Nebula class questions

The Next Generation
Meste17
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:45 pm

Nebula class questions

Post by Meste17 »

Why is the Nebula class considered a heavy cruiser? She looks more to me like the Reliant of that century, being to the Galaxy class what the Miranda was to the Constitution class of the 23rd century. True she has a secondary hull, but she looks AT MOST a medium cruiser to me. :)
User avatar
Tinadrin Chelnor
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:11 am
Location: Pendroca IV

Re: Nebula class questions

Post by Tinadrin Chelnor »

Meste17 wrote:Why is the Nebula class considered a heavy cruiser? She looks more to me like the Reliant of that century, being to the Galaxy class what the Miranda was to the Constitution class of the 23rd century. True she has a secondary hull, but she looks AT MOST a medium cruiser to me. :)
Bare in mind the other ships that are in service around the time. The Excelsior is still around and likely considered a medium cruiser, they still have numerous smaller classes to fit the light-medium cruiser ranges. The Nebula seems to be more of a scaled down counterpart to the Galaxy, but with the added benefit of being extremely modular. I think it would definitely rate as a heavy cruiser, when compared to other starships in service at the time, both Federation and other polities alike.
"No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand."
Meste17
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:45 pm

Re: Nebula class questions

Post by Meste17 »

Tinadrin Chelnor wrote:
Meste17 wrote:Why is the Nebula class considered a heavy cruiser? She looks more to me like the Reliant of that century, being to the Galaxy class what the Miranda was to the Constitution class of the 23rd century. True she has a secondary hull, but she looks AT MOST a medium cruiser to me. :)
Bare in mind the other ships that are in service around the time. The Excelsior is still around and likely considered a medium cruiser, they still have numerous smaller classes to fit the light-medium cruiser ranges. The Nebula seems to be more of a scaled down counterpart to the Galaxy, but with the added benefit of being extremely modular. I think it would definitely rate as a heavy cruiser, when compared to other starships in service at the time, both Federation and other polities alike.
True, but bear in mind that that also applies to the Miranda class, itself being a scaled down version of the USS Enterprise and other Constitution-class ships like her. For all we know the Nebula IS supposed to be a descendant of the Miranda class, much as how the Galaxy is a descendant of the Constitution class.
User avatar
Tinadrin Chelnor
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:11 am
Location: Pendroca IV

Re: Nebula class questions

Post by Tinadrin Chelnor »

The Nebula in my view, still, is much more than a medium cruiser when compared to it's modern counterparts.

It's not merely a matter of what it may of or may not have been based on, look at the Klingon bird of prey for example. They were everything from small fighter-type craft, to battlecruisers.

Also, the Contitution I'm certain was referred to as a battlecruiser at some point, and in its day probably did serve in that role.

But to my mind, the Nebula would rate at least as a heavy cruiser, due to its versatility and durability when compared to other active classes.
"No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand."
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Re: Nebula class questions

Post by Teaos »

I'd agree, although from the looks of things I think they could go anywhere from light to heavy cruiser.
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
User avatar
Tinadrin Chelnor
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:11 am
Location: Pendroca IV

Re: Nebula class questions

Post by Tinadrin Chelnor »

Teaos wrote:I'd agree, although from the looks of things I think they could go anywhere from light to heavy cruiser.
Aye, it would probably depend on their configuration, etc.
"No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand."
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Re: Nebula class questions

Post by Teaos »

Its not the sexiest ship out there, but I think the Nebual is by far Starfleets best design in early TNG era.
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Nebula class questions

Post by McAvoy »

Since people like to use naval terms especially older ones like light and heavy cruisers, it should be pointed out there technically shouldn't be a medium cruiser.

Though it seems to be too much of a similarity between the three terms anyway.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
Tholian_Avenger
Lieutenant jg
Lieutenant jg
Posts: 356
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:51 am
Location: Here, just past there.

Re: Nebula class questions

Post by Tholian_Avenger »

McAvoy wrote:Since people like to use naval terms especially older ones like . . .
Where are the armored cruisers, sloops, and galleons dammit?

I'm pretty sure that I can make a convincing case for the Antares being a collier, if it matters to anyone.
6 Star Admiral of the Loyal Water Buffaloes and Honorable Turtles
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Nebula class questions

Post by McAvoy »

Armored cruiser would be hard to describe without basically describing a heavy cruiser or battleship. Though maybe you could argue a Trek armored cruiser would be a heavily armored ship with little shields and moderate firepower.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Re: Nebula class questions

Post by Teaos »

The one type of ship that would have been nice to see in latter trek would be a pocket battle ship, like a Defiant but a bit larger and more self sufficient.

Given the threat of the Dominion and Borg, it is the perfect response to them. Hell an Akira would come close if you welded on some armor an powered up the phasers.
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Nebula class questions

Post by McAvoy »

Technically the pocket battleship was nothing more than a slow, more heavily armed version of a heavy cruiser. You could make the case that certain heavy cruisers are a match one on one.

But I guess you could make a ship as powerful as a Galaxy but without the niceness and science crap and give it a range issue. Maybe a 420 meter long ship.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
katefan
Lieutenant jg
Lieutenant jg
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Nebula class questions

Post by katefan »

I would say the Nebula classified as a heavy cruiser fits. True, it is to the Galaxy what the Miranda is to the Constitution, but when you talk about sheer mass it was at the time the second largest ship serving in Starfleet. Even with the advent of new vessels like the Sovereign it is still a beast regardless of which pod it is sporting.
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Nebula class questions

Post by McAvoy »

You could make the argument the Nebula is a better ship. But there is an unwritten rule that all Enterprises should be the best.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Re: Nebula class questions

Post by Teaos »

"Best" doesnt have to mean strongest.
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Post Reply