I have been thinking about this for awhile. In the Dominion War, all we see is thr Galaxy class, Nebula class, Excelsior class, Miranda class, Akira class, Sabre class, Defiant class, and sometimes we see the Steamrunner.
It has me wondering (besides real life Trek) how successful are these classes where in all the major battles they are seen the most. For instance, the Ambassador class was perhaps designed to replace the Excelsior class, yet we see the Excelsior class more. Hell for class reputed to have less that twelve ships, the Galaxy class is seen alot. Yet we do not see any of the Ambassador class, nor any of the other classes.
So what if those classes are we do not see often are failures? I mean, Starfleet had years to prepare the fleet for an upcoming war with either the Borg or the Dominion, so all the ships that were sent on the oposite of Federation territory should at leats show themselves at least once.
Thoughts?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Whats with this emphasis on "blowing shit up." *rolls eyes*
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
I've thought about the Ambassador class's limited number, and came up with three theories. One, as the most advanced and largest explorer of her time, the majority of the class was sent on long range exploration missions. They're still out there. Two, there was a serious mistake in the design specification phase. The program staff underestimated the potential of the threat force the Ambassador was going to encounter, the result being an under-gunned, under-protected vessel, with limited tactical value, at least against ships its own size. Three, the Ambassador was built based on refined and matured technology based on the Excelsior class period. However mature that technology was, it was already being superceeded by new technology which was to eventually be incorporated into the Galaxy and Nebula class, making it economically efficient for a large production run of the Ambassador class only to be replaced short after.
Dominion War report card: Galaxy: Did quite well, despite what people say about her. Only two were lost on screen. One was the Odyessy, the other was when the Breen unleashed its energy dampeners.
Nebula: There were Nebulas in DW?
Excelsior: Everyone's b!tch, gets no respect, despite being the bulk of the Federation Fleet, along with the Mirandas. We see quite a few get destroyed or damaged, but there were a lot of them to begin with.
Miranda: Same as above.
Akira: Gets more credit than it deserves. We don't see that many to begin with, but we saw at least two getting destroyed. One in the invasion by the Allies on Chintaka, and one when the Breen unleashed their energy dampeners. Consider there weren't many to begin with, losing two does not speak well for it. Heck, we probably saw more Galaxies than Akiras.
Saber: Didn't see any in action, AFAIK.
Defiant: We saw three, two was lost.
Steamrunner: None seen in action, again.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I must echo Matrix's comment about a preoccupation with blowing shit up. That's in all likelihood not what dictates whether a ship was a success or failure.
But, on the subject of things that go boom...
quote:Originally posted by David Templar:
Dominion War report card: Galaxy: Did quite well, despite what people say about her. Only two were lost on screen. One was the Odyessy, the other was when the Breen unleashed its energy dampeners.
No Galaxies were destroyed in SoA. The Odyssey and Galaxy appeared in TotP, the latter being severely damaged but neither was conclusively destroyed. One ship we're pretty sure is a Galaxy was seen destroyed in TCFoE.
quote: Nebula: There were Nebulas in DW?
They didn't appear in battle scenes until either TotP or TCFoE, although that may only have been in fleet-at-warp shots. In the general vicinity of the theatre we saw the Honshu and the T'Kumbra, plus the nameless one at DS9 at the end of SoA.
quote: Excelsior: Everyone's b!tch, gets no respect, despite being the bulk of the Federation Fleet, along with the Mirandas. We see quite a few get destroyed or damaged, but there were a lot of them to begin with.
Miranda: Same as above.
Akira: Gets more credit than it deserves. We don't see that many to begin with, but we saw at least two getting destroyed. One in the invasion by the Allies on Chintaka, and one when the Breen unleashed their energy dampeners. Consider there weren't many to begin with, losing two does not speak well for it. Heck, we probably saw more Galaxies than Akiras.
Saber: Didn't see any in action, AFAIK.
There were Sabres in SoA and TCFoE, though I can't recall any being destroyed.
quote: Defiant: We saw three, two was lost.
Steamrunner: None seen in action, again.[/qb]
At least one Steamrunner in action in SoA and it survived.
[ April 27, 2002, 16:23: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
quote:Akira: Gets more credit than it deserves. We don't see that many to begin with, but we saw at least two getting destroyed. One in the invasion by the Allies on Chintaka, and one when the Breen unleashed their energy dampeners. Consider there weren't many to begin with, losing two does not speak well for it. Heck, we probably saw more Galaxies than Akiras.
I beg to differ in that we actually do see as many Akiras as Galaxies.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Either way, an Akira class vessel was destroyed quite easily by a Cardassian Orbital Weapons Platform while the USS Galaxy survived a hit to her engineering hull. Yet, of course, many still feel the Akira is cooler (and thus better) than the Galaxy...
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Regarding the "Galaxy" in TCFoE, I wholeheartedly believe it's a blown-up Nebula instead - the pylons and such do not mate with the secondary hull where they should, and the hull itself looks fatter and rounder than it should.
Well that Akira...well those two Akiras that I saw blow up/taken out of action could have already been more damaged than the Galaxy because they had reeived more simultaneous hits. Just because I see a ship get blown up sooner than another ship doesn't mean that the earlier ship was weeker in terms of shield power or hull strength. Besides that also doesn't mean than an Akira was destroyed before a Galaxy was. A Galaxy could have been destroyed earlier on off screen before the first Akira.
BTW, I agree with Mark on the destroyed Galaxy/Nebbie. That episode was the first to use a CGI Nebbie in the fleet. It would have been easy to just rip apart one of the CGI Nebbies. That and I don't recall any new CGI Galaxy appearance in the fleet other than stock footage.
[ April 27, 2002, 21:32: Message edited by: Dat ]
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
It's the old off screen argument. Off screen, there could have been an army of space bunnies flanking the Federation Fleet, only to be defeated at the last moment by a crazy woman on a Vispa. We have to go with what's on screen in this case. I really wish I had CFoE on tape, though, I don't feel any better relying on pure memory nowadays.
[ April 28, 2002, 01:21: Message edited by: David Templar ]
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Basically we need that one thing we're never going to get; a definitive, official list of all Federation starships (with general specifications) along with what exactly they were doing during the DW and their status by the end of it.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I do not see where I said anything about 'blowing shit up'. Care to explain?
I was not talking at all about whether the ships were good combat ships or good peace making ships. What I am talking about is whether these ships are successful. Obviously the Miranda and the Excelsior were extremely successful to the point where we see dozens of them in a single fleet.
So if the class is successful in their mission, obviously Starfleet would like to build more of these ships because it would not make sense to use older less efficient ships or design a whole new class to replace the current one.
So are ships that we do not see unsuccessful, (except for the classes specifically designed for exploration, with little to no weapons.)
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
"Blowing shit up" was extracted from the following mangling of the English language:
quote:Originally posted by Matrix: It has me wondering (besides real life Trek) how successful are these classes where in all the major battles they are seen the most. .... I mean, Starfleet had years to prepare the fleet for an upcoming war with either the Borg or the Dominion
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Ok, then what this means all the ships that we that fight in the war are only combat capable and the rest in mothballs waiting for peace? So that means the New Orleans, Cheyenne, Ambassador, Nova, Oberth and etc are useless in a war?
But then again we see that the Excelsior is not useless in a peacetime and to a lesser extent the Miranda.
[ April 28, 2002, 13:19: Message edited by: Matrix ]
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
My eyes hurt.
I'd bet that those other classes you mentioned were still serving the fleet at the time. One possible reason we don't see these ships as much (besides the real world reason of CGI and limited models supply) is that certain ships replace others. After the Ambassador served for more than 30 years, the new Galaxy class could take over its role and so production was stopped. It looks like the Nova is a possible Oberth replacement. Cheyenne, New Orleans, etc. might have had roles not seen in the major battles such as border patrol, shipping patrol, etc.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
In the end, no matter what we come up with, the real story is that they simply didn't have the time or budget to put all those missing classes on screen.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
One could also argue that fleets operating in different areas of space had different classes of ships assigned to them. The distances involved may have been relatively long, so if a prewar emphasis had been on giving new ships to the 6th Fleet on the Klingon border, then the 9th Fleet on the Cardassian front wouldn't have new ships even after several years of fighting. There simply wouldn't be such a lull in combat that those ships could be flown to the other theater of operations.
All the most modern ships at 9th Fleet disposal could also have been expended in the unseen first three months of fighting. After that, this secondary battlefront was not replenished because the Dominion was threatening more vital targets like Earth itself. (Note that DS9 had no real strategic value as long as the wormhole was closed, which it was for most of the war - by the whims of the Prophets if not by the minefield).
Some of the missing ships could also indeed be mission-specific, explaining their invisibility - the missions of, say, Challenger or Intrepid classes were not ones the 9th Fleet would have performed. However, I think most of Starfleet's vessels are multipurpose enough that they would have been included in the big assaults anyway.
On a variation of that theme, perhaps the more modern "BoBW" generation vessels were too fast to be flown in formation with old Excelsiors and Mirandas, which is why Starfleet never wasted them for such missions. Every fleet of course had the big battleships of Galaxy or Nebula class, since there was no slower alternative to them (Starfleet not having built anything that big and strong in the previous, slower generation of starships) - but the 6th Fleet could have had New Orleanses and Cheyennes to go with them, instead of Excelsiors and Mirandas.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I have to take issue with the strategic importance of DS9, though. Even with the wormhole closed, the station is still one of the closest (if not the closest) outposts to Cardassia Prime the Federation has.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
"The distances involved may have been relatively long, so if a prewar emphasis had been on giving new ships to the 6th Fleet on the Klingon border, then the 9th Fleet on the Cardassian front wouldn't have new ships even after several years of fighting."
That argument is based on the idea that the 8,000 ly of the Federation cannot be traversed in weeks, which itself is based on the idea that ships cannot possibly traverse this distance faster than 1000c or so. A more obvious explanation for the size of the Federation is that warp speeds vary.
Besides, we know that the Cardassian and the Klingon borders are roughly 200 ly away ("Trials and Tribble-ations") and that the journey is merely "a long one" (Way of the Warrior) that at times can be quite short ("The House of Quark"). All these references could quite easily refer to different sections of the Klingon border, especially with the WOTW and THOQ discrepancy.
"All the most modern ships at 9th Fleet disposal could also have been expended in the unseen first three months of fighting. After that, this secondary battlefront was not replenished because the Dominion was threatening more vital targets like Earth itself."
This is a better reason, but Earth wasn't in danger until much later, whereas Cardassia and the DS9 area were the source of the problem. I agree that a good part of the fleet would be diverted to protect Earth because of its political value.
However, statistically, there shouldn't be more than two or three such ships in every fleet. There were only, what, three Intrepids in the early 2370s? It makes sense that the most commonly seen ships in all the series are the main battlefleet among the explorers. How else could the Federation survive next to the other militaries with a similar level of technology?
There might be a few specialized super-warships (Intrepid, Defiant, Yeager?), along with a few that could have been pulled out of mothballs (Akira/Steamrunner/Sabre?). However, implying that the super-fleets are never where the main action is (even during the final invasion of Cardassia!) is based more in the need to satisfy fanboy perceptions of what ships are kewl.
"On a variation of that theme, perhaps the more modern "BoBW" generation vessels were too fast to be flown in formation with old Excelsiors and Mirandas, which is why Starfleet never wasted them for such missions."
Why would a ship be unable to move slow? We've seen everything from the oldest Mirandas and Excelsiors to brand-new Galaxies fly in formation. Besides, the older ships could simply fly faster; it wouldn't make a difference as the relative speeds would remain the same, regardless if you're all accelerating at 1/4 impulse or 1/2 impulse.
Boris
[ April 29, 2002, 22:59: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Good points, but in some cases not quite what I meant. For the first issue, I didn't mean it would take years to travel from the Klingon front to the Cardassian one. Rather, it would take a couple of weeks - and for several months in a row, Starfleet would not have a couple of weeks to spare to move the ships. Not "just in case" anyway, not when withdrawing the ships from a currently peaceful section of the border could expose a core system to invasion.
As for keeping the newest ships all grouped up in one or two key locations, that's pretty much what the naval powers of Earth have done in major wars. Navies are weapons of intimidation, and the biggest guns are often held back as a deterrent. They are far less frightening when on the battlefield.
No objection, though, to the point that modern ships ought to have been present in at least two types of operations we saw in DS9: a preplanned invasion of strategic significance, like that of Chin'toka (where top ships should be emphasized and older ones skipped if anything), and an all-out, desperate, last-straw battle like that of Cardassia Prime (where ships of all types should be present).
As for the speed argument, we already saw that the Dominion could monitor Starfleet movements from a distance - they could e.g. tell when a fleet had left DS9 and for which target. Could this significant advantage be beaten by increasing fleet speed? If the answer is at least "well, maybe", then it would be criminal to send out fleets that are slowed down by the presence of older ships.
If the answer is a resounding "no", however, then by all means have the Intrepids moving at one-third available speed - apparently, big fleets fight better than small formations or individual vessels, according to Starfleet doctrine anyway. Might be similar to the time when guns dominated the seas. The side that brings more of the barrels to bear at the crucial moment shall win.
If the Dominion could indeed spot Starfleet movements about 5 ly away, and even detect cloaked vessels as they enter the sector (although that special platform was destroyed by Dax), then fleet speed would probably be irrelevant. Better send out a fleet moving at warp 2 and consisting of 10,000 ships than send out a warp 9.7 fleet of 100 ships, a warp 8 fleet of 2,000 ships and a warp 2 fleet of 7,900 ships... But if the enemy sensors aren't that good, then the latter approach is more sensible.
'Course, it means that our heroes will never see the 100 top starships of the warp 9.7 fleet, since their tough little ship moves at less than warp 9.5 and thus has to hang around with the warp 8 bunch...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom, albeit two pages ago The Odyssey and Galaxy appeared in TotP, the latter being severely damaged but neither was conclusively destroyed.
The Odysseywas conclusively destroyed. A Jem'Hadar fighter rammed its deflector dish, sending a large piece of debris careening into the starboard warp nacelle, causing a catastrophic explosion that reduced the ship to its component atomic particles as the assembled runabouts watched, in the episode "The Jem'Hadar." Didn't seem very open ended to me...
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Timo you just described the problem with the United States in the 1920's and 1930's with their 'Standards' battleships. All battleships under US control had a maximum speed of 21-22 knots. This made a uniform fleet, whereas the other powers had a scattered fleet of 23 knots, 25 knots, 30 knots and 33 knots. This meant while the enmy fleet had to stay at either 23 knots to stay with the slower ships or split up and use the speed as an advantage. However the US fleet stayed together, and can fight other fleets on their own terms.
Of course, speed could also mean manuverability.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
As for withdrawing the fleet from the Klingon border: the peace treaty had been signed and wasn't broken afterwards. It was in the Klingon interest to cooperate with the Federation against the Dominion. I think leaving just Picard on the Ent-E would be enough for this kind of patrol mission because we know he'll broker every agreement and never die.
As for the speed -- it's always the newest and the latest ships that have high speeds (Prometheus, Sovereign (wasn't it Warp 9.95 according to Captain's Chair?), Intrepid). Even the Defiant's limitation seems to be merely a result of a botched SIF field (which we know was a problem in "Shattered Mirror"), and it's possible that the warp core can indeed generate Warp 9.982 power.
All of the other ships in the observed fleets are limited to Warp 9.x or so. The hypothetical courier ships exist only because Rick Sternbach is picky about his personal canon, and doesn't believe in occassionally fast warp speeds.
The Wolf 359 ships, being in the generation of Galaxys and Nebulas, are likely to share their speed limitations (which indeeed are the limitations of every ship in the Dominion fleet according to the DS9TM).
We could easily have a fleet of Sovereigns/Intrepids/Prometheii moving faster (and we know that a couple of Prometheii would be built by the time of "Endgame"). I don't recall how warp speed affects the sensors, but I would guess that a bunch of ships at high warp = high spatial distortion = more easily detectable. Also, they've just been seen far too rarely to be numerous, and official sources support the idea that it takes a while for the new ships to, er, multiply.
Boris
[ April 30, 2002, 08:19: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: As for the speed -- it's always the newest and the latest ships that have high speeds (Prometheus, Sovereign (wasn't it Warp 9.95 according to Captain's Chair?), Intrepid). Even the Defiant's limitation seems to be merely a result of a botched SIF field (which we know was a problem in "Shattered Mirror"), and it's possible that the warp core can indeed generate Warp 9.982 power.
Captain's Chair? The novel? That isn't canon. Plus I'm betting the Sovereign's just a bit faster, as size seems to be reflect speed in Starfleet.
We know SIF was one of the Defiant class's trouble spots, but nothing ever said it had anything to do with limiting her maximum warp speed. We do conclusivly know that her maximum speed was clearly stated as being 9.5 in "The Sound of her Voice", there's no use arguing around it. Starship Spotter is again, not canon.
I'm still kinda shocked over the statement of Yeagers and Intrepids being "super warships".
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
No, Captain's Chair the CD-ROM resource. It's as canon as the Encyclopedia.
Speaking of ship speeds, for some reason, I liked it better when ships only went up to 9.6 or so with the ship coming apart at 9.9. It seems all the new ships just keep pushing it further and further until the average viewer has no idea what the big difference is between 9.997 and 9.999...besides, writers will always dictate how fast the ship will really go. I think it was Voyager that started this whole stupid max. warp speed measured by the hundredths and thousandths.
[ April 30, 2002, 13:28: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Yes you are right, when someone yell "Go to Warp 9.999999 now!" is not quite as effective as "Go to Warp 45 now!" I aslways think that they should have stayed with the original Warp scale. It'd make more sense, plus then you won't have a barrier.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:The Odyssey was conclusively destroyed.
I think he meant Venture and Galaxy.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
In "The Sound of Her Voice", O'Brien says that the ship starts to shake itself apart at speeds above Warp 9. They divert phaser power to the SIF field in order to allow for Warp 9.5, but they never say it's the maximum speed. It's simply the maximum speed allowed by the given efficiency of the SIF. If you increased SIF efficiency, a greater speed is conceviable.
Hence, the only canon limitation we know of is the SIF field, meaning that the Defiant could probably go faster after a major fix (and Starship Spotter does state that subsequent modifications allowed for Warp 9.982). Since only the show is canon, every other book (except for fandom publications) has only the official status, though some books are better informed than the others and should be ranked according to their reliability.
The Intrepid has been confirmed as a "troubleshooter", a ship which matches the Galaxy class in its armament according to the official article.
The Yeager uses the same primary hull so it might be related.
Boris
[ April 30, 2002, 16:51: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:though some books are better informed than the others and should be ranked according to their reliability.
Yeah, and Star Ship Spotter isn't a very reliable book IMO. Just check the phaser counts for example.
[ April 30, 2002, 16:18: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
But there's no need to treat books as either completely valid or completely invalid. You adopt what fits the canon and correct what doesn't. Which is better:
"Hi Pocket Books, thanks for letting me write a book, but I don't care about all of this consistency you're trying to establish and maintain between your books and between the books and the show, my pals consider only the show to be canon with a few exceptions, so we'll just discard all of your stuff and include all of ours in my reference book."
or
"Hi Pocket Books, I've been following what you've been doing, and decided that this has to be rejected because it doesn't fit the canon, while this can be accepted."
I'm just citing the way things actually work. The writers cannot review the novels because they don't have the time -- hence, only the show is canon (Furthermore, how much sense does it make to give Okuda and Sternbach the status of staff writers by making their work automatically canon? It would be nice if they were staff writers, but unfortunately they're not.)
However, that won't stop the writers from adopting a few references from the Encyclopedia, the TMs, TAS, and other things with the Star Trek label on them.
Pocket Books, on the other hand, has been trying to maintain consistency within its products and the show; Alex and Mojo have already told us that licensed Pocket Books sources need to be taken into account for every new book. So why not help out by having ready-made theories that explain whatever can be explained in the licensed sources, just in case someone else happens to write a Trek book?
Boris
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spike:
quote:The Odyssey was conclusively destroyed.
I think he meant Venture and Galaxy.
No, I think he actually meant Odyssey as Venture was never said to have been destroyed.
Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :
[this is to be taken in jest]
remember it doesnt matter how modern/technologically advanced your class of ship is..as long as you vessel has the 'Scriptwriters dept' onboard you should be taken care of (well most of the time anyway)
Buzz
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Matrix had posted the link to warships.com up above. Went and looked and found
which is (IMHO) a great tech write up on ship design that can be easily trek-ized.
Thanks for the link Matrix!
(I do realize that when mentioning an article current practice is to include an unrelated picture and copy and paste the article to the forum without references - but hey I'm going my own way here) Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I don't have time to read the whole now, but looking at the first couple of paragraphs, this looks like a very informative article. For one thing, it places heavy emphasis on the purpose of a warship and the threats that it is designed to counter. Starfleet ships therefore should have a clearly defined purpose as well -- even the unknown and random classes like the Challenger, Centaur, Zodiac, etc...
Actually, that part about the magnitude and severity of a threat goes a long, long way towards explaining the so-called "failure" of the Galaxy-class starships. The Galaxy was essentially designed to counter the more-prevalent, low-level threats posed by pissiant races such as the Cardassians, Talarians, Tzenkethi, Tholians, etc. But they're not ready for enemies like the Borg.
Although if we were to revise that article for Starfleet, I'd think that preparing for an unlikely threat would be much higher on the priority list, given the vast amount of unknown territory in the galaxy, and the frequency with which ultra-powerful races are discovered at random intervals.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Actually it was one of many on that board that is very informative. I was looking at the Survey of the American Standard Battleships article. Unfortunately can't post a direct link to it because for some reason the computer on won't let me see the link to it, nor copy it. It's a good board and site to reaseach various topics.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Minutieman: Starfleet ships must be designed to counter potential threats from the neighboring systems first. It is assumed that the Cardassians, Klingons, and the Romulans would take care of *their* threatening neighbors, which take care of their neighbors and so on.
Although we've seen ultrapowerful aliens in distant reaches, they don't seem to be interested in creating a huge empire (maybe they're benevolent, maybe they don't like running empires or maybe they simply have unseen weaknesses).
Or, maybe they tried but were stopped. The Borg and the Dominion need not be an exception -- after all, if at any time the Romulans, Feds, or the Klingons were attacked by someone threatening to overpower them, it would be in the best interest of all the neighboring races to join together for a brief period.
Boris
[ May 01, 2002, 09:20: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
I think Matrix has a point. What with the return of Voyager in TMP, the Whale Probe, Borg, Dominion, and whatever has happened off screen it would seem that the prudent SF designer would build in a certain fudge factor into the requirements.
BTW
I do like the idea of treaty limitations - hamstringing their starships to make the Romulans (or whomever) happy seems a very SF thing to do.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Remember that Starfleet is not purely a military force; we have to take into consideration the scientific capabilities of the various classes and whether they were designed for military or scientific purposes.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
"Failure" of the Galaxy class? Not this again...
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Sigh...
I was not trying to bring up the argument again, but merely pointing out that that point about the design intentions of a class have a great deal to do with its perceived success or failure.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
The Intrepid class might be trouble shooters, but that doesn't make it a super warship. Even the Ent-D was running trouble shooting for half of TNG, rather than actually exploring.
"and would mount weaponary at least equal to the Galaxy-class phaser and photon torpedoes" -ST:Mag
I would interpret this as mounting weaponary of equal type, and not a reflection of total firepower. The Galaxy out-guns the Intrepid by leaps and bounds.
I don't even want to think about the Yeager... And the Defiant's not a super warship, just a warship. All ships are mortal unless otherwise stated in the script.
Bah, "failure of Galaxy class", name one thing she doesn't accomplish as originally designed to do.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: Even the Ent-D was running trouble shooting for half of TNG, rather than actually exploring.
Perhaps due to a lack of Intrepids. Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
"The Intrepid class might be trouble shooters, but that doesn't make it a super warship. Even the Ent-D was running trouble shooting for half of TNG, rather than actually exploring."
But unlike the Enterprise, the primary mission of the Intrepid-class is troubleshooting, while the primary mission of the Galaxy-class is exploring (Troubleshooter vs. Explorer). Hence, it's more of a police cruiser class, and since the Galaxy class is a warship in wartime, the Intrepid can be informally called a super warship because it's more of a warship than the Galaxy class.
"and would mount weaponary at least equal to the Galaxy-class phaser and photon torpedoes" -ST:Mag
"I would interpret this as mounting weaponary of equal type, and not a reflection of total firepower. The Galaxy out-guns the Intrepid by leaps and bounds."
Nope. The word used is simply "equal." If A = B, then A can be substituted for B. If the phasers and photon torpedoes of the Galaxy class can be substituted for the weaponry of the Intrepid class, then one can't be inferior than another overall, if not in details.
Besides, there is no evidence that the Galaxy outguns the Intrepid by leaps and bounds. Voyager survived a lot more than the Enterprise ever faced, without ever been to a starbase. It's technology is brand new, it's maximum speed is twice that of the Galaxy class.
"I don't even want to think about the Yeager..."
Why? What is your evidence?
"And the Defiant's not a super warship, just a warship. All ships are mortal unless otherwise stated in the script."
It's a super warship because all Federation ships are warships in wartime, while the Defiant is always a warship. Again, I used an informal though accurate term. And the mortality of ships depends not on the script but on the skills of their captains as compared to the skills of the others, how good the condition of each ship is at a particular moment, etc.
Boris
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
There's one thing that should definitely be remembered in discussions like this: the progression of a ship from "the best" to "obsolete" is by no means a linear one.
Just because a ship happens to be obsolete at time T does not mean it will REMAIN obsolete. Even more importantly, just because a property X is considered obsolete at time T1 does not mean it will be so at time T2. Real-world examples abound:
Anti-aircraft guns aboard ships? Obsolete in the sixties, or so the western navies thought. Not so today, even though the threats are harder to shoot down with guns than they were in the sixties, not easier.
Speed is life? Perhaps, but the old F-14 is TOO fast for its own good. Speed is also money, and the much, much slower F/A-18 is better suited to today's carrier aviation environment.
So there's no real reason to assume that Starfleet would want to give up older ships just because they perform poorly compared with new ones. Tomorrow, "poor" performance may become superior to "great". And new ships need not be built with superior performance - the Sovereign could have a max speed of warp 8.2, and still be superior to the Galaxies as far as current operating environment is concerned.
Of course, Starfleet is also in a superb position to mothball its temporarily-obsolete ships for reactivation when they cease to be obsolete. Wet navies can't do that - their old ships and aircraft rust out from beneath them. Oh, how modern navies wish they *could* whip out a WWII- or even WWII-vintage gun cruiser to give them artillery support in amphibious ops...
Timo Saloniemi
P.S. Concerning Defiant max. speed: I firmly believe that the maximum speed of any given starship is warp 10, TNG scale - it's just a matter of boosting the individual parts of the drive system past their set limits. In 99 cases out of 100, breaking the limits results in a kaboom. And in 999... cases out of 1000... (add digits to personal preference), Starfleet lacks the technology to break the limits in any major performance-boosting way, so warp 10 remains unattainable - but in most cases, some minor increases can be attained rather easily, if you are willing to pay the price of having a burned-out ship.
So the Defiant can go warp 9.5, but only a fool or a main character would attempt that. Warp 9.92 is probably possible as well, but even a main character is going to die in such an attempt with 99.9999% certainty. And warp 9.99999... speeds require a breakthrough even a main-character chief engineer or science officer doesn't have in his or her back pocket - unless the plot really, really requires it.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: "The Intrepid class might be trouble shooters, but that doesn't make it a super warship. Even the Ent-D was running trouble shooting for half of TNG, rather than actually exploring."
But unlike the Enterprise, the primary mission of the Intrepid-class is troubleshooting, while the primary mission of the Galaxy-class is exploring (Troubleshooter vs. Explorer). Hence, it's more of a police cruiser class, and since the Galaxy class is a warship in wartime, the Intrepid can be informally called a super warship because it's more of a warship than the Galaxy class.
I think you might be putting too much emphasis on the "shooting" part of the term "troubleshooting". Troubleshooting takes many forms, from diplomatic squabbles to potentially hostile situations. However, in general, Galaxy Class firepower was not required for most of the troubleshooting situations we saw the Galaxy Class engage in.
One thing is pretty clear: if the Enterprise-D is any indication of what the Galaxy Class was often up to, then exploration of the distant reaches was often not their primary role.
In any case, though, the notion of Intrepids as "super-warships" makes no sense, at least not as you've described it thus far. Besides which, if the Intrepids are the Federation's troubleshooters (which suggests that they'd be relegated to duties within or very near the Federation), then when war came they'd still be troubleshooting, a la Picard and the E-E in Insurrection. Indeed, they'd have to be doing *more* troubleshooting, since other starships that often got troubleshooting duties were now taking on Dominion warships.
quote: "and would mount weaponary at least equal to the Galaxy-class phaser and photon torpedoes" -ST:Mag
"I would interpret this as mounting weaponary of equal type, and not a reflection of total firepower. The Galaxy out-guns the Intrepid by leaps and bounds."
Nope. The word used is simply "equal." If A = B, then A can be substituted for B. If the phasers and photon torpedoes of the Galaxy class can be substituted for the weaponry of the Intrepid class, then one can't be inferior than another overall, if not in details.
Besides, there is no evidence that the Galaxy outguns the Intrepid by leaps and bounds. Voyager survived a lot more than the Enterprise ever faced, without ever been to a starbase. It's technology is brand new, it's maximum speed is twice that of the Galaxy class.
(We've seen the E-D fire five torpedoes simultaneously, all of them splitting off then impacting on a target at the same time. The TNG:TM says ten torpedoes could be fired in such a fashion from one launcher. Or, we can observe "Half a Life"(TNG), where eight torpedoes were fired in quick succession. Intrepids, meanwhile, can fire one torpedo at a time from their launchers . . . I only recall perhaps three being fired from a single launcher in quick succession.
But, suppose a strong target was facing both ships. A Galaxy could fire ten torpedoes aft (rigged to fly around and impact on target), ten torpedoes forward. Time it right, and BAM, you've got twenty photon torpedoes collapsing the enemy shields. An Intrepid, meanwhile, has, at maximum, fired a burst of twelve torpedoes (three each from four launchers), each pinging off the enemy shields within a short time, but not simultaneously. Thus, the firepower will be less, since the twelve detonations will occur over a longer period.)
3. Phaser emitters:
Galaxy 11/12
Intrepid 13
(Looks impressive, but if the number of emitter segments is any indication of the strength of the phasers (i.e. if the 200 emitter segments of the GCS dorsal saucer array would make a phaser beam twice as powerful as a 100 emitter array), then an Intrepid cannot hope to have the same amount of firepower, even if she were somehow able to concentrate all of her phasers onto one target, since all the emitters on an Intrepid (if Type X) *may only barely* equal the 200 Type X emitters of a Galaxy.
There's also the matter of phaser arc coverage. A Galaxy has a potential weakness against targets aft of the interconnecting dorsal . . . the only coverage available (assuming the primary saucer phasers cannot reach that far back) involves four phaser arrays . . . two small arrays on the upper rear of the stardrive section-side of the saucer, and two other small arrays to the port and starboard aft of the aft torpedo launcher.
However, this problem is exacerbated in the Intrepid class, which has *no* dorsal engineering hull phasers, and only two tiny arrays on the back of the saucer. We see the Vaadwuar fighters using this weakness in "Dragon's Teeth"(VOY), primarily keeping above and to the rear of Voyager. Had they been below Voyager at any point, they'd have become open to fire from the *five* phaser arrays on the bottom of the Intrepid Class engineering hull. Frankly, I'd rather have two more (or two of the bottom ones) on top.))
