View Single Post
Old September 13 2013, 09:11 AM   #48
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Your point is that these FEWER ships are better than the ones they replaced.

My point is that we have FEWER ships and thus not be able to absorb losses as well and it would be preferable to have MORE ships with the same better capabilities.
That's just it: we never before HAD this number of ships with the SAME CAPABILITIES. What we had before was group of about 25 Aegis ships, 30 post-terrier ships, 40 tartar ships, and an assload of Sitting Duck-class FFGs. We couldn't as easily absorb the loss of 5 Aegis ships because the Tartars didn't provide anywhere close to the same capabilities; if by some fluke of naval power projection we lost ALL 25 of the Aegis boats we'd have to make due with the Perry's and tartars.

Presently, we can loose 25 Aegis boats in a single nightmarish engagement and we'd still have 30 left that provide the same capability. Even in that horrific scenario, we could absorb the loss just fine, especially since we would be unlikely to suffer FURTHER losses that would be expected if the remainder of the fleet was a mix of tartars and Perry class FFGs.
That doesn't change that today we have almost half as many cruisers+destroyers+frigates as we had back in '91. You're arguing that each ship is worth more today so we don't need as many and I'm arguing that we should keep the same number of ships we had back in then and keep them upgraded so they're at the same capability as today's ships. Having fewer ships means its harder to absorb losses.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
How is that a buildup when maintaining the same number of ships?
Because the ships are getting steadily more powerful despite their numbers remaining steady.
Wouldn't upgrading them to stay current with the threat environment be just normal? Are we or another country called out on when fighters are upgraded or ships modernized?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Put this another way: a country that starts its navy with ten combat vessels (all ten of them are motorboats with machineguns bolted to the deck) could be said to be "Building up" if it replaces those motorboats with fast attack craft, or fast attack craft with frigates, frigates with destroyers, destroyers etc.
That's different from what I was saying. We have 10 destroyers and we keep modernizing or replacing them with the same types. Not swapping them up for different types.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
One real example is the IDF, which actually has fewer ships in its navy now than it did in the 1960s, but the capabilities provided by those newer ships means their navy is actually MORE powerful than it was 40 years ago.
Sure, I'm not debating the increased power.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Yes, two countries are doing this: China, and Imaginationland. Neither of which are likely to declare war on us within the forseeable future.
I thought there was a country with that capability. Thanks.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Was already piggybacked on its exploration program, as we saw demonstrated unequivocally in TOS.
We only followed one ship around in TOS. Was Unit XY-75847 an exploration ship or a military ship? Or what about Colonel West and his task force of ships to go get Kirk and McCoy out of Klingon space? There's definitely room for having military ships in TOS-TUC timeframe.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
There is no separate military program for fighting the Klingons, only specific expenditures directly related to the Klingons. That, specifically, is the neutral zone outposts, and even then it wouldn't affect all of them since some of them still serve a scientific purpose as well.
Speaking of outposts, how do we know the Klingon or even RNZ outposts have any scientific purpose to them? I can see some outposts that are not on the borders having scientific reasons but the ones on the Neutral Zones there to watch the zone... not so much.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
That's what breaks the parallel between Starfleet and the U.S. Navy. The Klingons aren't their only enemy, in fact they're not even their most powerful enemy; even if they were, "hostilities with the Klingons" is NOT their main fleet priority and arguably never was.
There are a lot of things that break the parallel between Starfleet and the US Navy. However, we don't know what their main priority was, other than they had multiple programs.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
What shred of evidence do you have 95% of Starfleet is composed of science and exploration?
Because in almost 50 years of Trek canon,
Since we're talking about TUC and the events before it then that would only include TOS and the TOS movies as those are the ones only applicable.

Of that, we know of military outposts on the RNZ, the Organians identified the Enterprise and all of the fleet that was with her as a military ship, characters have identified Starfleet as "the Military", we've heard of another ship identified as a "dreadnaught" in TMP, and know Colonel West had a plan for ships to go in and get Kirk and McCoy out. That's among the other ships that are plain-jane science ships like the Antares and Grissom.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
As to the Klingons being a minor blip - going to war with them in "Errand of Mercy" looked like a major blip.
Despite the obvious sarcasm in that's statement, that could very well be the case. Especially if the entire context of that war was a Klingon military campaign specifically aimed at the annexation of Sherman's Planet.
Whatever they were aiming for it was just called a war.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote