Why No Federation Ships Bigger Than A Galaxy Class?

[Cary L. Brown]

Dayton3 said:
IIRC, there were design variants of the Oberth that replaced their sensor platforms with torpedoes and other weapons.

Which seems a reasonable usage of resources.

Incidentally, back in Star Trek: Communicator, a career military officer who was a long time Star Trek fan had an article where he said point blank

"StarFleet is a military organization no matter how many times it is denied".

He based this on the mountain of onscreen evidence.

But he pointed out that military organizations routinely do nonmilitary work.

Search and rescue, diplomatic assignments, survey work, even alot of exploration (he gave examples of the U.S. Navys ocean and polar exploration work).

Just thought I would stick this in here.

Thank you for making that point.

One of the biggest problems we have today in this country, IMHO, comes from the fact that so few people have ever engaged in any form of national service. I, personally, am 100% in favor of two years (minimum) of COMPULSORY NATIONAL SERVICE for every single person who is able to perform any form of service.

Now, "national service" doesn't NECESSARILY mean serving in the military... it could be the Peace Corps, or the National Park Service, or it could mean becoming a police officer... but SOMETHING where you're serving your fellow man, for at least a couple of years, prior to starting your life.

It'd change the attitude of the population, dramatically, I think... and for the better.

But I digress... ANYWAY, the reason I like what you posted, above, is that the other affect of so few people having any actual experience with what the military does is that they have MISCONCEPTIONS about what "military" actually means.

Because so many people think of the "villains" or the "dumb guys with guns who want to blow stuff up" (false stereotypes widely disseminated through bad movies made by people who, also, have no real experience with the military), they tend to think it's a NEGATIVE if you refer to Starfleet as a "military" organization.

That's a problem... a much bigger problem than, I think, most people realize.

Yes, Starfleet is a military organization, and it has a real military mission... securing the borders of the Federation, securing the spacelanes WITHIN the Federation, exploring beyond the borders of the Federation, setting up outposts (and secured regions of space) to permit the safe influx of civilian citizens, serving as "display of the flag" diplomatic missions to foreign governments... ALL OF THOSE are, historically and logically both, appropriate roles for the military.

All involve the use of force... or at least the ABILITY to project force... but none involve willful and uncalled-for destruction except under extreme provocation. ("Extreme provocation" would include things like the "Balance of Terror" incursion, or the events at Cestus III, just for example.)

So... I really, really hope that (with the renewed sense of respect that the military has seen in the last several years) that this MISCONCEPTION of what the military is all about, spread by people who were "60s radicals" and perpetuated on college campuses by those people who are no PROFESSORS for God's sake, will finally start to fade away.

It's true that the job of the military is to "kill people and break stuff"... but only when the situation ABSOLUTELY calls for it. Every soldier, airman, or sailor feels the same way... nobody WANTS to go to war... war is a terrible thing. But it's not the MOST terrible thing. The state of being where you see nothing worthy of fighting for, nothing worth giving your own life for, is infinitely worse.

 

[regemet]

It would be difficult to upload an illustration of the U S S Reihanon as she is as yet an incompleat physical model.

 

[Timo]

I forget exactly what was said in "The Search" about the Defiant; was it said that she was unique as a warship, or just as one of the few dedicated warships designed by Starfleet?

Neither. The dialogue is more like banter, and tells us nothing definite about Starfleet.

Sisko (with "I designed this baby" pride): "Officially she's classified as an escort vessel. Unofficially the Defiant is a warship. Nothing more, nothing less."
Kira (with sarcasm): "I thought Starfleet didn't believe in warships."
Sisko (bemused): "Desperate times breed desperate measures."

Sisko then proceeds to tell how he helped design the ship to fight the Borg, after which Kira cuts to the chase and expresses disgust that Starfleet gave them this bottom-of-the-barrel piece of junk, a failure of a starship.

We never learn whether Kira was even halfway right about her sarcastic remark. Of course Starfleet would have a reputation of being peaceniks, in comparison with the other militaries out there, and might well prefer to maintain that reputation - but there is no particular reason to think it wouldn't build dedicated warships at every juncture, in addition to dedicated science ships and generic multipurpose designs.

Picard does say in "Peak Performance" that Starfleet is not a "military organization" but it seems clear that's not particularly accurate.

