What ships SHOULD they have used in the Dominion War?

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by Arpy, Jun 11, 2021.

  1. Dukhat

    Dukhat Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    Legato’s battle footage I’m referring to is not what was ultimately shown. He was told to film the battle as if it was already in progress (i.e. that most of the ships were already destroyed at the start of the scene rather than the intact ships starting the battle as was eventually shown.) Legato apparently scrounged around for old models from BoBW and other assorted wreckage to use. He definitely reused the Nebula Melbourne and most likely used the Kyushu, as it was seen docked at the DS9 model for a test shot. Greg Jein also mentioned that his two BoBW models were taken from his personal stock, whether for this shot or for some other purpose is unknown.

    Legato mentioned that he made sure that the wreckage had the same names of the ships mentioned in BoBW, namely the Tolstoy, the Kyushu and the Melbourne. Since both the Melbourne and the Kyushu models were still available, that left only the Tolstoy, which never had a model associated with the name. So Legato presumably added the name to a piece of random wreckage, but what that wreckage was is a mystery.

    I’m sure the AoST book got their info confused. Those study models are not in BoBW. As a matter of fact, there is only one ship or piece of wreckage that hasn’t been identified fully, and I’m 90% sure it’s from a TMP Klingon Battlecruiser model kit.
     
  2. Unicron

    Unicron Boss Monster Mod Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Crown of the Moon
    I'm pretty sure that's the case too. There is what looks like a damaged Galaxy style nacelle (near the wrecked Constitution type saucer) that can be seen in the opening sweep of the BOBW graveyard, and the script says Hanson's command ship was an unnamed Galaxy class ship. So I like to think that could be a fragment of his vessel, even though it's speculative. :)

    It's too bad Legato's original version didn't make it into the final cut, as it would probably have looked pretty cool.
     
  3. Mres_was_framed!

    Mres_was_framed! Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    I like a lot of what I read here. I like the idea that perhaps Starfleet uses the configuration for overall classes of ship, but updates the components to new generations. So, trying to fit Sternbach's "explorer, cruiser, cargo carrier, tanker surveyor and scout," I fit the classes into two generations, based on whether they have pens for nacelles or Galaxy-style nacelles.

    cruiser-The Niagara could be a dreadnought with its 3 nacelles, but I am listing in under cruiser here, to fit Sternbach's system. The Cheyenne has four nacelles, replacing the Constellation (and probably the 4-nacelled Excelsior prototype), so it would be lighter cruiser. The New Orleans, with 2 nacelles, looks like a cruiser in most Trek eras, but is perhaps called a frigate because that is similar but implies it is smaller than the Galaxy.

    cargo carrier-The Freedom-class has only a single nacelle, but it has a very large saucer like the Galaxy with an even larger shuttlebay, so I suspect it's a carrier.

    tanker-I could concede the Nebula as being enough like the Miranda to match that in its era. The best argument for that is the "Proto-Nebula" variations that show it can be configured for different uses like the Miranda was. I list under tanker since the similar Ptolemy and "Antares?" classes could carry cargo pods, and some publications claim the Nebula could carry a cargo pod, though that was not shown onscreen that I know of.

    surveyor-?? unknown, but Merced (built but not shown on screen) and Norway (the ship with the most Galaxy-like nacelles from First Contact) are possibilites, depending on how old they actually are.

    scout-The Springfield looks like an Oberth (nacelles on top, pod on bottom, no neck), so it is the new science vessel/scout. The Challenger resembles the Hermes, so it would also be a scout.

    I like the idea that the "Explorer" is a new type of ship for TNG that is huge enough to basically be almost like a base that can move, with families, more labs, etc. Really, the Ambassador was big enough to be this, too, but it is called a cruiser in Yesterday's Enterprise, so I can accept that Starfleet did not choose to use that name until the Galaxy class. Really "Explorer" is probably a peacetime way to not-say-battleship.

    It seems that there would be a few cruiser/frigate "sizes" at a time, with more dedicated and specific designs in the other classes.
     
  4. Shamrock Holmes

    Shamrock Holmes Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    I suspect that the Ambassador and possibly the Niagara were the Explorers of their era, but the much greater capacity of the Galaxy and potentially Nebula lead to them being downgraded to cruiser.
     
  5. Mres_was_framed!

    Mres_was_framed! Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    I could see that. But, using the term "Explorer" before TNG leads to the question of whether the TOS Enterprise, which is called a cruiser on the show, would also be an Explorer, or if some bigger ship exists in its time that is almost like a base that can move. The Kelvin, or one of its related ships could be this, but that opens the debate about the parallel timeline and whether the past was also changed, and so on. I actually like the Kelvin's exterior design, but not using the "Explorer" prior to TNG class eliminates all that debate for me.
     
  6. Shamrock Holmes

    Shamrock Holmes Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    The Kelvinverse designs aren't worth considering IMO, as they often don't even make a great deal sense sometimes within the trilogy never mind externally.

    The case for considering at least some of the DSC designs is a little more complex, particularly given moderate sizing issues there. However, I think we can at least include the Nimitz-class command ship/carrier (as it's named for a famous RW design) as potentially analogous/equivalent to an Explorer.

    One of the reasons that I don't think that the Connie and the Galaxy were ever the same type is that they appear to have very different occupancy limits. The Connie can flex to maybe four times it's "minimum" or double it's "standard" complement, whereas the Galaxy can squeeze in at least fourteen times its "standard" complement, which suggests an extra level of capacity and redundancy, which reasonably translates to a higher-level type.

    YMMV.
     
  7. Mres_was_framed!

    Mres_was_framed! Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    That is a very interesting consideration that I had not previously considered. I cannot even think of a time when the TOS ship was claimed to be carrying more than 500 people.
     
  8. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Honestly, the Galaxy Class is Understaffed IMO.


    Assuming a daily rotation of 4 shifts in 24 hrs, that's 6 hrs per shift for 7 days a week.
    You can divide the week into two parts and have people that are On/Off on a particular day of the wek and cover 4 sets of shifts on 4 different days.

    In a 39 Hr Work Week, that's 24 Hrs of On-Call time at your post doing your ___ job.
    That leaves you 15 hrs per Work Week for training, learning cross discipline skills, various drills, etc.

    That's not counting your down time / free time.

    So they can take that crew of ~1000 Officers on board, multiply it by 8x fold, and have every officer operate comfortably / leisurely with plenty of room to train / grow and become multi skilled in many disciplines/jobs or master a certain discipline/job to a very high degree.
     
    publiusr likes this.
  9. Shamrock Holmes

    Shamrock Holmes Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Agreed.
     
  10. Unicron

    Unicron Boss Monster Mod Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Crown of the Moon
    Well, the security personnel are expendable. :whistle:
     
  11. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    They sure treat them that way, they had Plastic Phaser Proof Barrels filled with stuff, yet the yellow-shirt security personnel gets ZERO body armor to protect from phaser/beam blasts.

    They literally couldn't have bothered to fabricate basic body armor in a "Plate Carrier" format filled with that advanced Polymer plate that was resistant to Beam Energy?
     
    Unicron likes this.
  12. Unicron

    Unicron Boss Monster Mod Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Crown of the Moon
    The FASA TNG Officer's Manual actually did have a form of body armor, not too unlike some of that occasionally seen in the earlier movies. But you're right, that is a consistent issue in Trek.
     
    publiusr likes this.
  13. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    The one aspect that I really like about Discovery is that they wear their tactical vests more often than not when out on an away mission, and they have shoulder lights (still need better LED flash light bulbs IMO) to boot instead of stupid wrist lights.

    WTF happened to StarFleet policy around TOS? Did PeaceFul hippies in upper management get too arrogant and told everybody that they don't need tactical vest / armor?

    That StarFleet Medical can just cure them if they get shot?

    Willfully making dumb decisions that leads to pointless StarFleet Officer deaths?

    I swear that there was an era of uber peace where the "StarFleet isn't a Military" Mindset Admirals took over and cost ALOT of StarFleet Officers lives with their dumb/bad policies.
     
    publiusr likes this.
  14. publiusr

    publiusr Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Location:
    publiusr
    The pacifist block had its way after Cartwright…that’s my guess…the pendulum always moves
     
  15. matthunter

    matthunter Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    Location:
    Great Britain
    Well, they CAN. If shot with projectile weapons.

    Armor is never seen defending against phasers that can make you vanish in a glowy outline. So there may be little point. You're dead either way against phasers/disruptors. Armor might help against more primitive weapons, but rapid medical treatment will usually repair such damage AND you're more mobile AND you don't intimidate others.

    From your posts, you are VERY focused on combat and strategy for Starfleet. To the point I might suggest it isn't the franchise you're looking for...
     
  16. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Why do you say that?
     
  17. matthunter

    matthunter Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    Location:
    Great Britain
    It's just never been a very military setting compared to the sort of fanfic stuff you seem to create.

    It'd be like me shoehorning hard physics or extensive discussions of the TARDIS' defence protocols into Doctor Who.
     
  18. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    It can change =D

    It already has the military command structure, the StarShip already has weapons mounted on it.

    StarFleet is already the official "Service" for the UFP.

    They're pretty militaristic in structure, maybe not in outwards marketing, but the core parts are there.
     
  19. Dukhat

    Dukhat Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    Comparing Starfleet to an actual IRL military is laughable.
     
  20. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    They do have plenty of things that they need to improve on to catch up to a traditional military if that is the desired end point.

    But I don't think StarFleet was ever 100% military.

    IMO, it was 50% military, 50% Exploratory/Scientific/Engineering/Diplomatic arms of the UFP.