View Single Post
Old September 14 2013, 09:45 PM   #50
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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 are now presenting an answer to a different argument.

Let's look at your own example:
Crazie Eddie said, "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."
By your words, we can lose more ships if we had more total ships. We can't absorb losses as easily if we had fewer ships.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
That doesn't sound right given that the threat environment has evolved to include supersonic antiship missiles and other assorted weapons to deny US ships from operating as close to shore as it once did.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
OTOH, a thousand B-17s can bomb a thousand targets while 50 B-52s only 50. Now a thousand B-52s could bomb a thousand targets. OTOH, if the threat environment has an effective anti-air capability that it takes a thousand B-52s to carpet bomb one city it evens out in numbers.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
Fair enough. So it depends on who is doing the replacing whether it would be labeled a build-up or not.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
So you're saying Frigates were replaced by Cruisers and Destroyers by something else? AEGIS is an overly broad term that includes whatever types of ships that happen to use the AEGIS system.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
Of course modern carriers can't carry the same numbers because they stopped getting bigger

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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 ought to have bigger carriers that can carry 100 fighters. And yes, a smaller airwing still means they can't absorb the loss of an aircraft as well

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
The existence of "military" ships in Starfleet invalidates the idea that it "doesn't have military ships." Obviously NOT EVERY ship in the fleet is a multi-purpose vessel.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
Or the Excelsior isn't one of the most powerful ships and there are others bigger or more powerful?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Because Starfleet builds scientific purpose into EVERYTHING. It's their longstanding and highly effective technique to avoid Federation budget cuts.
LOL, I agree that they do it in SOME but NOT EVERYTHING, and that still doesn't show that outposts monitoring the neutral zones have any scientific gear though.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
It tells me that they weren't doing their mission.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
Not at all. The implication has always been that Starfleet during that time is the Military and when the CnC answered whether Starfleet would be mothballed he differentiated that the Scientific and Explorations programs would be unaffected. That leaves the Military and other programs not said to be affected.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote