test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

WHY Would Starfleet replace Excelsior with Ambassador?

12467

Comments

  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,205 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    There's also this as to the simple reasons why newer ships in a type (cruisers, light cruisers, battleships/dreadnoughts) are superior than their predecessors, esp. in Star Trek.

    Size. Size and bulk (1, 2... and how about that Dominion Battleship? WHEW!!!). Simply put, you can cram alot more cool stuff in a larger warship than you would in a smaller one. Not to mention the newer warship was purpose built to use current technology.

    The Excelsior was a clear, cutting edge technological wonder for its time. It was obvious in the movies when you compared the USS Excelsior to the older USS Enterprise / Constitution Refits that Starfleet got its act together for this new class. With the advent of TNG and the Galaxy, you can believe the Excelsior was that "bridge" into the later TNG era ships.

    Then you have the Ambassador. Later introduced some time into TNG's run, and we know it to precede the Galaxy class, which itself was the pride of Starfleet when they began production. The Ambassador though came after the Excelsior, and would have reaped whatever new technological developments made at the time. It would be superior to what the Excelsior was capable of.

    I would go onto say that the Ambassador may not have such a large, technological leap over the Excelsior. But there's no way in hell that the Excelsior, refitted or not, should be comparable to the Galaxy class, much less the epitome of Starfleet technology, the Sovereign class, and much less the newer, larger Cruisers / Heavy Cruisers introduced by Starfleet.
    XzRTofz.gif
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Bingo, at this point there was hundreds of Miranda and excels at this point while Ambassadors AT MOST maybe 30 ships and Galaxy maybe 10.

    And Constellation Class ships. And Wambundus. And all sorts of others that are oddly absent from this hypothetical.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • admiralq1732admiralq1732 Member Posts: 1,561 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    And Constellation Class ships. And Wambundus. And all sorts of others that are oddly absent from this hypothetical.

    Constell was not that successful design only about 6 in total built. Never heard of the Wambundus. Oberth, Miranda, and Excel are the most produce classes in starfleet and note Ambassador was arounf for twenty years and they wouldn't be mass produced as fast as the other 3. so my 20-30 is a guess but a logical one.

    Also I didn't exclude other classes just point out at that DW era what ships numbers for each class might be. other classes may have dozens made but the modualr desgin of the the big three saw them easily adpated and used. the Lakota was a sign of this top update the Excel one more time and fairly successful. Post DW however many of these ships will be gone and more First Contact ships will replaced them more and more. in STO the Excel is likely nearly done in it's service life.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Constell was not that successful design only about 6 in total built.

    According to Sternbach, there were 8. And it was successful enough as both a long range exploratory vessel and a defensive patrol vessel in its time. So successful in fact, that it got used again by Riker in a war game. Considering the long tenure of the Stargazer and the comparatively short tenure of the Enterprise-C, I wouldn't knock the Constellation class of ship. It bridges the gap between the Excelsior and the Ambassador, even if zillions of folks like to forget about it.
    Never heard of the Wambundus.

    It's from the Encyclopedia. The one I remember most clearly is the USS Drake. Riker was offered it. Refused. Captain Rice took command of it. It was destroyed.
    Oberth, Miranda, and Excel are the most produce classes in starfleet and note Ambassador was arounf for twenty years and they wouldn't be mass produced as fast as the other 3. so my 20-30 is a guess but a logical one.

    There's a whole host of other classes of ships though. Springfield, Korolev, Niagra, Apollo, Bradbury, Freedom, Merced, Renaissance, even the Cheyenne. Some of these were contemporary to the time period of the Ambassador. Along with the Constellation. And stayed in service on into the time of the Galaxy.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • admiralq1732admiralq1732 Member Posts: 1,561 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    According to Sternbach, there were 8. And it was successful enough as both a long range exploratory vessel and a defensive patrol vessel in its time. So successful in fact, that it got used again by Riker in a war game. Considering the long tenure of the Stargazer and the comparatively short tenure of the Enterprise-C, I wouldn't knock the Constellation class of ship. It bridges the gap between the Excelsior and the Ambassador, even if zillions of folks like to forget about it.



    It's from the Encyclopedia. The one I remember most clearly is the USS Drake. Riker was offered it. Refused. Captain Rice took command of it. It was destroyed.



    There's a whole host of other classes of ships though. Springfield, Korolev, Niagra, Apollo, Bradbury, Freedom, Merced, Renaissance, even the Cheyenne. Some of these were contemporary to the time period of the Ambassador. Along with the Constellation. And stayed in service on into the time of the Galaxy.

    Still only 8 and even Picard said she was underpowered and hard to maintain ship. And Hathway was used was because in a match against a Gal it would be Gal us cube. the wargame was based on the senario. And I'm not say those other classes were's built but they're likely in the dozens to. However they were still building the Oberth, Miranada and Esxcel in the 2360's so there would be hundreds of them so more likely to encounter them. Heck Oberth has to be the most destroyed starfleet ship in history.
  • lykumlykum Member Posts: 382
    edited May 2013
    Your all missing painfully obvious realities despite the obvious plot devices. The shipyard for the most part produces an unpowered hull that can be modified in any number of ways limited only by space and treknology. Any ship can be upgraded, updated, and even expanded upon (gal X) to make the ship go and kill better.

    However I am forced to agree the Defiant was intended for a specific role against the borg. Weapons are debateable considering the defiant was designed to pick on the borg.

    Not a deep space exploration cruiser.
    Lyndon Brewer: 20% chance to capture enemy ship for 60 seconds on successful use of boarding party.

    cause sometimes its party time!
  • amosov78amosov78 Member Posts: 1,495 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Funnily enough the Constellation-class (USS Constellation NX-1974) was around during the events of Star Trek VI in 2293. During Colonel West's briefing to the Federation President, the ship is listed on the one of the charts he is using. There's some clearer shots of these that were found by Rick Sternbach: Operation Retrieve #1 & Operation Retrieve #2
    U.S.S. Endeavour NCC-71895 - Nebula-class
    Commanding Officer: Captain Pyotr Ramonovich Amosov
    Dedication Plaque: "Nil Intentatum Reliquit"
  • misterde3misterde3 Member Posts: 4,195 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    amosov78 wrote: »
    Funnily enough the Constellation-class (USS Constellation NX-1974) was around during the events of Star Trek VI in 2293. During Colonel West's briefing to the Federation President, the ship is listed on the one of the charts he is using. There's some clearer shots of these that were found by Rick Sternbach: Operation Retrieve #1 & Operation Retrieve #2

    I can't open them.
    Seems you they can't be hotlinked.:(
  • admiralq1732admiralq1732 Member Posts: 1,561 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    amosov78 wrote: »
    Funnily enough the Constellation-class (USS Constellation NX-1974) was around during the events of Star Trek VI in 2293. During Colonel West's briefing to the Federation President, the ship is listed on the one of the charts he is using. There's some clearer shots of these that were found by Rick Sternbach: Operation Retrieve #1 & Operation Retrieve #2

    Constellation had a long service life but at this point only Victory is still in service.
  • amosov78amosov78 Member Posts: 1,495 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    misterde3 wrote: »
    I can't open them.
    Seems you they can't be hotlinked.:(

    I've uploaded them to imgur: OR #1 & OR #2
    U.S.S. Endeavour NCC-71895 - Nebula-class
    Commanding Officer: Captain Pyotr Ramonovich Amosov
    Dedication Plaque: "Nil Intentatum Reliquit"
  • lykumlykum Member Posts: 382
    edited May 2013
    Could keep a Federation ship in mothballs at the salvage yard for hundreds and hundreds of years. That's why they're there in the first place, so they can be called upon again. Heck I've seen a few episodes of Next Gen where they've encountered derelicts thousands of years old, like it was built 10 yrs ago.

    Truth is everything were seeing in STO ship era wise is a plausible Star Trek reality.
    Lyndon Brewer: 20% chance to capture enemy ship for 60 seconds on successful use of boarding party.

    cause sometimes its party time!
  • admiralq1732admiralq1732 Member Posts: 1,561 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    lykum wrote: »
    Could keep a Federation ship in mothballs at the salvage yard for hundreds and hundreds of years. That's why they're there in the first place, so they can be called upon again. Heck I've seen a few episodes of Next Gen where they've encountered derelicts thousands of years old, like it was built 10 yrs ago.

    Truth is everything were seeing in STO ship era wise is a plausible Star Trek reality.

    Very true, how ever the Federation has to be in dire straits to bring out the Connie again. WHen the Ambassador replaced the Excel it didn't phase out the ship like the Excel did to the Connie it just moved it from the Backbone ship to the workhorse. IT's desgin allowed it to last a long time but by STO time it's probably on it's last hurrah
  • misterde3misterde3 Member Posts: 4,195 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    amosov78 wrote: »
    I've uploaded them to imgur: OR #1 & OR #2

    Thanks. Great images.:)
  • misterde3misterde3 Member Posts: 4,195 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    lykum wrote: »
    Could keep a Federation ship in mothballs at the salvage yard for hundreds and hundreds of years. That's why they're there in the first place, so they can be called upon again. Heck I've seen a few episodes of Next Gen where they've encountered derelicts thousands of years old, like it was built 10 yrs ago.

    Truth is everything were seeing in STO ship era wise is a plausible Star Trek reality.

    That sounds good in theory but here's the problem:
    when a ship is in continual service and gets regular downtime, bits here and there can be replaced and modernized.
    When the ship has been in mothballs for a century or so...the tech inside will be outdated as well.
    They'd have to pull it out and practically rebuild it from the inside out.
    It's been done in RL with the battleships and battlecruisers inbetween WW1 and 2.
    In some cases they literally cut the ship in half to replace the propulsion system.
    The problem is that it takes longer to do that than build a new ship and put it into service.
    In some cases like the Japanese Kongo, it took twice as long.

    And back then it was not done voluntarily but due to naval treaties that permitted upgrades but no new construction.

    So how practical is it really to take an old ship and upgrade it in a yard that could in the same timeframe build two more modern ships that can each do the same as one refitted boat?:confused:
  • admiralq1732admiralq1732 Member Posts: 1,561 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    misterde3 wrote: »
    That sounds good in theory but here's the problem:
    when a ship is in continual service and gets regular downtime, bits here and there can be replaced and modernized.
    When the ship has been in mothballs for a century or so...the tech inside will be outdated as well.
    They'd have to pull it out and practically rebuild it from the inside out.
    It's been done in RL with the battleships and battlecruisers inbetween WW1 and 2.
    In some cases they literally cut the ship in half to replace the propulsion system.
    The problem is that it takes longer to do that than build a new ship and put it into service.
    In some cases like the Japanese Kongo, it took twice as long.

    And back then it was not done voluntarily but due to naval treaties that permitted upgrades but no new construction.

    So how practical is it really to take an old ship and upgrade it in a yard that could in the same timeframe build two more modern ships that can each do the same as one refitted boat?:confused:

    depends on ship and situation. If the ship was really need they might not upgrade at all and use her to free up more modern ships. IF we're talking excel she may be easier than most. There are already some in production with modern tech so the ship may be wasy to update. Connie another story.
  • yargomeshyargomesh Member Posts: 179 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    misterde3 wrote: »
    So how practical is it really to take an old ship and upgrade it in a yard that could in the same timeframe build two more modern ships that can each do the same as one refitted boat?:confused:

    In Star Trek it's very practical.

    TNG has the episode "Relics" that touches on this, in that a Constellation-era transport would still be in service. While technology has advanced, the principles and methods of that technology have not so it's simply a matter of upgrading software/hardware to the new standards. Also some systems might not need upgrading simply because the upgrade would provide negligible benefit for the amount of refit time required.

    Your battleship refit example wouldn't apply because Starfleet ships follow the first 'get regular updates' model up modernization. Arguably the only ships they have mothballed are the ones in museums. Everything else is in regular service until they've had a bad go of it and are either destroyed or not worth the repair cost.

    Starfleet doesn't get rid of ships because they're old, Starfleet gets rid of ships because they're well and truly used up.
  • misterde3misterde3 Member Posts: 4,195 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    yargomesh wrote: »
    In Star Trek it's very practical.

    TNG has the episode "Relics" that touches on this, in that a Constellation-era transport would still be in service. While technology has advanced, the principles and methods of that technology have not so it's simply a matter of upgrading software/hardware to the new standards. Also some systems might not need upgrading simply because the upgrade would provide negligible benefit for the amount of refit time required.

    Your battleship refit example wouldn't apply because Starfleet ships follow the first 'get regular updates' model up modernization. Arguably the only ships they have mothballed are the ones in museums. Everything else is in regular service until they've had a bad go of it and are either destroyed or not worth the repair cost.

    Starfleet doesn't get rid of ships because they're old, Starfleet gets rid of ships because they're well and truly used up.

    In "Relics" Geordi tells him the Jenolan could run cicles around the Enterprise at impulse speeds.
    That's hardly a surprise given their enormous size difference.
    It's also hardly surprising that a freighter would still be in service.

    When we take your argument that the principles are still the same to their conclusion...well then the FT-17 is built on the same design principles as any modern tank.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ft-17

    It has a petrol engine, a main gun in a rotating turret, hull armor etc.
    Would you use it against an M1 Abrams...because their systems work on the same principles.

    I also mentioned the "get regular upgrades" model myself so I'm not sure what your point is here.

    As for mothballed: the surplus depot we see in "Unification" clearly had a lot of intact ships in it that should, given their age, still be in operation.
    And in cases of the stole Vulcan freighters...they were actually operational

    So I don't see what basis your statement about ships in museums has at all.

