Headless Galaxy Classes?

[sojourner]

Not necessarily. Turret mounted guns were only installed on battleships to give them more accuracy at a distance; the turrets become sorta redundant against shore targets where you can take your time and turn the entire ship, with the cannon mounts being slightly adjusted for fine tuning.

Well of course against a fixed target this is correct. But we were talking ship vs ship, so my comment stands.

The same is also true of missile launchers; sometimes a missile turret is needed to give the missile the right direction, but most missiles can track targets in any direction no mater where they're fired (which is why modern warships don't use turret-style missile launchers anymore; even the ABLs on the Iowa Refit only fire in one direction).

Again, we were talking direct fire weapons (phasers) in which firing arcs are important. Indirect fire weapons obviously are much less dependent on firing arcs and ship maneuverability. My comment stands again.

Aircraft are poor parables for starships in that they are relatively fast and manueverable. The better parable to starships (in the Star Trek setting) is the modern day sea naval ship.

To be honest, both can be used to represent starship combat only to an extent before they break down based on contradictory onscreen examples.

 

[Timo]

Well, the British and French navies between the World Wars were quite happy with battleships that didn't have any rear turrets... And many navies in those years, or before WWI, favored amidships turrets that couldn't fire forward or aft.

Also, American and Japanese cruisers had triplets of forecastle turrets (and American destroyers had triplets of quarterdeck turrets) of which the turret closest to the center of the ship couldn't fire anywhere except directly to port or starboard. Plus, several superfiring arrangements where the after/upper gun seemingly enjoyed a field of fire forward were in fact impractical for this sort of aiming, because the after/upper gun would have damaged the forward/lower gun if fired in that manner. The sheer amount of firepower was more important than the directions in which it could be aimed.

In more modern times, the Garcia and Perry frigates had deck guns placed so that they could only effectively fire to port or starboard. Turning the ship was always an option when using the deck gun. And this despite said gun being definitely a ship-to-ship weapon (with a rather theoretical anti-aircraft function, and pitiful power for shore bombardment).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Wingsley]

Like I said, I'd be interested in seeing a version of the Galaxy-class battle hull with no saucer at all, or rather with the cobra head modified to give it saucerish features instead of the docking clamps. If the original intent of Andrew Probert's design was a compound vessel, a saucer-shaped research vessel docked atop a combat-capable vessel, then what would we get if that combat-capable vessel had a variant designed to operate completely independently?

It would be interesting to see "saucerette" variants that could be attached to a Galaxy-class stardrive section. The question for me would quickly become: if Starfleet decided to engage in "custom mods" of one of its largest, most premier starship classes, how would it get the most "bang for its buck"?

Consider this: what if the Galaxy-class were designed from the beginning to use interchangeable saucers. The big saucer we see more or less permanently attached to the Enterprise-D would be the Galaxy-class "prime" or "alpha saucer" design. But since this saucer can be jettisoned, what other designs would Starfleet commission to be built, and for what applications? Could there be a "beta saucer" for more scientific-leaning mission profiles? Or a smaller "delta saucer" for a smaller crew, built for combat missions? Or a "gamma saucer" built similar to the "alpha saucer", but ready-made giant escape-pod-like sections that could be jettisoned in planetary orbit for colonists to configure into either a prefab space station or to make quick planetfall as prefab colonial landing modules/permanent on-the-ground bases?

If you assume that the Galaxy-class is not strictly designed around a single "alpha saucer" concept, but that there are multiple saucer configurations, then the whole Galaxy starship class takes on new conceptual meaning for the Federation, not just being the newest, fastest, biggest starships on the line.

But if the Federation did something like this, how would they conceptually organize and design the various saucer/saucerette hulls. Would these modules themselves become a kind of starship class of their own? Or would the notion of a "Galaxy-class saucer" symbolize something to Starfleet akin to the cargo pods on Franz Joseph's Ptolemy-class warptugs?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Again, we were talking direct fire weapons (phasers) in which firing arcs are important.

Begging the question: ARE THEY? Phasers are directed energy weapons, not technically "direct fire" in the sense being used; theoretically, all you need for 360 degree coverage is one phaser on the front of the ship and one phaser on the back of it; the presence of the extra emitters doesn't seem to have alot to do with the need to cover all firing arks and more to do with the need to concentrate more phasers on any particular target (though we've only ever seen this firing mode in STXI, where even the side-facing phasers are fired at forward targets).

That's why I'm saying the difference between turreted and fixed weapons is just a matter of what kind of target you're going to be shooting at and at what range. Even a turret-based missile launcher makes sense if your missiles are being aimed at targets only a few hundred meters away, but beyond that range it doesn't make alot of difference.

Aircraft are poor parables for starships in that they are relatively fast and manueverable. The better parable to starships (in the Star Trek setting) is the modern day sea naval ship.

Respectfully disagree, remembering as I do the incredibly rapid banking turns made by the Enterprise-D in "Encounter at Farpoint" and similar combat maneuvers throughout DS9.

Actually, the most appropriate parable to a starship would be a large tactical bomber equipped with radar-guided machineguns and air-to-air missiles; this could develop in a world where some type of exotic unobtanium alloy has been developed that allows for the construction of absurdly huge, heavily-armored aircraft that are incredibly difficult to shoot down. The heavier bombers would have the advantage because their large size allows them to carry bigger weapons and in greater number that can repel or destroy smaller and less sturdy fighter planes before they can deliver a killing blow. Adding guided missiles to the package means you could have something the size of a B-52 packed with up to 40 Sidewinder missiles and some kind of FLIR targeting pod that can fire those missiles at any target in any direction.

Now, sure, you can make the argument that the smaller more manueverable fighters would make mincemeat out of the bombers... but this is only in a world where the race between weapons and armor heavily favors the weapons. In Star Trek, it doesn't; shields can soak up an awful lot of punishment before they go down, so what you're really looking at is a B-25 Mitchell covered from nose to tail in a ten-inch sheet of unobtanium armor; BF-109 making an attack run has to put ALOT of firepower into that bomber to shoot it down, while the bomber's more numerous and incredibly accurate guns can chop those BF-109s to pieces before they can finish the job.

 

[Forbin]

Was the P-51 a horribly inefficient fighter plane because it could only shoot in one direction?

^no, but an Iowa class battleship that could only shoot in one direction would be. different paradigms.

And I knew someone would say that as soon as I hit "post."

And you have a point.

So let's travel back to circa 1800, where the most powerful fighting vessels in the world could only shoot sideways (barring bow chasers), and even had to wait for the right point in a wave-induced roll to do so. Was HMS Victory a poorly designed fighting vessel?

 

[Santaman]

HMS Victory was a pretty well designed ship for the era, as with most things she was overtaken by new technology making her obsolete and useless, same happened to HMS Warrior, later on every ship afloat in the world was made obsolete by HMS Dreadnought which was made obsolete by HMS Orion, the first superdreadnought, which was made obsolete by... and so on.

 

[Arpy]

The relatively tiny blindspots don't matter because anything that'd need to hide in them would be obliterated by the phasers a hundred kilometers before it got anywhere near them.

If something actually got that close, they'd be obliterated by the two torpedo launchers. The fore one firing straight and the aft snaking torpedoes up. Of course they wouldn't be set to maximum yield anymore than the phasers would be at that range, or the ship itself wouldn't survive the blast. Certainly not within the shield bubble.

And I say they are shield bubbles. We didn't see any shields of any kind during the Dominion War, like we didn't see anywhere near the number of phasers firing or torpedoes in play...or ships maneuvering realistically, spaced realistically, or as many varieties of them as there should be.

The saucers shouldn't be there, I agree. I like to think many of the Galaxys didn't have their saucers connected, but the ones that did were packed with troops and materiel for the invasions. Interchangeable saucers sound interesting, but I once saw this fan art of such a saucer that was horrendous...a square flat battle platform with long phaser canons locked and loaded into the stardrive...{shudder}

 

[Captain MAJ]

^ buuuuut. the cobra head phasers cover forward and above. there is a phaser strip on the bottom of the hull just behind the mouth of the main deflector array that provides coverage below in 360°. its just seldom seen used since there's always the saucer there with its massive strip.

It doesn't cover the area directly in front of the main deflector. The strip on the cobra head provides upper coverage, but no lower coverage, or lower coverage over a distance.

I seem to recall an episode of TNG where the E-D shot phasers out of it's forward Photon Torp tube. Perhaps there was a point type emitter there? That would cover that "blind spot."

 

[Vanyel]

^ buuuuut. the cobra head phasers cover forward and above. there is a phaser strip on the bottom of the hull just behind the mouth of the main deflector array that provides coverage below in 360°. its just seldom seen used since there's always the saucer there with its massive strip.

It doesn't cover the area directly in front of the main deflector. The strip on the cobra head provides upper coverage, but no lower coverage, or lower coverage over a distance.

I seem to recall an episode of TNG where the E-D shot phasers out of it's forward Photon Torp tube. Perhaps there was a point type emitter there? That would cover that "blind spot."

I believe that the phasers firing from the photon tubes is considered an FX mistake.

Just one more thing about area coverage. It has been mentioned that at some point from the ship the phasers converge. Wouldn't that mean that with the longer phaser strips on the Galaxy saucer the convergence point would begin closer to the ship? If so wouldn't that allow for better coverage? The saucer's phasers can fire multiple beams (presumably so can the other phaser strips) simultaneously, wouldn't that also allow better coverage?

 

[Captain MAJ]

I believe that the phasers firing from the photon tubes is considered an FX mistake.

A mistake perhaps, yet canon nonetheless.

 

[SeerSGB]

Right thread this time:

Well, really, how hard would it be to plant one a extra phaser strip or two, if the blind spots are really that big of an issue?

 

[Captain MAJ]

^

I said Topless Galaxy before. I meant Headless. What kind of things are on my brain?

 

[Birdog]

Right thread this time:

Well, really, how hard would it be to plant one a extra phaser strip or two, if the blind spots are really that big of an issue?

Why would you need to the phasers converge less than a ship length out. If you can get that close during combat then you deserve to win.

 

[SeerSGB]

Right thread this time:

Well, really, how hard would it be to plant one a extra phaser strip or two, if the blind spots are really that big of an issue?

Why would you need to the phasers converge less than a ship length out. If you can get that close during combat then you deserve to win.

Point defense system...small nimble craft doing hit and run attacks that get them in close...more guns is always cool...whatever reason you come up with really. If it's a tactical issue, then it doesn't seem one that's that hard to fix: just run a EPS tap to the hull and bolt on a phaser strip.

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

Little late to the party, but - in the four-part comic "The Worst of Both Worlds", Picard and the gang get sucked into a parallel dimension where the Borg were victorious after Wolf 359 and proceeded to assimilate Earth. Their Enterprise-D was headless, but it wasn't by choice - it was just so battered after all the constant fighting they had to abandon the thing. At least it made for some nice images of two Galaxy class starships darting about, one without a saucer, blasting away at a Borg cube.

Mark

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ Only ever had the first two parts of this comic. Apparently the problem was they tried to recover Picard but Riker thought Shelby's "antimatter spread" idea was too risky; the Borg destroyed Data's shuttle and the saucer and then assimilated Earth.

I only mention this because I have no idea how that story ended and it has nagged at me for YEARS. I got as far as the part where Data and (I think) Worf beamed aboard the cube but found Locutus wasn't where they expected him to be.

 

[Nick Ryder]

What were the issue numbers? I'm wondering if it could be found on like eBay or something - sounds like an interesting story too

 

[MEATLOAFr]

i think is was issue 50, I have digital "copies" somewhere

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

Summary - Data and Worf beamed onto the cube to try to find "their" Picard and finish the original plan, but don't; he's on Earth, supervising the continuing assimilation of Earth. The gang as such heads to Starfleet Headquarters to get him back, and do at the cost of "their" Worf. Yadda yadda, boom boom, "Sleep" doesn't work, but "Eat" does, the day is saved. "Their" O'Brien tries to swap places with his double so he can live with Keiko and Molly, but they find out the deception. That's about it.

Mark

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ So, about what I figured.

Coolies!