Yesterday's enterprise vs. the actual TNG

[bintananth]

They are 23rd/24th/25th Century Arleigh Burkes for sure.

I wouldn't trust a Burke in the middle of the night when conditions are so bad that you're basically down to eyball Mk.1 for a sensor suite and the opponent a) knows how to fight in those conditions b) can take a 5" shell without flinching and c) can return the favor with a salvo of 8"HE or worse.

 

[Battlegrinder]

They are 23rd/24th/25th Century Arleigh Burkes for sure.

 

[Spartan303]

View attachment 1494

The fucking B-52. Lol!

 

[Sailor.X]

I wouldn't trust a Burke in the middle of the night when conditions are so bad that you're basically down to eyball Mk.1 for a sensor suite and the opponent a) knows how to fight in those conditions b) can take a 5" shell without flinching and c) can return the favor with a salvo of 8"HE or worse.

Could you not derail every thread you enter. It is getting old.

View attachment 1494

Totally Canon list of Starfleet armed assets.

 

[Jormungandr]

Could you not derail every thread you enter. It is getting old.


Totally Canon list of Starfleet armed assets.

He was making a comparison with his personal opinions that the AB's are just as untrustworthy/reliable as the Exerclsior's -- hardly a derail.

It's like saying I would trust the voorta as much as I would the Doomslayer to not go to town on a planet full of Hell's demons (you're gonna have a planet full of mutilated demons).

 

[Sailor.X]

He was making a comparison with his personal opinions that the AB's are just as untrustworthy/reliable as the Exerclsior's -- hardly a derail.

It's like saying I would trust the voorta as much as I would the Doomslayer to not go to town on a planet full of Hell's demons (you're gonna have a planet full of mutilated demons).

No it was his standard derails. He does it in every thread so benefit of the doubt is no longer extended to him.

Now to the Excelsior. It is a proven design that is the mainstay of Starfleet. You would be hard pressed to show another Starfleet ship with similar Firepower, longevity and cruising endurance at warp.

 

[Agent23]

Now to the Excelsior. It is a proven design that is the mainstay of Starfleet. You would be hard pressed to show another Starfleet ship with similar Firepower, longevity and cruising endurance at warp.

Didn't the Akira outlast it in that regard?

As to its longevity, I think it managed to last so because it was the last ship developed during the time when the Federation was in actual real danger.

Rugged, reliable and able to pack a decent punch, with all the latest tech of the day, probably built to be easy to upgrade and retrofit, too.

Compare that to the Galaxy, which feels like a damned joy boat.

The Defiant is what the Federation can produce when hard-pressed.

 

[Battlegrinder]

The Defiant is what the Federation can produce when hard-pressed.

Ugh, because talking up one perpetually overrated ship wasn't enough for the thread.

The Defiant is a a set of engines with guns strapped to them (or possibly the reverse), and it is impressive that startfleet was able to fit the sort of firepower that's usually mounted on a light cruiser on what is basically a scout ship.

But it's very slow, topping out at like 9.3 or something in an era where most ships can reach 9.6 or faster, and has limited operational endurance, both of which limit the ships effective patrol range. And while it has the punch of a ship several times it's size, it has the shields of a ship about its size. That is a bad combination, it's going to attract a lot more heat because of it's threat level, and it can't survive taking those sorts of hits.

Bear in mind, when the Defiant tried to take on an upgraded Excelsior, a ship that, for all it's other qualities, was still decades older and two generations behind the current standard for startfleet capital ships, the Defiant lost, because the Lakota was able to deliver a kill shot the defiant, but as far as the script says the reverse was not true.


If you want a good startfleet light warship, look at the Saber class, which is faster, just as tough, with better multirole capability and better crew accommodations, all at the cost of some (mostly excessive) firepower.

 

[Agent23]

Ugh, because talking up one perpetually overrated ship wasn't enough for the thread.

The Defiant is a a set of engines with guns strapped to them (or possibly the reverse), and it is impressive that startfleet was able to fit the sort of firepower that's usually mounted on a light cruiser on what is basically a scout ship.

But it's very slow, topping out at like 9.3 or something in an era where most ships can reach 9.6 or faster, and has limited operational endurance, both of which limit the ships effective patrol range. And while it has the punch of a ship several times it's size, it has the shields of a ship about its size. That is a bad combination, it's going to attract a lot more heat because of it's threat level, and it can't survive taking those sorts of hits.

Bear in mind, when the Defiant tried to take on an upgraded Excelsior, a ship that, for all it's other qualities, was still decades older and two generations behind the current standard for startfleet capital ships, the Defiant lost, because the Lakota was able to deliver a kill shot the defiant, but as far as the script says the reverse was not true.


If you want a good startfleet light warship, look at the Saber class, which is faster, just as tough, with better multirole capability and better crew accommodations, all at the cost of some (mostly excessive) firepower.

The Defiant is a destroyer, and it was the first of its class, while the Excelsior is, what, a cruiser or battle-cruiser?
And that particular one was heavily upgraded, some of its systems might have been even newer than those on the Defiant, given that it was the flagship of an admiral with enough influence to think he could overthrow the legal Federation government and get away with it.
Ton for ton, IMHO the Defiant might have been better, but both were what the Federation loathes to do, pure warship.

 

[Battlegrinder]

And that particular one was heavily upgraded, some of its systems might have been even newer than those on the Defiant, given that it was the flagship of an admiral with enough influence to think he could overthrow the legal Federation government and get away with it.

There is no evidence to suggest the Lakota was any more capable than an other ship of it's tonnage, and some to the reverse. Upgrades or not, there is a limit to what you can do to an older ship to keep it up to par. Power generation comes to mind, you can only do so much with the stock reactors on a ship that old, and you can only replace them with newer ones for so long until you can no longer fit a newer one in (and while that too can be fixed with yet more work, eventually you're doing more than just a few upgrades, and past that point you might as well build a new ship).

Ton for ton, IMHO the Defiant might have been better, but both were what the Federation loathes to do, pure warship.

The defiant, yes (which is another reason it's a mediocre design, pure warships aren't very useful to the federation because most of the time they need a ship for non-military applications), but there's no evidence thatvthe Lakota was any such thing.

 

[Agent23]

>Be radical Admiral that likes fighting from the frontlines.
>Be planning coup'd etat.
>Do not make sure it flagship is the meanest possible motherfucker around...

Yeah, Ok.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Yeah, Ok.

Home front took place in 2372. By that time, in addition to the Galaxy, Nebula, and Ambassador classes, the Sovereign class was in service, along with the Akira and a number of other more tactically focused classes.

An excelsior, upgraded or otherwise, would have been an outright joke to most of those ships, it was by no means "the meanest possible" ship around. And, if we assume that it could have possibly held off, say, an older, out of date Ambassador or something (and I would not bet on that), Layton had all of one ship at his disposal, with no reserves. What was his plan if, say, two ships had shown up to stop him?

His entire plan was hinged on securing control through false flag attacks and emergency measures before anyone could intercede, because he did not have the ability to actually seize power via force.

 

[Bear Ribs]

There is no evidence to suggest the Lakota was any more capable than an other ship of it's tonnage, and some to the reverse. Upgrades or not, there is a limit to what you can do to an older ship to keep it up to par. Power generation comes to mind, you can only do so much with the stock reactors on a ship that old, and you can only replace them with newer ones for so long until you can no longer fit a newer one in (and while that too can be fixed with yet more work, eventually you're doing more than just a few upgrades, and past that point you might as well build a new ship).



The defiant, yes (which is another reason it's a mediocre design, pure warships aren't very useful to the federation because most of the time they need a ship for non-military applications), but there's no evidence thatvthe Lakota was any such thing.

O'brien says outright (around 55 seconds) that's upgraded and the Lakota has a "lot of firepower for an Excelsior class ship."


At around the 3 minute mark Worf reports that the Defiant has two dead and 7 Injured, while the Lakota has 24 killed. The Defiant would appear to have come out the better for the engagement.

 

[Battlegrinder]

O'brien says outright (around 55 seconds) that's upgraded and the Lakota has a "lot of firepower for an Excelsior class ship."

Yes, but that doesn't say much, the Excelsior class was several generations out of date, having a lot of firepower for a ship of that vintage doesn't establish anything definitive.

At around the 3 minute mark Worf reports that the Defiant has two dead and 7 Injured, while the Lakota has 24 killed. The Defiant would appear to have come out the better for the engagement.

The Defiant has a crew of 50, the Lakota had ten times that. With 2 vs 24 dead, that's almost an identical proportion of deaths.

Also, the defiant was explicitly stated had 2 dead, 7 injuried, while the Lakota was said to have up to 24 casualties, not fatalities, so the defiant very likely emerged far worse for wear.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Yes, but that doesn't say much, the Excelsior class was several generations out of date, having a lot of firepower for a ship of that vintage doesn't establish anything definitive.

But it does indicate the Lakota is more powerful than other Excelsiors.

The Defiant has a crew of 50, the Lakota had ten times that. With 2 vs 24 dead, that's almost an identical proportion of deaths.

Also, the defiant was explicitly stated had 2 dead, 7 injuried, while the Lakota was said to have up to 24 casualties, not fatalities, so the defiant very likely emerged far worse for wear.

I don't see why the proportion matters in this situation compared to overall casualties. If a dude loses 500 men to kill 5 enemies, he's a shitty general even if he does outnumber the enemy a thousand to one, actually that makes him even worse.

 

[Battlegrinder]

But it does indicate the Lakota is more powerful than other Excelsiors.

A T-62M is far more powerful than an orginal generation T-62, but it's still a third or fourth rate tank.

I don't see why the proportion matters in this situation compared to overall casualties. If a dude loses 500 men to kill 5 enemies, he's a shitty general even if he does outnumber the enemy a thousand to one, actually that makes him even worse.

Because for ships, casualties should be rough in proportion to overall damage, since the primary way to cause crew casualties is to damage to ship.

 

[Simonbob]

Because for ships, casualties should be rough in proportion to overall damage, since the primary way to cause crew casualties is to damage to ship.

Only in a draw.

 

[Agent23]

Home front took place in 2372. By that time, in addition to the Galaxy, Nebula, and Ambassador classes, the Sovereign class was in service, along with the Akira and a number of other more tactically focused classes.

An excelsior, upgraded or otherwise, would have been an outright joke to most of those ships, it was by no means "the meanest possible" ship around. And, if we assume that it could have possibly held off, say, an older, out of date Ambassador or something (and I would not bet on that), Layton had all of one ship at his disposal, with no reserves. What was his plan if, say, two ships had shown up to stop him?

His entire plan was hinged on securing control through false flag attacks and emergency measures before anyone could intercede, because he did not have the ability to actually seize power via force.

Oops, sorry about that, what I meant to say was. "OK, Dude!"

 

[Sailor.X]

I will just put this here



He covers all the Star Trek Ships in depth.

 

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I wouldn't try to rationalize Star Trek combat. The ships almost never suffer visible damage because creating a damaged model for one episode is exorbitantly expensive. So ships in Star Trek go from looking intact to a fireball with no in between, which makes it look like ships in Star Trek explode in one hit when shields are down, and the destruction of the protagonist's ship that the show is marketed around is usually not a viable business option. Combat always has to end before the shields go down. How much damage a ship can endure before its shields collapse varies depending on the writer, so the powerlevels don't make sense. Torpedos tear through ships like tissue paper regardless of whether or not shields are up and nobody seems to intercept those torpedos with their precision lasers. Logically, submarine-esque warfare should rule the day given that Starfleet, Klingons, and Romulans have cloaking devices. Being oneshotted out of nowhere doesn't make for entertaining television, so the people in Star Trek inexplicably don't do it. And so on. There are a lot of hoops you have to jump through when considering ST warfare.