www.ditl.org

Captain Seafort wrote:The refit required would be no more severe than the Connies', or those of Renown and the QEs, or the Cavours and Dorias.

Partly true. The Connies weren't even the same ship. It was a total rebuild with a class name kept most likely for PR reason. The QE, I think you're talking about AGT-ED? How much do we really know about it? It was faster but had the extra WN. Better firepower but we only saw the the phaser lance. It had a cloak that failed and shields that took minor fire and allowed spill damage.

Deepcrush wrote:Partly true. The Connies weren't even the same ship. It was a total rebuild with a class name kept most likely for PR reason.

Nonetheless, they were still considered to be Constitution class.

The QE, I think you're talking about AGT-ED?

No, I'm talking about HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Warspite and HMS Valiant. They were given major refits during the 1930s (new bridges, higher angle main armament, extra deck armour, new secondary armament, lots of extra AA guns and anti-torpedo bulges) but were still considered the same ships, and the same class. The Cavours and Dorias were Italian ships, that were given even more radical refits - all the same stuff as the QEs, plus their hulls were lengthened to install new machinery, and their guns were bored out from 12" to 12.6". They came out as virtually new ships, just like the E-nil, but they were still the same ships and the same classes.

Nonetheless, they were still considered to be Constitution class.

Considered and reality are very very different.

No, I'm talking about HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Warspite and HMS Valiant. They were given major refits during the 1930s (new bridges, higher angle main armament, extra deck armour, new secondary armament, lots of extra AA guns and anti-torpedo bulges) but were still considered the same ships, and the same class. The Cavours and Dorias were Italian ships, that were given even more radical refits - all the same stuff as the QEs, plus their hulls were lengthened to install new machinery, and their guns were bored out from 12" to 12.6". They came out as virtually new ships, just like the E-nil, but they were still the same ships and the same classes.

Oh, right... I knew that (NOT). How many of those were taken fully apart and then rebuilt from start to finish? Because that is what happened to the Connie. You reach a point where you aren't upgrading anymore but rebuilding a ship. That then becomes a new ship. Which is what would be needed in order for the GCS to become superior to the Sov.

Rochey wrote:A bigger hull allows space for bigger reactors, more fuel, more shield generators/projectors, thicker armour, more guns and more ammunition. Ergo, bigger is better when it comes to ships.

But in real life, as with Star Trek apparently (witness Tricorders and Communicators and Phasers and PADDS and whatsuch) after a couple of years of development, technology miniturizes (spelling?). After being tested on the GCS, whatever the upgrades are would be perfected until they were small enough and could be fitted onto a Sov.

that's a good point.

Didn't the E-D get a new warp core in one episode? (And did it glow another color?)

I think I remember that, the crew got sick b/c some microbe was on the casing or something like that.

Lazar wrote:Didn't the E-D get a new warp core in one episode? (And did it glow another color?)

I don't recall E-D's warp core ever glowing anything but blue. There certainly have been times when the core was being worked on and we've seen it shut down for repair once or twice, though, and warp plasma conduits have been replaced. In any case, a replaced warp core for the E-D wouldn't have been substantially different from the old one since the space it fit into was apparently unchanged: engineering looked the same. There certainly wasn't the kind of massive warp core overhaul someone (Seafort?) mentioned to bring up the GCS' generation capacity to meet the Sov's (though that's not to say it may not be possible: the GCS is nothing if not big!)

It may be that some of the native tech of the GCS is a step behind the Sov (certainly we know the latter is much more powerful at a fraction of the overall volume) but then I suppose our good Liverpool fan does have a point that the tech of the GCS can be upgraded. What Teaos would inevitably say about the cost of such upgrades is true also, though you wouldn't have to build entirely new spaceframes as in the building of new Sovs.

However, I'll still prefer the Sov simply because she's way better looking.

Staplic: that was a replaced plasma conduit conduit IIRC

oh, oops.

No, I was right: it was Phantasms. As you can see in the picture, the new warp core had a different front hatch and it glowed green. I think they only used it in that one episode though.

Deepcrush wrote:How many of those were taken fully apart and then rebuilt from start to finish? Because that is what happened to the Connie.

In the case of the QEs virtually everything above the main armoured deck was new, and the turrets had to be rebuilt to accomodate the increased elevation. In the Cavours and Dorias ditto, plus they split the ship in two amidships to insert the new machinery and hull section.

For an even more extreme example you have HMS Courageous and HMS Glorious - they were converted from small (and pretty useless) battlecruisers to aircraft carriers, but they were still the same ships.

You reach a point where you aren't upgrading anymore but rebuilding a ship. That then becomes a new ship.

The first point is correct, the latter is not

Which is what would be needed in order for the GCS to become superior to the Sov.

Why? Replace the warp core with the Sovs' model, replace the PT lauchers with QTs, and fill the empty space with fuel and reactors. Result - a far less invasive refit than the Connies', and you have a more powerful ship than the Sov.

me,myself and I wrote:But in real life, as with Star Trek apparently (witness Tricorders and Communicators and Phasers and PADDS and whatsuch) after a couple of years of development, technology miniturizes (spelling?). After being tested on the GCS, whatever the upgrades are would be perfected until they were small enough and could be fitted onto a Sov.

Whereupon you'd be able to fit even more of that kit in a GCS.

But in real life, as with Star Trek apparently (witness Tricorders and Communicators and Phasers and PADDS and whatsuch) after a couple of years of development, technology miniturizes (spelling?). After being tested on the GCS, whatever the upgrades are would be perfected until they were small enough and could be fitted onto a Sov.

And a bigger ship would allow even more of these smaller devices to be placed on board.
Ergo: bigger = better.

Lazar wrote:No, I was right: it was Phantasms. As you can see in the picture, the new warp core had a different front hatch and it glowed green. I think they only used it in that one episode though.

The warp core had been shut down for the installation of the power conduits in that scene: what you're seeing isn't its "new glow" but its reaction chamber - note the dark matter and antimatter systems above and below the reaction chamber. It's the same core.

Captain Seafort wrote:

m52nickerson wrote:That may be true for naval ships but not for war planes. Starships do have some things in common with both.

What exactly does a starship have in common with an aircraft?

Movement! Naval ships move on basically a 2 dimensional plane, not counting subs. Starships do not, they are capable of banking back and forth and a whole host of other maneuvers that a naval vessel could not possible do.