Galaxy class a failure?

[Praetor]

Technically, the M-5 also destroyed the Excalibur to Constellation-level damage, since they re-used the stock footage for it. (Another reason why I'm against viewing the AMT kit as a different subclass, but I digress...) Presumably the Exeter was recovered; I believe there's a fan-production based around that. For some reason, memos in TMoST also suggest the Farragut was lost as a result of the Dikironium cloud creature, but I've long suspected that was an error.

But still, I've never liked the idea that all of them were lost except Enterprise, which I believe the TMP novelization opined.

 

[Cyke101]

A ship that always breaks is a bad ship, regardless of the valor of its crew. And an "unique phenomenon" is not necessary in order to disable enterprise. Fedengi in old BOPs suffice.

Defiant and yes, even Voyager (can you beleive it?) behaved much better during the many dangerous situations they went through.

But there's also context. You wouldn't send Defiant to cover half the scientific or diplomatic missions the Enterprise-D or Voyager went through; Defiant was prone to the same anomalies and spies as well. Conversely, you wouldn't send Voyager into the front lines as often as the Defiant, or in a standoff like the Enterprise-D; Voyager's firepower would be laughed at or were often outnumbered and ran from battles. Even then, Defiant's been defeated by a couple of bug fighters and Voyager was taken over by the Kazon in a major battle, so all three ships have had their share of weak showings as well (though no one else would chalk them up to design flaws).

Frankly, you keep pushing theory as fact, when even onscreen dialogue repeatedly pushes the Galaxy as one of the top of the line vessels out there. The Galaxy's been seen in stories set in the future, and she was even supposed to show up in Nemesis as part of the Starfleet Battle Group. As was pointed out, if the ship was as much of a dud as you say it is, Starfleet would never rely on her so often.

 

[Xerxes1979]

..she was even supposed to show up in Nemesis as part of the Starfleet Battle Group. As was pointed out, if the ship was as much of a dud as you say it is, Starfleet would never rely on her so often.

Absolutely correct. In addition not only did the Galaxy survive the Dominion war but arguably is the flagship of task force Omega. It certainly is more powerful than the Hood and Intrepid. Any such task force would have had several days to assemble prior to the Enterprise's arrival and departure from Romulus. They chose the best combination of ships they could put together and that included a Galaxy.

 

[Praetor]

Hm. So we have:

An Intrepid
A Defiant
A Galaxy
A Renaissance (?)
A Nova
An Excelsior
An Excelsior (?)

And do we know that the USS Aires wouldn't be a different ship than the Aries, really?

 

[Cyke101]

..she was even supposed to show up in Nemesis as part of the Starfleet Battle Group. As was pointed out, if the ship was as much of a dud as you say it is, Starfleet would never rely on her so often.

Absolutely correct. In addition not only did the Galaxy survive the Dominion war but arguably is the flagship of task force Omega.

A good hypothetical. I'm reminded of the task force led by the Venture to save DS9 from the Klingons in Way of the Warrior, too. If a Galaxy had been a dud, there's no way it would have served as the lead ship of a hastily made rescue force.

 

[roguephoenix]

In a space of 6 years Starfleet witnessed 3 leading ships of the fleet (Including the flagship) lost. The destruction of the Yamato(2365) & Odyssey(2370) was catastrophic. Starfleet's great humiliation was the destruction of the Enterprise(2371) when an obsolete BoP mortally wounded it. Fortunately the saucer section survived intact.

so was the galaxy class a failure?

by the same reasoning, cars are a massive failure. planes are massive failures. houses are massive failures. the list goes on. from that perspective, there's really nothing or not much that's not a failure.

 

[nx1701g]

..she was even supposed to show up in Nemesis as part of the Starfleet Battle Group. As was pointed out, if the ship was as much of a dud as you say it is, Starfleet would never rely on her so often.

Absolutely correct. In addition not only did the Galaxy survive the Dominion war but arguably is the flagship of task force Omega.

A good hypothetical. I'm reminded of the task force led by the Venture to save DS9 from the Klingons in Way of the Warrior, too. If a Galaxy had been a dud, there's no way it would have served as the lead ship of a hastily made rescue force.

Good point.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

If it was a bad ship, Starfleet would never ever field it. These are the guys who build backups for the backups and run simulations of things before they actually build them. Do you honestly think these same guys would invest in a bunch of big, expensive duds?

They've got the mental capacities and knowledge of hundereds of worlds. If the Galaxy turned out to be a dud, it would have been scrapped in the design phase in favor of the Kumari-class or the Fanboi Battlewagon-Class.

BUt enterprise was a bad ship and was not scrapped. These are raw facts.
One can speculate as to the "why".
Maybe incompetent admirals were to blame; maybe, before the dominion war, the galaxy class was redesigned; etc.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

BUt enterprise was a bad ship and was not scrapped. These are raw facts.

Onscreen quote now. Give me a line of dialogue that clearly states the Enterprise is a dud. It can be from any episode.

It's not canon unless it's onscreen, bub. Otherwise, no raw facts.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

A ship that always breaks is a bad ship, regardless of the valor of its crew. And an "unique phenomenon" is not necessary in order to disable enterprise. Fedengi in old BOPs suffice.

Defiant and yes, even Voyager (can you beleive it?) behaved much better during the many dangerous situations they went through.

But there's also context. You wouldn't send Defiant to cover half the scientific or diplomatic missions the Enterprise-D or Voyager went through; Defiant was prone to the same anomalies and spies as well. Conversely, you wouldn't send Voyager into the front lines as often as the Defiant, or in a standoff like the Enterprise-D; Voyager's firepower would be laughed at or were often outnumbered and ran from battles. Even then, Defiant's been defeated by a couple of bug fighters and Voyager was taken over by the Kazon in a major battle, so all three ships have had their share of weak showings as well (though no one else would chalk them up to design flaws).

Frankly, you keep pushing theory as fact, when even onscreen dialogue repeatedly pushes the Galaxy as one of the top of the line vessels out there. The Galaxy's been seen in stories set in the future, and she was even supposed to show up in Nemesis as part of the Starfleet Battle Group. As was pointed out, if the ship was as much of a dud as you say it is, Starfleet would never rely on her so often.

Facts speak louder than words. The characters can praise the enterprise all they want; in action, enterprise shamed the federation.

And, as I've said before, unknown aliens or anomalies were not necessary to cripple the enterprise. The lamest opponents could capture the ship. And tell me - did enterprise actually prove resistant against any anomaly or unknown species? Every single one trashed the ship!

Defiant and Voyager didn't always win the day, but more often then not they did.
Not so with the enterprise. Give me an example of enterprise actually performing admirably and I'll give you three of it failing pathetically.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

BUt enterprise was a bad ship and was not scrapped. These are raw facts.

Onscreen quote now. Give me a line of dialogue that clearly states the Enterprise is a dud. It can be from any episode.

It's not canon unless it's onscreen, bub. Otherwise, no raw facts.

"Facts speak louder than words. The characters can praise the enterprise all they want; in action, enterprise shamed the federation." Bub.

Quote? This is TV. If you want, I'll give you names of episodes. Not words, but onscreen facts.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

"Opinions speak louder than facts." - Philip de Barros

 

[ProtoAvatar]

"Opinions speak louder than facts." - Philip de Barros

Sometimes they do - especially on internet forums.

Tell me - do you find this desirable?

 

[Vanyel]

People please, just drop this thread. ProtoAvatar is not going to come to any realization or any compromise. He believes the GC to be a failure; and no amount of on screen evidence, speculation or logical assumptions are going to persuade him in any way. Drop this thread.

My last post in this thread.

Vanyel

 

[Cyke101]

People please, just drop this thread. ProtoAvatar is not going to come to any realization or any compromise. He believes the GC to be a failure; and no amount of on screen evidence, speculation or logical assumptions are going to persuade him in any way. Drop this thread.

My last post in this thread.

Vanyel

...or episode titles, either.The goalposts for what defines a failure keep moving, to the point where Starfleet is supposed to magically predict every single instance that will happen involved in *gasp* space exploration!

 

[ProtoAvatar]

"on screen evidence, speculation or logical assumptions"
The vast majority of on-screen evidence portrays enterprise as a failure.
Speculaton or logical assumptions - I count two - the enterprise wouldn't be in service if it was such a failure and in DS9 we saw 5 minutes of galaxies performing well in the dominion war. I discussed both in my previous posts.

"Starfleet is supposed to magically predict every single instance that will happen involved in *gasp* space exploration!"
I expect Starfleet to predict some - not all - of the dangers that federation ships will encounter. In TNG, going by enterprise's performance, Starfleet predicted almost none of the dangers - not even the obvious ones.

ProtoAvatar is not going to come to any realization or any compromise. He believes the GC to be a failure; and no amount of on screen evidence, speculation or logical assumptions are going to persuade him in any way.

Vanyel ( and Cyke101) - you are talking about yourselves. With the difference that you believe enterprise to be a success.

 

[USS Triumphant]

The Galaxy-class was a failure because it looked like a hotel in space. People want a ship with teeth, and regardless of its technical capabilities, the Galaxy just never looked like that ship.

However, the Enterprise being taken down by an outdated Bird of Prey is something that should not have been possible.

Why does everyone insist that the BoP was outdated? Sure, it may have been 20 years old, but the Klingons use the same design frameworks over and over, and this was the personal ship of the heads of House Duras - I doubt very seriously it didn't have the finest (or close to the finest) of upgrades on a regular basis.

And, there are different types of "BoP"s. Kruge and Klaa's ships were almost certainly D-12 scout style BoPs, but the fleet flagship for House Duras would probably have been a K'Vort-class battlecruiser - a much more serious opponent. Three K'Vort-class ships are considered slightly more than a match for a Galaxy-class in a stand-up fight.

I think those are all the times the 1701D lost power or her warp core was ready to blow. That's less than 10% of the episodes.

That has got to be the recruiting motto for Galaxy-class ships: "We only blow up less than 10% of the time!"

 

[Hartzilla2007]

The Galaxy-class was a failure because it looked like a hotel in space. People want a ship with teeth, and regardless of its technical capabilities, the Galaxy just never looked like that ship.

However, the Enterprise being taken down by an outdated Bird of Prey is something that should not have been possible.

Why does everyone insist that the BoP was outdated? Sure, it may have been 20 years old, but the Klingons use the same design frameworks over and over, and this was the personal ship of the heads of House Duras - I doubt very seriously it didn't have the finest (or close to the finest) of upgrades on a regular basis.

And, there are different types of "BoP"s. Kruge and Klaa's ships were almost certainly D-12 scout style BoPs, but the fleet flagship for House Duras would probably have been a K'Vort-class battlecruiser - a much more serious opponent. Three K'Vort-class ships are considered slightly more than a match for a Galaxy-class in a stand-up fight.

Um you mean flagship of the DISGRACED House of Duras, that was referred to ONSCREEN as a 20 year-old junker and was said by the Duras sisters to be no match for the Enterprise.

 

[Star Wolf]

The Galaxy-class was a failure because it looked like a hotel in space. People want a ship with teeth, and regardless of its technical capabilities, the Galaxy just never looked like that ship.

The Enterprise, is a hotel in space. It runs scientist and diplomats to the here and there as normal duties, As described in the opening of Data's Day. But combat oriented fanboy doesn't like that, he focuses on the extra ordinary phaser and torpedo firings as Data's Day ended with the showdown with the Romulans. Thus the other megathread running about children on Battlestar Enterprise

 

[USS Triumphant]

Um you mean flagship of the DISGRACED House of Duras, that was referred to ONSCREEN as a 20 year-old junker and was said by the Duras sisters to be no match for the Enterprise.

Disgraced or not, they still had money and connections - they certainly seemed to keep showing up like a bad penny whenever major movers were scheming.

And it's true - a single K'Vort would be no match for the Enterprise. Doesn't mean it isn't significantly closer to being one than a D12 BoP would be.

But combat oriented fanboy doesn't like that,

That's certainly true. But I was thinking more of the sexy women, cars, and explosions crowd that makes up a mainstream audience. See also: the popularity of the recent reboot.