    In addition, have you considered what "upgrade the hardware" really means?
    It's a euphemism for "replacing".
  • admiralq1732admiralq1732 Member Posts: 1,561 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    misterde3 wrote: »
    In "Relics" Geordi tells him the Jenolan could run cicles around the Enterprise at impulse speeds.
    That's hardly a surprise given their enormous size difference.
    It's also hardly surprising that a freighter would still be in service.

    When we take your argument that the principles are still the same to their conclusion...well then the FT-17 is built on the same design principles as any modern tank.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ft-17

    It has a petrol engine, a main gun in a rotating turret, hull armor etc.
    Would you use it against an M1 Abrams...because their systems work on the same principles.

    I also mentioned the "get regular upgrades" model myself so I'm not sure what your point is here.

    As for mothballed: the surplus depot we see in "Unification" clearly had a lot of intact ships in it that should, given their age, still be in operation.
    And in cases of the stole Vulcan freighters...they were actually operational

    So I don't see what basis your statement about ships in museums has at all.

    In addition, have you considered what "upgrade the hardware" really means?
    It's a euphemism for "replacing".

    Let's look at the Galaxy. The hull has a useable lifespan of 100 years. That's 10 tours fro what she was design for. in between those tours the ship gets refits and upgrades. Look at trhe E-D and the difeerence in the bridge between Season 1 to Generations. Starfleet upgrades aslong has the hull is in good shape nowadays. THe Exccelsior has moved from backbone of the fleet to workhorse has tech progressed.
  • yargomeshyargomesh Member Posts: 179 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    misterde3 wrote: »
    When we take your argument that the principles are still the same to their conclusion...well then the FT-17 is built on the same design principles as any modern tank.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ft-17

    It has a petrol engine, a main gun in a rotating turret, hull armor etc.
    Would you use it against an M1 Abrams...because their systems work on the same principles.

    The Ft-17 is a Constellation to the Galaxy's M1 Abrams in that example. A more apt comparison would be the M4 Sherman(which would be our Excelsior) to the M1 Abrams in which case I'd say 'Yes.'
    misterde3 wrote: »
    I also mentioned the "get regular upgrades" model myself so I'm not sure what your point is here.
    To clarify, my understanding was that you put forth that the 'get regular upgrades' model took less time than the 'mothball then refit when needed' model which held the battleships having their hulls cut open.
    I agree that receiving regular, smaller refits would take less time.
    misterde3 wrote: »
    As for mothballed: the surplus depot we see in "Unification" clearly had a lot of intact ships in it that should, given their age, still be in operation.
    And in cases of the stole Vulcan freighters...they were actually operational

    So I don't see what basis your statement about ships in museums has at all.
    I had honestly forgotten about that scene in favor of 'zomg Spock and Picard' memories but since you bring it up, the ships there were being salvaged for useful parts effectively doing stage one of any refit work that would be done the hulls later if needed.

    My statement about ships in museums is another reference to 'Relics' where Picard mentions a Constellation ship in the fleet museum, again having forgotten about the depot.
    misterde3 wrote: »
    In addition, have you considered what "upgrade the hardware" really means?
    It's a euphemism for "replacing".

    It takes a lot less time and effort to replace modular components such as consoles and computers than it does to replace major systems. Starfleet ships are built to be very modular, as shown when the Enterprise-D was able to just plug in an experimental cloak and use it immediately as shown in 'The Pegasus.'
  • willamsheridanwillamsheridan Member Posts: 1,189 Arc User
    edited April 2014
    I have not read all 12 pages but did Starfleet really replace the Excelsior with the Ambassador? When we look at all the Episodes of TNG, DS9, VOY and the movies we have a few 'Ambassador Ships like the USS Horatio, The Enterprise-C and the Yamaguchi, Excalibur and Zhukov but we have seen far more Excelsior Class ships.
    We have seen Excelsiors as flagships. Thats impressive for a 80 year old design. Maybe the Ambassdor was just another ship class in Starfleet service for special missions like long range deep space explorations. It had room for families, the excelsior did not.
  • emacsheadroomemacsheadroom Member Posts: 994 Arc User
    edited April 2014
    I have not read all 12 pages but did Starfleet really replace the Excelsior with the Ambassador? When we look at all the Episodes of TNG, DS9, VOY and the movies we have a few 'Ambassador Ships like the USS Horatio, The Enterprise-C and the Yamaguchi, Excalibur and Zhukov but we have seen far more Excelsior Class ships.
    We have seen Excelsiors as flagships. Thats impressive for a 80 year old design. Maybe the Ambassdor was just another ship class in Starfleet service for special missions like long range deep space explorations. It had room for families, the excelsior did not.

    The Necromancer has a supernatural ability to bring long-dead forum discussion threads back to life. After having been flogged to death the thread may have been deceased for many years, and bringing it back may have scant relevance to the current topic, yet the Necromancer will unexpectedly exhume the thread’s rotting corpse, and strike horror in the forum as its grotesque form lurches into the discussion. The monster, instantly recognized by all who knew it in life, seems at first to breathe and have a pulse, but, alas, it is beyond the Necromancer’s skill to fully restore the thread’s original vitality. The thread is only a shadow of its former self and very quickly expires.
  • willamsheridanwillamsheridan Member Posts: 1,189 Arc User
    edited April 2014
    Better revive a thread than having several threads about the same topic. Necro rule is stupid. If a thread is old close it or leave it open to post. that simple
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,963 Arc User
    edited April 2014
    Better revive a thread than having several threads about the same topic. Necro rule is stupid. If a thread is old close it or leave it open to post. that simple

    Then when you're a forum moderator you can allow all the necros you want. But on this board you're not, so you have to follow the rules here like everyone else.
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • vetteguy904vetteguy904 Member Posts: 3,923 Arc User
    edited April 2014
    if the game had it REALLY right, by Canon it would go:
    NX
    Connie
    Miranda
    Excelsior
    Cheyenne/Stargazer
    Ambassador
    Galaxy
    Sovvy
    Oddy
    sig.jpg
  • vetteguy904vetteguy904 Member Posts: 3,923 Arc User
    edited April 2014
    nalberta wrote: »
    A cruiser would have more staying power so the Defiant would be at a huge disadvantage after spending its complement of torpedoes, if it ever got though shields and impressive armor of a cruiser in the first place.

    Um. there is a lot of fail with that statement. Defiant was built for one purpose. Kill Borg.

    that very objective automatically infers that Defiant's weapons suite would surpass a cruiser's, and by definition, make a cruiser go BOOOM. it's suppose to make CUBES go Boom.
    sig.jpg
  • stf65stf65 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited April 2014
    if the game had it REALLY right, by Canon it would go:
    NX
    Connie
    Miranda
    Excelsior
    Cheyenne/Stargazer
    Ambassador
    Galaxy
    Sovvy
    Oddy
    The miranda isn't a better ship then the connie. It's smaller and weaker. The only reason the reliant hurt the enterprise was because of the suprise attack; not to mention that the enterprise was staffed by cadets on a training mission.

    The stargazer is also a contemporary of the excelsior. The constellation appeared in 2285 and the excelsior in 2287. The excelsior was made the enterprise b in 2293. They're 2 different ships with 2 entirely different purposes. Even picard described the stargazer as underpowered and overworked.
  • stf65stf65 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited April 2014
    Um. there is a lot of fail with that statement. Defiant was built for one purpose. Kill Borg.

    that very objective automatically infers that Defiant's weapons suite would surpass a cruiser's, and by definition, make a cruiser go BOOOM. it's suppose to make CUBES go Boom.
    You do know you're quoting and replying to someone from nearly a year ago?
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    edited April 2014
    if the game had it REALLY right, by Canon it would go:
    NX
    Connie
    Miranda
    Excelsior
    Cheyenne/Stargazer
    Ambassador
    Galaxy
    Sovvy
    Oddy

    The Stargazer is a TMP era ship like the Excelsior, the Cheyenne is newer than the Ambassador (it shares the same nacelles as the New Orleans {top pair} and the Springfield) both of which are Galaxy era ships.
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • vetteguy904vetteguy904 Member Posts: 3,923 Arc User
    edited April 2014
    exactly the if a ship design is either verestile or cheap it will have a long service life. the Oberth was only recently replaced by the Nova. the TNG and DW Excel is the workhorse of the fleet and likely will for sometime. And the Miranda has 4 varients (note taking Soyuz into that count) but the also took the brunt of the deaths. the STO fed fleet should be more FC era ships

    actually we have all been thinking "there can be only one" I would suggest that the Oberth replacement was the Pasteur class, and Starfleet's science mandate at that point was to go big and small, similar to the US navy building Spruance destroyers alongside Perry frigates.

    a similar argument could be made for the stargazer and ambassador being developed side by side. both cruisers, one more military in function, the other more science/diplomacy oriented hence the AMBASSADOR class. somewhere along the way, Starfleet decided that perhaps both could be achieved by a single more cost effective starship, the galaxy. the big primary hull housing the science abilities, and being designed for routine saucer separation, the secondary hull becomes the military weapon, as well as the two hulls becoming a force multiplier
    sig.jpg
This discussion has been closed.