www.ditl.org

Atekimogus wrote:As I was pointing out that you still won't use a GCS/NCS ship to do it because you would be hauling alot of dead space around the galaxy.

That dead space - i.e. the scientific and civilian areas - is exactly what Starfleet wants in its workhorse design.

Ok I'll bite, theoretically it is quite possible. However it seems that the trend is going towards smaller ships.

The trend from TOS to TNG has been one of ever greater growth - for good reason given the advantages of a large ship over a smaller one. The only ship that's bucked the trend is the Sov herself, and she's effectively a GCS with the dead space ripped out. There's no reason whatsoever to assume that the overall trend will reverse itself.

Now assuming that UFP is on the same technological level as the romulan empire - which builds even bigger ships - my guess is that huge ships aren't that impossible to build, but that there are other practical considerations.

The practical considerations being that they can't do it - there's no other sensible explanation given the advantages a larger vessel has.

Maybe it's not impossible for the GCS to became the backbone of the fleet, however every time you just let them patrol to border, escort a convoy etc. you waste much of the ships capabilites. TAke an even bigger ship with even more crew for the same task and you are wasting even more man hours.

You could use that exact same logic to argue against using an Ex. You'd be just as wrong as well, as there are plenty of threats an Ex simply can't deal with, and the extra capability of the GCS is therefore a benefit.

Which should make the Sovereign the ideal Excelsior replacement, don't you think?

As I've already pointed out the scientific and civilian aspects of the GCS are clearly a central part of what Starfleet wants in its ships, so why would they abandon them in its workhorse design?

Why you single out the E-D I do not know since I was comparing the Sovereign more to the Constitutions and Excelsiors here.

You referred to Starfleet's heavy cruisers and explorers. Their most modern explorer is the GCS, of which the example we saw by far the most of was the E-D.

However apart from the so called civilian-centric architecture (I don't know....the GCS is just a big ass ship with room to spare, heck rip out the carpet and install diamandplate if it makes you feel better but I havent seen much which couldn't be converted into more usefull space within a few weeks)

It is indeed a big ship - that doesn't mean that the design is in any way competent for a ship repeatedly used as the Federation's battleship, whether it can be refitted or not.

I wouldn't call the Sovereign bristling with weapons. 360° Phaser coverage is something other ships too have and while the amount of QT/PT tubes seems impressive they all seem to be of the more simply, one/two burst kind (similar to what the Intrepid or E-A had) with the exception of the turret. And while I always thought that 276 Torpedoes on the GCS is a bad joke, seeing the Sov run out of Torpedoes in Nemesis didn't sit well with me at all.

Phaser coverage is the same, but the torps are far superior - the turret and four heavy PT launchers compared with just a couple of heavy PTLs on the GCS. More importantly you've got weapons lockers lining the hallways, something utterly alien to the a glorified hotel that was the GCS.

The practical considerations being that they can't do it - there's no other sensible explanation given the advantages a larger vessel has.

The Galaxy class seems to fit perfectly within what Starfleet wants and is more powerful than most. It's the classic quaninity vs. quality argument. Then you got the Sovereign class to deal with ships more powerful than the GCS. Of course this only works if Starfleet had the numbers to field a Sovereign class ship to match wherever such a ship would be at.

It also could be a limitation on where these ships can drydock. But that isn't much a limitation compared to navy vessels. Like the US super carriers really haven't changed in physical size because of limits on where the ship can be docked.

Captain Seafort wrote: That dead space - i.e. the scientific and civilian areas - is exactly what Starfleet wants in its workhorse design.

And which is also available on the Sovereign and Excelsior, only maybe to a lesser degree which is perfectly fine when your main job is within UFP borders.

Captain Seafort wrote:The trend from TOS to TNG has been one of ever greater growth - for good reason given the advantages of a large ship over a smaller one. The only ship that's bucked the trend is the Sov herself, and she's effectively a GCS with the dead space ripped out. There's no reason whatsoever to assume that the overall trend will reverse itself.

The trend stopped with the GCS. Now wait a minute...what dead space did they rip out of the GCS, one sentence before you argued that Starfleet deems it necessary? (On a side note it seems to me that they did NOT rip out dead space, it is just a smaller ship with essentially the same mix, they have holodecks, sickbay, a huge ass ten forward....again, no idea where this "Sovereign is a pure battleship" stems from).

Captain Seafort wrote:The practical considerations being that they can't do it - there's no other sensible explanation given the advantages a larger vessel has.

That seems VERY unlikely considering what space stations they build. Also according to your logic the majority of each fleet should consist of battleships instead of smaller, less capable but more efficient designs who can get the job done. Very unlikely imho.

Captain Seafort wrote:You could use that exact same logic to argue against using an Ex. You'd be just as wrong as well, as there are plenty of threats an Ex simply can't deal with, and the extra capability of the GCS is therefore a benefit.

Those threats being? Hauling a fat admiral from point a to point b without breaking the captains chair? Chasing after Maquis pirates? Come on, sure there were the Borg and the DW but it's not that you need a GCS ship most of the time to deal with stuff, those are the weekly exceptions we saw on TV and even then those problems where either solved by the crew or the the ship was so outclassed that an EXcelsior would have been no different.

There are only a handful episodes, where the E-D as a ship got to throw her weight around, mainly during colony evacuation and a few instances facing minor powers, like then cardassians and the odd minor alien of the week ship.

Captain Seafort wrote:As I've already pointed out the scientific and civilian aspects of the GCS are clearly a central part of what Starfleet wants in its ships, so why would they abandon them in its workhorse design?

Neither did they abandon it on the Sovereign, nor on the Excelsior. They sent Ex's to charter gasous anomalies for six months after all. Also the Soverein still has plenty science capability, at least enough to warrent a dedicated science officers. (And didn't they mention a few labs during the movies?) They are just trimmed back to a more reasonable degree which makes them both excellent choices to become the workhorse of the fleet, in time.

GCS/NCS ships are designed to go out and explore the galaxy. You don't need a home fleet of those ships. What a waste.

Captain Seafort wrote:It is indeed a big ship - that doesn't mean that the design is in any way competent for a ship repeatedly used as the Federation's battleship, whether it can be refitted or not.

No argument there. However, which is my point, beside the Defiant no other ship is really designed any differently - Sovereign included. (Which is of course because they just redressed and reused set after set after set, mainly by changing the carpet, hence my comment ).

The original question though was which ship would in the future replace the Excelsior as the workhorse of the fleet. And I think that the Sovereign is much more closer to the Ex than the GCS, in design and function just with enhanced capability.

Captain Seafort wrote:Phaser coverage is the same, but the torps are far superior - the turret and four heavy PT launchers compared with just a couple of heavy PTLs on the GCS. More importantly you've got weapons lockers lining the hallways, something utterly alien to the a glorified hotel that was the GCS.

I am not convinced to be honest. The Torp launchers on the GCS are by far the most potent we have ever seen. Those four launchers seems to be of the single fire kind like on the Intrepid, the turret seems to be marginally more potent. Heck even on this very site those launchers are not rated that high iirc.

The only advantage seems the ability to shoot quantum torpedoes which we haven't seen a GCS do, however nobody really knows how QT are different from PT so (since both where used during the DW) this might not be so big a deal.

Now we could however go into the semi-canon area of the tech manuals where indeed QT are supposed - as per the shows designers - to be more powerful than PT (by 1,5 iirc). However if we accept this we also have to accept the statement that those stronger QT can be exactly fired as the older PT, they are the same size, so again....no advantage there. Probably just torpedo shortage during the war.

In short, as a weapon platform I am not impressed by the Sovereign, it shows the capabilities of a ship it's size and neither her torpedo nor her beam weapon power seems to outmatch bigger ships in the fleet. Considering that they basically use the same weaponsystems like everyone else this should not be surprising.

Where it does shine however is its ability to take punishment. No argument there, it seems on the defensive front this is currently indeed one of the most advanced ships in the fleet, which makes sense given the UFP mindset. Another good point for becoming the workhorse ship one day imho.

Atekimogus wrote:And which is also available on the Sovereign and Excelsior, only maybe to a lesser degree which is perfectly fine when your main job is within UFP borders.

As I've already pointed out, there no evidence whatsoever of any civilian capability being built into either the Ex or the Sov.

The trend stopped with the GCS.

Evidence?

Now wait a minute...what dead space did they rip out of the GCS, one sentence before you argued that Starfleet deems it necessary?

What Starfleet considers necessary and what actually is necessary are two different things.

(On a side note it seems to me that they did NOT rip out dead space, it is just a smaller ship with essentially the same mix, they have holodecks, sickbay, a huge ass ten forward....again, no idea where this "Sovereign is a pure battleship" stems from).

And no civvies.

That seems VERY unlikely considering what space stations they build.

The engineering challenges involved in constructing a stationary object are considerably less than those involved in constructing a vehicle.

Also according to your logic the majority of each fleet should consist of battleships instead of smaller, less capable but more efficient designs who can get the job done. Very unlikely imho.

The fleet should be built around battleships, and those ships should be the largest ships you're capable of building.

Those threats being?...There are only a handful episodes, where the E-D as a ship got to throw her weight around, mainly during colony evacuation and a few instances facing minor powers, like then cardassians and the odd minor alien of the week ship.

Exactly my point - those are threats that the Ex would at best be an even match against (and therefore taking them on would seriously risk the ship and its crew).

GCS/NCS ships are designed to go out and explore the galaxy.

That was exactly what the Ex was designed to do in her day. The GCS has the same basic role, simply better at it.

No argument there. However, which is my point, beside the Defiant no other ship is really designed any differently - Sovereign included.

Starfleet design isn't an either/or between the GCS concept and the Defiant concept. The latter is a proper warship, the former is a gin palace. The Sov is somewhere in between - much stronger ton for ton than the GCS, but weaker than the Defiant. The issue is that for her official role of a long-endurance explorer the GCS is definitely the superior ship - largely because of the amount of space wasted on accommodation, and for a future fleet backbone that's really what Starfleet needs. The fact that they need a dedicated battle fleet to go alongside that force is another matter entirely.

I am not convinced to be honest. The Torp launchers on the GCS are by far the most potent we have ever seen. Those four launchers seems to be of the single fire kind like on the Intrepid

What gives you that idea? The Nemesis additions are ridiculous, but the four main launchers at the base of the engineering hull are no different from the GCS launchers - look at the MSD.

Now we could however go into the semi-canon area of the tech manuals where indeed QT are supposed - as per the shows designers - to be more powerful than PT (by 1,5 iirc). However if we accept this we also have to accept the statement that those stronger QT can be exactly fired as the older PT, they are the same size, so again....no advantage there. Probably just torpedo shortage during the war.

My personal view is that QTs have superior ECCM or shield-penetrating qualities rather than more bang - we've never heard anything to suggest that they're more powerful, simply that they're better.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Atekimogus wrote:And which is also available on the Sovereign and Excelsior, only maybe to a lesser degree which is perfectly fine when your main job is within UFP borders.

As I've already pointed out, there no evidence whatsoever of any civilian capability being built into either the Ex or the Sov.

Exactly. Which makes the Sovereign a better contender to fill the Ex's role-slot in the future than GCS/NCS ships. Not sure what you are getting at.......

Captain Seafort wrote:

The trend stopped with the GCS.

Evidence?

No bigger ships build for 20+ years on the UFP side. (If we accept a bit TNG manuel as to when the design of the GCS started).

Now I am not saying that this trend couldn't be reversed in the future, just that every ship designed and built after the GCS was significantly smaller. So it seems the weight to prove me wrong lies on your side here. (Even the romulans, fond of overly big ships, now seem to favour smaller designs for all we know).

Captain Seafort wrote: The engineering challenges involved in constructing a stationary object are considerably less than those involved in constructing a vehicle.

Normally I would agree. Considering however the magnitude of said Space-docks compared to GCS ships it is strange to think that they should be able to built such a huge construct in space, yet are NOT able to make a bigger ship than the GCS. Please.....

I would think building such a huge station is a FAR mor difficult challenge to design/construct, than making a ship twice the size of the GCS for example.

Captain Seafort wrote: The fleet should be built around battleships, and those ships should be the largest ships you're capable of building.

I see.....I guess most of our arguments stems then from the different conception of what a workhorse ship is. For me, a workhorse ship is a ship doing all the unpleasent day to day chores you wouldn't use your very best ships to do, as to free said battleships to do more important stuff, similar as the Excelsior did all the thankless shit just so that the E-D could concentrate on more important things than shipping Admirals around.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Those threats being?...There are only a handful episodes, where the E-D as a ship got to throw her weight around, mainly during colony evacuation and a few instances facing minor powers, like then cardassians and the odd minor alien of the week ship.

Exactly my point - those are threats that the Ex would at best be an even match against (and therefore taking them on would seriously risk the ship and its crew).

I agree, those where instances where Ex's would only be an even match and at a risk there. But those instances were VERY rare, so rare that most of the time the few GCS ships around were available to handle it.

Most of the other times those "threats" are only very very low key threats, not enough to warrent a fleet of GCS ships, Ex's were enough at that time and Sovereigns will be enough to handle those in the future. That's my point.

Captain Seafort wrote:

GCS/NCS ships are designed to go out and explore the galaxy.

That was exactly what the Ex was designed to do in her day. The GCS has the same basic role, simply better at it.

I agree. And as the Sovereign will get older it is an excellent candidate to fill in that role. Looks not only similar, but has similar crew requirments, is thougher and more modern while still being efficient.

The GCS is more capable (at least in the Exploration role) however the question remains which ship is less resource intensive to build. Going only by it's size I would guess that for every two GCS' you could get three Sovereigns, which are more than enough to get the job done.

Captain Seafort wrote:Starfleet design isn't an either/or between the GCS concept and the Defiant concept. The latter is a proper warship, the former is a gin palace. The Sov is somewhere in between - much stronger ton for ton than the GCS, but weaker than the Defiant. The issue is that for her official role of a long-endurance explorer the GCS is definitely the superior ship - largely because of the amount of space wasted on accommodation, and for a future fleet backbone that's really what Starfleet needs. The fact that they need a dedicated battle fleet to go alongside that force is another matter entirely.

Oh I see, you want to split starfleet into two different outfits for it's respective roles. Well you should have said so in the first place. I agree, in this scenerio it makes sense for the GCS to become the premiere ship of the exploration fleet.

In this scenario I still see the Sovereign eventually becoming the workhorse ship of the fleet, since the most strongest ship wouldn't be the sovereign, but a newly designed GCS sized battleship.

Doubtful if this will happen though...

Captain Seafort wrote:What gives you that idea? The Nemesis additions are ridiculous, but the four main launchers at the base of the engineering hull are no different from the GCS launchers - look at the MSD.

We have "seen" the GCS launcer shooting 7 torps simultaneously (and are said to launch 10). We have only seen single fire from the Sovereign except the turret. (4 torpedoes in short order)

So thats where I get my ideas from.....the series and movies. Now I have also seen the tech manuals and the Sov concept art from Eaves but first they are non-canon and second even they give no hint that the Sov-launchers are able to produce a 10 PT-burst. They are no differnt than the launchers find on the Intrepid.

Looking at the MSD they are no different from the GCS ones since they used the same/similar graphic (also used on the Defiant MSD). The difference is sheer size, the GCS system takes up three decks and reaches deep into the ship (almost the half neck-section). The Sov launchers use 1-1,5 decks (the aft ones 1 deck, the forward 1 deck with a tiny part expanding half into the lower deck)) and are not nearly as big lengthwise. (Heck, since the yacht-addition even the turret launcher is only 1,5 decks high) And those are the "big" ones on the engineering hull, I am not even talking about the Nemesis-"stick them whereever is a place" systems.

Captain Seafort wrote:My personal view is that QTs have superior ECCM or shield-penetrating qualities rather than more bang - we've never heard anything to suggest that they're more powerful, simply that they're better.

I agree, I share the same sentiment. I consider them effective against borg ships, but if they are maybe a tad stronger, the benefits do not outweigh the additional costs to replace PT's.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Atekimogus wrote:Maybe it's not impossible for the GCS to became the backbone of the fleet, however every time you just let them patrol to border, escort a convoy etc. you waste much of the ships capabilites. TAke an even bigger ship with even more crew for the same task and you are wasting even more man hours.

You could use that exact same logic to argue against using an Ex. You'd be just as wrong as well, as there are plenty of threats an Ex simply can't deal with, and the extra capability of the GCS is therefore a benefit.

Wouldn't the Akira be a better option than either the Excelsior or Galaxy for most of the jobs being debated? Potentially cheaper (resources, crew, etc) to make an upkeep than a Galaxy; newer tech and much more powerful than an Excelsior.

I would think that it would be comparably easy to retro in some additional scientific/diplomatic capabilities into the Akira than it would be to retro in necessary upgrades to the Excelsior.

Honestly, the NCS would be the best class for it. The dorsal pod being about as simple a swap as possible for a starship. The ability to just drop of a science team somewhere with a portable pre-fab base then fly home and pick up a colony pod. Finish with the colony and then go pick up the science team. The NCS is also large enough to remain outside of supply lanes for extended periods and fast enough to get between locations without to much delay. Where the Akira and Excelsior would require extensive internal refits, the NCS just needs a new pod.

The remaining Excelsiors should just be put under the Lakota refit and assigned to patrol/picket duty. Much as I love the Excelsior (as anyone here for more then a month should know) the truth is that she's just to old to make anything other then the fodder for the newer fleet.

If the Akira is indeed a carrier, then she should be packed full of fighters and assigned to escort fleet flag ships.

The Lakota refit would require drydock time which at the end of the war would be taken up by damaged ships and those being built/outfitted. even once those are clear those remianing Excelsiors would be needed to do what Starfleet does normally on top of the rebuilding effort on those worlds and bases damaged or destroyed by the war.

NCS is a great choice because those pods which give them flexibility that not even the Galaxy class has (I do assume that the Nebula class is practically the same as the Galaxy class in terms of basic outfit.) I do think the NCS should be the backbone of the future fleet.

McAvoy wrote:The Lakota refit would require drydock time which at the end of the war would be taken up by damaged ships and those being built/outfitted. even once those are clear those remianing Excelsiors would be needed to do what Starfleet does normally on top of the rebuilding effort on those worlds and bases damaged or destroyed by the war.

Maybe, maybe not. What we saw was a ship with boosted phasers, but still under powered compared to other newer ships. PTLs upgraded to QTLs, though we don't know if they are just single fire or burst fire or something newer. These types of upgrades don't really require a shipyard, just a crew and some time. At lot of that can even be performed on the move. So the Excelsiors could continue patrols or maintain presence in low priority systems while the upgrades are completing.

McAvoy wrote:NCS is a great choice because those pods which give them flexibility that not even the Galaxy class has (I do assume that the Nebula class is practically the same as the Galaxy class in terms of basic outfit.) I do think the NCS should be the backbone of the future fleet.

While flexibility is important and the NCS and GCS are vastly similar in parts, you shouldn't mistake them for being the same. The NCS has a great deal of hull space missing when compared to the GCS. The "neck" and Drive Section are both missing, the POD being multipurpose means that for the primary outfit, it isn't something that can be figured. More an after thought of a changing mind.

For example, the NCS is missing two shuttle bays, three cargo bays, both primary PTLs, four phaser banks and the main AM storage bay. Though the two shuttle bays aren't really needed so much since the main shuttle bay is huge. Also the AM storage can just be moved to a different location. The saucer section isn't lacking of open space after all. The plus side to this is a ship that is cheaper to build in scale, resources and time. There's the added benefit that for mission refit, you just give it a new hat rather then a new body.

Though I do fully agree that the NCS is by far the best ship to make up the backbone of the SF in the future.

McAvoy wrote: NCS is a great choice because those pods which give them flexibility that not even the Galaxy class has (I do assume that the Nebula class is practically the same as the Galaxy class in terms of basic outfit.) I do think the NCS should be the backbone of the future fleet.

In theory this should be true, however I never was a fan of the NCS pod concept, simply because I deem the logistical problems of such pods inpractical, considering travel times in interstellar space (when the power of the story doesn't allow for superwarp-speeds).

To use Deepcrush' example you go fly with a colony pod to a planet and help set up a colony. Then you have to fly BACK to the base for weeks to swap pods for the next mission. Off you go for a few weeks. After that you have to return AGAIN to your starbase picking up the next pod etc. etc. etc.

The GCS helps setting up the colony and is good to go to the next assignment, no return home trip needed. Unexpected situation arrises? No problemo.

So I guess the NCS has surley use, but it is probably a bit more limited than one might think, purley because of the logistics and the need to plan ahead needed.

Atekimogus wrote:In theory this should be true, however I never was a fan of the NCS pod concept, simply because I deem the logistical problems of such pods inpractical, considering travel times in interstellar space (when the power of the story doesn't allow for superwarp-speeds).

How is it impractical to have a large, well supplied, fast, well protected ship that is capable of delivering a pod the size of a city block or more to any point unaided within a five year span?

Atekimogus wrote:To use Deepcrush' example you go fly with a colony pod to a planet and help set up a colony. Then you have to fly BACK to the base for weeks to swap pods for the next mission. Off you go for a few weeks. After that you have to return AGAIN to your starbase picking up the next pod etc. etc. etc.

You may have used my example but you clearly don't understand it. The whole point of have the NCS is that any of them could do the job. All you need is the nearest one to pickup/drop off. There's nothing to say it has to be the same NCS.

Atekimogus wrote:The GCS helps setting up the colony and is good to go to the next assignment, no return home trip needed. Unexpected situation arrises? No problemo.

Wrong, way wrong. The GCS first has to pick up the colonist, load them up and their materials and then fly to their site. After that they have to then wait while the colony is founded, put together with all of the materials unloaded and checked to make sure everything is padded down. A pod from the NCS could be put in planet orbit for the colonist to take their time unloading or even just dropped on the planet. What would take the GCS days/weeks or even months to complete would be completed by the NCS in about four minutes (being the time it takes for separation and planet fall).

Atekimogus wrote:So I guess the NCS has surley use, but it is probably a bit more limited than one might think, purley because of the logistics and the need to plan ahead needed.

Logistics requires planning, which normally means using the most effective manner of delivery of materials and persons to the place in demand. So how about you pointing out a problem rather then just trolling that there is one?

Deepcrush wrote:

Atekimogus wrote:In theory this should be true, however I never was a fan of the NCS pod concept, simply because I deem the logistical problems of such pods inpractical, considering travel times in interstellar space (when the power of the story doesn't allow for superwarp-speeds).

How is it impractical to have a large, well supplied, fast, well protected ship that is capable of delivering a pod the size of a city block or more to any point unaided within a five year span?

Do I really need to explain how it might be inpractical logistic-wise? Just sit back, take ten deep breaths and ponder the problems involved delievering exactly the number and type of pod needed to the ass end of the galaxy. You either need transport ships delievering those pods to the Nebula or nearest depot-area, or you tie up an otherwise first class ship in a milk-run to get the pod needed. Since those pods are not exaclty things you want someone to get an easy grip on, you now either have to guard said depots in deep space or you really need to park it at the nearest starbase.

I mean really? That really is hard to imagine why this could be a logistical problem? In a show were getting the nearest ship to help is often a matter of weeks?

Deepcrush wrote:You may have used my example but you clearly don't understand it. The whole point of have the NCS is that any of them could do the job. All you need is the nearest one to pickup/drop off. There's nothing to say it has to be the same NCS.

And you are thick on purpose it seems. That another one might be able per happenstance to pick up the pod another one dropped has nothing to do whatsoever that I see here a logistical nightmare in the making if you have a fleet of those ships.

Most pods aren't even of the - let's drop it anywhere for the next one to pick up type. PT-Torpedopods need replacements, Colonypods are also not self-replenishable, so no matter what, you either need transportships or the NCS itself to haul it back to a starbase for a refill.

Or if you really lack that much imagination, just watch TNG again. And now add that at the end of every episode they set not course to the next star system but to their homebase because they happen to have the wrong pod for the next mission.

Deepcrush wrote:Wrong, way wrong. The GCS first has to pick up the colonist, load them up and their materials and then fly to their site. After that they have to then wait while the colony is founded, put together with all of the materials unloaded and checked to make sure everything is padded down. A pod from the NCS could be put in planet orbit for the colonist to take their time unloading or even just dropped on the planet. What would take the GCS days/weeks or even months to complete would be completed by the NCS in about four minutes (being the time it takes for separation and planet fall).

Lol, ok if they drop the pod onto the planet to be used up by the colony. Fair point. But then you don't need a NCS ship to deliever the pod, a simple cargo hauler is suffiecient. (Heck I see no reason why it couldn't be tractored by the GCS even if need be) If you park it in orbit than the advantage is again nil, since either the NCS ship stays in orbit and helps setting up the colony, exactly as the GCS. Or it flys away.......only for it (or another ship) to have to come back later to pick it up again. Now isn't that a HUGE advantage?

Deepcrush wrote:Logistics requires planning, which normally means using the most effective manner of delivery of materials and persons to the place in demand. So how about you pointing out a problem rather then just trolling that there is one?

The problem, Captain Not-so-Obvious, is the same problem you always have if you ship shit from point A to B and have waiting times of weeks, months or even years. You tie up resources either waiting for the delivery or making the delivery. You either need NCS making the pickups or you need a whole seperate transport fleet hauling pods across the galaxy and at some point, it would just be easier and cost-efficient to built GCS ships and be done with it.

And that is why the Nebula concept is a grand concept on a small scale for missions you can plan comfortably in advance. Oh look, we charter gaseous anomalies for the next six months and when we come back to do the next thing for six months starfleet was able to ship the next pod to our dead ass point in space starbase.

Deepcrush wrote:How is it impractical to have a large, well supplied, fast, well protected ship that is capable of delivering a pod the size of a city block or more to any point unaided within a five year span?

Well, if you switch out the torp-pod for a colony-pod the ship becomes VASTLY less proctected. You strip away about 75% of its strength. That is not just while it had the colony- pod, but also until it goes back and gets the torp-pod refitted. With the torp-pod off it basically becomes weaker than an Intrepid.

Deepcrush wrote:You may have used my example but you clearly don't understand it. The whole point of have the NCS is that any of them could do the job. All you need is the nearest one to pickup/drop off. There's nothing to say it has to be the same NCS.

But then you would need to have another NCS without a pod of any kind flying around out there. You are basically suggesting making something the size of a NCS into just a cargo hauler as they would need to be torp-podless in order to keep moving around the colony pods. It would be a giant ship that took a lot of time and resources to build, but with no teeth or claws. A C-5 Galaxy.

Jim wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:How is it impractical to have a large, well supplied, fast, well protected ship that is capable of delivering a pod the size of a city block or more to any point unaided within a five year span?

Well, if you switch out the torp-pod for a colony-pod the ship becomes VASTLY less proctected. You strip away about 75% of its strength. That is not just while it had the colony- pod, but also until it goes back and gets the torp-pod refitted. With the torp-pod off it basically becomes weaker than an Intrepid.

