View Single Post
Old September 15 2013, 06:31 AM   #52
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
Who we lose the warships to is irrelevant. Having more ships mean better ability to absorb losses.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
They are weapons that the US Navy has to plan against and can be used against them.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
50 B-52s with 18 cruise missiles each = 900 targets.
1,000 B17s upgraded to carry two cruise missiles = 1,800 targets.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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."
If nobody calls out the US, then nobody calls out the US and it depends on who is doing the replacing will be labeled as a buiild up or not.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
So basically the number of cruisers and frigates decreased and the number of destroyers increased.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
That's because AEGIS is designed to do a shitload of things and do them better than any of its predecessors.
So then a shitload more ships with AEGIS should be built then

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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 Midway stopped getting bigger. Of course it couldn't carry as many as the planes got bigger faster.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
Better than only carrying 50 aircraft total.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
That's 5,000 total build Phantom IIs spread among USAF, USN and other countries. The 2000 Hornets are also spread across multiple countries. What is the actual number for the USN?


Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
How are they highly notable? Dreadnought Entente isn't pointed out as something unusual during TOS Movie time. Single purpose ships like the Grissom aren't called out as being notable as well.

We know during TNG's time Starfleet was not a military so DS9's Defiant would stand out initially but later on it's just another ship type during the war.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
They sent the Runabout Rubicon in to take the measurements. Defiant was there to keep a tractor beam on it to minimize the spatial distortion effect on the runabout.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
Of course he DIFFERENTIATED. If he didn't differentiate then he wouldn't need to mention "scientific and exploration programs" SEPARATELY. To the best of our knowledge those have been carried out by single purpose survey and science ships as well as multipurpose ships and they ranged from small and weak to advanced and powerful.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
If you are suggesting that the Constitution class really is just a glorified science vessel
Show the quote where I suggest this.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
Show the quote where I suggest this.

I've maintained that with the military drawn down after TUC what's left are the science and exploration ships (and ones that could be used to haul lots of cargo). IMO the Constitutions were military ships that happen to have labs and science gear and it was one of the reasons they got retired.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote