Let's Fix The Galaxy Class Starship

[Mikey]

And like I said, with a support vessel you can fix this. A support vessel would allow crew turnover, crew recreation, and resupply of equipment. Enhanced replicators would allow replacement of parts, much like we saw Voyager do on repeated occasions.

Now you're talking about missions which wouldn't call for a Defiant-class at all. And again you're talking about sending multiple assets, instead of one asset which is capable of the job.

And again, by creating a support vessel you are eliminating these problems. A Norway class cruiser, for example, or a Steamrunner would both suit the role perfectly if you were looking for later era ships than the Excelsior.

And again, you're talking about creating a ship designed to help another ship do a job which neither are capable of doing well; instead of creating a ship that can do the job on its own.

And I never said otherwise. As I said above (and I really wish people would read what I write, which would eliminate the need for me to repeat myself) the Defiant would be part of a team of vessels, each one providing a different function.

And I repeat that it would make far more sense to have the Defiant fill the role it was designed for; another ship fulfill its role; a third fulfill a third role; etc.

But my entire point here-which I think you and everyone else is missing-is the Defiant, Intrepid and support vessel combined have a crew of half that of a Galaxy class at a fraction of the tonnage.

And what? Manpower sure hasn't ever seemed to be an issue for Starfleet. And in your example, your making three assets unavailable instead of one.

In some cases, yes. I do not deny my solution may have flaws. However, in the case of a humanitarian aid, for example, a faster ship like the Intrepid could easily provide it while her sisters ships caught up. But in terms of combat my idea would be especially ideal as it seems a tri-angled attack proposed by the new Prometheus class supports the theory that three ships are more effective than one in an attack.

In terms of sheer tonnage and personnel I fail to see how my solution lacks logistical sense.

Great - the Intrepid beats everybody else to the problem site and can sit and wait for the vessels which are capable of doing something to catch up.

The lack of logistical sense comes in where (for the umpteenth time) you tie up three vessels in order to do what should be the job of one.

It would if it flies in the face of older doctrine. You have a point where the Hummer and F-4 are concerned, I grant you. In both cases, however, the brass was wrong. Perhaps Starfleet brass is more conservative than the modern United States military.

Perhaps they like to put on cocktail dresses and have tea parties. I haven't seen any evidence that Starfleet brass was anti-Defiant; I have, however seen the evidence that once O'Brien fixed the design, they were pro-Defiant. That evidence is the presence of subsequent ships of the same class.

You said it yourself, it takes a while for production to ramp up. And if the Defiant does not have any real fans higher up then you aren't going to see dry docks dedictated towards building Galaxy and Akiras given over to Defiants.

If the Defiant didn't have any fans higher up, there wouldn't have been more than one.

And you just called the Defiant an escort, the perfect ship to escort two other vessels; a support craft and scout ship. There, thank you for supporting my argument. I appreciate it.

Now, you're either ignorant or you're intentionally playing dumb to prove your point. If the latter, quit being a dick; if the former, let me explain:

"Escort" in the context of a class of warships is shorthand for "destroyer-escort," q.v. Now, obviously these ships weren't always used to escort merchant convoys; however, they were used as warships to fill a particular niche of war-fighting. "The perfect ship to escort two other vessels; a support craft and scout ship" is both incorrect supposition and evidence that you don't really have an idea what you're discussing.

There, thank you for supporting my argument. I appreciate it.

In addition to being absolutely incorrect, as shown above, now you're just being facile; which leads one to believe you're attempting to dodge a point rather than buttress it. I won't ask you for any type of "concession" if you're out of ammo; but I will certainly ask you to not make incorrect references to things I've said.

[katefan]

Now you're talking about missions which wouldn't call for a Defiant-class at all. And again you're talking about sending multiple assets, instead of one asset which is capable of the job.

I am talking about missions where three vessels would fill in the deficiences of one another, and combined equal a Galaxy class; weaponry, sensor capability, etc.

And again, you're talking about creating a ship designed to help another ship do a job which neither are capable of doing well; instead of creating a ship that can do the job on its own.

