UFP is DS9 era. Who wins ?
UFP is DS9 era. Who wins ?
Earth Alliance? Are you referring to Babylon 5, or the alternate universe of DS9?
I used to have my desktop set to a really cool rendering of the Agamemnon ripping the Enterprise-D to shreds. I wish I still had that picture.
Earth Alliance Only, or Earth Alliance plus all those Really, Really Nifty, Alien Derived Ships?
Alone, it's a Pretty Fair Fight, The Earth Alliance has better Guns, The Federation has better Missles, The Earth Alliance has better Armour, The Federation has Shields, The Earth Alliance has better Fighters, The Federation has a more Versatile Inter-Stellar Drive.
With The White Stars, The Warlock-Class Destroyers, and Especially the Excaliber, it'd be NO Contest; The Federation would be reduced to Conducting, Hit and Run Warp Attacks, from Inter-Stellar Space.
At the risk of further opening this can of worms....
The "Hyperspace" FTL appears to be slower than DS9 era Warp Drive, and limited by the method of transitioning in/out of hyperspace. Virtually all B5 combat occured in normal space... Hyperspace Combat was considered by virtually all races to be just too dangerous (it was said in an episode - I don't recall which). I don't find that realistic at all... battles would be fought anywhere the combatants go. There is no such thing as true Holy Ground Upon Which Combat Is Forbidden ala Highlander.
Certainly, given enough time, the UFP would figure out how to get into Hyperspace (almost certainly using the Defelctor Dish to realign some mysterious partilce and create a temporary worm-hole). In the meantime, the B5 realm would probably be able to make the FTL transit without being interfered with, thus battles would be fought upon Hyperspace exit. I can see EA ships creating a jump-point and flooding out into real-space with countless fighters... but in a contested jump to normal space, the mere creation of a jump point (shown by B5 to be detectable by sensors prior to becoming visible) will broadcast to any/all waiting UFP ships exactly WHERE the EA ships will be entering normal space, allowing a concentration of fire on the chokepoint.
As for a Normal Space engagement, I can see starfuries being too numerous for the average UFP Starship to easily deal with, especially when countering an EA Capital Ship (Destroyer or Heavy Cruiser). Advantage EA. However, the relative firepower (base on the on-screen effects and discarding the numbers game from the SW/ST thread) of the EA means they will be at a serious disadvantage. It is well known that the UFP has effective shields. The EA does not. Sublight speeds apparently are significantly higher for the UFP, allowing the UFP to determine the engagement range, and the ability to break-off if/when they so choose.
I think though that the numbers vs. quality game might play out like that of the Sherman Tanks vs. the Tigers in WWII: There are enough more EA ships that can off-set the firepower disadvantage. If an EA force can team up on a numerically inferior UFP force, they can probably come out with the Win once they overload the UFP shields (UFP ships sans shields are also notoriously fragile).
What is missing from this analysis is context:
If the UFP/EA encounter each other in deep-space (beyond each's frontier) in a common galaxy, then you'll have a minor skirmish: One side or another probably just doesn't come home, or if survivors do come home, then another power is known to be somewhere "out there" in the Galaxy.
If the UFP/EA encounter each other across a wormhole, then whomever is on the defensive has the advantage (as with virtually ALL combat), especially with the chokepoint of the wormhole.
If the UFP/EA face each other across a common contested frontier, then it comes down to a war of attrition or a negotitated settlement.
Frankly, I can't see much of a reason for the UFP/EA to fight - though the Clarke Regime might, they're more interested in keeping control at home. Then of course there's the issues of the Other Powers. Certainly the ISA will weigh in (if the timeframe is right), or the Vorlons.
The most likely result of virtually any encounter between EA/UFP ships would be the establishment of initial diplomatic correspondence, followed by arrangements which will allow a certain amount of trade. While I wouldn't put the EA on the same technological level as the UFP in the DS9 era, I wouldn't put them so far down the list as to not warrent a reasonable trade relationship.
Ok. That's my inital thoughts on it. I will now sit back and let all sorts of holes get shot in my off-the-cuff analysis. (I'm sure there's all sorts of things I forgot or misunderstood, or simply see differently than many).
I'm sure I'm going to get booed off the stage as a stick in the mud, but I find these debates kind of silly. We are talking about one fictional universe, based on very bad science (Star Trek) fighting another fictional and contradictory universe, based on mediocre science (B5). Both are supposed to be extrapolations of our present Earth, but with very different future histories, so except in some kind of inter-universe meeting, how can they meet? I think the physics of one is not compatible with the physics of the other. Personally, based on both science and human nature, I always found B5 much more believable.
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)
All moderation in purple - The rules
Amen.Originally Posted by Swift
The Babylon 5 one. The ST alterate universe IIRC was the Terran Empire.Originally Posted by Gullible Jones
Damn I forgot to add in the original post. The two universes are connected by a wormhole.Originally Posted by Swift
I agree that the EA s probably lower on the technological totem pole than the UFP, but the EA can fight better. The UFP ships are faster and their FTL is in many ways better. A quick calculation shows that the EA ships travel less than 2000 times c, whereas UFP ships travel at over 3000 c, IIRC. For example, B5 is located at Epsilon Eridani, which is 10.5 ly from earth. According to B5 lore, the trip takes 2 days (48 hrs). Light takes 1916.25 48hr periods to travel that distance. Of course the trip in hyperspace is by beacon and may not be direct. The geography of hyperspace is not 1-1 so no hard and fast rules can be applied. Also, if a ship can travel faster while in hyperspace that may make a difference in the multiplier.
Battles can take place in Hyperspace, but they usually end up disasters for both sides and energy weapons behave unpredictably. But we have seen shadow vessels firing on other vessels while in hyperpace (see Fall of Night ep22 of S2).
I dont know exactly how to rate the EA laser weapons against the UFP shields. The EA lasers are shown to burn through ships hulls pretty efficiently. Perhaps a concerted EA attack would drain the strength of the UFP shields... and then John "Nuke 'Em" Sheridan would EVA through the shield and attach a nuke to the Enterprise hull. But if we consider the Whitestar fleet, then the fight is well matched. If you take the Vorlons or Shadows, then I think the UFP might be hurting. The Shadow hyperspace phasing tech is more stealthy than using a jump-point and more advantageous tactically. Don't forget that the energies of a jump-point vortex can be used as a weapon themselves. The Minbari were able to jump right next to EA ships destroying them without firing a shot during the Earth-Minbari war. The Excalibur and twin did it against Drakh fighters in A Call To Arms.
From Mike Wong's website:Originally Posted by Swift
Q: Don't you think Star Trek vs Star Wars is an immature argument?
A: Yes. Why do you think I enjoy it? We adults must be mature and professional all day, every workday. Many of us have kids and we must carry the weight of that awesome responsibility: an entire lifetime which will be influenced by the lessons they learn from us. That's a heavy load, so why not take the occasional break?
Why can't we be immature in a sci-fi debate, of all places? Why shouldn't we run through the sprinkler on a hot day, buy the Super Soaker 1200 from Toys 'R Us, or crank the heat on the BBQ just to see the flames? Why shouldn't we watch Bugs Bunny reruns instead of the History Channel? Personally, I think that the occasional bout of immaturity is good for the soul.
Q: How do you apply real-life science?
A: This discussion employs real science wherever possible, along with the scientific method. Of course, there is no such thing as warp drive, or hyperdrive, or Death Stars. But the site is based on suspension of disbelief, which presumes that the canon events seen in the films and shows actually happened.
Suppose we saw a Death Star in real life, and suppose we watched it blow Mars apart the way it blew Alderaan apart? We would not have the option of saying that it didn't happen, because we saw it. We would not have the option of saying that it's impossible, because it happened. Therefore, we would have to accept that it is possible, and try to rationalize it with our existing knowledge of science. We would not discard all of science because of this strange observation, nor would we ignore the observation because it doesn't fit our theories.
Q: Why should we apply real science at all? ST and SW don't conform to real science
A: It is the only basis for rational and objective discussion! What is the alternative? Pseudoscience? Then we'd be no better than creationists. Pure subjectivism? At least it would be consistent, but I have yet to see a "subjectivist" who completely refrains from applying real science- they just do it selectively, thus making them hypocrites. Besides, aesthetic tastes vary from person to person anyway, thus eliminating the possibility of meaningful debate. One could only state opinions without any method of debating their validity.
If it's true that in Babylon 5 combat is comfined to STL, then the Earth Alliance is at a real disadvantage because Federation quantum torpedoes, when launched at warp, can remain at warp. Federation ships can sit a light year away from Earth Alliance establishments and pick them off out of the line of fire.
Of course, given Starfleet's aptitude for combat, they may not figure this out.
I do really wish that the Creators of Star Trek had tried to be as rigorous with their universe as I've heard JMS has been. The astrography has little relation to the actual universe and is rarely consistent. The technology is inconsistent, despite the best efforts of people like Rick Sternbach in his excellent Tech Manuals. And they follow the mantra, "When in doubt, technobabble your way out."
I've just come back from Disneyland Paris, where they have the Star Tours ride with a French droid. I love it when he shouts, "Vitesse Lumiere!" The French for light speed is so cool!
Oh come on! Star Furies against Federation Shields? Don't make me laugh. Those things can resist multiple antimatter warheads impacting upon them. The only reason the Furies weapons are so effective on B5 is that no one has shields. And the reason that Federation ships are so 'fragile' once their shields are down is because the shields protects against such devastating weapons. One photon torpedo detonated anywhere near a squadron of Furies would take the lot out in one go. A squadron of Furies could fire their Turbolasers dry before Enterprise even noticed a drop off in shield performance. No contest.
Starfuries don't have turbolasers. You may be confusing them with Star Wars craft. That thread is elsewhere.Originally Posted by johnwitts
According to the TNG TM photon torpedoes carry 1.5 kg anitmatter which presumably reacts with a similar mass of matter. This gives an yield of 64 megatons.dont know exactly how to rate the EA laser weapons against the UFP shields. The EA lasers are shown to burn through ships hulls pretty efficiently. Perhaps a concerted EA attack would drain the strength of the UFP shields
This is more powerful than the strongest thermonuclear weapons on Earth. The hiroshima bomb was a mere 20 kiloton device, a photon torpedo is 3200 times more destructive.
Furthermore newer Federation vessels like the Defiant, Prometheus, Sovereign and the Excelsior refit have quantum torpedoes which have twice the yield of a photon torpedoes. Considering that Federation shields are designed to withstand hits from such weapons EA lasers would need a long time to batter them down.
Lastly Federation shields are highly effective against laser weapons. Picard said in The Outrageous Okona "Lasers ? They wont even penetrate our navigational deflectors[i].
Also phasers and disruptors can target subsystems easily as seen in several episodes and in nsurrection and Nemesis. UFP ships can pick of weapons, systems on EA ships leaving them nothing more than floating useless.
Uh Starfuries dont carry turbolasers. Turbolasers are the primary beam weapon of Star Wars ships. According to the AOTC : ICS they have a yield of 200 gigatons which will obiletarate any Trek ship.Originally Posted by johnwitts
Potential Federation tactics:Originally Posted by Excelsior
- Perform the Picard Maneuver repeatedly. EA ships lack subspace sensors, and since warp drive doesn't exist, probably have no FTL scanning capabilities in normal space.
- Destroy all jumpgates at will. Most EA ships are dependent upon them, and those that aren't will be burdened by having to assist stranded supply ships.
- Transport armed quantum torpedoes aboard EA command ships. Transport EA crews directly into brig. EA lacks shield technology.
- Clear out backlog of old-fashioned photon torpedoes by firing dozens at a time at EA ships. Minbari war cruisers are vulnerable to tactical nukes; EA ships are probably vulnerable to photons.
- Send Captain Benjamin Lafayette Sisko through the wormhole to challenge Captain John J Sheridan to a spitting contest, winner take all.
Potential EA tactics:
- Lurk undetected in hyperspace. Jump into normal space in the middle of unsuspecting UFP fleets. Try to destroy them faster than the captains can say "Red alert, shields up."
- Mine the wormhole. The UFP can't attack if it can't gain a beachhead on the EA side.
- Overwhelm the UFP with superior numbers. Starfleet ships have trouble hitting small, fast targets. The whitestars will be worth their weight in gold. Of course, in deep space I guess they'd be weightless.
- Fall back to Earth. Let the unsuspecting UFP fleets wander right into the Second Battle of the Line. We handled the Dilgar, we handled the Minbari, we can handle the Fed--uh-oh.
- Find Lorien. Send him through the wormhole. Have him contact his distant kid cousins, the Organians, and convince them to make the Federation play nice again.
Of course, in reality (hmm, ironic word choice), the Federation would grant the EA a couple sectors of space on the Fed side of the wormhole, in exchange for peace and a cultural exchange. The EA, of course, would proceed to contact the Ferengi, purchase warp drive, quantum torpedoes, and shields, and proceed to expand its sphere of influence even farther.
just my 2c, star trek had battles at short ranges, like the low 100's of kilometers at the most, in B5 they would often engage at 1000's of kilometers, do UFP ships have that ranged ability?
What's AOTC : ICS?
Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross Sections.Originally Posted by johnwitts
As far as I know, it has pictures and descriptions of vehicles and technology from the film (and if I remember correctly, the main author is Curtis Saxton, an astrophysicst).
It is considered official technical material for Star Wars (in vs. debate like this, it can be used as source).
That's a lot of firepower. But the B5 ships don't have Turbolasers, so I guess that doesn't apply.
If we go by tech manuals, Starfleet would clearly be dominant. Unfortunately, Starfleet is let down by the inconsistencies in the depiction.
What about armor and jamming?Originally Posted by pmcolt
Originally Posted by pmcolt
I think i may be stepping on a land mine here but.................
If the earth alliance gets it's time point after a call to arms then they technically have use of Excalibur and should be building more once they get the shipyard rebuilt.
The Excalibur class ships would be a huge advantage to the EA.
For those that like- videos.http://www.b5tech.com/movies/testfire2.asf"The main gun of the Victory class vessel is believed to comprise the total energy release of all power generated by the vessel's main reactor, and combines this massive energy discharge with a release of pure antimatter and the destructive force of the gravity based impact beam used to contain the antimatter stream, as well as several unknown principles unique to Vorlon based weapons. Given what was seen during the weapons test phase, the main gun of the Victory class Destroyer is estimated to have a LOW-END power output 5 Exawatts - 5.0*1018 watt**."
[**Low-End weapon output of main gun based upon the destruction of the asteroid seen in "A call to Arms", the episode "War Zone"See " For details, please view "Excalibur's Weapons" in the SCIENCE section.]
From the B5 Tech manual
Someone just posted this link in another thread:
I think that if you look at the size comparisons you see that the EA Omega Class destroyers like the Agamemnon dwarf the Galaxy Class Cruisers like the Enterprise in TNG. IT also makes the Imperial Star Destroyer look really puny. I'm tempted to post the comparison images here, but it would be bad form. Just go to the site and check the -10, -20 and -100 pages.
They can engage in long range battles. In the Voyeger episode Human Error USS Voyeger engaged an AI controlled missile at 5000 km. In a DS9 episode a Ferengi ship attacked a Klingon Bird of Prey several thousand kilometers away.Originally Posted by Invader Spleen
According to Futures End a standard orbit is 10000 km away from a planet. So that indicates ships can hit targets that far away when conducting orbital bombardment.
The reason Star Trek ships dont engage targets at extreme range is due to the nature of warp drives. Starships can warp in close to the target with great precision.
Like other Babylon 5 races the Earth Alliance does not have subspace technology which is used by transporters so they cant jam it. Furthermore only kelvanite and neutronoum block transporters (reference Insurrection, the TOS episode about the Doomsday machine). IIRC Earth Alliance ships have neither so they cant block transporters. This means UFP ships can beam crew out into space, beam in torpedoes and do other nasty things.What about armor and jamming?
How many times was it impossible to use transporters in Star Trek? Definitely not just those two times you cited.Originally Posted by Excelsior
And what about electromagnetic jamming. or solar flares, electrical storms, magnetic fields, shielded nuclear reactors, ionization in atmosphere, ionizing radiation?
Darn double post!
That is such a cool site. However, I don't think size is an issue. There are other factors. Besides, the Romulan ship is nearly the same size as the EA ship, and we've seen the Feds toast a few of those.Originally Posted by Jpax2003