View Single Post
Old September 10 2013, 06:32 AM   #35
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
You need to re-check your numbers. Other than a minor bump in Destroyers and tripling of Mine Warfare ships, we have FEWER ships as stated before
But more of the SAME TYPE, as stated before. All the Charles F. Adams and Spruance types have been replaced by Burkes. The Ticonderoga class, which is also in the process of being replaced, is a "cruiser" in name only and is really just the Burke's slightly bigger brother.

That leaves us short about 25 ships. The missing ships are mostly the nuclear powered Belknap/Truxtun/Virginia/California cruisers that were decommissioned in the 1990s when their reason to exist -- the Soviet Navy -- evaporated. Almost every one of those ships were either one-of-a-kind or built with such a rare mix of hardware that they could not be replaced (or, in the case of Bainbridge, even REPAIRED) if anything were to happen to them. And this ignores the fact that the CGNs themselves are tactically inferior to even the Ticonderogas, to say nothing of the newer and more advanced Arleigh Burkes.

You're making basically the same error Congress made in the 60s with the "cruiser gap" panic. You're counting numbers and types and are paying no attention whatsoever to the capabilities those types bring to the table. By that same logic we could easily address the problem by reclassifying the littoral combat ships as "guided missile cruisers" for no reason. Sure, they're not proper cruisers at all and wouldn't last three seconds in any real naval battle, but we're just talking NUMBERS, right?

And since you and others point out that these ships are more capable and do more bang for the buck, each loss of ship will be felt even MORE.
Not nearly as much as it would the loss of one of the CGNs, considering their higher crew complement and far greater vulnerability, not to mention the fact that the 1960s era CGNs carried equipment packages for which few spare parts still existed in 1995 and definitely do not exist today.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
In the end, there is one and ONLY one part of Starfleet that was ever considered for dismantling, and Spock lays it out plainly: The dismantling of our space stations and starbases along the Neutral Zone. Nothing else happened; nothing else WOULD have happened. And in the end, we're talking NEGOTIATIONS: it's not even certain that all of those star bases were decommissioned, considering many of them could just as easily be converted to peaceful/scientific purposes anyway.
Spock speaks of starbases and space stations while the Military Aide asks about the whole Starfleet to clarify. The answer is more broad...
Unlikely. The original script has the CnC finishing that statement with "... but the facts speak for themselves, Captain." This is a rebuke, not an explanation: "Stupid question is stupid."

and it tells us that only the Science and Exploration programs will be unaffected
Which is, at this point, about 95% of the fleet. About the only thing it explicitly DOES effect are the outposts along the neutral zone and what, in the script, Spock alludes to as "military expenditures," the absence of which would reduce pressure on the Federation economy.

That, too, alludes to fixed installations and fortifications that would require relatively high maintenance and constant upgrades to keep in a state of perpetual readiness against Klingon aggression. Absence the Klingon threat, those stations can be either demobilized or placed on reduced alert, at the disposal of the scientific and exploration programs Starfleet has already been running for the past 150 years already.
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote