posted
As for that "command ship" thing, it's typical of today's command ships to be virtually unarmed. The USN uses converted amphibious assault ships as the command ships of its expeditionary fleets, armed with CIWS systems and machine guns only. It also retains the Mount Whitney class ships built of helicopter carrier hulls, "armed" with some antique GP guns, for amphibious assault command. And the big carriers also serve as command platforms, having only a basic anti-aircraft armament. None engage the enemy in combat if they can avoid it.
The prime criteria of a modern command ship are good communications facilities and plenty of interior room. That's been pretty much the standard ever since the admirals got the radio. During WWII, fast combatants like destroyers and cruisers would still have been used for flagship duties when the fleet lacked proper radars, but towards the end of the war all allied ships of note had radar anyway. So admirals moved back to the big and lumbering battleships, and then even further back to the dedicated, almost unarmed command centers.
Of course, if Trek is Horatio Hornblower instead of 20th century, then using the bad-ass primary combatants as command ships is perfectly okay. Perhaps the assumption is that sensor jamming will prevent the proper following of combat unless you are in the thick of it? And Starfleet seems to like multimissionalizing, so why build specialized command ships when you can integrate the function into a practical exploration and/or combat vessel?
posted
Obviously I will never convince anyone about why I think the Galaxy class is too large for what it is supposed to do. And you will never convince me either. For one, most people will have biased opinions about something for instance I could tell you that the moon is made of cheese. I could show you pictures, the chemical composition, the actual cheese from the moon, and witnesses that have seen the moon up close and said its cheese, and you will never believe its cheese even with all the evidence I jhave shown you. Think about that FOX show a year ago saying that we never landed on the moon, it was just a cover up, if you seen it, did you seriously believe that we never landed on the moon?
Command ships of today are unarmed due to that what their new role is compared to what it was before. We never had a command ship before the 1950's, it was always a battleship or a cruiser designed with flagship accomadations.
The Sovereign is indeed long, with the nacelles taking up a good portion of the length. I do not defend the Sovereign, someone asked what my opinion was on the Sovereign and I gave it. Now because of that now its me vs. the world.
Personally I don't like the Sovereign either even more so than the Galaxy class. Becaus ein reality the Sovereign class was designed to look cool. The Galaxy class actually when it was designed had a function as well as making it look more advanced than the E-nil and the E-A.
Apparently alot of ships are now designed that way now.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
I don't believe the claims that we didn't land on the moon because their evidence is bullshit. It doesn't even qualify as evidence.
I don't believe your claims because your evidence is flimsy, and your theories based on them are flawed.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Ok, my Trek knowledge is out of date with everyone elses. I haven't been at this baord regularly for almost 4-5 months now. However my knowledge about naval terms, history, and tactics are far advanced now. I see Trek almost as naval battles in the 1700-1800's. My reasoning is if it was like it is today, battles would be waged from light years away with torpedoes and missiles as the main weapons. But that is not the case, we have the cloaked ships which could be termed as subs, we have capital ships in the battleship role, we have heavy cruisers, destroyers, that fire broadsides at each other. So when use tactics I use those eras becuase for one we really don't see any modern tactic warfare in Trek now do we?
Call it flawed all you want, but in reality if you look at it, how are we going to base tactics and roles off of, from on screen evidence if we don't use history as a guide?
Don't get me wrong, I lvoe the Galaxy class and some of you think that I would love to see the Galaxy class burn in hell. The Galaxy class out of all Trek ships is the most graceful, most elegant. But for its role (besides carrying families on board) I really don't see why it should be that large.
Oh and on the Moon landing overup, there was so much evidence, however its how you look at it. You saw what they demonstrated and such and turned your head away. For X amount of years you were brought up to believe that the world is round and the moon is not made of cheese and that we did land on the moon. So it would be hard to accept that what you believe in for your whole life might be false. Look at the Middle East, they believe that God will save them from the dirty Americans. So far I have yet to see any godly powers stop bombs.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
We thought we won, we thought it all was over...
But then the Moon-is-cheese theory stunned us all...
Oh yeah, amphibious command ships makes a terrible example for what we're arguing. For one thing, it was designed to command amphibious opeartions, so there is no way it could suddenly grow wheels, and haul itself onto the beach like a giant AAAV. It's not meant to fight. If you want real command ships, try the Ticonderogas. They were actually designed to command the entire defenses of a CVBG. Or even the CVN herself, she commands and fights.
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
his sig is like icing on the cake
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, his sig is actually an allusion to the Bible.
As to the actual starship topic, Matrix, I'm just glad you at least feel the same way about the Sovereign as the Galaxy.
Speaking of command ships, isn't the USS Kitty Hawk acting as our (U.S.'s) command base for the Afghan operations? I heard she will actually be decommissioned soon, however.
posted
I believe so, she is I think right now the only carrier near there.
The Moon-is-cheese concept, at this moment I forgot why I said that. I think it was to demonstrate hanging on ideas for awhile can could your judgement.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
I watched the special. Most of it I dismissed as bullshit, which it was.
"Look at this crater 'taken' by one of the Apollo missions. Now look at this crater outside of Area 51. Don't they look strikingly similar?"
There were a few points they made that I couldn't answer based on my own experience. So I went to nasa.gov and did the fucking responsible thing and got the other side of the story. And guess what? They presented completely logical, reasonable, and plausible explanations for every single point that special brought up.
I dismiss the moon hoax theories because their evidence, their logic, and their reasoning are all shit.
And please listen closely at this:
**Just because it's somebody's opinion, doesn't mean its not wrong**
If your 'opinion' is based on incorrect facts, invalid axioms, and illogical reasoning - IT IS BULLSHIT
I am so sick of people saying the stupidest fucking things and when someone calls them out on it, spouting off "Well that's my opinion." like that's some fucking end all be all Get-Out-Of-Jail free card about being proven as an idiot.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
