I disagree with what you said about the Galaxy class. It was designed for long term deep space exploration. That mission would require a ship that could sustain itself for long periods of time without maintenance or support. A vessel that required a lot of maintenance and supplies would not be a good fit for that role.
Galaxy had a way of producing deuturium in deep space, tech manual verified. Given that feature alone she would be able to put up a Yesterday's Enterprise type defense against any heavily armed Klingon Squadron
@@dantruong2582 3vilSuperman is a bit inexact in his words. The Galaxy should have high endurance and need little maintenance and support for long periods. Granted, some systems may be operated over spec and need mantenance/replacement earlier than scheduled. In a war, it would need repair, resuppy of ordnance, and probably crew replacement. Of course, with families and non-combat crew (some science and protocol personnel) evacuated, one could theoretically load more photon torpedoes to reduce ordnance resupply needs. Regardless, the maintenance and supply would be significantly less than most other classes.
Good question. Time is the biggest problem these days. Reading the book, putting together the review used to take hours and hours just to get in some cases 74 views is very disappointing. Not to say I won't be doing anymore, but the blue print and ship videos seem to be what folks want.
This is how memory alpha … and all trek presentations, should be. Some of the language might change, fitting ASA type standards, with citations and commentary displayed in the UI
6:20 - Excuse me but what is the *Curry Class* doing here? Where's the beloved Typhoon megacarrier of butt-kicking? 7:00 - Sorry what, Arika class? Don't you mean Akira? 11:30 - I'm contesting this. If anything, Tug's should have much better warp capabilities than expected. Minimal in weapons but able to freight large things by encircling their warp field around to keep it safe and sturdy. Not to mention to keep structural integrity from collapsing. Otherwise a tug picking up a ship and freighting it at Warp 3 would be pointless.
Tugs would have need a very large warpfield, but it would not allow for fast warp due to a less than ideal warp field geometry. In many ways, just like a tow truck. It has a powerful engine geared for high torque, but don't expect it to be fast or maneuverable.
Welcome back mate. Looking forward to seeing what else you have in store for us
Thanks. Glad to be back. Had to learn a bunch of new programs and doing that while working took some time.
Awesome videos
I'm really enjoying these
I disagree with what you said about the Galaxy class. It was designed for long term deep space exploration. That mission would require a ship that could sustain itself for long periods of time without maintenance or support. A vessel that required a lot of maintenance and supplies would not be a good fit for that role.
Peace time operations and high intensity combat operations are two very different modes.
Galaxy had a way of producing deuturium in deep space, tech manual verified. Given that feature alone she would be able to put up a Yesterday's Enterprise type defense against any heavily armed Klingon Squadron
@@dantruong2582
3vilSuperman is a bit inexact in his words. The Galaxy should have high endurance and need little maintenance and support for long periods. Granted, some systems may be operated over spec and need mantenance/replacement earlier than scheduled. In a war, it would need repair, resuppy of ordnance, and probably crew replacement. Of course, with families and non-combat crew (some science and protocol personnel) evacuated, one could theoretically load more photon torpedoes to reduce ordnance resupply needs.
Regardless, the maintenance and supply would be significantly less than most other classes.
Do you host / GM any Star Trek virtual ttrpg? I would sign-up.
These are great and so immersive, I forgot this was fantasy.
Glad to se you back mate. When are you doing more book reviews?
Good question. Time is the biggest problem these days. Reading the book, putting together the review used to take hours and hours just to get in some cases 74 views is very disappointing. Not to say I won't be doing anymore, but the blue print and ship videos seem to be what folks want.
The sovereign is longer, but not bigger than the Galaxy class. It's around the size of an Ambassador, maybe slightly smaller.
Comments are now active.
This is how memory alpha … and all trek presentations, should be. Some of the language might change, fitting ASA type standards, with citations and commentary displayed in the UI
"Arika" class? You mean Akira class, right?
Yupp
I would also argue the galaxy class could serve as a carrier, the hanger bay is massive and could easily be modified in a time of war
6:20 - Excuse me but what is the *Curry Class* doing here? Where's the beloved Typhoon megacarrier of butt-kicking?
7:00 - Sorry what, Arika class? Don't you mean Akira?
11:30 - I'm contesting this. If anything, Tug's should have much better warp capabilities than expected. Minimal in weapons but able to freight large things by encircling their warp field around to keep it safe and sturdy. Not to mention to keep structural integrity from collapsing. Otherwise a tug picking up a ship and freighting it at Warp 3 would be pointless.
Tugs would have need a very large warpfield, but it would not allow for fast warp due to a less than ideal warp field geometry.
In many ways, just like a tow truck. It has a powerful engine geared for high torque, but don't expect it to be fast or maneuverable.
Awesome video! I can't wait for more :)
6:51 It is Akira, not Arika.
Noted!
Just subbed. I quite like your content.
Thank you.
Very interesting, thanks !
Arika class?
They were in DS9 in the fleet actions of certain episodes like "The Sacrifice of Angels". The name comes from several games that feature them.
Noted
What a great video…. damn I likey! I likey a lot
You forgot the Defiant-class starships.
It's Akira not arika
Thanks
Akira class.