Stats/Information on the new Enterprise

[Tyyr]

Except that technology isn't static. As the technology improves more power output, better field generators, etc. Maneuverability is nice, but it's not everything. It's just part of the equation. Firepower, armor, maneuverability. Pick two, and larger ships tend to prioritize firepower and armor. Also, given the density of the debris field at Vulcan I doubt very seriously any ship could have gotten out without bumping into a few pieces of scrap.

[Sionnach Glic]

A battleship isn't designed to be able to turn on the head of a pin. It's designed to lumber into the combat zone and lay down a shitload of firepower. Maneouverability is irrelevant for such a role, particularly if the ship's designed competantly so that there are no blind spots in the armament.
Bigger is better simply because it can have a greater amount of armour, generators, weapons, ammunition and shield generators.

I can't see something as huge as a super star destroyer being very maneuverable (which, of course, is why its bristling with gun emplacements everywhere).

And that's why for that class of vessel maneuverability is irrelevant. It doesn't need to be able to turn fast, since it can lay down fire at opponents coming from any direction. Similarly, a well designed Trek battleship wouldn't need to be able to turn quickly either.

[stitch626]

And that's why for that class of vessel maneuverability is irrelevant. It doesn't need to be able to turn fast, since it can lay down fire at opponents coming from any direction. Similarly, a well designed Trek battleship wouldn't need to be able to turn quickly either.

Yet even for a pure warship, they have a huge glaring blind spot that they couldn't be bothered to cover (engines).

[IanKennedy]

More importantly, I'd like to see some stills of that bike Kirk had.

Guess I'll have to wait for the dvd to come out.

Not the best but...

[Sionnach Glic]

Yet even for a pure warship, they have a huge glaring blind spot that they couldn't be bothered to cover (engines).

What ship are you talking about?

[Captain Seafort]

Yet even for a pure warship, they have a huge glaring blind spot that they couldn't be bothered to cover (engines).

What ship are you talking about?

The Executor I assume

[Atekimogus]

And that's why for that class of vessel maneuverability is irrelevant. It doesn't need to be able to turn fast, since it can lay down fire at opponents coming from any direction. Similarly, a well designed Trek battleship wouldn't need to be able to turn quickly either.

It is not a question of maneuverability imho and believe me I like my Enterprises also as huge as possible but there comes a point where the design is inefficient, hugely complex and extremly inflexible at which point said ship has more in common with a starbase.

Sure, why not build a 3km Enterprise with 10.000 crew. Except that everytime you make warp you haul a small city around the universe which surley isn't needed in most cases. And in those cases you would need that firepower just call in a second ship.

Another case would be if a -let's say 1km long Enterprise - said ship has not necessarily more crew or empty space/luxury crew quarters but really big machinery, huge phaser cannons, enourmous torpedo launchers etc.... . I would be ok with that but given what we see the proportions have not changed that much, which could give the impression that they have lots of empty space at least in the saucer section.

(To tell the truth I am ok with the 700m long Enterprise but I do not think that a TNG ship in the same universe would automatically be at least 1,4 km long)

[Graham Kennedy]

A 700 m TOS Enterprise doesn't automatically lead to a 1.4 km Galaxy class, but given that ships like the D'Deridex are already around as viable designs in TNG, then there's equally no reason why ships of that size can't or shouldn't be deployed.

[Sionnach Glic]

It is not a question of maneuverability imho and believe me I like my Enterprises also as huge as possible but there comes a point where the design is inefficient, hugely complex and extremly inflexible at which point said ship has more in common with a starbase.

And such a hypothetical flying starbase would easily have the armaments to anhialate a fleet of smaller warships. Thus to destroy one you have to deploy either an impractical amount of craft, or deploy a similarly sized (and thus similarly powerful) craft of your own.

Sure, why not build a 3km Enterprise with 10.000 crew. Except that everytime you make warp you haul a small city around the universe which surley isn't needed in most cases.

Why's it not needed? Sure, for system patrol craft you wouldn't need such a ship. But for extended patrols along the borders or as a frontline combat unit, they'd work great.

And in those cases you would need that firepower just call in a second ship.

Except firepower isn't all this is about. A larger ship can have greater range, greater survivability, greater supply stocks, etc. It can operate for longer periods of time without returning to a base, and is massive enough that it can take enough damage that would cripple a smaller ship and continue on with little hindrence. It will have stronger shields, and thicker armour, leading to a greater resistance to attack. It can carry large quantities of troops for boarding actions or ground assaults, and greater numbers of crewmen for redundancy in battle.

Another case would be if a -let's say 1km long Enterprise - said ship has not necessarily more crew or empty space/luxury crew quarters but really big machinery, huge phaser cannons, enourmous torpedo launchers etc.... . I would be ok with that but given what we see the proportions have not changed that much, which could give the impression that they have lots of empty space at least in the saucer section.

Okay, except a larger ship is not just going to have proportionaly larger equipment.

[LaughingCheese]

More importantly, I'd like to see some stills of that bike Kirk had.

Guess I'll have to wait for the dvd to come out.

Not the best but...

Ohhh nice! Thank you!!

