Analysis of GCS variants

[RayCav of ASVS]

Discuss!

[Alyeska]

The original class of the Galaxy line ships is well known by the Enterprise, Yamato, Galaxy, and Oddessy. Of these ships, three of them died by warp core problems. One other notable GCS is the USS Venture which sports the warp engine phaser strips that the E-D had in All Good Things.

Analysis of the GCS models from the Dominion war are as follows.

The first known subtype of the GCS is the following picture.



You imediately note that the two GCS's in this picture have a darkened spine that extends from the rear torpedo launcher all the way to the main shuttle bay. That both of these ships have this exact same thing and the angle makes it impossible to be a shadow does say something. Given that the Federation is currently at war and needs warships, the most logical explination is that these ships recieved an armor upgraded along the spine which is one of the more important structural parts of the ship. With hull hugging shields splash damage through the shields will not hurt the spine as much as before. With no shields they can sustain slightly higher levels of damage.

The second known subtype of the GCS is the following picture.



This picture shows us two very interesting things. First, the GCS now uses all three impulse engines rather then the single main engine. Looking back at the first picture you can barely make this out. The second and more important is the particular subtype. This GCS obvisouly does not have the darkened spine area, rather it has an enlarged shuttlebay. There is a smaller area on the top with a larger area on the bottom. The obvious conclussion is that the Shuttle/Fighter capacity of the GCS was increased. With two door areas one can launch while the other can retrieve ships.

This is the last known subtype



The most obvious difference with this ship class is that added bulge on the warp engines. This is identical to the Galaxy-X design except the phaser arrays are faced forward rather then aft.

Galaxy-X for comparison


The Galaxy-X has the phaser arrays positioned aft while the Venture has them positioned forward.

Further examination of the Venture indicates the possibility of an enlarged shuttlebay, but there is no indication of an armored spine.

[RayCav of ASVS]

Alesyka just reinerates his post on the exploding warp core thread, thanks for adding new info

The armor on the spine on the first variant seems to be sheilding the warp core and engineering sections, specifically. Kudos to Starfleet on that one. But of course it does not necessarily have to be armor, of course I would be inclinded to think it is indeed armor for I am at a loss as to think of what else it could be.

I don't suppose the best thing Starfleet could come up in terms of a true carrier is a modified GCS? Because if its is, that's kinda pathetic. I'm sure the GCS has ample room for maybe a squad or too, but in that case why not build a dedicated fleet carrier and carry a shitload of fighters ISD style? At least this time you actually have hangar space to carry anything larger than a fighter, unlike the "through-deck" carrier Akira. I was actually hoping the "Shelly" or "Raging Queen" would indeed turn out to be that carrier, but oh well.

And I'm not so sure placing phasers on the nacelles is smart, but a place for weapons is a place for weapons.

[Alyeska]

Alesyka just reinerates his post on the exploding warp core thread, thanks for adding new info

Not exactly all that much more information to add. This is somewhat old information. I did this very same analysis over a year ago at SB, and even then more then half the information was considered "old" at the time.

The armor on the spine on the first variant seems to be sheilding the warp core and engineering sections, specifically. Kudos to Starfleet on that one. But of course it does not necessarily have to be armor, of course I would be inclinded to think it is indeed armor for I am at a loss as to think of what else it could be.

Agreed. I think they could have expanded the armored section somewhat and I believe there is armor in the front and bottom that we don't see.

I don't suppose the best thing Starfleet could come up in terms of a true carrier is a modified GCS? Because if its is, that's kinda pathetic. I'm sure the GCS has ample room for maybe a squad or too, but in that case why not build a dedicated fleet carrier and carry a shitload of fighters ISD style? At least this time you actually have hangar space to carry anything larger than a fighter, unlike the "through-deck" carrier Akira. I was actually hoping the "Shelly" or "Raging Queen" would indeed turn out to be that carrier, but oh well.

Well, there is at least one logical reason the GCS was chosen. The TNG TM states the interior of the GCS is modular and that parts of the outside are also modular. I find it possible that the interior has massively expanded hangar bays and they utilize the double deck main shuttlebay for landing and launching. According to the TNG TM the main shuttlebay has vertical doors on the top of the shuttle bay (the smallest part on this GCS model) and that would mean you can also both take off and land even in the "smaller" bay.

However I do agree there is a need for a true carrier design.

And I'm not so sure placing phasers on the nacelles is smart, but a place for weapons is a place for weapons.

They do not appear to be really powerful arrays, but it adds firepower to the rear and top arcs which are traditionally the worst phaser arcs. Also not that extra bulge? You have the phaser array, and something even larger and longer underneath it. I have never been able to come up with a plausible explination for that.

[RayCav of ASVS]

ummm...*coughthreadbumpcough*

[Uraniun235]

I don't suppose the best thing Starfleet could come up in terms of a true carrier is a modified GCS? Because if its is, that's kinda pathetic. I'm sure the GCS has ample room for maybe a squad or too, but in that case why not build a dedicated fleet carrier and carry a shitload of fighters ISD style? At least this time you actually have hangar space to carry anything larger than a fighter, unlike the "through-deck" carrier Akira. I was actually hoping the "Shelly" or "Raging Queen" would indeed turn out to be that carrier, but oh well.

Could be that fighters, while playing a role, are not substantial enough to warrant using valuable spacedock time to build dedicated carriers for them.

Or that the Feds simply couldn't spare the time or resources.