View Single Post
Old September 13 2013, 07:36 PM   #49
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
That doesn't change that today we have almost half as many cruisers+destroyers+frigates as we had back in '91.
Irrelevant. You can have a fleet that consists of one ultra-modern warship and five thousand boghamers, but that won't put you in any better position to "absorb" the loss of that one modern ship.

You're arguing that each ship is worth more today so we don't need as many
No, I'm arguing that have more AEGIS ships than we did in the 1980s (and even in the 90s) and that the AEGIS system is vastly more capable than any of the ships they replaced. Thus we ARE able to "absorb" those losses far better than we would have if we had a mix of less-capable vessels serving side by side with the newer ones.

Wouldn't upgrading them to stay current with the threat environment be just normal?
Strictly speaking, our current navy is severely mismatched to the current threat environment and is, in fact, six times larger and more powerful than it needs to be to do the same job.

If it takes a thousand B-17s to carpet bomb a city into a parking lot, you can maintain your city-busting capability -- and then some -- by replacing that thousand B-17s with with about fifty B-52s. If you then go on to build a thousand B-52s, you have now gained the ability to carpet bomb TWENTY cities at the same time. That amounts to a military buildup, especially when you consider that in the absence of a world war you don't really have a coherent reason to carpet bomb ONE city, let alone twenty.

Are we or another country called out on when fighters are upgraded or ships modernized?
The United States has never been "called out" for anything, ever. Japan, on the other hand, was recently accused of "disturbing militarism" when they replaced one of their old helicopter destroyers with a newer, larger vessel that bears an uncanny resemblance to an aircraft carrier.

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.
But we DID swap them for different types. The AEGIS system is a massive improvement over the old tartar ships, and the weapons they carry are considerably more advanced than the old Standard types.

More to the point, we've basically already done this with carrier air wings. Modern supercarriers do not carry anything close to the number of fighters as their WW-II counterparts; a modern air wing has perhaps 50 fighter-bombers, 10 electronic warfare craft and a mix of anti-submarine helicopters and planes, refueling craft and other support craft.

By your suggestion, we ought to have air wings composed entirely of F/A-18 Superhornets, at least 100 aircraft on each carrier. Presently, a typical airwing has less than half of that; so the air wing can't "absorb" the loss of an aircraft as well, right?

We only followed one ship around in TOS. Was Unit XY-75847 an exploration ship or a military ship?
Starfleet doesn't have "military" ships. EVERY ship in the fleet is a multi-purpose vessel. The highly notable exceptions to this practice -- USS Vengeance, USS Defiant -- have always been highly controversial.

Even USS Excelsior, arguably one of the most powerful ships in the fleet at the time, is seen "cataloging gaseous anomalies" along the Klingon neutral zone. All that needs to be said, therefore, is that neither the Excelsior nor the Enterprise-B were in any way threatened by the Khitomer accords.

Speaking of outposts, how do we know the Klingon or even RNZ outposts have any scientific purpose to them?
Because Starfleet builds scientific purpose into EVERYTHING. It's their longstanding and highly effective technique to avoid Federation budget cuts.

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.
The scope of which is not at all known, nor do we even know if this is the first or only time the Federation has gone to war with the Klingons.

Interestingly, though, the Enterprise -- well underway on its five-year mission of exploration -- manages to get involved with this conflict too. That should also tell you something.

Most important of all though: neither Spock nor the CnC nor even the alarmists in the room bother to differentiate between "Scientific and exploration" programs and one that is purely military in nature. There is, indeed, no implication whatsoever that a "purely military" program even exists, as the distinction ITSELF is never made by anyone.
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote