Federation Fleet Composition

[McAvoy]

Well I am sure Starfleet has cut down on the construction time since the E-D was built. So Starfleet could have more than that. especially to make up for the losses in the Dominion war.

[Deepcrush]

Well, there you go. The 210 number works out just fine.

[SomosFuga]

Ok, they can built that much GCS but would they want to do that? why not invest in other (newest) classes like intrepids, sovereigns, novas, etc.

[Deepcrush]

Sovs are warships.

Novas and Intrepids are short range ships.

GCS are long range ships built around the idea of being away from home.

So I think it comes down to yes, they would want to build them.

[McAvoy]

Since when was the Intrepid class short ranged? I thought they were long ranged?

The Galaxies formed the core of many fleets we saw in DS9 so eve though they may not be a new design they are still worthwhile especially after the Ford Pinto warp core model was replaced. That one of the biggest advantages to a big ship is that they have plenty of space for upgrades.

I just find it... I dunno, weird that Starfleet could upwards of 200 ships in their fleet.

[Sionnach Glic]

Given how relatively self-sufficient Voyager was, I think we can deduce that the Intrepids, either by design or good luck, were indeed quite adequate for long-range missions.

I just find it... I dunno, weird that Starfleet could upwards of 200 ships in their fleet.

200+ GCSes is indeed quite a lot.

In terms of pure resources, a 150 planet Federation should have enough material to construct that many vessels. The main problem is cost. After all, the US has more than enough material to construct 20 Nimitz carriers, but the cost would be astronomical.
I think it'd be much the same for a GCS. They are, after all, the largest vessels the UFP has ever built. Add in all the advanced systems and they simply can't be cheap.

However, it's quite likely that the "War variant" GCSes deployed during the Dominion War had a lot of the internal systems stripped out. I'd imagine they were never fitted with science labs, holodecks, various crew ammeneties, etc. That is to say, they'd be little more than the frame of a GCS with the weapons, shields, generators and the bare essentials of everything else hurriedly crammed in.

[McAvoy]

While I agree but I don't think there would be gaps within the structural frame of a War Galaxy maybe massive empty spaces. So while it would be cheaper without all the equipment you re still building the frame and perhaps everything that has to be routed throug those spaces.

Though the Galaxy would be perfect for troop transport with all that empty space.

[kostmayer]

A Galaxy class might make a good floating army base of sorts.

Plenty of space for troops. Someone else will have to do the numbers but I'd imagine you could get a fair amount of troops involved if you had 4 people per quarters. Fair amount of room for supplies and recreational facilities too. You could even detach the saucer section and leave it behind as a garrison, while the Stardrive heads back.

[Coalition]

While I agree but I don't think there would be gaps within the structural frame of a War Galaxy maybe massive empty spaces. So while it would be cheaper without all the equipment you re still building the frame and perhaps everything that has to be routed throug those spaces.

Though the Galaxy would be perfect for troop transport with all that empty space.

Very true. IIRC, 35% of a normal Galaxy is empty space, for future improvements. In "Yesterday's Enterprise" the ship was carrying 5k-6k troops, so it would be easy for a regular Galaxy to do the same thing. You'd probably have to pull out the children's quarters, daycare, and other family accomodations in order to put them in, but that could easily be done.

From there, use the 35% emmpty space for various supplies for the garrison.

[Sonic Glitch]

Very true. IIRC, 35% of a normal Galaxy is empty space, for future improvements. In "Yesterday's Enterprise" the ship was carrying 5k-6k troops, so it would be easy for a regular Galaxy to do the same thing.

Was that stated? I don't recall troop mentions

[Deepcrush]

Since when was the Intrepid class short ranged? I thought they were long ranged?

Since Voy, where we constantly saw them having trouble with the most basic things. Vs a GCS which has a back up power supply that is supposed to last for months. Instead of just a few hours like the Intrepid's. Or the constant lack of fuel, spare parts, crew services... etc.

I just find it... I dunno, weird that Starfleet could upwards of 200 ships in their fleet.

Going off of DS9, they weren't really that far off from that number as is. Given another ten years of production at the increased rates we heard of from DS9. It would be rather simple.

Given how relatively self-sufficient Voyager was, I think we can deduce that the Intrepids, either by design or good luck, were indeed quite adequate for long-range missions.

You must have been watching a different show then I was. I saw a Voy that required the crew to scrap for parts every other ep. Where power failures and supply rations were taking place within a month of leaving home. A ship that was horribly prepared for anything but a short range scouting mission that even the Defiant would have been better for.

With these things in mind, you still think its a good ship for that type of a mission. Then we'll agree to disagree.

In terms of pure resources, a 150 planet Federation should have enough material to construct that many vessels. The main problem is cost. After all, the US has more than enough material to construct 20 Nimitz carriers, but the cost would be astronomical.

Since the USN is operating 18 carrier groups at the moment. We seem to be only two off from that and that is with us being in a poor economy. The UFP wouldn't have that problem.

If you removed the money concern. The USN could and would be building another 20 carriers without reserve.

[Captain Seafort]

Since Voy, where we constantly saw them having trouble with the most basic things.

Examples?

We saw them virtually rebuilding the ship from massive battle damage several times, with no outside assistance. "Alliances" and "Deadlock" are probably the best examples. They also put the ship through a full unassisted self-maintenance overhaul in "Nightingale".

Going off of DS9, they weren't really that far off from that number as is.

Unlikely - even Sisko's SoA fleet, comprised of two others combined, only had five or six. Starfleet as a whole probably has dozens of GCS, but not hundreds.

Since the USN is operating 18 carrier groups at the moment.

How exactly can you operate 18 CVBGs with only a dozen carriers? CVBGs plus MEFs maybe, but not CVBGs alone.

[Captain Seafort]

Very true. IIRC, 35% of a normal Galaxy is empty space, for future improvements. In "Yesterday's Enterprise" the ship was carrying 5k-6k troops, so it would be easy for a regular Galaxy to do the same thing.

Was that stated? I don't recall troop mentions

It was in Tasha's brief to Callisto about the YE E-D.

Frankly, it's probably an underestimate, or they're carrying a shitload of vehicles and other kit as well. The saucer section alone has a volume of almost 4 million cubic metres, compared to an Albion-class LPD which (very roughly) has a volume of 65,000 cubic metres and carries 300 troops. Assuming the same ratio, the GCS should be able to carry over 17000 troops.

[Coalition]

Frankly, it's probably an underestimate, or they're carrying a shitload of vehicles and other kit as well. The saucer section alone has a volume of almost 4 million cubic metres, compared to an Albion-class LPD which (very roughly) has a volume of 65,000 cubic metres and carries 300 troops. Assuming the same ratio, the GCS should be able to carry over 17000 troops.

The Albion also has the advantage of being surrounded by a breathable atmosphere, plus it can distill local sea water to drink. Starships have a bit more of a problem trying to breathe and drink vacuum, leading to a higher demand for life support equipment. The Albion is also mainly a troop assault platform, while the Galaxy is also a front-line combatant.

So the extra volume is taken up by weaponry, defenses, and life support.

[Deepcrush]

Examples?

We saw them virtually rebuilding the ship from massive battle damage several times, with no outside assistance. "Alliances" and "Deadlock" are probably the best examples. They also put the ship through a full unassisted self-maintenance overhaul in "Nightingale".

Sorry, didn't watch the show enough to catch ep names. As I said before. I saw them to often in troubled waters needing fuel, energy, living off of rations and the whole likes to be a good long range ship for me.

It comes to personal opinion. Both the GCS and Intrepid have their up and down marks.

Unlikely - even Sisko's SoA fleet, comprised of two others combined, only had five or six. Starfleet as a whole probably has dozens of GCS, but not hundreds.

Not really... the SoA fleet was built of elements of the 2nd fleet. The 5th never arrived. Even then they had 9 Galaxy wings. BTW, no one said hundreds. We said they could have as many as 210, though this would require the 22 year build up that we talked about.

How exactly can you operate 18 CVBGs with only a dozen carriers? CVBGs plus MEFs maybe, but not CVBGs alone.

CVN 65 Enterprise, CV 63 Kitty Hawk, CV 64 Constellation, CV 66 America, CV 67 JFK, CVN 68 Nimitz, CVN 69 Eisenhower, CVN 70 Carl Vinson, CVN 71 Teddy Roosevelt, CVN 72 Abraham Lincoln, CVN 73 George Washington, CVN 74 John C Stennis, CVN 75 United States. (From a 1996 USN guide.)

Thats 13 but I can't help but think I'm missing some. So, maybe not 18 unless we count the Wasp Class. Though, if we do then it puts it to 19. Still, I have a feeling I'm missing a carrier or two.

We'll need a Sailor to check this.