RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,568
Posts: 5,514,267
Members: 25,148
Currently online: 436
Newest member: Brian R.W.

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 6 2012, 08:26 PM   #61
Deks
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

MacLeod wrote: View Post
You know I suspect that a Galaxy Class vessel that was consturcted in 2371 and an Intrpeid Class that was constructed in 2371 would have identical sensors.
I would say I agree... but we aren't talking about that.
As it was already established, we have 0 evidence to support the claim the Enterprise-D or the Galaxy class in general are 'more powerful' than Voyager or Intrepid class star-ships.

Phasers were never stated/implied to operate on the principles that length of arrays has anything to do with power output (this is rather inferred by the Phaser TYPE... and both vessels seem to have Type-X phaser arrays) - rather the length seems to imply coverage.

We do know the Galaxy class has over 200 torpedoes.
The Intrepid's torpedo storage capacity is unknown (because for a vessel of that size, I doubt that 36 would be the 'limit' especially when we take into account that Voyager was launched with a 2 week mission in mind to track down a small Maqui ship - with no supplies - I would sooner estimate the Intrepid class torpedo storage capacity to be in the range of 100/150 or perhaps half of that found on Galaxy class ships).
Either way, neither vessel's shields would likely last long enough to the point where exhausting torpedo supply would become an issue.

Shields... to my knowledge, I don't think we know anything concrete in regards to how powerful either are (seeing how canon evidence seemingly changes this info).
But there's no reason to think the Intrepid would feature less powerful shields - not if it was built with similar philosophy in mind as the Defiant - more compact version of larger ships - the Intrepid being able to get away with minimum amenities for the crew due to its size while matching firepower and shields found on Galaxy class ships, while the Defiant due to its very small size cannot feature any amenities and thus most of its space is optimized for offensive/defensive capacity which makes it comparable to larger ships - see the battle between the upgraded Excelsior class ship and the Defiant for reference - and the Defiant winning a battle against Jem'Hadaar ships only means that anti-Borg systems merely made its weapons and shields more effective against the Dominion ships whereas the Odyssey lacked them - We've seen SF not upgrading some of its ships on a regular basis and behaving like utter morons in ignoring the Borg as a threat).
__________________
We are who we choose to be but also have predefined aspects of our personalities we are born with, and make art that defines us.
Deks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2012, 12:43 AM   #62
Merry Christmas
Vice Admiral
 
Merry Christmas's Avatar
 
Location: tantalizing t'girl's techno temenos
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

mtblillie wrote: View Post
the Galaxy class separating into two vessels isn't necessarily a prime tactical decision since the saucer has no warp propulsion and limited weapons systems
The primary purpose for separating the saucer from the drive section is to increase the abilities of the drive section in combat. Less mass, smaller size, smaller target, smaller deflector shield, smaller warp field. Power not needed to enclose the saucer in a warp field and a deflector shield are diverted to weapons.

Plus the saucer does have an aft facing photon torpedo launcher (it's on the MSD board), and it can fire it's phaser banks with the power of it's impulse engines. The saucer has all the craft on the main shuttle deck, which might include runabouts. Runabouts (from DS9) are useful in combat.

Deks wrote: View Post
As it was already established, we have 0 evidence to support the claim the Enterprise-D or the Galaxy class in general are 'more powerful' than Voyager or Intrepid class star-ships.
Except for all the examples given so far in this thread.

Phasers [snip] rather the length seems to imply coverage.
As I pointed out earlier, the Enteprise's strips are over twice as wide (or tall) as the Voyager's. It's not just the case of her having more length. There's more emitter surface.

the Intrepid being able to get away with minimum amenities for the crew due to its size while matching firepower and shields found on Galaxy class ships
You brought this up before and I'm not sure what it has to do with combat ability.

And where do you get the idea that the Voyager has "less amenities?" If the Voyager has two holodecks for 150 people, and the Enterprise has thirteen or fourteen for 1000 people, it's the same ratio of holodecks to people isn't it?

I doubt that 36 would be the 'limit' especially when we take into account that Voyager was launched with a 2 week mission in mind to track down a small Maqui ship
Facing possible combat with known terrorists, the Voyager would have been carrying a full weapons load, including two tri-cobalt warheads.


Last edited by Merry Christmas; October 7 2012 at 01:13 AM.
Merry Christmas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2012, 04:39 AM   #63
EmperorTiberius
Captain
 
EmperorTiberius's Avatar
 
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

There is some evidence that the battlesection is not more powerful without saucer though. I think it was in BOTBW that Riker laments that they won't be able to use impulse engines from the saucer section as a source of power. It might have been another episode though.

Also, during the Dominion War, they go in full size, if there ever was a time to seperate, that would be it.

My opinion is that saucer is just a giant lifeboat, it's not meant to escape the enemy, fight the enemy, nothing of the kind.
EmperorTiberius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2012, 10:01 AM   #64
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

In warships size MATTERS.
More power, heavier weaponry.
There's no such thing as a magical "fit everything that makes a cruiser into a destroyer".

Plus, Voyager was shown as having an equally large percentage of amenities as the Enterprise (crew quarters, etc). It's not even built with a Defiant-like philosophy.

At an equal technological level (which is the case), the larger ships wins, easily.
Meaning - Voyager gets fried against the Enterprise.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2012, 10:52 AM   #65
Deks
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

Trannie~sylvania wrote: View Post
The primary purpose for separating the saucer from the drive section is to increase the abilities of the drive section in combat. Less mass, smaller size, smaller target, smaller deflector shield, smaller warp field. Power not needed to enclose the saucer in a warp field and a deflector shield are diverted to weapons.
Mass in space is a non-issue.
Trek technology also completely negates mass oriented issues by using subspace fields, that's why in early TNG large ships were portrayed as being able to turn like small fighter crafts.
As for 'enhancing' ships combat abilities while separated... doesn't make sense really because the saucer has power sources of its own to make it completely self-sufficient under sub-light conditions (for achieving Warp speed though, it needs the star-drive) and not to siphon any power during combat conditions while connected to the star-drive section (besides, most combat situations saw the Enterprise-D and other Galaxy class ships connected - even during major battles such as with the Dominion - so the 'enhancing of ships combat abilities' kinda goes down the drain.
Besides, all occasions where we witnessed the Enterprise-D separating (which were a hand-full) was mainly to protect the civilians and non-critical personnel (or in other words, evacuation).

As I pointed out earlier, the Enteprise's strips are over twice as wide (or tall) as the Voyager's. It's not just the case of her having more length. There's more emitter surface.
0 on-screen evidence supports the claim that the length or emitter surface area has any bearing on the phaser power output.
If it did, and if the Galaxy's star-drive really 'shines' in combat while separated... why lose the 'more powerful' phasers ability (especially when basically the only time we saw both sections in battle was versus the Borg, and that was only when the saucer served as a DISTRACTION - usually though, the Saucer was NOT part of other combat scenarios).

You brought this up before and I'm not sure what it has to do with combat ability.

And where do you get the idea that the Voyager has "less amenities?" If the Voyager has two holodecks for 150 people, and the Enterprise has thirteen or fourteen for 1000 people, it's the same ratio of holodecks to people isn't it?
Voyager has much fewer amenities compared to the Galaxy class due to its size and crew compliment, but also to probably increase its combat ability so it can be a match to larger vessels.
The Galaxy class also has numerous recreational areas (amenities if you will) that basically make it a small mobile city of sorts - the Intrepids don't have such 'luxuries'.
As I said, if the Defiant was able to match larger vessels in combat ability, there is no reason Voyager wouldn't be able to do the same (only its size gives it the option to have bare minimum amenities for the crew, whereas the Defiant cannot even have 1 holodeck because its extremely compact).

Facing possible combat with known terrorists, the Voyager would have been carrying a full weapons load, including two tri-cobalt warheads.
Actually, given that Voyager was launched for a 2 week mission to find a LONE Maqui ship (and technologically inferior on so many levels) in the Badlands wouldn't necessitate a full torpedo compliment.
Its entirely possible this was supposed to be Voyager's 'shakedown' cruise - and it might have been a way for SF to test the tri-cobalt warheads as well.
We don't know the full reason, but I find it difficult to imagine that a ship of Voyager's size would only carry 36 photon torpedoes (which were Type 6 and supposedly 'newest' at the time, so its possible SF didn't have more to spare when they launched Voyager and figured 36 would be enough for a 2 week mission).

SF ships WERE launched half-ready before, and Voyager didn't have any additional supplies on board compared to say if they were launched for a deep-space mission (like the Enterprise-D was).
__________________
We are who we choose to be but also have predefined aspects of our personalities we are born with, and make art that defines us.
Deks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2012, 05:45 PM   #66
Merry Christmas
Vice Admiral
 
Merry Christmas's Avatar
 
Location: tantalizing t'girl's techno temenos
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

Deks wrote: View Post
so the 'enhancing of ships combat abilities' kinda goes down the drain.
Korris: "We have heard this ship can separate in time of battle."
Worf: "Yes. When relieved of its bulk, the Enterprise becomes an exceptional weapon."

Sounds like the truth just came back up the drain, didn't it?

Voyager has much fewer amenities compared to the Galaxy class due to its size and crew compliment, but also to probably increase its combat ability so it can be a match to larger vessels.
Again this makes no sense. The Voyager's per person amenities, are equal to the Enterprise's. Voyager has 150 people, Enteprise has 1000 people. Both ship have about one holodeck per 75 people, the same amenities. The living quarter appear to be about the same size, same amenities. Voyager's officer's mess fulfills the same function as ten forward, the same amenities.

The only real difference between the two is Janeway would appear to be running a pretty dry ship, little alcohol.

the Intrepids don't have such 'luxuries'
Yes they do, given the relative crew and ship sizes, proportionally the luxuries are the same.

if the Defiant was able to match larger vessels in combat ability
The Defiant took on small and medium sized vessels quite well, but when it engaged larger vessels it's results were minimum.

Actually, given that Voyager was launched for a 2 week mission to find a LONE Maqui ship (and technologically inferior on so many levels) in the Badlands wouldn't necessitate a full torpedo compliment.
Voyager was entering a war zone, and inspite of it's mission didn't know what they would end up fighting, therefor a full weapons load.

but I find it difficult to imagine that a ship of Voyager's size would only carry 36 photon torpedoes
That how many torpedoes the ship's magazine could accommodate, after all it was primarily a science vessel.

Voyager didn't have any additional supplies on board compared to say if they were launched for a deep-space mission
Other than a incomplete astrometric, what was missing? What addition supplies should have been on board that were not?



Last edited by Merry Christmas; October 7 2012 at 09:17 PM.
Merry Christmas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2012, 06:30 PM   #67
CaptainStoner
Knuckle-dragging TNZ Denizen
 
CaptainStoner's Avatar
 
Location: Hill dweller
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

Ok, disregarding Algernon Barclay or a Borg'd USS Voyager, I agree that the Enterprise is heavily favored. And is sexier.
So the question is, could Voyager sufficiently gimp Enterprise in the opening exchanges, while avoiding destruction herself? I dont't have much data, but all things being Star Trek, probably yes. Not likely, but possible. If Voyager could disable Enterprise shields and sensors, somehow before getting slagged, she might be able to torpedo the Enterprise while she fires blind. Really depends on if Worf is on his shit that day. If its a timewarp situation, and its Voyager vs. early TNG Worf, he's going to miss.
CaptainStoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2012, 06:48 PM   #68
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

Deks wrote: View Post
As I said, if the Defiant was able to match larger vessels in combat ability, there is no reason Voyager wouldn't be able to do the same
Except the Defiant is a warship and Voyager was not.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2012, 07:48 PM   #69
mtblillie
Commander
 
mtblillie's Avatar
 
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
At an equal technological level (which is the case), the larger ships wins, easily.
Meaning - Voyager gets fried against the Enterprise.
Why? No one on here has given any evidence as to why. The only thing people keep saying is that a larger ship has more power and more firepower. That has not been proven. These ships were built with exploration in mind, combat abilities are based on defense. The only time ships were used with true battle fashion were during the dominion war.

No one has given any proof that more power isn't just a misconception.
__________________
-Robert
mtblillie.wordpress.com
mtblillie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2012, 09:02 PM   #70
EmperorTiberius
Captain
 
EmperorTiberius's Avatar
 
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

Deks, is it possible, to describe in words, how much you love Voyager?
EmperorTiberius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2012, 09:16 PM   #71
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

mtblillie wrote: View Post
Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
At an equal technological level (which is the case), the larger ships wins, easily.
Meaning - Voyager gets fried against the Enterprise.
Why? No one on here has given any evidence as to why. The only thing people keep saying is that a larger ship has more power and more firepower. That has not been proven. These ships were built with exploration in mind, combat abilities are based on defense. The only time ships were used with true battle fashion were during the dominion war.