A battleship isn't designed to be able to turn on the head of a pin. It's designed to lumber into the combat zone and lay down a shitload of firepower. Maneouverability is irrelevant for such a role, particularly if the ship's designed competantly so that there are no blind spots in the armament.
Bigger is better simply because it can have a greater amount of armour, generators, weapons, ammunition and shield generators.

I can't see something as huge as a super star destroyer being very maneuverable (which, of course, is why its bristling with gun emplacements everywhere).

And that's why for that class of vessel maneuverability is irrelevant. It doesn't need to be able to turn fast, since it can lay down fire at opponents coming from any direction. Similarly, a well designed Trek battleship wouldn't need to be able to turn quickly either.

True enough, but we only see forward tubes on the new E-nill. I don't recall any aft tubes, and heck I don't think she even has as many phaser banks/turrets as Trek Prime ships do; we only see her firing from the forward of the saucer. Of course, that doesn't mean she doesn't have aft tubes and turrets elsewhere, we just haven't seen it yet.

So until we see it, isn't that a moot point?

[Tyyr]

I'm almost certain the new Enterprise has pretty much the same phaser coverage as the Ent-A. Given that her targets were always directly in front of her it sort of makes sense they'd only be firing the phasers that could hit their opponent.

As for the argument that if you need more firepower send a second ship. It doesn't work. Bigger ships can mount longer ranged harder hitting guns and carry heavier, thicker armor. During WWII send any two cruisers against an Iowa class battleship. Tonnages might be equal but the Iowa would eat them and come out laughing with some minor repairs to make. Bigger is better when it comes to warships. There's always need for smaller ships but when it comes to the big battle wagons you either have to get your own or expend a massive amount of resources to take it out.

As for large crew and inefficiency. With 1970's/80's technology Nimitz class aircraft carriers operate with crews of ~5,000. I'm not seeing the problem.

[Atekimogus]

As for the argument that if you need more firepower send a second ship. It doesn't work. Bigger ships can mount longer ranged harder hitting guns and carry heavier, thicker armor. During WWII send any two cruisers against an Iowa class battleship. Tonnages might be equal but the Iowa would eat them and come out laughing with some minor repairs to make.

Please do not take this wrong, no offense intended but I am the only one who thinks that an argument comparing 24th spaceships to wwII naval ships is in some cases a bit far fetched?

For instance, do Phasers have recoil? I am not 100% sure but if not - or if it is neglieble - than I would say that not the size of the ship is important for the strenght of the weapon but the energy output which could be also great in a smaller vessel. (Defiant for instance).
Contrary to wwII ships the big ones are not invulnerable to weapons fire from a smaller calibre, their shields still get weaker therefore, yes two cruiser could probalby bring down a battleship, why not. Phaser do not bounce of armour and even a small torpedo hurts.

As for large crew and inefficiency. With 1970's/80's technology Nimitz class aircraft carriers operate with crews of ~5,000. I'm not seeing the problem.

Well, that was me beeing unclear I guess. Considering that a 700metre ship with so much internal space operates only with 1000 crew I was wondering what they do with all the empty space and if they wouldn't be able to squeeze the same ship into a smaller hull.

[Tyyr]

Please do not take this wrong, no offense intended but I am the only one who thinks that an argument comparing 24th spaceships to wwII naval ships is in some cases a bit far fetched?

Not really. The essential principles, larger ships can carry more and heavier weapons, heavier armor, etc. still hold true.

For instance, do Phasers have recoil? I am not 100% sure but if not - or if it is neglieble - than I would say that not the size of the ship is important for the strenght of the weapon but the energy output which could be also great in a smaller vessel. (Defiant for instance).

What does recoil have to do with it? Big ships don't carry larger weapons because only they can handle the recoil. Bigger ships can carry bigger reactors. The Defiant, given it's design, seems to be about as small a package as you can get that firepower into. So in that case want more firepower, bigger ship.

Contrary to wwII ships the big ones are not invulnerable to weapons fire from a smaller calibre, their shields still get weaker therefore, yes two cruiser could probalby bring down a battleship, why not. Phaser do not bounce of armour and even a small torpedo hurts.

WWII ships were not invulnerable to smaller ships, and quite a few died to ships far smaller than they were. However it took a great deal of skill and often luck to do it.

Lemme give you an example. Ship A is a trek era battleship. Ship's B and C are opposing trek era cruisers. Everything is equal. The total power output of B&C equals A, combined shield strength of B&C equals A, total mass of B&C equals A. The battle starts and A focuses everything on B. Well guess what. When B is dead the firepower of the B&C taskforce is halved, and A still has half it's shields left. Guess what happens to C, it's dead. That's simplifying, but the point stands, two cruisers are not the equal of one battleship.

Well, that was me beeing unclear I guess. Considering that a 700metre ship with so much internal space operates only with 1000 crew I was wondering what they do with all the empty space and if they wouldn't be able to squeeze the same ship into a smaller hull.

Possibly, but do we have any real evidence the new Enterprise has "So much internal space"?

[stitch626]

Possibly, but do we have any real evidence the new Enterprise has "So much internal space"?

Engineering is huge. The... water room is huge. The hanger is enormous.

[Tyyr]

Except they're all full of stuff. The question was about empty space.