Here is the difference. Something the size of a Nebula pod cannot fit inside any ship. You would need a colony ship which would be far less protected than a CS. Remember the NCS still has it's first class shields whereas a colony ship doesn't. So you would need two ships manned by crews to go to that new colony. With a colony pod, you only need one ship. Granted it won't be as well armed as a seperate escort ship, but it wouldn't take up the resources to man a colony ship with trained personnel, a warp core with nacelles.

I mean in either case, a colony ship or a colony pod, you are going to permanently lose it if they are used a spare parts or even a shelter for the colony.

Deepcrush wrote:You may have used my example but you clearly don't understand it. The whole point of have the NCS is that any of them could do the job. All you need is the nearest one to pickup/drop off. There's nothing to say it has to be the same NCS.

But then you would need to have another NCS without a pod of any kind flying around out there. You are basically suggesting making something the size of a NCS into just a cargo hauler as they would need to be torp-podless in order to keep moving around the colony pods. It would be a giant ship that took a lot of time and resources to build, but with no teeth or claws. A C-5 Galaxy.

[/quote]

A C-5 Galaxy is incredibly useful and a C-5 Galaxy was never a gunship. Though it's big enough to mount a shit ton of weapons and even large caliber ones.

Atekimogus wrote:Exactly. Which makes the Sovereign a better contender to fill the Ex's role-slot in the future than GCS/NCS ships. Not sure what you are getting at...

The Ex was designed in a different era - Starfleet's priorities have changed since then and the GCS, as Starfleet's most modern peacetime design, is the one that best reflects those priorities.

No bigger ships build for 20+ years on the UFP side.

So? There was an even bigger gap between the Ambassador and the GCS.

Normally I would agree. Considering however the magnitude of said Space-docks compared to GCS ships it is strange to think that they should be able to built such a huge construct in space, yet are NOT able to make a bigger ship than the GCS. Please.....

Why? The forces on an object simply orbiting a planet are far less than one that has to withstand 3000g acceleration, not to mention the technical challenges of building a warp drive that size. The ratio is, if anything, considerably less than between a castle and a mediaeval sailing ship.

I see.....I guess most of our arguments stems then from the different conception of what a workhorse ship is. For me, a workhorse ship is a ship doing all the unpleasent day to day chores you wouldn't use your very best ships to do, as to free said battleships to do more important stuff, similar as the Excelsior did all the thankless shit just so that the E-D could concentrate on more important things than shipping Admirals around.

Exactly. In her day, however, the Ex was that battleship, and was reduced to support duties by advances in technology. For comparison, at Gravelines in 1588, Revenge's 48 heavy guns made her one of the strongest ships present. By the time of the Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 1650s and 60s, 48 guns was at best average.

I agree, those where instances where Ex's would only be an even match and at a risk there. But those instances were VERY rare, so rare that most of the time the few GCS ships around were available to handle it.

So rare that it happened to the E-D every other week. Or they came across the wreckage of the ship that first tried to handle it and couldn't. Not to mention that it's not as if the other powers are sitting on their arses rather than working all-out to overcome the Fed advantage.

Doubtful if this will happen though...

Exactly - so you're better off using the ship that is already pretty capable, rather than the stripped down one that some idiot will inevitably want to refit - stripping out weapons to fit five-star accommodation and fancy scientific sensor suites.

Looking at the MSD they are no different from the GCS ones since they used the same/similar graphic (also used on the Defiant MSD). The difference is sheer size, the GCS system takes up three decks and reaches deep into the ship (almost the half neck-section). The Sov launchers use 1-1,5 decks (the aft ones 1 deck, the forward 1 deck with a tiny part expanding half into the lower deck)) and are not nearly as big lengthwise. (Heck, since the yacht-addition even the turret launcher is only 1,5 decks high) And those are the "big" ones on the engineering hull, I am not even talking about the Nemesis-"stick them whereever is a place" systems.

OOU they're a cut-and-paste job. IU this means that they could easily be exactly the same launchers, regardless of whether we actually see them in action as we did the E-D in BoBW. They're nothing like Voyager's.