I don't think Enterprise D was a misallocation of resources anymore than a modern supercarrier is. Both basically have "all their eggs in one basket" and both are just as vulnerable if their outer layer of defences is destroyed or bypassed (the surrounding battle group and aircraft in carrier's case).
Was the Enterprise D a gross misallocation?
- Thread starter KhanSolo
- Start date
Lets put in to context, the Galaxy class was designed what in the late 2340's early 2350's. Relations with the Klingons where good following the loss of the Ent-C defending the Klingon Narendra III. The Federation had had little context with the Romulans for a couple of decades perhaps following the Tomed Incident of 2311. So perhaps the desingers got caught in the trap of designing a ship for today rather than possible future threats. But we did see the Galaxy Class fair reasonable well in the Dominion War.
I have to say, having never thought about the argument before, you've created a compelling reason for me to class it as a battleship.
Picard, Geordi, Riker all think their assignments in her first two films beneath them and their ship - she should be on the front line. Did we ever see an armoury on the D? We did the E. We did the Defiant. The lack of families, the overall tone, the overall lack of most of the known family carrying vessels at the battle (there were no Excelsior or Galaxys in the area?) before war time reassigned ship they could get their hands on?
Sorry, you've convinced me on you own. Battleship.
Pretty sure we see a room labelled "Armory" in "11001001".
EDIT: It is actually labelled "Weapons Room".
Agree.
As Kirk had the Constitution class refit in the films, so should Picard have always had the Galaxy class, maybe a refit in all his films.
Only the Defiant(s?), Valiant and Enterprise-E have been shown firing quantum torpedoes on-screen, as they're basically cutting edge technology at least until the end of DS9. I would assume that it would become standard ordinance across the fleet once manufacturing becomes more reliable and widespread (which is basically what has happened in TrekLit).
Remember, though, based on its heavy armament and high-capacity shield grid, an amnesiac Worf called the Enterprise-D a battleship in "Conundrum". When it comes to Starfleet, it appears that their largest ships tend to be master of all trades in a sense. The Enterprise-E is more powerful than the Enterprise-D (at least according to behind-the-scene sources... on-screen, the two have never fought comparable adversaries except for the Borg in completely different situations), but the Enterprise-E is likely at least equally good at scientific pursuits, so it's unlikely to be a dedicated warship.
Remember, though, based on its heavy armament and high-capacity shield grid, an amnesiac Worf called the Enterprise-D a battleship in "Conundrum". When it comes to Starfleet, it appears that their largest ships tend to be master of all trades in a sense. The Enterprise-E is more powerful than the Enterprise-D (at least according to behind-the-scene sources... on-screen, the two have never fought comparable adversaries except for the Borg in completely different situations), but the Enterprise-E is likely at least equally good at scientific pursuits, so it's unlikely to be a dedicated warship.
Other than the single utterance in the episode where the Defiant was introduced, what over and over again?
Starfleet deploys ships heavily armed with weapons of mass destruction, basically roving death machines, that have the additional ability to engage in exploration-diplomacy-transportation-etc.
Because it's been stated plenty of times during Star Trek, that Starfleet isn't a military. It's mission is to explore and keep the peace. The entire concept of a 'warship/battleship' goes against that. Only the Defiant was ever stated to be made purely for combat.
In addition, it is well worth considering how this kind of thing works in the real world. Sometimes something can be basically invulnerable to a similar threat (e.g. a US CVBG has little to fear from any air or surface group, or from anything in deep water) but if put in a situation where it cannot use its natural advantages, it becomes vulnerable to the point of being a liability. This is why forces who see dealing with a CVBG as a possibility are not trying to build their own, which is out of the price range, but buying cheap quiet diesel submarines to pose a threat out of proportion to their cost in shallow water.
This already means only a very brave CVBG commander would risk his carrier in the Taiwan straight or South China sea, advantage China.
Now in the trek universe, a big monster like the Galaxy class likely would stand toe-to-toe with any other major capital ship from the other powers and at least equal if not thoroughly outclass them. Could a Vor'Cha go one on one with a Nebula class ship? Maybe in an inconclusive damaging slog, but who wants that? The USS Honshu was ambushed and destroyed by a Klingon battle group, cloaked, hiding and waiting for a sucker punch.
Generations was sloppily written, they really could have written almost any single line ("Main power offline, power grid destroyed, we could manage one salvo of torpedoes thats it" some crap like that) to explain why they didn't just hit the BoP with everything and destroy it. If you really want to rationalise it though, the first two hits are in what must be the most sensitive part of the ship, must have done some heavy damage?
From the perspective of season 1 TNG, people in the Federation place principles higher than their fear of death. From that perspective, it makes sense to have a community of civilians and families on board.
From the role the ship took later in the series, it does not make sense. So it seems like a conflict of early writers' intent and late writers' intent.
From the role the ship took later in the series, it does not make sense. So it seems like a conflict of early writers' intent and late writers' intent.
The Enterprise-D was destroyed in the Typhon Expanse simply from an accidental collision with another ship. It wasn't even under attack.
It was smashed into by another ship, while shields were down and all main systems offline due, apparently, to a space-time anomaly.
Any ship can be sunk by a sufficiently large storm.
Or that the Quantum Torpedeo needs a different launch system. As we only saw it on a fewer of the newer classes of ships
I think this may be a case of the writers having a conflict between making the combat believable and making it easy for the audience to follow.
If they gave the Enterprise D all the defenses you'd expect a starship to have it would have made all combat scenes a lot more complicated and expensive.
If they gave the Enterprise D all the defenses you'd expect a starship to have it would have made all combat scenes a lot more complicated and expensive.
But it is military. It's mission isn't offensive, but its structure is military. And despite Gene's objections, the TOS films (especially II, III, and VI) are pretty formal and militaristic.
You could think of it sort of like the post WWII Japanese military, which has to operate with strict constraints on the application of force.
Kira: "I thought Starfleet didn't believe in warships."
Sisko: "Desperate times"
Starfleet generally does not consider its vessels as warships. That is not their design goal. They are multipurpose ships that can serve many roles, including defense ("if necessary"). For a 24th century human, a warship is a ship designed for warfare. Defiant is a warship as it was entirely designed to fight (the Borg). Few, is any other starship clases are designed like this.
Sisko: "Desperate times"
Starfleet generally does not consider its vessels as warships. That is not their design goal. They are multipurpose ships that can serve many roles, including defense ("if necessary"). For a 24th century human, a warship is a ship designed for warfare. Defiant is a warship as it was entirely designed to fight (the Borg). Few, is any other starship clases are designed like this.
Yes, I agree.
Similar threads
