Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and advanced

[Timo]

Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

And I fairly doubt that Soran was able to upgrade the BoP extensively.
Granted, he would be able to construct shielding for the trilithium torpedo so it doesn't burn up as it approaches the star ... then again, even with those enhancements to the BoP (provided they were done to begin with), the ship shouldn't have held out as long as it did in battle.

The latter may be true, but the former should be considered a factor here. Soran was years ahead the Federation in many things technical, and he had somehow convinced the Twisted Sisters that attacking the Enterprise wouldn't be suicide - so why not take at face value the surprise that everybody experienced when Riker's first shot didn't end the fight?

The crew also acted in a very idiotic fashion. Geordi was held captive by the klingon sisters for some time and the crew knew of their deceitful tactics.
Why didn't they bother to check the visor if it's been tampered with?

But that assumes that the tampering would be detectable. Soran would see to it that it wasn't.

Also, rotating shield modulations very fast even with Geordi looking at them would likely not allow every shot to go through the shields.

We have no idea if that's technologically possible. It sounds quite plausible that shields just can't do that sort of thing: the constant retuning might either wreck the hardware, or then result in shields that are constantly out of whack and give little protection. And rotation has never worked too well as a defense against anybody, neither the Borg nor the Jem'Hadar, so it just makes sense that it wouldn't work here.

Again, as for the Galaxy class production being suspended ... I don't think it would happen.

But again, what suspension? DS9 shows more Galaxies than the six the TNG Tech Man speaks about. And there's no real reason to think that the Sovereign would literally succeed, let alone displace, the Galaxy class. It's just another parallel design, only somewhat newer than most - perhaps an Excelsior replacement at a long last, with many similar solutions?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Deks]

Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

We only know that Soran developed a way to affect the Nexus trajectory.
Almost any decent scientist within the Federation and with same goals as Soran would likely be able to achieve a same effect.

The movie never really portrays if Soran's civilization was much more advanced compared to the Federation of the 24th century.
Remember, the Feds were able to pretty much catch up to everybody in the AQ and BQ by the 23rd century.
In the 24th, their technology was considered to be most developed compared to the neighbors (at least in TNG era as per Q himself), and rivaled decently with numerous DQ races (including the Dominion ... at least just before/for the duration/after the war).

True that it's a question if Soran's tampering would be detectable ... Soran was working for the Federation (or that's the impression I got from the movie) for a long time and would likely be aware of numerous standard procedures ... however, the crew of the Enterprise knew what Soran was trying to do and that he was on-board the BoP, along with the fact Ursa and Be'Tor were not conventional Klingons.
In my perspective, the writers goofed up big time. If the battle was fought between an upgraded/modified K'Tinga or Vorcha class ship, then the battle would have been more convincing ... a BoP is stretching it a lot with 0 explanation behind the whole 'farce'.

When the Klingons noted their shields were holding, that's just something that happens in battle (doesn't mean their shields didn't lose % during the hit).
Even an old ship would be able to withstand a hit or two before falling into submission.
Within the confines of Trek universe, the BoP should have been destroyed very fast.
Fact remains that Riker knew the Enterprise-D was compromised with it's shields down, and I still don't understand why he never simply unleashed a full barrage onto the ship (maybe if it was explained that the BoP disabled their weapons with first several hits ... then it would likely pass).
In an alternate timeline, the battleship Enterprise was able to destroy a K'Vort class ship (larger/more powerful BoP with raised wings) with several torpedoes and phaser shots. It's very likely a measly BoP (even with some upgrades) would fair extremely poor against a Galaxy class ship.

Rotating shields very fast was done by Data in BoBW for example during the confrontation with the Borg which repelled their draining tractor beam.
It didn't affect the hardware in any capacity, and it definitely wouldn't later on since the technology in question underwent upgrades ever since BoBW and would likely be able to do so even faster (not to mention make it part of standard combat operations ... at least, it would be the sensible thing to do).
Shield modulation/frequency changes worked well against the Borg initially in TNG ... and again in 'Dark Frontier'.
It just depends on how fast you can rotate the frequencies to be able to stay ahead of the Borg and prevent them from adapting (at least temporarily) which gives you an opportunity to strike back.
The Dominion was a different story because they utilized phased-polaron beams.
If the name alone is any indication, then it stands to reason no shield modulation worked because the nature of the weapons was different (perhaps it was able to achieve partial phase) compared to phasers/disruptors/borg beams ... which is why no frequency changing would work. The shields would have to undergo re-fit's in order to compensate for the phasing effect automatically.
I think the Defiant's shields were effective in this regard in 'the Search' because it utilized anti-borg technology to begin with. Fleet-wide changes didn't ensue obviously as SF has a tendency not to do that unless a threat is imminent (putting the Defiant on ice because the Borg were not an imminent threat comes to mind).

I only mentioned that it's likely the Galaxy class would not be suspended from further production because someone else mentioned they were.
I don't hold onto the premise that Galaxies were ever considered to be phased out of production.

 

[kent]

Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

What did we see in Generations with Riker in command?
One measly phaser shot which did some damage to the BOP shields.
Why not fire 10 torpedoes in a Sierra pattern along with a full-out phaser barrage instead and turn the BOP into minced meat?

Umm, the sound effects of that fight suggest that Riker was firing more or less constantly.

Did the BOP's shields suddenly increase by a factor of 100 allowing their to be invulnerable completely while also dumbing down Riker and everyone else on the Enterprise-D? Apparently so.

I wouldn't wonder a bit. After all, the fact that "Our shields are holding!!" came as a joyous surprise to the two mistresses of the ship, after they had been convinced the attack would be suicide. It wasn't, thanks to Soran supplying an offensive ace. It would be eminently logical for him to supply a defensive one as well, to upgrade the shields.



I'm sorry but I don't put much credence on this source when it comes to describing the onscreen universe.



But that makes so little sense. How could a small ship mount as big a gun as a large ship?



Typically, a courier ship has different attributes than a combatant. We know the Intrepid class is ridiculously fast, so that makes her a good courier. We don't know that she would be particularly well armed or shielded, though, and we have never seen her like in Alpha Quadrant combat so we might well assume the exact opposite.

And why would an Admiral even have a personal ship? He'd be using whatever ship was available in the combat formation he commanded - and typically, he wouldn't choose the most powerful combatant, but rather a ship that has good command facilities and good protection. Today's Admirals may command from carriers as well as from large air defense destroyers, but they also commandfrom unarmed former amphibious assault ships.



Not in the real world. Instead, every ship design is a unique compromise optimized for the fighting needs of the day, often discarding some advantages that the previous ships had so that she could have different, more current advantages aboard instead. In many key ways, today's surface warships have armament and armor that is massively weaker than their WWII or even WWI counterparts: sometimes they compensate by introducing powerful weapons or protection systems from wholly different categories, but sometimes they are deliberately built weak because that's how they stand a better chance of winning modern wars.



What suspension? If it's the thing alluded to in the TNG Tech Manual, it sure didn't last long, as DS9 already shows multiple new Galaxies left and right.



So the Defiant is supposed to be the match of the Galaxy now? Hardly. We have no indication that these smaller ships can do what the larger ones can. The Defiant at best confronted a single Cardassian Keldon, while the Enterprise-D was supposed to tackle 15 Galors and carry the day. The Intrepid would logically fall somewhere in the middle.

Obviously the Defiant class ships can be used for border patrols much more effectively instead of sending an Intrepid or a Galaxy that could be much more useful in exploratory department.

Hmm... Border patrol in a ship that induces cabin fever? I'd much rather send an Intrepid, for greater endurance and greater flexibility and independence. The Defiant in DS9 excelled in short solo sorties.

The Prometheus class has 15 decks like the Intrepid class, it's merely longer with a smaller crew compliment to support it's extra combat capabilities.

How would a small crew "support" any extra capabilities?

Also, we know nothing about the size of that ship's crew. The only example we ever saw up close was hijacked during a test cruise, so the unknown number of Starfleet corpses aboard was probably way different from the regular complement.

As for why Starfleet would have both Galaxy and Sovereign, they also have Akira and Galaxy at the same time. Akira is about the size of the Sovereign. Probably Starfleet simply doesn't believe in the "single type for simplicity" credo, aka the "all eggs in the same basket" doctrine.

Timo Saloniemi

You can pack as big a punch in a small ship as a larger ship with advances in technology, like the Intrepid's warp core. The Sovereign for example is 24 decks in height versus the 42 decks of a galaxy, yet is more powerful....RIGHT there is pretty much proof that disproves what you said. The Intrepid has been said BY the producers to be a smaller counterpart to the galaxy almos equal tactically. Not completely equal, but close. And like i said before, Paris is QUOTED in an episode stating the ship was built for battle. And your reference to the real world is a little silly...ITS STAR TREK. Obviously we aren't talking about the real world lol. And remember i'm quoting actual episodes and an officially authorized magazine and articles that said these things, and like the writers bible stating the fact the Intrepid is a medium cruiser/deep space explorer.

And yes the Defiant class could go up against the Galaxy class. The Defiant class has been shown on numerous occasions going up against ships more powerful and larger. It's warp core is advanced and it's pulse phaser couplings run right past the warp plasma conduits, boosting the standard power by something like 50% or so. Not to mention they are armed with ablative hull armor (a new more advanced kind) and quantum torpedo's, not to mention it could run circles around a galaxy class. On numerous occasions the Defiant went up against dominion battleships, which were generally more powerful than a Galaxy class, in addition to the other reasons. Also, if you recall, the Defiant went up against the USS Lakota, refitted with more powerful phasers than a galaxy and quantum torpedo's. Granted it was a stalemate, but the Defiant was again SMALLER, yet could take on a ship larger and refitted with advanced weaponry. And it took the Lakota down. It didn't just go up against the Keldon class...did you watch the show? It went up against dominion warships, attack bugships, and Vorcha class klingon battle cruisers, and in a parralell univers against a ship bigger than even the Negvhar! And before it's argued it was a parrallel univers, the design schematics were stolen from the universe we know by the parrallel universe Obrien, or Smiley. So the ship was built to starfleet specs.


The admiral would have his own ship obviously, he was a fleet admiral. Remember in the alst episode of TNG Riker was a fleet admiral and chose the refit Galaxy class as his personal flagship. Again, star trek NOT real world. As for the Prometheus being 15 decks, you can reasonably assum based on the size of the window's and phaser strips, and the size of the bridge, that it's 15 decks. I believe it was also stated somewhere in the episode as well.


I'm sorry you dont put much credence in a magazine officially authorized by paramount, who BTW calls the shots on Star Trek. I'd also like to point out that the magazine actually calls the people on star trek, as well as interviews the producers, cast, and sometimes crew. So the information is pretty valid. I would agree with you if the magazine was not authroized. But if that's not enough you can look at onscreen evidence.

Examples:

The USS Voyager went up against three or four Kazon motherships, and was winning, in one of the major battles in Voyager. If it wasn't for internal sabotage they would have probably one. In addition to that supporting the argument that Voyager was a strong ship, it also shows that LARGER ships can be weaker than SMALLER ships.

Phasers and their components aren't always bigger = better. Advancements in technology allows for smaller compnents being more powerful than older larger ones. I can't beleive you don't realize this...I mean if you WANT to compare to the real world, look at laptops and personal computers now versus the huge ones back in the sixties? Or missles in the army/navy that are smaller, and even remote controlled, versus technology that was like 50 years ago. Nanites, a perfect example of smaller doesn't equal less powerful or productive. As technology advances things tend to get smaller. Also, they are called Bio-Neural, NEURAL AS IN BRAIN, gel packs. Is it really so difficult to make the logical next step in assuming it uses artificial nerual fibers?? It says NEURAL in the NAME of the gel packs. I don't think star trek felt the need to explain that any further, and i'm pretty sure they assumed we'd be smart enough to make the leap lol.

Tom paris, quoted in an episode, stating that the Intrepid class was built for combat. That's a tough one to argue, and if you want to go with on screen evidence there you go.

As for the prometheus class, if it's THAT gunned up then it probably has a large torpedo compliment. It also probably has heavier phaser components, though that wouldn't be the main thing because they wouldn't be THAT much bigger really. It has extra warp cores, and a very large shuttlebay, and can also separate into three smaller ships, which means each section has to have it's own dueterium and antimatter supply, as well as impulse engines which also means more fusion generators. Granted we don't know much about the crew compliment, but with all the extra components needed to operate as a battleship and in seperated flight mode, it's fairly obvious if you use common sense that the crew compliment would probably not be as high as an Intrepid class, which is indeed the same deck height. And as for supporting the hardware, well honestly much of it is automated so it doesn't need a large crew to operate. When we were first introduced to the Prometheus class, it was able to operate with a crew UNDER TEN. This is also why the Intrepid class doesn't have a larger crew compliment even though it's similar in size in terms of it's internal volume and space to a Constitution.

 

[Deks]

Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

On a related note ... I wonder what would be the maximum capacity of crewmen that Voyager can house.
If the Sovereign class which is 9 decks larger (11 as of Nemesis) is able to house about 800 (which might or may not be a standard crew compliment for that class), would it be a stretch to think an Intrepid would be able to house about a 500 people at max?

I mean ... if the Galaxy class is able to house about 10 000 people at it's fullest, then up to 500 for the Intrepid might be doable.

Granted, Voyager had issues housing 204 Klingons in season 7.
But that was primarily because they were utilizing much more of their resources in terms of replicators/power.

One has to question how the Klingons survived on their 4 generations old K'Tinga with that kind of resource drain.
Then again, being faced with advanced technology might have eased up whatever 'restrictions' they might have had on their ship (although I do find it incredibly impractical to destroy their own vessel).

 

[kv1at3485]

Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

Granted we don't know much about the crew compliment, but with all the extra components needed to operate as a battleship and in seperated flight mode, it's fairly obvious if you use common sense that the crew compliment would probably not be as high as an Intrepid class, which is indeed the same deck height. And as for supporting the hardware, well honestly much of it is automated so it doesn't need a large crew to operate. When we were first introduced to the Prometheus class, it was able to operate with a crew UNDER TEN. This is also why the Intrepid class doesn't have a larger crew compliment even though it's similar in size in terms of it's internal volume and space to a Constitution.

Some notes. Number of decks!=size. Length!=size. A Prometheus is about 20% larger than an Intrepid. An Intrepid is about 2.5 to 3 times larger than a Constitution, depending on whether one is referring to the original or the refit. That there has been increased automation over the years from TOS to VOY is pretty obvious.

On the other hand, it probably doesn't do well to trumpet that we saw Prometheus flown by a handful. Any ship can be flown by a handful. The question is if that is enough when things start happening... like battle damage. Only a handful in Starfleet may have been trained to use Prometheus, but I wager that the ship's intended crew is a whole lot larger. Not to say that they couldn't build a ship that self-repaired in a big way all by itself without needing biological crew at their tech level, but let's face it: that's not the Star Trek way, for better or worse.

As a tid bit, if Prometheus was to have the same crew density as Defiant, that'd turn into a crew of like 500.

On a related note ... I wonder what would be the maximum capacity of crewmen that Voyager can house.
If the Sovereign class which is 9 decks larger (11 as of Nemesis) is able to house about 800 (which might or may not be a standard crew compliment for that class), would it be a stretch to think an Intrepid would be able to house about a 500 people at max?

I mean ... if the Galaxy class is able to house about 10 000 people at it's fullest, then up to 500 for the Intrepid might be doable.

A Galaxy is 2 times larger than a Sovereign, which in turn is something like 3.5 to 4 times larger than an Intrepid. I would not be at all surprised if a Sovereign's normal crew complement is less than 550.

 

[swaaye]

Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

Well, the way I've always seen it is that the older classes get new tech retrofitted. Intrepid was a showcase for various new techs. Undoutedly most if not all of those techs get fitted to the older ships once they are tried and tested.

One thing I'm not entirely convinced of is that a smaller ship has any advantage over a larger one. They still fire the same weapons. Phasers should never miss as they are energy weapons being targeted with 24th century computers. I doubt a contemporary computer would have any trouble at all targeting a moving ship, let alone a future targeting computer that is actually a refined model itself built upon literally hundreds of years of past experience with older models.

I'm surprised a ship can evade even a torpedo. Those miniscule torps should be incredibly more maneuverable than a crewed vessel of any size. I'm also amazed that they can't trivially shoot down torpedoes with phasers, considering how sophisticated and fast the targeting systems should be. Although we have seen them shoot them down occasionally.

 

[kent]

Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

Granted we don't know much about the crew compliment, but with all the extra components needed to operate as a battleship and in seperated flight mode, it's fairly obvious if you use common sense that the crew compliment would probably not be as high as an Intrepid class, which is indeed the same deck height. And as for supporting the hardware, well honestly much of it is automated so it doesn't need a large crew to operate. When we were first introduced to the Prometheus class, it was able to operate with a crew UNDER TEN. This is also why the Intrepid class doesn't have a larger crew compliment even though it's similar in size in terms of it's internal volume and space to a Constitution.

Some notes. Number of decks!=size. Length!=size. A Prometheus is about 20% larger than an Intrepid. An Intrepid is about 2.5 to 3 times larger than a Constitution, depending on whether one is referring to the original or the refit. That there has been increased automation over the years from TOS to VOY is pretty obvious.

On the other hand, it probably doesn't do well to trumpet that we saw Prometheus flown by a handful. Any ship can be flown by a handful. The question is if that is enough when things start happening... like battle damage. Only a handful in Starfleet may have been trained to use Prometheus, but I wager that the ship's intended crew is a whole lot larger. Not to say that they couldn't build a ship that self-repaired in a big way all by itself without needing biological crew at their tech level, but let's face it: that's not the Star Trek way, for better or worse.

As a tid bit, if Prometheus was to have the same crew density as Defiant, that'd turn into a crew of like 500.




I agree that the Prometheus class is a bit bigger overall than the intrepid, but it does still have the same amount of decks, and in that sense it's the same size. I was just pointing out that the ship would need multiple redundant systems, and to have three seperate dueterium and antimatter tanking and distribution systems would take up an enourmous amount of internal space for each warp core, not to mention the ship would need THREE computer cores, with a functioning back up for each one, so 6 total. the 42 deck high Galaxy class had at best 3, with room for a fourth.

Each section also has individual torpedo launching systems (I would assume anyway) with enough torpedo's for an extended battle. Each section would need its own shield generators and backups in case of damage. Each section would also presumably have their own impulse drive system, which means more fusion reactors and reserve fusion reactors for power consumtion of the ship. The ship also has recessed nacelles in the saucer section which are meters long, and that also takes up an enourmous amount of room if you consider the mechanisms needed to extend and retract let alone the actual nacelles. Mind you the saucer section is where most of the crew quarters normally are. Also, there has to be at least 3 deflector dishes, one for each section. A ship can't warp without it, and if it's a tactical vessel the deflector systems are likely advanced and sensitive, making the machinery behind it bulkier as well. Even if the machinery is not as bulky, it still takes up a good amount of room.

All I was saying, is that if the ship is somewhat bulkier but still has the same decks as an Intrepid, then it's crew if it were a normal downrated ship would probably be around 150-200. But, since it has all the humungously bulky redundant hardware, tankage, and extra nacelles, the crew compliment by default would be reduced to a number in the low low 100's, around 100 or so i would imagine, and possibly even less due to automation. Even with the extra room, and lack of any scientific applications, most of the internal room is comprised of extra systems so the ship can operate in seperated flight mode.

I will say though, since the Dominion war is over and the Prometheus class didn't see much action, Starfleet would be smart to take out any extra weapons uneeded, or any combat system not needed, and install scientific facilities as well as more all purpose facilities. The design of ship is EXTREMELY strong, and would be able to study phenomenon most other starships wouldn't be able to. That and it's top cruising speed is warp 9.99i believe, making it a good recon vessel. And the fact that it is able to seperate means the ship is able to perform multiple different types of missions at one time, an invaluable ability. It could seperate, and one section could go study a quasar or something, another could border patrol, and the third could do a recon mission.

 

[Deks]

Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

When talking about SF weapons, here's how they should operate:
Phasers would NEVER miss their target given the fact they apparently travel at the speed of light (at the very least), have a maximum effective range of 300 000 km (which implies the speed of light) and are targeted using highly advanced computer systems.
In general, opposing vessels apparently travel at sub-light velocities as far as 'impulse' is concerned, and wouldn't be able to dodge these weapons unless they used warp strafing (and even then, a computer would be able to make necessary calculations in order to hit it's target).

Torpedoes are apparently FTL weapons and should be able to reach their target instantly if fired while not traveling at Warp velocities (even under warp this should be instant because the distances aren't visually large).

Writers and SFX department went for the 'cool' factor on more than one occasion and dumb down many aspects for the show because of the drama.

I agree on the premise that older ships get retrofitted with new technologies, but at the same time, many aspects would remain identical between the larger and smaller ships.

 

[kv1at3485]

Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

snip

You'll note I was not challenging the whole "systems*3" thing. I have long since known the Prometheus is not one big supership, it's a curious amalgamation of three smaller, weaker ships.

One section has serious warp performance issues (there seems to be a reason large nacelles are still in favour). The redundency people like to go on about completely disappear at the critical moment when the ship is doing its job in MVAM. The whole scheme isn't even necessary to bring more weapons to battle in a single "package".

As a single unit Prometheus is worse than a purpose built single vessel. In MVAM, or even in some bastardized "peaceful" conversion, it does the job no better than three ships. All in all, an inefficient, overengineered "solution" looking for a problem.

I really can't see Prometheus as a 'strong' design. If there was anything uniquely good about it when we saw it, obviously that would not stay true for long negating any advantageous the ship may have vis a vis everything else. But there is one bad thing unique to it that would be best to stay that way.

 

[Deks]

Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

Yet at the same time, a Prometheus is mostly a singular vessel.
If the technology to build it was available earlier and it was stuck in the DQ like Voyager, there is a good possibility it would have gone through much less trouble.
Not to mention that going into MVAM during a Kazon assault, or any other for that matter, would have likely increased the ships chances of survival.
Having 3 ships that come from 1 could prove to be a decisive factor as you can attack from multiple directions.

Numerous non-Federation races have various blind-spots that the Feds usually/easily cover with strips on their ships.

It's made solely for deep-space tactical missions.
Perfect for Starfleet Intelligence, Section 31 or SF officers in general who have to conduct such missions far away from home-base.

 

[Timo]

Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

Phasers would NEVER miss their target

Well, that is how they do work in TNG era ship-to-ship combat. Unless the opponent is cloaked, the hit rate is always 100%.

Unless we're talking about the "Gatling phasers" of the Defiant, that is. And since those seem to be fixed forward, with just some vertical traverse, I think they can be excused. They're similar to Klingon BoP wingtip cannon in operating mode anyway: spray and pray. Aiming would be superfluous...

(Oh, I do remember ONE time when a Starfleet phaser did miss its target. In "Jem'Hadar", the runabout that tries to stop the Jem'Hadar ship from ramming the Odysseus manages to squeeze off a shot that goes past the target. But that's a unique incident in Star Trek as far as I know.)

Phasers aren't always lightspeed or FTL, of course. At close ranges, they seem to move relatively slowly, at speeds that we can easily perceive. At longer ranges, they are faster. It's almost as if the thing that was constant was time-to-target! Which is literally true, as a phaser beam is always rendered on screen by drawing a line that spans the screen in, what, three frames of film, because that's what looks good. This regardless of what distance is portrayed on that screen...

Since time-to-target is constant, though, the claim about 100% hit rate being inevitable still basically holds true. And is indeed observed regardless of distance.

Torpedoes are apparently FTL weapons

Well, apparently not, since we can see them! True, they have been seen to fly at warp, but only in battles where the launching ship is at warp. This sounds like a plausible technological limitation.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[nx1701g]

Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

^ The tech manuals claim that they are fired at warp velocities.

 

[Timo]

Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

The TNG manual says that they can put 0.75 warp factors to the velocity of the launching vessel at best - so a torp launched at sublight would stay sublight, and a torp launched at warp 3 wouldn't reach warp 4.

What we actually see is less acceleration than that. And it would be rather silly to fire a torpedo at 0.75 times lightspeed when it can reach the target just as fine at 300 mph. The extra speed would give no extra lethality. (At least if we assume that the ability to accelerate to such insane speeds is thanks to the negation of inertia, which then cancels the hitting power of the accelerated object, too.)

Granted that roughly torpedo-sized objects have been witnessed traversing great distances at what must be rather high warp, even if they were fired from a sublight starship or a space station. But there might be special rules that apply to these things; the weapons used in the actual battles don't fly at warp speeds unless fired at warp, and don't accelerate much by themselves no matter what the flight regime.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[kent]

Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

snip

You'll note I was not challenging the whole "systems*3" thing. I have long since known the Prometheus is not one big supership, it's a curious amalgamation of three smaller, weaker ships.

One section has serious warp performance issues (there seems to be a reason large nacelles are still in favour). The redundency people like to go on about completely disappear at the critical moment when the ship is doing its job in MVAM. The whole scheme isn't even necessary to bring more weapons to battle in a single "package".

As a single unit Prometheus is worse than a purpose built single vessel. In MVAM, or even in some bastardized "peaceful" conversion, it does the job no better than three ships. All in all, an inefficient, overengineered "solution" looking for a problem.

I really can't see Prometheus as a 'strong' design. If there was anything uniquely good about it when we saw it, obviously that would not stay true for long negating any advantageous the ship may have vis a vis everything else. But there is one bad thing unique to it that would be best to stay that way.

I think the Prometheus is a very strong design, it took down a d'deridex warbird with EASE....lol. It is what it was designed for. And i can't see the reasoning that larger warp nacelles are preferred by starfleet considering the Intrepid class' warp nacelles are relatively small and yet have a standard cruising velocity of warp 9.975, almost 5500 times the speed of light.

And having one ship be able to split into multiple independent warp capable ships is of course better than having three ships. One, you don't expend as many resources building a butt load of ships. Two, you have a ship able to be much more efficient and handle multiple missions at one time. Three, if there is a catastrophic event then you can separate the ship and still be able to function and have a warp drive to escape. Four, with all the redundant systems, you have a huge surviveability rate in a tough situation, like being stranded in the delta quadrant.

 

[kent]

Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

Phasers would NEVER miss their target

Well, that is how they do work in TNG era ship-to-ship combat. Unless the opponent is cloaked, the hit rate is always 100%.

Unless we're talking about the "Gatling phasers" of the Defiant, that is. And since those seem to be fixed forward, with just some vertical traverse, I think they can be excused. They're similar to Klingon BoP wingtip cannon in operating mode anyway: spray and pray. Aiming would be superfluous...

(Oh, I do remember ONE time when a Starfleet phaser did miss its target. In "Jem'Hadar", the runabout that tries to stop the Jem'Hadar ship from ramming the Odysseus manages to squeeze off a shot that goes past the target. But that's a unique incident in Star Trek as far as I know.)

Phasers aren't always lightspeed or FTL, of course. At close ranges, they seem to move relatively slowly, at speeds that we can easily perceive. At longer ranges, they are faster. It's almost as if the thing that was constant was time-to-target! Which is literally true, as a phaser beam is always rendered on screen by drawing a line that spans the screen in, what, three frames of film, because that's what looks good. This regardless of what distance is portrayed on that screen...

Since time-to-target is constant, though, the claim about 100% hit rate being inevitable still basically holds true. And is indeed observed regardless of distance.

Torpedoes are apparently FTL weapons

Well, apparently not, since we can see them! True, they have been seen to fly at warp, but only in battles where the launching ship is at warp. This sounds like a plausible technological limitation.

Timo Saloniemi

You're pretty much right about that. And torpedo's aren't FTL weapons, I agree. They can be launched FROM ftl speeds, and the warp sustainer engine can maintain the starship's warp field for a limited amount of time. The only problem with that is it uses up the warhead payload for fuel. But whatever.

I propose, even though there is on screen evidence, that Starfleet emposes automatic countermeasures as soon as red alert is sounded that somehow confuses the sensors on a limited basis of an enemy ship. I know there is no onscreen evidence, but considering ships in the real world do this, it makes sense that ships in trek do that as well. It makes the most sense when you see things like beam weapons with computerized targeting scanners missing a ship only a handful of kilometers away. Either the computer is broken, the tactical officer is manually targeting BADLY, or they are purposefully missing. Neither makes any sense in a tactical situation. The only thing I can think of is countermeasures built into red alert hence not really anything being mentioned about it.

 

[kv1at3485]

Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

I think the Prometheus is a very strong design, it took down a d'deridex warbird with EASE....lol. It is what it was designed for.

That just demonstrated the efficacy of the ship's weapons, which can be applied to other ships. Again, Prometheus is an overcomplicated substitute for a squadron.

And i can't see the reasoning that larger warp nacelles are preferred by starfleet considering the Intrepid class' warp nacelles are relatively small and yet have a standard cruising velocity of warp 9.975, almost 5500 times the speed of light.

I don't know about you, but when you have two sections on the Prometheus with huge nacelles and one section with very puny nacelles I can't begin to image how that one section can even be considered a viable running mate with the rest.

Each of an Intrepid's nacelles are like 3% of the ship's volume. If you go to EAS and try to roughly guestimate the nacelle's relative size on the top section of a Prometheus, I think it comes out to a much much smaller percentage. Considering how they thought they needed the much larger nacelles for the other sections, I'd venture a hazardously smaller percentage.

And the only time I remember Voyager going at 9.975 was during Threshold and could only be counted as impressive if by "standard cruising velocity" you meant "warp drive had to shut down after five minutes at speed."

And having one ship be able to split into multiple independent warp capable ships is of course better than having three ships. One, you don't expend as many resources building a butt load of ships.

Bogus. Building a Prometheus essentially requires one to build three Constitution-sized ships. That's the concept behind MVAM, and that's the only way you can even begin to claim "multi-mission" capability.

Two, you have a ship able to be much more efficient...

No. In single-vessel mode it's less efficient. You have a bunch of internal mass (extra hull, hull connection surfaces, recessed warp nacelles) that you don't need.

...and handle multiple missions at one time.

In which case you're doing no better than if you sent out a squadron of ships in the first place.

Three, if there is a catastrophic event then you can separate the ship and still be able to function and have a warp drive to escape. Four, with all the redundant systems, you have a huge surviveability rate in a tough situation, like being stranded in the delta quadrant.

Again, no better than a squadron.

And I love how people are using an outlier situation ("getting stuck in the Delta Quadrant") as justification. The Promtheues concept is inefficient as to not merit pursuing on a large scale, if at all. It'd be insane to start doing just that just to cover the bases of a very few ships that find themselves in very unlikely situations, like "getting stuck in the Delta Quadrant".

 

[kent]

Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

It wouldn't be an inefficient design if each section had the proper materials to operate independently, IE warp cores, computer cores, etc. I agree the smaller warp engines on the saucer probably can't handle higher warp factors, but still could go to warp.

I don't see how building three ships into one isn't efficient...It's would have independent capabilities and wouldn't cost as much as a larger ship would. that just makes no sense.

I don't recall that part of threshold. you may be right. that said it has one of the highest top cruising speeds in the fleet and that for sure is a fact. i don't see how me quoting the delta quadrant would be an outlier situation, it was merely an example.

 

[kv1at3485]

Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

It wouldn't be an inefficient design if each section had the proper materials to operate independently, IE warp cores, computer cores, etc.

I don't see how building three ships into one isn't efficient...It's would have independent capabilities and wouldn't cost as much as a larger ship would. that just makes no sense.

Who's talking about a "larger ship"? We're talking about taking the same material/effort needed to build a Prometheus and building three ships of a single smaller class.

Which is far more streamlined than building three classes of ships and adding the docking facilities needed to mash together a Prometheus.

What you seem to keep missing is the whole concept of squadrons which give the same capabilities as Prometheus for much less hassle.

I don't recall that part of threshold. you may be right. that said it has one of the highest top cruising speeds in the fleet and that for sure is a fact.

It's even worse than I thought. According to this transcript, they reached 9.97 and the computer almost immediately started screaming about "structural failure in 45 seconds."

I don't know what definition of "cruising speed" you're using, but something that can't be sustained for an appreciable amount of time doesn't qualify as "cruising speed" in my book. More like: "killing-ourselves-may-be-more-merciful-than-the-alternative emergency speed."

i don't see how me quoting the delta quadrant would be an outlier situation, it was merely an example.

And it's an outlier example.

 

[Verkruk]

Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

The Intrepid Class starship would lose.

Having the same type of Phasers equipped does not mean equal power.
The Galaxy class has almost 2000 emitters in its main Dorsal array.
The power of the phaser blast is determined by the amount of emitters used in each blast.

So there is no way that the Intrepid could hope to match a Galaxy class starships phaser output.

The Galaxy class starship is also capable of matching the Intrepid class vessels reactor efficiency.

The Intrepid class vessel does not fire Quantum Torpedoes.
It fires Photons and Tricobalt Devices.

In addition the Galaxy class has a 10 torpedo per tube capacity.
And it is very likely that the Galaxy has been upgraded to the new Bio-Neural systems by now.

 

[Voyager]

Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva

That's like asking which would win, a Ticonderoga class cruiser or a Nimitz class carrier. Gee, I wonder. http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1266/1205651966_8e1248d785_o.jpg

sorry to derail here a bit but I had to get a shot in this...


neither...this would turn into a stale mate match...


reason:

the nimitz would send its planes over to bomb the crap out of the tricon, however the tricon would launch one or two of its own missles and send them into the side of the nimitz causeing it to sink, granted the planes would be left but if the batle was far enough away from any refuleing point (assumeing there is no allowance for mid air refuleing) the planes would just drop into the water or where ever they are once out of fuel...


as for the Intrepid VS galaxy?


depends on what variables you want...if looking at power vs power, galaxy hands down, if you want speed and quick manuverabality...the Intrepid hands down...


but here is an interesting question I shale post out of this...


assumeing we have the intrepid VS. Galaxy battle...who would win the battle if it was Picard in the Ent-d VS Janeway in the Voyager?