Flare Sci-Fi Forums: starship roles

This is topic starship roles in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/1022.html

Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :

On a different thread Targetemployee said:
"I have seen the ship specifications in the DS9TM and on various web pages. I am surprised at how similiar the specifications are for each ship. I would think that the classes would have varied performance and weapon capabilities based on their primary missions.
This is supported by canonical Trek. "

This has always bothered me. Why do they even have different classes of ships when they all seem to be able to do exactly the same things?- phasers, photons, etc....

So - what can we justifiy as differences between the classes?

------------------
TK

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

While a Miranda-Class might have the same brand of phasers and photons, she's not nearly a match for the Galaxy-Class, which I'm sure has more emmiters. But specific?

The Galaxy-Class is the clearest example. She's a dedicated exploration ship, designed to operate far outside of the reaches of the Federation with maximum comforts for the crew.

On the other end of the spectrum, you've got the Defiant, with almost no crew comforts, and maxed to the gills with weaponry.

I'm sure the roll of the Miranda-Class has changed since they were first introduced, and I wouldn't be surprised if their main jobs are routine -- follow up research, transportation of VIPs, "showing the flag", etcetra.

Also, since the question is, "why does Starfleet have so many classes of ships that do the same thing?" you gotta understand that the UFP keeps older classes in service longer. The lifetime of a Miranda-Class starship seems to be well over one hundred years, possible longer with regular refits and oil-changes.

Imagine if the US had such lifespans on its warships. You could (presumably) see a 1940's aircraft carrier launching an F-14. (Well, not really, but I think the point I'm trying to get across is clear).

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :

*SCREAMS*

------------------
"Lately I've noticed that everyone seems to trust me. It's really quite unnerving. I'm still trying to get used to it."
- Garak, "Empok Nor"

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

WHAT?!

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

Actually? Up until the mid-90s, we DID have that. USS Midway (CV-41) was commissioned in 1945. She was too small for F-14s, but could & did operate F/A-18 squadrons until decom.

------------------
"You just push off....and the falling sort of happens on its own." ---Dave Titus

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

I thought F-14s took up less space, what w/ the folding wings and all...

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

Well, sitting quietly in a corner, the "turkey" might actually take up less room (especially since you can park those in very compact alternate nose-tail rows if you have to) - but I'm sure it needs a heck of a lot more landing space, deck length, catapult power...

Which reminds me, I sure would wish to see those Starfleet interceptors fold their wings. Unless they have that capability, I can't see how they could fit inside any shuttlebay, or even land comfortably on a flat surface. There's a rather suitable fold line in the wings, outboard of the wing cannon.

Timo Saloniemi