Ship continuity.

[Gonzo]

Its no surprise that certain ship classes end up standing the test of time better than others do.

Or that some classes are built in large numbers while others are not.

The Excelsior ended up being a stable workhorse for Starfleet for over a century, there are probably a few reasons for this such as its increased internal volume in relation to its size compared to earlier models that used a similar design that made it more flexible in the types of roles it can fill.

Problem is its not real world rules so just because we have not seen many of a certain class its as much about the show runners and scriptwriters as anything else.

Starfleet could in principle keep upgrading any class forever due to modular building practices but there will always be a limit as to how far those upgrades can go due to structural integrity and power generation constraints of the space frame or skeleton of the ship.

Its one of the reasons I always liked the Battlestar Galactica remake, each jump took a toll on the skeleton of the ship and in the end the last jump broke its back, you can keep increasing power generation, engines and weapons/shields on any space faring vessel but sooner or later something has to give.

We saw in DS9 some of the problems that can cause with the Defiant design early on in the series.

I can certainly understand it in the Excelsior case though, it was a solid dependable mid range cruiser that was still effective 100 years later, Starfleet were never going to manufacture new examples of the class by that point but were clearly more than happy to keep the surviving examples in a reasonably up to date state.

Personally I think the biggest factor in its longevity was actually the space frame or skeleton of the ship as a whole, I think it was an extremely durable design with a lot of scope for improvement as shown in DS9 when the Dakota tried to stop the Defiant from reaching earth, the ship held up well against the Defiant which at the end of the day was an out and out warship, by all rights the Defiant should have had the Dakota for breakfast but perhaps the Defiant went easy on the Dakota as ultimately they were the aggressor not the Defiant.

For me the two best designed classes that Starfleet ever came up with are the Excelsior and the Defiant as they both excel in their roles, the Galaxy class was nice but had design flaws and the Sovereign class looked great but seemed flimsy to me, I do like the look of the Odyssey class though.

For me the Universe class looks stupid with some glaring structural weaknesses for a vessel so large, more like a vanity project than anything else.

Just look at Japan (Musashi/Yamato) and Germany (Tirpitz/Bismark) during WW2 they believed that a few exceptional vessels would make a difference as there was no way they could match the USA and UK in naval power as they just did not have the time required (or the resources in Japans case), its all about finding a design that is durable, reliable and simple to manufacture, once you know you have a winner you build loads of them as fast as you can and commit resources to keeping them up to date.

Its the same for anything really, tanks, cars, planes you name it.

Shame we never got a show that followed an Excelsior class.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

What's stranger is the 1701-A. If we assume it was a new ship, renamed in 2286, it was less than 10 years old by the tim ethey wanted to decommission her. This would make me lean towards the Connies being defective on some level.

Or simply obsolete.

 

[Gonzo]

Or simply obsolete.

That is more likely than anything else, they would not decommission a ship or class unless it was considered too difficult or costly to upgrade, the Oberth class continued in service for almost as long as the Excelsiors did although they were not sent into such dangerous situations I suspect.

I think the real issue that sunk the Constitution class was the Excelsior class, Starfleet knew it had struck gold with the design even though the transwarp trials were a failure at the time, perhaps that is why the design was so successful, it was originally designed to be able to handle transwarp speeds which meant its structural integrity was much greater as it was originally a test platform.

Mr Scott was a Starship Design God.

Now that I think about it, that explains the Klingons reliance on the D7 and BoP for so long, they hit design gold and knew it.

 

[Longinus]

Personally I think the biggest factor in its longevity was actually the space frame or skeleton of the ship as a whole, I think it was an extremely durable design with a lot of scope for improvement as shown in DS9 when the Dakota tried to stop the Defiant from reaching earth, the ship held up well against the Defiant which at the end of the day was an out and out warship, by all rights the Defiant should have had the Dakota for breakfast but perhaps the Defiant went easy on the Dakota as ultimately they were the aggressor not the Defiant.

Defiant is fricking tiny though. It is not exactly surprising that an older capital ship can hold its own against a newer escort.

Shame we never got a show that followed an Excelsior class.

I have always though that a lost era show about Enterprise B would have been pretty cool.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

At first I thought that the Enterprise-A's extensive battle damage would make it not worth the expense and effort required to fix it. But we've seen worse. The Enterprise-E had a good chunk of its saucer blown off in Nemesis, and IIRC, one of the wrecked ships from the Battle of Wolf 359 was repaired and put back into service as well. So it would seem that the damage the Ent-A suffered in ST VI was not so catastrophic after all.

The class was simply obsolete, that's all.

 

[Longinus]

That is more likely than anything else, they would not decommission a ship or class unless it was considered too difficult or costly to upgrade, the Oberth class continued in service for almost as long as the Excelsiors did although they were not sent into such dangerous situations I suspect.

True, though I still think that in the specific case of Enterprise A it was due the battle damage.

I think the real issue that sunk the Constitution class was the Excelsior class, Starfleet knew it had struck gold with the design even though the transwarp trials were a failure at the time, perhaps that is why the design was so successful, it was originally designed to be able to handle transwarp speeds which meant its structural integrity was much greater as it was originally a test platform.

Or the transwarp was a success, and it is just called 'warp' once it becomes a standard. And that's why the warp scale is different in TNG era.

 

[Gonzo]

Defiant is fricking tiny though. It is not exactly surprising that an older capital ship can hold its own against a newer escort.


I have always though that a lost era show about Enterprise B would have been pretty cool.

When you consider that the Defiant was designed 100 years later its reasonable to conclude that it would win, especially when you consider its agility and very heavy weaponry, it just shows that at the very least Starfleet kept the Excelsior class ships up to date at least in regards to the weapons and shields.

Although I do think the Defiant could have destroyed it if that had been required, however in this case the Dakota was the aggressor and needed to disable or force the Defiants surrender, the Defiant on the other hand merely needed to survive and escape.

In that case the burden of action was most definitely on the Dakota.

 

[Longinus]

At first I thought that the Enterprise-A's extensive battle damage would make it not worth the expense and effort required to fix it. But we've seen worse. The Enterprise-E had a good chunk of its saucer blown off in Nemesis, and IIRC, one of the wrecked ships from the Battle of Wolf 359 was repaired and put back into service as well. So it would seem that the damage the Ent-A suffered in ST VI was not so catastrophic after all.

The class was simply obsolete, that's all.

Then again, E was the flagship of the fleet and a brand new design. It was probably easier to fix it than build a similar new ship. The same might not be true for a Connie.

 

[Kemaiku]

Well, in that particular case it was probably because the ship was literally full of holes.

One hole.

The reason the Enterprise-A was retired was that she was only a barely fuctioning ceremonial vessel to begin with. The Enterprise-B had been under construction for years and was about to launch in a few months, the A had to go either way.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

Or the transwarp was a success, and it is just called 'warp' once it becomes a standard. And that's why the warp scale is different in TNG era.

And yet it still seems to take way longer to get anywhere in TNG, such as the center of the galaxy!

 

[Gonzo]

True, though I still think that in the specific case of Enterprise A it was due the battle damage.


Or the transwarp was a success, and it is just called 'warp' once it becomes a standard. And that's why the warp scale is different in TNG era.

The battle damage was not that great from what I could see and it was only 10 years old, plus it was a marquee ship which should have made them hesitant to decommission it yet they did it anyway.

Due to those reasons I do think it was due to the Excelsior, its understandable given what we now know and fits with real world examples.

I thought the trials were a confirmed failure and the Excelsior was given warp engines prior to Sulu taking command, your alternative would be fine too though.

 

[Longinus]

When you consider that the Defiant was designed 100 years later its reasonable to conclude that it would win, especially when you consider its agility and very heavy weaponry, it just shows that at the very least Starfleet kept the Excelsior class ships up to date at least in regards to the weapons and shields.

Although I do think the Defiant could have destroyed it if that had been required, however in this case the Dakota was the aggressor and needed to disable or force the Defiants surrender, the Defiant on the other hand merely needed to survive and escape.

In that case the burden of action was most definitely on the Dakota.

Valid points. Then again, at least Leyton thought that Lakota would have a decent chance against Defiant, or he wouldn't have sent it in the first place.

 

[Gonzo]

Valid points. Then again, at least Leyton thought that Lakota would have a decent chance against Defiant, or he wouldn't have sent it in the first place.

Leytons thinking is an unknown, perhaps he thought the Dakota could handle the Defiant or why send it in the first place if he knew it would fail like you said, personally my thinking is that he only had a small number of officers that he felt he could trust and the Dakota may have been the only ship in range, if I remember the episode correctly the Captain of the Dakota was not aware of the attempted coup as Leyton told her the Defiant was carrying changelings to Earth.

Plus he may have been gambling that the Defiant would surrender when challenged, its possible he never anticipated that the Dakota would be the one to stand down.

 

[Longinus]

The battle damage was not that great from what I could see

It seemed pretty damn bad to me. I don't remember seeing a strarship taking a worse beating and surviving. Who knows what sort of structural and system damage a later inspection at a starbase might have revealed. But this is all just speculation we simply don't know. Though at least Kirk's log in the end would imply that he though that the same ship would get a new crew, so if we take it at the face value, it means that the decision to retire the vessel was made after that.

I thought the trials were a confirmed failure and the Excelsior was given warp engines prior to Sulu taking command,

That is just fanon. Nothing on the screen was said on the matter.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Its one of the reasons I always liked the Battlestar Galactica remake, each jump took a toll on the skeleton of the ship and in the end the last jump broke its back, you can keep increasing power generation, engines and weapons/shields on any space faring vessel but sooner or later something has to give.

Not to mention all the direct nuclear strikes. No shields and all.

 

[Gonzo]

Not to mention all the direct nuclear strikes. No shields and all.

Yeah I did like that as I felt it was the most realistic, it was not nuclear strikes that finished it off in the end it was all the jumps it did over the years, it seems they relied on armor against the nukes and it worked pretty well.

I also like the Destroyers from B5, the thinking behind the design is pretty clear, get a really big gun and build a ship around it.

Its as good an approach as any, it also tells you what its purpose is, assuming its not already been made obvious.

Same with tanks, pick a gun that is big enough for the job and then design a platform that can carry it at the required speed and the required range.

 

[Tuskin38]

I also like the Destroyers from B5, the thinking behind the design is pretty clear, get a really big gun and build a ship around it.

The Halo series does that too. Their larger ships are usually equipped a giant mass driver cannon.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

Yeah I did like that as I felt it was the most realistic, it was not nuclear strikes that finished it off in the end it was all the jumps it did over the years, it seems they relied on armor against the nukes and it worked pretty well.

I also like the Destroyers from B5, the thinking behind the design is pretty clear, get a really big gun and build a ship around it.

Its as good an approach as any, it also tells you what its purpose is, assuming its not already been made obvious.

Same with tanks, pick a gun that is big enough for the job and then design a platform that can carry it at the required speed and the required range.

I wouldn’t underestimate nukes. There were lots of other ships in that ragtag fleet that made jumps, but were still sitting pretty.

 

[Gonzo]

I wouldn’t underestimate nukes. There were lots of other ships in that ragtag fleet that made jumps, but were still sitting pretty.

True, they could have been newer though and I always thought the way the jumps were shown indicated that it was easier for lighter ships with less mass, a fully armoured Battlestar is something else plus we already know that Galactica was at the end of her operational life right at the start of the show.

I did find it funny at the time that Apollo would sacrifice the newer and larger Pegasus instead of the Galactica, not the way I would have played it at all, on saying that the Pegasus was good value for it as it took out two Cylon Base Stars.

They would have had to rename the show then though.

 

[David cgc]

At first I thought that the Enterprise-A's extensive battle damage would make it not worth the expense and effort required to fix it. But we've seen worse. The Enterprise-E had a good chunk of its saucer blown off in Nemesis, and IIRC, one of the wrecked ships from the Battle of Wolf 359 was repaired and put back into service as well. So it would seem that the damage the Ent-A suffered in ST VI was not so catastrophic after all.

We only saw what was going on cosmetically. If Chang's attack did more damage to critical or hard-to-repair areas of the ship (say, bent or broke some structural framing around the warp core, for instance), it could end up totaled without actually looking like it was hit that bad, while the -E's forward saucer being entirely ripped off might've made it easier to repair, since they just had to replace one big chunk cleanly. It happens with cars all the time.