I don't, quite get it. So... were you here too for the Klingon carriers? The Orion FDCs? Is it really about Carriers, or the Federation getting them? Because, balance wise, putting carriers on both sides is no less fair than putting flagships on both sides. And if you want to use canon, you're right, I can't point to a single ship in Starfleet that's been seen serving as a carier. But I really can't point to any Klingon or Orion ones either. As far as those go, the Klingon Empire is never even seen using fighters, while there's more than a few wings of peregrines to be seen in DS9, lending at least some credence to the notion that there must be some ship somewhere in the fleet that, if not picks them up so they can keep up with all the larger, faster ships, at least resupplies them between fights and gives their little crews a place to stretch their legs.

Personally, I like the Akira middle ground. A ship that isn't a carrier by default, but can at least, in some comparitively limited manner (relative to the dedicated carriers the Klingons use), serve as one when the need arises. And it actually makes some sense that it would be the torpedo boat that gets this role, provided the Akira's torpedoes also fit the Peregrines. It would have the stockpiles needed to rearm them.

Technically the Scimitar from nemesis was a Carrier wasn't it? It was packed full of fighters and Picard and Data actually managed to go for a joyride in one IN the ship?

This. After "Sacrifice of Angels", DS9 recycled one particular scene- showing the Defiant firing it's cannons off to the left side of the screen while two Mirandas provided backup fire- At least half a dozen times over the course of the later part of the series. The final battle in the series contained almost no original footage.



Lets not forget that the designer of the ship has just as much final say in what a ship is capable of as CBS and Paramount themselves have in showing it. The creator of the Akira class specifically designed it as a mid-range ship that put special emphasis on it's shuttle bays as well as bombarding enemies with torpedoes.

Just because we never got to see the fighter craft in action doesn't make it any less canon.


And yes. CBS has the final say on whatever gets put into this game. The fact that the Federation has the Catian Atrox Carrier means that they have no problems with the Federation having carriers and fighter divisions.

Or.. the Maquis were using the civilian model with jury rigged guns, vs the military variant which was a full fighter craft. You don't normally sell military hardware to civilians, not without it being at least somewhat stripped down.

The key word there is 'initially.' The Federation was not used to being on the losing side of wars. With the Dominion War they needed the Prophets/Wormhole Aliens to bail them out. With the Borg, they kept losing worlds and falling back. It is unclear how effective Janeway's measures were against the Borg at the end of Voyager but it seems unlikely they were defeated that easily.

The US was reluctant to enter WWI too, and North America had to militarize to join. Ditto WWII. Between the wars, many nations dropped mobilization levels and military research considerably. Even Germany started the war primarily with very lightly armed AFVs (many of which were only machine gun platforms). Need and threat changes outlook, which changes rules.

For that matter, the Galaxy was up-gunned over the Connie, and the Sovereign again over the Galaxy. We just didn't see it because they did their best not to have to spend the Fx budget on space battles.

Every new ship class was new once though.

It sounds like we are mostly in agreement, but thought it worth commenting just the same

the amount of crying on these forums is unbelievable.

a new ship, a new type of ship, a new style of ship, whatever, and the community throws their arms up in outrage. lol.

a protest? really?

IT'S 2409+...NOT....2154-2408...The Federation has decided that Carriers will be added to the Fleet...Star Trek Online is a "Fluid" Mmorpg...GET OVER the Fed Carriers alrdy.

Traditionalists just can not be made happy.... I for one, am veryyyy happy that the STO Devs are foward thinking .

Still looking for that "Risa Beach Wear"...money is burning holes in my pockets...

I take it then that the OP does not agree to the following either, since GR had no input on these either:

• Deep Space 9 series
• As a result of the above, the existence of the three Cardassian sectors.
• The Defiant
• Jem'Hadar
• Voyager
• Intrepid Class
• Any of the Next Generation Movies
• As a result of the above; the issues in Romulan space.

As well, these items were not canon in the show:

• M.A.C.O. and other STF level weapons/armor
• Most of the weaponry seen.
• People of rank outside of Captain commanding a starship.*
• Captains of the ship beaming down, especially on dangerous away missions.
• The combat focus of Starfleet.

*Minimal exceptions.


These threads are stupid. People who start them are bad and should feel bad.

Sorry, but that is factually inaccurate. The organizational structure of forces varies from country to country. However, the term wing always refers to an upper level organziational structure. In fact, what varies is whether a group or a wing is the top level division of forces. Sometimes wings are subdivisions of groups (US Air Force structure) and sometimes groups are subdivisions of wings (US Navy and British structure). Other countries follow one of these two structures. However, what seems to be fairly unviserally true is that squadrons are lower subdivsions than both wings and groups regardless of which of the latter two is highest. That is, it is either wing > group > squadron, or it is group > wing > squadron, but groups and wings are never part of a squadron.

Also, in military terminology, at one time historically wing referred to calvary units positioned on the flanks of a battle. This term was used from the Middle Ages through the French Revolutionary Wars, so it was a term used long before aircraft were invented. The British retained this term as an administrative organizational structure for its calvary units up until about 1939, where it was dropped in favor of using it solely in terms of its air unit organizational structures due to its natural connection to flight. Other than that, as a term of military organization, wing always refers to air units, and this is especially true of naval terminology. For instance, a "carrier air wing" refers to the organizational structure of air units on the carrier, not to the carrier itself. Ships, generally destroyers or submarines, may be organized into squadrons which are subdivisions of taskforces or fleets, but ships are never orgainzed into wings.

This is an important fact because Star Trek uses naval terminology for its starship organizational structures. Thus, you can find fleets and squadrons of ships, but "wings" would always refer to groups of fighter craft, not the ships themselves. Thus, a "Galaxy wing" would refer to a wing of fighers attached to a Galaxy or to a wing of fighters using the code name Galaxy, but it would never refer to a group of Galaxy starships.

Quoted for truth.

I'm much more worried about the stupid un-canon-ness of space flight angles. Space is not 2 dimentional - it really does not matter which ep you point out. The laws of physics to not change themselves for screen time.

This is by no means consistent in canon. Starships are as often if not more often referred to as 'flown' rather than 'sailed.' Shuttles are always referred to as 'flown.'

The element they operate in is much more consistent with air than water surfaces.

Also other than references to fleets, we have not seen much of the strategic organization of star fleet.

And you are also making an assumption that the writers cared to that level.

You could be completely right, but the evidence is hardly conclusive.

Personally I stick to the premise that where fighters are deemed effective, specialized support ships would also be effective. Carriers are specialized fighter support ships.