Akira torpedo firepower

[Uraniun235]

The Akira supposedly has a total of 15 torpedo tubes, 11 of which are forward, each supposedly capable of firing 4 torpedos at a time, totalling 44 torpedos in a full frontal salvo.

But how can this be? Even the Enterprise-E can't compete with 44 torpedos at a time... why build Soveriegn-class vessels if the smaller (and presumably cheaper) Akira-class could be produced in greater numbers?

The only way I could see such massive firepower being reconciled with the rest of the designs in Star Trek is that the size of the torpedo pod and the machinery inside restricts the number of torpedos an Akira can actually carry, giving it excellent strength but poor stamina.

Am I the only one who looks at such specs and cringes?

[seanrobertson]

No, you're not the only one Uraniun. We see eye-to-eye here...

While I understand that many if not all of these launchers have been identified on the CGI model, why haven't many of them been used?

I imagine that USS Thunderchild might've depleted her torpedo stocks before she fired on the Borg cube in "First Contact," but the ship in "Message In a Bottle" doesn't have that excuse. With such heavy torpedo firepower, you'd think she would've unleashed hell on the three Warbirds w/ which she was faced in that episode.

If we believed what some attribute to the Akira, that class should've quickly replaced the Galaxy as the strongest ship mass-produced for the Dominion War. (All that might hold her back would be laughably weak shields, something that's rather doubtful.)

However, that never happened. The GCS is still used as the benchmark of tactical performance, evident in the fact that Red Squat cadets told Jake Sisko a new Jem'Hadar battleship was "three times as strong" as a Galaxy.

Why would the GCS be used in this context if the Akira had double or more torpedo firepower, as some Trek fans have suggested? It'd be meaningless (and quite a stretch to claim that the Valiant cadets had never learned anything of an Akira's abilities, should that come up).

Furthermore, it's interesting to note that the Akiras have a registry no. in the 63000s...Thunderchild did, anyway.

The GCSs, OTOH, started w/ 70637. Unless registries weren't in fact in chronological order, the GCS is a newer ship.

That's relevant because, upon Picard's capture in "BOBW," the Borg say: "Captain Jean-Luc Picard, you command the strongest ship of the Federation fleet. You speak for your people."

If the Borg are correct--and we have no reason to think otherwise--then we know that the E-D is considered stronger than Akiras, ships which should exist at that time.

Something has to give. A ship with 15 launchers that's only held back by pathetic firing rates and/or a tiny torpedo inventory isn't a bad idea but leaves me a bit cold.

I mean, consider: Akiras are rather large, about 440m long IIRC; thus, if they only carried a stock comparable to Voyager's 32 torps, with a good 7+ fore launchers they could pump out their entire complement rather quickly. That'd make for a devastating alpha strike against almost any lone opponent or small group of lesser opponents; e.g., Cardassian warships, Birds-of-Prey et al.

I think it's better to suggest that what we think are 15 launchers are, in fact, only a fraction thereof...some sensor palletes or other greeblies simply look like full-sized launchers.

Hell, maybe some of those "launchers" are in fact phaser banks...we have seen phasers fire from what looked like a torpedo launcher before, after all ("Darmok").

I dunno. I think the Akira situation's a real mess. It's really all irrelevant until they actually demonstrate such firepower...I usually leave it at that and move on.

[AdmiralKanos]

Personally, I have never seen much merit in the common practice of assuming that a hole in a ship's exterior must be a working photon torpedo tube, and an elongated bump must be a working phaser.

[Ender]

I've seen claims of 2000 torpedos carried, but never any argument for them.

Perhaps it carries substantially weaker torps for some reason?

Or maybe it's a short range ship designed for system keeping, while the GCS and Sovereign could go everywhere?

Both are really streching it.

[Uraniun235]

I cannot imagine that torpedo pod carrying 2000 torpedos and the antimatter to arm them, and mechanisms to move torpedos and AM from the saucer to the pod would seemingly be inefficient.

[Chris OFarrell]

No, you're not the only one Uraniun. We see eye-to-eye here...

While I understand that many if not all of these launchers have been identified on the CGI model, why haven't many of them been used?

Mostly because the actual onscreen time Akiras in combat have had has been very small. We see the Thunderchild spraying a pattern of torpedoes at the Cube during Picards barrage that ripple left to right (from out perspective) accross the main rollbar before she started to turn off her attack run. Though we didn't see realy any more then that as the sceen ended.

I imagine that USS Thunderchild might've depleted her torpedo stocks before she fired on the Borg cube in "First Contact," but the ship in "Message In a Bottle" doesn't have that excuse. With such heavy torpedo firepower, you'd think she would've unleashed hell on the three Warbirds w/ which she was faced in that episode.

We only see what, five seconds of footage of the Akira in combat in Message? Hardly conclusive. One possibility might be Starfleet not willing to start a shooting war with the Romulans by destryoing the Warbirds, the Akira simply trying to force a withdrawl and recovery/destruction of the Promethesus. They were already at war with the Dominion, they didn't realy need to provide the Romulans with an excuse to enter on the side of the Founders. Realy we don't know. Its possible the ship did offload in the vast majority of the battle we didn't see. But I dobut it. The fact is the Akira didn't fire a SINGLE torpedo and we know its capable of firing several at LEAST from First Contact. So some kind of restraining, to disable rather then destroy is possible I guess.

If we believed what some attribute to the Akira, that class should've quickly replaced the Galaxy as the strongest ship mass-produced for the Dominion War. (All that might hold her back would be laughably weak shields, something that's rather doubtful.)

Well we don't realy know how many Akiras were in service during the Dominion war. It could well be more Akiras were produced. But its also quite possible that the Galaxy was chosen over the Akira because it wasn't anything like as heaviyl reliant on torpedoes, which you can run out of in extended campaigns, turning the Akira into a lightly armed destroyer for all intents and purposes. Further, the Akiras torpedo tubes don't appear to be able to burst fire as many torpedoes off as a Galaxies can so although it may well have a greater 'punch', its not THAT far ahead. We realy don't know the difference in defensive abilities between an Akira and Dominion war era Galaxy.

However, that never happened. The GCS is still used as the benchmark of tactical performance, evident in the fact that Red Squat cadets told Jake Sisko a new Jem'Hadar battleship was "three times as strong" as a Galaxy.

Well a Galaxy IS the ship of the line. The Akira is realy a carrier/standoff attack ship. For a comparative view, comparing the Galaxy to the Dominion BB rather then an Akira makes more sense.

Why would the GCS be used in this context if the Akira had double or more torpedo firepower, as some Trek fans have suggested? It'd be meaningless (and quite a stretch to claim that the Valiant cadets had never learned anything of an Akira's abilities, should that come up).

Its a perfectly valid comparasion that says nothing of relative power. I think your reading too much into it. In fact if your line of thought is taken to its logical conclusion, they SHOULD have been comparing the SOVEREIGN class to the Dominion BB, if they were putting the most powerful Starfleet ship against the Dominion ship for a comparative view. Clearly they are not. They just gave Jake a comparative view. The biggest in service Starfleet ship against this new Jem'Hadar monster.

Furthermore, it's interesting to note that the Akiras have a registry no. in the 63000s...Thunderchild did, anyway.

The GCSs, OTOH, started w/ 70637. Unless registries weren't in fact in chronological order, the GCS is a newer ship.

That's relevant because, upon Picard's capture in "BOBW," the Borg say: "Captain Jean-Luc Picard, you command the strongest ship of the Federation fleet. You speak for your people."

I think its been established that Starfleet registeries, in the TNG+ era don't have any real sequence to them. The Promethesus which carried an NX registry (and was different from the Nebula class of the same name) in the 50 thousands.

If the Borg are correct--and we have no reason to think otherwise--then we know that the E-D is considered stronger than Akiras, ships which should exist at that time.

See above.

Something has to give. A ship with 15 launchers that's only held back by pathetic firing rates and/or a tiny torpedo inventory isn't a bad idea but leaves me a bit cold.

Or nothing has to give and we simply havn't seen the ship let go like mad because there has never been a situation where it was able to. Hell look at the Nebula class with its warpod. It on close visual inspection has ten torpedo launchers. We've seen one of them fire, in Redemption II IIRC. With a three torp salvo, that should mean a Nebula should be able to throw 30 torpedoes forward without a problem in a salvo. Do we see it do this? Nope. In fact (with the exception of Nemesis) do we EVER see a Federation ship let lose with everything it has constently? Hell no. The simple reason is limitations in FX, the guys don't it don't have time to increase the amount of weapons fire we usualy see by an order of magnitide. They've even addmitted this when people asked why ships only ever fire a few shots, that they don't have the time or budget to do more. Of course you won't accept this and want an in universe answer. The short version is one has not been given. Either the Akira doesn't have the capibilities claimed, which is downright wrong as we can count the launchers visualy and it has been confirmed by the guy who made the ship. Or the ship class has held back for reasons in the situations we have had it in combat.

I mean, consider: Akiras are rather large, about 440m long IIRC; thus, if they only carried a stock comparable to Voyager's 32 torps, with a good 7+ fore launchers they could pump out their entire complement rather quickly. That'd make for a devastating alpha strike against almost any lone opponent or small group of lesser opponents; e.g., Cardassian warships, Birds-of-Prey et al.

I think it's better to suggest that what we think are 15 launchers are, in fact, only a fraction thereof...some sensor palletes or other greeblies simply look like full-sized launchers.

They are IDENTICAL to the other launchers. The guy who made the ship has confirmed them as such. It doesn't make sense to claim they are not...people happily count TL's on ISD models and get weapons numbers that stand in stark contradiction to offical sources, but its accepted as its rather clear. I see no reason not to do so with SF ships.

Hell, maybe some of those "launchers" are in fact phaser banks...we have seen phasers fire from what looked like a torpedo launcher before, after all ("Darmok").

Which was acknowledged (by B&B no less) as an FX screwup.

I dunno. I think the Akira situation's a real mess. It's really all irrelevant until they actually demonstrate such firepower...I usually leave it at that and move on.

I leave it as they have 15 tubes capable of firing at least a single torpedo per salvo and leave it at that.

[Chris OFarrell]

I cannot imagine that torpedo pod carrying 2000 torpedos and the antimatter to arm them, and mechanisms to move torpedos and AM from the saucer to the pod would seemingly be inefficient.

ALso note it has that massive through deck hanger which takes up a majority of the ship.

[TrekWarsie]

My guess is that the Akira is a torpedo frigate. It doesn't have many phasers so when it's out of torpedoes, its combat effectivness decreases significantly. These ships can do lots of damage quickly, but Starfleet still needs ships like the Sovereign because they have greater ammunition stamina than the Akira does due to the fact that they have more phasers than the Akira does.

[Howedar]

I cannot imagine that torpedo pod carrying 2000 torpedos and the antimatter to arm them, and mechanisms to move torpedos and AM from the saucer to the pod would seemingly be inefficient.

ALso note it has that massive through deck hanger which takes up a majority of the ship.

Not canon.

[seanrobertson]

Hiya Chris. Been awhile.

Mostly because the actual onscreen time Akiras in combat have had has been very small. We see the Thunderchild spraying a pattern of torpedoes at the Cube during Picards barrage that ripple left to right (from out perspective) accross the main rollbar before she started to turn off her attack run. Though we didn't see realy any more then that as the sceen ended.

She hasn't been onscreen much, true, but I'm still about established capabilities.

As it stands, I've seen USS Thunderchild use one tube to fire 4 torpedoes in fairly rapid succession.

We only see what, five seconds of footage of the Akira in combat in Message? Hardly conclusive.

But did it only take 5 seconds for Starfleet to recapture the Prometheus?

We can only go on what we saw. The "Message In a Bottle" footage isn't conclusive, but it and "First Contact" are the best we've got.

One possibility might be Starfleet not willing to start a shooting war with the Romulans by destryoing the Warbirds, the Akira simply trying to force a withdrawl and recovery/destruction of the Promethesus. They were already at war with the Dominion, they didn't realy need to provide the Romulans with an excuse to enter on the side of the Founders.

Perhaps not, but why didn't we see at least one torpedo, then?

Wouldn't they force the Warbirds to retreat far quicker if the Akira let loose with a volley of photorps, split among the three targets?

I'll remind you that lots of pussy-footing around would mean their own death. Warbirds pack a lot of firepower...holding back against them could be a very stupid mistake, risk of war or not.

Realy we don't know. Its possible the ship did offload in the vast majority of the battle we didn't see. But I dobut it. The fact is the Akira didn't fire a SINGLE torpedo and we know its capable of firing several at LEAST from First Contact. So some kind of restraining, to disable rather then destroy is possible I guess.

Possible, even likely, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not they can effectively use upwards of 15 launchers!

Well we don't realy know how many Akiras were in service during the Dominion war. It could well be more Akiras were produced.

I've seen at least as many of them on DS9 as I have GCSs, FWIW.

But its also quite possible that the Galaxy was chosen over the Akira because it wasn't anything like as heaviyl reliant on torpedoes, which you can run out of in extended campaigns, turning the Akira into a lightly armed destroyer for all intents and purposes. Further, the Akiras torpedo tubes don't appear to be able to burst fire as many torpedoes off as a Galaxies can so although it may well have a greater 'punch', its not THAT far ahead.

They don't need to "burst-fire" if they've got upwards of 8-10 fwd. launchers!

And sure, you can run out of torpedoes in a long battle--"Nemesis" and "What You Leave Behind" are testament to that.

So, you're saying tactical performance should be measured on endurance? When Jake Sisko said the Dominion battleship was "three times as strong" as a GCS, it didn't sound as if he was thinking of endurance per se...

Yet, if the Akira could manage a quarter of what some fans say it should, greater strength--the ability to do a lot of work in a SHORT period of time--would go to the Akira in spades.

The only way one might avoid this is if they could demonstrate that phasers were vastly more combat effective than photorps. I think the two have somewhat similar effects, no more.

We realy don't know the difference in defensive abilities between an Akira and Dominion war era Galaxy.

The difference couldn't be that extensive. The ability to throw out dozens of torpedoes would far overwhelm somewhat weaker shields in a comprehensive tactical assessment.

Well a Galaxy IS the ship of the line. The Akira is realy a carrier/standoff attack ship. For a comparative view, comparing the Galaxy to the Dominion BB rather then an Akira makes more sense.

Still, "strength" was the issue. How can the Akira throw out many times the no. of torpedoes a GCS can yet remain weaker?

Its a perfectly valid comparasion that says nothing of relative power. I think your reading too much into it. In fact if your line of thought is taken to its logical conclusion, they SHOULD have been comparing the SOVEREIGN class to the Dominion BB, if they were putting the most powerful Starfleet ship against the Dominion ship for a comparative view. Clearly they are not. They just gave Jake a comparative view. The biggest in service Starfleet ship against this new Jem'Hadar monster.

I agree, but the Sovereign was still very new, and perhaps few in number (w/ an arguable lower-limit of 2 ships). They weren't time-tested like the Galaxies were.

I think its been established that Starfleet registeries, in the TNG+ era don't have any real sequence to them. The Promethesus which carried an NX registry (and was different from the Nebula class of the same name) in the 50 thousands.

It did indeed.

It was also an illegal construct, one which could've been commissioned decades before she featured in VGR.

I'd say she's the exception to the rule. By and large registries seem chronological.

See above.

So the Borg are wrong?

Or nothing has to give and we simply havn't seen the ship let go like mad because there has never been a situation where it was able to. Hell look at the Nebula class with its warpod. It on close visual inspection has ten torpedo launchers. We've seen one of them fire, in Redemption II IIRC. With a three torp salvo, that should mean a Nebula should be able to throw 30 torpedoes forward without a problem in a salvo.

Yeah, absolutely...if all launchers were equal, or they're all torpedo launchers.

If that's the case, then why do the Borg say the E-D's the strongest ship? Were they simply unfamiliar with the Nebula-class?

Do we see it do this? Nope. In fact (with the exception of Nemesis) do we EVER see a Federation ship let lose with everything it has constently? Hell no. The simple reason is limitations in FX, the guys don't it don't have time to increase the amount of weapons fire we usualy see by an order of magnitide. They've even addmitted this when people asked why ships only ever fire a few shots, that they don't have the time or budget to do more. Of course you won't accept this and want an in universe answer.

That's right.

I'd be pretty damn hypocritical if one minute, I tried to calculate the equivalent wattage of a phaser then in the next, just blew something off because "the writers said so and so."

I can go so far as to say that, yes, we don't see ships cut loose very often, and I won't necessarily say an Akira is _strictly limited_ to a volley of 4 torpedoes.

HOWEVER, what I WILL say is that until I see substantially better, I will not make an appeal to ignorance argument in which I assert, "Just because I haven't seen a ship strut its stuff doesn't mean it can't!"

Observed effects and capabilities are the order of the day.

The short version is one has not been given. Either the Akira doesn't have the capibilities claimed, which is downright wrong as we can count the launchers visualy and it has been confirmed by the guy who made the ship.

Alex Jaeger's commentary is, unfortunately, not canon.

Or the ship class has held back for reasons in the situations we have had it in combat.

Holding back is remotely possible, though I absolutely ABHOR that explanation from my extensive experiences with hard-core Fivers.

It's also inherently an appeal to ignorance. I've said it at least thrice in this post, so I'll say it again: until the Akira demonstrates the Borg, Jake Sisko, the Red Squat cadets on Valiant et al. are wrong, I say ascribing insane torpedo firepower to it is bullshit.

They are IDENTICAL to the other launchers. The guy who made the ship has confirmed them as such.

And his commentary isn't canon/admissable.

If they are identical (I actually agree here, Chris...they are, from what I can tell), I fall back to my initial position: why hasn't this ship supplanted the GCS as the strongest ship that Starfleet's produced in significant numbers?

A bit more on that later...I'm in a hurry at this point.

It doesn't make sense to claim they are not...people happily count TL's on ISD models and get weapons numbers that stand in stark contradiction to offical sources, but its accepted as its rather clear. I see no reason not to do so with SF ships.

ISDs would qualify as a red herring/tu quoque combo. Besideswhich, I haven't counted turbolaser cannons myself.

Which was acknowledged (by B&B no less) as an FX screwup.

Borg voice:

Irrelevant. Berman and Braga's commentary is not canon.

Seriously, I know it was an FX fuck-up (a horrible one at that), but you know I can't just blow it off as such.

I leave it as they have 15 tubes capable of firing at least a single torpedo per salvo and leave it at that.

How many fwd. torpedoes might that be, 8-10? I know there are "launchers" facing port and starboard, but I don't remember how many this CGI model depicted facing aft.

That also runs up against the problem of one launcher quickly launching 4 torpedoes ("First Contact"). If they're identical, all equally-capable launchers, why can't all the fore launchers fire 4 torpedoes simultaneously?

Like I said, this Akira thing is a mess.

[Alferd Packer]

Going by pure canon, we know from FC that the Akira has at least two burst-fire forward torpedo tubes: one in front of the navigational deflector and one in the upper roll bar.

There is at least one dorsal phaser strip which covers most of the front saucer and, although I may be mistaken, two on the ventral saucer (akin to Voyager's half-length strips). Now, it's been a while since I've seen FC or any combat in which Akiras participated, but I don't recall seeing an Akira fire an aft torpedo spread or phaser beam.

So, from this, we can infer that:

The Akira has either at least 2 burst-fire torpedo tubes facing forward (IIRC each fires 4 torps) or at least 8 single-fire tubes mounted forward which can be fired rapidly.

But an 8 torpedo barrage? That's no fun. I like the idea of a 44 torpedo alpha strike, as non-canon as it may or may not be.

[Alyeska]

FYI, the Akira can only fire 3 torpedoes from a single launcher, not 4. There are two incidents in FC showing the Akira fire. First one has the Akira ripple a single torpedo from each of its uppermost launchers (four in total). The second time shows the Akira launching from its lower launchers near the dish. We know there are three such launchers there. If you carefuly match up where the torpedoes come from you will note the 4th torpedo comes from a slightly altered perspective as compared to previous three. Simple conclussion. Akira can only tripple fire.

Now as to the Akira contraversay. I am rather surprised that no one is here arguing how unfair the Nebula is. Its easily more then double the forward firepower of a Galaxy. We have established canon fact it has a pod launcher and a launcher between the primary and secondary hulls. Examination of the pod used by the Faragut also points to a modification of 8 more launchers that are very similar to the Miranda class launchers.

The current firepower references are vague at best and they fail to take several key factors into account. One of the most obvious is that both the Akira and Nebula lack something the Galaxy and Sovereign class have in abundance. Phaser Arrays. Phasers are by and far the most common weapon system used by the Federation. They are infintely cheaper and still quite powerful. They also deliver their firepower on target much quicker. Not only that, but in a prolonged battle you still have phaser power when the torpedoes run dry. Then there is also the issue of range. Get to close with torpedoes and kiss your ass goodbye. You can fire phasers point blank all day long.

Its been fairly well established that the main advantage of the Galaxy class over the D'Deridex class is that in a major fleet engagement the Galaxy can bring weapons to bear in many directions. This ability means that the Galaxy is a deadly opponent from many angles. Both the Akira and Nebula are very similar to the Romulan ships. Heavy forward firepower, not much else. They have a further disadvantage. Heavy reliance on torpedoes. In sustained fleet battles these weapons are exhausted and now the ships have little else to fight with.

And now some possible explinations for the examples previously sited. As already mentioned, the most logical explination for the Thunderchild in First Contact is that she didn't have many torpedoes left. If you factor in a 3 hour battle minimum and use the known refire rates, she should have exhausted her torpedo supply already. As to Message in a Bottle. This is questionable proof at best. Not only did the Akira not fire torpedoes, neither did the two Defiants which we KNOW are armed with quantum torpedoes. The only torpedo fired (thats right, just ONE) was fired by the Prometheus. Strange how even then only one torpedo was fired. Well Chris pointed out one consideration. There is another. Starfleet was in one hell of a pisser fight with the Dominion. Ships not on the front line are not going to get the same torpedo loads because supplies will be running short. It is within the realm of possibility that the ships shown in Message in a Bottle did not have many, if any, torpedoes.

And of course the infamous ship comparisons again.

Here is some helpful information. The E-E has 7 torpedo launchers and 1 quantum torpedo launcher. It also has an ungodly number of Type-12 phaser arrays. Type-12 arrays are also what Deep Space Nine had. These particular phasers are shown to be SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful then the standard photon torpedoes. Ever wonder why Sisko held his phasers in reserve and opened fire with the torpedoes first? So the E-E is faster, has more phasers, has a more powerful torpedo, has better aft torpedo coverage, has stronger shields, and has better armor then an Akira. I fail to see this stunning advantage the Akira has over the E-E. Had Picard been commanding an Akia in Nemesis he would have had his ass kicked.

[Uraniun235]

I am rather surprised that no one is here arguing how unfair the Nebula is.

I haven't heard anyone tossing off figures like 44 torpedos in a frontal salvo lately, so no, I wasn't irritated about that. Thanks for reminding me, though. *mutters something about fanwank specs whenever comes time for Paramount to build an Enterprise-lite*

If you can fire phasers longer than torpedos, why would Sisko hold them "in reserve"? That doesn't make sense.

If you factor in a 3 hour battle minimum

That's assuming all ships present at Earth were part of the initial fleet that intercepted the Borg, and had managed to keep pace with the cube all the way through Federation space. This seems unlikely given that the BOBW cube maintained Warp 9.6.

These particular phasers are shown to be SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful then the standard photon torpedoes.

Er... then why bother with giving the Soveriegn photorps when that space could be put to better use supporting more phaser fire?

Had Picard been commanding an Akira in Nemesis he would have had his ass kicked.

*snort* He already had his ass kicked.

[phongn]

Possibly a logistics issue or something else? The IJN fielded a few cruisers very heavily laden with torpedos; certainly hits would be far more effective than standard shellfire. Yet you can pack in a lot more shells than you can heavy torpedos - maybe a similar issue exists for Starfleet?

[Howedar]

Its been fairly well established that the main advantage of the Galaxy class over the D'Deridex class is that in a major fleet engagement the Galaxy can bring weapons to bear in many directions. This ability means that the Galaxy is a deadly opponent from many angles. Both the Akira and Nebula are very similar to the Romulan ships. Heavy forward firepower, not much else. They have a further disadvantage. Heavy reliance on torpedoes. In sustained fleet battles these weapons are exhausted and now the ships have little else to fight with.

Mind explaining to me what the Nebula lacks that the Galaxy has? All I can see is the missing aft torpedo launcher, which on the Galaxy is only known to be able to single-fire (I don't recall ever seeing an aft burst).

[Alyeska]

Its been fairly well established that the main advantage of the Galaxy class over the D'Deridex class is that in a major fleet engagement the Galaxy can bring weapons to bear in many directions. This ability means that the Galaxy is a deadly opponent from many angles. Both the Akira and Nebula are very similar to the Romulan ships. Heavy forward firepower, not much else. They have a further disadvantage. Heavy reliance on torpedoes. In sustained fleet battles these weapons are exhausted and now the ships have little else to fight with.

Mind explaining to me what the Nebula lacks that the Galaxy has? All I can see is the missing aft torpedo launcher, which on the Galaxy is only known to be able to single-fire (I don't recall ever seeing an aft burst).

The Nebula only has 7 phaser arrays. It has practicaly no aft coverage with the arrays it does have. It must rely on using its main arrays fired towards the aft at off angles in order to get any rear fire capability. Anything that can get behind a Nebula has a fair chance of smoking it.

Give me three Sabre's and I can take down a Nebula loosing no more then two. It would take at least a half dozen Sabre's to threaten a Galaxy thanks to its weapons coverage.

One further point. It is assumed the Galaxy launchers are identical. It was also stated in Generations they were going to fire a full spread and the aft launcher fired. So both launchers on the Galaxy can rapid fire or multi fire.

[Col. Crackpot]

so i have been reading this thread and thinking.... and this is what pops into my mind. The Akira must be a indirect fire ship. Using a 21st century ground combat analogy, the Akira is the MLRS and the GCS is the M1 Abrams. thats the only way i can see it having all of those launchers and almost never using them in close quarters. Think about it, time and time again we have heard that a few photorps going off at close range is detremental to the health of a starship. now imagine several dozen at that same range. that could be why we never see Akiras letting loose with everything they (supposedly) have, their improper utilization can attributed to starfleet incompetance or the technical difficulties of presenting a true representation of a space battle at long range. thoughts?

[TrekWarsie]

That may well be the case. It would also explain why the fleets would want to close in to close range of Starfleet. They don't want to lose half of their fleet before the battle begins in earnest.