View Single Post
Old September 17 2013, 06:59 PM   #54
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
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.
It's NOT irrelevant. "The ability to absorb losses" is a tactical capability one does not necessarily need. You might as well suggest that the U.S. Army has an alarming shortage of siege weapons.

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.
It IS a buildup when the U.S. does it. My point is that NOBODY CARES that the U.S. is constantly building up its military because there's nothing anyone can do about it.

So then a shitload more ships with AEGIS should be built then
We don't NEED that many more. That would be a waste of money.

The Midway stopped getting bigger.
The CARRIERS did not. Forestall was bigger than Midway and Nimitz was bigger than Forestall. The air wing is still considerably smaller than Midway's intended WW-II complement.

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?
Very small. About 750 altogether, most of which are Superhornets.

As far as "Absorbing the losses" this is really only a problem for the old-model Harrier jump jets. Taliban insurgents raided a British airfield in Afghanistan a couple of years ago and sabotaged and destroyed an entire squadron of them; for all intents and purposes, this signals the Harrier's extinction.

This would have been a problem for the old Tartar ships, which could not be repaired or replaced on a one-to-one parity. It is NOT a problem for the Superhornets, whose production line is still active and which CAN be replaced if a bunch of them get shot down. It is also not a problem for the AEGIS ships, whose basic components are also still in production and for whom additional units can be constructed if needed.

But that "if needed" is the whole point of the discussion. You need X-capability and that capability is provided by Y number of units. To use your B-17 example: do we NEED to be able to hit 1800 targets at once? Do we NEED to able to hit 1000 targets at once? The U.S. military is infamous for procuring weapons based on the capabilities they provide rather than its actual strategic needs; almost every time they have done this, it has resulted in a huge mismatch between system capability and emerging threat environment (I'm lookin at you, F-35 Lightning-II) and a colossal waste of money. The only coherent reason to do this is when a given capability (say, the ability to launch missiles from 1000 cheap planes at once) can only be provided by a particular manufacturer (say, the Blsdwlf aircraft company) that happens to be located in a congressional district of an armed sevice committee member (Senator Peter Chung, who just happens to own the blsdwlf aircraft company).

The Federation doesn't seem to have this problem. Its procurement priorities ALWAYS focus on the possibility fo exploration missions no matter what's happening militarily. They don't have to draw down their fleet because a large fleet is always useful to them, and the deeper into space they go, the bigger a fleet they need. This is the exact OPPOSITE of the U.S. Navy, which -- as technology continues to improve -- needs fewer and fewer ships with smaller crews that can do the same job twice as well.

How are they highly notable? Dreadnought Entente isn't pointed out as something unusual during TOS Movie time.
That's probably because it was never pointed out AT ALL during TOS movie time. Its existence is suggested by comm chatter and nothing else.

Single purpose ships like the Grissom...
Are never described as "single-purpose" ships.

Of course he DIFFERENTIATED. If he didn't differentiate then he wouldn't need to mention "scientific and exploration programs" SEPARATELY.
He didn't mention anything "separately" because there is no separation to be had.

Put it in terms of a school:
Superintendent: Our budget's been slashed again, so we've decided to cut the philosophy and comparative religion classes from the curriculum.
PhilosophyTeacher: Bill, are we talking about firing all the teachers?
Superintendent: Our core curriculum will remain unaffected, but...
ShopTeacher: I must protest! Scoffing at philosophy and comparative religion is suicide! Our children will be come the ignorant trash of America! And if we fire the teachers, the students will have no education at all!

Put it in terms of a real world navy:
President: The Russians want to begin negotiations for the dismantling of our SLBM submarine force.
Admiral1: George, are we talking about mothballing the navy?
President: I'm sure our non-nuclear military forces would be unaffected, but...
Admiral2: I must protest! To offer the Russians safe haven in the U.S. mainland would be suicide! Russians would become the foreign trash of America! And if we dismantle the navy, we'd be defenseless against against a communist incursion with a foothold on our territory!

All three -- including the Starfleet case -- are examples of bullshit/extremist objections to otherwise modest proposals. In the broader context "scientific and exploration programs" is in fact the original basis of Starfleet's EXISTENCE and there is little to suggest this has ever changed.

I've maintained that with the military drawn down after TUC what's left are the science and exploration ships
Like the Exclesiors, the Constellations, the Mirandas... IOW, the only Starfleet we've ever been familiar with in the first place.

IMO the Constitutions were military ships that happen to have labs and science gear and it was one of the reasons they got retired.
Only to be replaced by the even more powerful Excelsior class ships which are both more heavily armed AND better equipped for scientific missions? More than that, to be SURVIVED by the also more heavily armed Miranda and Constellation class ships?

That's a really odd kind of "drawdown" considering Starfleet went on to build around ten times as many Excelsiors as Constitutions.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote