I very much doubt there's any "simplicity of repairs thanks to interchangeability" built into the Galaxies: the odds of a starbase having the required spare for a Galaxy in need would be a flat zero unless the UFP engaged in an insane program of actually building a hundred and fifty non-flying Galaxies per each actually operational one and keeping them as spares for the rare breakdowns of the rare giant vessels. There might be a grand total of two spare warp cores around somewhere, to be flown to the point of breakdown in two weeks or whatever, but we see no sign of that, either: when the E-D gets a new core in "Phantasms", it looks subtly different from the old one.
Then again, the very concept of "spare" may be outdated in the replicator era. And this would outdate the concept of "compatibility", too, as the missing stem bolt or nacelle could be replicated in any required size or color.
Today's navies don't skip interchangeability because they would be run by greedy capitalists who eat panda pups for breakfast. They skip interchangeability because it's not feasible: you can't have the same sort of turbines in all ships*, even of the same class, and you can't maintain all ships to a common standard when they invent individualistic ways of breaking down. We know Starfleet is "worse" there, as no two ships are identical when we look close enough (due to various aspects of studio reality) except in certain artificial and rare situations of copy-pasting that actually generally try to hide off focus and therefore allow us to believe in the more realistic no-two-ships-are-identical model instead.
Timo Saloniemi
* Yes, partially because, even if you yourself are rational, the capitalists running the businesses that provide the turbines will backstab you at the drop of a panda pup and leave you high and dry, unless they fear this will benefit their competitors. But mainly because their businesses can fold for non-malicious reasons, too, or the subtle but fatal flaws in their products will only become evident with time. Starfleet won't have it any easier, relying on "key providers" so often (lose Janus VI, lose the fleet) and OTOH having to deal with alien and incompatible cultures rather than merely alien and incompatible business cultures all across the providing chain.
Then again, the very concept of "spare" may be outdated in the replicator era. And this would outdate the concept of "compatibility", too, as the missing stem bolt or nacelle could be replicated in any required size or color.
Today's navies don't skip interchangeability because they would be run by greedy capitalists who eat panda pups for breakfast. They skip interchangeability because it's not feasible: you can't have the same sort of turbines in all ships*, even of the same class, and you can't maintain all ships to a common standard when they invent individualistic ways of breaking down. We know Starfleet is "worse" there, as no two ships are identical when we look close enough (due to various aspects of studio reality) except in certain artificial and rare situations of copy-pasting that actually generally try to hide off focus and therefore allow us to believe in the more realistic no-two-ships-are-identical model instead.
Timo Saloniemi
* Yes, partially because, even if you yourself are rational, the capitalists running the businesses that provide the turbines will backstab you at the drop of a panda pup and leave you high and dry, unless they fear this will benefit their competitors. But mainly because their businesses can fold for non-malicious reasons, too, or the subtle but fatal flaws in their products will only become evident with time. Starfleet won't have it any easier, relying on "key providers" so often (lose Janus VI, lose the fleet) and OTOH having to deal with alien and incompatible cultures rather than merely alien and incompatible business cultures all across the providing chain.
