RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,087
Posts: 5,398,963
Members: 24,735
Currently online: 555
Newest member: extremedalek

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Retro Watches
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

New DS9 eBook To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Trek Ice Cube Maker and Shot Glasses
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

City on the Edge of Forever #3 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

TV Alert: Shatner TNG Documentary
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 10 2013, 04:27 AM   #31
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
To me it's more a numbers game. If we kept up the same number of ships from the Cold War and continued to upgrade them, we'd have more capable ships today. Instead we have far fewer ships and that means we're less able to absorb losses if we were to be involved in a war.

Ah but I'm not talking about old vs new. I'm talking about numbers of ships. (And to your argument, "A modern DDG could wipe the floor with a squadron of older ships" but a squadron of modern DDGs will wipe the floor with a squadron of older ships.)
On both of these, the problem you encounter is one of scarcity.
Well now you're just changing the conditions to include resources instead of just purely numbers. But I'll play

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
While the Federation is a post personal scarcity society (at least in some sense, given the marginal cost of energy is near 0 with cheap fusion), it's clear that there's bottlenecks in everything from ship power sources (dilithium) to physical locations to build ships to trained personnel.
Yes.

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
So for any given amount of resources you can focus on building more capable ships or a greater number of them.
That's true at different given times in history. I'd imagine that the amount of resources increased between TUC and say 20 years prior to "Yesterday's Enterprise" because the respective space powers are able to explore and acquire new planets with resources.

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
There's a reason why naval treaties focused on tonnage rather than other measures like budgets or unit numbers. The displacement of individual ships was perhaps the greatest single determinant of their capabilities.

The Washington and London treaties helped keep a tight rein on battleship displacement and capabilities until they were abrogated, and once the treaties were done away with, the size and capabilities of battleships ballooned to about half again the size as the older ones.
Okay, you've lost me here. How do the above Washington and London treaties that limits capabilities by displacement connect to fixed resources? From their descriptions it reads that the countries had plenty of resources to build more but the treaties were designed to artificially limit construction by ratios to other countries (among other criteria).

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
The numbers game can be effective, but only if you have a nigh infinite naval budget and a substantial commitment that can't be covered any other way. Either way it's a great way to commit yourself to budgetary overstretch.
Isn't that a given if a country overstretches and builds more than they can afford? I was thinking that a country is building what they need and can afford because they already have X number of ships to start with.

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
In constant dollar terms, it's easy to forget that the DoD budget hasn't changed all that much from the Cold War era
According to this article, the DoD budget took a 36% hit after the end of the Cold War up till the War on Terror.

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
(and since the War on Terror has increased). A modern destroyer displaces as much a Cold War era cruiser with substantially better capabilities.
Yes, in general newer ships equal better capabilities. (Except for nukes. I don't think our post-Cold War ships carry any nuclear missiles.)

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
It also has about half the crew.
But isn't that in exchange for increased complexity and technical training to operate and maintain the new equipment?

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
Maintaining numbers would always have some sort of penalty, whether in capabilities or budgets. Now given that there's plenty of resistance of a trillion dollar defense budget, I highly doubt you'd get enough votes if you decided the DOD budget needed to be closer to 30% of GDP than 10%.
Or was it more like 20%? Anywhoo...

edit: no you're right at 10% of GDP.

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
Same would go for Starfleet. They have limitations, though mostly in terms of ship building/refitting capabilities (number of shipyards, slips, etc) and crew. So once the need for keeping sheer numbers around to cover every cubic lightyear of space available became lower, they'd probably shift toward getting more bang per buck.
That I agree with. I just think the more "bang per buck" is weighted towards science and exploration over military.

If I were to make a comparison - look at DS9's Defiant-class which showcases that a pure military ship in Starfleet is actually very small and uses a small crew as a result. Building a bunch of pure warships to me would indicate that it would be cheaper in material and crew, IMHO.

Last edited by blssdwlf; September 10 2013 at 05:41 AM.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10 2013, 05:01 AM   #32
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
I'm going to start back again with numbers.

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
Second, US Navy Force levels between the Cold War and modern USN aren't particularly helpful when you look at the composition of the ships employed.
To me it's more a numbers game. If we kept up the same number of ships from the Cold War and continued to upgrade them, we'd have more capable ships today. Instead we have far fewer ships and that means we're less able to absorb losses if we were to be involved in a war.
Incorrect: we have more ships of the SAME TYPE, which means we are more able to absorb those losses than we would have been before; the loss of a single CGNs and a couple of Tico cruisers would have seriously compromised the Navy's planning in 1985; in 2005, you'd have to sink at least ten Aegis destroyers to cause the same disruption, and the Arleigh Burkes are considerably harder targets.

Ah but I'm not talking about old vs new. I'm talking about numbers of ships.
The U.S. Navy built and maintained not more than 70 guided missile destroyers at any given time between 1957 and 1993. The current tally stands at 62, with 5 more under construction. The FFG series is different matter, but there are still 12 Perry class frigates in active service compared to the 51 originally built (which is kind of impressive considering how laughably useless they presently are).

There's also the little fact that of the 52 SSN688s originally built, 40 are still in service, and the retired subs have been replaced by a mix of Virginias and Seawolfs for a total of 53 SSNs now in service; about as many as we had at the height of naval operations in the 80s. Most of the surviving 688s are equipped with VLS tubes and are capable of firing anti-shipping missiles and Tomahawks and are thus equivalent to submersible DDGs; there's also the Ohio SSGN conversions, which makes you wonder what anyone ever saw in the old CGNs.

If you want to talk numbers, then at least recognize that the number of combat vessels hasn't changed much in the past twenty years despite the fact that -- with the advent of sub-launched harpoons and VLS weapon systems -- their capabilities have more than doubled over the same period.

Incidentally, this is approximately equivalent to what we see in Starfleet. In Kirk's time, we're told there are only about a dozen Constitution class starships in the entire fleet, in addition to an unknown number of lesser vessels. In Picard's time, about a dozen Galaxy class starships and an unknown number of lesser ones. However you interpret Starfleet's standing after the Khitomer accords, it's clear they actually got STRONGER, not weaker (especially since the ship that wound up replacing the Enterprise only a year later is larger and more powerful than anything Kirk had ever commanded).

Lastly, even this goes to assumes that the Klingons are the only or even the biggest threat to the Federation during the 23rd century. Even a cursory viewing of TOS shows this not to be the case; the Klingons are a recurring nemesis, but Starfleet logs repeated encounters with alien doomsday machines, star-eating space amoebas, carnivorous space monsters, and major population centers being attacked by omnicidal death probes not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES in the span of only fifteen years. In real-world terms: imagine if every naval vessel since 1905 carried equipment capable of dissipating thunderstorms and/or hurricanes. That's the world that Starfleet inhabits: their equivalent of "hurricane season" is a regular fleet action; they have fighter squadrons that specialize in shooting down tornadoes. They're not going to demobilize just because one of the two-dozen hostile aliens they share a border with is going bankrupt. If anything, it'll make them less conservative and more willing to take risks on newer/bolder/untried designs.

In the end, there is one and ONLY one part of Starfleet that was ever considered for dismantling, and Spock lays it out plainly: The dismantling of our space stations and starbases along the Neutral Zone. Nothing else happened; nothing else WOULD have happened. And in the end, we're talking NEGOTIATIONS: it's not even certain that all of those star bases were decommissioned, considering many of them could just as easily be converted to peaceful/scientific purposes anyway.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!

Last edited by Crazy Eddie; September 10 2013 at 05:13 AM.
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10 2013, 05:29 AM   #33
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
I'm going to start back again with numbers.

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
Second, US Navy Force levels between the Cold War and modern USN aren't particularly helpful when you look at the composition of the ships employed.
To me it's more a numbers game. If we kept up the same number of ships from the Cold War and continued to upgrade them, we'd have more capable ships today. Instead we have far fewer ships and that means we're less able to absorb losses if we were to be involved in a war.
Incorrect: we have more ships of the SAME TYPE, which means we are more able to absorb those losses than we would have been before; the loss of a single CGNs and a couple of Tico cruisers would have seriously compromised the Navy's planning in 1985; in 2005, you'd have to sink at least ten Aegis destroyers to cause the same disruption, and the Arleigh Burkes are considerably harder targets.
You need to re-check your numbers. Other than a minor bump in Destroyers and tripling of Mine Warfare ships, we have FEWER ships as stated before and we are less able to absorb losses.

Dates being used: End of Cold War, 1991. 2005 is 4 years into the War on Terror. These stats are all from the US Navy.

1991: Cruisers 47 / Destroyers 47 / Frigates 93 / Subs 87 / SSBN 34 / SSGN 22 / Mine Warfare 6 / Amphibious 61 / Aux 112 = 509, not counting a Battleship.
2001: Cruisers 27 / Destroyers 53 / Frigates 35 / Subs 55 / SSBN 18 / SSGN 0 / Mine Warfare 18 / Amphibious 41 / Aux 57 = 304
2005: Cruisers 23 / Destroyers 46 / Frigates 30 / Subs 54 / SSBN 14 / SSGN 4 / Mine Warfare 17 / Amphibious 37 / Aux 45 = 270

And since you and others point out that these ships are more capable and do more bang for the buck, each loss of ship will be felt even MORE.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
In the end, there is one and ONLY one part of Starfleet that was ever considered for dismantling, and Spock lays it out plainly: The dismantling of our space stations and starbases along the Neutral Zone. Nothing else happened; nothing else WOULD have happened. And in the end, we're talking NEGOTIATIONS: it's not even certain that all of those star bases were decommissioned, considering many of them could just as easily be converted to peaceful/scientific purposes anyway.
Spock speaks of starbases and space stations while the Military Aide asks about the whole Starfleet to clarify. The answer is more broad and it tells us that only the Science and Exploration programs will be unaffected. That leaves the all the other programs being affected, including the Military.

Last edited by blssdwlf; September 10 2013 at 05:40 AM.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10 2013, 06:01 AM   #34
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?

I'd modify your numbers a bit because I still believe that the Federation has been expanding in an "onion layer" fashion for most of its history and uses the same types of ships in each layer, era after era. Thusly:

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
Well, let's assume a greatly simplified fleet composition for a moment.
In 2280 Starfleet has:
15 Constitutions w/complement of 500
35 Mirandas w/complement of 350
40 Soyuz w/complement of 300
75 Saladins w/complement of 200
75 Hermes w/complement of 195
For a total of 240 ships, and 61,375 personnel.
You're forgetting the Constellations, which are just coming into service around this time. There's also the Akyazi perimeter action ships, which are only about as canon as the Hermes/Saladin types but are basically the grandaddy of USS Defiant. Not to carry over from the other thread, but I happen to believe the Constitution class is a rather old design by this point (since we never see any other than Enterprise after TOS) and by the 2280s they're in the process of being replaced as the "layer" they helped to chart becomes more and more civilized, the worlds they explored experience colonization and development booms.

I also don't believe there were EVER that many Soyuz-class ships. I think that was a specialty design built for a very specific purpose or set of purposes and not that many of them would even have existed.

So I'd modify this. In the 2280s we'd have:
5 Constitutions w/complement of 400
10 Constellations w/complement of 500
35 Mirandas w/complement of 350
5 Soyuz w/complement of 300
45 Saladins w/complement of 200
55 Hermes w/complement of 195
80 Akyazi w/complement of 80
For a total of 235 ships, and 46,875 personnel.

The Saladins and the Hermes are old designs as well, being no longer even necessary since the patrol zones they once covered can now be handled by remote sensing devices and fast-acting speedsters like the Akyazi perimeter action ships. If anything we'd have LESS of those, not more. OTOH, the Excelsiors are just coming off the production line and moving into the "next layer" exploration zones just beyond the 5-year-mission exploration region while the old Constitutions continue to be replaced by Constellations in their increasingly busy neighborhood. the Akyazi's get upgraded too, so in 2290 they have:
5 Excelsiors w/complement of 800
4 Constitutions w/complement of 400
20 Constellations w/complement of 500
40 Mirandas w/complement of 350
30 Saladins w/complement of 200
35 Hermes w/complement of 195
85 Akyazi w/complement of 80
15 Akula w/complement of 85
For a total of 239 ships and 52,050 personnel.

In the Khitomer accords, the neutral zone outposts are either shut down or demilitarized (and thus converted into research laboratories). The Saladins and the Hermes no longer have a reason to exist; the existing Miranda production line is in full swing and new hulls can be built to take over their remaining border patrol duties, their security patrol duties are covered by the Akyazis and the outposts they usually defend don't exist anymore. THEY would be scrapped, but at this point they're practically ancient anyway, yes?

So Starfleet's priorities are changed, but only vis a vis the Klingons. More Excelsiors are being built, and at some point USS Ambassador comes off the assembly line. By the 2310s:
1 Ambassador w/complement of 2000
35 Excelsiors w/complement of 800
40 Constellations w/complement of 500
70 Mirandas w/complement of 350
55 Akyazi w/complement of 80
45 Akula w/complement of 85
245 ships and 87,225 personnel.

See the pattern here: larger numbers of larger ships are being sent deeper and deeper into space. By the 2340s there are probably dozens of Ambassadors and twice as many Excelsiors; the number of starfleet personnel has already doubled in the past 20 years, but most of the growth is in deep space, with the big Excelsior and Ambassador classes.

