Rihannsu
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,378
# 111
01-27-2013, 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkilczewski View Post
You've been misinformed. Battleships were formerly designed as a naval superiority weapon, not as carrier escorts/pickets.
The Iowa-class design started in 1938, at that time it was more that known that the Carriers would be replacing battleships as the center of the battle groups.

The Iowa was designed to be fast enough to keep up with carriers and to engage any ships that could come close to the battle group.

I have not been misinformed, those ships were further modified by the realities of the Pacific theater, the first Iowa class to be commissioned was the USS Iowa, it was laid down in 1940, launched in 1941 and commissioned in 1942.

I am quite aware of what battleships were originally meant to do, however anything like the Battle of Jutland never happened in WW II; what DID happened was Pearl Harbor and Prince of Wales, I could add other examples as the Yamato and even the Bismarck.

Realities change the role of ships, the Iowa was a battleship because of its armament and tonnage but its intended role was to escort Carriers and defend then from cruisers and battleships.

Quote:
Sometimes they were attached to carrier strike forces as flagships, but for the most part, their mission was to seek out, and destroy other battleships, and provide long range fire support during amphibious operations. Their role has since been supplanted by the guided missle cruiser/destroyer.
Oh dear Lord ...

I do not have the time to go over the entire naval history of World War II, I can only say you are so wrong.

Quote:
The reason you never saw any fighter craft in any canon trek ...
Except the Federation Attack Fighter in DS9:Sacrifice of Angels ...

Quote:
A Miranda class starship's targeting, and fire control systems, even at low power levels, would be more than sufficient, to toast multiple wings of fighter craft, simultaneously.
Ok so ... let me get this.

We "never say any fighter craft in any canon trek" BUT apparently we seen the "Miranda targeting and control system" "toasting multiple wings of fighter craft."

Of course the above is false, we HAVE seen them as I mentioned and yes, we have been told the Cardassian/Dominion Fleet were destroying them ... of course considering how that battle gone it does not tell us much as we seen Mirandas being destroyed as well as the Federation Attack Fighters wings were send alone to lure ships away from the main forces, they simply did not bite the bait.

Quote:
This is ignored in the silly, views, expressed by Cryptic in STO. So even though some glorious, Klingons wouldn't be adverse to flying kamikaze missions in small craft, the Federation is not in the business of sending young pilots to their death.
This tired old comment again.

Also no, the Klingons are NOT suicidal, they are NOT Imperial Japan of the 1944's as they were original based on the Mongols.

Quote:
Another reason the "Aircraft Analogy" doesn't hold water...
I made no attempt at such a analogy, I only said conditions change as we gone from Jutland to Pearl Harbor with the role of the Battleship being altered over the years.

Quote:
This is why any type of offensive, carrier vessel in STO, is sillier than an electric blanket mobile.
I made my comments in relation to Carriers being " OMG! aggressive warship meant only for war and killing kittens" that a rather ignorant view, a carrier does what it says ... it carries, question is WHAT it carriers.

You people are always with the same crap, on one hand the very mention carrier strikes so much fear into the hearts of the people they faint yet at the same time they are utter worthless.

Pick one argument and stick with it but now you mention Battleships is a horrible word YET we have the Typhoon Class Battleship, yet we have the Dreadnought Cruiser.

So carrier is BAD WORD! BAD WORD! yet Dreadnought is perfectly fine.

I have no desire to go back to this tired old argument since THAT ship have sailed (Atrox, Heavy Escort Carrier) and further discussion is POINTLESS, however I do say this.

Right now the Federation True Carrier force is almost exclusive made from the Recluse and now the Jem'hadar Dreadnought ... you DONT have a problem with that? the fact non-Federation ships are taking the place of proper Federation ships because ... well the Heavy Escort Carrier is the 2nd most common escort but still a escort and the Atrox is a rather disappointing ship (even it made so many rage/quit back on its release) since its a Cruiser/Science ship with the worst of both of those ships.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 193
# 112
01-28-2013, 07:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcp26 View Post
First, it's "Good news everyone!". Second, will you KDF whiners stop complaining. Go back and watch every battle ever containing Klingons. You will see over a dozen different types of Federation vessels ranging from the small Defiant class to the massive Galaxy class. You will see three types of Klingon ships: Bird of Preys, Vor'chas and K't'ingas. Four if you count Negvars but only one of those was in service during the entire Dominion War and the others appeared in alternate timelines. Klingon starships are like Russian tanks, they pick a few designs (e.g. T34, Stalin II) and build as many of them as possible hoping to overwhelm their foes with superior numbers. If you want multiple ship classes, join the Federation. Klingons prefer quantity over variety. Watch DS9. You'll see what I am talking about.

he does have a point, but in the b'rel owners workshop manual it says there is a large variaton between individual ships depending on the house that owns it so we should have dif versions of existing ships with diff stats and layouts plus there are ships that we dont have like the k'vort and gowrons Nig'var(take a close look at the one in the show its not the same as the one ingame)
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 281
# 113
01-28-2013, 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by f2pdrakron View Post
The Iowa-class design started in 1938, at that time it was more that known that the Carriers would be replacing battleships as the center of the battle groups.

The Iowa was designed to be fast enough to keep up with carriers and to engage any ships that could come close to the battle group.

I have not been misinformed, those ships were further modified by the realities of the Pacific theater, the first Iowa class to be commissioned was the USS Iowa, it was laid down in 1940, launched in 1941 and commissioned in 1942.

I am quite aware of what battleships were originally meant to do, however anything like the Battle of Jutland never happened in WW II; what DID happened was Pearl Harbor and Prince of Wales, I could add other examples as the Yamato and even the Bismarck.

Realities change the role of ships, the Iowa was a battleship because of its armament and tonnage but its intended role was to escort Carriers and defend then from cruisers and battleships.



Oh dear Lord ...

I do not have the time to go over the entire naval history of World War II, I can only say you are so wrong.



Except the Federation Attack Fighter in DS9:Sacrifice of Angels ...



Ok so ... let me get this.

We "never say any fighter craft in any canon trek" BUT apparently we seen the "Miranda targeting and control system" "toasting multiple wings of fighter craft."

Of course the above is false, we HAVE seen them as I mentioned and yes, we have been told the Cardassian/Dominion Fleet were destroying them ... of course considering how that battle gone it does not tell us much as we seen Mirandas being destroyed as well as the Federation Attack Fighters wings were send alone to lure ships away from the main forces, they simply did not bite the bait.



This tired old comment again.

Also no, the Klingons are NOT suicidal, they are NOT Imperial Japan of the 1944's as they were original based on the Mongols.



I made no attempt at such a analogy, I only said conditions change as we gone from Jutland to Pearl Harbor with the role of the Battleship being altered over the years.



I made my comments in relation to Carriers being " OMG! aggressive warship meant only for war and killing kittens" that a rather ignorant view, a carrier does what it says ... it carries, question is WHAT it carriers.

You people are always with the same crap, on one hand the very mention carrier strikes so much fear into the hearts of the people they faint yet at the same time they are utter worthless.

Pick one argument and stick with it but now you mention Battleships is a horrible word YET we have the Typhoon Class Battleship, yet we have the Dreadnought Cruiser.

So carrier is BAD WORD! BAD WORD! yet Dreadnought is perfectly fine.

I have no desire to go back to this tired old argument since THAT ship have sailed (Atrox, Heavy Escort Carrier) and further discussion is POINTLESS, however I do say this.

Right now the Federation True Carrier force is almost exclusive made from the Recluse and now the Jem'hadar Dreadnought ... you DONT have a problem with that? the fact non-Federation ships are taking the place of proper Federation ships because ... well the Heavy Escort Carrier is the 2nd most common escort but still a escort and the Atrox is a rather disappointing ship (even it made so many rage/quit back on its release) since its a Cruiser/Science ship with the worst of both of those ships.
Not quite sure if your sources are fouled or you're just making this stuff up to troll. Here's the deal:
After the battle of Taranto (look it up) and Pearl Harbor (look it up) the U.S. Naval doctrine was that carriers, along with cruiser/submarine screens, were more than capable of defending themselves. The major threat to carriers weren't battleships. It was aircraft, and submarines.

Now that that's established, the U.S.S. Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, and New Jersey were designed from the keel up, as battleships. They were NOT designed as some super destroyer escort, that people then decided to call battleships, as you purport. Their inception, was a direct counter to the new, faster, bigger, super, battleships that Japan was laying down, Yamato, Musashi, and an unnamed third, later to become the Shinano.

Actually, to properly understand the battleship's role, you'd have to go back farther than the entire, naval, history of WWII. Enough said.

The fighters you speak of in DS9 were never, actually, portrayed as carrier, launched, fighters. Nor were any carrier operations ever portrayed in DS9, or otherwise. Those fighters were planetary defense craft, similar to those that got wasted by the Borg cube in TNG. The Federation's "fighter", the Peregrine's actual designation is "courier" vessel, not "fighter".

No, I never said the Miranda was portrayed targeting multiple wings of fighter craft, in any Trek. This is conjecture based on A) The U.S.S. Reliant's phasers tore a gash in the side U.S.S. Enterprise, that was at least 3 decks high. What do you think would happen to a small, unshielded, one man craft? Like I said, toast. And B) The fire control computer in a primitive 21st century tank like the M1 abrams can aquire, and target 3 different targets, simultaneosly. How many can the positronic computers of the 25th aquire, and destroy?

