The Red Shirt Ship Replacement

[JALU3]

During the Dominion War Starfleet's Miranda and Exelsior Class Frigates and Cruisers toook a pretty heavy beating.

I understand that the Akira (size 7) is propsed to fill the Exelsior's (size 7) role as the main medium size cruiser for the fleet.

But what of the Miranda's (Size 5) replacement? Are looking at more Norways (Size 6), Streamrunners (Size 6), Novas (Size 5), Sabers (Size 5), a new class?

[Pericles]

I would cast my vote for the Steamrunners. Novas and Sabers are too small and Norways seem to be more science focused. The Steamrunner is one of the Perimeter Defense Directive ships designed to stand up in heavy fighting. I know this isn't what Mirandas were designed for, but they were modified into the Soyuz Border Cutter configuration, which closely matches the concept Perimeter Defense.

[spyone]

Another Dominion-War-Era class with a similar role to the Miranda that's about the same size as the Norway and Steamrunner is .... the Intrepid.

Problem is, the size keeps creeping up on us; the Intrepid Class may only have a crew of 142, but it is larger than an old Constitution Class.

I suppose it mostly depends on what role you think the Miranda's had before the war. The Nova Class is a cross between a Science and Explorer vessel (lotsa labs, but more versitile than a strict Science vessel, yet not intended to operate away from bases for long periods of time and not very fast), and if you haven't totally blocked out the glipse of the "future" in Voyager's "Endgame", then Starfleet eventually starts equipping them for multi-year Explorer missions.

I could also see the Starfleet designing a totally new class, "based on lessons learned in the Dominion War".

[Phoenix]

My views on the ships -
Excelsior: The general cruiser slot of the Federation partaking in minor exploration, patrols, defense, diplomatic functions, and flag showing.
Miranda: Light patrol, escort duties, minor exploration. Some of the variants would have had been better in more specialized areas, like the Soyuz aimed more at patrol and border defense then exploration.

With the new series of ships, I don't think they were intended to replace the older designs ship for ship. In my opinion, the four ships were designed to give less of a generalized operation theater, to become more specialized in the primary role assigned.

Akira: focuses more on combat, command and flag showing, replacing that part of the Excelsior's portfolio.
Steamrunner: again more of a combat design, more in line with fulfilling the patrol duties of both of the older ships.
Norway: I see them as being more in the exploration and diplomatic cruiser role with some light patrol duty.
Saber: Filling more of the border or system patrol and escort duties.

[JALU3]

So . . . going opposite of the modern era . . . where many specialized ships are being replaced by fewer, newer, more technically advanced, mulitpurpose ships . . . they are creating more, specialized ships . . . as opposed to fewer, multipurpose ships?

[spyone]

As required research and patrol ranges increase annually, the number of spacecraft required increases dramaticly. Accordingly, Starfleet vessel construction policies are increasingly based on the theory that it is more efficient to have a larger number of small, mission-specific starships, than to have a smaller number of large, multimission vehicles.
The multimission capability of the Galaxy class starship and its predecessors has, however, been shown to be an essential part of the vehicle mix.

There will always be a place in any toolkit for the Swiss Army Knife, but if you're driving a lot of screws you should buy some screwdrivers.

[Phoenix]

Why have one design that can do all the jobs somewhat, when it would be just as feasible to have a few additional specialized designs. As a warship, the Miranda was lacking. The Dominion War and the thread title more than proved that.

[JALU3]

I think the biggest issue would be Manpower . . . ships . . . with the resources and the size of the Federation . . . aren't a problem. However, creating experienced and high quality officers and NCOs . . . are. Therefore . . . you can create more ships that can do less, but what little they do better . . . or you can create less ships that can do more, but not a specific thing all that great.

I have always, even in real life, been a proponent of having two forces (one for more time operations, and another for purely defense/offense operations (i.e. a strong "legacy force")). However, to do that . . . would require manpower . . . which in that universe, and of present, that the "national will" aren't willing to commit.

[BouncyCaitian]

This is kinda how I saw the Excelsior III class and how if intoduced it in another thread. filsl the general cruiser slot, but was completely rebuilt and updated for modern tech to act as am all purpose cruiser. needed relatively few crew comparitively speaking, but could still act as a ship of authority if needed. which after the war would prove popular

[JALU3]

The worst part of the smaller crew number arguement is one posed by a PO1 uncle of mine. That is . . . when shit hits the fan . . . and damage occurs . . . that means fewer people to help fix that damage . . . and that means that every lost life, effects the ship that much more.

[Commander Ramey]

What about the Nebula class? I thought of it as more or less replacing the Excelciors and Mirandas to support the Galaxy class.

[spyone]

Well, a Nebula is about the same size as a Galaxy Class (just layed out differently), so it falls victim to the same "too many eggs in one basket" complaint. It is hard to replace a ship with 200 or 300 crew with one with a crew of 700 and call it the same kind of tool.
Mirandas, and even Excelsiors, were used when a truly big Starfleet ship wasn't needed, so trying to cover their missions with one of the truly big ships is a little ... wasteful.

Plus, the Nebula predates the Galaxy Class, so there may be something newer to better fit the role.

(I always kinda assumed that production of the Nebulas halted when Galaxies came out, and then Starfleet decided the Galaxies had a poor returin on investment, so they stopped building those too.)

[tonyg]

Well, a Nebula is about the same size as a Galaxy Class (just layed out differently)

Huh? How did you come to that assumption. Based on volume, the Nebula is about twice the size of a Excelsior-class starship. Based on volume, a Galaxy-class starship is about three times the size of a Nebula-class.


BTW, most sources have the Nebula-class being designed around the same time as the Galaxy-class as a companion ship. So it doesn't predate it. So it does appear the Nebula could replace the Excelsiors and Mirandas. The larger crew complmenet, compared to the Miranda probably isn't that much if the crews aboard the Nebulas have families aboard like on the Galaxy-class.

[spyone]

Well, looking at the Nebula in, say, the Encyclopedia's chart of ships, it is pretty obvious that the Nebula uses the same saucer as the Galaxy, the same nacelles, and a nearly identical secondary hull (in that image it looks like it could be identical, but other images make it clear it is not.
Take a Galaxy Class, turn the nacelles over (so they go down instead of up), move the saucer back into where the "neck" is, and you've basicly got a Nebula.
The Galaxy has a longer secondary hull, but not by much. It also has the "neck" connecting the secondary hull to the saucer, but compared to the saucer that is a pretty small bit of ship. The Nebula has a secondary hull that is thicker towards the back than the Galaxy, and it has the "pod" on a tower behind the saucer.

That's where I get the idea thay are basicly the same size, just layed out differently.

I'm interested in your source for the Nebula having 2/3 the volume of a Galaxy. (Or a Galaxy being 3 times the volume of an Excelsior)

I agree the Nebula is sort of contemporary to the Galaxy, but it is clearly a slightly older design. Why so? Look at the hull numbers.
USS Galaxy was NCC-70637, and USS Yamato was NCC-71807. 71805 was a Nebula, and we've seen Nebulas as high as NCC-72015 (which is higher than any Galaxy we've seen), but the oldest Nebula we've seen is NCC-60205 USS Honshu.
Numbers are assigned in a vaguely chronological order, so we know there are Nebulas being built before the Galaxy Class prototype was finished, although we cannot say exactly how long since we don't know how numbers are issued beyond "vaguely chronological", so we don't know how much time 10,000 numbers would represent.

Also, the "newest" Ambassador Class ship we've seen was NCC-68814 (USS Prokofiev), and most folks hold that the Ambassador was replaced by the Galaxy, so that suggests several years between 68814 and 70637, which further suggests that Nebulas were being built years before Galaxies.

(I wish tone of voice could be represented in text. In the above, I am friendly and jovial: the volume of information is intended to provide completeness, not to dun opponents into submission. I welcome debate, and feely admit that some of this is subjective.)

IMO, the Nebula is at least 10 years older than the Galaxy, to account for the hull numbers and the newer Ambassadors. But that's just an opinion.

[spyone]

Update: I have become aware of some canon evidence that impact my theories above:
Apparently, the dedication plaque for USS Phoenix NCC-65420 said it was commissioned on stardate 40250.5, which would be within 2363, the same year USS Enterprise was commissioned (on stardate 40759.5). USS Galaxy was launched (and one presumes also commissioned) two years before Enterprise. USS Yamato was built alongside Enterprise, but finished and commissioned first.

So, we have canon evidence that NCC-65420 was built after NCC-70637 (by perhaps 2 years), and just shortly before NCC-71807.

I guess I need to increase the amount of "vague" in "vaguely chronological".

In light of this new evidence, it is not unlikely that the Nebulas are only a few years older than the Galaxies, having been developed at the same time but put into production slightly sooner.