This, IMO, has implications for the Klingon war. When hostilities begin, Starfleet is spread fairly thin and has come to rely on a small number of small, specialized vessels for local security while its most powerful vessels are widely distributed and spread out into the far reaches of space. Arguably, the Klingons have the exact opposite distribution: they send their smallest ships to probe their enemies for weakness and keep their larger ships close to the homeworld as part of their "real arsenal." This would mean that at the start of the war, most of the heavy fighting takes place on the frontier as the largest and most powerful Starfleet vessels have these epic knockdown-dragout slugfests with equally enormous Klingon dreadnaughts. They spend the first years of the war fighting over new resources, over planets, over contact with new races, over trade routes, over allies; basically, the same shit Kirk was fighting them over, only the stakes are higher and so is the body count.

Unlike Kirk's time, however, the dispute works its way inwards: Klingons keep annexing planets the Federation has claims on, and while they're still wrestling over those, they start to get more aggressive and move in on planets the Federation has claimed for decades. This is when the Klingons discover that the INNER frontier if the Federation is mostly patrolled by Excelsior-types, which, while numerous, aren't nearly as tough as the Ambassadors. Diving in deeper, they find the Constellations and the Mirandas patrolling the core sectors, ship designs they have known how to fight for decades and aren't all that tough at all. It dawns on the Empire that the Federation's core is more vulnerable than they've been assuming all these years, and they start to lay claims to HISTORICALLY Federation worlds.

In this history, the Galaxy class is built as a ship that can close that weakness: it's got the size and muscle you'd expect from the Ambassadors and their cousins, but with its separable saucer and high troop complement it can perform the duty of a Constellation or an Excelsior just as efficiently. The redesigned Galaxy class is therefore exactly the thing the Federation needs right now, and goes into production earlier and faster and with fewer bells and whistles.

Where in the Prime Timeline they're following a pretty normal progression -- going deeper into space, build a deeper starship -- and thus it makes sense that there are only between 6 and 12 Galaxy class ships for a region of space only recently opened up to the Federation. In the alternate timeline, however, they're not in an exploring mood. The Galaxy is the "King Tiger" of the Federation's war machine, with at least twenty in service by the time the Enterprise-C comes through the rift. But even then, in all likelihood it's too little too late.

The only outstanding question is why Starfleet never put a ship like Defiant into service around this same time. I'd like to think they did, although maybe just mass producing huge numbers of Akyazi/Akulas would have been sufficient for that purpose. Either way, it doesn't seem to be working against the Klingon as well as a huge number of Galaxy class ships would, and at this point it's too late for that.

Long post. Heh.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10 2013, 06:32 AM   #35
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
You need to re-check your numbers. Other than a minor bump in Destroyers and tripling of Mine Warfare ships, we have FEWER ships as stated before
But more of the SAME TYPE, as stated before. All the Charles F. Adams and Spruance types have been replaced by Burkes. The Ticonderoga class, which is also in the process of being replaced, is a "cruiser" in name only and is really just the Burke's slightly bigger brother.

That leaves us short about 25 ships. The missing ships are mostly the nuclear powered Belknap/Truxtun/Virginia/California cruisers that were decommissioned in the 1990s when their reason to exist -- the Soviet Navy -- evaporated. Almost every one of those ships were either one-of-a-kind or built with such a rare mix of hardware that they could not be replaced (or, in the case of Bainbridge, even REPAIRED) if anything were to happen to them. And this ignores the fact that the CGNs themselves are tactically inferior to even the Ticonderogas, to say nothing of the newer and more advanced Arleigh Burkes.

You're making basically the same error Congress made in the 60s with the "cruiser gap" panic. You're counting numbers and types and are paying no attention whatsoever to the capabilities those types bring to the table. By that same logic we could easily address the problem by reclassifying the littoral combat ships as "guided missile cruisers" for no reason. Sure, they're not proper cruisers at all and wouldn't last three seconds in any real naval battle, but we're just talking NUMBERS, right?

And since you and others point out that these ships are more capable and do more bang for the buck, each loss of ship will be felt even MORE.
Not nearly as much as it would the loss of one of the CGNs, considering their higher crew complement and far greater vulnerability, not to mention the fact that the 1960s era CGNs carried equipment packages for which few spare parts still existed in 1995 and definitely do not exist today.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
In the end, there is one and ONLY one part of Starfleet that was ever considered for dismantling, and Spock lays it out plainly: The dismantling of our space stations and starbases along the Neutral Zone. Nothing else happened; nothing else WOULD have happened. And in the end, we're talking NEGOTIATIONS: it's not even certain that all of those star bases were decommissioned, considering many of them could just as easily be converted to peaceful/scientific purposes anyway.
Spock speaks of starbases and space stations while the Military Aide asks about the whole Starfleet to clarify. The answer is more broad...
Unlikely. The original script has the CnC finishing that statement with "... but the facts speak for themselves, Captain." This is a rebuke, not an explanation: "Stupid question is stupid."

and it tells us that only the Science and Exploration programs will be unaffected
Which is, at this point, about 95% of the fleet. About the only thing it explicitly DOES effect are the outposts along the neutral zone and what, in the script, Spock alludes to as "military expenditures," the absence of which would reduce pressure on the Federation economy.

That, too, alludes to fixed installations and fortifications that would require relatively high maintenance and constant upgrades to keep in a state of perpetual readiness against Klingon aggression. Absence the Klingon threat, those stations can be either demobilized or placed on reduced alert, at the disposal of the scientific and exploration programs Starfleet has already been running for the past 150 years already.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10 2013, 06:36 AM   #36
Workbee
Commander
 
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

Some great analysis here. Sorry to get off track, but something occurred to me after reading this.

So far it seems we are assuming that the Federation is only lost territory/space/planets to the Klingons through capture and occupation. I think it is important to consider that possibility that some of the planets or members of the Federation defected to the Klingons. War is arguably just as much about cutting off the enemy's supply lines as it is about battle tactics and firepower. I see no reason this couldn't hold true here.

We know from the Genesis Proposal in TWOK that the federation anticipated difficulty meeting the needs for a growing population. Since Genesis failed, it is likely that this would have become a problem, if it wasn't already. And entering into a full scale war would further tax resources.

We have seen the Klingons attempt to "court" planets that the Federation was attempting to negotiate mining rights with in TOS: Friday's Child. Once the Federation is unable to dedicate as many resources to support their colonies and members as a result of war, Klingons could quickly step in and offer compelling reasons for them to switch sides. Though the Klingons may not be as resource rich, they are very permissible to things that the Federation forbids. Such as the use of Orion slaves. Though abhorrent, if a colony is short on resources and faces starvation, the possibility of using slave labor to mine resources for trade and build infrastructure would start to become compelling.

Adding to the already scaled back military from the Khitomer Accords, the loss of resources from these worlds would put further strain on Federation, forming a vicious cycle. Ultimately, the loss of many of their supporters is what pushes the Federation into a losing position.

Of course, this basically goes against the assertions that there is no scarcity or poverty in the 24th century. But even if we assume this is true on the key federation worlds like Earth, I really can't see this being the case for every single federation colony and outpost. Of course, if we assume that the materials used to produce a starship can all be replicated, then its not really clear what other resources might be needed beside the dilithium crystals, antimater (however the heck that stuff is being made or collected) and trained bodies to crew the ships.
Workbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10 2013, 06:42 AM   #37
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?

Workbee wrote: View Post
Some great analysis here. Sorry to get off track, but something occurred to me after reading this.

So far it seems we are assuming that the Federation is only lost territory/space/planets to the Klingons through capture and occupation. I think it is important to consider that possibility that some of the planets or members of the Federation defected to the Klingons. War is arguably just as much about cutting off the enemy's supply lines as it is about battle tactics and firepower. I see no reason this couldn't hold true here.

We know from the Genesis Proposal in TWOK that the federation anticipated difficulty meeting the needs for a growing population. Since Genesis failed, it is likely that this would have become a problem, if it wasn't already. And entering into a full scale war would further tax resources.

We have seen the Klingons attempt to "court" planets that the Federation was attempting to negotiate mining rights with in TOS: Friday's Child. Once the Federation is unable to dedicate as many resources to support their colonies and members as a result of war, Klingons could quickly step in and offer compelling reasons for them to switch sides. Though the Klingons may not be as resource rich, they are very permissible to things that the Federation forbids. Such as the use of Orion slaves. Though abhorrent, if a colony is short on resources and faces starvation, the possibility of using slave labor to mine resources for trade and build infrastructure would start to become compelling.
I hadn't thought of this before, but this too is an excellent point. The TOS pattern of cold-to-hot war with the Klingons over potential allies fits the situation here, but there's also the fact that some previous allies -- the Elaasians in particular -- are liable to switch sides if they think the Klingons are the stronger party or prefer like the way Klingons do business.

Adding to the already scaled back military from the Khitomer Accords
See above. The "scaling back" is a dubious proposition considering all the OTHER shit Starfleet has to deal with, especially by the 2360s when the Cardassians have been lurking around for decades already. The newer ships built during/after the Khitomer accords are considerably more powerful, both tactically and systematically, than the pre-khitomer vessels they replaced.

Of course, this basically goes against the assertions that there is no scarcity or poverty in the 24th century.
There's no scarcity or poverty on EARTH. It very much exists pretty much everywhere else.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10 2013, 06:59 AM   #38
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
You need to re-check your numbers. Other than a minor bump in Destroyers and tripling of Mine Warfare ships, we have FEWER ships as stated before
But more of the SAME TYPE, as stated before.
...
You're making basically the same error Congress made in the 60s with the "cruiser gap" panic. You're counting numbers and types and are paying no attention whatsoever to the capabilities those types bring to the table. By that same logic we could easily address the problem by reclassifying the littoral combat ships as "guided missile cruisers" for no reason. Sure, they're not proper cruisers at all and wouldn't last three seconds in any real naval battle, but we're just talking NUMBERS, right?
If we total only Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates the count is still 1991: 187, 2001: 115, 2005: 99, 2011: 109.

No matter how you try to spin which class or type is what, the simple fact is that from 1991 to 2005 there are HALF as many Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates (combined total).

Submarines went from 87 in 1991 to 54 in 2005.

And if you read my argument, its to maintain the same number of ships while keeping pace with technology.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post

Spock speaks of starbases and space stations while the Military Aide asks about the whole Starfleet to clarify. The answer is more broad...
Unlikely. The original script has the CnC finishing that statement with "... but the facts speak for themselves, Captain." This is a rebuke, not an explanation: "Stupid question is stupid."
Unlikely because it's not in the filmed movie. As filmed, the Military Aide asks about Starfleet, NOT JUST the starbases and spacestations - unless you think Starfleet is just only starbases and spacestations.


Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
and it tells us that only the Science and Exploration programs will be unaffected
Which is, at this point, about 95% of the fleet. About the only thing it explicitly
Or at that point only 40% of the fleet is for exploration and science because the other 60% of the military has been keeping the Klingons in check. Of course we're both guessing since there are no stats about the percentages.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10 2013, 07:11 AM   #39
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
The "scaling back" is a dubious proposition considering all the OTHER shit Starfleet has to deal with, especially by the 2360s when the Cardassians have been lurking around for decades already.
Random monster in TOS typically took 1 or 2 ships to take care of (like "The Doomsday Machine", "The Immunity Syndrome", "TMP"). The Whale Probe in "TVH" overpowered them all but that was still before "TUC". But if it it only takes 2 ships to handle a monster every two years then all Starfleet needs is have 4 ships patrolling for them and build 4 replacement ships every year

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
The newer ships built during/after the Khitomer accords are considerably more powerful, both tactically and systematically, than the pre-khitomer vessels they replaced.
Yet, some older ships that stuck around after the Khitomer Accords like the USS Repulse and USS Trial were kept upgraded to be just as powerful as their newer classmates. While other ships were retired but we don't really know why.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10 2013, 07:49 AM   #40
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

Workbee wrote: View Post
Some great analysis here. Sorry to get off track, but something occurred to me after reading this.

So far it seems we are assuming that the Federation is only lost territory/space/planets to the Klingons through capture and occupation. I think it is important to consider that possibility that some of the planets or members of the Federation defected to the Klingons. War is arguably just as much about cutting off the enemy's supply lines as it is about battle tactics and firepower. I see no reason this couldn't hold true here.
I'd imagine this to be a serious issue after a few years of war. By year 20 in "Yesterday's Enterprise" it might even be a critical issue by which would be one of the factors for the Federation to forecasting their own surrender.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10 2013, 08:22 AM   #41
Workbee
Commander
 
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Adding to the already scaled back military from the Khitomer Accords
See above. The "scaling back" is a dubious proposition considering all the OTHER shit Starfleet has to deal with, especially by the 2360s when the Cardassians have been lurking around for decades already. The newer ships built during/after the Khitomer accords are considerably more powerful, both tactically and systematically, than the pre-khitomer vessels they replaced.
This does raise an interesting question -- could this have contributed to the deteriorating relations with the Klingons? Perhaps there really was some kind of START process layed out, and from the Klingon's POV, the Federation exploited their weakness, using technicalities and loopholes to circumvent provisions of the agreement.
Workbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10 2013, 08:43 AM   #42
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
If we total only Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates the count is still 1991: 187, 2001: 115, 2005: 99, 2011: 109.

No matter how you try to spin which class or type is what, the simple fact is that from 1991 to 2005 there are HALF as many Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates (combined total).
I see the point once again went right over your head.

Because 40 Perry-class frigates were decommissioned long with 25 or so hopelessly obsolete 1960s/70s era guided missile cruisers, you manage to completely gloss over the fact that almost all of the 109 currently existing ships are equipped with the Aegis combat system, the Mk-41 VLS system and are compatible with the ESSM quad pack that allows a single vessel so equipped to do the work of FIVE ships with the old Terrior radar systems.

Basically, you're touting the "warship gap." Made all the more hilarious by the fact that the next largest navy in the world has only 76 destroyers/frigates in is entire registry (guess which one? Go ahead, guess!)

And if you read my argument, its to maintain the same number of ships while keeping pace with technology.
Which is equivalent to a military BUILDUP, not maintaining the same level of capability. An AEGIS destroyer that can simultaneously engage 60 targets at a time can do the work of a 5 Tartar ships that only engage 12. For a naval force that has no serious military rivals, there's no coherent reason to build 5 Aegis ships to replace the 5 tartars, unless you can think of a scenario where an aircraft carrier is going to be attacked by upwards of 200 enemy missiles in a single volley.

Unlikely because it's not in the filmed movie. As filmed, the Military Aide asks about Starfleet
Which is exactly what she is meant to ask in the script. The response is exactly the same: "Our scientific and exploration programs will not be affected, but the facts speak for themselves."

What are the FACTS of this case?
1) Starfleet no longer needs space installations along the neutral zone
2) The Federation has bigger fish to fry than the Klingons
3) The Klingons can't afford to keep jousting with the Federation even if they wanted to.

The installations along the neutral zone are being negotiated because under the circumstances they are no longer needed, and Starfleet can and will get back to whatever it was doing before the Organian Peace Treaty CREATED that neutral zone in the first place (assuming they ever STOPPED doing it, and by all accounts they did not). The facts speak for themselves; everything else is just meaningless speculation.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
and it tells us that only the Science and Exploration programs will be unaffected
Which is, at this point, about 95% of the fleet. About the only thing it explicitly
Or at that point only 40% of the fleet is for exploration and science because the other 60% of the military has been keeping the Klingons in check.
There is not a shred of evidence that even a SINGLE starship was decommissioned as a result of the Khitomer accords; there is even less evidence that the Klingon threat itself was anything more than a minor blip on Starfleet's necessarily large radar.

But you are making the assumption that some portion of the fleet was "purely" military in nature and its only reason to exist was to keep the Klingons in check. This is demonstrably counter-factual: we have an account of a starship on a mission of peaceful exploration (one of which would be unaffected by Spock's negotiations) that REPEATEDLY engages in combat with Klingon warships during its 5-year mission. There is not, in other words, any reason whatsoever to assume that the "scientific and exploration program" of the fleet is physically distinct or separable from its defense role. In fact, as I've said many times over the years, it's very likely that Starfleet combined its exploratory and combat systems in all their designs specifically to avoid having their budget cut in times of peace. The space stations are out of luck, because their purpose is obvious; Starships, however, can ALWAYS be used for exploration, especially in times of peace.

Of course we're both guessing since there are no stats about the percentages.
There's the fact that the USS Enterprise -- a vessel whose stated purpose is peaceful exploration of the galaxy -- engages in armed conflict with the Klingons on multiple occasions and even directly participates in a short-lived war with said Klingons. It's doubtful that any part of the fleet ISN'T involved in scientific research and exploration, and yet they are still perfectly capable of keeping the Klingons in check between survey missions.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10 2013, 02:24 PM   #43
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
If we total only Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates the count is still 1991: 187, 2001: 115, 2005: 99, 2011: 109.

No matter how you try to spin which class or type is what, the simple fact is that from 1991 to 2005 there are HALF as many Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates (combined total).
I see the point once again went right over your head.

Because 40 Perry-class frigates were decommissioned long with 25 or so hopelessly obsolete 1960s/70s era guided missile cruisers, you manage to completely gloss over the fact that almost all of the 109 currently existing ships are equipped with the Aegis combat system, the Mk-41 VLS system and are compatible with the ESSM quad pack that allows a single vessel so equipped to do the work of FIVE ships with the old Terrior radar systems.

Basically, you're touting the "warship gap." Made all the more hilarious by the fact that the next largest navy in the world has only 76 destroyers/frigates in is entire registry (guess which one? Go ahead, guess!)
Your point is that these FEWER ships are better than the ones they replaced.

