Anyway, has anyone ever noticed and actually thought about the Galaxy class, Nebula class, the new Orleans class, the Cheyenne class, and the Akira class are of the same relation to each other.
The Akira is the only one which is not couls be for certain of the same time period in which the others are designed. Also the Galaxy according to the TNG TM states that the Galaxy class is supposed to be the Oberth and the Ambassador class in one.
So by the 2360's, Starfleet was hoping and looking at a proposed uniform fleet of Galaxy class type technology throughout the fleet. Now we all understand what stped this was the discovery of the Borg in 65'. No Borg then by the time of when the Dominion War comes around, Starfleet would have a fleet full of Nebula, New Orleans, Cheyenne class, and Akira class. Granted that the fleet might look impressive, but in reality the Borg helped Starfleet and the allies defeat the Dominion.
Just an obervation, and a few theories.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I guess this could be a pre-Borg thing as well.
The Galaxy-like ships start to appear around the time when registry numbers are in the 57000 range. That's roughly the time of the Cardassian wars, too, according to various obscure hints. And the time of conflict with the Tholians, Talarians, Tzenkethi, you-name-it... Perhaps Starfleet wanted to launch a big and beautiful Galaxy-style fleet back then, but the multiple wars meant that older types had to remain in service.
So the transition to "Galaxy generation" was never completed. Galaxy-like ships were designed for every possible application, but only built in very low numbers per class (save for the two biggest classes, Galaxy and Nebula, for which there was no available substitute among the older ships) - procurement would have been aborted when the funds were needed for keeping the older ships in service. Thus we never see the Cheyennes, Challengers, New Orleanses and others. The old Excelsiors and Mirandas are simply so vastly more numerous and common.
And now it's too late to have a full "Galaxy generation", since Starfleet has already moved forward. Now every ship and its cousin sports the Sovereign style of nacelles and usually also a non-saucerlike, longitudally stretched hull. (Incidentally, I hope the new ships introduced in future TNG movies will stick to the Sovereign style - it's way cool and not milked dry yet.)
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I hate to be the one to say it, but Starfleet had probably realized they need to get a new direction, because, as a concept, the Galaxy-class was a failure. Designed to be a powerful warship capable of carrying itself against adversaries alone, and an explorer capable of long range missions self-sufficient for years without resupply, basically didnt work. The saucer separation idea was lackluster, useful in only a minority of catastrophic situations the Enterprise faced. In combat, Galaxies are powerful, but their size and bulk costs them when fighting smaller or numerous vessels (The Odyssey, the E-D, etc). In the Dominion War, these ships were basically floating targets, especially since they presented large profiles for targeting, and Starfleet probably learned from the 'putting all your eggs in one basket' routine.
Not saying that Galaxies wouldnt have worked. It seems that after the Borg in 65 (and Wolf 359) Thed E-D was shifted from a frontier role, to a main fleet role... ferrying passengers, heading off internal disputes such as the Romulan unification incident and the Klingon civil war, and Borg invasions. I believe the original design of Sternbach, Roddenberry, et al. wasnt meant to be hopping between starbases, but instead to be out there for years at a time without visiting any base
It seems that Starfleet is reprioritizing, dividing the missions up. Intrepids for patrol and exploration, Nova scout ships for science and laboratory missions, Akirae and Sovereigns as capital ships and Defiants, Sabres, Steamrunners, Norways, Promteheus and the like for combatants.
Oh, and the Warp Core Ejection System�? 0% success rate.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Yes I understand the concept of the Galaxy class being too large for its purpose. I would imagine for 1 galaxy class, two or three smaller ships could be built and these ships would be far more efficient than than a Galaxy class.
But to me, it seems in the 40's and 50's Starfleet was preparing for the next generation of starship designs which of course was the galaxy class type. The last one was the Excelsior class and the Constitution class(es) of which we already know a few classes of similar design.
Now its now of the Sovereign class. Maybe in the next movie we will see a Miranda/Nebula type Sovereign class kitbash.
Posted by TheF0rce (Member # 533) on :
Cheyenne[sp?] didn't have Galaxy nacelles.
If the Cheyenne fits into this time period of ships then so do the Akira, according to her registry anyway. She was just refitted later on.
Now what period does the Naigara fit in?
[ February 26, 2002, 10:15: Message edited by: TheF0rce ]
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Going by the nacelles, the Niagara (as well as the Freedom) class should belong in the same time period as the Galaxy.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
Galaxy's suck in combat? Eh? I point you to Sacrifice of Angels – where the Galaxy-class ships charged into the Cardassian/Dominion fleet and ripped those Galor’s apart! As for their size – yeah, a bit on the big side . . . but still look kewl!
