An idea about Ambassador-class starships . . .

[seanrobertson]

I believe it was explicitly stated that the Defiant was the first dedicted warship of the federation in the TNG era. Supposedly this was due to the the idea that "starfleets mission is one of peace" that got shaken up by the Borg, and later the Dominion.

Sisko talked about that in "The Search Pt. I," yes. Officially, little D's an "escort"; unofficially, she was the prototype for a "new Federation battle fleet," he said.

As for the registry numbers meaning one class was newer, I don't think that tells us anything at all. We've already seen starfleet re-use registry numbers.

With letters tacked on the end. That's not apples to apples.

Besides that, in every day life you've got numbers that are used out of sequence despite something newer or better being out there, from graphics cards to processors, to TV models, to fighter jets. It could simply mean that the "70000's" range is used for a certain SIZE of ship rather than its generation, or perhaps its role in the fleet.

There are exceptions, but you cannot overlook the general trend.

2160s: Daedalus-class Essex and Horizon, NCCs 173 and 176 respectively

2260s: Constitution-class Enterprise, Hood and Lexington, 1701, 1703 and 1709 ' '.

2280s: Miranda-class Reliant and Saratoga, 1864 and 1867 ' '.
Excelsior prototype, NX-2000

2320s (?): Ambassador-class Zhukov, Yamaguchi and Excalibur, 26136, 26510, 26517 ' '.

2350s-60s: Nebula-class Farragut, Monitor and Merrimac, 60597, 61826, 61827 ' '.
Galaxy-class Galaxy, Venture, Odyssey 70637 71854 71832

2370s: Intrepid-class Voyager, Bellerophon, 74656, 74705
Defiant-class Valiant, Sao Paulo, 75418, 75633.

The newer the ships, the higher the registries. As I said, there are exceptions, but the best explanation is that they generally follow chronological order. That works better than other explanations. Your size idea doesn't work, for one. Otherwise, why would the Voyager and the Defiant share registries in the 74000 range? The former masses 700,000 tons. The Defiant is probably closer to one TENTH that. And I dare say neither of those ships fill similar roles in Starfleet!

Given the sheer number of torpedo tubes on the Akira, it can't be anything other than a warship. And, as stated earlier the Defiant was the first dedicated warship, designed after the encounter with the borg, and thus after the Galaxy class.

I didn't say the Akira can't be a warship, though, did I? I said it is tactically inferior to the GCS.

And I don't deny the Defiant is their first dedicated warship. My point's very simple: during TNG's run, the Galaxies were Starfleet's baddest.

[lord Martiya]

Well, the Akira with its fifteen torpedo launchers is an hell of an enemy, but only as long as it has torpedoes and then it's better run, while the Galaxy can still blow up enemy ships even without torpedoes.

[TheHammer]

I believe it was explicitly stated that the Defiant was the first dedicted warship of the federation in the TNG era. Supposedly this was due to the the idea that "starfleets mission is one of peace" that got shaken up by the Borg, and later the Dominion.

Sisko talked about that in "The Search Pt. I," yes. Officially, little D's an "escort"; unofficially, she was the prototype for a "new Federation battle fleet," he said.

As for the registry numbers meaning one class was newer, I don't think that tells us anything at all. We've already seen starfleet re-use registry numbers.

With letters tacked on the end. That's not apples to apples.

Besides that, in every day life you've got numbers that are used out of sequence despite something newer or better being out there, from graphics cards to processors, to TV models, to fighter jets. It could simply mean that the "70000's" range is used for a certain SIZE of ship rather than its generation, or perhaps its role in the fleet.

There are exceptions, but you cannot overlook the general trend.

2160s: Daedalus-class Essex and Horizon, NCCs 173 and 176 respectively

2260s: Constitution-class Enterprise, Hood and Lexington, 1701, 1703 and 1709 ' '.

2280s: Miranda-class Reliant and Saratoga, 1864 and 1867 ' '.
Excelsior prototype, NX-2000

2320s (?): Ambassador-class Zhukov, Yamaguchi and Excalibur, 26136, 26510, 26517 ' '.

2350s-60s: Nebula-class Farragut, Monitor and Merrimac, 60597, 61826, 61827 ' '.
Galaxy-class Galaxy, Venture, Odyssey 70637 71854 71832

2370s: Intrepid-class Voyager, Bellerophon, 74656, 74705
Defiant-class Valiant, Sao Paulo, 75418, 75633.