And yes anyone attacking a starship in a small, unshielded, fighter, Klingon, or otherwise, IS suicidal. Notice how, even in STO, few, if any fighters survive an engagement? This is because they're not truly, an offensive weapon. Carriers launch them, to keep the targets busy, while either the carrier, or his friends, whale on the target. This, from the standpoint of someone who would pilot these "fighters", IS a suicide mission. Not sure why you thought I said the Klinks were modelled on the Japanese, either. I never said that.

Lastly, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make concerning battleships, and dreadnaughts, being BAD WORDS. So there will be no rebuttal.
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,378
# 114
01-28-2013, 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkilczewski View Post
Not quite sure if your sources are fouled or you're just making this stuff up to troll. Here's the deal:
I am not making this stuff up.


Quote:
After the battle of Taranto (look it up) and Pearl Harbor (look it up) the U.S. Naval doctrine was that carriers, along with cruiser/submarine screens, were more than capable of defending themselves. The major threat to carriers weren't battleships. It was aircraft, and submarines.
Again, look at the dates of the Iowa ... it was only commissioned in 1942, and it goes further back to 1938 that pre-dates those battles.

Originally it was intended to operate that way, also keep in mind only 4 out of 6 Iowa-class Battleships were build.

There is also stuff I could go on, for example the air-defenses on the US battleships were considered "adequate" before Pearl Harbor, we know they were substantially upgraded afterwards and this could really go on.

Also cruisers and battleships did pose a threat, I will remind you of Battle of Leyte Gulf, the 25 October Battle off Samar were 6 escort carriers and 7 destroyers suddenly were facing 4 battleships and 8 cruisers.

Quote:
Now that that's established, the U.S.S. Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, and New Jersey were designed from the keel up, as battleships. They were NOT designed as some super destroyer escort, that people then decided to call battleships, as you purport. Their inception, was a direct counter to the new, faster, bigger, super, battleships that Japan was laying down, Yamato, Musashi, and an unnamed third, later to become the Shinano.
I never mentioned they were destroyer escorts because a destroyer was never meant to engage cruisers and battleships, they were a counter to Torpedo Boats and later to aircraft and submarines.

Also the Iowa-class was not a direct counter to the Yamato, that was the Montana-class that was never entered existed being cancelled but it was still approved to be build by congress in 1939 (I am putting dates to show when such decisions were made).

The speed was to the Iowa as the heavy firepower and armor was to the Montana, this come up during the Iowa planning stages.

Quote:
Actually, to properly understand the battleship's role, you'd have to go back farther than the entire, naval, history of WWII. Enough said.
No, I just need to go back to World War I since this was when Battleships had a role with such a name, unless you want to go back to Ships-of-the-line or the more modern Ironclads.

[quote]The fighters you speak of in DS9 were never, actually, portrayed as carrier, launched, fighters. Nor were any carrier operations ever portrayed in DS9, or otherwise. Those fighters were planetary defense craft, similar to those that got wasted by the Borg cube in TNG. The Federation's "fighter", the Peregrine's actual designation is "courier" vessel, not "fighter".[/quote}

This tired old argument again ...

We been over this, I dont care about what you or anyone speculates, your speculation is as valid as mine.

There is one thing I will indulge, the Peregrine.

The only mention of it by that name is in DS9: "Heart of Stone" and yes, its referred as a courier however the Federation Attack Fighter that shares a striking similarity is shown in TNG: "Preemptive Strike", DS9: "The Maquis, Part II", "A Time to Stand", "Favor the Bold", "Sacrifice of Angels" and "What You Leave Behind".

Also its shown in display graphics in Voyager buts its referred as ""Academy flight trainer".

To make this clear, I made no claims the the Peregrine and the Federation Attack Fighter are one and the same.

Further as to make this point VERY clear, in the Mirror Universe the Federation Attack Fighter is known as the Terran raider.

Quote:
No, I never said the Miranda was portrayed targeting multiple wings of fighter craft ...
Yes you did, I could point out a few of those "couriers" as you claim then to be managed to scare off a Galor and only retreated when the Enterprise-D entered the scene.

I will complete my reasoning ... according to on-screen evidence the Galor is LESS capable that a Miranda class if we follow your speculation.

Quote:
Not sure why you thought I said the Klinks were modelled on the Japanese, either. I never said that.
You dont?

Let me put this way, its fine for the KDF to send people into those INEFFECTIVE death traps because ... they want to die in battle?

There is a line in honorable death and suicide, if fighters are so worthless deathtraps why sending warriors into then so they can just be killed? the Klingons so not employ wave attacks, even the Dominion that have disposable forces do not use such tactics unless its the last option.

Quote:
Lastly, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make concerning battleships, and dreadnaughts, being BAD WORDS. So there will be no rebuttal.
Point is the name "carrier" have no negative connections as some like to imply, at least not as a negative as "Battleship" and "Dreadnought".
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,553
# 115
01-28-2013, 12:52 PM
Um... guys, as much as I enjoyed the history lesson/debate here, can we get back on topic of discussing a fed carrier/derailing this fed carrier thread?
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
Tired of Wasting EC and Time trying to get Superior Romulan Operative BOffs? Here's a cheap and easy way to get them, with an almost 100% chance of success.
Why the Devs can't make PvE content harder.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 854
# 116
01-28-2013, 01:36 PM
We have enough carriers as it is now. To be honest the heavy escort carrier is better then what a flight deck carrier would be, shame the fleet version is T5 shipyard.
Previously Alendiak
Daizen - Lvl 50 Engineer - Fleet Avenger
Selia - Lvl 50 Tactical - Fleet Avenger
Toval - Lvl 50 Tactical - Fleet Mogai
Republic Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,887
# 117
01-28-2013, 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by orondis View Post
We have enough carriers as it is now. To be honest the heavy escort carrier is better then what a flight deck carrier would be, shame the fleet version is T5 shipyard.
I don't want a flight deck carrier...I want a true carrier.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 32
# 118
01-30-2013, 10:43 AM
I'd like to see a Starfleet design as a carrier ship, purely down to being able to customize the hull and materials. Having the Atrox since release it does get stale in the looks department.

I'd be happy to have a nebula refit with a 2 hangar mission pod.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 120
# 119
07-31-2013, 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelj88 View Post
^^ Spot On ^^

to add to your list

+5 Tac Console B'Rel Bird Of Prey

`my reasons? the B'Rel BoP is a true glass cannon, exactly what ALL escorts should be, it should have +5 tac console.
most escorts have hugs hulls and MASSIVE damage and the ability to tank and defend itself better than almost every other ship, The B'Rel has low hull and should have massive damage exactly what people who want to DPS everything should be flying! ... Period.

to the OP, the Atrox is fine, to be a carrier you depend on your fighters, as for the Vesta its a horrid ship, its the most vile statement of a ship.
I played from Open Beta and I still continue to play, during the first and second year of STO Tactical Captains where able to use Science Powers better than Science Captains who had spec'd their skills to that power.
in turn cryptic down toned every skill that the Tactical Captains used... the Vesta just gives Tactical Captains the edge over true Science/Science Captains.

as for the Armitage Escort Carrier, its a vile statement against the KDF, who continue to this day to recieve nothing. maybe a mirror ship in this box and mirror ship in that box.


RachelJ88
Nevermind that the KDF-only BoP that is completely customizable, what with it having nothing but Universal boff slots.

As for the HEC and the KDF getting nothing?
* All of the LG rank ships, with the exceptions of the Bortas and Guramba are 500 zen cheaper than the fed VA ships.

* KDF gets a #FREE# carrier at rank up.

* While not VA, KDF gets a cruiser-carrier combo.

*The Kar'fi is more than a match for the equivalent Atrox, in terms of capability, is the same rank, and yet, again, is 500 zen cheaper.

* Some, not all, of the KDF carriers can launch frigates. There is, to date, not a SINGLE Fed ship that can claim the same ability. While this only includes 2 ships, that's 2 more than the Federation can claim.

I do not dispute that the KDF needs more ships. Far from it. I would, however, also argue that there should be some parity, which goes both ways, especially on the subject of carriers.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 216
# 120
07-31-2013, 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsck82 View Post
Nevermind that the KDF-only BoP that is completely customizable, what with it having nothing but Universal boff slots.

As for the HEC and the KDF getting nothing?
* All of the LG rank ships, with the exceptions of the Bortas and Guramba are 500 zen cheaper than the fed VA ships.

* KDF gets a #FREE# carrier at rank up.

* While not VA, KDF gets a cruiser-carrier combo.

*The Kar'fi is more than a match for the equivalent Atrox, in terms of capability, is the same rank, and yet, again, is 500 zen cheaper.

* Some, not all, of the KDF carriers can launch frigates. There is, to date, not a SINGLE Fed ship that can claim the same ability. While this only includes 2 ships, that's 2 more than the Federation can claim.

I do not dispute that the KDF needs more ships. Far from it. I would, however, also argue that there should be some parity, which goes both ways, especially on the subject of carriers.
Why does the Federation need carriers?
And why does everyone want everything to be homogenized every which way?
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:56 AM.