The Federations Need For Multiple Ship Classes

[Satyrquaze]

The Federation Akira class does not need to look the way it does, it serves no purpose. Instead of the Akira design they could have simply built a bigger Nova class. The shape and design is irrelevant. So long as the new sized Nova had the same weaponry, rooms, technology and crew that the Akira has the new sized Nova could replace the Akira.

Yeah, but the Nova is ugly, whereas the Akira is awesome. YMMV.

 

[Expendable]

Let me ask a question about scaling and see if the point come across.

If you want to make a passenger jet that carriers 5,000 people, do you just take a 747 and make it bigger?

Yes. All planes have the same design, the inside of the plane however is designed differently for the purpose the plane is to serve.

Now do YOU understand the point?

This is an Airbus.

This is a 747.

This is a small passenger plane.

They ALL share the exact same design, the wings are in the same place, the fins are in the same place, the engines are on the wings in the same place. The cockpit is in the same place and the shape is the same.

Federation ships are all completely different, the nacelles are in different places, the saucers are shaped differently, the secondary hulls are shaped and located differently.

Do you understand the point I am making?

The Federation only needs one type of design, they can then build that design into different sizes and design the insides of the ship to suit whatever mission the ship is to serve.

Planes can be scaled up and down and they are. They generally all look the same regardless of size and make and model, the inside of the planes are what's wholly different.

The Federation Akira class does not need to look the way it does, it serves no purpose. Instead of the Akira design they could have simply built a bigger Nova class. The shape and design is irrelevant. So long as the new sized Nova had the same weaponry, rooms, technology and crew that the Akira has the new sized Nova could replace the Akira.

Actually if you glance at the pictures you provided, you argument fails. The wings are in various places. They are located in different proportion from the nose of the plane. In addition the wing shapes are different creating a plethora of differing designs.

Just because they "look" the same doesn't mean they are. What about the variants of land based transportation such as automobiles?

If you don't "like" a design, that's all well and good. But to say that the need or desire for a different design is functionally irrelevant is clearly false.

 

[Lorna]

Actually if you glance at the pictures you provided, you argument fails. The wings are in various places. They are located in different proportion from the nose of the plane. In addition the wing shapes are different creating a plethora of differing designs.

because the plane has to have good aerodynamics and contends with many factors such as the air and gravity (but the fact still remains it's the same design barring very very very tiny differences). In space this is irrelevant, and before you start spouting the warp field line, a warp field can be produced whatever the design or wherever the damn nacelles are. This can be concluded from the multitude of ship designs and nacelle locations. Just look at the Kelvin, it only needed a single nacelle to create an adequate warp field.
The warp field argument is just being used as a last ditch resort to win the discussion.

The point is still being missed though. The Galaxy class could have had a completely circular saucer and the pylons to the nacelles could have been at an angle. This would have kept the design similar to the constitution. It did not require a massive design change. The Ambassador class had the circular saucer, all it needed to do was angle the nacelle pylons. The design is being changed for no reason other than aesthetics.

Starfleet only needs one ship design, scale it up or down and redesign the interior.

What was wrong with building a bigger Ambassador class to replace the Galaxy class? the internals would have been changed so they would be the same as the new Galaxy class but why the external design changes?

 

[Expendable]

Actually if you glance at the pictures you provided, you argument fails. The wings are in various places. They are located in different proportion from the nose of the plane. In addition the wing shapes are different creating a plethora of differing designs.

because the plane has to contend with aerodynamics and many factors such as the air and gravity. In space this is irrelevant, and before you start spouting the warp field line a warp field can be produced whatever the design or wherever the damn nacelles. This can be concluded from the multitude of ship designs and nacelle locations. Just look at the Kelvin, it only needed a single nacelle to create an adequate warp field.
The warp field argument is just being used as a last ditch resort to win the discussion.

Actually, the size of the ship determines the size of the warp bubble that needs to be created and that need will determine the power/size of the drive.

But no one needs to make that argument to win the discussion.

Look at the difference in design both in terms of general layout and function of the Wright Brothers plane and the Concorde. The simple act of improving technology causes the changes in design.

We've seen that with the development of the automobile. We create difference facades but the general principle remains the same.

In addition, if you can put the warp nacelles anywhere, why wouldn't you? Differences in placement would of course cause a difference in efficiency.

It's only reasonable to assume different styles would and should exist.

 

[RoJoHen]

Exactly. As technology improves and changes, the ship designs have to change to accommodate it. You can't just assume that New Technology X would work if you slap it on a Galaxy-class starship. And even if it does, maybe it doesn't work as efficiently as it would on a ship with a different design.

 

[Lorna]

We know the top speed of Starfleet ships is around warp 9.975 and they cannot break warp 10. Unless they design transwarp the engines are going to remain the same. If they design better nacelles then they do the obvious, remove the old nacelles and put the new ones on.

Starfleet could design 4 size variants of ship with the same design and replace their entire fleet with all these new ships with the latest technologies. What possible technologies other than transwarp would alter the design of the ship?

Look at the constitution, the ambassador, the Galaxy, the Nova and then the Sovereign. Through hundreds of years they still use a similar layout, the nacelles are aft of the ship on pylons. There have been a multitude of different designs between these ships and yet the latest ship design the Sovereign still work with the nacelles in the same place as on the Constitution, on angled pylons raised upwards from the secondary hull.
It's clear that this means the nacelles located in that position will always work. Starfleet therefore do not need ships with downward facing nacelles like on the Akira, do not need flat nacelles like on the Intrepid, do not need nacelles under the saucer like on the Nebula.

The Constitution type design will always work. Starfleet only needs that one style of design and can build ships of that style design in different sizes.

 

[The_Baroness]

Yes. All planes have the same design, the inside of the plane however is designed differently for the purpose the plane is to serve.

Now do YOU understand the point?

This is an Airbus.

This is a 747.

This is a small passenger plane.

They ALL share the exact same design, the wings are in the same place, the fins are in the same place, the engines are on the wings in the same place. The cockpit is in the same place and the shape is the same.

.

I notice you've not drawn anyones attention to the Concorde, which has a completley different shape to all of these and as a result has very different benefits and disadvantages.

Or a sea plane, which has a different configuration again, to allow it to land on sea.

Specialist aircraft, for niche roles that you couldn't do with 'one' class.

 

[Lorna]

I notice you've not drawn anyones attention to the Concorde, which has a completley different shape to all of these and as a result has very different benefits and disadvantages.

Or a sea plane, which has a different configuration again, to allow it to land on sea.

Specialist aircraft, for niche roles that you couldn't do with 'one' class.

The Concorde was designed for faster than sound speeds unlike regular aircraft. I have not denied that should the Federation design a ship capable of transwarp that the design would change and they would build a new ship design.

The only Federation ship capable of landing is the Intrepid, it's obviously not a major Starfleet requirement. Any need to land on a planet is why ships have shuttles.

 

[The_Baroness]

The Concorde was designed for faster than sound speeds unlike regular aircraft. I have not denied that should the Federation design a ship capable of transwarp that the design would change and they would build a new ship design.

.

No, but they might be able to increase the efficiency of the warp drive by using different configurations.

The only Federation ship capable of landing is the Intrepid, it's obviously not a major Starfleet requirement. Any need to land on a planet is why ships have shuttles.

That we've seen on screen.

We also know that the Defiant was capable of doing so, as it do so in that episode where they meet their descendants from 200 years ago, the name of which escapes me.

The nova class could probably also land going by it's size, and Ransom hidign from voyager sub-atmospherically, and, judging by STXI, where we see the Enterprise being constructed on Earth, so can that.

It would be silly to eliminate the capability to land entirely from the fleet, shuttles can't always handle the atmospheric conditions, and transporters can't always be relied upon either.

If ever a planet needed investigating that could only be landed on via starship (which we have seen in Voyager) then Starfleet wouldn't send a galaxy class.

 

[Satyrquaze]

It's great that you found what you consider the ideal design. But Starfleet doesn't work that way.

This is not the Romulan navy which is apparently entirely made up of D'Deridex-class Warbirds, It's Starfleet. An navy placed in support of the Federation which is an organization supposedly exemplifies diversity. Diversity in people. Diversity in culture. Diversity in religion. Diversity of design. Diversity in everything.

If you were to ask the Federation Council (or some other oversight committee) to agree on one ship design that will make up the entirety of Starfleet going forward the debate would last weeks if not months and I believe that in the end they would agree that Starfleet would have to continue to be diverse to meet the needs and the unknowns as the Federation continues to expand into increasingly more hostile arenas. Diversity of design is partly what got the Federation and Starfleet this far; I highly doubt they'd turn their backs on 200 years of tradition.

Add to that the fact that the Galaxy-class starship was (canonically) the largest class of ship fielded by Starfleet in its history. While it's not a designated battleship, it's quite powerful and at the time of its construction is a match for the most powerful Klingon vessel of its era, and nearly a match for its Romulan counterpart. But, about 10 years after the first Galaxy-class vessel was commissioned the Klingons rolled out the new Klingon flagship and continued apparently to mass-produce that vessel. Starfleet was now at a tactical disadvantage to its closest neighbors. The firepower of this flagship was heretofore unprecedented and capable of overpowering any other vessel in Starfleet’s inventory.

What do you do in this position? Do you build another, even larger class of your design? Where does it end? Wouldn’t it simply be easier to have another entirely separate class of vessel to act as support or even be able to match the firepower of this flagship?

 

[Lorna]

The only Federation ship capable of landing is the Intrepid, it's obviously not a major Starfleet requirement. Any need to land on a planet is why ships have shuttles.

That we've seen on screen.

We also know that the Defiant was capable of doing so, as it do so in that episode where they meet their descendants from 200 years ago, the name of which escapes me.

The nova class could probably also land going by it's size, and Ransom hidign from voyager sub-atmospherically, and, judging by STXI, where we see the Enterprise being constructed on Earth, so can that.

It would be silly to eliminate the capability to land entirely from the fleet, shuttles can't always handle the atmospheric conditions, and transporters can't always be relied upon either.

If ever a planet needed investigating that could only be landed on via starship (which we have seen in Voyager) then Starfleet wouldn't send a galaxy class.

OK, so you take the one design and on the smaller model of that design give it planet landing capability. The only alteration required would be to have internal landing struts that can be deployed at the locations required for stability. Not difficult I assure you, especially for 25th century Starfleet. Its not like a ship need a massive radical designs change to give the thing landing struts.

 

[Expendable]

We know the top speed of Starfleet ships is around warp 9.975 and they cannot break warp 10.

Depending on the design of the engines and ship. That limit varies.

Unless they design transwarp the engines are going to remain the same.

They actually did design "transwarp" engines. That was the Excelsior project. Note how they look the same. Why would they look the same? Lack of imagination? Tiny production budget?

And if warp is the same, then Klingon engines would look like Federation engines and so on. That is clearly not the case.

If they design better nacelles then they do the obvious, remove the old nacelles and put the new ones on.

Unless the new nacelles require other adjustments to the ships design.

Starfleet could design 4 size variants of ship with the same design and replace their entire fleet with all these new ships with the latest technologies. What possible technologies other than transwarp would alter the design of the ship?

More efficient warp engines for one. More effective defense postures, more effective attack postures... The difference between a tug boat and an aircraft carrier...

Look at the constitution, the ambassador, the Galaxy, the Nova and then the Sovereign. Through hundreds of years they still use a similar layout, the nacelles are aft of the ship on pylons. There have been a multitude of different designs between these ships and yet the latest ship design the Sovereign still work with the nacelles in the same place as on the Constitution, on angled pylons raised upwards from the secondary hull.

And there are several designs that show that the "standard" design is not necessary.

It's clear that this means the nacelles located in that position will always work. Starfleet therefore do not need ships with downward facing nacelles like on the Akira, do not need flat nacelles like on the Intrepid, do not need nacelles under the saucer like on the Nebula.

Unless of course it provides the ship with better defensive posture making it easier to maintain shields or it might reduce inertial stresses or it might just make the designers skirt fly up...

The Constitution type design will always work.

Assuming absolutely no changes are made to anything. But that's not how things work.

Starfleet only needs that one style of design and can build ships of that style design in different sizes.

In theory, Starfleet never "needed" to change anything from the original design.

But look at the Intrepid class ship... The nacelles on that ship change position. So it would be more reasonable to assume that varying the position of the nacelles provides better control over the warp field and provides for a safer, more efficient design.

 

[The_Baroness]

OK, so you take the one design and on the smaller model of that design give it planet landing capability. The only alteration required would be to have internal landing struts that can be deployed at the locations required for stability. Not difficult I assure you, especially for 25th century Starfleet. Its not like a ship need a massive radical designs change to give the thing landing struts.

But the shape of the ship then becomes a larger issue, as it needs to be capable of atmospheric flight and capable of supporting it's own weight.

Which, might not work on a larger ship.

 

[Lorna]

What do you do in this position? Do you build another, even larger class of your design? Where does it end? Wouldn’t it simply be easier to have another entirely separate class of vessel to act as support or even be able to match the firepower of this flagship?

You use the same design but build the inside so it has a larger warp reactor and the ship has more firepower.

If you took an Intrepid class and gave it a bigger warp reactor and more weaponry it would be a more powerful ship and could take on more powerful vessels. It's that simple.Sure, it may need a few internal modifications to the design but the overall external design would remain the same, it would not need to change, they're in space with inertial dampeners.

 

[Lorna]

Ya know what, I can't handle this discussion. I've got too many people coming at me from all directions with different quarms. I'm only one person. I cannot keep up with answering. Whilst typing out my last reply there's been two more replies, I cannot continue having a discussion with so many different people at once. I feel like I need to employ people to help me keep up.
It's ok for all of you because you're aiming your responses just at me, whereas I'm having to take on multiple people.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Ya know what, I can't handle this discussion. I've got too many people coming at me from all directions with different quarms. I'm only one person. I cannot keep up with answering. Whilst typing out my last reply there's been two more replies, I cannot continue having a discussion with so many different people at once. I feel like I need to employ people to help me keep up.
It's ok for all of you because you're aiming your responses just at me, whereas I'm having to take on multiple people.

I think this might be good evidence that your position is wrong, and maybe instead of fighting back continually against the people who are right, you go with the flow instead.

 

[The_Baroness]

Well..you..started the discussion...on an internet forum...

what did you expect?

 

[Satyrquaze]

^ I guess Star Trek fans are NOT the people to go to for civility.

 

[Expendable]

^ I guess Star Trek fans are NOT the people to go to for civility.

Nor for logical arguments.

 

[The_Baroness]

I'd say we've been more than civil. We've just pointed out where we felt the flaws are in Lornas idea, noone was ever rude, or got personal toward her. Equally, she was never rude or personal to anyone else either

If she can't handle the fact that people will disagree with her, then why put forward ideas for discussion in a public forum

What are we supposed to do, just smile and nod?