Which are tough older or new class starship in Starfleet

[Jason 27]

I think new once the older class starship often easily to destroy in DS9 Take few hints.

[Picard578 0]

Newer ships were made to withstand new weapons, so they are certainly toughter.

[Jason 27]

Newer ships were made to withstand new weapons, so they are certainly toughter.

 

Tell that to Enigma hoping have Debate here.

[Questor 501]

Newer ships were made to withstand new weapons, so they are certainly toughter.

 

 

 

The Iowa would like a word with you.

[Picard578 0]

You forgot that philosophy changed since WW2. WW2 ships are built to withstand hits. Modern ships are built not to get hit in first place, beacouse modern anti-ship missiles are strong enough to make any reasonable amount of armor worthless, and protection they do have in case they get hit is not so much focused on avoiding damage, as it is focused on limiting it on one specific area of ship. But in Star Trek, metallurgy is advanced enough to make hull (coupled with Structural Integrity Field) still a viable defence against shipboard weapons, althought still not terribly effective.

[paul 11,988]

Newer ships all the way.

 

 

 

While Picard is right that some of the ships (defiant, promethius, intrepid) were designed to out maneuver and avoid being attacked, there was still the heavy hitters (galaxy, sovereign, excelsior etc) that could take an insane beating but could dish out the damage.

[InvaderSkooj 1]

Ent-nil

[Questor 501]

You forgot that philosophy changed since WW2. WW2 ships are built to withstand hits. Modern ships are built not to get hit in first place, beacouse modern anti-ship missiles are strong enough to make any reasonable amount of armor worthless, and protection they do have in case they get hit is not so much focused on avoiding damage, as it is focused on limiting it on one specific area of ship. But in Star Trek, metallurgy is advanced enough to make hull (coupled with Structural Integrity Field) still a viable defence against shipboard weapons, althought still not terribly effective.

 

 

 

You said tougher, you didn't say more combat effective. Of course, it certainly could be argued that a modern ship's "armor" include her self defense systems, and I would make that argument. The problem with your reasoning is that you assume newer = better without looking at the inherent design decisions involved in that assumption. If you continue a philosophy, newer will almost certainly be better, but philosphies DO change. In Star Trek, at least until after Voyager launched, the Federation ALSO changed philosophies - leading to a change in ship design priorities, not to mention training priorities. Think about it, during TNG, in order to supply plot issues, a number of things that were done with button presses in TOS were said to take tremendous effort. I seem to recall that both reversing tractor beams and remodulating phasers were done in TOS, and I know that Crusher felt the need to remind her staff how to deal with burns and do triage in one episode.

 

 

 

You made an absolute statement that was demonstrably false and that plays into the "tech level" fallacy. If you want to argue using better phrasing, I might even agree with you.

 

 

 

WORDS MATTER.

[Picard578 0]

Unlike "modern" world, in Star Trek ship's hull is not useless against weapons, and is integral part of defence, which means that there is some use of making it tougher, beacouse it will provide better protection - while today's naval ships would need insane amounts of armor to provide any protection at all against anti-ship missiles.

[Questor 501]

Unlike "modern" world, in Star Trek ship's hull is not useless against weapons, and is integral part of defence, which means that there is some use of making it tougher, beacouse it will provide better protection - while today's naval ships would need insane amounts of armor to provide any protection at all against anti-ship missiles.

 

 

 

It actually wasn't missiles (or torpedoes) that killed the battleship, if they had someone would have built one between 1945 and the late '70s when the first real ASM became available. In fact, if you only look at the context of conventional sea based weapons, the "balanced" battleship should have reached its most powerful sometime in '70s, with new classes becoming less and less "balanced" as time goes on. Eventually, the development of shaped charge warheads (and especaily the idea to put the fuel in front of the warhead) would have doomed the "balanced" battleship, but except for one thing, the concept of a massive 120,000+ ton (assuming size goes up in a similar rate with carriers and other classes - and remember the most modern western cruisers were designed as destroyers) weapons carrier would be extremely attractive.

 

 

 

On the other hand, the long range bomber armed with nuclear devices does make any armor worthless in exactly the right time frame.

 

 

 

BTW, what's your point? I simply took issue with the characterization of "tougher" since its such a worthless value for a warship (or anything), you need to look at how well they meet the requirements. I do think that TNG ships would be weaker ton-for-ton than a TOS ship, but that has more to do with the fact that they wast so much tonnage on "multi-role" and families.

 

 

 

The Defiant on the other hand...

[Praeothmin 532]

The Defiant on the other hand...

 

 

 

Or even the Sovereign, which has less "wasted" space than the GCS, and is clearly more combat oriented.

 

Although, as some people over at DITL have pointed out, why put so many windows on a warship?

[enigma 521]

Or even the Sovereign, which has less "wasted" space than the GCS, and is clearly more combat oriented.

 

Although, as some people over at DITL have pointed out, why put so many windows on a warship?

 

 

 

Unless I'm mistaken, the windows on the Sovereign are actually forecefields and not some type of glass (or whatever transparent material).

[Airlocke 12,014]

Unless I'm mistaken, the windows on the Sovereign are actually forecefields and not some type of glass (or whatever transparent material).

 

 

 

I believe you are looking for transparent aluminum.

[Praeothmin 532]

Exactly.

 

The forcefield you are referring to Enigma is for the external "access hatch" Picard opened to show Lily where they were.

 

Standard windows on ST ships, AFAIK, are all made out of Transparent Aluminum.

 

Apparently, it becomes very resilient when transparent...

 

Go figure...

[Airlocke 12,014]

Exactly.

 

The forcefield you are referring to Enigma is for the external "access hatch" Picard opened to show Lily where they were.

 

Standard windows on ST ships, AFAIK, are all made out of Transparent Aluminum.

 

Apparently, it becomes very resilient when transparent...

 

Go figure...

 

 

 

Well, it IS a transparent aluminum ALLOY, so maybe the other metals/substances in the alloy are the cause for the durability?

[enigma 521]

Exactly.

 

The forcefield you are referring to Enigma is for the external "access hatch" Picard opened to show Lily where they were.

 

Standard windows on ST ships, AFAIK, are all made out of Transparent Aluminum.

 

Apparently, it becomes very resilient when transparent...

 

Go figure...

 

 

 

That makes sense. For a moment I thought Starfleet's Corps of Engineers were wondering what else they can fuck up a starship.

[Questor 501]

Or even the Sovereign, which has less "wasted" space than the GCS, and is clearly more combat oriented.

 

Although, as some people over at DITL have pointed out, why put so many windows on a warship?

 

 

 

While the general design philosophy probably carried through, Sovereigns (and any other ship we've seen) have individual quarters and large areas that the Defiants don't. Undoubtedly more teeth than a Galaxy, but I don't know how they compare to the previous generation.

[enigma 521]

I wish they'd add ablative armor on the newer ships like the Sovereign.

[Praeothmin 532]

I wish they'd add ablative armor on the newer ships like the Sovereign.

 

 

 

According to backstage info (gleaned from DITL), they did, which is why it can take such a beating, or why ramming did less a number on it than on the Scimitar...

[Praeothmin 532]

While the general design philosophy probably carried through, Sovereigns (and any other ship we've seen) have individual quarters and large areas that the Defiants don't. Undoubtedly more teeth than a Galaxy, but I don't know how they compare to the previous generation.

 

 

 

Sure, because while more combat oriented than the E-D, it was still considered an Explorer, and was designed for long term missions.

 

But it still is much better, much more resilient, much more powerful than a GCS.

 

But I agree that for a true warship, the Defiant would be the way to go.

 

Imagine a Defiant the size of a Sovereign, with a proportionate power generation capability...

[enigma 521]

According to backstage info (gleaned from DITL), they did, which is why it can take such a beating, or why ramming did less a number on it than on the Scimitar...

 

 

 

It is not backstage source but DITL speculation. Memory Alpha does not state that the Sovereigns have ablative armor.

[Praeothmin 532]

Ah, didn't recheck, I thought the info was in green on DITL's Sovereign entry (which is backstage info)...

 

The Sovereign can still take a beating though, just like the Defiant...

[enigma 521]

Ah, didn't recheck, I thought the info was in green on DITL's Sovereign entry (which is backstage info)...

 

The Sovereign can still take a beating though, just like the Defiant...

 

 

 

Which is weird because I recently just finished seeing Generations and the amount of force impacted on the saucer was greater than the E-E's ramming of the Scimitar. I do not know how fast the ramming speed was but in Generations, the saucer entered the atmosphere above the speed of sound since one could hear the sonic boom (in my case the CC says sonic boom) and it did not look like it slowed down but leveled off, yet it crashed through hills and so forth with only outside damage being the windows. The E-E on the other hand, its saucer basically disintegrated when it rammed the Scimitar.

 

 

 

This gives me an idea. The GCS were like the old 50's, 60's cars in which when in a collision, the whole car receives 100% of the energy from the collision, that's why the E-D's saucer was rendered non-salvageable even though on the outside it looked fine.

 

 

 

The SCS' are like the newer cars that have crumple zones, so that in a collision it is meant to fall apart into itty bitty pieces and trap the energy from the collision instead of the whole ship taking the hit. This way the saucer was still salvageable. Just cut out the bad parts and slap in the good ones. lol

[enigma 521]

Also, I checked on ablative armor and it works by absorbing the energy weapon fire and slowly disintegrate after each hit (similar process to crumple zones, trapping the energy so as to not spread to the ship). I do not think it was designed to take blunt force trauma like ramming.

[Praeothmin 532]

Which is weird because I recently just finished seeing Generations and the amount of force impacted on the saucer was greater than the E-E's ramming of the Scimitar. I do not know how fast the ramming speed was but in Generations, the saucer entered the atmosphere above the speed of sound since one could hear the sonic boom (in my case the CC says sonic boom) and it did not look like it slowed down but leveled off, yet it crashed through hills and so forth with only outside damage being the windows. The E-E on the other hand, its saucer basically disintegrated when it rammed the Scimitar.

 

 

 

This gives me an idea. The GCS were like the old 50's, 60's cars in which when in a collision, the whole car receives 100% of the energy from the collision, that's why the E-D's saucer was rendered non-salvageable even though on the outside it looked fine.

 

 

 

The SCS' are like the newer cars that have crumple zones, so that in a collision it is meant to fall apart into itty bitty pieces and trap the energy from the collision instead of the whole ship taking the hit. This way the saucer was still salvageable. Just cut out the bad parts and slap in the good ones. lol

 

 

 

Could be, but there's also the fact that the E-E rammed something as hard as it was, while the E-D slammed into rocks and trees and packed dirt.

 

This could also come into play...

 

 

 

Also, I checked on ablative armor and it works by absorbing the energy weapon fire and slowly disintegrate after each hit (similar process to crumple zones, trapping the energy so as to not spread to the ship). I do not think it was designed to take blunt force trauma like ramming.

 

 

 

 

Maybe.

 

Does it specifically say it will not do the same thing for kinetic energy?

 

Maybe insteaf of slowly disintegrating, the armor will rapidly explode under kinetic energy?