View Single Post
Old September 15 2013, 12:04 AM   #51
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
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.
Still irrelevant, since we are considerably better able to absorb those losses now than we were in the 1980s. And this still leaves unanswered the question of who exactly we're going to be loosing those warships TO.

That doesn't sound right given that the threat environment has evolved to include supersonic antiship missiles...
Most of which are operated by our allies and/or closest trading partners. That's not a "threat environment" so much as a "guy to whom we owe an assload of money" environment.

OTOH, a thousand B-17s can bomb a thousand targets while 50 B-52s only 50.
Strategic bombers don't do pinpoint strikes on individual targets; that's what fighter-bombers and ground attack aircraft are for.

OTOH, a B-52 can carry up to 18 cruise missiles or several dozen GPS-guided bombs in its payload, so actually, you COULD hit a thousand targets with 50 B-52s if you wanted to.

Fair enough. So it depends on who is doing the replacing whether it would be labeled a build-up or not.
No it doesn't. EVERYONE knows the United States has been practicing unmitigated military buildup for over a hundred years. Nobody has "called out" the United States because our usual response to that kind of statement is "Fuck you, we're America."

So you're saying Frigates were replaced by Cruisers and Destroyers by something else?
Yes and no. During the original "missile gap" reorganization, several frigates literally BECAME cruisers just so Congress could say they didn't have a shortage of cruisers.

After the Cold War, however, most of the Perry FFGs were decommissioned as their capabilities were filled by Burke-class DDGs or rendered irrelevant by the lack of need for roving ASW ocean patrol missions. The Spruance boats were replaced altogether, and the CGNs were scrapped as the Ticonderogas came online.

AEGIS is an overly broad term that includes whatever types of ships that happen to use the AEGIS system.
That's because AEGIS is designed to do a shitload of things and do them better than any of its predecessors.

Of course modern carriers can't carry the same numbers because they stopped getting bigger
Incorrect. USS Midway began its career with about 100 planes in its airwing. 40 years later -- having gained 20,000 tons in its replacement -- the ship's air wing had been reduced to 65 aircraft, just 40 of which were fighter/attack craft.

The Nimitz class carriers currently in service have 20,000 tons on the Midway and are three times the size of the Essex carriers of WW-II; their air wings stand between 75 and 85 aircraft compared to 90-100 in WWII, and only half of those are fighter-attack craft.

And I just realized that our entire air fleet carries just over 2000 Hornets compared to the more than 5,000 Phantom-IIs of the Vietnam Era. You really should consider writing a letter to the Pentagon enlightening them as to the error of their ways.

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.
And yet, the very few ships that AREN'T multipurpose vessels have been highly notable for this specific reason. Even Starfleet invariably interprets their existence as extraordinary measures to meat extraordinary threats, measures whose very existence -- unlike Starfleet as a whole -- is fairly difficult to justify.

Or the Excelsior isn't one of the most powerful ships and there are others bigger or more powerful?
Works for me. I've always thought the Ambassador class might be a 23rd century design anyway.

LOL, I agree that they do it in SOME but NOT EVERYTHING
Dude, EVERYTHING. Even the combat-oriented Defiant got sent on scientific missions on more than one occasion. Their combat systems may not specialize in scientific missions, but Starfleet builds those capabilities into them almost out of habit.

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.
He didn't DIFFERENTIATE anything at all. Starfleet has ALWAYS run scientific and exploration programs since its inception, and to the best of our knowledge those programs have been carried out by their most advanced and most powerful ships. If you are suggesting that the Constitution class really is just a glorified science vessel and not at all representative of Starfleet's "top of the line" ships, that is 1) completely unsupported by anything we have ever seen in TOS and 2) a drastic about-face from everything YOU have claimed about TOS.
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote