Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
Starfleet Outclassed
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WizArtist II: [QB] Ships should be designed for their functions. The one thing British aircraft have taught the world is that they can build a plane that will do everything but excel at nothing. Their use of the Harrier in the Falklands proved the implausability of this concept and it cost them 5 ships. The Harrier is a fantastic aircraft in it's limited role as a close support fighter but is useless in the CAP (Combat Air Patrol) role. The same goes for Starfleet vessels. There should be specific types and classes for specific purposes. Look at the Connies. In ST3 the Klingon says "Federation Battlecruiser" when the E approaches. That would tend to infer that there are larger more powerful classes out there. Perhaps in her day, the connies were THE class of battleship. BUT, just as old U.S. Navy BB's at Pearl Harbor were top of the line in their day (the 1920's) two decades later they were barely even second rate ships and certainly no match for an Iowa or Yamato class BB. And now, not even the Tomahawk equipped Iowas are of any real significance as anything other than floating museums. Another issue I see is where are the Carriers? When you see the little runabouts hefting photons and such, why didn't Starfleet produce true Fighters and Bombers? The Maquis gave Starfleet fits with their nimble little ships. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3