Is the USS Vengeance more powerful than the Enterprise E?

Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by Austin 3:16, Sep 17, 2013.

  1. Shawnster

    Shawnster Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Location:
    Clinton, OH
    Now, I'm the opposite. I really, really, really dislike both Abrams movies and especially retch over the NuEnterprise. However, I find the Vengeance a much more pleasing design. It looks way more balanced and in proportion to itself than the NuEnterprise. I just ignore that it's monstrously retardedly huge.

    USS Archer NCC 44277 was part of the battle group sent to intercept Shinzon in Nemesis. It's not that they didn't know about Archer, our heroes apparently just never cared to discuss him.
     
  2. The Wormhole

    The Wormhole Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    I admit, the Abramverse being the result of Narada debris ending up scattered in its past is intriguing and would certainly explain a lot. But I don't agree that Enterprise itself is a result of this changed timeline, and those two examples are purely coincidental. The Romulan drone ship was just a reused ship of the week from Voyager while it was intended to use a new Klingon design in Unexpected and indeed a ship was drawn. There just wasn't time to do up a CG mesh so they used the only one they had on file that would fit in a pre-TOS timeframe.
     
  3. Praetor

    Praetor Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Location:
    The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
    Agreed. The Flashpoint explanation actually works for me too. If it's good enough for funnybooks...
     
  4. Mycroft Maxwell

    Mycroft Maxwell Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Location:
    Tennessee USA
    Yeah....like a 1913 Battleship could beat a 2013 destroyer... ANSWER: Enterprise E is wayyyy more powerful. Those "Dated" phaser beams are hellova much more powerful than the weapons on the Vengence. Those Qauntum Torpedoes would make it seem as if the Vengence's shields weren't even there. as a said a 1913 Battleship (Vengence) could not beat a 2013 Destroyer (Enterprise E)
     
  5. Shawnster

    Shawnster Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Location:
    Clinton, OH
    Just for comparison. No time to look up destructive yields

    1913 US Battleship. Pennsylvania Class
    Armament:
    2013 US Destroyer, Zumwalt Class


    Armament: 20 × MK 57 VLS modules, with 4 vertical launch cells in each module, 80 cells total. Each cell can hold one or more missiles, depending on the size of the missiles.
    Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM)
    Tactical Tomahawk Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine Rocket (ASROC)
    2 × 155 mm Advanced Gun System
    920 × 155 mm total; 600 in automated store + Auxiliary store room with up to 320 rounds (non-automatic) as of April 2005
    70-100 LRLAP rounds planned as of 2005 of total
    2 × Mk 110 57 mm gun (CIWS)
     
  6. Mycroft Maxwell

    Mycroft Maxwell Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Location:
    Tennessee USA
    Thanks dude!!!Actually helps my point. the Penn. Class is loaded down with artilary to pack a punch. The Zumwalt however would annihilate that battleship before it could even get into firing range.
     
  7. Sci

    Sci Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Location:
    Montgomery County, State of Maryland
    Bold added.

    This is the key. We have no idea if technological patterns are consistent, or if Abramsverse tech got a jump-start due to timeline contamination. We have no data one way or the other, so both scenarios -- that Abramsverse weapons of the 23rd Century are comparable to those of the Prime 23rd Century, or that Abramsverse weapons of the 23rd Century are equal to or more advanced than those of the Prime 24th Century -- are plausible.
     
  8. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Now the Iowa class (Vengeance) would smoke a modern Aegis class ship--if it got close enough.

    Galaxy was a ship of exploration, and it got replaced by Ent-E due to the Borg threat..but Ent-E is still a good well rounded starship. Vengeance isn't--it is a flying weapons battery.

    Also, some of Scotty's transwarp beaming ideas may have gotten back to Khan, who may have been Section 31's version of Neil Turok at Perimeter Institute.

    Hard to say.
     
  9. Sci

    Sci Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Location:
    Montgomery County, State of Maryland
    I see no reason to think the Galaxy class was "replaced" by the Sovereign class -- especially since we see numerous Galaxy-class starships participating in key engagements throughout the Dominion War, yet we've only ever seen a single Sovereign-class starship in the Enterprise-E.
     
  10. Praetor

    Praetor Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Location:
    The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
    I agree. The Sovereign class ship was probably just deemed a good choice to be the new Enterprise, but there's no reason to think the class was being replaced. If the TNG TM is to be believed, then the Galaxy class was designed for a one hundred year lifespan.
     
  11. Mycroft Maxwell

    Mycroft Maxwell Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Location:
    Tennessee USA
    YEah, the Galaxy class was still very new when the Sovereign class went into service. The Galaxy class is heavily armed. I remember there was always people in the show making a big deal in Ds9 especially when something had more fire power than a galaxy class starship.

    The Phaser Arrays on 24th century vessels take from a single power source unlike the weapons in the 23rd century that used phaser BANKS. Each beam in the 24th cenutry has several times more power pouring through them than the dual beams of 23rd century vessels. (However it would seem they went back to some sort of seperate power cells for the pulse phaser turrets of the Defiant).
     
  12. Shawnster

    Shawnster Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Location:
    Clinton, OH

    Galaxy Class introduction prior to but close to Stardate 41153.7
    Sovereign Class USS Enterprise-E launched Stardate 49827.5

    1,000 stardate units generally accepted as 1 year makes the Galaxy class roughly 8 years old before Sovereign Class launched.
     
  13. Mycroft Maxwell

    Mycroft Maxwell Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Location:
    Tennessee USA
    Which is relatively new. 8 years for a ship designed for 100?
     
  14. Sci

    Sci Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Location:
    Montgomery County, State of Maryland
    Exactly. Hell, 8 years is still very new even by the standards of a modern aircraft carrier.
     
  15. Viper78

    Viper78 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2013
    Location:
    Scotland
    As the Galaxy replaced the Ambassador as the flagship class. I had always thought of the Sovereign Class as the successor to the Excelsior class rather than a replacement for the relatively new Galaxy Class. Can't see why the Galaxy class would need to be replaced after 8 years.

    Had the Ent-D survived I'm sure it would have remained the flagship for many years.
     
  16. anh165

    anh165 Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2012
    It did more than just fire at it, it disintegrated large chunks of the Enterprise's hull with ease while it was fully shielded.

    That was just with the Vengeance's standard phasers.
     
  17. anh165

    anh165 Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2012
    Considering the time line alteration of the destruction of vulcan, reverse engineering the data from the Narada, the difference in political direction Starfleet has taken, involving Khan in the design on ships and weapons, I will go out on a limb that the technlogical patterns will be shifted and not at all relative to what TNG fans see from the Enterprise E.

    I remember the Klingon battle cruiser firing on the Enterprise D, to be fair even in its day it would not be much of a threat to the TOS Connie class unless they arrived in packs of 3 which we saw in TOS.

    Its not unreasonable to believe the Vengeance could virtually one shot a D7/K'Tinga.
     
  18. Bad Thoughts

    Bad Thoughts Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Location:
    Containment Area for Relocated Yankees
    I would think that any vessel based on the Narada could only be as powerful and battleworthy as a non-military vessel of the 24th century. The Narada may have had features that allowed in to be used in a combat capacity, but that's not the same thing as something designed with combat in mind, even the Enterprise D.
     
  19. Praetor

    Praetor Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Location:
    The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
    Well, if we accept that the Narada also made use of Borg tech, then maybe not.

    Borg tech is obviously the fairy dust that explains the entire Abramsverse. :rommie:
     
  20. R. Star

    R. Star Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Location:
    Shangri-La
    Voyager wasn't immune to that fairy dust either.