ships had tertiary or smaller guns mounted on top of primary turrets simply because there was space there. (Mounting secondaries on top of main turrets, like the Kearsage, didn't work well...)

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

Going back to the OP, I'd generally caution that one should treat systems as written as the most highly engineered, most expensive version of the system. Variants should be worse than stock in performance and cost-effectiveness.

I base that on TL8 and TL9 spacecraft design -- for the near-term, spaceflight is so expensive that it makes little sense to skimp on the vehicle itself, aside from reductions in weight. A well designed contemporary spacecraft is as expensive per kg as possible.

Future advances will make space more accessable, and thus the spacecraft itself will (eventually) become the primary cost, at which point cost reductions become relevant, but for the most part costs seem extrapolated from TL8 stuff.

That said, contemporary spaceship design is bespoke and one-off, so you probably need to multiply costs by a factor of maybe (1000/(total number of ships in the production run)+1)? I'd have to actually do research to say for sure, but it's something like that.

Presuming that remains consistent into the future, paying more for a better system really means both getting a one-of-a-kind ship that's built for your needs specifically, and expressedly not buying low-cost components to do the job.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

I think there is room in the design system for more advanced components, even at TL8 or TL9. A TL covers a long time, and a design that is state of the art in 2020 is not going to be state of the art in 2050.

Fine and Very Fine components help smooth the transition between TLs: a TL9 Fine (efficient) fusion torch doesn't have nearly the performance of a TL 10 fusion torch, but it begins to bridge the gap.

Re: [Spaceships] Paying more for better system?
 

I think that there is room for better quality vehicles (including spacecraft) and I suggest the following modifications. Cheap components would inflict a -1 to skill to operate, +1 skill to repair, and would have a CF of 0.6. Good components would give a +1 to skill to operate, -1 skill to repair, and would have a CF of 4.0. Fine components would gives a +2 to skill to operate, -2 skill to repair, and would have a CF of 19.0. Best components would give a +(TL/2, rounded down) to skill to operate, -(TL/2, rounded down) to repair, and would have a minimum CF of 99.0 (if it is available at all). Repair costs would be modified by the CF of the quality of the component.

Instead of modifying skill, Cheap Armor would have -20% DR, Good Armor would have +20% DR, Fine Armor would have +40% DR, and Best Armor would have (+[TL/2, rounded down] * 20%) DR. Force Shields would receive a similar modification while Defensive ECM would modify the penalty to the enemy and the dodge bonus (rounded down).

So, in the case of a TL10 SM+8 streamlined spacecraft, it could purchase Cheap Nanocomposite Armor for $4M per component and receive only DR 15 per component, Good Nanocomposite Armor for $25M per component and receive DR 18 per component, Fine Nanocomposite Armor for $100M per component and receive DR 21 per component, or Best Nanocomposite Armor for $500M per component and receive DR 30 per component. Of course, only experimental spacecraft would probably benefit from Best Quality components.