Theoretically, yes, but on practice, no. CT in particular gives you simple ratings which compare to each other in some way, but not to any units you could enumerate. Of course, ANY system that uses damage points must in some way have a system like that, but the pure FFS doesn't really need it; with a little thought, you can make up your own combat system, since you are given weapon outputs and sensor characteristics, all in real world numbers.
As to making Star Trek items... well, of course FFS doesn't have lists for another proprietary universe, but as was mentioned, it wouldn't be too hard to come up with them on your own. Maybe if you got hold of that ship designer they have, you might be able to figure it out.
I personally would be disinclined toward something so radically different, partly because of the amount of work that would be involved and partly because I don't believe there's enough consistency to worry about it. I personally prefer stuff that's close to being realistic, or that deviates only in a few small areas.
The so-called warp nacelles and the nearly unlimited antimatter power output allow the Enterprise to have a dense, meter thick hull (or was it 2 meters?) with ridiculously ungainly shapes that even "open frame" or "close frame" cannot really encompass. You'd be forced to design every single geometric piece of the ship, and that's not really all that fun after the thrid or fourth ship. There's no acceleration, weapons are very high powered (that one's a minor gripe about GURPS too), and there's no good workaround for the transporter bomb, followed by warfare dominated by transporters.
When I break the laws of physics, I want it to be for a good reason, beyond "it looks cool for the 60's".
