Prominent Current Roles of Galaxy Class Ships

[Thestral]

To be fair, the visual evidence for most of the CGI Galaxy-class starships would seem to indicate that the class generally underwent a refit of combat systems in the years leading up to the Dominion War. I imagine that it might have been more economical to continue production of Galaxy-class ships already being built as tensions were building up in the years prior to the war (modifying them during construction to be better combat vessels), and to have existing ships refit, than it would have been to ratchet up production of Sovereign-class vessels in the very few years they had between the class's launch and the outbreak of the war.

That's what what I always figured. I seem to recall something being said about the Galaxy being a modular design, and so having it be refit (or just redesigned in construction) from a lab-and-amenities-heavy science and exploration vessel that was extremely capable of defending itself (like the Enterprise-D) into an outright battlewagon struck me as perfectly in line with what we'd seen before.

 

[Patrick O'Brien]

What is the final estimated number of Galaxy Class ships in service at this time?

 

[MatthiasRussell]

That is an excellent point that based upon Dominion War and Endgame footage, there are a lot of Galaxies in the fleet.

Great point Christopher that the Galaxy class was designed with a battle hull, where the saucer would be left behind in dangerous scenarios. I do wonder why Galaxies were sent into line battles in the war. Or in "The Jem Hadar", the Odyssey left behind non essential personnel before going into the Gamma Quadrant when they should have left the entire saucer section behind.

For war production, it would seem to make sense to just manufacture drive sections.

But it was probably cheaper to film using the entire model than just the drive section.

 

[Sci]

That is an excellent point that based upon Dominion War and Endgame footage, there are a lot of Galaxies in the fleet.

Great point Christopher that the Galaxy class was designed with a battle hull, where the saucer would be left behind in dangerous scenarios. I do wonder why Galaxies were sent into line battles in the war. Or in "The Jem Hadar", the Odyssey left behind non essential personnel before going into the Gamma Quadrant when they should have left the entire saucer section behind.

For war production, it would seem to make sense to just manufacture drive sections.

But it was probably cheaper to film using the entire model than just the drive section.

I mean, in-universe, I would just assume that there's a combat reason to use the full ships -- perhaps upon emptying the ships of nonessential personnel, civilians and civilian support services, and the more advanced scientific resource facilities, new and advanced power generators were installed in the saucer sections that greatly increased the power of their phasers and shields.

Out-universe, the reason is pretty obvious: The stardrive sections are ugly!

 

[JoeZhang]

Great point Christopher that the Galaxy class was designed with a battle hull, where the saucer would be left behind in dangerous scenarios. I do wonder why Galaxies were sent into line battles in the war. Or in "The Jem Hadar", the Odyssey left behind non essential personnel before going into the Gamma Quadrant when they should have left the entire saucer section behind.

For war production, it would seem to make sense to just manufacture drive sections.

But it was probably cheaper to film using the entire model than just the drive section.

I'm sure one of the technical manuals or some other tie-in literature says that most of the galaxies in the war were rushed produced and mainly were empty-frames or did I dream it?

Maybe it was easier for some reason to quickly put non-vital or crew area in the saucer??

 

[Sci]

Great point Christopher that the Galaxy class was designed with a battle hull, where the saucer would be left behind in dangerous scenarios. I do wonder why Galaxies were sent into line battles in the war. Or in "The Jem Hadar", the Odyssey left behind non essential personnel before going into the Gamma Quadrant when they should have left the entire saucer section behind.

For war production, it would seem to make sense to just manufacture drive sections.

But it was probably cheaper to film using the entire model than just the drive section.

I'm sure one of the technical manuals or some other tie-in literature says that most of the galaxies in the war were rushed produced and mainly were empty-frames

I seem to remember the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: Technical Manual establishing that, yes.

 

[Christopher]

But it was probably cheaper to film using the entire model than just the drive section.

Rather, the only miniature that had a separate drive section was the original 6-footer built by ILM, which was heavy and cumbersome and difficult to shoot. The FX team preferred to work with the 4-foot miniature introduced in mid-season 3, which was easier to handle and had more surface texture and more accurate details (though less attractive proportions, IMHO), but which couldn't separate. So they largely phased out the idea of saucer separation; the only times it was used after season 1 were in "The Best of Both Worlds, Part 2" and Generations, both of which required hauling the 6-footer out of mothballs.

Of course, once they were building digital models, they could've built one of a separable Galaxy easily enough; but the separated battle hull had been seen so rarely that I guess they figured it wasn't recognizable enough.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

From the DS9 Tech Manual:
"As an example of the epedited assembly procedures applied to some of the existing classes, a number of Galaxy-class hulls were pulled from the internal structures work path, equipped with additional weapons, and launched with 65 percent of the spaceframe volumes empty."-pg 151

Hmm, looks like they thought this out pretty well (god I wish there were Voyager and Enterprise tech manuals).

Looks like this excerpt well supports your points about Galaxy class ships, Sci.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

Of course, once they were building digital models, they could've built one of a separable Galaxy easily enough; but the separated battle hull had been seen so rarely that I guess they figured it wasn't recognizable enough.

Recognizable? By us fanboys!?! I think some of us would have cheered a little more to see a stardrive section. I know I would have.

Of course, I would have cheered even MORE for an AGT refit Galaxy.

 

[captcalhoun]

one of the New Frontier novels also says the Excal-A was rushed into service during the war and as a consequence had a few test-bed technologies shoved in - including the 'warp sled' for the saucer section and some old Constitution class components rammed in to get it into service.

 

[Mage]

Personally I think leaving the saucer-section behind in battle is silly. It houses two HUGE phaserbanks, on the top and bottom of the saucer. Leaving those behind in battle seems somewhat silly to me personally.

 

[C.E. Evans]

The idea is for the saucer section to be only an escape vehicle--albeit a very well armed one. I think there was supposed to be a torpedo launcher in the aft cut-out of the saucer to handle anything that was chasing it.

The battle section's primary job was to cover the saucer's escape, but had huge phaser banks on the top of the now exposed connecting dorsal as well (I think the size of phaser arrays in general has more to do with firing arcs than power--with additional phaser arrays along the nacelle pylons and both atop & below the stardrive section, the battle section probably could fire in any angle).

In situations in which escape of the saucer is not an option, then hull separation would be unwise (if not pointless), IMO. I kind of doubt that the Galaxy-class ships that participated in the Dominion War had families or non-essential personnel aboard them anyway.

 

[Christopher]

Personally I think leaving the saucer-section behind in battle is silly. It houses two HUGE phaserbanks, on the top and bottom of the saucer. Leaving those behind in battle seems somewhat silly to me personally.

And if it were a class of ship designed with battle in mind, that would be a valid argument. But the Galaxy class, as originally intended by the creators of TNG, was meant to be a research and exploration vessel for which battle was a last resort. The primary responsibility was not to fight and destroy, but to protect the crew and the many civilians aboard. The purpose of those phaser banks on the saucer was to defend those lives in the event that the saucer came under attack. But if you could leave the saucer behind, at a safe distance from whatever posed a threat, that's obviously an even more effective defense.

The silly thing is to treat combat as an end in itself. The only thing that can possibly make combat a legitimate or justified action is the protection of lives. So that's always the highest priority. It is never, ever silly to devote your big guns to the protection of the very people you're fighting for in the first place.

 

[Mage]

Personally I think leaving the saucer-section behind in battle is silly. It houses two HUGE phaserbanks, on the top and bottom of the saucer. Leaving those behind in battle seems somewhat silly to me personally.

And if it were a class of ship designed with battle in mind, that would be a valid argument. But the Galaxy class, as originally intended by the creators of TNG, was meant to be a research and exploration vessel for which battle was a last resort. The primary responsibility was not to fight and destroy, but to protect the crew and the many civilians aboard. The purpose of those phaser banks on the saucer was to defend those lives in the event that the saucer came under attack. But if you could leave the saucer behind, at a safe distance from whatever posed a threat, that's obviously an even more effective defense.

The silly thing is to treat combat as an end in itself. The only thing that can possibly make combat a legitimate or justified action is the protection of lives. So that's always the highest priority. It is never, ever silly to devote your big guns to the protection of the very people you're fighting for in the first place.

I never really looked at it like that. Good point.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

^Plus, the drive section has a phaser bank hidden by the saucer so it technically only loses one bank. However, with the angle of the hidden phaser array, it gains a phaser that can more easily fire at a forward facing angle.

Also, without the saucer, the ship loses a lot of mass and is probably more maneuverable as a consequence.

But as cristopher said, Starfleet ships are built for exploration and research. I believe the Defiant is the only Starfleet vessel which can be called a warship. I would say the Galaxy is probably the furthest away from being a warship they've built.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

one of the New Frontier novels also says the Excal-A was rushed into service during the war and as a consequence had a few test-bed technologies shoved in - including the 'warp sled' for the saucer section and some old Constitution class components rammed in to get it into service.

The interesting thing about this is the Excalibur and Trident were never sent to the Dominion lines. One NF novel said Starfleet was holding some of their more capable ships and experienced commanders back in case just in case the war dragged on.

The NF novel where the Excalibur fought the gods was one of the best starship battle scenes I've read. I loved how PAD used the saucer in the battle with the 2 parts of the ship coordinating their attacks.

 

[captcalhoun]

The Excal-A may have fought in the Dominion War BEFORE it was the Excal-A, under a different name. that's my interpertation at least. and it was Once Burned where it was mentioned that Starfleet may have been holding some ships and captains back and that was solely Shelby's suggestion and may have been nothing more than an attempt to soothe Mac's ego and his annoyance at not being in the fight.

 

[JoeZhang]

The Excal-A may have fought in the Dominion War BEFORE it was the Excal-A, under a different name. that's my interpertation at least. and it was Once Burned where it was mentioned that Starfleet may have been holding some ships and captains back and that was solely Shelby's suggestion and may have been nothing more than an attempt to soothe Mac's ego and his annoyance at not being in the fight.

I never really understand this "A" business in regards to renaming existing ships.

Captain walftop: As we return from another successful mission, I would like to congratulate the crew of the U.S.S. Awesome on their work and... what the fuck are you doing?

Janitor: changing the name plate gov, it's now the Exacalbur-A now, don't ask me why, I just work here.

 

[Sci]

The Excal-A may have fought in the Dominion War BEFORE it was the Excal-A, under a different name. that's my interpertation at least. and it was Once Burned where it was mentioned that Starfleet may have been holding some ships and captains back and that was solely Shelby's suggestion and may have been nothing more than an attempt to soothe Mac's ego and his annoyance at not being in the fight.

I never really understand this "A" business in regards to renaming existing ships.

Captain walftop: As we return from another successful mission, I would like to congratulate the crew of the U.S.S. Awesome on their work and... what the fuck are you doing?

Janitor: changing the name plate gov, it's now the Exacalbur-A now, don't ask me why, I just work here.

Well, it's become fanon that the Enterprise-A was originally the U.S.S. Yorktown, to account for how there could be a new Constitution-class starship waiting in Spacedock for Our Heroes (and, I think, to account for why the Enterprise-A needed to be decommissioned just seven years later at the end of TUC -- strange to need to do that if it was literally a new ship).

And we know canonically that the second Defiant-class U.S.S. Defiant -- the ship that Ronald D. Moore wanted labelled the U.S.S. Defiant NX-74205-A, but which wasn't because the visual effects budgets on "The Dogs of War" and "What You Leave Behind" precluded so renaming her -- was originally the factory fresh U.S.S. São Paulo, rechristened before she had the chance to build up her own ship's history.

But, yeah, in general I'd agree that it's a bad idea to assume that any given "-A" ship is just a renamed older ship, for exactly the reason you cite.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

Didn't sailors of old think it was bad luck to rename a ship?