D'deridex-class Overview

[SuperSaiyaMan12]

With all the crap that the Galaxy-class seems to get here, why isn't the main Romulan ship also targetted? I mean, they're powered by singularities that can't be shut down. Thoughts?

Fixed the title typo - it was bugging me. Seafort

[Sionnach Glic]

Who says they can't be shut down?
Who says they can't be ejected?
Who says there aren't failsafes?
Who says they're as unstable as a GCS WC?

The D'Deridex gets enough flak around here for its wasteful design. We don't know enough about its safety record to comment on it, so we don't. On the other hand, we have excellent knowledge of the E-D's safety record, so we can and do comment on that.

[Tsukiyumi]

So, Rochey, remind me; how do you feel about the GCS again?

[Mark]

Well, in "Tin Man", a Romulan ship completely burned out it's warp drive, stranding it in Federation space. I'd see that as a bit of a design flaw.

[Captain Seafort]

Well, in "Tin Man", a Romulan ship completely burned out it's warp drive, stranding it in Federation space. I'd see that as a bit of a design flaw.

That would happen to any ship if you drove it too hard for too long.

[Mikey]

And in the other instance of a D'deridex engine issue (the TNG ep of which I've forgotten the title,) the power source couldn't be shut or abated because of the alien hatchlings living in it, not because of the design itself. To make things fair to our criticism of the GCS, we might say that the "quantum singularity" should have been better shielded from extra-dimensional infestation, but we don't really know the process by which the alien babies ended up in there.

[m52nickerson]

We have seen more Warbirds destroyed then Galaxy class star ships.

[Deepcrush]

We've also seen more Warbirds in total then we have GCS. Kind of balances out.

[Teaos]

We've seen 3 GCS destoryed in person. Given that we've only seen maybe 5-6 GCS thats a 50% death rate.

How many DD's have been killed and how many have we seen? I cant find figures for it anywhere but just thinking i can really only think of the few we see killed in the DS9 fleet battles, and considering we saw dozens of them thats not to bad.

[Deepcrush]

Indeed the D'D has a better on screen survival rate then the GCS. Not counting how many times we watched the E-D go up in smoke and fire!

[Praeothmin]

Although, apart from the Odissey, the GCS that we saw in DS9 battles fared much better then the D'Ds we saw in DS9 battles.

Remember the two GCS doing a flyby on a Galor-Class, and all the GCS seen when they retake DS9.
We've seen many Excelsiors and Mirandas get destroyed, but as far as I remember, no GCS...

[Mikey]

Although, apart from the Odissey, the GCS that we saw in DS9 battles fared much better then the D'Ds we saw in DS9 battles.

Remember the two GCS doing a flyby on a Galor-Class, and all the GCS seen when they retake DS9.
We've seen many Excelsiors and Mirandas get destroyed, but as far as I remember, no GCS...

In toto, though, we've seen many more Excelsiors and Mirandas, so we should expect to see more of them get destroyed without really speaking to the comparative survivability either way. Of course, even the biggest detractors of the GCS here have owned up to the seemingly fixed-up GCS' of the war era.

[Sionnach Glic]

We have seen more Warbirds destroyed then Galaxy class star ships.

Correct. Your point?

[m52nickerson]

Correct. Your point?

How many ships a class losses does hint at that classes overall survivability.

[Captain Seafort]

How many ships a class losses does hint at that classes overall survivability.

It's not a matter of pure numbers, but of the number of ships lost as a proportion of the total number observed, and the manner in which they were lost. A ship destroyed by massive structural damage inflicted by concentrated and heavy enemy fire does not indicate a design flaw. A ship lost to an exploding fuel pod despite suffering no physical damage whatsoever does indicate a design flaw.