Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and advanced
- Thread starter kent
- Start date
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva
Picard: "Shields Up!" Janeway: "Deploy armor!"
Picard: "Ready photon torpedos!" Janeway: "Arm transphasic torpedos!"
Picard/Janeway: "FIRE!"
Enterprise-D goes BOOM
Based on the last episode of each series; Voyager of course.
Picard: "Shields Up!" Janeway: "Deploy armor!"
Picard: "Ready photon torpedos!" Janeway: "Arm transphasic torpedos!"
Picard/Janeway: "FIRE!"
Enterprise-D goes BOOM
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva
I like to think that the Intrepid is a smaller technological development evolved from the Galaxy. It's smaller and even though the tech is likely a bit more advanced, I'd have to give it to the Galaxy, end episode aside - unless it's the three-nacelle D.
I like to think that the Intrepid is a smaller technological development evolved from the Galaxy. It's smaller and even though the tech is likely a bit more advanced, I'd have to give it to the Galaxy, end episode aside - unless it's the three-nacelle D.
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva
I don't know which one was more powerful or advanced, but I definitely prefer the design of Voyager than that of the Enterprise-D. Like...if I was offered one or the other, Voyager would win every time. I've always thought the D was kind of...gaudy, while Voyager is sleek and classy. Voyager isn't my favorite ship, but between those two, I'd pick Voyager every time.
I don't know which one was more powerful or advanced, but I definitely prefer the design of Voyager than that of the Enterprise-D. Like...if I was offered one or the other, Voyager would win every time. I've always thought the D was kind of...gaudy, while Voyager is sleek and classy. Voyager isn't my favorite ship, but between those two, I'd pick Voyager every time.
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva
Three problems with that.
1) Being a bigger ship, the Galaxy is going to be able to mount larger arrays.
2) The larger Galaxy is going to have much more extensive power reservers for phasers.
3) Phasers aside, the Galaxy has more than six times the number of photon torpedoes carried.
Three problems with that.
1) Being a bigger ship, the Galaxy is going to be able to mount larger arrays.
2) The larger Galaxy is going to have much more extensive power reservers for phasers.
3) Phasers aside, the Galaxy has more than six times the number of photon torpedoes carried.
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva
Disregarding all the modifications made to the Voyager, head-to-head it would lose against a Galaxy class starship. In addition to what Verkruk stated, the Galaxy class has a more powerful warp core which also adds to its phaser power. It all comes down to penetrating shields... Voyager couldn't hold out long enough.
QFT
Disregarding all the modifications made to the Voyager, head-to-head it would lose against a Galaxy class starship. In addition to what Verkruk stated, the Galaxy class has a more powerful warp core which also adds to its phaser power. It all comes down to penetrating shields... Voyager couldn't hold out long enough.
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva
I would have thought that Voyager would put up a valiant fight as it is a newer piece of technology whereas I believe the Galaxy class were implemented into the fleet 10 years before (according to the star trek timeline). I do believe that it would be a very close fight!
I would have thought that Voyager would put up a valiant fight as it is a newer piece of technology whereas I believe the Galaxy class were implemented into the fleet 10 years before (according to the star trek timeline). I do believe that it would be a very close fight!
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva
I disagree with the notion that a smaller sized ship is incapable of matching a fire output of a larger one.
The Defiant for example operates on a principle of being a stripped ship in terms of luxuries, yet seems to match or outperform large vessels easily.
Why is a same thing not applicable to the Intrepid?
As established on screen, it has far less luxuries compared to the Galaxy class and crew compliment which would probably allow for equally powerful weapons and power output compared to larger ships.
As it was established previously, in Trek size doesn't always matter.
QFT
Disregarding all the modifications made to the Voyager, head-to-head it would lose against a Galaxy class starship. In addition to what Verkruk stated, the Galaxy class has a more powerful warp core which also adds to its phaser power. It all comes down to penetrating shields... Voyager couldn't hold out long enough.
I disagree with the notion that a smaller sized ship is incapable of matching a fire output of a larger one.
The Defiant for example operates on a principle of being a stripped ship in terms of luxuries, yet seems to match or outperform large vessels easily.
Why is a same thing not applicable to the Intrepid?
As established on screen, it has far less luxuries compared to the Galaxy class and crew compliment which would probably allow for equally powerful weapons and power output compared to larger ships.
As it was established previously, in Trek size doesn't always matter.
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva
Its kind of like comparing a Cadilac to a Hummer. They both look good for different reasons and serve different purposes. The Intrepid was for science and research and I think it did better with spotting spacial anomalies, singularities, and other time dilution type disturbances due to having a better equipped astrometrics lab. The Intrepid was not a warship like the Enterprise; Galaxy, Sovereign, or ugly Defiant - Excelsior or Constellation class ships for all that goes. The Voyager was unique in its purpose and cooler
to be seen in. Big Frisbees are not all the unique and too UFO typical. just blow off one of the nacelles and you won.
Its kind of like comparing a Cadilac to a Hummer. They both look good for different reasons and serve different purposes. The Intrepid was for science and research and I think it did better with spotting spacial anomalies, singularities, and other time dilution type disturbances due to having a better equipped astrometrics lab. The Intrepid was not a warship like the Enterprise; Galaxy, Sovereign, or ugly Defiant - Excelsior or Constellation class ships for all that goes. The Voyager was unique in its purpose and cooler
to be seen in. Big Frisbees are not all the unique and too UFO typical. just blow off one of the nacelles and you won.
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva
Look at Jem Hadar attack fighters!!!
Look at Jem Hadar attack fighters!!!
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva
From "Caretaker": "Some of the traditional circuitry has been replaced by gel packs that contain bio-neural cells. They organise information more efficiently, speed up response time"
From "Caretaker": "Some of the traditional circuitry has been replaced by gel packs that contain bio-neural cells. They organise information more efficiently, speed up response time"
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva
How does one argue that the Prometheus isn't 'really a warship' when it's specifically equipped with 'multi-vector assault mode?
I know, you might argue that other Federation starships are well-armed despite ostensibly being 'ships of peace' (that being a wholly separate debate unto itself) but 'assault mode' is a rather strong term for a ship of peace, IMO. I personally classify the Prometheus class as a 'long range tactical cruiser.'
Even the Vulcans of ENT had 'tactical cruisers.'
Pretty explicit, and a bit of rather awkward exposition, IMO. Why exactly did they feel they needed to spell that tidbit out so clearly to the viewer in the pilot? I remember thinking that was going to tie in somehow with the organic nature of the Caretaker's physiology and his 'experiments' yet it didn't.
For that matter, why was Stadi just rattling off statistics for Paris in the first place? Pilot to pilot bonding?
*looks*
Okay. And?
I see no evidence that a Jem'Hadar attack fighter produces an output to match a larger vessel.
Dominion technology is established as having particular disruptive effects on Federation technology due to their anti-polaron based weapons. That doesn't mean a single Jem'Hadar bug has a greater energy or weapons output than, for example, a Galaxy class starship.
The one canon example I can think of where a ship is explicitly stated as producing a larger power output than its size warrants is the Defiant, and in that case it was stated to cause the ship to nearly tear itself apart at full power and plagued its early systems tests and service career.
I'd say that's a pretty good basis for arguing that most Starfleet ships at least are designed to produce an amount of power roughly proportionally equivalent to their size.
How does one argue that the Prometheus isn't 'really a warship' when it's specifically equipped with 'multi-vector assault mode?
I know, you might argue that other Federation starships are well-armed despite ostensibly being 'ships of peace' (that being a wholly separate debate unto itself) but 'assault mode' is a rather strong term for a ship of peace, IMO. I personally classify the Prometheus class as a 'long range tactical cruiser.'
Even the Vulcans of ENT had 'tactical cruisers.'
Pretty explicit, and a bit of rather awkward exposition, IMO. Why exactly did they feel they needed to spell that tidbit out so clearly to the viewer in the pilot? I remember thinking that was going to tie in somehow with the organic nature of the Caretaker's physiology and his 'experiments' yet it didn't.
For that matter, why was Stadi just rattling off statistics for Paris in the first place? Pilot to pilot bonding?
*looks*
Okay. And?
I see no evidence that a Jem'Hadar attack fighter produces an output to match a larger vessel.
Dominion technology is established as having particular disruptive effects on Federation technology due to their anti-polaron based weapons. That doesn't mean a single Jem'Hadar bug has a greater energy or weapons output than, for example, a Galaxy class starship.
The one canon example I can think of where a ship is explicitly stated as producing a larger power output than its size warrants is the Defiant, and in that case it was stated to cause the ship to nearly tear itself apart at full power and plagued its early systems tests and service career.
I'd say that's a pretty good basis for arguing that most Starfleet ships at least are designed to produce an amount of power roughly proportionally equivalent to their size.
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva
i guess this thread picked up interest lol....
I'd have to agree with the notion that smaller isn't always weaker, after reading some of the responses here.
Yes a galaxy class has way more reserves in general and therefore has better longevity...for now.
But an Intrepid class has systems that are an evolutionary step FROM the galaxy class. It's specific intention was to create a more or less equal ship to the galaxy in an easier to build, more efficient, and quicker package.
Just because it's smaller doesn't mean it's warp core is less powerful (defiant class, four decks. Prometheus class, 15 decks. Constitution class {in its day} was 21 decks or so, and minus the neck about the same size if not smaller), and just because it's smaller doesn't mean it's less capable.
Real life example: Compare the laptops of today, then compare them with the computers of the 60's. Laptops are literally lap tops, with the computing capability computers that took up an ENTIRE room in the 60's only wished for. More on the lines of Voyager from TNG: Intrepid's were launched about 8 years or so from the initial batches of galaxy class starships. Now we have I-Pods that are less than half the size of my hand, and mini SD-cards for digital camera's and phones. 8 years ago we didn't have that.
My point is technology can just fly with advancement, and just because something is smaller doesn't make it less capable. In fact, looking at the history of the past 60 years, I'd venture to say that smaller technology is almost always better....
So all in all, the interpid class might be smaller, but could very well have been designed to compete with larger ship class'. It makes sense if Starfleet doesn't want to build large ships, thus putting "all their eggs in one basket". Plus larger ships take forever to build. A galaxy, 4-6 years or so normal time. An Intrepid, with more or less equal capability, half that time.
which makes more sense?
i guess this thread picked up interest lol....
I'd have to agree with the notion that smaller isn't always weaker, after reading some of the responses here.
Yes a galaxy class has way more reserves in general and therefore has better longevity...for now.
But an Intrepid class has systems that are an evolutionary step FROM the galaxy class. It's specific intention was to create a more or less equal ship to the galaxy in an easier to build, more efficient, and quicker package.
Just because it's smaller doesn't mean it's warp core is less powerful (defiant class, four decks. Prometheus class, 15 decks. Constitution class {in its day} was 21 decks or so, and minus the neck about the same size if not smaller), and just because it's smaller doesn't mean it's less capable.
Real life example: Compare the laptops of today, then compare them with the computers of the 60's. Laptops are literally lap tops, with the computing capability computers that took up an ENTIRE room in the 60's only wished for. More on the lines of Voyager from TNG: Intrepid's were launched about 8 years or so from the initial batches of galaxy class starships. Now we have I-Pods that are less than half the size of my hand, and mini SD-cards for digital camera's and phones. 8 years ago we didn't have that.
My point is technology can just fly with advancement, and just because something is smaller doesn't make it less capable. In fact, looking at the history of the past 60 years, I'd venture to say that smaller technology is almost always better....
So all in all, the interpid class might be smaller, but could very well have been designed to compete with larger ship class'. It makes sense if Starfleet doesn't want to build large ships, thus putting "all their eggs in one basket". Plus larger ships take forever to build. A galaxy, 4-6 years or so normal time. An Intrepid, with more or less equal capability, half that time.
which makes more sense?
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva
But kent, almost all of that presumes that both the Galaxy and the Intrepid were designed to do the all the same things, and would therefore have all the same capabilities. Even though the Intrepid seems to exhibit technological advances in some areas doesn't mean that the 'new' direction of Starfleet's 24th century design is, as many have suggested, 'leaner and meaner.' To me, in-universe, it all has to do with the missions in mind when the ship is designed.
I'd argue that the Intrepid was designed to do some of the same things that the Galaxy was, but even that for not nearly as far a range or as long a duration. Clearly, most Starfleet ships are designed for exploration - it's specific mission roles that seem to refine the capabilities that each design is equipped with. For example, I'm not sure how good a show of force an Intrepid class ship would present if sent to the Klingon border. A Galaxy on the other hand? I think that might be a good day to die for some Klingons.
The original concepts for TNG indicated that the Enterprise-D would be venturing deep into unknown space - hence why it was so big and why it carried families aboard. (You can detect hints of this in talk in the first two seasons.) The fact that the series somewhat cut short this premise doesn't mean that the Galaxy was incapable of doing so. Indeed, if a Galaxy class ship had been stranded in the Delta Quadrant I suspect, I imagine it might have had a much easier time.
But kent, almost all of that presumes that both the Galaxy and the Intrepid were designed to do the all the same things, and would therefore have all the same capabilities. Even though the Intrepid seems to exhibit technological advances in some areas doesn't mean that the 'new' direction of Starfleet's 24th century design is, as many have suggested, 'leaner and meaner.' To me, in-universe, it all has to do with the missions in mind when the ship is designed.
I'd argue that the Intrepid was designed to do some of the same things that the Galaxy was, but even that for not nearly as far a range or as long a duration. Clearly, most Starfleet ships are designed for exploration - it's specific mission roles that seem to refine the capabilities that each design is equipped with. For example, I'm not sure how good a show of force an Intrepid class ship would present if sent to the Klingon border. A Galaxy on the other hand? I think that might be a good day to die for some Klingons.
The original concepts for TNG indicated that the Enterprise-D would be venturing deep into unknown space - hence why it was so big and why it carried families aboard. (You can detect hints of this in talk in the first two seasons.) The fact that the series somewhat cut short this premise doesn't mean that the Galaxy was incapable of doing so. Indeed, if a Galaxy class ship had been stranded in the Delta Quadrant I suspect, I imagine it might have had a much easier time.
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva
When has Star Trek ever been afraid to show off it's shiny new technobabble just because it can
Maybe some sort of pride in her ship? I dunno, the tone she was using always made me think that she was sort of...boasting about how great Voyager was.
When has Star Trek ever been afraid to show off it's shiny new technobabble just because it can
Maybe some sort of pride in her ship? I dunno, the tone she was using always made me think that she was sort of...boasting about how great Voyager was.
The attack fighter seems to vary in power throughout the series. In the first encounter, a Galaxy-class starship can't even destroy one, mainly to emphasise at the time how much of a threat the Dominion is, as it's the first episode in which they're directly encountered, yet later on in the series a runabout is able to destroy one on its own (albeit with tactical information of the vessel's weakpoint). Of course, as you say, the destruction of the Odyssey came before the Federation adapted its shields to actually work against the Dominion's phased polaron beams, but still - the difference in firepower between a Galaxy-class and a runabout has to be pretty significant...
*looks*
Okay. And?
I see no evidence that a Jem'Hadar attack fighter produces an output to match a larger vessel.
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva
But I'd maintain that it's not the firepower at issue here - it's the technology of the Dominion versus the technology of the Federation. I think the incident you mention of the runabout being able to destroy one helps reinforce this.
It all works at the power of the pen though.
The attack fighter seems to vary in power throughout the series. In the first encounter, a Galaxy-class starship can't even destroy one, mainly to emphasis at the time how much of a threat the Dominion is, as it's the first episode in which they're directly encountered, yet later on in the series a runabout is able to destroy one on its own (albeit with tactical information of the vessel's weakpoint). Of course, as you say, the destruction of the Odyssey came before the Federation adapted its shields to actually work against the Dominion's phased polaron beams, but still - the difference in firepower between a Galaxy-class and a runabout has to be pretty significant...
*looks*
Okay. And?
I see no evidence that a Jem'Hadar attack fighter produces an output to match a larger vessel.
But I'd maintain that it's not the firepower at issue here - it's the technology of the Dominion versus the technology of the Federation. I think the incident you mention of the runabout being able to destroy one helps reinforce this.
It all works at the power of the pen though.
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva
True, wasn't Dominion tech supposed to be roughly 20 years ahead of Federation tech at the start of the war? Certainly their transporters are far more advanced, having a longer range and the ability to beam through shields, however Federation technology seems to catch up fairly quickly in some areas, and during the war Federation engineers are known even in the Dominion as being able to turn "rocks to replicators"
The attack fighter seems to vary in power throughout the series. In the first encounter, a Galaxy-class starship can't even destroy one, mainly to emphasis at the time how much of a threat the Dominion is, as it's the first episode in which they're directly encountered, yet later on in the series a runabout is able to destroy one on its own (albeit with tactical information of the vessel's weakpoint). Of course, as you say, the destruction of the Odyssey came before the Federation adapted its shields to actually work against the Dominion's phased polaron beams, but still - the difference in firepower between a Galaxy-class and a runabout has to be pretty significant...*looks*
Okay. And?
I see no evidence that a Jem'Hadar attack fighter produces an output to match a larger vessel.
But I'd maintain that it's not the firepower at issue here - it's the technology of the Dominion versus the technology of the Federation. I think the incident you mention of the runabout being able to destroy one helps reinforce this.
It all works at the power of the pen though.
True, wasn't Dominion tech supposed to be roughly 20 years ahead of Federation tech at the start of the war? Certainly their transporters are far more advanced, having a longer range and the ability to beam through shields, however Federation technology seems to catch up fairly quickly in some areas, and during the war Federation engineers are known even in the Dominion as being able to turn "rocks to replicators"
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva
I think what we see is a disparity between focus in the two groups' technology, more than anything else.
I surmise that the Dominion focused more on innovations that would render them tactically superior, whereas the Federation focused on technology that could both benefit its people and aid exploration. Dominion ships were said to be slower than Federation ships, while Dominion ships could easily slice through Federation shields and hulls, and possessed transporters capable of beaming them light years away.
I think the main 'great equalizer' was the Dominion's possession of polaron-based technology, which apparently the Federation wasn't very experienced with or prepared to counteract. I think the adaptation to this is why the Federation seemed to 'even out' with the Dominion so quickly.
I think what we see is a disparity between focus in the two groups' technology, more than anything else.
I surmise that the Dominion focused more on innovations that would render them tactically superior, whereas the Federation focused on technology that could both benefit its people and aid exploration. Dominion ships were said to be slower than Federation ships, while Dominion ships could easily slice through Federation shields and hulls, and possessed transporters capable of beaming them light years away.
I think the main 'great equalizer' was the Dominion's possession of polaron-based technology, which apparently the Federation wasn't very experienced with or prepared to counteract. I think the adaptation to this is why the Federation seemed to 'even out' with the Dominion so quickly.
Re: Intrepid class VS a galaxy class, which was more powerful and adva
In this case size does make a difference.
Larger engine with the same effectiveness would equal more power.
And with the way that phasers work, the Intrepid wouldn't stand a chance.
Its arrays are just to small in comparison to a Galaxy.
The more emitters you have the more power you are capable of putting into a single shot. The Galaxy obviously has a far greater number of emitters then the Intrepid. It is also capable of firring 10 torpedoes from a single tube.(20 if combined fore and aft)
Lets also keep in mind that the Galaxy has continually received upgrades over the course of her lifetime. So she isn't 10 years older in tech then the Intrepid... just in framework
In this case size does make a difference.
Larger engine with the same effectiveness would equal more power.
And with the way that phasers work, the Intrepid wouldn't stand a chance.
Its arrays are just to small in comparison to a Galaxy.
The more emitters you have the more power you are capable of putting into a single shot. The Galaxy obviously has a far greater number of emitters then the Intrepid. It is also capable of firring 10 torpedoes from a single tube.(20 if combined fore and aft)
Lets also keep in mind that the Galaxy has continually received upgrades over the course of her lifetime. So she isn't 10 years older in tech then the Intrepid... just in framework
Similar threads
