RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,543
Posts: 5,513,293
Members: 25,143
Currently online: 528
Newest member: JackieM

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 > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 23 2013, 06:52 PM   #31
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Constellation Class: Excelsior "back-up" plan?

You can't use what the Russians did during the Soviet as a good comparison to the UFP. Especially, when both designs are considered failures by Western analysts and both designs were outdated by the time they were actually put into production.
Where would the difference lie? For all we know, Klingon analysts considered both Constellation and Excelsior miserable failures.

A better comparison would be the Freedom LCS vs Independence LCS.
...Ships that are invalid from the very concept on, and both demonstrably miserable failures engineering-wise?

Neither really provides any sort of insurance against the other, either. If one flops, the other will go down in flames as well, being identical to her competition in all the aspects subject to the risk of failure. It's really a case of finding an alternative to the LCS concept, there lamentably being none (at least none that would involve ships).

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 07:47 PM   #32
ProwlAlpha
Fleet Captain
 
ProwlAlpha's Avatar
 
Location: Florrum
Re: Constellation Class: Excelsior "back-up" plan?

Even though the proof concept of the transwarp drive was deemed a failure, the class wasn't, since it became the most prolific starship in Starfleet.

Now, that I think it about further, in the 70s, the OH Perry class was built as a cheaper version to the Spruance Class where the OHPs got the moniker of Kmart frigates, but they proved their resilience during the 80s when two members of the class was heavily damaged in the Persian Gulf.
__________________
"As my sweet mother always said, 'son, if one hostage is good, two are better, and three, well, that's just good business!'"
ProwlAlpha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 08:08 PM   #33
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Constellation Class: Excelsior "back-up" plan?

Even though the proof concept of the transwarp drive was deemed a failure, the class wasn't, since it became the most prolific starship in Starfleet.
Which is neither here nor there, as only the opinion of the Klingons (the "western analysts") would have mattered. Quite possibly, they still think Starfleet was idiotic in putting the Excelsior to mass production.

Now, that I think it about further, in the 70s, the OH Perry class was built as a cheaper version to the Spruance Class
...But not AFAIK as an insurance policy, as the USN still needed a truly oceangoing light cruiser cum destroyer, rather than just a continuation of the Garcia and Knox lines. Had Spruance been cancelled, increased production of Perry wouldn't have helped much.

Personally, I can't see the Constellation as the cheaper version of anything. With all the desperate jury-rigging and doubling-up of components, she probably was the most expensive way to accomplish anything much...

Hmm. The Miranda might be to Excelsior what Perry was to Spruance/[iTiconderoga[/i]. Except the Miranda seems eminently upgradeable while the Perry never was.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 02:16 AM   #34
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Constellation Class: Excelsior "back-up" plan?

The "back-up" concept idea comes to me at least more from things like: Conventional CVs being built along with the first CVN, or how the Royal Navy built both a paddle wheel corvette and a screw-ship when they were building coal fueled cruisers, or the conversion from coal burning ships to oil burning destroyers.

The Constellation in that respect is so much doubling up and overbuilding to get the same result as the new fangled Excelsior seems to me to make sense in that regard. Even if eventually they were given different mission profiles and continued to be built in parallel.
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 04:51 AM   #35
ProwlAlpha
Fleet Captain
 
ProwlAlpha's Avatar
 
Location: Florrum
Re: Constellation Class: Excelsior "back-up" plan?

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
The "back-up" concept idea comes to me at least more from things like: Conventional CVs being built along with the first CVN, or how the Royal Navy built both a paddle wheel corvette and a screw-ship when they were building coal fueled cruisers, or the conversion from coal burning ships to oil burning destroyers.

The Constellation in that respect is so much doubling up and overbuilding to get the same result as the new fangled Excelsior seems to me to make sense in that regard. Even if eventually they were given different mission profiles and continued to be built in parallel.
Yeah, I was trying to think of the two competing steam warships being built by two rival firms during Victorian Age England. Also, during this time, turret vs broadside ironclads were being built as well.

So we got the transwarp drive experiment ship, the Excelsior, vs the quad, rotating warp drive concept ship, the Constellation. I wonder if the Constellation, herself, had a bare hull in comparison to the production model Constellation which would have all the extra gribbles and other stuff on it.

Though after the two respective experiments were done, that the two designs stopped being competing ones and became production ones with each separate mission profiles.
__________________
"As my sweet mother always said, 'son, if one hostage is good, two are better, and three, well, that's just good business!'"
ProwlAlpha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 06:21 AM   #36
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Constellation Class: Excelsior "back-up" plan?

The steam ships comparison (especially between paddle steamers and screw blockships) seemed the most apt, though the conversion from coal burners to oil burners is also a good starting point, since the Excelsior seems as akin to the oil burning battleships vs. the coal burning pre-Dreadnoughts when you compare her to her immediate predecessor (Enterprise-class)

If we go by the wooden ship era comparison, Constellation seems akin to the warship conversions or limited ironclads like the French Gloire which turned wooden hulled ships into iron-clad screw-steamers, while Excelsior is more akin to HMS Warrior, built from scratch and completely abandoning wooden hulls at all.

Barbettes vs. Turrets vs. Broadside armaments are another interesting example of comparisons. (If anyone's interested in more detail on this btw, I highly highly recommend the Conway's History of the Ship volume Steel, Steam and Shellfire)
Nob Akimoto 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 11:18 AM.

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