View Single Post
Old September 19 2013, 03:19 PM   #55
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
No, but it applies to the Army as well. More soldiers mean better ability to absorb losses.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
Then if there can be a country where no one cares about it building up their military then there can be other countries where the same can apply.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
We don't NEED that many more. That would be a waste of money.
If it's "designed to do a shitload of things and do them better than any of its predecessors" then getting more would make sense. But if they are limited in what they can do or they are no longer relevant in the current threat environment of course getting them replaced would be important.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
You wrote, "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."

And I replied back based on what you wrote which is that the Midway stopped getting bigger.

If you wanted me to reply back in a more broader context about all aircraft carriers then aircraft carriers in general have not kept pace with the increased size in aircraft. Although you could get 100 aircraft on a Nimitz if they switched to smaller manned or unmanned aircraft, theoretically speaking.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Very small. About 750 altogether, most of which are Superhornets.
Well if they're retiring out the older model Hornets and replacing them with Super Hornets while keeping the same number of squadrons then they'd keep roughly the same numbers.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
It's also not a problem if enough copies of the same vehicle exists that you can cannibalize a damaged one to maintain others if the vehicle or it's components are not manufactured anymore and there are no more spare parts.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
Sure. And my original argument was that 10 modern day destroyers would guarantee a win over 10 cold war destroyers. More ships mean better ability to absorb losses. And more ships mean more ocean coverage.

Now if you want to look at the need then it's a question of what the Navy needs to do now and whether they have enough ships to fulfill their missions.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
To use your B-17 example: do we NEED to be able to hit 1800 targets at once?
It's actually your example. You wrote, "If it takes a thousand B-17s to carpet bomb a city into a parking lot, you can maintain your city-busting capability..."

I'm just playing along with it.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Do we NEED to able to hit 1000 targets at once?
You brought up your example of hitting 900 targets at once with B52s so that answer is in your court.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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).
Well that's getting into military contractors, politics and waste. It would be nice if the DOD actually could purchase equipment unencumbered by that.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
I wouldn't say opposite because if the US Navy continues to want to have command of the seas then they'll need enough ships to do this. If they're forced to fewer ships because of budgetary reasons then they have to change their mission to avoid being stretched thin.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
A dreadnought existed and it was not called out at anytime for being unusual.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Are never described as "single-purpose" ships.
At the time it was a "Federation Science Vessel". Not a general purpose starship or something broad.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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...
Actually the answer would be more like this:
Superintendent: Our math and sciences program will remain unaffected, but...

That would be close to the liberal arts that was mentioned earlier. And this would then call in question how much the other programs will be affected.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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...
And that would imply that all the nuclear military forces would be affected. Remember that he never gets to finish that "but..."


Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
No, those are just questions and answers. And we know from dialogue that TOS and TOS movies the Starfleet of that time was the Military. You could argue that they didn't want to be the military, but they became it due to the volatile times.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
Yes. In a funny way when you point to these other ship classes you get to see that more space on those ships are available for non-military use like for hauling cargo which is useful for moving science teams and colonists around.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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?
How do we know that the Excelsior is more heavily armed? We know she's bigger than the Enterprise so she can carry more scientific equipment. But her killing power in TUC didn't appear to be any better.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
More than that, to be SURVIVED by the also more heavily armed Miranda and Constellation class ships?
Same question. The Reliant has at least two more tubes pointing aft. But does that make her more heavily armed or more powerful? And the Constellations at that time appear to only have the same neck torpedo launcher the Enterprise had so she might have only had only 2 tubes.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
That's a really odd kind of "drawdown" considering Starfleet went on to build around ten times as many Excelsiors as Constitutions.
More cargo hauling ability
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote