• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What ships SHOULD they have used in the Dominion War?

They would be "new" ships if newly constructed. Why not? Your saying that a ship cant be the shape of a Miranda, yet far more capable than the 2280s Reliant. Since we know that an F-16V outclasses an F-16A, Occams Razor doesnt tell us much of anything here. No reason the SHAPE just magically means you cant cram in 24th century tech into it. We know that's wrong from the real world.
They’re not art pieces. Technologies follow form after function. They look like they do after the tech anspects are satisfied. It’s not until the Technology Unchained era with the Galaxy Class that you begin to mold technology into whatever form you want, and even there it isn’t absolute.

The some of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have been in service for over 30 years, yet the last of the Block IIA destroyers are being finished as the first of the Block III destroyers enter service now. The Nimitz-class carriers range from 16 to 50 years old.
Aircraft carriers are glorified barges. They’ve got some advanced techs onboard but it’s the planes that are the main event. Starships are closer to aircraft than sea ships.

And the B-52 is on track to be a Century old Bomber design that is still in use.

Just because something is old, doesn't mean you can't update it and make it useful.
The B-52 is the exception that proves the rule. Also bombers are glorified sky barges. Starfleet might still use fifty year old Excelsiors like the Hood as cargo ships but it shouldn’t on the front lines. Hell, would the B-52’s still be around if we were engaged in hot wars with comparable adversaries lo these 50 years? I doubt it. We’re just ahead and can afford to reuse stagnant technology.

-

Someone mentioned the Klingons. They too are ahead of the game having been an empire for a thousand years and possibly using or got the jumpstart of advanced Hur’Q technologies. They’re brutal and extractive to a huge swath of space because of it. Also they also devote a lot more of their blood and treasure to war, so even with stagnating tech they can be overwhelm their enemies.

But they’re barely keeping apace. They’re R&D and scientific traditions just aren’t as robust. They destroyed their key energy producer Praxis just to keep up with the upstart and overwhelming UFP, in peacetime, and I think if not for the disaster relief and tech exchange leading to advanced ships like the Vor’cha, they’d already be “the alien trash of the galaxy,” and a shrinking empire chipped and carved away from without and within.
 
Last edited:
They’re not art pieces. Technologies follow form after function. They look like they do after the tech anspects are satisfied. It’s not until the Technology Unchained era with the Galaxy Class that you begin to mold technology into whatever form you want, and even there it isn’t absolute.
What does this have to do with "Art pieces"? In the real world we know that what you are saying just isnt true. You can substantially upgrade capability with the same airframe, or the same chassis or the same ship hull. Weapons upgrades, sensor upgrades, avionics upgrades, computer upgrades, communication and connectivity upgrades, defense system upgrades, engine upgrades, range, etc.


That's all true TODAY. It wouldnt be true in the 23rd or 24th century? This is silly.
 
What does this have to do with "Art pieces"? In the real world we know that what you are saying just isnt true. You can substantially upgrade capability with the same airframe, or the same chassis or the same ship hull. Weapons upgrades, sensor upgrades, avionics upgrades, computer upgrades, communication and connectivity upgrades, defense system upgrades, engine upgrades, range, etc.
You can glue a laptop to a Model-T but it’s not a smart car. If you put new tires on it, they’d at least be noticeable as such. The Mirandas are identical to their look in the 23rd Century. It’s only in LD where it was easy/cheap to do so that we at lease started seeing glowing red Bussard collectors on them and other touches. You can reuse an old Miranda spaceframe in a crunch, but—unless you’re trying to keep it looking a specific way—the nacelles and the weapons especially should be completely replaced.

You could maybe make the argument that the Excelsior nacelles don’t need replacing. That they housed the first generation “trans warp drive” that made 24th Century ships twice as fast, but that’s pushing it. Miranda nacelles are outmoded.

The same goes for a lot of other techs. In a future society like the Federation’s, all about science and development, technology should keep moving faster and faster.

The Soyuz spacecraft's exterior has changed relatively little since the 1960's, yet the interior has been constantly upgraded over 65 years.
Stagnant technology in a stagnant field with little competition and tight budgets.
 
Stagnant technology in a stagnant field with little competition and tight budgets.

That's quite a judgment there, and I'm not quite sure it has any relevance to the point I made. But let's play devil's advocate and say that it does. We don't know that 2290-2350's Starfleet was in the same situation, because...?
 
The Soyuz spacecraft's exterior has changed relatively little since the 1960's, yet the interior has been constantly upgraded over 65 years.
There is a reason engineers get paid the big bucks. They solve these exact sort of problems every single day. Fitting the LCARS in a ship designed in the duotronic age is exactly what engineers face everyday today in upgrading old airframes, chassis and ship hulls with new computers, sensors, avionics, weapons, communications, engines, etc. This often is done with demanding timeframes, deadlines and budget restrictions. I am not seeing why ARPY thinks this is not doable, when it is done everyday.
 
Last edited:
You can glue a laptop to a Model-T but it’s not a smart car. If you put new tires on it, they’d at least be noticeable as such. The Mirandas are identical to their look in the 23rd Century. It’s only in LD where it was easy/cheap to do so that we at lease started seeing glowing red Bussard collectors on them and other touches. You can reuse an old Miranda spaceframe in a crunch, but—unless you’re trying to keep it looking a specific way—the nacelles and the weapons especially should be completely replaced.

You could maybe make the argument that the Excelsior nacelles don’t need replacing. That they housed the first generation “trans warp drive” that made 24th Century ships twice as fast, but that’s pushing it. Miranda nacelles are outmoded.

The same goes for a lot of other techs. In a future society like the Federation’s, all about science and development, technology should keep moving faster and faster.


Stagnant technology in a stagnant field with little competition and tight budgets.

No. Engineers do exactly what you think they cant, and they do it every single day. The F-16 is very much the same shape but has received dozens of upgrades since the 70s. Nothing about the shape is relevant to this. Miranda can have the same shape but be fitted with superior sensors, more advanced computers, better avionics, more powerful weapons, etc. The engines CANT be upgraded? Why is that? All the TMP era/ similarly shaped engines have only 1 generation and no improvements are possible within the same housing? Where did you get that from? Why cant they be upgraded?

We know TODAY that that isnt true. You can make dramatically superior performance fit the same shape. It is done literally everyday. They dont make the Model T for many reasons today (some of them do relate to shape, like aerodynamics), but the idea that computerized components cant be made to fit inside a Model T is nonsensical. That exact issue is faced everyday by engineers. Can we put 21st century digital avionics in a 1940s plane? Yes. It's been done. And done many times. Many 40s to 60s planes are still flying, especially in general aviation. There are biplanes that have computerized, digital avionics existing today with no difficulty. Easily solvable problems, with the knowledge, tech and budget to do it.
 
Last edited:
The bridge interiors of the Lantree, the Brattain and Sisko's Saratoga had clearly been updated from the bridge interiors of the Reliant from TWOK, yet externally it's the exact same bridge module.
 
Nothing about the shape is relevant to this.
Until Stealth Air Combat became the dominant form and everybody who is a top tier player is moving to "Stealth Air Frames".

Ergo, the F-35 and it's dominance in the West.

China has their cadre of Stealth AirCraft.

Russia has attempted it as well.

Japan & South Korea all have their own indigenous Stealth Aircraft in the works.
 
You could maybe make the argument that the Excelsior nacelles don’t need replacing. That they housed the first generation “trans warp drive” that made 24th Century ships twice as fast, but that’s pushing it. Miranda nacelles are outmoded.
They might be outmoded, but they obviously still work. I don't think anyone's claiming they're the fastest ships in the fleet, but they don't need to be.

You could fire up a Model T and it would still get you from A to B if it was well-maintained, or parts had been upgraded.

When we discuss the tech in the show it's usually through the lens that what we see on screen, however contradictory, is "real". And part of the fun is rationalising all these weird inconsistencies.

If Starfleet is flying around fleets full of these "old" ships to fight a ruthless enemy, there's a reason for that. We obviously know the real world reason, but in-universe it seems to make sense for me and there are some real world precedents too.
 
Until Stealth Air Combat became the dominant form and everybody who is a top tier player is moving to "Stealth Air Frames".

Ergo, the F-35 and it's dominance in the West.

China has their cadre of Stealth AirCraft.

Russia has attempted it as well.

Japan & South Korea all have their own indigenous Stealth Aircraft in the works.
Shape doesnt prevent upgrades, including very significant upgrades. That was the point I was making. Not that the shape of an airframe is not improvable, or part of how you can upgrade from previous models. But the F-35 itself will be upgraded many, many times in dozens of ways over the next 50 years even while retaining very much the same shape.

So maybe a 2370s Miranda would kick the ass of the 2280s "Reliant" in a battle, that's the argument here. It might be far superior after 90 years of upgrades. Whether there is anything about the shape of a Miranda that would mean that it couldnt match a Steamrunner or Saber Class or a Defiant class, I am not sure what that would be. Why would the shape be a factor in this case?
 
Last edited:
What does this have to do with "Art pieces"? In the real world we know that what you are saying just isnt true. You can substantially upgrade capability with the same airframe, or the same chassis or the same ship hull. Weapons upgrades, sensor upgrades, avionics upgrades, computer upgrades, communication and connectivity upgrades, defense system upgrades, engine upgrades, range, etc.


That's all true TODAY. It wouldnt be true in the 23rd or 24th century? This is silly.

Indeed, I've often found this viewpoint a bit strange myself. In the context of how some Trek technology works, there's no reason to waste resources on the next major ship classes if the goal isn't to upgrade them as needed. I personally have no huge issue with seeing Excelsiors and Mirandas, along with Constellations, still active in the TNG+ era, and I think it's far more likely that Starfleet would upgrade them as needed than the Klingon Defense Force might for their older ships. :D The TNG Technical Manual suggests the Galaxy class is intended for a potential lifespan of up to a century, with eventual refits.

There is of course a logical cutoff point to when older designs might be less ideal to keep refitted, of course, but that's not inherently the same as older technology being stagnant. How many of us today drive cars that are a decade or more old, because they're still reliable and much cheaper to maintain than the cost of a new modern car?

One of my favorite non-Trek examples, Battletech, has a lot of examples of designs being built for centuries, and sometimes individual examples of those designs being maintained for that length of time by successive generations. The Crusader heavy mech is one such unit, now nearing the 400th year of overall production (the game's current timeline is now in the 3150s, and the Crusader first appeared in 2752). There's more than a dozen variants in the series across the centuries, not counting how individual pilots have modified their Crusaders as a result of damage or personal preferences.

It's generally less common for individual units to survive for a relatively long time, versus the total length of time that the class has been in service, since it's a military RPG with lots of stuff blowing up.
:rommie:
Capital ships and warships are the interesting exception, as the huge expense in building and maintaining them means it's more likely a warship dating back to the time of the First Star League is a few centuries old. The Clan navies were originally made up of many such vessels from the era of the Exodus, when the bulk of the Star League Defense Force jumped into uncharted space. Warships became a lost technology during the Succession Wars and even civilian jumpships - the only means of interstellar travel - became more rare, so it was an informal rule not to target them or else lose any form of travel. The technology has since been regained in the Inner Sphere but the writers have tended to get rid of large fleets for plot reasons. They want to keep the traditional focus on ground combat.

The Clans also made a number of impressive engineering breakthroughs after the Exodus kind of fell apart (the SLDF had hoped to restart the League elsewhere but suffered their own civil war, leading to the rise of the Clans), in particular the ability to create omnimechs and vehicles with equipment bays that entirely modular and interchangeable. This means with an omnimech, like the Nova, you can have a single chassis that can handle a wide variety of mission profiles, as well as easing repairs considerably. The Clans also use this to a limited degree for other units like fighters and tanks, but they traditionally regard non-mech forces as being inherently "inferior" despite how well that unit actually performs.

Despite its many advantages, the omni technology has limitations as well. It's considerably more expensive than producing a more standard mech design, and components between them are not compatible even if the omni version is functionally much the same parts. During the time of the original League, vehicle designs were typically built around specific mission profiles with the occasional later variants, so the flexibility realized by the Clans wouldn't have been seen as essential. It also required extensive work to get the original omni designs to become practical, due to the engineering challenges of building a computer that could manage multiple configurations and changes without potentially going haywire. The Clans still use a large percentage of standard units as second line and reserve forces, and some are more open minded about the use of combined arms versus strictly mechs.
 
Shape doesnt prevent upgrades, including very significant upgrades. That was the point I was making. Not that the shape of an airframe is not improvable, or part of how you can upgrade from previous models. But the F-35 itself will be upgraded many, many times in dozens of ways over the next 50 years even while retaining very much the same shape.
I know that, but the point being that both new & old platforms can be upgraded and have uses.
 
That's quite a judgment there, and I'm not quite sure it has any relevance to the point I made. But let's play devil's advocate and say that it does. We don't know that 2290-2350's Starfleet was in the same situation, because...?
Cold War with the Klingons and Romulans; hot ones with the Cardassians, Talarians, and Tzenkethi; problems with the Tholians, Breen, and Ferengi.

There is a reason engineers get paid the big bucks. They solve these exact sort of problems every single day. Fitting the LCARS in a ship designed in the duotronic age is exactly what engineers face everyday today in upgrading old airframes, chassis and ship hulls with new computers, sensors, avionics, weapons, communications, engines, etc. This often is done with demanding timeframes, deadlines and budget restrictions. I am not seeing why ARPY thinks this is not doable, when it is done everyday.
Because we've seen a great deal of change between the E-A and E-D eras. When the shows have the budget to include new ships or upgrades to old ones, they do.

No. Engineers do exactly what you think they cant, and they do it every single day. The F-16 is very much the same shape but has received dozens of upgrades since the 70s. Nothing about the shape is relevant to this. Miranda can have the same shape but be fitted with superior sensors, more advanced computers, better avionics, more powerful weapons, etc. The engines CANT be upgraded? Why is that? All the TMP era/ similarly shaped engines have only 1 generation and no improvements are possible within the same housing? Where did you get that from? Why cant they be upgraded?
We have lots of older airplanes yet we don't attach new engines to them or make new ones of older designs. You can update an old design up to a point if it can handle it, and usually with visible differences to it the greater the update. That doesn't happen in Trek because it's a TV show and they just use existing models. Moreso then than now when it's easier to crank out new ones.

The bridge interiors of the Lantree, the Brattain and Sisko's Saratoga had clearly been updated from the bridge interiors of the Reliant from TWOK, yet externally it's the exact same bridge module.
Exactly. They didn't have the old interiors to reuse and they didn't rebuild them.

They might be outmoded, but they obviously still work. I don't think anyone's claiming they're the fastest ships in the fleet, but they don't need to be.

You could fire up a Model T and it would still get you from A to B if it was well-maintained, or parts had been upgraded.
And if the Mirandas were being used for cargo or transport duty as the Excelsiors were used in TNG that would be fine. But but they were being used as fighter craft against a far superior enemy, and were at one point used disturbingly as glorified cannon fodder escorting the Defiant, the meanest, most maneuverable, battleship in the fleet.

Shape doesnt prevent upgrades, including very significant upgrades. That was the point I was making. Not that the shape of an airframe is not improvable, or part of how you can upgrade from previous models. But the F-35 itself will be upgraded many, many times in dozens of ways over the next 50 years even while retaining very much the same shape.
The latest and greatest F-35, far superior to so many existing and new aircraft, will have been replaced by drone craft in 50 years by anyone who can afford them.

So maybe a 2370s Miranda would kick the ass of the 2280s "Reliant" in a battle, that's the argument here. It might be far superior after 90 years of upgrades. Whether there is anything about the shape of a Miranda that would mean that it couldnt match a Steamrunner or Saber Class or a Defiant class, I am not sure what that would be. Why would the shape be a factor in this case?
Because it's not about the esthetics. If a ship clearly has old fashioned weapons, shield grid, escape pods, transporter emitters, res thrusters, has no Bussard Collectors, is likely made of older hull materials, and uses older nacelles that housed older warp coils, what you're looking at isn't a new ship painstakingly and expensively fashioned to look old using sophisticated technologies to hide themselves, what you're looking at is an old ship.

What I don't understand is this religious-like devotion and apologia to effects done on the cheap. Don't some of you have any imagination, no vision for what might better be?

I included some additional and alternative Federation Klingon and Jem'Hadar designs earlier in this thread. I wonder if there are new ones I might want to look at and post. No I do not like stagnation.
 
Cold War with the Klingons and Romulans; hot ones with the Cardassians, Talarians, and Tzenkethi; problems with the Tholians, Breen, and Ferengi.


Because we've seen a great deal of change between the E-A and E-D eras. When the shows have the budget to include new ships or upgrades to old ones, they do.


We have lots of older airplanes yet we don't attach new engines to them or make new ones of older designs. You can update an old design up to a point if it can handle it, and usually with visible differences to it the greater the update. That doesn't happen in Trek because it's a TV show and they just use existing models. Moreso then than now when it's easier to crank out new ones.


Exactly. They didn't have the old interiors to reuse and they didn't rebuild them.


And if the Mirandas were being used for cargo or transport duty as the Excelsiors were used in TNG that would be fine. But but they were being used as fighter craft against a far superior enemy, and were at one point used disturbingly as glorified cannon fodder escorting the Defiant, the meanest, most maneuverable, battleship in the fleet.


The latest and greatest F-35, far superior to so many existing and new aircraft, will have been replaced by drone craft in 50 years by anyone who can afford them.


Because it's not about the esthetics. If a ship clearly has old fashioned weapons, shield grid, escape pods, transporter emitters, res thrusters, has no Bussard Collectors, is likely made of older hull materials, and uses older nacelles that housed older warp coils, what you're looking at isn't a new ship painstakingly and expensively fashioned to look old using sophisticated technologies to hide themselves, what you're looking at is an old ship.

What I don't understand is this religious-like devotion and apologia to effects done on the cheap. Don't some of you have any imagination, no vision for what might better be?

I included some additional and alternative Federation Klingon and Jem'Hadar designs earlier in this thread. I wonder if there are new ones I might want to look at and post. No I do not like stagnation.


Engine upgrades are also done, while keeping the same shape in older aircraft, ships and land vehicles as well. Dramatic improvements in performance. Looks very much the same. This is just not understanding engineering in the real world in any way at all. Not even a little. This "shape is same, so upgrade is not possible" is as flatly wrong as it is possible to be. You can read yourself about decades old ships, planes and vehicles and how, in what ways and why they have received dozens of upgrades over many years. The real world settles this, and you're wrong. I dont know how else to say that.

None of this is "stagnation". Only you think it's "Stagnation" to upgrade with new computers, sensors, avionics, weapons, communications, engines, etc.
 
Last edited:
What I don't understand is this religious-like devotion and apologia to effects done on the cheap. Don't some of you have any imagination, no vision for what might better be?
As I said above, for some of us imagination is required to explain some of these real world production necessities in an in-universe manner. That's part of the fun.

Obviously I think most people in this thread have ideas about how it could have been improved, but a lot of this is hindsight and was not possible at the time.

The effects weren't at all cheap for 1997 but they didn't have a limitless budget. They were still the biggest and most exciting starship fleets we had ever seen in Star Trek, and a lot of hard work and creativity went into realising them.

Given that there was no budget to create brand new modern ships simply for background filler, they provided a varied fleet that included new ships like Galaxy/Nebula as well as Akira/Sabre/Steamrunner. So it wasn't just Excelsior and Miranda.

You're also probably underplaying the narrative aspect; the story in Sacrifice of Angels is of a hopelessly outmatched Federation fleet that has been hastily cobbled together. They don't stand a chance. Having a bunch of older ships helps sell this.

In Tears of the Prophets, when the Federation alliance is on the front foot, the visual effects show the newer ships more prominently, although again the story means they're mostly getting torn up.
 
Cold War with the Klingons and Romulans; hot ones with the Cardassians, Talarians, and Tzenkethi; problems with the Tholians, Breen, and Ferengi.

So they upgraded the Excelsiors and Mirandas internally from 2293 to 2350, but did little to no external upgrades. Also, they started building Ambassadors.

Exactly. They didn't have the old interiors to reuse and they didn't rebuild them.

My point was that you were arguing that, in-universe, old spaceframes couldn't be upgraded internally, and I gave you three examples where they did that exact thing.
 
So they upgraded the Excelsiors and Mirandas internally from 2293 to 2350, but did little to no external upgrades. Also, they started building Ambassadors.



My point was that you were arguing that, in-universe, old spaceframes couldn't be upgraded internally, and I gave you three examples where they did that exact thing.
ARPY is wrong BOTH WAYS on this. Both in universe AND in real life. LOL.

IIRC the TOS movie Enterprise bridge was redressed as the ENT-D battle bridge and the ENT-D battle bridge was then further redressed to be the Lantree bridge set. So no they didnt "rebuild" a set from the TOS movie. They didnt have to. They just continued reusing and redressing those same old sets for many years to save money. The set used for the Lantree bridge IS the set used for the Reliant bridge. That's the real world.

In universe, very much the same. They kept remaking, modernizing and upgrading the interiors, ie computers, sensors, avionics, weapons, communications, engines, etc. So Miranda on the outside, but very much modernized on the inside. That's how it works in countless real world vessels, vehicles and airframes as well.
 
Due to budget reasons it is also entirely possible that those older starships did have exterior changes but couldn't be depicted in the cgi or blue screen shots of the 80s and 90s.
 
My head canon is that there's a cut-off that decides whether a ship can be usefully upgraded into the 24th century, but it's not particularly related to the spaceframe or the drive systems. It's isolinear vs duotronic-based computers.

That's why we don't see Connies, but we do see Mirandas and Excelsiors usually with higher registry numbers. These are early-mid 24th century new builds with isolinear tech built-in, and therefore they support the latest LCARS systems.

Other systems are simple enough to upgrade, but you need to have the right computer framework to support them.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top