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
U.S.S. Galaxy: Didnt it get a big hole in it in that battle? U.S.S. Enterprise: Destroyed by BOP U.S.S. Odyssey: Destroyed by Jem-Hadar fighter
U.S.S. Yamato: Destroyed by software weapon
now, they only made 6 to start. Estimating 100 year operational lifetimes, we are looking at (possibly) less than 50% success rate at this point. No, the Galaxy-class design, as executed, is a failure. These ships were in the wrong place at the wrong time, I'll give it that, so its not just the designs fault. The design is superior, the only problem is the situations that Starfleet is using these ships for are completely inappropriate.
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
Then which timeline would the Galaxy Class be most suited for?
I do like the design of the ship... just not the function. It seems like the ships should opereate within the bounderies of Federation Space instead of the frontiers... the ships carry civilians onboard after all.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
And that was the main mistake in the first place. If they knew the ship was going to face hostile situations - why on earth put civilians and families onboard??
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I've always been rather pissed off at the slagging that the Galaxy gets. The fact so many of them got creamed has always had a lot more to do with real-world issues (ie, "we only have x many models", or "we need to scare the audience shitless in this episode by using the ship as a benchmark on which we can gauge how strong the Dominion are" etc.) than the Trek universe side of things, which asserted time and again that the Galaxy was the meanest thing Starfleet had to offer until the Defiant and Sovereign came along.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Look at the Galaxy class design:
The size of it is way too large for what it does. A smaller ship with equally powerful sensors will do a better job. The only reason why the ship is designed that large to accomodate all the families, and if you ask me that is very wasteful. Granted in wartime, the Galaxy class surpasses most ships in the amount of troops they could carry.
In combat situations yes these ships are very powerful but only when dealing with ships of similar size or not manueverable types. Ships like the Defiant, BoP, Jem Bug, and so on with even 50% of the weapon and shield power I doubt the Galaxy class would stand a chance. Too large.
When dealing with looking at ships and determining what era they are from, you can't do something that is easily swappable like a Nacelle. Those can be ejected and replaced. The Niagara, and Freedom could have had their nacelles changed for whatever reason later in their lifes. I think they are from the Ambassador design era, or later part of it. NCC numbers are not linear.
And I do think the Akira is from the Galaxy design era, because various minor changes to the exterior such as lifepods and the nacelles and you have something that closely resembles the Enterprise (E-D). Out of all the ships in FC the Akira is the only one that has more of a Federation design to it. The others are not even the right color to the standard Starfleet color scheme.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
The Galaxy class was supposed to go on missions lasting decades or more. Would you want to serve on a ship without family for that long? Would you really want to serve on the E-E. I don't know about you, but the whole ship seems so dark and closed in just like the Intrepid was so cold (everywhere, all you see is metal gray). Where's the human/whatever-alien-you-want touch? I loved the wooden railing on the bridge, the warm colors of the corridors, etc. All these "better" and newer ships seem to want a cold, metal approach. Even in the quarters!
In the Dominion War, the Galaxy class did very well. It held the lines and dished out some powerful phaser blasts. Can you name just one vessel of this class that was seen destroyed in the war? As to the various Galaxy class ships:
USS Galaxy: Yes, it did get a hole (not too big) in the Engineering section from an orbital weapons platform, but it survived to continue fighting in that same battle! Other ships including the Excelsior and Akira(!) were destroyed fairly easily as you recall.
USS Yamato: I think any ship including the Sovereign would fare the same under the virus.
USS Enterprise: Stupid Riker! Fire some torps and phasers at the BoP instead of asking for damage reports! You can fire 10 at a time! Gosh!
USS Odyssey: Same as the Yamato. Ironically, if Keogh hadn't transferrred shield power to weapons, his ship would probably have survived (he turned off his shields when the Jem'Hadar weapons penetrated through them, but a ship should not be able to pass through).
USS Venture: Looks like Starfleet recognizes that the ship needs some better aft phaser coverage and has added some phaser arrays on the nacelles (thus protecting them). The "better" Sovereign has those ridiculously long nacelles that would definitely be a liability in the close quarters combat seen in "Sacrifice of Angels" etc. The Sovereign also has very poor aft phaser coverage.
I like the Galaxy class. It represents what Star Trek means. A "star journey." It's great to show the might of the Federation, the "nice" side of the Federation, and it would be a nice place to serve on in a long mission to explore the frontier.
[ February 26, 2002, 14:32: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Well, Ace did a pretty good job covering everything I was gonna say. I haven't seen any real solid evidence to suggest that the Galaxy class starship failed in any area it was designed to do.
Someone mentioned that the Galaxy was vulnerable to smaller vessels, but that's why there are smaller Starfleet vessels which are suppose to screen larger ships like the Galaxy, just like there are BoPs to screen Vor'Chas and Negh'Vars.
Galaxy class rules. Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
the USS Galaxy only survived because of its size. hey, in the same vein as the galaxy class, wouldn't it be more efficient to make 10 small ships that carry 10 planes than to make 1 big one that carries 100? the large carrier can be screened more effectively than lots of small ones, and it can carry huge amounts of ordnance. therefor, the large carrier is more efficient. also, the navy uses tactics to make effective use of large ships. a battleship never went in alone. it had destroyers and cruisers for screening. if whoever choreographed the battles in DS9 knew about naval tactic then the battles would have been very different. besides, the dominion (which is known for it's "bug attack" fighters) had ships even bigger than the galaxy class, and no one is maligning them. big ships have a very important role in combat. talking about the galaxy class in an exploration role, who knows how the other galaxy class ships did. and maybe only Enterprise had a defective core ejection system.
--jacob
Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :
maybe this is a lil too cynical...but the realworld reason [now humor me lol] is that a bigger ship = bigger explosion = happy fanboys... entertainment is a business and thats what they're doing.....
neway..i reckon the Galaxy-Class has excelled in its role....and combat-wise, werent the galaxy class meant to act like battleships anyway giving great f***off broadsides? And well thats waht the Galaxies did in SoA. IIRC
and i wholly agree wit David Templar and EdipisReks.
Perhaps if we had 'documentation' of a wider range of classes then we might see that other ships had worse track records than the galaxy did in combat.
Buzz
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
But look at it, the battleship was obsolete when the aircraft carrier came into the scene of war. Planes costing a mere fraction and very cheap weapons can sink a battleship than another battleship of similar size and cost.
The Galaxy class is powerful and nice to look at but in reality, there are several ships on the top of my head that have similar power to the Galaxy class. Also if you remove the extra room the Galaxy class has, you'd get a ship at the most the size of the Ambassador class or smaller.
In fact the Sovereign appears to be around that size and Sovereign is only larger than the Galaxy class in length only.
The Defiant has shown to be more effective at what it does, as a warship, the Oberth class must be effective at what it does otherwise I doubt it would be in the vast numbers and service lifetime it has now. Now the Excelsior in my opinion if the ship was ever upgraded like the Lakota, I'd think those ships would be far better than the Galaxy ever was.
Think about it, if all the same technology was given to lets say the Excelsior class, do you seriously think that the Galaxy class is still superor?
Also, families on board? I will be going into the Navy in September. I will be expecting to be away from home for at least several months. Also I expect when I go into port it will not be home port. If I do have a family, their is a two word saying "Navy Needs". They will try to get me as close as possible to where my family is, but if they can't it comes down to the "Navy Needs".
You are serving your country not your family when you join a service. So a massive ship twice as large on the waves just because you don't want to be alone on your journey makes no sense.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: U.S.S. Galaxy: Didnt it get a big hole in it in that battle? U.S.S. Enterprise: Destroyed by BOP U.S.S. Odyssey: Destroyed by Jem-Hadar fighter U.S.S. Yamato: Destroyed by software weapon
USS Galaxy - yeah, but that was beacuse the Cardassian defence platforms were really powerful and overpowered its shields - it's still active.
USS Enterprise - it had it's sheilds bypassed or counteracted therefore making it's hull vulnerable to weapons.
USS Odyssey - pretty much the same as the Enterprise - weapons of the Dominion went through the shields rendering them useless.
USS Yamato - well you can't guard against everything, especially when you don't have important characters that need to survive for more than two seasons.
The Galaxy-class starship is still a bloody decent ship, despite all you critics thinking otherwise. Although I have to agree that having families is stupid.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Akb1979! You just wrote what I posted! Great minds think alike.
As to Matrix and all the Galaxy class "bashers," I shall attempt to address each issue pitted against the large vessel.
First off, yes, the ship is huge. Yes, the reason it is huge is because it houses family, but if you check out the TNG Blueprints or dialogue from the TNG episodes directly, you understand the Galaxy class is more than just a "flying hotel." Its large size is dictated by its several roles.
Explorer Matrix, you wrote about the Navy and its several months service. However, the Galaxy was designed for years of exploring and not turning around back to Earth. Picard frequently mentioned that he tried to get back to Earth only when he could.
In fact, if you actually think about it, the ship is like a moving starbase. In one episode, some aliens describe it as a "city in space."
Also, Matrix, you never answered my question. Would you honestly want to serve on a starship for several years with no family on board?
The Galaxy class ship is also a flying science station with labs, etc. It was meant to go out into space, do the exploring, and research at the same time. In the TNG TM, it states that the Galaxy is designed to replace the Oberth and Ambassador. My guess is that the Ambassador would go out, map, and find a planet. Later an Oberth would be sent to do a more detailed survey. The Galaxy class on the other hand was supposed to do both jobs. It finds the planet/nebula/whatever and does the survey and then continues on to the next object. The Enterprise seems to be an exception since it was the flagship and was always sent running around interior Federation space.
Combat
As people have said before, big ships are a staple of Star Trek combat. Matrix and several others seem to suggest that the Galaxy class fails in combat compared to smaller ships like the Klingon Bird-of-Prey and the Defiant class. However, they fail to realize the true role the Galaxy class ship has in combat (and this was shown in DS9).
If any of you guys have a model, toy, etc. of the E-D (come on, you know you do!), pick it up in one hand. Now, take your other hand and make a fist. Move your fist around the ship, above it, below it, etc. Without moving the model, you will notice that at every point you position your fist, phaser arrays, torpedo launchers, or a combination of both can still hit your fist. That is how the ship is supposed to fight (and that is what we did see in DS9). Yes, it does strafing runs like with the USS Galaxy, but as you can see, it doesn't have to worry about "getting out of the way" like the Defiant. Smaller ships need to dodge and position themselves well to attack, while the Galaxy class can simply move in a certain path and fire along at enemies without changing its course. Look at the USS Odyssey. It failed because its weapons had no effect (regardless of class, this would be a problem), but its phaser did hit the attack fighters.
And, as EdipisReks stated, the whole point of the smaller ships is to screen the larger ships. The aircraft carrier is a good comparison to the Galaxy class, but it should be noted that Star Trek never values tiny fighters (remember the begining of "SoA"?), so Matrix's analogy that, like the battleship, the Galaxy is obsolete because of cheaper "planes" doesn't really work. The ships are flying fortresses.
Hmmm, this would be easier if I had a checklist of where, exactly, the Galaxy class "fails." Akb1979 and I have both pointed out why each ship that was lost does not represent anymore of a failure than the Defiant getting destroyed by the Breen weapon. So, if you guys who feel the Galaxy is a failure would write a little list of points, I, and probably others here, would be happy to respond to them.
Now, as to the original topic, yes I agree that the Galaxy, Nebula, New Orleans, etc. are all part of the same family. The Akira could be part of the same family, or it just might be part of the "Sovereign" family along with the other FC ships, the Nova, etc. It's just that we didn't see this family as much. Wouldn't it have been interesting of the USS Equinox had been a New Orleans class? Of course, I also like the Nova class, so I don't know...
[ February 27, 2002, 13:15: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace: Akb1979! You just wrote what I posted! Great minds think alike.
I did? Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to repeat what was already said.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
And just in case Matrix missed it again: STAR TREK IS NOT A FIGHTER-ORIENTED UNIVERSE. AIRCRAFT CARRIER = JAEGER'S HASH-INDUCED RAMBLING.
This ain't no bloody Star Wars. Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Star Trek is not Star Wars, we all can agree on that. If not then leave the board.
Granted the Galaxy class is powerful and can handle herself in most situations. Smaller ships have to position themselves to get to their areas. But lets assume for a minute that the Defiant and the Galaxy class both have same shield power (we seriously don't know if they do but should be similar), now we all know that Defiant has the capability to dodge attacks, but the Galaxy class can't. In fact the Galaxy class has to planet herself and fire away, hoping that the shields hold. Yes that is a good thing only if the Galaxy class has shields that can withstand that. The Defiant class can dodge those attacks, and survive with less damage then if the Galaxy class did a similar run.
The Galaxy class was designed as a command ship, a ship to sit behind and command the ships, but at the same time be a battlecruiser or a battleship.
Now for a command ship, families on board is ok, but being a flyimg apartment does not. To answer a few questions, if you are stationed on a ship, the most likely case is that you will not see your family for at leas a year. However very few months you might be close enough to your family where they can visit you or you can visit them. That is how it really works.
Name how many times the Enterprise in her 7-8 years of service that she was at Earth, other than for a crisis, or close to Earth within a day or two distance travel?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Now for a command ship, families on board is ok, but being a flyimg apartment does not. To answer a few questions, if you are stationed on a ship, the most likely case is that you will not see your family for at leas a year. However very few months you might be close enough to your family where they can visit you or you can visit them. That is how it really works.
Name how many times the Enterprise in her 7-8 years of service that she was at Earth, other than for a crisis, or close to Earth within a day or two distance travel?
EXCEPT...
The Galaxy-class was ORIGINALLY planned to operate on exploration missions much longer than originally planned. They were going to be sent on five- or ten-year missions away from the Federation. Even longer away from home than Kirk's Enterprise was.
However, things changed. Mainly because of a certain group of aliens called the Borg. The Enterprise (and likely other ships) got held in closer to the Federation for defensive purposes. This also translated into a more diplomacy-oriented duty as well.
The bottom line: the role the Enterprise-D fulfilled in TNG was not exactly the same role that the Galaxy-class was originally designed for.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Also, I think that the E-D's role was different from most of the other Galaxy class ships because she was the flagship and had to ferry around the Federation to show its presence.
As for families, Tom Riker said after 6 months of service on the USS Gandhi [Edit: This sentence has been rewritten for clarity], he could bring family onboard. This seems to imply that assignments of 6 months or less do not allow families while longer missions do.
There is proof of missions lasting several years. The USS Olympia in "The Sound of Her Voice" was on an eight (8) year mission of exploration. Can you imagine eight years without stopping for port and without family?
Your argument about the Defiant vs the E-D falls short when you consider that the USS Valiant (a Defiant class vessel) fought a much larger Jem'Hadar Dreadnought (said to be 2x as big as a Galaxy class vessel) yet that ship was unable to "dodge" the attacks. Unless you think the targeting accuracy of the Type X phaser is really poor, I'm confident that the Galaxy can hold its own.
Remember the USS Lakota, an Excelsior class ship? The Defiant herself didn't dodge most of those phaser attacks (from emitters!), and the idea of using quantum torpedoes against the Defiant seemed to scare Sisko back on Earth.
[ March 01, 2002, 14:08: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Still don't see how you dodge a beam coming at you at light speed, you only see it when it's there.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:As for families, Tom Riker said after 6 months of service on a ship, he could bring family onboard. This seems to imply that assignments of 6 months or less do not allow families while longer missions do.
There is NOTHING in that line of dialogue to assume he was speaking of the ship's length of assignment duty or mission. I would imagine the six-month period might be a "probation" of sorts relating to extended duty service aboard the ship in question ... perhaps due to lack of space for families, and the high rates of transfer/promotion/re-assignment found in any quasi-military service.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
What?
"...might be a "probation" of sorts relating to extended duty service aboard the ship in question..."
Isn't that what I said with, "seems to imply that assignments of 6 months or less do not allow families while longer missions do"? Doesn't the line "after serving onboard for 6 months, I can bring family, etc." mean that if you serve on a ship for less than 6 months, no family, but after serving for 6 months (and continuing on) you can bring family on board?
Or are you saying that this "prohibition" is only for the USS Gandhi? Did the E-D have any sort of requirement?
When I wrote "6 months of service on a ship" I meant "6 months of service on the USS Gandhi." I just didn't bother to write the specific ship name in the last post. I have edited the previous post to avoid further confusion.
[ March 01, 2002, 14:17: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I would imagine the ships that would be traveling across the 8,000+ light years, of Federation space without stopping into port is a voluntary job. Think about it, submarines are voluntary work, though very safe today, and not widow makers like they were years ago, it is still lonely being underneath the ice caps for 5-8 months. My guess is that long journeys like 8 years or so is voluntary.
Galaxy class was perhaps designed so that it didn't have to be voluntary. Its not that I have a problem of having civilians on board when you are in safe Federation territory, I have a problem of having families on board in unsafe unexplored reaches of the galaxy.
The Defiant in FC was able to dodge Borg beams in a damaged state. Now if you think the superior Borg technology can not come up with a good targetting system in which should from at least 1 species out of the hundreds of thousands of species that the Borg assimilated from, then something is clearly wrong. Blame the special effects all you want, but clearly as much as some of you hate it, the USS Defiant is able to dodge energy beams and torpedoes.
I know that the phaser arrays are almost exact, but clearly in the case of the Valiant, the Lokota and such those ships did miss, either due to misses or dodging, it has been shown that ships can miss their targets.
The Galaxy class is very large, and in the case which I said in a previous post, the Galaxy class will sustain more damage then the Defiant will in a similar run if their shield strength is similar.
Also I love the Galaxy class and all but in tactical sense, having a ship that large even if it was designed for families makes no sense.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Damn, double post.
[ March 01, 2002, 14:33: Message edited by: Matrix ]
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Fine, it looks like there will always be two camps of thought on the Galaxy class. I probably will never change your view and vice versa.
Just tell me this, do you think the same about the Sovereign?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Let's try a little timeline, shall we?
Point 1: An enemy ship fires an energy beam. Point 2: The target ship attempts to move out of the way. Point 3: The beam reaches the target.
Now, consider that there is practically NO TIME between Point 1 and Point 3. Because an energy beam is firing at THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
It is NOT possible to "dodge" an energy beem. It's impossible according to the laws of physics.
A starship like the Defiant might be able to fool the enemy ship's targeting sensors, and move faster than the enemy ship can target them, causing the energy beam to miss -- but it can NOT "dodge" an energy beam.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Well, I assume most people knew that when we say "dodge phaser fire" we mean moving out of the way before the phaser makes an accurate target lock. As to the Borg Cube, my theory is that when such a ship is engaged by so many ships, the Collective can't keep up as it normally would (lots of variables to process) and so some targets get missed because the Borg are focusing on the primary threat.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Ace,
My fault. I thought you were referring to ship (and not personnel) assignments of more then six-months.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Oh well.
I'm still waiting for Matrix (or any of the other GCS critics) to repond about the Sovereign...
...while I wait, I hereby state that I also drive a Jeep. On the other hand, it's a Cherokee...
[ March 02, 2002, 20:27: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
I don't think the Defiant dodged any of Lakota's fires. And in FC, she wasn't dodging normal weapons, she was dodging Borg tractor beams.
We never saw any Galaxy being used as a command ship that was safely tucked away in the rear, we *DID* see them leading the charge and blowing in a hole in the enemy formation.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Actually its called tactics, in which they use heavy ships with superior firepower to open up a gap in the front lines where the smaller ships wreack havoc in the opposing fleet. Its called crossing the T. Nelson used the same tactic, in which he made all his ship go in 1-2 single file line where then they crossed the T of the opposing fleet where they broke up the single line they had and caused chaos.
The Sovereign is what the Galaxy is not. Where the Galaxy class is finese and style, the Sovereign is brute strength and no nonsense.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Well, then that "tactic" goes against what you claim the Galaxy's role is:
quote:Originally posted by Matrix: The Galaxy class was designed as a command ship, a ship to sit behind and command the ships, but at the same time be a battlecruiser or a battleship.
As for the "magnificent" Sovereign and her weapons, she actually has worse phaser coverage than the Galaxy...and those long nacelles are just begging to be hit...
[ March 04, 2002, 12:57: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Well, a Sovereign has five torpedo launchers. A Galaxy has only two, though we don't know if the Sovereign can fire packs of ten torps at once. We know that the Sovereign was designed without the neck by Eaves for precisely the reason you mention -- the damage done by enemy fire.
The interesting thing is that we may now be moving back to a more peaceful era again -- no Dominion War, no Borg invasions. Ah, the good old days of TNG...
Also, phasers do NOT travel at lightspeed, although they are fast. B5 style slicer beams travel at c, and the visual effects animate them in such a way. Star Trek's VFX crews do not.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
I don't think the Sovereign's torpedoe tubes can even pack three at once. You always see them fire torpedoes individually, rather than in triplet clusters like what the Galaxy does. It would make sense, since the Sovereign's launchers are apparently quite a bit smaller.
Um, I seem to recall B5 beams being just as "fast" as Trek beams.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
There are different kinds of B5 beams. Shadow slicer-beams just appear all at once and move around a bit before they acquire target. That's when the ship is sliced in half, if not destroyed at once.
[ March 04, 2002, 17:31: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I believe what I said is that the Galaxy class is a command ship, and as a command sip stay in the back. That is typical role of a command ship even today. However command ships are typically one of the stronger ships in the fleet, which could be a battleship or a cruiser if we use naval terms. Battleships were typically stayed in the back waiting for the smaller ships to get chased by the bigger ships where they would get cornered and be easily destroyed by the combined forces of the main fleet. Check out the World War 1 Naval Battle, Battle of Jutland.
Also it has been stated that the Sovereign class is one of the mosr advanced ships in the fleet and possibly the most powerful. I doubt anyone would say that unless she was in fact more powerful than the Galaxy class. If the Sovereign class was just like the Galaxy class, then where are the families where are the wood railings where are the bright colors which the E-D was known for?
Its has near cold interior similar to the Voyager.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Huh? Have you SEEN the Enterprise-E? The colour sceme is gold and brown, similar to but darker than the E-D interior scheme. I find the colours friendly, though I'm no fan of the sets themselves. They're relatively cramped, and the bridge is so cluttered with pointy consoles you can puncture an organ if you walk the wrong way.
Voyager - now THAT's sterile. Mind you, they *did* do the Voyager sets with an eye on having them resemble high-tech laboratories for computers and whatnot, which IMO worked.
Mark
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
I don't see how you can defend the Sovereign yet call the Galaxy a "makes no sense" ship. The Sovereign's longer profile actually increases its turning radius, and those longer nacelles "make no sense." Exactly how does the Sovereign do better in combat against smaller ships than the Galaxy?
[ March 05, 2002, 18:10: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Not to mention the Sovereign has reduced phaser coverage, compared to the Galaxy. Also, in Bridge Commander, the Sovereign's much nimbler after you've blown most of her stardrive section off. Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
"Poor aft coverage" is a relative thing... While both ships suffer from blind spots in the aft phaser arcs, those blind spots are only if the target is well within at *most* a kilometer or so of the ship. Given that practical targets should be more (much more!) than that distance away, this shouldn't be a big problem.
Those of you with models of any given starship, just hold it in your hand at any given angle. Close one eye, and try to eye-line an angle where you *don't* see a portion of a phaser strip. You'll find that this is not possible unless you're really, really close. In fact, you can argue that aft phaser coverage on Galaxy and Sovereign ships is *better* than on the forward arcs, since if you lose the forward phaser ring you're left with a big-ass blind spot than the aft arcs, which have overlapping emitter coverage. In that respect though, you can probably say that the placement of CGS strips provides more aft overlapping.
Mark
[ March 05, 2002, 19:20: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
As for that "command ship" thing, it's typical of today's command ships to be virtually unarmed. The USN uses converted amphibious assault ships as the command ships of its expeditionary fleets, armed with CIWS systems and machine guns only. It also retains the Mount Whitney class ships built of helicopter carrier hulls, "armed" with some antique GP guns, for amphibious assault command. And the big carriers also serve as command platforms, having only a basic anti-aircraft armament. None engage the enemy in combat if they can avoid it.
The prime criteria of a modern command ship are good communications facilities and plenty of interior room. That's been pretty much the standard ever since the admirals got the radio. During WWII, fast combatants like destroyers and cruisers would still have been used for flagship duties when the fleet lacked proper radars, but towards the end of the war all allied ships of note had radar anyway. So admirals moved back to the big and lumbering battleships, and then even further back to the dedicated, almost unarmed command centers.
Of course, if Trek is Horatio Hornblower instead of 20th century, then using the bad-ass primary combatants as command ships is perfectly okay. Perhaps the assumption is that sensor jamming will prevent the proper following of combat unless you are in the thick of it? And Starfleet seems to like multimissionalizing, so why build specialized command ships when you can integrate the function into a practical exploration and/or combat vessel?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Obviously I will never convince anyone about why I think the Galaxy class is too large for what it is supposed to do. And you will never convince me either. For one, most people will have biased opinions about something for instance I could tell you that the moon is made of cheese. I could show you pictures, the chemical composition, the actual cheese from the moon, and witnesses that have seen the moon up close and said its cheese, and you will never believe its cheese even with all the evidence I jhave shown you. Think about that FOX show a year ago saying that we never landed on the moon, it was just a cover up, if you seen it, did you seriously believe that we never landed on the moon?
Command ships of today are unarmed due to that what their new role is compared to what it was before. We never had a command ship before the 1950's, it was always a battleship or a cruiser designed with flagship accomadations.
The Sovereign is indeed long, with the nacelles taking up a good portion of the length. I do not defend the Sovereign, someone asked what my opinion was on the Sovereign and I gave it. Now because of that now its me vs. the world.
Personally I don't like the Sovereign either even more so than the Galaxy class. Becaus ein reality the Sovereign class was designed to look cool. The Galaxy class actually when it was designed had a function as well as making it look more advanced than the E-nil and the E-A.