The only thing I can think of that might suggest that the Intrepids could, even for a moment, have similar firepower to the Galaxy Class would be those tri-cobalt torpedoes. But, that's hardly the basis of a claim that the class is equal . . . just give a Galaxy tri-cobalts, and the show's over.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Good points, all, but there's some leeway there in interpreting the on-screen evidence. For all we know, an Intrepid tube could launch 50 torpedoes in a single shot against Galaxy's ten, and Janeway simply never ordered that firing mode since she wanted to spare the torps. And other silliness like that.
If we want to inject even a smidgen of realism to this, though, it would be best to say that a smaller ship has less firepower, unless it makes sacrifices of some sort (or unless the two ships are of different categories, like a patrol boat vs. a supertanker). We have seen no sacrifices whatsoever aboard the Voyager, and no indication of a mission *fundamentally* different from that of the Galaxy class.
Small ships that outgun their bigger sisters in the real world either rely on a weapons technology that's fundamentally different from that of the big sisters (say, torpedoes against guns) or then sacrifice protection and range (usually meaning giving up ALL protection and ALL range, so that a guy with an assault rifle could sink the ship, or a standard pleasure boat could outrun it). Building a ship that sacrifices things only halfway is foolish, because it will still sink with the first or at least the second shot from a big ship, and then all that "halfway" armor and fuel has been wasted.
The Defiant looks like a ship that has made sacrifices. The Intrepid does not (unless her itty bitty nacelles were indicative of inferior warp performance, but that doesn't seem to be the case).
It's too bad that Sternbach is the guy in control of his own ship. We'd know so much better.
Well, clearly Starfleet had to have some reason for building the Intrepids. Was it because they just lacked ships in that size range? (possible!) Or ships with some specific balance of equipment? (unlikely - the Voyager has the exact same balance as all the Enterprises) Or ships with an improved overall performance? (again possible, but then we should see more of these ships and less of the older types)
Sternbach came up with one rationale, somewhat ambiguously worded - the ship "troubleshoots". He once came up with a rationale for the Galaxies, too - they "replace the Ambassadors and Oberths". We creatively interpreted the latter. Surely we can do the same with the former.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
"I think you might be putting too much emphasis on the "shooting" part of the term "troubleshooting". Troubleshooting takes many forms, from diplomatic squabbles to potentially hostile situations. However, in general, Galaxy Class firepower was not required for most of the troubleshooting situations we saw the Galaxy Class engage in.
One thing is pretty clear: if the Enterprise-D is any indication of what the Galaxy Class was often up to, then exploration of the distant reaches was often not their primary role. "
Ah a'grey. The Ent-D was a flagship likewise, always there to make an statement by appearing, a bit like the aircraft carriers today. But then, that was also the mission of the Constitutions -- patrol work and exploring (if you read The Making of Star Trek). Troubleshooting doesn't make these lesser explorers, though if you call a ship a "Troubleshooter" instead of "Explorer", it's clear you're leaning more towards the patrol ship side of the job.
"In any case, though, the notion of Intrepids as "super-warships" makes no sense, at least not as you've described it thus far. Besides which, if the Intrepids are the Federation's troubleshooters (which suggests that they'd be relegated to duties within or very near the Federation), then when war came they'd still be troubleshooting, a la Picard and the E-E in Insurrection. Indeed, they'd have to be doing *more* troubleshooting, since other starships that often got troubleshooting duties were now taking on Dominion warships."
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily make them less armed or capable of defending themselves. Ok, I'll concede that "superwarship" is a bit too informal; how about "extremely well armed"? I suggested in an earlier post that they might be used for special purposes because they're so few in number. Similarily, we haven't seen much of the Defiants in the war, although they can be built fairly quickly. Starfleet is likely to want to hold on to these for special missions.
As for the discussion about weaponry, while the Intrepid does store fewer torpedoes at a time, it's also storing tricobalt devices, as you've mentioned, while the torpedoes can be replenished onboard. In general, comparing the exact counts and numbers doesn't help us because the Intrepid could easily have more advanced torpedoes and phasers (we've heard something of 80 isoton or 200 isoton torpedoes on the show). If the official article says it has weaponry "at least equal to the phaser and photon torpedoes of the Galaxy-class", I see no reason not to believe it -- it's a pretty strong statement to compare its weaponry to that of GCS to the first place, and then it simply uses the word "equal" instead of "equal in type" or "equal in number." If someone says that the white man is equal to the black man, I wouldn't interpret this as "equal in height". The word "equal" is much more encompassing.
And as for giving the Galaxy tricobalts -- where are they? The Defiant is firing quantum torpedoes all the time during battles, but no other ships are except for the Lakota and the Ent-E. These weapons are probably as scarce as the ships they're used on.
Timo: I agree about the way things are in the real world, but let's keep in mind that Starfleet is experiencing a bit of a technology boom. The computer storage has suddenly jumped from kiloquads to teraquads (see Bernd's page), the isolinear gel packs are there, the Intrepid uses a transporter effect seen nowhere else. Hence, if we apply this to the weaponry likewise (torpedoes with isoton ratings exceeding quantum torpedoes in the DS9TM!) it probably needs to sacrifice very little.
Boris
[ May 02, 2002, 06:38: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I'll give you a real life example, South Dakota battleships are the best Treaty battleship ever built. She had a length comparable to a World War I battleship during a time when length was better for higher speed. The previous class, the North Dakota was longer, had less armor (there is a simple reason for this, but check at www.warships1.com for more info). The Sodak was speicifically designed to withstand her own guns go almost the same speed as the Carolina, and had the same guns on board. Now the only weakness she had was that she was cramped. Obviously for a ship being smaller, and being more powerful than her larger counterpart, she had advanced (for the times) technology.
If I were to compare the Intrepid to the Galaxy, it would be to a battecruiser to a battleship. Same firepower, but more speed and less protection. Though doe we know if the Intrepid has as powerful sheilds as the Galaxy class?
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
While we're at it we might suppose that the Defiant class is obsolete after the war.
I was pondering this thread and wondered what the design process for the Defiant was - how do you come up with a design to work against a "super-threat" like the Borg. "Hmm - we've been building large ships that can't move real well. Maybe a small agile ship ship with non-conventional weapons." OK they tried that, we really didn't get a very clear picture in First Contact of how it worked for them - but Defiant did survive which is a vote in favor of success. However by their very nature the (non-voyager) Borg adapt. Old (once used) techniques won't work in the future. So the Defiant is no longer a good novel weapon against the Borg - its designed purpose.
The class was used in a more conventional role during the DW - and seemed to have done well acting as sort of a UFP BOP. However, with the Dominion tucked back in the G quad do they still need BOP's?
From on screen evidence it would seem they would make lousy peacetime patrol ships. They seem to be high maintenance and very uncomfortable for the crew - by SF standards anyhow. Perhaps if we were to be able to see the post-war era we'd find the Defiants becoming hanger queens - those that aren't put into mothballs outright.
Of course that presumes a post-war peace....I guess we'll see in the next movie(s).
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
One thing to be careful about: the Borg can't adapt to EVERYTHING. Can they adapt to Q? There are some things even Borg can't survive, and once the Federation hits upon them, they could well be done with.
Also, the Defiant was designed to work within a fleet of Defiants, not as a single ship ("The Search"). I agree about the comfort issues, but who knows? The Defiants seem ideal for long range, dangerous exploration missions (as opposed to freely risking all those children on Galaxy class ships full of children). Maybe a couple of them could go together, staffed with more adventurous people than the usual Starfleet stock.
[ May 02, 2002, 11:06: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I agree that the Defiant was designed to be along with other Defiants, like fighters for support. Nah, in terms of patrol ships, they would make good patrol ships being stationed near stations like the Defiant at DS9. That could be their peacetime role.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Also, the Defiant was designed to work within a fleet of Defiants, not as a single ship ("The Search"). I agree about the comfort issues, but who knows? The Defiants seem ideal for long range, dangerous exploration missions (as opposed to freely risking all those children on Galaxy class ships full of children). Maybe a couple of them could go together, staffed with more adventurous people than the usual Starfleet stock.
