RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,230
Posts: 5,405,783
Members: 24,762
Currently online: 561
Newest member: PaulHicks

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

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


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 21 2013, 11:05 AM   #61
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

Nob Akimoto

blssdwlf responded to many of your arguments. I add the following:

The 43 billion deaths could be federation+klingon casualties. If the klingon casualties exceeded a few hundreds of million, then the federation engaged too in planetary genocide, following the klingon example. One cannot reach 43 billion deaths by killing only military - in a mere 20 years.

The federation has consistently been implied as having more resources than the klingons - territory, infrastructure, GDP, etc.
The klingons destroyed much - perhaps most - of this during their surprise attack at the beginning of the war, capitalising on starfleet intelligence's incompetence and the starfleet ships being widely dispersed on exploration missions.
What is left is more than enough to advance starship technology and build the gigantic enterprise D and many other ships - for example, Utopia Planitia/the Sol system alone is sufficient for this. And much more of the federation than merely the Sol system most likely survived the klingon initial attack. Enough to soldier on for 20 years in a death spiral. Not enough to win.

After TUC, building new ships and upgrading ships is compatible to a drastic overall reduction of starfleet numbers in general and military ship numbers in special (more ships are mothballed/lost than built).

The fact that by the 24th century we're treated to dozens upon dozens of Excelsior and Miranda, again, is compatible with a major overall reduction of starfleet numbers after TUC. Keep in mind that, by the 24th century, it's established the great powers had thousands of ships in their fleet - as per DS9. The fact that in the 24th century the federation chose to retrieve from mothballs/use one century old starfleet ship models on such a scale, as opposed to designing/building new ones implies a blatant disinterest on the part of starfleet in ship design/construction.

Castillo all but confirmed the fact that starfleet officers had a lacking tactical/military training in his time when he acknowledged that Yar is superior than anyone on enterprise C (by Yar's time, altered timeline starfleet most definitely DID emphasize military training in its recruits).
Tactical abilities were not required of Garrett to show up at Narendra III, survive while the ship shields held, then have the ship destroyed, the pieces/black box of the ship being found in the subsequent forensic investigation.

Secondary border wars could be an additional reason for starfleet failing so badly by 'Yesterday enerprise'. Of course, considering how little they strained the federation/starfleet resources in the Prime timeline (Picard&co didn't even felt there was a border war with the cardassians going on during the first seasons of TNG), they are, at most, secondary to the federation's fall in the altered timeline. This is corroborated by the characters speaking only of klingons as the opposing power in 'Yesterday's enterprise'.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton

Last edited by Edit_XYZ; September 21 2013 at 11:34 AM.
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 21 2013, 07:05 PM   #62
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

If we're talking about "a blatant disinterest in ship design/construction" we'd also have to take into account that even in Yesterday's Enterprise, the Klingons were using upscaled Birds of Prey rather than designing new ships. Further in both the Dominion War and the preceding Klingon-Federation skirmishes, the Klingons used vastly more ships of 23rd (or even 22nd) century vintage designs like the K'Tinga and the various Bird of Prey scales, which tells us that either hull form isn't nearly as important as the innards or that the progress of basic system design was so evolutionary (rather than revolutionary) that ships could meaningfully serve for a century or more.
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2013, 12:44 AM   #63
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

Nob Akimoto

Which tells us that in the starship R&D department, the federation was not better than the klingons - klingons who have a civil war during every succession crisis, for whom scientists are a disadvantaged, undesirable caste (TNG Suspicions), etc.

But, whereas the klingons appear to be able to produce ships on assembly lines - make them simple, make them durable (they never seem to be running out of them), starfleet takes weeks to even repair one of its complex multi-purpose ships.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2013, 01:39 AM   #64
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 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.
But getting MORE of them only makes sense if the threat environment calls for it. I'll remind you that in the context of the Cold War, it really DOESN'T call for it at all.

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.
They don't, though. Because of the greater capabilities of the -E model and the reduced need for them the Navy is making due with far fewer attack squadrons with fewer planes than they did in either the 1970s or the 1940s. Thus they have only about 700 Hornets altogether compared to more than 2000 Phantom-IIs.

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.
Which we've been doing with the Harrier for about 20 years (and the Iranians have been doing with the Tomcat for 40). The only systems that have this problem are those that are thoroughly obsolete.

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.
The counter point is that only 5 modern destroyers would be an identical guarantee, in addition to having the same construction and maintenance cost of ten of their less expensive/less capable predecessors. This point becomes highly relevant when you live in a world where the only country in the world you are likely to go to war with in the foreseeable future only HAS 10 destroyers in his entire fleet. It becomes even more relevant when you realize that the "Big stick" of naval warfare is actually the aircraft carrier and not the destroyer.

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.
What the U.S. Navy wants and what the U.S. Navy NEEDS are not always the same thing.

More to the point, "command of the seas" requires fewer ships than ever these days in the age of satellite surveillance, UAV/UCAV strikes and with the increasing range and efficacy of guided missiles and aircraft weapon systems.

A dreadnought existed and it was not called out at anytime for being unusual.
It was not called out anytime for being anything ever. We don't even know for sure that it was a dreadnought; for all we know it was a starship named "Dreadnought Entente."

At the time it was a "Federation Science Vessel"
Said no dialog ever.

Actually the answer would be more like this:
Superintendent: Our math and sciences program will remain unaffected, but...
If the conversation were taking place at a math and science academy, yes. Which is to say that as far as anyone can tell, EVERY teacher in the school is a math and science teacher who is also asked to cover other subjects as needed.

And that would imply that all the nuclear military forces would be affected.
Exactly. "Our scientific and exploration programs" in Starfleet's case includes -- among other things -- the Enterprise and the Excelsior. By extension it comes to include every ship, every outpost and every starbase we have ever seen in Trek history with the highly notable exceptions of the Defiant and the Vengeance.

"Our scientific and exploration programs" is the same program that in subsequent years continued to produce the most powerful ships in the Federation, including the highly formidable Galaxy and Intrepid class starships. Not only did Starfleet NOT mothball a huge number of its ships, it actually got BIGGER in the years after Khitomer.

No, those are just questions and answers.
So have you stopped beating your wife yet?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2013, 01:56 AM   #65
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
Although the Federation built more ships (as it should, assuming they were expanding) were they better at fighting?
Considerably. The Enterprise-D is explicitly described as being far more than a match for a 23rd century Klingon warship in "Emissary". It's also tactically superior to the pre-Khitomer USS Stargazer and to the Cardassians' top-of-the-line Galor class warships.

Objectively, the Enterprise-D's battle section, with its "buckshot" torpedo launchers and heavy phaser arrays is undeniably deadlier than the Constitution/Mirandas could ever hope to be.

as we've seen in the Dominion War ships like the Lakota in "Way of the Warrior" had to have her weapons upgraded to be competitive in the firepower department.
Competitive with the Defiant, a ship which -- under the command of Maquis terrorist with a skeleton crew -- managed to put the smackdown on a state-of-the-art Keldon class warship. If the upgraded Lakota is competitive with the Defiant, that's really saying something.

So even though more ships were built and of the bigger variety, they were not necessarily built for combat...
We've very rarely SEEN a starship that was "built for combat" in that sense. Even the Constitution class was never actually described in those terms.

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
If we're talking about "a blatant disinterest in ship design/construction" we'd also have to take into account that even in Yesterday's Enterprise, the Klingons were using upscaled Birds of Prey rather than designing new ships. Further in both the Dominion War and the preceding Klingon-Federation skirmishes, the Klingons used vastly more ships of 23rd (or even 22nd) century vintage designs like the K'Tinga and the various Bird of Prey scales, which tells us that either hull form isn't nearly as important as the innards or that the progress of basic system design was so evolutionary (rather than revolutionary) that ships could meaningfully serve for a century or more.
It could be as simple as the advantages of replicator technology or automated manufacturing processes. Old technology can continue to be mass produced indefinitely simply because its technical schematics are public domain and the advanced capabilities engendered in the design can be distributed freely to different manufacturers without having to worry about espionage. More powerful/advanced designs like the Vorcha and the Negh'var would be closely guarded secrets and thus could only be manufactured a few at a time under a veil of secrecy, by systems and engineers intensely isolated from the rest of the galaxy.

I still believe that the Dominion War saw the use of thousands of old DESIGNS, while the ships themselves might have been brand-spanking-new. Starfleet realized ahead of time they were going to have a bigass war and commandeered every industrial replicator they could get their hands on to churn out starships a dozen at a time. They went with the older designs because they were easier to build for the civilian contractors they hired to do the job and because, really, the Jem'hadar battle bug isn't all that formidable of a ship individually and the only thing they have going for them is their capacity to zerg rush.

I'm certain the Klingons have pretty much ALWAYS done this, seeing how some of their warships appear to be wholly owned by individual houses and clans whose loyalty to the government is tenuous at best. In their case, the Bird of Prey is probably the weapon of choice for cash-strapped warlords and/or mercenaries who don't expect to normally participate in official fleet actions (and the varying size might reflect this same fact; the bigger and badder warlords buy a bigger bird of prey). The cruisers are probably a better protected design that can only be manufactured by members of the high council either for their personal use or for use in the military units they directly control: as much a status symbol as an actual weapon system. As far as the Klingons go, they're reasonably deadly no matter WHAT they're flying as long as long as you haven't outmaneuvered them with [tech].
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!

Last edited by Crazy Eddie; September 22 2013 at 02:21 AM.
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2013, 02:08 AM   #66
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Competitive with the Defiant, a ship which -- under the command of Maquis terrorist with a skeleton crew -- managed to put the smackdown on two Keldon class warships. If the upgraded Lakota is competitive with the Defiant, that's really saying something.
And that's with Lakota playing with one arm behind her back. Benteen refused to use Quantum Torpedoes because she didn't want to destroy Defiant. Presumably in a flat out "shoot to kill" scenario, Lakota would have followed her initial phaser barrage with quantum torpedoes and destroyed Defiant in the initial exchange. (Dax claims the first phaser strike took 40% off Defiant's shields in a single shot:
WORF: Damage report.
DAX: Port shields are at sixty percent.
O'BRIEN: Someone's been upgrading the Lakota's weapons. That's a lot of firepower for an Excelsior-class ship. )

All this in a ship that wasn't externally different from all the Excelsiors we saw, and to the point where it took someone like O'Brian to get shot at to realize the ship had been pretty "tweaked".
Nob Akimoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2013, 10:19 AM   #67
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Competitive with the Defiant, a ship which -- under the command of Maquis terrorist with a skeleton crew -- managed to put the smackdown on two Keldon class warships. If the upgraded Lakota is competitive with the Defiant, that's really saying something.
And that's with Lakota playing with one arm behind her back. Benteen refused to use Quantum Torpedoes because she didn't want to destroy Defiant. Presumably in a flat out "shoot to kill" scenario, Lakota would have followed her initial phaser barrage with quantum torpedoes and destroyed Defiant in the initial exchange. (Dax claims the first phaser strike took 40% off Defiant's shields in a single shot:
WORF: Damage report.
DAX: Port shields are at sixty percent.
O'BRIEN: Someone's been upgrading the Lakota's weapons. That's a lot of firepower for an Excelsior-class ship. )

All this in a ship that wasn't externally different from all the Excelsiors we saw, and to the point where it took someone like O'Brian to get shot at to realize the ship had been pretty "tweaked".
Lakota was playing with one arm behind her back? So was Defiant. No ship wanted to destroy the other.

Also - the standard fire power of an Excelsior in the 24th century was the baseline O'Brien had in mind, NOT what Lakota brought to bear.
Consider - the Excelsior class can be so easily upgraded by the 24th century that even the crew of a ship can accomplish it, with no official program. Yet starfleet was content to keep the Excelsiors with a far lesser baseline fire power. Again - starfleet incompetence and naivete galore.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2013, 05:23 PM   #68
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
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.
But getting MORE of them only makes sense if the threat environment calls for it. I'll remind you that in the context of the Cold War, it really DOESN'T call for it at all.
Please remind me exactly what in context are you talking about?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
They don't, though. Because of the greater capabilities of the -E model and the reduced need for them the Navy is making due with far fewer attack squadrons with fewer planes than they did in either the 1970s or the 1940s. Thus they have only about 700 Hornets altogether compared to more than 2000 Phantom-IIs.
Greater capabilities doesn't equate for lesser need of numbers. "Making due" is getting by or improvising with less than a desirable amount so even in your words the Navy wishes it had more Super Hornets.


Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
The counter point is that only 5 modern destroyers would be an identical guarantee, in addition to having the same construction and maintenance cost of ten of their less expensive/less capable predecessors.
5 modern destroyers could kill 5 cold war destroyers in 5 separate distant locations. The other 5 destroyers now have the free opportunity to attack 5 separate targets.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
This point becomes highly relevant when you live in a world where the only country in the world you are likely to go to war with in the foreseeable future only HAS 10 destroyers in his entire fleet. It becomes even more relevant when you realize that the "Big stick" of naval warfare is actually the aircraft carrier and not the destroyer.
Ah, but that's not how the original argument was framed. We could then just argue that they're facing subs with supersonic antiship missiles. The original point still stands - more ships mean better ability to absorb losses.


Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
What the U.S. Navy wants and what the U.S. Navy NEEDS are not always the same thing.
And what the US Navy CAN do are not always the same thing.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
More to the point, "command of the seas" requires fewer ships than ever these days in the age of satellite surveillance, UAV/UCAV strikes and with the increasing range and efficacy of guided missiles and aircraft weapon systems.
Just because you can see it doesn't mean you can do anything about it if you've got no assets in the area.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
It was not called out anytime for being anything ever. We don't even know for sure that it was a dreadnought; for all we know it was a starship named "Dreadnought Entente."
Fair enough.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Said no dialog ever.
ESTEBAN: Communications! Send a coded message for Starfleet Commander, priority one. ...'Federation Science Vessel Grissom arriving Genesis Planet, Mutara Sector to begin research. J.T. Esteban, commanding.'


Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
If the conversation were taking place at a math and science academy, yes. Which is to say that as far as anyone can tell, EVERY teacher in the school is a math and science teacher who is also asked to cover other subjects as needed.
Since we know at the time Starfleet was a military so there is more to Starfleet than just science and exploration programs. This would be like your school example. The school is more than math and science and arts and philosophies.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
And that would imply that all the nuclear military forces would be affected.
Exactly. "Our scientific and exploration programs" in Starfleet's case includes -- among other things -- the Enterprise and the Excelsior. By extension it comes to include every ship, every outpost and every starbase we have ever seen in Trek history with the highly notable exceptions of the Defiant and the Vengeance.
Or it could be the standing down of Colonel West's military branch, the defunding of future weapons upgrades, shutting down military training programs. The Enterprise and Excelsior would cease to get better weapons or even could get downgraded. Dedicated ships like Dreadnought Entente and Escort types would be mothballed.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
"Our scientific and exploration programs" is the same program that in subsequent years continued to produce the most powerful ships in the Federation, including the highly formidable Galaxy and Intrepid class starships.
How is the Galaxy and Intrepid the most powerful ships in the Federation? What examples are there of them having more firepower than the Constitution class?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Not only did Starfleet NOT mothball a huge number of its ships, it actually got BIGGER in the years after Khitomer.
The Lakota required weapons upgrades to be able even fight in a war or be competitive against a dedicated warship like the Defiant. Adding more science and exploration ships doesn't equate to increased fighting capability.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
No, those are just questions and answers.
So have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Really, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2013, 05:56 PM   #69
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Although the Federation built more ships (as it should, assuming they were expanding) were they better at fighting?
Considerably. The Enterprise-D is explicitly described as being far more than a match for a 23rd century Klingon warship in "Emissary". It's also tactically superior to the pre-Khitomer USS Stargazer and to the Cardassians' top-of-the-line Galor class warships.
The Constitution Enterprise was also far more of a match for a 23rd century Klingon warship.

We only know the E-D has better tractor beam power and that they could anticipate the attack from the Stargazer. How they would do against each other is unknown. The mock battle in "Peak Performance" indicated that the impulse-only Hathaway could inflict damage even against warp-powered E-D's shields so if the E-D was better it wasn't that much better.

The Galors never appeared to be a match for most Starfleet ships. The Cardassians couldn't even finish off an unshielded Stargazer according to "The Wounded". It wasn't until the Cardassians got a major tech boost from the Dominion that their ships were competitive or possibly more powerful than Starfleet ships.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Objectively, the Enterprise-D's battle section, with its "buckshot" torpedo launchers and heavy phaser arrays is undeniably deadlier than the Constitution/Mirandas could ever hope to be.
Theoretically, on paper, yes. But in practice there is little if no evidence that they are deadlier.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
as we've seen in the Dominion War ships like the Lakota in "Way of the Warrior" had to have her weapons upgraded to be competitive in the firepower department.
Competitive with the Defiant, a ship which -- under the command of Maquis terrorist with a skeleton crew -- managed to put the smackdown on a state-of-the-art Keldon class warship. If the upgraded Lakota is competitive with the Defiant, that's really saying something.
Yeah, just imagine what the Defiant could do if it wasn't a Maquis terrorist skeleton crew and Sisko's crew.

The Defiant though is a very good reference point since it goes up against a whole variety of ships ranging from Klingon BOPs, Cardassians and Dominion warships.

Given how poorly the Odyssey did against the Jem'hedar ships I would imagine that all the Galaxy-class ships would've gotten a Lakota-level weapons upgrade.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
So even though more ships were built and of the bigger variety, they were not necessarily built for combat...
We've very rarely SEEN a starship that was "built for combat" in that sense. Even the Constitution class was never actually described in those terms.
Other than the Defiant, no, not others were specifically called out as built for combat. (Unless we count the Dreadnought Entente.) The Constitution class is classified as a Heavy Cruiser (TSFS, inset graphic.) Since there is a Dreadnought in TMP's time, then there will be other warships to round out the fleet, IMO.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
I still believe that the Dominion War saw the use of thousands of old DESIGNS, while the ships themselves might have been brand-spanking-new. Starfleet realized ahead of time they were going to have a bigass war and commandeered every industrial replicator they could get their hands on to churn out starships a dozen at a time. They went with the older designs because they were easier to build for the civilian contractors they hired to do the job and because, really, the Jem'hadar battle bug isn't all that formidable of a ship individually and the only thing they have going for them is their capacity to zerg rush.
Did we see any Galaxy class ships ever destroy a Jem'hedar bug? Were the Klingons and the Defiant the only effective anti-bug ships?
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2013, 07:08 PM   #70
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
5 modern destroyers could kill 5 cold war destroyers in 5 separate distant locations. The other 5 destroyers now have the free opportunity to attack 5 separate targets.
Which would be really useful if we didn't already have a larger navy than the next three largest militaries combined, let alone if we had any plans of going to war with all three of them simultaneously.

Ah, but that's not how the original argument was framed. We could then just argue that they're facing subs with supersonic antiship missiles. The original point still stands - more ships mean better ability to absorb losses.
We HAVE more Aegis ships than we did in the past. We are able to "absorb losses" just fine. Especially since there is virtually zero possibility of ever going to war with a competitive naval power in the foreseeable future.

Since we know at the time Starfleet was a military so there is more to Starfleet than just science and exploration programs.
The first is an inference on YOUR part from an interpretation of circumstantial evidence; the second does not even follow from the first, since you yourself have claimed that there's nothing odd about a military organization devoting a huge portion of its budget to scientific research, and ESPECIALLY since no one actually specifies that a purely military program exists at all (Spock does not even describe the border stations as such).

That is, the "more to Starfleet" is not indicated by evidence. Indeed, the only manifestation of Starfleet we are in any way familiar with does indeed remain totally unaffected by the Khitomer accords. You would have to demonstrate the EXISTENCE of an all-military fleet before you could make a case for its decommissioning.

The Lakota required weapons upgrades to be able even fight in a war or be competitive against a dedicated warship like the Defiant.
And Defiant has been described as "one of the most heavily armed warships in the sector" and is more than a match for even the best Cardassian designs. I doubt a Constitution would be able to measure up to that.

Adding more science and exploration ships doesn't equate to increased fighting capability.
It does for Starfleet. Their science and exploration ships are all very heavily armed and invariably function as frontline combatants.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
No, those are just questions and answers.
So have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Really, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Is there a specific reason you didn't answer "yes" or do I really have to explain how loaded questions work?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2013, 12:09 AM   #71
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
5 modern destroyers could kill 5 cold war destroyers in 5 separate distant locations. The other 5 destroyers now have the free opportunity to attack 5 separate targets.
Which would be really useful if we didn't already have a larger navy than the next three largest militaries combined, let alone if we had any plans of going to war with all three of them simultaneously.
Ah, but we're talking about cold war destroyers. You'd have a better argument if you said we couldn't go back in time to make the comparison.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Ah, but that's not how the original argument was framed. We could then just argue that they're facing subs with supersonic antiship missiles. The original point still stands - more ships mean better ability to absorb losses.
We HAVE more Aegis ships than we did in the past. We are able to "absorb losses" just fine. Especially since there is virtually zero possibility of ever going to war with a competitive naval power in the foreseeable future.
But we have fewer surfaces combatants overall compared to the past. Our ability to absorb losses, either through combat or ships going for maintenance or scratched because we don't have enough money to repair them after a fire at the dock is lesser because we have fewer ships.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
The first is an inference on YOUR part from an interpretation of circumstantial evidence; the second does not even follow from the first, since you yourself have claimed that there's nothing odd about a military organization devoting a huge portion of its budget to scientific research, and ESPECIALLY since no one actually specifies that a purely military program exists at all (Spock does not even describe the border stations as such).
Both Carol and David Marcus called Starfleet, "The Military". The Organians identified Kirk and the Enterprise as "Military Forces". So when the Military Aide is talking about "mothballing the Starfleet" then the obvious question is does that mean no more science and exploration programs since they are part of the fleet. The CinC answered that the science and exploration programs would be unaffected. It's pretty simple and doesn't require any mental gymnastics.

You, OTOH, don't have any counter evidence to say that Starfleet at the time of TUC was not a military.


Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
And Defiant has been described as "one of the most heavily armed warships in the sector" and is more than a match for even the best Cardassian designs. I doubt a Constitution would be able to measure up to that.
Until they put the upgraded Lakota in the same sector . A Constitution that kept up with the weapons upgrades could be just as competitive.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
It does for Starfleet. Their science and exploration ships are all very heavily armed and invariably function as frontline combatants.
I wouldn't call the Grissom heavily armed or frontline combatant material.

The very fact that the Lakota needed a weapons upgrade tells us that Starfleet didn't equip them to be "heavily armed" and required a full-scale war to break out to even bring their forces to some level of competitiveness since their frontline combatants were just target practice for the Dominion and Klingons in the early parts of the Dominion War.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
So have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Really, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Is there a specific reason you didn't answer "yes" or do I really have to explain how loaded questions work?
I'm more curious to why you didn't answer "yes" either.

Loaded questions are fun, but not applicable to the TUC question and answer.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2013, 02:37 AM   #72
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
5 modern destroyers could kill 5 cold war destroyers in 5 separate distant locations. The other 5 destroyers now have the free opportunity to attack 5 separate targets.
Which would be really useful if we didn't already have a larger navy than the next three largest militaries combined, let alone if we had any plans of going to war with all three of them simultaneously.
Ah, but we're talking about cold war destroyers. You'd have a better argument if you said we couldn't go back in time to make the comparison.
We don't HAVE to make the comparison since many of the destroyers built during the cold war are STILL IN SERVICE with foreign navies. Thus, the comparison remains fully valid.

But we have fewer surfaces combatants overall compared to the past.
Then we should probably avoid going to war with our past selves, eh?

Both Carol and David Marcus called Starfleet, "The Military". The Organians identified Kirk and the Enterprise as "Military Forces"
And the Enterprise's five-year mission -- which we are told episode after episode, in the prolog AND in dialog, is "to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before."

This puts you in the ironic position of trying to defend the premise that "military forces" and "scientific and exploration program" cannot be one in the same. This has been clear about Starfleet from the first days of TOS with almost no variation: whatever ELSE, Starfleet may be, it is also an exploration fleet.

You, OTOH, don't have any counter evidence to say that Starfleet at the time of TUC was not a military.
Irrelevant, as nobody suggested "the military" was going to be scaled back, nor is there any identifiable section of Starfleet that isn't involved with exploration and research.

I wouldn't call the Grissom heavily armed or frontline combatant material.
I don't see why not, considering at least one Oberth class starship was present a Wolf 359.

The very fact that the Lakota needed a weapons upgrade tells us that Starfleet didn't equip them to be "heavily armed" and required a full-scale war to break out to even bring their forces to some level of competitiveness...
Again, that's competitiveness with the self-propelled can of whupass that is USS Defiant. "Heavily armed" is a relative term.

Loaded questions are fun, but not applicable to the TUC question and answer.
It's perfectly applicable, since no part of Spock's briefing made any mention of reducing the size of the fleet. Indeed, the only people in the room who suggest this might even be under consideration are the two people in the room who know the LEAST about what is actually being negotiated.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2013, 11:28 AM   #73
Edit_XYZ
Fleet Captain
 
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
 
Location: At star's end.
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
The very fact that the Lakota needed a weapons upgrade tells us that Starfleet didn't equip them to be "heavily armed" and required a full-scale war to break out to even bring their forces to some level of competitiveness...
Again, that's competitiveness with the self-propelled can of whupass that is USS Defiant. "Heavily armed" is a relative term.
Lakota having upgraded weapons shows the Excelsior class can be so easily upgraded by the 24th century that even the crew of a ship can accomplish it, with no official program.
Yet starfleet was content to keep the Excelsiors with a far lesser baseline fire power - the one O'Brien mentioned.
That's a blatant example of starfleet's lacking war readiness - indeed, disinterest in being war ready.

That, with the romulans emerging from their isolationism and proving hostile, the borg almost assimilating earth, the dominion, the klingons attacking.
Starfleet's incompetence and naivete was astonishing.

Loaded questions are fun, but not applicable to the TUC question and answer.
It's perfectly applicable, since no part of Spock's briefing made any mention of reducing the size of the fleet. Indeed, the only people in the room who suggest this might even be under consideration are the two people in the room who know the LEAST about what is actually being negotiated.
And NONE of the ones present at the meeting - including Spock&co - contradicted the statement. Despite it being a strong argument attacking their position, and despite it being easily contradicted IF it was false.
__________________
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton

Last edited by Edit_XYZ; September 23 2013 at 01:58 PM.
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2013, 02:54 PM   #74
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
Which would be really useful if we didn't already have a larger navy than the next three largest militaries combined, let alone if we had any plans of going to war with all three of them simultaneously.
Ah, but we're talking about cold war destroyers. You'd have a better argument if you said we couldn't go back in time to make the comparison.
We don't HAVE to make the comparison since many of the destroyers built during the cold war are STILL IN SERVICE with foreign navies. Thus, the comparison remains fully valid.
Then you shouldn't have needed to object to the comparison in the first place.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Then we should probably avoid going to war with our past selves, eh?
Why didn't you bring this objection up many pages ago when Nob Akimoto said, "A modern DDG could wipe the floor with a squadron of Cuban Missile Crisis era frigates and destroyers, or cruisers for that matter."


Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
And the Enterprise's five-year mission -- which we are told episode after episode, in the prolog AND in dialog, is "to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before."
If you watched TOS, you'll notice that Kirk's mission changes as the needs dictate. Adding up missions spoken of prior/during/post episode there were (and by no means complete):
Cargo Run = 14
Diplomatic = 10
Patrol = 5* The Enterprise has an assigned Patrol Area which limited the scope of the other missions.
Science = 7
Star Mapping = 1
Survey = 9
Transport = 20
Checkup on Location = 3
Distress/Emergency Call = 14
Espionage = 1
Evacuation = 3
Explore = 2
Intercept Spaceships / Police = 4
Medical Aid = 5
Military / Alien Invasion Defense = 6
Training = 1
New Equipment Testing = 1
Monster = 7
Rescue = 4
Search and Recover = 3

If you didn't know better, Starfleet was the UPS and Police Service



Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
This puts you in the ironic position of trying to defend the premise that "military forces" and "scientific and exploration program" cannot be one in the same.
Sure they can. As pointed out in another thread, the US Navy also participates in and funds scientific and exploration programs. And the dialogue from that era points out that Starfleet is "The Military".

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Irrelevant, as nobody suggested "the military" was going to be scaled back, nor is there any identifiable section of Starfleet that isn't involved with exploration and research.
Sure it's relevant since science and exploration programs were unaffected, that leaves the military. And because the CinC identified specifically the Scientific and Exploration programs then there must be a way to identify them.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
I don't see why not, considering at least one Oberth class starship was present a Wolf 359.
HANSON: We're coming with every available starship to assist, Captain, but the closest help is six days away.
Every available is not the same as "heavily armed" or even "frontline".


Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
The very fact that the Lakota needed a weapons upgrade tells us that Starfleet didn't equip them to be "heavily armed" and required a full-scale war to break out to even bring their forces to some level of competitiveness...
Again, that's competitiveness with the self-propelled can of whupass that is USS Defiant. "Heavily armed" is a relative term.
Then again, at the time Dukat said it, pretty much any Starfleet big ship outgunned them. Still, it is interesting that the Lakota ran around with a far lower baseline firepower prior to the war (as noted by Edit XYZ).

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Loaded questions are fun, but not applicable to the TUC question and answer.
It's perfectly applicable, since no part of Spock's briefing made any mention of reducing the size of the fleet. Indeed, the only people in the room who suggest this might even be under consideration are the two people in the room who know the LEAST about what is actually being negotiated.
Spock and the CinC knew (since the CinC would likely have to sign off on it.) The Military Aide and Cartright asking doesn't make their questions questionable since the CinC answered it with the correct information and he has no reason to be obfuscating or lying in his answer.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2013, 08:20 PM   #75
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

Ah, but we're talking about cold war destroyers. You'd have a better argument if you said we couldn't go back in time to make the comparison.
We don't HAVE to make the comparison since many of the destroyers built during the cold war are STILL IN SERVICE with foreign navies. Thus, the comparison remains fully valid.
Then you shouldn't have needed to object to the comparison in the first place.
What I'm saying is it's not really a "comparison" since that is actually the state of global naval power anyway. The foreign equivalents of the AEGIS ships are all owned by people who are nominally ALLIES of the United States. Those same destroyers are far more likely to engage in combat against warships from the previous generation where they already have the overwhelming advantage.

Why didn't you bring this objection up many pages ago when Nob Akimoto said, "A modern DDG could wipe the floor with a squadron of Cuban Missile Crisis era frigates and destroyers, or cruisers for that matter."
Because I agree with Akimoto's actual point: the whole reason we needed large fleets in the past was because the navy's mission REQUIRED a large fleet to carry it out. The capabilities of these newer ships means the same mission can be accomplished with a much smaller number of ships with much smaller crews.

If you watched TOS, you'll notice that Kirk's mission changes as the needs dictate.
I've watched every episode of TOS ever filmed and I have never seen an episode that begins with the narration "These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. Its five year mission: to change missions as the needs dictate..."

Sure they can. As pointed out in another thread, the US Navy also participates in and funds scientific and exploration programs.
Which sets them apart from Starfleet, which CONDUCTS scientific and exploration programs on its own initiative, using its own ships and resources that are often equipped BY DESIGN to participate in those programs.

Sure it's relevant since science and exploration programs were unaffected, that leaves the military.
That still implies that scientific and exploration programs are not part of Starfleet's normal functioning. There is no evidence that this is even REMOTELY the case.

And because the CinC identified specifically the Scientific and Exploration programs then there must be a way to identify them.
Right: every asset that Starfleet has that ISN'T based on the neutral zone outposts. Had the Khitomer conference taken place 30 years earlier, that would have included the Enterprise.

Every available is not the same as "heavily armed" or even "frontline".
So what? Starfleet sent it into combat. So even their science vessels are combat-ready.

Then again, at the time Dukat said it, pretty much any Starfleet big ship outgunned them.
Including the Lakota

Spock and the CinC knew (since the CinC would likely have to sign off on it.) The Military Aide and Cartright asking doesn't make their questions questionable
It means their questions are not valid concerns based on the reality of the talks. Because:
1) They don't know anything ABOUT those talks and are just finding out about it now and
2) What they HAVE been told makes no mention of "mothballing the Starfleet." It could have been any random question in the universe and it would still not reflect the facts.

It would be the same as if the military aid asked "Bill... does your wife know about your new Klingon boyfriend?"

since the CinC answered it with the correct information
On which you continue to equivocate. This is not a rhetorical question: Exactly which part of Starfleet ISN'T involved in scientific research and exploration?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie 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 04:22 PM.

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