Apparently alot of ships are now designed that way now.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
I don't believe the claims that we didn't land on the moon because their evidence is bullshit. It doesn't even qualify as evidence.
I don't believe your claims because your evidence is flimsy, and your theories based on them are flawed.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Ok, thats your opinion, next?
Ok, my Trek knowledge is out of date with everyone elses. I haven't been at this baord regularly for almost 4-5 months now. However my knowledge about naval terms, history, and tactics are far advanced now. I see Trek almost as naval battles in the 1700-1800's. My reasoning is if it was like it is today, battles would be waged from light years away with torpedoes and missiles as the main weapons. But that is not the case, we have the cloaked ships which could be termed as subs, we have capital ships in the battleship role, we have heavy cruisers, destroyers, that fire broadsides at each other. So when use tactics I use those eras becuase for one we really don't see any modern tactic warfare in Trek now do we?
Call it flawed all you want, but in reality if you look at it, how are we going to base tactics and roles off of, from on screen evidence if we don't use history as a guide?
Don't get me wrong, I lvoe the Galaxy class and some of you think that I would love to see the Galaxy class burn in hell. The Galaxy class out of all Trek ships is the most graceful, most elegant. But for its role (besides carrying families on board) I really don't see why it should be that large.
Oh and on the Moon landing overup, there was so much evidence, however its how you look at it. You saw what they demonstrated and such and turned your head away. For X amount of years you were brought up to believe that the world is round and the moon is not made of cheese and that we did land on the moon. So it would be hard to accept that what you believe in for your whole life might be false. Look at the Middle East, they believe that God will save them from the dirty Americans. So far I have yet to see any godly powers stop bombs.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
And Matrix gets the official Most Unrelated Topics Shoehorned Into One Post award for the week.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
We thought we won, we thought it all was over...
But then the Moon-is-cheese theory stunned us all...
Oh yeah, amphibious command ships makes a terrible example for what we're arguing. For one thing, it was designed to command amphibious opeartions, so there is no way it could suddenly grow wheels, and haul itself onto the beach like a giant AAAV. It's not meant to fight. If you want real command ships, try the Ticonderogas. They were actually designed to command the entire defenses of a CVBG. Or even the CVN herself, she commands and fights.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
his sig is like icing on the cake
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Well, his sig is actually an allusion to the Bible.
As to the actual starship topic, Matrix, I'm just glad you at least feel the same way about the Sovereign as the Galaxy.
Speaking of command ships, isn't the USS Kitty Hawk acting as our (U.S.'s) command base for the Afghan operations? I heard she will actually be decommissioned soon, however.
[ March 06, 2002, 20:13: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I believe so, she is I think right now the only carrier near there.
The Moon-is-cheese concept, at this moment I forgot why I said that. I think it was to demonstrate hanging on ideas for awhile can could your judgement.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
I watched the special. Most of it I dismissed as bullshit, which it was.
"Look at this crater 'taken' by one of the Apollo missions. Now look at this crater outside of Area 51. Don't they look strikingly similar?"
There were a few points they made that I couldn't answer based on my own experience. So I went to nasa.gov and did the fucking responsible thing and got the other side of the story. And guess what? They presented completely logical, reasonable, and plausible explanations for every single point that special brought up.
I dismiss the moon hoax theories because their evidence, their logic, and their reasoning are all shit.
And please listen closely at this:
**Just because it's somebody's opinion, doesn't mean its not wrong**
If your 'opinion' is based on incorrect facts, invalid axioms, and illogical reasoning - IT IS BULLSHIT
I am so sick of people saying the stupidest fucking things and when someone calls them out on it, spouting off "Well that's my opinion." like that's some fucking end all be all Get-Out-Of-Jail free card about being proven as an idiot.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Who are you talking to?
It is still their opinion, a incorrect one, but still their opinion.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
the large carrier can be screened more effectively than lots of small ones, and it can carry huge amounts of ordnance. therefor, the large carrier is more efficient. also, the navy uses tactics to make effective use of large ships. a battleship never went in alone. it had destroyers and cruisers for screening. if whoever choreographed the battles in DS9 knew about naval tactic then the battles would have been very different. besides, the dominion (which is known for it's "bug attack" fighters) had ships even bigger than the galaxy class, and no one is maligning them. big ships have a very important role in combat. talking about the galaxy class in an exploration role, who knows how the other galaxy class ships did. and maybe only Enterprise had a defective core ejection system.![[Confused]](confused.gif)