Indeed, if anything about Starfleet is military, the organization is...!

One might argue that Picard is being literal-minded, but using the terminology prevalent until the late 19th century and possibly again prevalent in the 22nd. That is, he would consider "navy" and "military/army" two separate branches of UFP's warforces, and would be adamant about Starfleet being a classy and laid-back navy rather than a sweaty and grimy ground force where people perform silly drills and speak in aggressive terms just to sound cool.

This sort of terminology would well fit the ENT references where Starfleet and "the military" are pitted against each other, too: "the military" there is represented by infantrymen or the equivalent of Army Rangers, while Starfleet is still portrayed as a combat force, only it happens to specialize in "naval" warfare.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Unicron]

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Dayton. Out of all the fanon designs, I wish at least the Oberth subclasses were canon simply because they're the most practical, and you can easily add a lower module without having to change the upper hull much at all. It's a very efficient system, and with four or five subclasses it would seem like the best way to get a long run on the primary hull module.

 

[Wingsley]

Dayton3 said:
I posted a simliar questions a couple of years ago.

It seems to me that ever since the Galaxy class was introduced we've seen other powers in the Galaxy, the Romulans, Klingons, Dominion field starships considerably larger than the Galaxy.

But Starfleet hasn't built anything larger than the Galaxy. In fact Starfleet has actually gone the other way, the Sovereign is only about 2/3rds the size of a Galaxy overall.

The largest Federation ship we've ever seen onscreen has been the Galaxy class dreadnought from "All Good Things" which is probably about 20% larger than a standard Galaxy class ship.

I think it would be interesting to see a new class of vessels in the 1,200 or 1,500 meter length range with 50-55 decks.

The original idea of a starship being larger than the Galaxy poses an interesting challenge. The Federation seems to have embraced a new school-of-thought/design philosphy, if you look at the familial shape of the Voyager/Intrepid, Enterprise-E/Sovereign, Prometheus and the fan-designed Poseidon, there's that same arrowhead/"jet fighter" theme.

Why not extend that further, with an even larger class than the Sovereign? Let's call it the Leyte-class. Leyte would need an even bigger saucer, probably needing to be wider and longer; I don't know how you would make it deeper than Poseidon. The secondary hull would probably look awkward if it were much wider or deeper, so it would have to be longer. The "fantail" would have to extend further aft.

Since the Sovereign/arrowhead design is far more space efficient than the Galaxy-class, Leyte wouldn't have to be much larger overall to offer superior interior volume. Does anyone have any idea how big such a design would have to be in order to be "bigger" than a Galaxy-class?

 

[Vance]

Actually, a saucer would be FAR more space-efficient, as well as structurally efficient, than an arrowhead...

But we still don't have the basic question, "Why WOULD Star Fleet invest resources into ships larger than the Galaxy class, when that class already proved itself to be little more than a big-ass target rather than an optimal design?"

 

[Dayton3]

Vance said:
Actually, a saucer would be FAR more space-efficient, as well as structurally efficient, than an arrowhead...

But we still don't have the basic question, "Why WOULD Star Fleet invest resources into ships larger than the Galaxy class, when that class already proved itself to be little more than a big-ass target rather than an optimal design?"

And once again, I will point out that onscreen on Deep Space Nine, during the Dominion War the Galaxy class ship seems to have proven outstandingly successfull.

In fact, aside from the battle where the Defiant was destroyed by the Breen, we can't even confirm any Galaxy class ships were lost in the war.

None were destroyed onscreen.

 

[Dayton3]

For that matter, the small Miranda class ships were mowed down left and right by the Dominion forces.

 

[USS KG5]

Dayton3 said:
And once again, I will point out that onscreen on Deep Space Nine, during the Dominion War the Galaxy class ship seems to have proven outstandingly successfull.

You are quite right - the VFX guys went out of their way to show the Galaxy class kicking butt in DS9 (look in the background during Sacrifice Of Angels).

It is also strongly implied that they are the big guns of the Fed fleets, Sisko uses his "Galaxy wings" to engage superior forces on his flank, and when giving an example of sheer firepower of a Dominion Battleship, Jake uses the Galaxy as an example.

We have in fact NEVER seen a Galaxy go down in trek in a straight fight, the ones we have seen lost: -

1. Yamato - blown up by super-advanced computer virus.
2. Odyssey - destroyed in ramming attack after sustaining heavy damage due to the Jem H'Adar bypassing her shields.
3. Enterprise-D - destroyed due to secondary damage after taking numerous hits unprotected by shields.

In fact, aside from the battle where the Defiant was destroyed by the Breen, we can't even confirm any Galaxy class ships were lost in the war.

I seem to remember only seeing a Nebula hull in the wrecks not a Galaxy. Though I agree it seems unlikely that there was not at least one in that fleet.

I have never subscribed to the idea they were only 12. I think they would make up around 1% of Starfleet, around 100 odd ships.

 

[Vance]

Well, the Mirandas were 100 year old designs rushed out in a hurry to be cannon fodder. I wonder how a NEW design, with a similar arrangement, would have fared?

I'm not saying that the Galaxy is worthless, just that it's not really worthwhile. Remember that nearly all of the ship is taken up by what our military would consider luxuries. A 'real' fleet, in a time of war, would find a ship of reasonable size that required a fraction of the crew and resources but still deliver the same punch as a Galaxy.

 

[Wingsley]

Vance said:
Actually, a saucer would be FAR more space-efficient, as well as structurally efficient, than an arrowhead...

But we still don't have the basic question, "Why WOULD Star Fleet invest resources into ships larger than the Galaxy class, when that class already proved itself to be little more than a big-ass target rather than an optimal design?"

I wonder if there isn't some kind of saucer hybrid that could be joined to an expanded Sovereign-class secondary hull, to form a heavier, super-Sovereign (Leyte-class) that would succeed the Galaxy.

My idea for the saucer is to combine the shapes of the Galaxy-class (saucer distorted width-wise) and the Sovereign-class (saucer distorted length-wise) to form almost a hybrid heart-shape, stretched to be extra long and wide.

I don't see the Galaxy's biggest issues being its size; I see the shape as being something Starlfeet would want to improve upon. The neck on the Galaxy-class is space-inefficient. There is no skinny neck on the Sovereign. So, if you want to build a successor to the Galaxy they is more space-efficient and taps in on the latest design advances, why not derive it from the Sovereign?

 

[Dayton3]

There is a pretty decent way to determine how many Galaxy class ships there were in Starfleet at one point.

In "Menage a Troi" Data points out that "93% of Academy graduates are not assigned to Galaxy class starships".

That means that "7% of Academy graduates ARE assigned to Galaxy class starships".

Now, how many people graduate from Starfleet Academy each year?

I would say around 10,000. Making total enrollment around 50,000 cadets (this seems reasonable allowing for a fair percentage not to make it through all four years of the Academy).

And given the Academy's location, that seems about the largest number you would have.

That means 700 Academy graduates assigned to Galaxy class starships.

Now, how many people fresh from the Academy would be assigned to a single ship?

Remember, the actual Galaxy crew is only around 750. The rest being the civilian contingent.

So I assume that no more than 50 brand new graduates would be assigned to a single ship.

Meaning 14 Galaxy class ships in service during the third season of ST:TNG.

We saw up to 9 Galaxys onscreen at one time during "Sacrifice of Angels". And assuming that three Galaxy's make up a "Galaxy wing" that would be the ships Sisko refers to.

Now, the force in "Sacrifice of Angels" wasn't nearly all of Starfleets strength. It was only two fleets.

The 9th Fleet was reportedly a very powerful formation and another powerful fleet was protecting Earth.

So I think we can assume AT MINIMUM even allowing for battle losses that the total number of Galaxy class ships at that point was 18. Probably more.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Dayton3 said:There is a pretty decent way to determine how many Galaxy class ships there were in Starfleet at one point.

In "Menage a Troi" Data points out that "93% of Academy graduates are not assigned to Galaxy class starships".

That means that "7% of Academy graduates ARE assigned to Galaxy class starships".

Now, how many people graduate from Starfleet Academy each year?

I would say around 10,000. Making total enrollment around 50,000 cadets (this seems reasonable allowing for a fair percentage not to make it through all four years of the Academy).

And given the Academy's location, that seems about the largest number you would have.

That means 700 Academy graduates assigned to Galaxy class starships.

Now, how many people fresh from the Academy would be assigned to a single ship?

Remember, the actual Galaxy crew is only around 750. The rest being the civilian contingent.

So I assume that no more than 50 brand new graduates would be assigned to a single ship.

Meaning 14 Galaxy class ships in service during the third season of ST:TNG.

We saw up to 9 Galaxys onscreen at one time during "Sacrifice of Angels". And assuming that three Galaxy's make up a "Galaxy wing" that would be the ships Sisko refers to.

Now, the force in "Sacrifice of Angels" wasn't nearly all of Starfleets strength. It was only two fleets.

The 9th Fleet was reportedly a very powerful formation and another powerful fleet was protecting Earth.

So I think we can assume AT MINIMUM even allowing for battle losses that the total number of Galaxy class ships at that point was 18. Probably more.

Well, there's a small potential gap in your logic that could easily reduce that number.

It's possible that Data wasn't referring to the FIRST assignment. Perhaps he was referring to the statistical odds that a graduate would serve on a Galaxy class starship AT SOME POINT IN THEIR CAREER.

If it were anyone else, I'd immediately assume what you were saying was the intended point. But with someone like Data... it's just as likely that what I said is true, isn't it?

 

[USS KG5]

Cary L. Brown said:
If it were anyone else, I'd immediately assume what you were saying was the intended point. But with someone like Data... it's just as likely that what I said is true, isn't it?

Well there is enough evidence for either POV in the show, the writers would always want to keep things like fleet size vague because they need to introduce new ships, maybe even entire fleets.

The disparity in numbers between TNG and DS9 has never bothered me though. The US Navy is huge but is spread all over the world, so it is rare to see more than a dozen ships in one place (one carrier group for example) unless there is a war when there have been five groups together (a truly massive amount of firepower).

 

[Dayton3]

I figured my interpretation was correct since the conversation was regarding Wesley returning to the Enterprise "immediately after" graduating from the Academy.

Chances are, StarFleet follows the old Soviet practice of building vast amounts of military equipment that promptly goes into storage to await use in a major war.

 

[USS KG5]

Dayton3 said:
I figured my interpretation was correct since the conversation was regarding Wesley returning to the Enterprise "immediately after" graduating from the Academy.

Well I agreed with your analysis except I thought your graduation figures were too low, the academy seems to train every officer in the Starfleet and I'm not sure 50,000 a year would cover it, even without losses.

Apart from that your figures seemed relatively sound.

Chances are, StarFleet follows the old Soviet practice of building vast amounts of military equipment that promptly goes into storage to await use in a major war.

I think they build the things then use them. Ironically the same principle that lost the Nazis the war against the soviets (the spread of forces as distance grows) would also cover Starfleet, they would need literally dozens of top-of-the-line ships just to explore.

 

[Deks]

In my personal opinion, SF really has no reason to build ships larger than a Galaxy class.
It was a clever decision to reduce the size of new ships while packing the same if not much larger amounts of fire power into them while retaining same exploratory capabilities.

 

[Timo]

Well, there's a small potential gap in your logic that could easily reduce that number. It's possible that Data wasn't referring to the FIRST assignment.

Another possible caveat, seemingly the opposite but actually working in the same direction, is that Galaxy class ships might get a disproportionately large portion of recent graduates.

Take the Enterprise herself, a showpiece vessel of sorts, usually hugging close to the core of the UFP but sometimes loitering significantly far. She might be a stepping stone for people who aim at (or are aimed at) deep space exploration roles: after getting a basic feel of short deep space forays aboard this very safe vessel, they would be ready to proceed to the smaller ships that do the bulk of deep space work. Other vessel types would not have such a high "throughput", not would they receive that many greenhorns in the first place.

Still, an interesting and innovative way of looking at this. 7% of personnel, greenhorns or not, is quite a lot, even if we assume that all other ship types have much smaller crews in absolute terms. With the multiple assumptions of

1) A single Galaxy swallows a lot of crew
2) Some [iGalaxies[/i] might "throughput" personnel to an exceptional degree
3) Data may have meant people who gyrate to [iGalaxies[/i] sooner or later

and preferably one or two further arguments, we can probably take that down a bit, so that Galaxies form less than a percent of total Starfleet strength, which would be preferable as far as onscreen visual appearances go.

Timo Saloniemi