Fleet upgrades - Pick your fleet & tell us what you'd re

mlsnoopy · Post by **mlsnoopy** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:24 pm

We can't bring aircraft or submarines in to compare the navy to spaceships. Becus both operate in a deminsion that the battleship doesn't control. And one problem that I also notice is that battleships outranged the destroyers and crusers where in ST all have similar range.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:24 pm

mlsnoopy wrote:We can't bring aircraft or submarines in to compare the navy to spaceships. Becus both operate in a deminsion that the battleship doesn't control. And one problem that I also notice is that battleships outranged the destroyers and crusers where in ST all have similar range.

It is more a comparison of weapons effects on ships, not really the different dimentions (underwater, surface, air). Consider it more as Specialized platforms (subs are torps only) and smaller craft versus a larger powerful craft.

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:47 pm

thatcha wrote:but thats not what your saying about the standard.

Your saying that because its the most powerful then it is a battleship.

And your reading of history is just plain wrong (tho this may be the history student in me) just because something happened along time ago doesnt mean that there is nothing that can be learnt from those events and developments. Which is probably the reason why pretty much ever western military academy teachs their students about the Battle of cannae, more than 2000 years ago.

If the British Army/US Army et al thinks that they can learn something from the romans, why coudlnt the federation draw lessons from Ramsey and Nimitz?

Wow, that just went right over that little head of yours didn't. Read the post again then try again. You might do better. If you are using history to tell what counts as a battleship proper or modern then you have just jumped off the wrong cliff. How on earth did you get a reading of history out of my saying compare the norm?

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:49 pm

mlsnoopy wrote:We can't bring aircraft or submarines in to compare the navy to spaceships. Becus both operate in a deminsion that the battleship doesn't control. And one problem that I also notice is that battleships outranged the destroyers and crusers where in ST all have similar range.

Why not? Sure the range is different but a fighter is still the same (more or less) and a sub in star trek would just be a cloaked ship with a heavy missle payload used in long range strikes.

mlsnoopy · Post by **mlsnoopy** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:06 pm

Sure the range is different but a fighter is still the same

Figter in moder warfare controls the third demension air.
Fighter in star trek in a bug wainting to be squased.

sub in star trek would just be a cloaked ship

I would compare a cloaked ship with a stealth ship.

long range strikes

Don't all ships have the same range.

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:21 pm

Figter in moder warfare controls the third demension air.
Fighter in star trek in a bug wainting to be squased.

They seem to be able to do some damage and support for fleet actions. Even though they tend to suffer massive losses they have still been shown some what useful.

I would compare a cloaked ship with a stealth ship.

I guess it would work well with both types.

Don't all ships have the same range.

No. Photon torpedos have shown the ablity to be useful at incredible ranges but phasers are shown to have a max firing range with would very by the type of weapons and power sources in use.

mlsnoopy · Post by **mlsnoopy** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:46 pm

They seem to be able to do some damage and support for fleet actions. Even though they tend to suffer massive losses they have still been shown some what useful

The worst day in Trek

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:06 pm

mlsnoopy wrote:I would compare a cloaked ship with a stealth ship.

First, what is a stealth ship? (Specifically in an a WW2 battleship analogy)

second, I think you are taking the fighter/sub analogies WAY too literal.

mlsnoopy · Post by **mlsnoopy** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:24 pm

First, what is a stealth ship? (Specifically in an a WW2 battleship analogy

You can't compare it in WW2 analogy. But in the 1980 USA still had BS.
Here is wikipedija.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_ship

Its a much better exsample foraa cloaked ships as subs.

second, I think you are taking the fighter/sub analogies WAY too literal

Maybe. We all know what we are talking abaut, but I fell that we should find exaples in surface ships not driffting of uderwater or fotting of into the air.

thatcha · Post by **thatcha** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:03 pm

Deepcrush wrote:
thatcha wrote:but thats not what your saying about the standard.

Your saying that because its the most powerful then it is a battleship.

And your reading of history is just plain wrong (tho this may be the history student in me) just because something happened along time ago doesnt mean that there is nothing that can be learnt from those events and developments. Which is probably the reason why pretty much ever western military academy teachs their students about the Battle of cannae, more than 2000 years ago.