No one has given any proof that more power isn't just a misconception.
Because:
In warships size MATTERS.
More power, heavier weaponry.
There's no such thing as a magical "fit everything that makes a cruiser into a destroyer".
This is, of course, true of the real world, as well. Nobody would use a battleship if a destroyer could bring the same firepower to bear (by using any design philosophy you'd care to think about).
Much like it's true in the trekverse, as well - I take it you see the difference between a runabout and the enterprise or between a bug and a heavy dominion battleship.

Plus, Voyager was shown as having an equally large percentage of amenities as the Enterprise (crew quarters, etc). It's not even built with a Defiant-like philosophy.

PS - Do try to read the posts.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton

Last edited by Edit_XYZ; October 7 2012 at 09:27 PM.
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2012, 10:49 PM   #72
Merry Christmas
Vice Admiral
 
Merry Christmas's Avatar
 
Location: tantalizing t'girl's techno temenos
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

mtblillie wrote: View Post
The only thing people keep saying is that a larger ship has more power and more firepower. That has not been proven
Okay let's try this again. The Enterprise is a big ship. The big ship has a pair of big engine (you can bloody see them). The big engines require a big warp core to power them (you can see it too). Being a big ship, it needs to be surround it with a big warp field, logically this requires big power.

If the big ship is not at warp, that big power can be used elsewhere.

We once saw the Enterprise enclose a big asteroid in it's warp field, grab it with a tractor beam, and move it with the ship's engines. All that required big power.

The Voyager is a medium sized ship, medium engines, medium warp core (again you saw them).

Voyage is a medium sedan, Enterprise is a big truck.

Fire power. Voyager carry's 36 torpedoes and has four launchers. Enterprise carry's 275 torpedoes and has two exposed launchers. Unlike Voyager, the Enterprise has been seen to launch multiple torpedoes at the same time, up to ten simultaneously. So even though Voyager has twice the launch tubes, Enterprise can launch five times the torpedoes in a given time period.

After the TOS era, phasers are only used in sublight combat, not at warp.

Voyager can put the energy surplus not being employed by her medium sized warp engines into her medium phaser strips.

Enterprise can put the energy surplus not being employed by her big sized warp engines into her big phaser strips.

In plain language, the Enterprise can hit harder, it has more "muscle."

Merry Christmas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2012, 02:22 AM   #73
mtblillie
Commander
 
mtblillie's Avatar
 
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

Yes, I'm not stupid I can see the big engines. I'm saying there is no proof that the warp core in an intrepid class produces less power than one in a galaxy class, saying it does simply because the ship is smaller does not make it so, it's an assumption, a reasonable one, I will not deny it, but it is not necessarily true.

And again, even if it is true, which again I will concede is a distinct possibility, firepower does not win a battle, strategy does: USS Johnston (DD-557)
__________________
-Robert
mtblillie.wordpress.com
mtblillie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2012, 08:19 AM   #74
Merry Christmas
Vice Admiral
 
Merry Christmas's Avatar
 
Location: tantalizing t'girl's techno temenos
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

mtblillie wrote: View Post
there is no proof that the warp core in an intrepid class produces less power than one in a galaxy class
Okay, if I might ask, what kind of proof would you be willing to accept? I'll see if I can provide it.

firepower does not win a battle, strategy does
If you're discussing the relative capacities of two different types of ships, then strategy doesn't enter into it.
Merry Christmas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9 2012, 02:43 AM   #75
mtblillie
Commander
 
mtblillie's Avatar
 
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

T'Girl wrote: View Post
mtblillie wrote: View Post
there is no proof that the warp core in an intrepid class produces less power than one in a galaxy class
Okay, if I might ask, what kind of proof would you be willing to accept? I'll see if I can provide it.
Anything other than an assumption. For example, I remember Data mentioning the actual output of the Enterprise's warp core, if there was for example a mention of Voyager's output, and it turned out to be significantly less, that would be acceptable.

T'Girl wrote: View Post
firepower does not win a battle, strategy does
If you're discussing the relative capacities of two different types of ships, then strategy doesn't enter into it.
Fair enough, the simple point I'm trying to make is that relative capabilities don't necessitate victory.
__________________
-Robert
mtblillie.wordpress.com
mtblillie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.