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.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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.)
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
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.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Going by the nacelles, the Niagara (as well as the Freedom) class should belong in the same time period as the Galaxy.
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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!
-------------------- If you cant convince them, confuse them.
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
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.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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??
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
posted
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.
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
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.
![[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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