Combined the three ships do the role well and they equal far less tonnage and require far less crew. We see battle groups in modern navies that do much the same where smaller ships support larger.

And I repeat that it would make far more sense to have the Defiant fill the role it was designed for; another ship fulfill its role; a third fulfill a third role; etc.

And again, I am talking about deploying three ships like this to reduce the need for high tonnage vessels and use half the same number of crew.

And what? Manpower sure hasn't ever seemed to be an issue for Starfleet. And in your example, your making three assets unavailable instead of one.

We do not know what a pre war and post war Starfleet size would be. And these assets are much easier to construct than massive ships prone to warp core breaches.

Great - the Intrepid beats everybody else to the problem site and can sit and wait for the vessels which are capable of doing something to catch up.

As we saw in Voyager the Intrepid is far from helpless. It could easily hold it's own while her sister ships caught up to support her. She is far from a Nova class. And she can pin an enemy down to prevent it from escaping, cutting off it's escape while her sister ships bracket the enemy in an englobing attack like the Prometheus class was (presumably) designed for.

The lack of logistical sense comes in where (for the umpteenth time) you tie up three vessels in order to do what should be the job of one.

Three vessels that can be constructed far more quickly and easily than one massive, fragile vessel.

Perhaps they like to put on cocktail dresses and have tea parties.

Now you're just being unnecesarily sarcastic. I think you need to calm down.

I haven't seen any evidence that Starfleet brass was anti-Defiant; I have, however seen the evidence that once O'Brien fixed the design, they were pro-Defiant. That evidence is the presence of subsequent ships of the same class.

Okay, granted, they are pro Defiant.

If the Defiant didn't have any fans higher up, there wouldn't have been more than one.

I will concede that.

Now, you're either ignorant or you're intentionally playing dumb to prove your point. If the latter, quit being a dick; if the former, let me explain:

"Escort" in the context of a class of warships is shorthand for "destroyer-escort," q.v. Now, obviously these ships weren't always used to escort merchant convoys; however, they were used as warships to fill a particular niche of war-fighting. "The perfect ship to escort two other vessels; a support craft and scout ship" is both incorrect supposition and evidence that you don't really have an idea what you're discussing.

And in your definition the Defiant supports my argument for a three-ship system, escorting two other vessels. Like you said, fulfilling a particular niche. In a three-ship battle group it acts as the muscle.

As for me having no idea what I am discussing, we are discussing fictional space ships in a fictional space fleet in a fictional universe, and real world examples sometimes apply, but not always. We have gone back and forth speculating on a variety of subjects, and at the end of the day like what Graham does to fill in the blanks, we make educated guesses.

I look at sheer tonnage and see a gross waste since the Galaxy class has proven to be a fragile luxury liner. Her weaponry can be matched by a Defiant, her sensor capability by an Intrepid, her other roles supported by other ships. In all, the resources dedicated to creating such a large, unwieldy vessels can be employed making smaller ships and putting smaller crew at risk.

In addition to being absolutely incorrect, as shown above, now you're just being facile; which leads one to believe you're attempting to dodge a point rather than buttress it. I won't ask you for any type of "concession" if you're out of ammo; but I will certainly ask you to not make incorrect references to things I've said.

Pardon me if my attempt to inject a little levity in the discussion has upset you. It is just a simple conversation about a fictional universe and I fail to see why people around here get so worked up. I see insults and profanity thrown about here and I try not to get so emotional over what is at the end of the day elements of my life that are not as important in the larger scheme of things.

I think I am done here. It does not seem to be the sort of environment that I want to participate in any more if people are just going to be so short fused.

[Mikey]

I beg your pardon if I see an intentional misuse of my words as an "attempt to inject a little levity." As to the rest:

*general commentary about using three ships instead of one*

This may boil down to personal opinion. I don't know how the GCS in particular was brought in as the de facto only alternative to a squadron, because there are certainly other multirole, long-range/long-duration vessels in Starfleet - but even so, the DW upgrades seemed to have countered much of the fragility of which you speak. And there will still be missions requiring a ship to stay on station for extended periods, or which otherwise require either long range or long duration, which a Defiant-led squadron will simply be incapable of performing. In addition, even though a larger explorer-type may be more resource intensive of itself, the idea that it is less resource-intensive than three other ships (especially one like the Defiant, with its high-end weapons and SOTA ablative armor) is completely fabricated. Add the fact that three smaller ships could very likely take longer to roll out than one larger, and I don't think that line is as clear as you think.

And in your definition the Defiant supports my argument for a three-ship system, escorting two other vessels. Like you said, fulfilling a particular niche. In a three-ship battle group it acts as the muscle.

In the, not my, definition, "escort" refers explicitly to escorting merchant vessels - nothing to do with the system you propose.

As for me having no idea what I am discussing, we are discussing fictional space ships in a fictional space fleet in a fictional universe, and real world examples sometimes apply, but not always. We have gone back and forth speculating on a variety of subjects, and at the end of the day like what Graham does to fill in the blanks, we make educated guesses.

Actually, the specific individual point which this targets is 'Trek's usage of a real-world term of naval nomenclature, so it's not speculation.

[JudgeKing]

Fixes to the Galaxy-class starship

-Armor numerous areas of the ship including the nacelles and nacelle pylons.
-Reduce officer quarter sizes by 30 percent.
-Enhance power distribution systems to run at higher outputs safely
-Put in a newer warp core.
-Place phaser turrets in corridors.
-New computer security measures include: eye scan, fingerprint print scan, and authorization codes depending on security clearance required.
-Armor on and around the bridge would be 70cm thick.
-Normal Shields replaced with Regenerative Shields.
-Install multiple bridges around the ship.
-Increase torpedo arament.
-Put extensive amounts of antiviral software in the computers.
-Holodeck safeties must by taken off by the Captain, XO, CMO, and Security Chief.
-Any highly classified information will be protected by several layers of encription.

[Mikey]

We've all talked about area-denial weaponry, and I've been a proponent in general, but phaser turrets in all corridors in what is ostensibly an explorer/diplomatic vessel is a little Orwellian for my taste. By sensitive areas, to be sure, but in the corridors from, for example, the holodeck to the mess hall? I don't think so.

Good point that Judge and someone earlier made about biometric security systems. If they use voiceprint and code, they could surelyu as easily use retinal pattern, fingerprint (although not every UFP species might have fingerprints,) etc. in combination (Domino's brother notwithstanding - cookie for the ref.)

[kostmayer]

Good point that Judge and someone earlier made about biometric security systems. If they use voiceprint and code, they could surelyu as easily use retinal pattern, fingerprint (although not every UFP species might have fingerprints,) etc. in combination (Domino's brother notwithstanding - cookie for the ref.)

Thunderball?

[Mikey]

(And later, Never Say Never Again.)

[Praeothmin]

Well, actually, they only had the Retinal Scan in "Never say Never again"...
Thunderball mostly had voice-printed security, and fingerprints I believe.

[Mikey]

Well, actually, they only had the Retinal Scan in "Never say Never again"...
Thunderball mostly had voice-printed security, and fingerprints I believe.

Last I checked, voice and fingerprint were still biometrics.

[Praeothmin]

They are, I was simply under the impression you meant they used them all in both movies...

[Bryan Moore]

No, but seriously, where was it?

Between the nacelles, basically.

[Deepcrush]

Oh, so right where those big shuttle and cargo bays are. I can understand why they wouldn't sensors there...

[Captain Picard's Hair]

Oh, so right where those big shuttle and cargo bays are. I can understand why they wouldn't sensors there...

Silly Deep, you know Starfleet only uses sensors for detecting lots of pointless bullshit about phenomena of the week. Why waste resources on practical things like security when you could be pulling more imaginary particles out of your ass?

[Mikey]

[Tsukiyumi]

Oh, so right where those big shuttle and cargo bays are. I can understand why they wouldn't sensors there...

Silly Deep, you know Starfleet only uses sensors for detecting lots of pointless bullshit about phenomena of the week. Why waste resources on practical things like security when you could be pulling more imaginary particles out of your ass?

Nice.