The newer the ships, the higher the registries. As I said, there are exceptions, but the best explanation is that they generally follow chronological order. That works better than other explanations. Your size idea doesn't work, for one. Otherwise, why would the Voyager and the Defiant share registries in the 74000 range? The former masses 700,000 tons. The Defiant is probably closer to one TENTH that. And I dare say neither of those ships fill similar roles in Starfleet!

The size thing was just an off the cuff remark for one possibilitiy. Point I was getting was that the registry number seems as random as the names people give their children. There is a nice article on it here:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/artic ... stries.htm

Saying a higher number = more advanced would be akin to saying an F-111 is more advanced to an F-22.

Given the sheer number of torpedo tubes on the Akira, it can't be anything other than a warship. And, as stated earlier the Defiant was the first dedicated warship, designed after the encounter with the borg, and thus after the Galaxy class.

I didn't say the Akira can't be a warship, though, did I? I said it is tactically inferior to the GCS.

And I don't deny the Defiant is their first dedicated warship. My point's very simple: during TNG's run, the Galaxies were Starfleet's baddest.

Well at the begining of the TNG run the Galaxies were brand new. So yes they were probably the best Starfleet had. But Akiras were clearly later designs built for combat with the new mindset Starfleet had.

[seanrobertson]

The size thing was just an off the cuff remark for one possibilitiy. Point I was getting was that the registry number seems as random as the names people give their children. There is a nice article on it here:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/artic ... stries.htm

... An article which concludes:

"Summarizing, as a matter of fact the known registries of Starfleet vessels may only roughly correspond with the ages of the ships."


Roughly corresponding is good enough for our purposes, and as I've said at least twice now, it's the best understanding of the system we have. Even as an imperfect theory, it's better than any other I've seen, including the alternates mentioned at EAS.

Saying a higher number = more advanced would be akin to saying an F-111 is more advanced to an F-22.

I don't mean to be rude, Hammer, but are you fucking kidding me? This real-world analogy -- which is a red herring -- is supposed to disprove the list I gave you? The list which explicitly demonstrated that new ships (or the first time we SEE those ships) consistently have ever-higher registries?

Well at the begining of the TNG run the Galaxies were brand new. So yes they were probably the best Starfleet had. But Akiras were clearly later designs built for combat with the new mindset Starfleet had.

Uh, okay: just how were Akiras "clearly later designs built for combat"? That's popular fanon, but fanon holds all kinds of horseshit dear (like the idea that B'Rels are the same tiny BoPs Kruge operated).

Honestly, there's no evidence of what you suggest whatsoever. Or are you seriously going to tell me that Akiras are newer than Galaxies on the simplistic basis that we first saw the former in "First Contact"?

I mean, out of the many thousands of Starfleet ships out there, we surely would've seen Akiras if they were around before and during TNG. You know, since during the course of that show, we caught brief glimpses of perhaps .5% of the entire fleet

Y'know, it's funny, but as an avid DS9 fan, I once kept pretty good track of how the Allies and Dominion "Axis" ships fared in combat, class by class. It's been years since I accessed those stats, but I distinctly recall that we saw several Akiras get their shit pushed in, just like this one.

But apart from the battle to retake Chin'Toka, we NEVER saw a GCS destroyed onscreen. The Galaxy herself endured heavy fire in the same engagement, but we never saw her spin out of control, eh?

Plenty of things might happen offscreen, sure enough, but any argument based on as much as an appeal to ignorance. To a large extent, what we see is what we get.

And the fact is, when it would've suited an Akira to let loose with heavy barrages from its supposed 15 tubes ... just where were all of these torpedoes?

Now, I'll give the Thunderchild a break in "FC"; she might've already unloaded most of her inventory on the cube.

But I can't say the same of "fresh" ships we see throughout DS9 and in a VGR episode. We simply didn't see massive salvos fired in "Message in a Bottle." We didn't see 'em in "Sacrifice of Angels." We didn't see 'em in "Tears of the Prophets," "The Changing Face of Evil" OR "What You Leave Behind."

You can't tell me those ships were "holding back" because all the while, the Defiant was cutting loose with presumably superior quantum torpedoes left and fucking right in ALL of aforesaid battles.

Do I need to summarize this, or are we on the same page now?

[Crazedwraith]

Although you have a good point about Registry numbers. How do you explain away that Akira, Steamrunners, and Sabres, although have lower registry numbers are appear to be of the same design lineage as the Sovereign class that first appeared at the same time as them? Hull colouration, nacelle and escape pod design are all similar to the brand new Soveriegn.

If these ships really are older than the Galaxy, Nebula and so forth why are do they have the more modern styling. Or did Starfleet design the Akira, then go on do design the galaxy style nacelles and then said 'you know what? These are shit!' and go back to an older style?

[Eternal_Freedom]

If you're not just counting DS9 we can add the Yamato and the Big E herself to the list.

I think Crazedwraith has an excellent point about the stylings and so forth. In-universe there must be an explanation for the difference in nacelle design - better subspace effecieny perhaps, or some shit like that. Even incompetent Starfleet engineers would not design something, change it, run with it for at least two classes then change back to old stuff.

Perhaps, and this is pure speculation here, the nacelle styles and hull forms we see in the Akira, Sovereign, Steamrunner and Sabre classes are optimised for performance in combat whilst the styles on the Galaxy, Nebula and Ambassador classes are optimised for long-duration/fuel effeciency for exploration.

If that holds water, then the Akira's would indeed be newer than the Galaxies, which arent built as warships.

[seanrobertson]

Although you have a good point about Registry numbers. How do you explain away that Akira, Steamrunners, and Sabres, although have lower registry numbers are appear to be of the same design lineage as the Sovereign class that first appeared at the same time as them? Hull colouration, nacelle and escape pod design are all similar to the brand new Soveriegn.

Yeah, that's true. Even some of the "aztek"-like details are similar.

The answer is probably that, in spite of the lower registries, these are newer ships. (The same thing happened with the Prometheus, NX 59650, and the Andy Dick hologram basically told us it was brand-new.) It could've been that the class of '96 were commissioned in the 2350s and but had longer development cycles, were put on the back burner or some such thing.

At the end of the day, I have no problem assuming the suckers are newer than the GCS. Honestly, I guessed as much for the longest time. What I don't think is reasonable is:

A. to get almost nihilistic about registries. Older ships generally have lower registries than newer ones. Simple as that.

However, it's equally clear that registries within 10-20k of one another could just as easily roll out of the shipyards simultaneously.

Thus, I'm wrong to use that to conclude all known Akiras were actually built and zipping around space before the Galaxy prototype made her maiden voyage. That's overly simplistic.

B. to masturbate over the "superior" ACS, which was my primary concern from the start. No one in the thread has done this, but believe me, every time I've ever seen the ACS subject come up, someone -- including at the BBS -- invariably faps about its 15 torpedo tubes.

Very close examination of the CGI model reveals Eaves' intended 15 torpedo tubes, sure enough. Then again, we never see these launchers up-close, so I have mixed feelings about recognizing them.

More importantly, we certainly never see an ACS use two or more launchers at once, even when it would've been a great idea to fire about, oh, 30000 torpedoes simultaneously So, I say there's no evidence that the ship's anything really special. We know its shields can withstand about a second-long burst from a Warbird's main disruptor. We also know it can fire about four photon torpedoes in rapid succession. Beyond that ...

[seanrobertson]

But apart from the battle to retake Chin'Toka, we NEVER saw a GCS destroyed onscreen.

Nitpick - don't forget the USS Odyssey in "The Jem'Hadar" DS9.

Ah, fuck!

You're quite right. I meant to qualify that with "during the war"

[seanrobertson]

If you're not just counting DS9 we can add the Yamato and the Big E herself to the list.

Right. As I told D13, I meant to say during the Dominion War

I think Crazedwraith has an excellent point about the stylings and so forth. In-universe there must be an explanation for the difference in nacelle design - better subspace effecieny perhaps, or some shit like that. Even incompetent Starfleet engineers would not design something, change it, run with it for at least two classes then change back to old stuff.

D13 has a point on that: it's not impossible. Assuming the FC ships were actually built before the GCSs, it could've been their new-fangled nacelles didn't work out as expected. After all, the Sovereign, Intrepid and Nova classes -- ships we know for sure are new -- have wildly different-looking nacelle designs than the '96 class.

But you are right. Crazedwraith's point about the stylings is spot-on and forced me to reconsider my reasoning. My best guess now's that the Akira, Saber, Norway and Steamrunner were commissioned sometime in the 2350s. Construction started but, for whatever reason, was stymied or halted such that the first-flight Galaxies were completed well in advance.

Perhaps, and this is pure speculation here, the nacelle styles and hull forms we see in the Akira, Sovereign, Steamrunner and Sabre classes are optimised for performance in combat whilst the styles on the Galaxy, Nebula and Ambassador classes are optimised for long-duration/fuel effeciency for exploration.

If that holds water, then the Akira's would indeed be newer than the Galaxies, which arent built as warships.

Maybe. Of course, as I said, the Sovereign's nacelles are quite a bit different than the rest.

[TheHammer]

The size thing was just an off the cuff remark for one possibilitiy. Point I was getting was that the registry number seems as random as the names people give their children. There is a nice article on it here:

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/artic ... stries.htm

... An article which concludes:

"Summarizing, as a matter of fact the known registries of Starfleet vessels may only roughly correspond with the ages of the ships."


Roughly corresponding is good enough for our purposes, and as I've said at least twice now, it's the best understanding of the system we have. Even as an imperfect theory, it's better than any other I've seen, including the alternates mentioned at EAS.

Saying a higher number = more advanced would be akin to saying an F-111 is more advanced to an F-22.

I don't mean to be rude, Hammer, but are you fucking kidding me? This real-world analogy -- which is a red herring -- is supposed to disprove the list I gave you? The list which explicitly demonstrated that new ships (or the first time we SEE those ships) consistently have ever-higher registries?

I love how you skimmed over the article right before that outlying the USS Prometheus NX-59650, a design not introduced into well into Voyager and a canon example of a newer ship with a lower registry number. The Crux of the article is there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason behind the numbering system. It could have something to do with the shipyard it was produced at, or something completely arbitrary. It is NOT a reliable indication on which vessel is "newer" or not.

Well at the begining of the TNG run the Galaxies were brand new. So yes they were probably the best Starfleet had. But Akiras were clearly later designs built for combat with the new mindset Starfleet had.

Uh, okay: just how were Akiras "clearly later designs built for combat"? That's popular fanon, but fanon holds all kinds of horseshit dear (like the idea that B'Rels are the same tiny BoPs Kruge operated).

The point was that the Akira was a later design built for combat, not about its effectiveness. The 15 torpedo tubes compared to only 2 on the Galaxy class is evidence enough of it being a warship. Torpedoes are the heavy weapons of star trek, and the only reason a ship would have so many tubes is to delivery a lot of punch in a short period of time. Not something you'd design a multipurpose ship like a Galaxy to do.

Honestly, there's no evidence of what you suggest whatsoever. Or are you seriously going to tell me that Akiras are newer than Galaxies on the simplistic basis that we first saw the former in "First Contact"?

I mean, out of the many thousands of Starfleet ships out there, we surely would've seen Akiras if they were around before and during TNG. You know, since during the course of that show, we caught brief glimpses of perhaps .5% of the entire fleet

Y'know, it's funny, but as an avid DS9 fan, I once kept pretty good track of how the Allies and Dominion "Axis" ships fared in combat, class by class. It's been years since I accessed those stats, but I distinctly recall that we saw several Akiras get their shit pushed in, just like this one.

Irrelevent to which one is "newer".

But apart from the battle to retake Chin'Toka, we NEVER saw a GCS destroyed onscreen. The Galaxy herself endured heavy fire in the same engagement, but we never saw her spin out of control, eh?

Plenty of things might happen offscreen, sure enough, but any argument based on as much as an appeal to ignorance. To a large extent, what we see is what we get.

And the fact is, when it would've suited an Akira to let loose with heavy barrages from its supposed 15 tubes ... just where were all of these torpedoes?

Now, I'll give the Thunderchild a break in "FC"; she might've already unloaded most of her inventory on the cube.

But I can't say the same of "fresh" ships we see throughout DS9 and in a VGR episode. We simply didn't see massive salvos fired in "Message in a Bottle." We didn't see 'em in "Sacrifice of Angels." We didn't see 'em in "Tears of the Prophets," "The Changing Face of Evil" OR "What You Leave Behind."

You can't tell me those ships were "holding back" because all the while, the Defiant was cutting loose with presumably superior quantum torpedoes left and fucking right in ALL of aforesaid battles.

Do I need to summarize this, or are we on the same page now?

All irrelevent to which one was newer. Besides the fact that this isn't about combat effectiveness, everyone knows Galaxys saw a refit during the dominion war to make them stand up better in combat.

You as much as admit that many of its design elements have more in common with a Sovreign than the Galaxy, In addition to its function as a warship being a post TNG concept for starfleet. Your only evidence that they are a pre-galaxy design is the inconsistently used registry numbers. Perhaps the ships were initially supposed to be built from an earlier class of ship, say Ambasador class. The orders were placed, registry and names issue, but later seeing that class was outdated they cancelled those contracts and focused on the newer Akira class while retaining the already commisioned names and numbers. Seems just as plausible as anything you've proposed.

[Rommel123]

I love how you skimmed over the article right before that outlying the USS Prometheus NX-59650, a design not introduced into well into Voyager and a canon example of a newer ship with a lower registry number. The Crux of the article is there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason behind the numbering system. It could have something to do with the shipyard it was produced at, or something completely arbitrary. It is NOT a reliable indication on which vessel is "newer" or not.

Prometheus was testbed and probably most advanced Federation ship at that point, it seems logical that Federation will run counterinteligennce ops to try to hide it, althought it didn't work. But low registry might be intended to hide fact that ship is brand new and made to kick some major ass.

[Skylon]

I love how you skimmed over the article right before that outlying the USS Prometheus NX-59650, a design not introduced into well into Voyager and a canon example of a newer ship with a lower registry number. The Crux of the article is there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason behind the numbering system. It could have something to do with the shipyard it was produced at, or something completely arbitrary. It is NOT a reliable indication on which vessel is "newer" or not.

There are some cases where the registry's are flat out a mistake. The Prometheus' dedication plaque had NX-74913 as the registry, which was intended by Mike Okuda, and was more in step with the sequence of registries. The effects company didn't get the memo that, that was the registry and used the NX-59650.

A similar gaffe occurred with the USS Yamato in TNG. When a "phantom" version of it appeared in "Where Silence Has Lease", Riker states its registry as NCC-1305-E...the writer of the episode was unfamiliar with how registries worked, and Mike Okuda was set to correct the script when he was told the line was being dropped. Only it wasn't. When the ship later appeared in "Contagion" computer displays showed it as NCC-71807.

Thus you have two cases where the ships registries contradict. When such a contradiction exists, I'll go with the number that makes more sense.

So, production errors aside, I do find there to be some reliability to the numbering scheme. Members of the production crew clearly had a plan that "Hey, newer ships are NCC-70000 and up" for TNG thru VOY, and for the most part it translated to screen.

[seanrobertson]

I love how you skimmed over the article right before that outlying the USS Prometheus NX-59650, a design not introduced into well into Voyager and a canon example of a newer ship with a lower registry number.

If you want to draw attention to specific parts of the article, please quote from it.

Besides, if you read my other posts, I freely admit the Prometheus' low registry is strange for a brand-new ship. You'd also see that I conceded the Akira and the other ships which debuted in 1996 seem to buck the trend as well.

Rather than play skeptic and pretend the system's too complicated to make sense of, however, I acknowledge that the registries generally follow the order in which ships are commissioned. There are obvious exceptions, but those are easily enough explained. The Prometheus is particularly easy to address. Its registry could have been deceptively low for intelligence purposes. Just as likely, since the thing incorporates a technology unlike anything else in Starfleet, it could be that Starfleet started building the thing and it took a couple of decades to work the kinks out (to say nothing of the possibility that the project could've been shelved more than once in that time).

The Crux of the article is there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason behind the numbering system. It could have something to do with the shipyard it was produced at, or something completely arbitrary. It is NOT a reliable indication on which vessel is "newer" or not.

It depends. I was wrong to use it to conclude the Akira necessarily pre-dates the first-flight Galaxies. But it's simply stupid to deny that it works most of the time. Besides, do you doubt Starfleet could have built upwards of 75,000 ships in over 200 years? Remember that count includes ships which are glorified shuttlecraft, like the USS Jenolan and the Runabouts.

The point was that the Akira was a later design built for combat, not about its effectiveness. The 15 torpedo tubes compared to only 2 on the Galaxy class is evidence enough of it being a warship. Torpedoes are the heavy weapons of star trek, and the only reason a ship would have so many tubes is to delivery a lot of punch in a short period of time. Not something you'd design a multipurpose ship like a Galaxy to do.

