OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
I watched this episode not too long ago and heard this infamous quote for myself.
Now I should preface my tiny and inconsequential discovery (assuming it hasn't already been talked about) with my belief that there are no where near 93 Galaxy class ships, let alone 93 wings of them. (Going by modern Air Force terminology, a Wing is composed of Squadrons, which is in turn composed of Flights, which themselves contain the individual units, ie ships, people, or planes)
So imagine my delight when I heard this quote and instead of it being what everybody said it was, it turned out to make my desire to explain a small Starfleet that much easier.
It is not, "Galaxy Wings NINETY-ONE through NINETY-THREE"
It is, "Galaxy Wings NINE-ONE through NINE-THREE"
In sort, without the padding of unneccessary bullshit to conceal the lack of new stuff to talk about, this is another example of the starbase or Jupiter station speculation.
Are starbases numbered chronologically? There is no evidence towards that, where there are several real life examples of things and particularly installations not being numbered sequentially.
And this wording makes it that much easier to chalk this up to the idea that this is another example of things being numbered in a way that we simply do not have enough information to make sense of.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
The thing is, there was never any real correlation between "Galaxy wings" and Galaxy class starships. Perhaps if Sisko had additionally said "Excelsior wings" or "Miranda wings," it would have been clearer. But for all we know, galaxy wings are just a referral system to a certain formation of ships. They could also have had "universe wings" or "star wings" or something as well.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
So what are you saying, David? That this has been discussed before and I thus look like an idiot or that you just don't care?
True, Dukhat. And I'd have no problem divorcing the line from the class of ships at all. But given the lack of information either way, I could see it realistically being in reference to the ships as anythig else, and in that case at least require an explanation as to why it doesn't mean 93 different Galaxy class ships.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
But what exactly is a Galaxy wing? A wing composed of only Galaxy class ships? Or a Galaxy class ship and it's battlegroup, like modern aircraft carriers?
And 9-1 and 9-3 could mean something like the 1st and 3rd Galaxy wings of the 9th fleet.
posted
I've always figured that "Galaxy Wing" meant a division of the Fleet (9th, 2nd, 5th in this instance) that was commanded by a Galaxy-class ship. Therefore, there could also be some "Excelsior Wings" or "Ambassador Wings" or "Nebula Wings" -- maybe there was even a "Defiant Wing" if Sisko weren't focusing on the overall strategy from what we saw. (We know that there were a number of ships that were directly accompanying the Defiant for a while, anyway.)
Anyway, I figure that "Galaxy Wing" was a colloquialism or "shorthand speech" for some relatively longer code-name.
And Harry's suggestion that the number 9 means "Ninth Fleet" and the number 1 (or 3) means the first or third division of that fleet.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm not a hundred percent sure on this but it at least sounds plausible... But then again, contrary to what others may think, it's reasonably safe to assume that Galaxy-Wing refers to a squadron of ships led by one Galaxy Class command ship. I think that is what the script writers were trying to convey, what else would it be?
The Cardies had hundreds of their primary warship, the Galor Class so why can't the Feds have at least 100 Galaxy Class ships?
Other than Wings, that Federation taskforce also employed Destroyer Units. This, I would assume, consisted of a squadron of Destroyer-type ships. These laid down cover fire for the larger Galaxy Wings that led the front line.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
Galor (tried and true workhorse of Cardassian fleet) != Galaxy (new and expensive top of the line exploration vehicle)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Starfleet has the capability to build 1,000 Galaxy class ships if she wanted to from 2358 to the war, if that's all she built. Economically and demographically, Starfleet should handle up to a fleet of like 100,000 ships, yet all we see is 600+ ships to take on a 1,254 ship Dominion fleet.
IMO, I'd think by the time the war comes around, each fleet has about 6 Galaxy class ships, which is broken down to wings, with the Galaxy class ship as the command ship of the wing.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
There can't be that many Galaxy-class ships! I'd be willing to buy into a couple of dozen Galaxies, if we use the DS9:TM's excuse that a bunch of them were not "filled out" and had most of the spaceframe empty.
There's also the fact that Starfleet likely went on a shipbuilding spree in the years after Wolf 359, and so the addition of several extra Galaxy-class ships is certainly possible.
20 or at most 30 Galaxies is feasible, maybe. 1,000? Certainly not. It took 10 years to build the first ones. If they managed to cut build time in HALF (which is a huge cut), that still means five years to get one of those behemoths into service.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Im thinking that if a Galaxy were fitted out to have extra storage space beneath shuttlebay one for fighter ships (since we know these Galaxys were possibly built quickly with space to spare, not requiring labs and other nonsense), it could deploy a number of fighters. or possibly just have a squadron of smaller ships assigned to escort it. for all we know 'Galaxy-wing' refers to a group of Defiants, Mirandas and Peregrines assigned as the Escort for the Trinculo or something.
And 1,000 Galaxy class ships seems very possible.. FOR ME TO POOP ON! i, mean, really? whats got into your noggin, man?
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Rogue Starship
Ex-Member
posted
IMO, I'd think by the time the war comes around, each fleet has about 6 Galaxy class ships, which is broken down to wings, with the Galaxy class ship as the command ship of the wing.[/QB][/QUOTE]
I agree with you, that is what I was lead to believe...I would think that a Galaxy Wing would be a wing/squadron of ships Akira, Excelsior ect. lead by a Galaxy command ship. But since Starfleet has been based on a USN type system( as we have previously seen) it could also mean a wing, 3-6 ships, of Galaxy's...we can see this shown in a destroyer wing from WW2, that type of wing usually flanked a carrier or any ship with value. i.e a command ship.
posted
1000 Galaxies isn't feasible at all. I've speculated about 60 on my site, that is a more sensible guess. Yes, the Galaxy project took 20 years to perfect and develop before the first operational prototype was commissioned. Once that's nailed down they can roll them off the production line with no problem. It's the same today with cars.
There are many fleet yards throughout the Federation. Let's say for example there's only 25 yards. If each yard constructed one fully operational Galaxy Class ship in a single calendar year, they would have built approximately 375 operational Galaxy Class ships since the prototype was first commissioned. If there were only 20-30, as has been suggested then what the heck has Starfleet been doing these last fifteen years??!! It would mean Starfleet's construction rate and fleet logistics capability would be woefully poor and inadequate, they would certainly not have a sufficient fleet to patrol and maintain an area of space as large as the Federation.
Yes, 375 is probably too high. But 100 Galaxies is not at all unrealistic.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
But you've also got to consider that Starfleet has to maintain a fleet of thousands of ships. (Yeah yeah, let's avoid that damn "Size of Starfleet" debate...) It might be theoretically possible for shipyards to reach that level of production, but it would probably mean severely curtailing production of most other kinds of ships. In the Dominion War, numbers counted a bit more than size, overall.
There's also the problem that all of these shipyards need to be able to MAINTAIN the existing ships -- provide repairs and support for those that are in for their refits and overhauls. (Not standard resupply -- that's what the normal starbases are for.)
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
