Altering the Original NCC - 1701

It's just a TV show. Chalk it up to bad writting.

Not everything you see has to be canon. The sooner you people awake from you brainwashing, the better.

I don't understand. Why is it more practical than any other design? Surely you don't think technology gets worse as time goes on.

If we're going to talk sheer practicality, then I'd say that the Defiant wins that in spades. Almost no windows (there are some on the bottom), a very compact design, a few swappable modules (the front "nose" and, I believe, the DS9 technical manual makes note of how the shuttlebay was a modular addition), engines close enough to be easily maintained, yet shielded enough to not cause harm to the ship, an extremely small footprint...

While I love the design of the original Enterprise, there are some major weak points - see the nacelle struts and the neck. These were mostly addressed with the Excelsior design, but I think we can all agree that's not a terribly aesthetic design.

And the Defiant is the only Federation ship we've seen that can disable an Excelsior in a one-on-one fight (not counting Scotty's sabotage).



"What?? They're ABOVE us?? Now they're BELOW US??? WTF??! Why are we too stupid to think in three dimensions??"

Shatner agrees!

The Defiant is too small for sustained military operations.

The U.S. Navy has pretty much proven that there is no sustitute for raw size when it comes to large warships such as carriers.

For example, aboard a Nimitz class carrier, at least 1,000 of the crew have primary damage control responsibilities, allowing battle damage to be repaired and combat operations to be continued.

Stealth matters much more than size.

A nuclear attack sub can take out a carrier with a couple of torpedoes.

You are not getting the point.

The 'long neck' of the NCC-1701 provides a substantial weak point in terms of battle or other forms of hostile engagement. Same for the nacelle pylons. The bridge, the MAIN COMMAND CENTER of the entire freakin' ship is also at the TOP of the saucer section. Just because the writers write Trek enemies to be dumb as a box of rocks doesn't mean that should be accepted by the modern audience.

Few phaser blasts to the 'neck' of the ship, two torpedoes each to the nacelle pylons and just one full phaser blast to the bridge - boom - you got a crippled NCC-1701 at the whim and mercy of the Klingons or Romulans.

Plus, wouldn't Scotty have to take a long arse turbolift travel time to reach engineering from the bridge because of the freakin' neck?

You're forgetting that the idea is that the shields protect the ship.

Once they're down - as we've seen - getting hit anywhere does immense damage to the ship.

That has never been proven against a modern carrier.

Or did you serve in the Navy too?

And to have stealth for a modern warship, it has to be LARGER than it would be otherwise..

That is why the Zumwalt class land attack destroyer comes in at a whopping 13-14000 tons.

To be stealthy, all its equipment has to be concealed within the hull if possible.

So it has to have a larger hull.

Henry has a good point.

And for what its worth, in the original series, the shields rarely seemed to collapse completely.

The only times I remember was against the Planet Kiler and against Nomad.

When the shields did collapse, it was generally understood as Spock said in "The Changeling" "We cannot survive another hit".

But in modern Trek, if you notice it isn't uncommon for a starships shields to collapse completely.

One might infer that in the Original Series, shields were considered such a strong defense that heavy armoring of the ship itself or specially reinforcing the support pylons was considered useless.

But that by the time of the ST:TNG, modern weapons could penetrate shields so more armor and stronger hulls were considered mandatory.

Seriously. All the models, and they are just that, were designed for looks, not practicality.

Careful there, Dayton. Phantom is right. You blow a few torps under the keel of any ship, no matter how large, you'll break her back and sink her. Carriers aren't immune to the laws of physics.

Theoretically, I'm just pointing out that we have no actual combat experience with modern carriers to make that assertion.

And everyone here nearly talks about the superiority of experience over any other kind of data.

You know just how hard it would be for an enemy submarine to penetrate to within torpedo range of a carrier during wartime.

Yeah, not hard at all, since the USN practically stopped emphasizing ASW competely after the end of the Cold War. I could tell you some things that would chill your blood, but frankly, I don't want the information in a public forum.

Yes now. It is peacetime with no obvious blue water opponent for the U.S. Navy.

I imagine that if one emerged then ASW warfare training would make a rapid comeback.

I read. Link

If the Chinese have cowboy skippers who can pull that off, then it's not a very large assumption that others could too.

And how many shots from a nuclear torpedo would you think it would take to blow up a carrier?

To apply this to Star Trek combat, a little Bird of Prey, able to fire whilst cloaked, put some serious dents in the Enterprise, with General Chang quoting Shakespeare the whole way. Had it not have been for the deux ex machina of the Enterprise just "happening" to have gas-sniffing gear on board, the Enterprise and possibly the Excelsior would be drifting space debris.

Peacetime and wartime are considerably different.

And any discussion of military tactics in the here and now is generally assumed to involve only conventional weapons.

Given that nuclear warfare is radically different.

Trek ships have an auxilliary bridge and can also be run from engineering as well.

Very true.

How many times in the original series alone did we see bridge control transfered to Auxilary Control.

Just off hand I remember

"The Doomsday Machine" on the Constellation
"The Way to Eden"
"I' Mudd"
"And the Children Shall Lead"-attempted

By the way, it looks as though Auxilary Control was always manned.

Kind of like modern warships have the bridge and combat information centers.

If it is true that any design works in space - and it is - then why is it so "obvious" that the Enterprise design is "impractical"?

Possibly. But you wait too long and some things become a lost art, if you catch my drift. Then you get to spend precious time reinventing the wheel.

Well... the most likely design for a "real starship" would be most likelt the easiest to construct, which would probably be more cylindrical. Of course the FTL drive system would be a factor depending on what engine design would be used to generate a warp field.
As far as Trek designs go, I think they're fine as they are, including the original.

Personally, I like many of the designs in Trek. Remember, they're not meant to represent function, just astetics(sp?).

OTOH, one might argue that such a design provided for a more modular construction model. three seperate constuction crews (or four) at work at once with the last phase being the joining of the three...

Construction aside though, I think the functionality of the design in use is more a factor. IMO, the most impractical thing about 1701, but a flaw which is shared by virtually every SF ship, is the prominantly exposed command center. Practicality would deman, I should think, that your command center be the most well protected part of a vessel, given that windows are not a factor. But I can't recall, off hand, a prmonant SF ship design that heeded that factor.

Beyond that, the saucer section seems highly cfunctional in design, being superior to a corridor/dormatory style layout in that no one is really far removed from their post within the saucer itself.
Having an engineering section apart from the saucer could serve both to increse the effencency of the layout of the saucer (i.e. really big areas like the shuttle bay interfer with the circular layout's effecency) and to provide locations near to the exterior for the functions that need that (again, the Bay doors, and the deflector system and etc) and the setting apart of the nacelles has been addressed ad infinitum.

Quite apart from being impressed with the grace and elegence of the design from a visual point of view, I really don't see the big arguments for impracticality.

The only one that doesn't have an answer, IMO, is the ease with which a formidable opponent could attack the weaker structures that connect the various sections...in that regard a shpere or a cube is always the final answer.
But otherwise....? i just don't see why it's any more imparactical than any other design.

Well, one flaw in the 1701 design is the connecting srurture, where the saucer section could be conneted to the front of the engineering hull instead to make it stronger, and mounting the deflector dish in front of that, plus lowering the nacelle struts would give it a sleeker look.
It would be nice to see an actual FTL driven starship in real life just to see what engineers would come up with, but I doubt anyone would live long enough to see it become a reality.

Then answer this.

Why is the bridge of modern naval vessels still located in a very high exposed location?

It started out that way centuries ago so that captains of all gun warships could watch the fall of their shot and make gunnery corrections.

Needless to say, that doesn't apply today.

But warship bridges still are located high and exposed.

Tradition is a very important factor in ship design.

The Federation could build like 10 Defiants instead of one original Enterprise, or 50 Defiants instead of one Ent-D, and they would kick a lot more ass in either case.

That's great, but none of Starfleet's ships are made to float in the water (besides that stupid Holoship in Insurrection). Starfleet ships operate in in zero gravity, zero atmosphere.

Because when steering the ship it's good to be able to see where you're going? I've only been aboard a few large ships and the bridge was the place to get the best view of what was around the ship. I think there's a clue in there somewhere, especially since the Captain no longer "fights" the ship from the Bridge.

But, I digress. Didn't we just sacrifice USS RANGER a few months ago off the coast of the Carolinas to prove, once and for all, that a few Mk48 ADCAPs would send even a Super Carrier to Davy Jones'?

I believe it was the U.S.S. America that was used for live weapons tests.

But it was my understanding that the results of those tests are classified for obvious reasons.