I also addressed this. There is no concrete evidence the thing was built for combat. Do I tend to agree that it was? Yeah, sure. But while we're being skeptical, I might note that those 15 torpedo tubes are only visible on close examination of the model. We never see the ship close enough onscreen to confirm more than a handful at most. (We don't see dedication plaques up-close, either, but if we could, isn't it a funny coincidence that the future admiralty includes Roddenberry, Berman and Braga? And while we're on the general subject, how about the giant duck on the Enterprise-D's MSD? We don't really see it, but it's certainly there. Should we take that as canon? )

Circumstantial evidence suggests that, if the Akiras have so many torpedo tubes, there are apparently serious limitations on using them. My guess is that a majority of them are micro-torpedo tubes, which would make the Akira utterly lethal against large swarms of highly maneuverable opponents. (At the same time, those smaller torpedoes are basically useless against Starfleet's heavy-hitting enemies; e.g., the Borg, Jem'Hadar and even the Cardassians.)

As I asked before, assuming a third of those launchers faced forward, why didn't the ACS in "Message in a Bottle" use them on the Prometheus or those three Warbirds? Why don't we see them used in ANY of the many big fleet engagements?

Irrelevent to which one is "newer".

True, but don't overlook the fact that its age and relative strength are separate issues.

All irrelevent to which one was newer.

See above.

Besides the fact that this isn't about combat effectiveness, everyone knows Galaxys saw a refit during the dominion war to make them stand up better in combat.

Apparently you missed the multiple times I pointed out the propensity for ACS wankers to suggest its 15 tubes means it's head and shoulders above a GCS in combat. (Aside: have you never encountered such people? Just curious.)

You as much as admit that many of its design elements have more in common with a Sovreign than the Galaxy, In addition to its function as a warship being a post TNG concept for starfleet. Your only evidence that they are a pre-galaxy design is the inconsistently used registry numbers. Perhaps the ships were initially supposed to be built from an earlier class of ship, say Ambasador class. The orders were placed, registry and names issue, but later seeing that class was outdated they cancelled those contracts and focused on the newer Akira class while retaining the already commisioned names and numbers. Seems just as plausible as anything you've proposed.

Yes. I figured something like that in my next to last post, addressed to Eternal Freedom.

Either way, I concede Akiras are newer than GCSs. It and its classmates simply have too much in common with the Sovereign to ignore (and yes, these are things we can easily see onscreen).

But I don't concede that or anything else means the registries must be some big mystery. As I've pointed out multiple times, a flawed hypothesis that successfully accounts for 80% of what we see is infinitely better than shrugging our shoulders and saying, "Eh, it's a mess; let's just leave it alone."

[SCVN 2812]

An alternate theory on Akira's torpedo tubes. Considering how little volume is available in the roll bar, perhaps Akira mounts low rate of fire tubes. The Galaxy-class is the only ship ever to have been seen firing large torpedo salvos from a single launcher in a short period of time. We know it can throw two volleys of 5 with minimal delay but no other ship has shown anywhere close to this throw weight from their launchers. Indeed, most ships use paired launchers with smaller volleys per tube. Even the Enterprise-E didn't match her predecessor's per tube throw weight in a pitched battle for her very existence. This suggests to me that the GCS tube's throw weight is the exception not the rule.

Considering that Akira is the only ship to ever mount such a concentration of tubes, it suggests that she is either an experiment or a specialist. The way the tubes are clustered like that in the roll bar is very reminiscent of VLS cells or rocket artillery. Akira's performance and design suggests a ship that is designed to match the alpha strike of a GCS in a platform that is more agile and quicker to produce but cannot support a GCS launch tube, loading systems and magazines while simultaneously having so much internal volume given over to shuttle bays - through deck launch bays or not. So it compromises by using redundant smaller tubes with smaller per tube volleys - as low as one torpedo per tube seeing as that's all that's supported by visuals. Arguably, they could have fitted a GCS tube to the Akira's main hull by sacrificing the shuttle volume and assuming the Akira's primary hull meets any other requirements for bracing and sufficient space for loading systems and magazines to feed the beast. However, then it wouldn't have the carrier functions anymore, it would just be a torpedo boat rather than a carrier with the ability to throw a GCS sized torpedo volley, although probably not at GCS rates.

[TheHammer]

Yes. I figured something like that in my next to last post, addressed to Eternal Freedom.

Either way, I concede Akiras are newer than GCSs. It and its classmates simply have too much in common with the Sovereign to ignore (and yes, these are things we can easily see onscreen).

But I don't concede that or anything else means the registries must be some big mystery. As I've pointed out multiple times, a flawed hypothesis that successfully accounts for 80% of what we see is infinitely better than shrugging our shoulders and saying, "Eh, it's a mess; let's just leave it alone."

All I was saying was that the Akira's were a newer design and that their registries being out of sequence is not sufficient evidence to the contrary. If you want to debate the number what kind of torpedo tubes it's using, that's a completely separate issue.

While the Akira's may not have the survivability of a GCS, it may not be what they are designed for. The flip side of that, is that the cost/firepower ration of an Akira could very well be better than that of a GCS. And in the end, that's what really matters for a warship. The reason you'd have so many tubes is to get in and obliterate your target in an initial strike. If it turns into a long drawn out battle the Akira probably is in trouble.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Perhaps we could consider the Akira a battlecruiser type vessel. Designed for mobility and speed (Thunderchild looked like it had managed to avoid Borg fire entirely at Sector 001) with a powerful set of teeth, but nowhere near as survivable as the heavier ships.

Designed for quick, high-damage and high-volume strikes and then disengage, reload and strike again. That is after all apparently a good tactic against the Borg, the enemy most of Starfleet's purpose-built warships were designed to fight.

[seanrobertson]

All I was saying was that the Akira's were a newer design and that their registries being out of sequence is not sufficient evidence to the contrary.

You're quite right. Apologies for my earlier arrogance.

If you want to debate the number what kind of torpedo tubes it's using, that's a completely separate issue.

It is.

Point of fact, the only reason I even brought up ACSs' registries -- ill-conceived as that was, naturally -- was in a vain attempt to demonstrate that, according to the Borg at least, the Enterprise-D was the "strongest ship in the Federation fleet."

Since ACSs are newer, the Borg may or may not have known about them in assessing the E's tactical effectiveness opposite the rest of the fleet.

I mean, by 2366, ACSs may or may not have made it out of the shipyards at that point.

But I can't appeal to ignorance. Although I had high hopes that the Collective's statement meant GCSs** are generally > ACSs, that simply doesn't work out***.

Two asides:

**Regarding the Borg's declaration, "Captain Jean-Luc Picard, you control the strongest ship in the Federation fleet. You speak for your people," the Enterprise wasn't the only operational GCS. So ... is the E-D somehow superior to the other GCSs? Why would the Borg think that? Maybe they mistakenly believed the E was special because it magically escaped a cube's grasp in the J25 system, not knowing Q was responsible for saving Picard's neck.

***Interestingly enough, it does probably mean that GCSs are generally > Nebulas, which some fanboys also assert are tactically superior to the GCS on the basis of more forward torpedo tubes. But that's also a whole other ball of wax.

While the Akira's may not have the survivability of a GCS, it may not be what they are designed for. The flip side of that, is that the cost/firepower ration of an Akira could very well be better than that of a GCS. And in the end, that's what really matters for a warship. The reason you'd have so many tubes is to get in and obliterate your target in an initial strike. If it turns into a long drawn out battle the Akira probably is in trouble.

Agreed. That actually matches well with what we see in episodes like "Tears of the Prophets."

Insofar as devastating alpha strikes are concerned, I like SCVN's input. He made several good points, especially about the rollbar's size. Even if we assume the ACS is 440m-~500m long, there's still not much space in that rollbar, yet from what I can see, there are at least four tubes in that thing. Based on the 440m length, the rollbar itself is about 90m long, 53m wide and maybe 16m tall.

Maybe this is worth a new topic. John Eaves and David Drexler have released hi-res images that weren't available to us just two or three years ago.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I would think that the whole "this ship has more phasers/torpedo tubes means it's better" is fairly rubbish. After all, the GCS has only two phaser strips on the saucer, but they manage to be quite devastating at times. I think what people forget is that its not the number of guns so much as the power available in each gun.

