The Federations Need For Multiple Ship Classes

[The_Baroness]

All they need to do is get you from A to B, so why do we have so many manufacturers, with so many different models?

Because that's how they can get our money. We don't need those manufacturers and models. Or more exactly, we don't need those manufacturers and models. The manufacturers need them; we're just taught to enjoy the variety (especially when there's no need for it), and then to pay for it.

So a family sedan, a mini-van, a pick-up truck, and a sports car can all do the same jobs equally well?

No. That was kind of my point, as the reason for diversity.
I did say I kinda forgot what my point was as I was typing. I was at work and the phone just WOULDNT STOP RINGING!!! and I kinda lost track of what I point I was trying to make...but yeah, it was kind of that...

 

[Chaos Descending]

^^^ I was on your level, The Baron. Timo clearly was not. He's wrong, of course, but that's ok.

 

[Timo]

Just goes to show that they've got you.

Haven't got me yet.

(^This is why I don't have a sports car, obviously.)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Satyrquaze]

So a family sedan, a mini-van, a pick-up truck, and a sports car can all do the same jobs equally well?

The point is, nobody needs a sports car. A "general car" can easily be built, and can do all the possible jobs one could expect of a passenger vehicle, but we're being told that it's a good idea to optimize rather than to generalize. That intuitively makes sense - but our intuition fails us more often than not. Optimal cars are simply wasted resources in the bigger picture - and don't even make our life better in the smaller picture, as we find when our sports car fails to ford that river or take aboard the family with the kids. Even the life of Joe Average is general and varied enough that Joe really needs five different types of car to be happy. The answer that is not to buy five different cars, but to buy five cars in one. Or then revise one's car-manufacturer-made standards on "happy".

Starfleet wouldn't think the way car consumers do. A starship captain doesn't buy a ship for himself; the organization buys it for him, and knows better than he does what he really needs.

Timo Saloniemi

Wasn't that Hitler's idea? A car for the people?

 

[The Wormhole]

It seemed like they were caught off guards.... The Dominions just sorta like moved in...uninvited...and made themselves at home. When the war started, they were using a lot of Defiant-Class ships.

In all Star Trek, we've seen exactly 9 Defiant class ships. The Defiant, the Valiant, the Sao Paulo, two unnamed ships in the fleet at the end of DS9's A Call to Arms, two unnamed ships in Voyager's Message in a Bottle, and two unnamed ships in the fleet at the end of Voyager's Endgame.

 

[Galileo7]

The Federation has multiple ship classes most likely due to mission purposes as in the U.S. Navy. Also, as an engineering test to what class endure, look at the Excelsior class was born in ST III 23rd century and is still in service in the 24th century.

 

[The Wormhole]

^^Not only that, but the USS Excelsior itself was still in service during TNG's seventh season. That ship was built to last.

 

[Galileo7]

^^Not only that, but the USS Excelsior itself was still in service during TNG's seventh season. That ship was built to last.

Some might dislike the class, but in the Starfleet the U.S.S. Excelsior NCC-2000 and it's Excelsior Class was constantly seen in NG and DS9. Definitely a starship built to last, well said.

 

[indolover]

The Galaxy-class seems to me to be an overrated ship class.

In terms of scientific/exploratory capability, granted it's worth its while. But in combat terms, we seldom saw the Enterprise-D match a tactically equivalent vessel. This depends on the character of the CO of course, but a CO can only work with the capabilities of his vessel. Somebody militarily-skilled such as Sisko couldn't be as successful in a runabout as opposed to the Defiant, for obvious reasons.

Besides, we don't know how the Federation's economy works. It could be that building Galaxy-class ships (or even Sovereign-class vessels) are more expensive o build. it could even be a matter of pragmatism or need. Starfleet has various assignments/duties, and a heavy vessel like a Galaxy-class may be more suited to specific missions. What if a maneourvable vessel is needed? Galaxy-class vessels are hardly that. What if Starfleet needs to simply show teeth and muscle and nothing more? You would deploy a Defiant-class vessel, or other more militarily suited ship.

it's kind of like saying "why not simply build one kind of personal computer? Why do we need laptops/netbooks, desktops and tablets?!" Well, different computers are designed for different users. Not everybody needs the power of a desktop for specific applications/needs. Starfleet missions must be similar in form.

 

[Robert DeSoto]

So a family sedan, a mini-van, a pick-up truck, and a sports car can all do the same jobs equally well?

The point is, nobody needs a sports car. A "general car" can easily be built, and can do all the possible jobs one could expect of a passenger vehicle, but we're being told that it's a good idea to optimize rather than to generalize. That intuitively makes sense - but our intuition fails us more often than not. Optimal cars are simply wasted resources in the bigger picture - and don't even make our life better in the smaller picture, as we find when our sports car fails to ford that river or take aboard the family with the kids. Even the life of Joe Average is general and varied enough that Joe really needs five different types of car to be happy. The answer that is not to buy five different cars, but to buy five cars in one. Or then revise one's car-manufacturer-made standards on "happy".