My point is that we have FEWER ships and thus not be able to absorb losses as well and it would be preferable to have MORE ships with the same better capabilities.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
And if you read my argument, its to maintain the same number of ships while keeping pace with technology.
Which is equivalent to a military BUILDUP, not maintaining the same level of capability.
How is that a buildup when maintaining the same number of ships?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
An AEGIS destroyer that can simultaneously engage 60 targets at a time can do the work of a 5 Tartar ships that only engage 12. For a naval force that has no serious military rivals, there's no coherent reason to build 5 Aegis ships to replace the 5 tartars,
That single destroyer can only patrol 1/5th the number of locations in a given year and mean a reduction in global commitments that the US can take on. And if that single destroyer goes down for maintenance you'll need another one to fill the gap.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
unless you can think of a scenario where an aircraft carrier is going to be attacked by upwards of 200 enemy missiles in a single volley.
Aren't there certain countries taking their time to build up a stockpile of missiles that is forcing the US Navy to reconsider how close they can conduct wartime operations to their shores?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Which is exactly what she is meant to ask in the script. The response is exactly the same: "Our scientific and exploration programs will not be affected, but the facts speak for themselves."
The "facts speak for themselves" was never said in the film.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
What are the FACTS of this case?
1) Starfleet no longer needs space installations along the neutral zone
2) The Federation has bigger fish to fry than the Klingons
3) The Klingons can't afford to keep jousting with the Federation even if they wanted to.
The only FACTS of this case are 1) and 3).

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
The installations along the neutral zone are being negotiated because under the circumstances they are no longer needed, and Starfleet can and will get back to whatever it was doing before the Organian Peace Treaty CREATED that neutral zone in the first place (assuming they ever STOPPED doing it, and by all accounts they did not).
In the same vein, Starfleet's military program that dealt with 70 years of unremitting Klingon hostility was no longer needed as well.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
The facts speak for themselves; everything else is just meaningless speculation.
Why then are you speculating on dialogue that wasn't spoken or cut from the filmed movie?


Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post

Or at that point only 40% of the fleet is for exploration and science because the other 60% of the military has been keeping the Klingons in check.
There is not a shred of evidence that even a SINGLE starship was decommissioned as a result of the Khitomer accords; there is even less evidence that the Klingon threat itself was anything more than a minor blip on Starfleet's necessarily large radar.
What shred of evidence do you have 95% of Starfleet is composed of science and exploration? (I already pointed out we're both guessing on the composition.)

As to the Klingons being a minor blip - going to war with them in "Errand of Mercy" looked like a major blip.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
But you are making the assumption that some portion of the fleet was "purely" military in nature and its only reason to exist was to keep the Klingons in check. This is demonstrably counter-factual: we have an account of a starship on a mission of peaceful exploration (one of which would be unaffected by Spock's negotiations) that REPEATEDLY engages in combat with Klingon warships during its 5-year mission.
If you're talking about the Enterprise and her crew, they were also identified specifically by the Organians as Military forces. The Enterprise also patrolled the Romulan Neutral Zone and enforced laws.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
There is not, in other words, any reason whatsoever to assume that the "scientific and exploration program" of the fleet is physically distinct or separable from its defense role.
There's lotsa ways to reduce the military in Starfleet. Stop training crew to think they're soldiers because they identified themselves as such in TOS. *During the war in DS9 they had to train them a soldiers. Switch to only using ships with minimal self-defenses for science and exploration and retire the heavily armed ones.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Of course we're both guessing since there are no stats about the percentages.
There's the fact that the USS Enterprise -- a vessel whose stated purpose is peaceful exploration of the galaxy -- engages in armed conflict with the Klingons on multiple occasions and even directly participates in a short-lived war with said Klingons. It's doubtful that any part of the fleet ISN'T involved in scientific research and exploration, and yet they are still perfectly capable of keeping the Klingons in check between survey missions.
Yes the fact that a 3rd party, the Organians, identified the same "peaceful explorer of the galaxy" as part of the Military forces of the Federation indicates a military ship that also happens to have science and exploration facilities.

Now, the question is would the "Science Probe Vessel Antares" in "Charlie X" or the USS Grissom be also identified as military or just science?
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10 2013, 05:43 PM   #44
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

We of course have on idea how close the Klingons were to defeat. Sure the Federation might have been six months away, but the Klingons might have been 5 weeks.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2013, 03:11 AM   #45
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

MacLeod wrote: View Post
We of course have on idea how close the Klingons were to defeat. Sure the Federation might have been six months away, but the Klingons might have been 5 weeks.
That's very true. We only know the war from Picard and his crew's POV in the episode.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.