To elaborate slightly, based on Starfleet Command 3 (I dunno whether it's cannon but is shows a point). I can (and have) designed a sovereign class variant with every possible phaser slot filled with the slightest and fastest firing weapons available, thinking to maximise multi-targeting and rate of fire. I also designed a variant that eschewed torpedos entirely, opting to have every phaser slot filled with the heaviest available. Same number of phasers, much more potent ship.

[Batman]

Why would the Galaxy need more phaser strips on the saucer? The two it has have been shown to be pretty much able to fire at any target where the ship isn't physically in the way, so it wouldn't need any more for coverage (indeed, far as I can tell, strip phasers in general are essentially limited by LOS only-if they can see a target, they can shoot it).
As for firepower, given that those two phaser strips are considerably longer than the rest on the ship, if we assume strip phaser firepower depends on strip length, it would make sense for those to be the most powerful.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Batman, you're preaching to the converted here my friend. I said as much that the "more phasers=better" argument was crap.

[Batman]

Batman, you're preaching to the converted here my friend. I said as much that the "more phasers=better" argument was crap.

I noticed that, thank you. I was just elaborating on why I think it is, at least in the case of the Galaxy's saucer phaser strips.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I read you're post as a rebuttal rather than an addition. Oops.

I will repeat again, as no one seems to have addressed it yet, my thought on considering the Akiras as a battlecruiser-type design. Intended either as a hit-and-run ship in battles or possibly as a commerce raider.

[Batman]

I read you're post as a rebuttal rather than an addition. Oops.

And I can absolutely see why, so my bad, really. Some clarification probably would have helped.

I will repeat again, as no one seems to have addressed it yet, my thought on considering the Akiras as a battlecruiser-type design. Intended either as a hit-and-run ship in battles or possibly as a commerce raider.

Problem is, the alleged number of torpedo tubes makes no sense for a commerce raider. You simply don't need that kind of firepower to take down cargo ships. And while your hit-and-run idea makes sense in theory, it sort of breaks down in the face of the Akiras never using their awesome Alpha Strike capabilities. Even if we assume that every time we saw an Akira in action they were low on torpedoes, it by your own reasoning would have made damn good sense to volley what they had left and get the hell out of dodge.

[Eternal_Freedom]

True, but then again the Royal Navy tried using their battlecruisers as line-of-battle ships, so throwing them into a melee they aren't intended for is not unprecedented.

Of course, the other and much more likely explanation is that the 15 tube figure is simply wrong.

[Uraniun235]

Since ACSs are newer, the Borg may or may not have known about them in assessing the E's tactical effectiveness opposite the rest of the fleet.

I mean, by 2366, ACSs may or may not have made it out of the shipyards at that point.

But I can't appeal to ignorance. Although I had high hopes that the Collective's statement meant GCSs** are generally > ACSs, that simply doesn't work out***.

Two asides:

**Regarding the Borg's declaration, "Captain Jean-Luc Picard, you control the strongest ship in the Federation fleet. You speak for your people," the Enterprise wasn't the only operational GCS. So ... is the E-D somehow superior to the other GCSs? Why would the Borg think that? Maybe they mistakenly believed the E was special because it magically escaped a cube's grasp in the J25 system, not knowing Q was responsible for saving Picard's neck.

***Interestingly enough, it does probably mean that GCSs are generally > Nebulas, which some fanboys also assert are tactically superior to the GCS on the basis of more forward torpedo tubes. But that's also a whole other ball of wax.

With regard to comparisons between ship classes, it's possible that the Borg use measurements other than phaser strips and torpedo firing rates to determine "strongest ship". For example, the Galaxy class may have the most powerful antimatter reactor in the entire fleet (it was certainly intended to be the fastest during the TNG run, and was certainly no slouch even into the later years of the franchise), or perhaps the shield generators are the biggest and best that Starfleet can produce (or maybe benefit from that huge reactor core?), or maybe it's some other metric entirely. It certainly wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the Borg would judge a ship or species by the sheer amount of energy they can wield.

As to differences with other Galaxies, this isn't impossible. We know that the ships are intended to be upgraded at intervals, that they're spread out (and in my mind, likely to receive upgrades at different intervals, and possibly even differing upgrades), and that Ent-D had received modifications to both the engines and the computer core*. It's possible that other Galaxy class starships had not yet received any of those upgrades.


*The engines were tinkered with in Where No Man Has Gone Before, but more substantially in mind is Booby Trap. Of course

The computer core received its upgrade in 11001001.