Starfleet wouldn't think the way car consumers do. A starship captain doesn't buy a ship for himself; the organization buys it for him, and knows better than he does what he really needs.

Timo Saloniemi

lol well I need my sports car. I need it to get my adrenaline pumping. I need it to hit the race track. I need it to pick up girls for the club or for dinner. But I don't have kids and I don't drive across rivers. So I'd say my intuition to buy a sports car instead of a minivan or SUV worked out pretty well haha

 

[Lorna]

I think the point I was trying to make is this:

You don't need a Galaxy Class, an Akira Class and an Intrepid Class in the fleet. All you need is one single design and build 3 or so size variants of said design for specific roles.

The saucer sections of the different size variants could have different internal rooms for their specific missions.

 

[Chaos Descending]

How do you know that the technology scales well enough that your plan would work?

 

[Lorna]

How do you know that the technology scales well enough that your plan would work?

That does not make any sense. The internal design would obviously be altered to accommodate the new size. It's not like as you scale down you also scale down the rooms. You're not keeping the same number of rooms, the number of rooms would become less.
Obviously the Intrepid replacement would have a warp core the same size that the Intrepid class used and the Galaxy replacement would have the same size warp core that the Galaxy class used. The warp cores would be the same, the engineering sections would be generally the same but the sizes would match those ships they are replacing.

My picture in the above image is not to scale. From on screen we know that the bridge of a Galaxy class is similar in size to that of an Intrepid. So the bridges on the scale down would remain the same but the saucer on the smaller variant wont be as large as the larger variant because there aren't as many rooms.

Such tech as warp nacelles, warp cores, engines and deflectors just to name a few can easily be scaled down, they're scaled up or down on all ships of different sizes. The deflector on an Intrepid is not as large as the one on a Galaxy.

 

[Satyrquaze]

So, the Federation would have what the Klingons have in the Bird of Prey?

 

[RyuRoots]

I think the point I was trying to make is this:

You don't need a Galaxy Class, an Akira Class and an Intrepid Class in the fleet. All you need is one single design and build 3 or so size variants of said design for specific roles.

The saucer sections of the different size variants could have different internal rooms for their specific missions.

Aside from being visually extremely boring, this is just ridiculous. You assume that this is the most efficient design for any possible mission, ever, of all space and time. The Akira and Defiant are optimized for combat, not a different design shrunk down and shoehorned into being optimized for it. Things don't scale down that simply and conveniently. It's, to use a naval comparison again, like saying the Navy should use nothing but their largest battleship, and just scale it down for other ship classes.

I'd also like to add that I personally think the pizza-slice-ship here looks laughable.

 

[Canadave]

Okay, even if they were to build one class in different sizes, who's to say that would last as it went into production? Maybe they'd build a couple scouts, and realize that the internal volume is all wrong, and not an efficient use of space, so they make more Norways or Novas. Maybe the Intrepid-replacement can't hold certain specialized sensor banks, so they have to make Nebulas. And what if the weapon arcs aren't optimal, and you need to build Steamrunners or Defiants for defence-purposes?

There are a whole host of reasons for varying hull sizes and shapes, is my point.

 

[Lorna]

None of you are understanding. It's not a simple scale down, the ship design remains the same and the shell remains the same but the inside of the ship is designed for the ships specific role.

One thing I'm sick of hearing over and over again is comparisons to Earth navies. There is NO comparison. Earth sea navies are nothing at all like a space fleet of ships especially 300 to 400 years in the future.

All starfleet ships have the same stuff, nacelles, a deflector, a warp core, a bridge, phasers, torpedo launchers. The only difference is the size of those things and what rooms are on the inside of the ship.

You could take an Intrepid class ship, scale it up and within that extra volume add the rooms that a Galaxy class has and that Intrepid scale up could replace a Galaxy class.
The Intrepid has the same as a Galaxy, it has a deflector, phasers, torp launchers, a bridge, nacelles. The only difference is size and number of rooms and number of crew.
Scale the Intrepid up and you can add to it's inside and make it a Galaxy replacement.

You're all overcomplicating things.

 

[Avon]

scaling things up doesnt work like that.

also do you think shuttles should look the same too?
an intrepid shaped one that you have to crawl into the shuttlebay to get inside?

 

[Chaos Descending]

Lorna, you clearly don't understand the concept of "scale" from a purely technical / engineering standpoint.

Simply put, it doesn't work to make a truck that's twice as big and just put in an engine that's twice as big.

 

[Canadave]

Let me put it this way, then: on a big ship, a saucer makes a lot of sense. You get a lot of usable volume relative to the amount of material you need to build it. I believe the only shape that's more efficient is a sphere.

But with a small ship, a perfect saucer doesn't make sense. You get a lot of unusable volume due to the narrowing at the edges, and the circular exterior walls make for awkwardly shaped rooms. Not to mention the fact that weapons become very hard to place so that they have a good firing arc, and enough room to be of effective size. Hence why some ships have oblong saucers, like the Nova and Norway, or aren't saucers at all, like the Defiant.