Too bad she's as small as hell, and doesn't pack any specialized sensors or labs. What's she going to explore with? Phaser cannons?
We know that most Starfleet torpedoe launchers are single fire types, the only ones that are capable of firing multiple torpedoes at ones are several times the size of a runabout. Does Voyager look like she has enough space for those? Maybe beside the infinite capacity computer core, or the really big shelf full of Janeway's wigs?
There are no evidence in support of Voyager packing more fire power than the Galaxy, unless you want to count "Endgame", in which Voyager packed more heat than god himself.
[ May 02, 2002, 18:51: Message edited by: David Templar ]
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Don't forget the extra-large shuttlebay! Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Just to add to the length of the thread, I'll contest the claim that the Defiant was supposed to operate in swarms of her sister ships.
All "The Search" claims, as I see it, is that the Defiant was to herald an era where the ships in Starfleet would be capable of taking on the Borg. The Defiant would be the first ship in this new Starfleet. She wouldn't necessarily be any more dependent on swarm-style "fleet operations" than other starships would, however - all Sisko is saying is that she would be part of the (Star-)Fleet of tomorrow.
Perhaps she'd be a silver-bullet part specializing in solo operations; perhaps a regular ship that sometimes flies in formation with other ships; or perhaps she would indeed be operated in swarms. But this wasn't clear from Sisko's statement at all, and what Starfleet really intended to do with the ship remains mere guesswork.
What the Fleet ended up doing with the ship was probably utterly unrelated to the pre-"The Search" plans. Save for the one botched assault in "Valiant", or the alt-universe sally against the Regent's mega-battlewagon, the ships of this class were never really operated against enemies comparable to the Borg. NX-74205 mostly preyed on small opponents, sometimes taking on a Galor or a Keldon but rarely approaching a full-sized Dominion warship.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Good points Timo -
My guess is that Defiant and any proposed sisters for the anti-Borg role were intended to simply inflict as much initial damage as possible in a hope that the more conventional ships could then finish the cube off. Remember all SF really knew was that Enterprise had had initial success in their first meeting (and Picard had failed to finish them) then in BOBW they were able to carve through a whole fleet. They needed something to slow them down at least long enough to concentrate all available firepower - which is perhaps what happens in First Contact. Whatever they did apparently worked as when the E-E showed up they were damaged and vulnerable.
Maybe the Defiants were even to ram it - what is that funky module for in the nose for? I've heard detachable warhead - but do we know if that is "official".
As for future roles: exploration - see above, the ships are not well equipped for that and have little room for upgrades. Also - do they have the range?
Patrol - what does a patrol ship do in peace time? Most likely what a coast guard cutter does now - interdiction of illegal vessels, resource protection, and search and rescue. Seems a Nova could likely do those just as well if we assume lightly armed (or unarmed) smugglers. I'd suspect the more run-of-the-mill Nova's to be easier to operate than the cutting edge Defiants.
Post WWII - even with a potentially greater threat in store from the Soviets (which was realized at the time) many of the "cutting edge" ships (and other weapons) were placed into storage or scrapped. I think a democracy (or post-modern whatever that the UFP is) can't maintain a "war surge" economy without an obvious immediate threat.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I checked the dialogue again:
"Five years ago Starfleet began exploring the possibility of building a new class of Starship, this ship would have no families, no science labs, no luxuries of any kind."
Sisko starts off by talking about a single starship class, as opposed to a set of classes.
"It was designed for one purpose only: To fight and defeat the Borg."
Its purpose is being defined.
"The Defiant was a prototype, the first ship in what would have been a new Federation battlefleet."
Now here's where things get tricky -- is she a prototype for a single class or a set of classes? The reference to a new "class" of starship at the beginning suggests the former. Otherwise, why didn't Sisko broaden the scope in his opening by referring to "new classes", and "these ships"?
In any case, it would make sense that Starfleet was planning to send more than one of these ships against the Borg. The one cube was defeated almost through sheer luck; hence, the assumption was probably that in the next attack, the Borg would merely send two or three cubes (and we know they were only able to spare one in the next attack likewise).
Now, considering that a Defiant takes a year to build by someone who doesn't know anything about it ("Shattered Mirror") and the number of shipyards within the Federation, once the design is completed they could be churned out in numbers. This construction time suggests that Starfleet was planning to have a lot more than one Defiant per cube, which is probably why it wasn't designed to face large warships on its own.
Besides, the main issue that bothered it was structural integrity. Nobody ever complained about its weapons efficiency.
Toadkiller: the warhead wasn't designed for ramming. It detaches from the main body with several torpedoes inside, and is only to be used in an emergency.
The Defiant could explore in the sense of making first contact with potentially dangerous civilizations. However, I agree that it's a bit too powerful for peacetime. It could be a border patrol ship, like the Hideki, attached to several starbases in the area. However, that's just speculation.
Boris
[ May 03, 2002, 05:01: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
"Toadkiller: the warhead wasn't designed for ramming. It detaches from the main body with several torpedoes inside, and is only to be used in an emergency."
Begs the question why Worf didn't use it thus in First Contact though, huh? I would assume that he'd not care about the production costs for the filmmakers! If that is what it is for then it must render the ship less capable in some way or it would be used right away, while you still could. Also - is that in some way more dangerous than simply firing the torps normally? If it just a chunk-o-antimatter in the front, then you'd best fire that puppy right away before the bad guy shoots it. It would have made more sense to have it be an escape pod allowing you to "fire" the rest of the ship into the cube and still get away. Maybe it can easily be filled with anti-matter if you get to the point that you need to use it - sort of the fire ship idea.
"The Defiant could explore in the sense of making first contact with potentially dangerous civilizations."
Not a very Star Trek/UFP approach however to conduct diplomatic meetings with custom built warships. Picard would never approve....
What I was going for in my first point was that if I were making an anti-Borg ship long term use would not be a primary concern of mine as I would figure that it/they would either all be assimilated or we would succeed and we'd have to come up with a new idea anyhow to fend off the next wave. I don't think "winning" was the design objective - just survival.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I do not find it hard to believe that the Defiant can be built in such large numbers that regardless of the ship, those 'swarms' of Defiants could take down any Cube or Dom. battleship/dreadnought.
Imagine if Starfleet did in fact built large numbers of Defiants. SofA, instead of a wide range of classes, the fleet could consist of a few Galaxys and Akiras but mostly made of Defiants. Do you really think (assuming that a Defoant equals a Galaxy in battle), Dominion and Cardassian fleets would be a match for 600+ Defiants? It's a dream, but thats what would be their best role.
Peacetime, a few stationed near stations prtecting the station itself and patroling for some hostile aliens. Yes, the Nova could be used for some undergunned 'pirates' and so forth. But thats not really what they were designed to do.
Nova: Undergunned Defiant: Overgunned
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Actually, bearing in mind the similarity of the Nova to the Defiant pathfinder I wonder if the two were designed at roughly the same time, perhaps as some kind of 'small ships modernization program'. Perhaps using the excuse of needing a small 'escort' to squeeze a replacement for the Oberth out of the Federation Council; or maybe to balence the science/ military aspects of the fleet.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Or a future Starfleet fleet consisting of Defiants, Novas and the GSC family.
But you are right that Oberth is due for a replacement.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
One wonders what other classes might be part of this "battlefleet." It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that the Prometheus class was designed towards that end. Both the Intrepid and Sovereign classes would seem to predate Wolf 359 by a fair bit, but perhaps they were tweaked afterwards as a result? A fleet composed of those four classes sounds pretty formidable.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: The Defiant could explore in the sense of making first contact with potentially dangerous civilizations.
You would send very small, over-gunned, under-manned, under-equipped, somewhat slow, short-ranged vessel to make first contact with "potentially" dangerous civilizations?
Going back a bit, I've given some thoughts about the Defiant's speed being limited by her SIF. If O'Brian had to take power from the phasers to boost the SIF, doesn't it mean that she's already devoting most of her power to simply maintaining warp 9.5? She's over powered for her size, but no one said she had all the power she could ever use. Besides, most ships her size probably can't get up to the 9.5 range.
The Defiant's a good ship, but she has her weaknesses. For one thing, she doesn't do well against ships that can get behind her and stay there.
No one in their right mind would send a Fleet composed of a single class of ships against the Borg. The Borg would just adapt to one ship/the whole Fleet, and wipe everyone out. Diversity is one of the keys to defeating the Borg.
The Intrepid project has already progressed for a number of years before Wolf 359. The Sovereign was designed and laid down simply to fight the Borg.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Was not.
Mark
Posted by F. G. Sanford (Member # 818) on :
I sorta think of the Defiant a over powered, underequipped piece of battlewagon that usually lays around space dock until it can limp over to the battlefield at warp 9 and tear its warp naccels off firing all those weapons. Nice ship visually but techincally it's a piece of junk.
[ May 03, 2002, 20:21: Message edited by: F. G. Sanford ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
A singularly odd statement.
Anyway, this:
quote: You would send very small, over-gunned, under-manned, under-equipped, somewhat slow, short-ranged vessel to make first contact with "potentially" dangerous civilizations?
seems to be exactly what Starfleet did in "The Search."
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
The Defiant was only ever intended to be a ship with a single purpose; to kill Borg (or at least slow them down). Any post war fleet would probably have Defiants in two main roles; perimeter action vessels patroling borders, anti-piracy missions and the like and also a mobile reserve(s) that can be activated if needed and sent to spots where superior firepower is needed.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Wasn't it the Odyssey's mission to meet the Dominion, not the Defiant originally? Of course, the Odyssey failed (after Keogh dropped his shields), but the Defiant herself was also taken down.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Odyssey's mission to meet and confront Jem'Hadar and rescue Sisko and company. Defiant's mission to meet mysterious Founders.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
They sent the Defiant because they needed something with a cloak. They wanted to avoid the Jem'Hadar/Dominion patrol, but didn't know that the Founders were the Dominion.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I never really would send a Defiant do such missions unless she was specially equipped to do so.
There is no evidence to show that the Sovereign class was designed to fight the Borg. For all we know, the Sovereign class could be the Battleship equiviliant of the Galaxy class.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I'm sure that Starfleet could have put the cloaking device on any ship it wanted. The Federation negotiated to get that cloak from the Romulans for the sole purpose of scouting missions in the Gamma Quadrant. They specifically chose the Defiant for the expedition into the Dominion.
Why? Because the Galaxy Class was widely regarded as the best and most powerful starship that Starfleet had to offer. Of course, the Jem'Hadar wiped the floor with the Odyssey, even if you discount the kamikaze attack.
The Defiant, on the other hand, was specifically designed for combat missions. The Borg, the Dominion... it doesn't really matter all that much. Either way, Starfleet must have anticipated the potential for weeks-long deployments and extended combat with a very powerful enemy. Clearly, they believed (or desperately hoped) that the Defiant would live up to expectations.
The Defiant's original purpose may have been to fight the Borg, but that doesn't mean that a warship can't be easily adapted to other combat situations. The Defiant has all the capabilities of a front-line cruiser: heavy on-target weaponry, strong shielding, extreme maneuverability. So it might not come in a perfect package, and it might not be able to deploy at the extreme speeds of ships like the Intrepid Class. That might limit its response times in certain scenarios, but I would hardly call it a failure or consider it useless in peacetime.
I'm going to draw on my experience in the wonderful "You're the Admiral" threads from a few months back. In Sector Beta, I had four Defiant Class ships as part of my standing sector task force. They were a bit slower than my Sovereign Class flagship or the Intrepid Class troubleshooter, but they were extremely useful for patrol purposes, and for defense. And furthermore, when the time came for an outright invasion, they were available to deliver heavy firepower against the enemy fleet. The only thing they really weren't useful for was rapid-response operations against relatively distant enemy intruders.
I'm sure that the Defiant Class could have some very good uses in the postwar Starfleet. It's hardly suited for exploration of any real duration, but it would be extremely useful for patrol and defense purposes. Station a small squadron of Defiants at a local starbase, and keep them a regular (or not-so-regular) patrol route, so at least one ship in any given area is available to respond.
And of course, Starfleet doesn't consist solely of Defiants, so any other classes of starship out there can lend their own special talents to the situation at hand, too.
Starfleet can be dynamic in organization. I see a vast variety of available options given the various types of starships that we've seen. To consider one class to be totally useless would be a very ill-considered judgement.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:but didn't know that the Founders were the Dominion.
David,
They knew that the Founders ran the Dominion. They just didn't know WHO the Founders were. But they certainly knew the Jem'Hadar were the Founder's troops.
Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :
U know with the Defiant being overpowered for a ship her size, but like [i'm not an engineer here so i wouldnt really know] but wouldnt a Starfleet design team have the computing power to make a computer model of the Defiant to test it in different situations? WOuldnt they have found out it was over-powered in computer simulations??
I know the Enterprise [the USN carrier] was overpowered wit 8 reactors, but that was like in the '60s (or '70s not sure).
I was just wondering about it, if any tech-savvy ppl here no the answer to my questions i'd be grateful.
Buzz
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Well, when they say the Defiant is overpowered, I assume they mean that they push the ship to its limits. So, typically, a ship her size such as the Nova doesn't require as much power output. It's possible the engineers knew that all the weapon systems on the ship combined exceed the standard limits placed on energy usage, but Starfleet wanted to squeeze in as much weaponary power before the ship would tear herself apart.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
MinutiaMan -- thanks for using the four-ship groups in your sim. That's what I've been going with as the standard deployment for the Defiant class ever since "Call to Arms", when the Defiant moved into formation with the other three Defiants in that part of the fleet.
Then, two-ship elements can break off for escort duty, as with that Akira in "Message in a Bottle". I think only rarely would they be sent out solo. But that's just me projecting based on circumstantial evidence.
--Jonah
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
The idea of four ship elements is directly from WW2 USN fighter formations, I can't remember what it was called but the standard formation was four aircraft which could break up into two 2 aircraft sections. It was intended that this way the pilots could support each other against the faster and more heavily armed Japanese fighters.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Oh yeah... Secotr Gamma...
Mark
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
The Enterprise was overpowered with 8 reactors because the previous ships, the Long Beach, the Nautilus both had about four (don't remember), and they assumed that the Enterprise being the largest would need eight but later found out she required around only six.
I always assumed that the Defiant was designed with a different warp core, and later had a newer one put in.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Matrix, it gets even better. Those reactors on all those ships you mentioned were originally designed for the nuclear submarine fleet. Later nuclear carriers had larger reactors. Only the Enterprise was given the submarine-sized ones. And during her refit in the '80s, they decided that replacing the reactors with contemporary carrier reactors would involve too much internal reworking, and so she got eight contemporary submarine reactors. I don't know how much higher they're rated than the originals, but under normal carrier group ops, she only has four generating at any given time.
But...
An old friend of mine who was part of CINCPac at the time told me about the little jape the skipper of the Big 'E' pulled on some Russian observers of US fleet maneuvers -- evidently involving all eight reactors being brought online.
The view from Norm's sub was of the Enterprise's stern settling a bit as she gradually outaccelerated the rest of the group, heeled hard over to port to run a ring around all of the ships accompanying her, and then took off along their original course like a bat out of hell. The Enterprise's top speed is still classified, but she was pulling up a rooster-tail as she left the battlegroup behind...
--Jonah
[ May 05, 2002, 23:37: Message edited by: Peregrinus ]
Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :
thats pretty fast heh the fastest that i've traveled on a military vessel was 2/3 power on a Sheffield Type 42 guided missile destroyer [HMS Nottingham] and that seemed fast, and the turn rate is pretty impressive, at full speed, the ship can turn 180 degrees in 2 ship lengths (about 800+ feet)
I've been on CVN-72 but that was anchored at sea during a stay in Singapore, so couldnt experience the speed on that.
Buzz
[ May 07, 2002, 04:15: Message edited by: Fedaykin Supastar ]
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
And they are going to retire her in a few years? Well, by the time I get out of A-school and a month of shore leave in May-June of 2003, it is very likely I will be on the Enterprise herself as Aviation Structural Mechanic. Sounds like fun.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
It may be good, but it's still old. The Navy's retiring my favorite fighter in seven or eight years -- again because it does what it was designed to do too well.
--Jonah
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
What's that Jonah, kill the enemy--- gotta have a challenge somehow, what's the fun in war without? [Sorry if my cynical nature offends... but sometimes it does seem silly that the big wigs want to retire any piece of equipment, fighter or ship, during this time].
Oh, and as for the comments about the Enterprise's maneuvers, it's the first time I've heard the story. Did the sonar operators on our side pick up the Russian jaws hitting the deck?
[ May 06, 2002, 15:41: Message edited by: J ]
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by J: Oh, and as for the comments about the Enterprise's maneuvers, it's the first time I've heard the story. Did the sonar operators on our side pick up the Russian jaws hitting the deck?
Yes, but the sound of their jaws was hard to distinguish from the sound of them shitting bricks.
G2k
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
The Enterprise class was suppose to be the fastest of all CVNs, since she retained the speed hull form of the earlier Kitty Hawk class. She's got better performance at dashing, but not as good at cruising at the Nitmizs. At least, that's what I remembered.
Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: The Navy's retiring my favorite fighter in seven or eight years
i'm not a whizz at naval aviation but u're talking about the F-14 right?? [if not correct me] but isnt the F-14 being retired coz it's Interceptor role is slightly uselsess nowadays, weren't they trying to mod them to fly as 'BombCats' during Bosnia. With the F/A-18 dual capability and then the introduction of the JSF the F-14 would be out of place? Plus isnt the government cutting down on spending all the time?
Buzz
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
That story about the Enterprise's high speed dash brought an old memory to mind. My brother served aboard the Big E as a jet mechanic back in the early 70's. He used to tell us a story that she could do 50 knots. I always thought he was full of it, but maybe he wasn't as crazy as I thought he was. (He died in the late 80's, so I can't go back to him for more info). Hmmm.....
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
The often-quoted-of-late site http://www.warships1.com/ has a fair bit of information on the speeds of various aircraft carriers. It is of course unclassified but the physics seems to stand the light of reason.
For the most part I think the retiring of ships/aircraft/even starships is based on a preceived worth to bother ratio. At some point it is just easier to buy or build exactly what you want rather than try to refit what you have.
The (current day) big-E is pretty darn old for something subjected to daily use on the sea. It is amazing the amount of work that is required to keep a ship going - and someday they just wear out....
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: Plus isnt the government cutting down on spending all the time?
On Bizarro World, sure.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by Toadkiller: The (current day) big-E is pretty darn old for something subjected to daily use on the sea. It is amazing the amount of work that is required to keep a ship going - and someday they just wear out....
Why do you think they canned the Iowas? Those things were falling apart on the job, and people still wanted to squeeze a few more years out of them.
I think the Navy's making a big mistake replacing the Tomcats with something like the Super Hornet. For one thing, the Super Hornets sucks. It's a flying bell and whistle basket that can't even out fly its grandfather, the F/A-18. I think the Navy's going a bit too far with standardrized and jack-of-all-trade designs. Maybe the JSF will do better, but I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Yes, I was referring to the F-14. Wonderful plane, and not nearly matched by the Super Hornet. My friends in the Navy refer to the various models of the F-18 as "plastic wasps".
Of course, on the flip side, one friend in particular related to me the old Navy adage about the F-4: "Proof that with enough power, even a brick can fly".
... And the F-14: "Proof that with even more power, you can make it do tricks".
At any rate... Matrix? If I'm successful at being able to secure a disarmed and partially-stripped F-14 after they're retired, do you think I could convince you to sign on as my Chief Mechanic?
--Jonah
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Sure why not?
I do not doubt the speed of the Enterprise to go over 50 knots. Thship itself is overpowered which is not a bad thing, considering that the fuel is actually in Navy terms unlimited.
The Iowa class was not falling apart on the job. The ship was just too expensive for what they do. Think about it, for bombardment, they could have reactivated the Des Moines class, with their rapid fire 8' turrets. Not as much power as the Iowa's 16" but they will do the job.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Hell, why not commission Japan to build a new Yamato-class battleship? 18.1" main guns and 16" thick waist armour. No wonder they retrofitted it into a spaceship...
--Jonah
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Nah the Montana class is far better. 12 16" guns with 16" armor belt with similar speed to the Yamato class.
Consequently, the Yamato being made into a space battleship? Do they know that she is upside down and broken in half?
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:Originally posted by Matrix: The Iowa class was not falling apart on the job. The ship was just too expensive for what they do. Think about it, for bombardment, they could have reactivated the Des Moines class, with their rapid fire 8' turrets. Not as much power as the Iowa's 16" but they will do the job.
Some people from tha warship1 forum said differently a while back. In any case, arty bombardment is pretty pointless today, with guided munitions. The psychological effects of those 16" guns are indisputible, but accurately eliminating the target is so much better. Does the Des Moines' guns even have close to the range of the Iowas? The Iraqi coast had extensive minefields, you really don't want to ge too close.
quote:Originally posted by Matrix: Consequently, the Yamato being made into a space battleship? Do they know that she is upside down and broken in half?
At at the time Super Mobile Battleship Yamato was made, no, I think they only discovered the wreck later on. I think the Musashi's in better shape, though, give her the refit.
[ May 09, 2002, 14:05: Message edited by: David Templar ]
Posted by Warped1701 (Member # 40) on :
quote:Does the Des Moines' guns even have close to the range of the Iowas?
Not really, according to www.warships1.com. A 16"/50 Mark 7 gun on the Iowa class with a 2700lbs AP round has an effective range of 42,345 yards, while the Des Moines' 8"/55RF Mark 16 gun with a 335lbs AP round only has an effective range of 30,050 yards. Considering an increase of over 12000 yards range, and 2435lbs of power behind the round I'd choose the Iowa as a shore bombardment platform any day. At least, if I didn't have other weapons systems like the Harpoon or Tomahawk.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Then again, if we are talking about 30-40-klick ranges, the high end doesn't remove the bombardment ship from the range of any shore defense systems, nor does the lower range bring any new shore defenses to play. If the intent is to bombard coastal defenses, then coastal artillery and light missiles can't respond to 30 klicks, but heavy missiles and anti-ship aircraft and torpedo boats will reach out to 40 klicks easily enough.
Bombarding deep inland targets isn't worth the trouble - if you can drive your ship so close to the shore, you can also land troops that carry their own artillery, or you can perform precision air strikes.
This with regard to reactivated old gun cruisers or battleships. A modern shore bombardment ship could in theory be designed so that it is more survivable than an air strike or an artillery landing attempt. I doubt anybody would want to do anything like that, though. The "arsenal ships" projected nowadays are all missile launching platforms, with an AA or anti-missile primary role instead of bombardment. And modern guns are designed for shore bombardment only in conditions where you already have *complete* superiority of the coastal waters, and could build a fixed Big Bertha on a cassoon there if you wanted!
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
The friend I referenced in another thread regarding the aphorisms about the F-4 and F-14 regaled me with many other Navy anecdotes.
All this talk of offshore bombardment reminded me of one of them. He was stationed on the Roosevelt during Desert Storm as a Cryptotech, and he told me about the day bombardment began. One of the monitors in the suite was showing the targeting data the Missouri was using for her 16" guns. Nice peaceful downtown Baghdad street. A bread delivery truck was toodling along, when all of a sudden the street blows up in front of it. The truck screeches to a halt and starts reversing, only to have the street blow up behind it. By this point, the terrified driver's had quite enough, and he gets out and sprints out of view as the third shell takes out the truck itself.
--Jonah
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Yeah you'll hear alot of stories that the Iowa can target a object at 40,000 yards with pinpoint accuracy.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
thats pretty fast heh