As for the whole wing thing, note that in both "Favor the Bold" and "Sacrifice of Angels" we see small formations of ships in classic arrowhead shape, with a Galaxy at the tip. I'm thinking that this is at least part of what a "Galaxy wing" is. Likewise, I think that they were saying nine-one and nine-two, as in a "section nine, wing one" type of deal.
One problem with Trek ships is that they don't necessarily have to be bigger to be better. Sternbach has posited often that ships as small as the Intrepid and Defiant can mount a Type-X phaser, which would therefore match the firepower and range of a Galaxy's primary beam armament. Phaser endurance and rate of fire would likely be factors, however it means that a much smaller ship can have a similar punch at least at the outset as Starfleet's biggest.
posted
On that same note, did we ever see any Galaxy wreackage in the episodes? Even from the crippled fleet scene when the Defiant was destroyed? We sure went through a lot of Mirandas, Excelsiors and the occasional Akira...
IP: Logged
Prismatic EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
quote:Originally posted by Red BWC: And that's couting off-screen, I presume?
would someone please make me a moderator for 10 minutes? the trash needs to be taken to the curb.
IP: Logged
Red BWC
Ex-Member
posted
Ok, if you want me to shut up, I will. (Outside of Designs where I'm intelligent) See you in a month!
IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
quote: The Federation though is a huge entity, with a massive amount of resources at its disposal. I can't see a problem with the Federation running a fleet of around 8,000 ships, at least...
It's not just about building them and sending them on their way. For every ship that's out there, you have to crew, repair, resupply, refit, refuel it, etc. Basically a lot of 'r's.
It's not a question of can the Federation BUILD 8,000 ships. It's a question of whether they can OPERATE 8,000 ships.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Now hold on, I'm not defending BWC, but he's got a point here. Just because we never saw any GCS being destroyed on screen by the Dominion (other than Odyssey) nor have heard of any being destroyed, it doesn't mean it never happened. We did see quite of few GCS in the fleets, but it doesn't mean we saw all of them. We don't know how many were put into service for the war. It's possible a few were destroyed.
Now for saucer sep in the fleets, it's 50/50 on whether a captain would do it. Sure you have the extra impules engines, sensors, phasers, etc that comes with the saucer. But with the separated saucer, you've also got an extra torpedo launcher, and the primitive "multi-vector" thing going seen with the Prommie class. In effect, you now have two ships able to go after you enemy and they now have extra targets to get rid of.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Prismatic EdipisReks: other than the Big O, we never saw a Galaxy class destroyed by the Jem'Hadar. theory killed.
There might have been one in the graveyard scene in "CFoE", I can't remember for sure. Anyone got a screen cap?
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: One problem with Trek ships is that they don't necessarily have to be bigger to be better. Sternbach has posited often that ships as small as the Intrepid and Defiant can mount a Type-X phaser, which would therefore match the firepower and range of a Galaxy's primary beam armament. Phaser endurance and rate of fire would likely be factors, however it means that a much smaller ship can have a similar punch at least at the outset as Starfleet's biggest.
*shoots Mark with an Isomagnetic Doohicky*
Type-X phasers relies on the coupling effect for most of its power, so the more emitter segments, the better. Each emitter only dishes out 5.1MW, so you need a lot of them working together to get anywhere. The short little strip on the Defiant, or even the larger forward strips on the Intrepid, no where near matches the forward arrays on the Galaxy or Nebula. If they're even Type-X emitters, that is. The emitters on the Defiant and Intrepid both look a size different from the Type-X on the Galaxy.
If I got a dollar everytime someone at the TrekBBS said the Defiant had more fire power than a Galaxy, I could afford to go to those American anime cons.
quote:Originally posted by Dat: Now hold on, I'm not defending BWC, but he's got a point here. Just because we never saw any GCS being destroyed on screen by the Dominion (other than Odyssey) nor have heard of any being destroyed, it doesn't mean it never happened. We did see quite of few GCS in the fleets, but it doesn't mean we saw all of them. We don't know how many were put into service for the war. It's possible a few were destroyed.
Certainly possible. When entirely Fleets are lost, like what happened with the 7th, and the fleet at Chin'Taka, you'd expect a few Galaxy to buy the farm. However, generally when we see Galaxies in action, they're usually kicking butt. Even when the Cardassian OWPs were slaughtering other ships by the handfuls in "Tears of the Prophets" (2 Akiras destroyed within the first 15 seconds of the platforms coming online ), the Galaxy held up alright (comparatively speaking).
quote:Now for saucer sep in the fleets, it's 50/50 on whether a captain would do it. Sure you have the extra impules engines, sensors, phasers, etc that comes with the saucer. But with the separated saucer, you've also got an extra torpedo launcher, and the primitive "multi-vector" thing going seen with the Prommie class. In effect, you now have two ships able to go after you enemy and they now have extra targets to get rid of.
Problem with that is the extra torpedoe launcher is point backwards. And there is no time to recover the saucer and run if the things go bad. The only useful thing you open up is the phaser array in front of the battle bridge, but in the long run it's not worth it. A separated saucer section's impulse drive has to both propell and power the saucer, limiting the amount of power going to the phasers dramatically. At full phaser power, the saucer section runs out of juice for its phasers in less than 15 minutes. In normal operation, the endurance for phaser jumps to around 45 minutes. Really big difference.
-------------------- "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
imagine the battle power of these beauties if they built a warp core and inboard nacelles into the saucer section.
Peter David thought of it, for the new Excalibur
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Captain... Mike: imagine the battle power of these beauties if they built a warp core and inboard nacelles into the saucer section.
Peter David thought of it, for the new Excalibur
It's called Prometheus class.
-------------------- "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
its on a much grander scale, the Galaxy compared to the Prometheus. And much less specialized. The Prometheus, with all the extra equipment for separation and redundance, wouldnt seem likely to fit non-violent mission profiles. The Galaxy would become much more useful with the increased power signature/battle readiness, because it would retain much more of the self sufficiency the class is famous for and more of the extra uses the Prometheus is not famous for.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Peter David writes comic books, so I suppose he can be excused for fanciful and asinine ideas.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I posit that the Galaxy warp-refit is at least as asinine as the Prometheus over-design that actually made it on screen.
And if we are saying the comic book stuff is too fanciful for general Trek consumption, do we automatically treat the joystick as much better since it was one of the strenuously screened ideas that made it onscreen?
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
The joystick kicked ass. I think it's the same model I have for my computer. So, really, it's like I fly the Enterprise.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
), the Galaxy held up alright (comparatively speaking). 
Printer-friendly view of this topic