If the British Army/US Army et al thinks that they can learn something from the romans, why coudlnt the federation draw lessons from Ramsey and Nimitz?
Wow, that just went right over that little head of yours didn't. Read the post again then try again. You might do better. If you are using history to tell what counts as a battleship proper or modern then you have just jumped off the wrong cliff. How on earth did you get a reading of history out of my saying compare the norm?

go you with being patronising....

to be honest imnot sure what the heck it is your on about....not that might be cosi have a little head (tho i really dont..) or it could be cos your not managing to get all of your ideas sensible out of that great big ego of yours....i mean head of yours.

i willpoint out that your picking fault with what im choosing to call a battleship, but im only making reference to history (of which i have a first class grasp, or at least a 2:1) so as to illustrate my meaning. So rather than getting into a bitch fight maybe illjust wait for you to actually comment on that......but then its my plan so

on the aircraftcarrier/submarine thing....

I aint a carrier fan. The only fighters we have seen on screen are the fed ones from DS9, and Bajoran ones...unless i missed some( of the romulans too whoops) i just dont see the point in the things. They have a use here, because theproject power....but thats more to do with the limited range of a surface combatant. We have seen many many times starships attacking a planatery surface....so i dont see what real point there is to a carrier of small craft.

That being said....if we look at how a modern navy uses a submarine we can get some idea of how a star navy would use a warship...especially a cloaked warship.

Essentially amodern nuclear submarine is a stealth battleship.....which has more than torpedoes...imnot sure who said that but its just plain wrong. What subs dont have anymore is big deck guns. what they do have is torps, and missiles, and land attack missiles, the ability to collect intelegence, the ability toinsert specialforces and in somecase......really big ICBMs.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:15 pm

mlsnoopy wrote:Maybe. We all know what we are talking abaut, but I fell that we should find exaples in surface ships not driffting of uderwater or fotting of into the air.

You could just use manuverability as the analogy to underwater/flying. The Defiant is MUCH more nimble than a GC or such, so it's sort of like comparing fighter planes to Derstoyers in WW2. Even comparing the agility of a PT boat might not quite match a Defiant/GC.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:17 pm

thatcha wrote:on the aircraftcarrier/submarine thing....

I aint a carrier fan. The only fighters we have seen on screen are the fed ones from DS9, and Bajoran ones...unless i missed some( of the romulans too whoops) i just dont see the point in the things. They have a use here, because theproject power....but thats more to do with the limited range of a surface combatant. We have seen many many times starships attacking a planatery surface....so i dont see what real point there is to a carrier of small craft.

My carrier concept was for Defiants and Akiras, not small fighters.

thatcha · Post by **thatcha** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:22 pm

Jim wrote:
thatcha wrote:on the aircraftcarrier/submarine thing....

I aint a carrier fan. The only fighters we have seen on screen are the fed ones from DS9, and Bajoran ones...unless i missed some( of the romulans too whoops) i just dont see the point in the things. They have a use here, because theproject power....but thats more to do with the limited range of a surface combatant. We have seen many many times starships attacking a planatery surface....so i dont see what real point there is to a carrier of small craft.
My carrier concept was for Defiants and Akiras, not small fighters.

iunderstand your point,but i think its abit of a non starter.

Akiras and Defiants are stand alone ships....andi dont know why people think they have no range, after allit was the defiant that went to go find the founders......a task that had perviously been given to a Galaxy, so maybe they cant go away for so long......but they can certainly go a distance.

If they do have short range (which i dont accept) then to make them dependon a carrier craft means you have to turn that into a HUGE warship....or what youllfind is that an enemy hits the carrier then runns away, then comes back and hits the carried ships when they are better placed to do so or when those ships are out of supplies.

Reliant121 · Post by **Reliant121** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:24 pm

Logically a Defiant must have a low range because, with all the tech crammed into the ship, there would be very little space for Deuterium, Matter and Antimatter reserves.

thatcha · Post by **thatcha** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:34 pm

Reliant121 wrote:Logically a Defiant must have a low range because, with all the tech crammed into the ship, there would be very little space for Deuterium, Matter and Antimatter reserves.

again i disagree.....i dont think that fuel storage there equates to range....but to endurance.

What the defiant doesnt have is extensive scientific/medical facilities...its geared towards war.

So when not fighting most power consumption would be directed towards moving the thing. And when its fighting its not traveling at warp so the warp core can dedicate more power,if not most to weapons.

If a consitution can go for 5 years without serious refueling....and ive seen no indication that it does then why not the defiant.

Go to theNX and they went months without a proper fuel that i saw, surely the defiants core ismore efficient. So just how far would the defiant be able to go even if it only have fuelfor a few montsh if its traveling at warp 8?