Borg timeline error?

[Timo]

Why should a warship be able to take more punishment than an exploration ship?

To take a few examples from WWII, it was much more difficult to sink a tanker than a cruiser, because tankers float much better when holed. An icebreaker would be much more heavily armored than a destroyer; a tug would survive a collision a PT boat would not; a whaling ship could brave a storm from which a frigate would have to turn back.

And the qualities that made for good exploration ships before that were qualities found in the most heavily armed bombardment ships of the navy...

A dedicated warship might come equipped with all sorts of special gear that helps in dodging fire, or returning it and thus discouraging the enemy. But if the starship is thus equipped and is an explorer to boot, she might be doubly protected from military threats!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Paradon]

Then why don't we just send tankers into war? It's not equiped to handle combat.

 

[Timo]

But being a tanker is not a disadvantage - so being a tanker-warship hybrid is sheer bonus.

Which is why the USN once seriously considered using big dumb tankers for their primary offensive surface firepower...

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/surfacewarfare/arsenalship.html

None of the episodes or movies suggest that the Galaxy would be handicapped in combat because of also being an explorer. Well, Worf sort of does, in "Heart of Glory", by suggesting that saucer separation increases the ship's combat prowess, but his opinion does not carry when Starfleet actually employs the ship in battle.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Deks]

Being stocked with new torpedo types is a tad easier than refitting the energy weapon systems, I'd think.

I wouldn't agree with that because it was quite obvious that the energy weapons systems on the Lakota were very powerful (O'Brien even stated as much).

Which just highlights the Defiants' own plot armor. Its' strength depends on the writers' will, so it can either be a powerful warship in no danger or on par with other easily-destroyed ships depending on the writers.

True... but the armor is not what I was getting at.
The energy weapons on the Defiant were apparently modified for the purpose of fighting the Borg more effectively.
These modifications are probably what allowed the Defiant's energy weapons to be effective against Dominion ships, whereas the Oddysey's were not (because they were not modified).

Point was that SF was in fact portrayed as being... lax, time and time again.
Even during the Dominion War itself, the orbital defensive systems of a Federation world (I think Betazed) were stated to have been severely outdated, which contributed to it's being taken over by the Dominion (this was WELL into the war, and SF could have at least brought Betazoids into the fold by telling them what to do to the systems at hand the moment the Dominion destroyed the Oddysey).

 

[Paradon]

Didn't O'Brien say somebody's been upgrading the Lakota's phasers? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, you think the Defiant's ARmor was the prototype of what we have seen on "Voyager: Endgame"? Admiral Janeway could easily install the armor on Voyager maybe the same way they were able to fix the damage armor on the Defiant after each battle.

 

[Timo]

Or during each battle, for that matter. That is, when the armor is explicitly taking hits in "Way of the Warrior", the hull remains unpitted and uncharred.

It is only in ST:FC where we get lingering damage, and that includes deep damage where part of the starboard nacelle interior is exposed.

Timo Saloniemi