The Federations Economy after the Dominion War

Cookie_Monster

Myrddin wrote: »

I don't know, I reckon a Defiant would give a stock Galaxy a decent fight. A galaxy has very out dated weaponry in comparison to pulse phasers & quantum torpedoes. Those quantum's do a LOT of damage. A Galaxy upgraded ala the Lakota though, no, I think it'd win convincingly.

it has slightly outdated weaponry but way way more of it.

I really don' think a defiant would have a chance. The power generation capabilities of a Galaxy alone outmatch the defiant by an order of magnitude, if not more.

The warp core was one of the most powerful in Starfleet, generating approximately 12.75 billion gigawatts of power

combined with 12-14 phaser banks will give huge power output advantage even against higher calibre pulse phasers.

Daith

Deleted User wrote: »

The Galaxy is a ship with civilians, labs, medical facilities, schools etc.
It's a ship of exploration that honestly would beat a lone Defiant. Of course the Defiant is cheaper, it's a floating gun and that's it

I really think it's too simplistic to say that. A 20 year old Klingon Bird of Prey vs a Galaxy class starship. On paper there's no competition. In reality?

If it's an computer controlled Defiant vs computer controlled Galaxy yeah probably the Galaxy.

I think the DS9 manned Defiant would beat a TNG manned Enterprise though.

The fight negated the Ent shields from the get go.
They didn't need a new ship, just a strong torpedo

Daith

Deleted User wrote: »

The fight negated the Ent shields from the get go.
They didn't need a new ship, just a strong torpedo

How many times in TNG have the shields go down to 70%, 60%, 30% one more hit and we're done!

There's no reason to assume a Defiant using hit and run tactics couldn't wear down those shields either.

Using its cloak yeah. But the Defiant is meant to be used in a fleet setting. It's a super strong ship but it's not a capital level ship

Myrddin

Indricotherium wrote: »

We're talking HMS Dreadnaught taking down USS George HW Bush.

The Ent-D was destroyed because of two reasons:

1) The BoP had weapons configured to pass through the D's shields. After a prolonged pounding of the D's warp nacelles and the secondary hull, the ship took irreversible damage. This is not a design flaw.

2) Riker was incompetent during the battle (a beyond poor plot device, given we know Riker is a seasoned veteran by this stage), & offered no meaningful resistance to the attack. This is not a design flaw.

The Galaxy class ship was perfect for the era it was produced in, it was not in any way a 'deeply flawed design'. With regard to the Galaxy class ships that were lost, it had nothing to do with their class or design - you can substitute the Galaxy class ship for any other class and in those specific situations, the end result would still have been the same.

Daith

Deleted User wrote: »

Using its cloak yeah. But the Defiant is meant to be used in a fleet setting. It's a super strong ship but it's not a capital level ship

The Defiant by itself has probably seen more engagement than the Enterprise-D.

Again I'm not saying it's a certain win or even a win for the Defiant. I simply don't think it's a curb stomp battle at all.

Myrddin

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

it has slightly outdated weaponry but way way more of it.

I really don' think a defiant would have a chance. The power generation capabilities of a Galaxy alone outmatch the defiant by an order of magnitude, if not more.

The only time a Galaxy class ship looked any way impressive during a battle, was in "All Good Things...", when it was the Galaxy-X class using that phaser like a hot knife going through butter. Every other time, the ship has looked slow, cumbersome, unwieldy, and frankly, a sitting duck. Four to six Quantum torpedoes would put one serious dent in those shields, if not knock them out completely. The ship in its TNG configuration just wasn't built for the type of combat & weaponry seen later on. A Defiant with pulse phasers, quantum torpedoes, ablative armour would, in my opinion, ask serious questions of a Galaxy class ship given the right crew on board.

Of course. It's a capital ship, big, slow but super powerful. It's designed to stand its ground and go toe to toe.

Defiant is a fighter class designed to avoid being hit. Thats why it has a flattened profile along its attack face. But, like todays warships. One big bruiser will tend to win Vs one fighter.

Wider range of fire, more powerful power plants, more redundancies in critical systems etc.

I don't think anyone is saying that it would be a cakewalk tgough

Indricotherium

Myrddin wrote: »

slow, cumbersome, unwieldy, and frankly, a sitting duck. .

.............deeply flawed...................

Daith

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course. It's a capital ship, big, slow but super powerful. It's designed to stand its ground and go toe to toe.

Which the Defiant wouldn't do. The Defiant would be hit and running hiding behind moons, asteroids, using everything all the while the Enterprise would be standing there.

Deleted User wrote: »

Wider range of fire, more powerful power plants, more redundancies in critical systems etc.

Except the shields :P

Daith

Daith wrote: »

Which the Defiant wouldn't do. The Defiant would be hit and running hiding behind moons, asteroids, using everything all the while the Enterprise would be standing there.

Hide behind a moon, in open space? Allowing Gal shields time to recharge

Daith

Deleted User wrote: »

Hide behind a moon, in open space? Allowing Gal shields time to recharge

So now it's open space? With nothing else?

How many advantages do you need to give that ship

Indricotherium

It's an unfair comparrison.

The Galaxy Class is a multi role explorer, designed to project power out beyond the borders of the federation. huge redundancies built into every system, massivly powerful, almost self sufficient.

The defiant class is a destroyer. a single role ship.

toe to toe in a fight, sure the defiant probably wins, but surveying a moon, or exploring a nebula, galaxy class wins.

Daith

Daith wrote: »

So now it's open space? With nothing else?

How many advantages do you need to give that ship

Yeah, because the Defiant woukd need moons and asteroids etc.

Stop being silly for a sec. The Defiant was not designed to operate on its own. It's meant to be in a fleet of them.

In reality you would not have a Galaxy on its own either, it would ve the central ship of a fleet of support ships (like a defiant)

Daith

Indricotherium wrote: »

toe to toe in a fight, sure the defiant probably wins, but surveying a moon, or exploring a nebula, galaxy class wins.

Yeah fine, the Galaxy wins at surveying moons, I'll give you that.

Daith

Deleted User wrote: »

Stop being silly for a sec. The Defiant was not designed to operate on its own. It's meant to be in a fleet of them.

Except for it's duration of DS9 the Defiant operated mostly by itself and survived more encounters than the Enterprise

The Enterprise lost to a 20 year old Bird of Prey. The Defiant to an enemy who disabled an entire Klingon, Romulan and Federation fleet.

The Defiant flies around the Enterprise while Riker is still working his joystick.

Indricotherium

Daith wrote: »

Yeah fine, the Galaxy wins at surveying moons, I'll give you that.

and all sorts,

projecting the Federations power,

wooing dignitaries,

first contacts

lots of things.

If a Galaxy class were marooned in the delta quadrant, it wouldn't have been half as big a struggle

Myrddin

Myrddin wrote: »

slow, cumbersome, unwieldy, and frankly, a sitting duck

Indricotherium wrote: »

.............deeply flawed...................

So a Galaxy class ship is a deeply flawed design on account of its size & mass? No, sure if we're judging on that basis why stop there; the Ambassador class, Vor'Cha class, Negh'Var class, in fact all capital ships must be 'deeply flawed' no? The Galaxy class is in fact a miracle of design, entirely self sufficient, & capable in many, many facets of exploration that smaller ships just simply aren't equipped for. In battle, yes it's powerful, but I think it has some exploitable weaknesses - bear in mind the Galaxy class ship is the last of the 'innocent' era of Starfleet ships - not a warship, but a ship of peace, diplomacy and exploration. Post Galaxy era ships have a far more obvious defensive capability, which is understandable given recent threats like the Borg and the Dominion. In that era of Trek, I think the Galaxy class ship (unless refit), doesn't offer a whole lot in terms of fleet defence. It's a ship of its time.

When I say 'slow, cumbersome, unwieldy & frankly a sitting duck', I'm talking about in comparison to the much nimbler Defiant class. It's all relative dude. Your claims of a deeply flawed design were flawed, because the examples you gave were all explainable, & in no way were telling of a major design flaw.

Myrddin

Indricotherium wrote: »

If a Galaxy class were marooned in the delta quadrant, it wouldn't have been half as big a struggle

It's an interesting concept. On one hand I'd agree, it'd be a far more likely to be better able to sustain the crew. On the other hand though, with all that increased power comes an increased need for resources. You'd have to wonder, if the laws of thermodynamics are in effect in Star Trek, you don't get something for nothing - and therefore a Galaxy class ship would have a significant draw on resources like deuterium, dilithium crystals, & antimatter.

You would imagine that it would be better equipped to obtain resources.

Never got the whole Voyager lack of anti matter etc. Where are the delta quadrant trading posts that supply independent ships??

helimachoptor

Myrddin wrote: »

So a Galaxy class ship is a deeply flawed design on account of its size & mass? No, sure if we're judging on that basis why stop there; the Ambassador class, Vor'Cha class, Negh'Var class, in fact all capital ships must be 'deeply flawed' no? The Galaxy class is in fact a miracle of design, entirely self sufficient, & capable in many, many facets of exploration that smaller ships just simply aren't equipped for. In battle, yes it's powerful, but I think it has some exploitable weaknesses - bear in mind the Galaxy class ship is the last of the 'innocent' era of Starfleet ships - not a warship, but a ship of peace, diplomacy and exploration. Post Galaxy era ships have a far more obvious defensive capability, which is understandable given recent threats like the Borg and the Dominion. In that era of Trek, I think the Galaxy class ship (unless refit), doesn't offer a whole lot in terms of fleet defence. It's a ship of its time.

When I say 'slow, cumbersome, unwieldy & frankly a sitting duck', I'm talking about in comparison to the much nimbler Defiant class. It's all relative dude. Your claims of a deeply flawed design were flawed, because the examples you gave were all explainable, & in no way were telling of a major design flaw.

Id say the Galaxys would be upgraded a la "all good things" It has the hull to carry a lot more firepower if needed, Galaxys are capital ships, they should be advancing like tanks and blowing stuff away with a combined volley of phasers and torpedos while the defiants, mirandas etc are darting in and around the line creating havoc and breaking up formation

Myrddin wrote: »

It's an interesting concept. On one hand I'd agree, it'd be a far more likely to be better able to sustain the crew. On the other hand though, with all that increased power comes an increased need for resources. You'd have to wonder, if the laws of thermodynamics are in effect in Star Trek, you don't get something for nothing - and therefore a Galaxy class ship would have a significant draw on resources like deuterium, dilithium crystals, & antimatter.

Can probably assume either way, but you can also say that a Galaxy isnt going to have to turn tail everytime they see a kaison ship, they'll just smoke it.
In the episode where voyager is captured, i could see the Enterprise going toe to toe with those 3 bigger ships and winning


Bloody love these conversations

helimachoptor

Daith wrote: »

Except for it's duration of DS9 the Defiant operated mostly by itself and survived more encounters than the Enterprise

The Enterprise lost to a 20 year old Bird of Prey. The Defiant to an enemy who disabled an entire Klingon, Romulan and Federation fleet.

The Defiant flies around the Enterprise while Riker is still working his joystick.

Come on man, that was a plot device so they can break out the shiney new Ent E in the next film

If i need to do a hit and run.. Defiant every day

Need to defend a fixed point.. Galaxy

Myrddin

helimachoptor wrote: »

Id say the Galaxys would be upgraded a la "all good things" It has the hull to carry a lot more firepower if needed, Galaxys are capital ships, they should be advancing like tanks and blowing stuff away with a combined volley of phasers and torpedos while the defiants, mirandas etc are darting in and around the line creating havoc and breaking up formation

I'd say so, eventually anyway (AGT was a good bit down the line, so that particular tech was a fair bit away). I'd say a Galaxy refit for combat (Dominion War era) would do well by some upgraded shield tech, ablative armour in key areas, seriously upgraded phaser arrays, possibly the addition of some pulse phaser canons, and obviously quantum torpedo launchers. More or less the exact same as the Lakota refit. Given all of that, it'd make for one serious vessel alright.

Can probably assume either way, but you can also say that a Galaxy isnt going to have to turn tail everytime they see a kaison ship, they'll just smoke it.

I dunno, those Trabe Kazon capitol ships looked HUGE. Two or three of those would not bode well for a stock Galaxy class imo. Boyager had no choice but to run from them, which probably saved it really. Battling those things, especially a few of them, would call for nothing short of a large warship (something like that prototype Dominion ship we seen in "Valiant").
[/QUOTE]

Myrddin

helimachoptor wrote: »

Come on man, that was a plot device so they can break out the shiney new Ent E in the next film

While that it was, it was depicted in canon so can't really be excused like that...that's the problem with bad writing. On a bad day, I could have come up with twenty better scenarios to send the Ent-D off to starship heaven.

Why are you so focused on the bird of prey? Were the torpedoes also 20 years old?

The fact that, for some reason, riker and worf did not immediately blast them to **** is what caused the loss of enterprise.

Myrddin

Deleted User wrote: »

Why are you so focused on the bird of prey? Were the torpedoes also 20 years old?

The fact that, for some reason, riker and worf did not immediately blast them to **** is what caused the loss of enterprise.

I agree, it was a plot device...a very bad one at that. However, it's what we got on screen & therefore we have to look at the 'facts'

1) Without shields, the Ent-D (like any other ship) is seriously vulnerable.
2) Without ablative armour, the hull (like any other ship) isn't able to withstand a battering
3) Generations was the SECOND time, the Ent-D was defeated by Birds of Prey (see Rascals - despite being fully operational also).
4) A Defiant class ship, being infinitely more advanced than a BoP, poses a far larger risk to a Galaxy class ship (ablative armour, more advanced shields, and weapons, far more manoeuvrable, and faster).
5) The dated shield tech of a Galaxy class ship just doesn't indicate to me that it could withstand a volley of Quantum torpedoes.

helimachoptor

Myrddin wrote: »

While that it was, it was depicted in canon so can't really be excused like that...that's the problem with bad writing. On a bad day, I could have come up with twenty better scenarios to send the Ent-D off to starship heaven.

I agree.. but the Defiant could also have been take out by a old BoP..

Myrddin

helimachoptor wrote: »

I agree.. but the Defiant could also have been take out by a old BoP..

In that same situation, I'm not so sure. Ablative armour is hugely effective.