Musing on the 12-ship fleet

[ProwlAlpha]

Actually in observations of the various Federation starships, they all more or less have done the same type of missions, no matter the designated class, size, or type. There are a few exceptions such as the USS Grissom, the USS Lantree, and the USS Jenolen.

I have seen the Defiant do the exact same type of missions that the USS Enterprise and the USS Voyager have done and they have all done reversal missions.

In all honestly, what would you rather have? A small exploration fleet for an interstellar nation or a large fleet that provides both military and explorer capabilities. Which one would you rather feel safe to live? Myself, I honestly want a military thats capable enough to protect me and my family.

Even in TOS time, the universe is a very dangerous one. In my opinion, Starfleet is a very capable military organization and Kirk's comment describes the Enterprise's sister ships.

 

[USS KG5]

Almost all the Fed ships we have seen perform the role of 19th century frigates or 20th century cruisers - they mosey around generally keeping order and doing donkey work, and the more prestigious or badass the ship the higher profile moseying it generally gets sent to do.

Doubtless every ship has a specialty but Starfleet clearly values utility over anything else - they want ships that can be cataloguing bacteria one minute and taking names the next - heck even the Equinox seemed to pack a heck of a lot of punch.

 

[Jadzia]

I'd imagine the Federation, if it ever come to exist, would favour strategic design, which means multi function over specialization. Unlike present day navy, you wouldn't have fleets of differently specialized ships cruising around in groups, so they'd have to be well balanced multi function vessels. Don't they say they're only as strong as their greatest weakest, or something like that???

 

[USS KG5]

I'd imagine the Federation, if it ever come to exist, would favour strategic design, which means multi function over specialization. Unlike present day navy, you wouldn't have fleets of differently specialized ships cruising around in groups, so they'd have to be well balanced multi function vessels. Don't they say they're only as strong as their greatest weakest, or something like that???

It can be argued that the structured fleet as portrayed in today's navies is a pretty bad idea anyhow.

A good example is the Falklands War - with a smaller number of larger ships that could provide both effective long and short range anti-air including effective point defense, capable ASW and have a nice fast-firing gun on the fore-deck the RN could have had an easier time. That said its a bluddy miracle we won anyhow.

50 fighters and as many strike jets on two full sized carriers and the war would never have happened - but that is another topic for another day.

 

[Jadzia]

'twas Mrs Thatcher putting on a show. Tanks at Heathrow anyone?

 

[Captain Robert April]

Don't underestimate the incompetence of the Argentine military.

 

[Forbin]

^Considering they had Mirages, and didn't nail a single Harrier, yup.

 

[Mysterion]

^Considering they had Mirages, and didn't nail a single Harrier, yup.

They also had a few Skyhawks, didn't they? Nice plane in the right hands.

 

[ahkyahnan]

So with local fleets still handling day-to-day patrol & basic defense, you might only need one large Starfleet ship in any given sector to handle those occasional extraordinary situations such as giant amoebas, doomsday machines, imperfection sterilizing space probes, and other emergencies affecting the Federation as a whole.

Perhaps so. But the hero ship is also often tasked with stuff such as flying crucial medication from A to B, B being a major established colony or member world in distress. Such assignments would intolerably tie down "silver bullet" resources, unless we argue Starfleet has enough silver bullets to operate a regular machine gun belt.

This thread's moved on since I last checked, but the above actually kind of supports what I was getting at. The key word in your post being 'crucial'. The situations you mention are usually described as being planetwide disasters affecting millons of inhabitants. Not the annual flu outbreak that again local fleets of the era could handle on their own, but another extraordinary yet infrequent emergency, albeit not of a defensive nature as discussed originally. The idea I was getting at was that if the fleet was still fairly small in those early days of TOS and local planetary forces were still handling the more routine transport, defense & other functions, then a single large Fed ship might be relatively free to roam the sector cataloging plantlife and updating starcharts until the next sector-wide emergency popped up. Granted a planetary epidemic might break out the same day a planet-killer decides to have lunch, but the odds of that happening might be deemed acceptable.

Regarding the fleet that almost faced the Klingons in Errand Of Mercy, who's to say that wasn't only 2 or 3 Starfleet capital ships coordinating numerous frigates & destroyers assembled from member planets? Or maybe a fleet of 4 Starfleet vessels against 5-6 Klingon ships?

Actually that last point might be a good indicator of a larger Starfleet. Romulan & Klingon ships are often shown operating in groups of 3, indicating they have larger fleets we'd have to defend against...unless their overall territory is a lot smaller and they don't have to disperse their fleet as much. Then again the Klingon's already had a bigger united fleet in Enterprise.

Anyway, as the thread title says, just musing.

Mark

 

[Orne]

A lot of good postulations about the possiblie number and actual missions of the Constitutions. But there is one way to look at the rarity of the Connies at the peak of StarFleet ship-hierarchy, and it's the comparison to the current day Navy and the like number of carriers in service. When there's a crisis somewhere in the world, pretty much the first thing a President asks: "Where is the nearest carrier?"

If you're a maurauding Klingon warlord, you'll know the wrath you have incurred is really dire when the warning comes from your lookouts: "It's the Enterprise!" The real game-enders are few, and not called out for brushfires; when that Connie with banks of planet-searing phasers appears on your horizon, events are about to take a major turn.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Real world comparison: On 9/11, the Enterprise (CVN-65) was on her way back home after a rather long stint in the Persian Gulf. When news of the attacks came in, her skipper didn't wait for orders, he ordered the ship right back to the Gulf.

 

[USS KG5]

^Considering they had Mirages, and didn't nail a single Harrier, yup.

They had mirages but no truly effective air-to-air missile, and their pilots did not have nearly the level of training in air-to-air combat the FAA/RAF pilots had.

The Argentine Air Force was actually superbly competent throughout the battle, they just were not as good as the pilots who opposed them in air combat. Also, the SHAR might not have been supersonic but was extremely agile at lower speeds. In Sharkey Ward's book about the Falklands conflict he talks about one set of mock dogfights with F-15s where his Harriers won 3-1. Argentine pilots flying anti-shipping were sueprb throughout, and with properly fused bombs would probably have prevented the landings.

The Argentine Army consisted largely of conscripts and therefore man for man was no match for the British troops that opposed it, but well handled by higher authority they could potentially have defeated the invasion through sheer weight of numbers. Fortunately their leadership was not dynamic enough to organise and effective attack on the bridgehead, and the landing sites for British forces were chosen very well.

The Argentine Navy, ironically the most aggressive when it came to proposing the invasion, ran away after the General Belgrano was sunk, which can be described as Argentinian incompetence or the superb skills of Britains submariners in stalking and killing a well protected heavy unit and getting away to potentially stalk and kill more.

 

[Forbin]

^Ezzakly. Training and professionalism always trumps superior equipment and numbers.

 

[Timo]

Real world comparison: On 9/11, the Enterprise (CVN-65) was on her way back home after a rather long stint in the Persian Gulf. When news of the attacks came in, her skipper didn't wait for orders, he ordered the ship right back to the Gulf.

Interesting... One would think there was a reason she was coming home, such as a need for periodic maintenance. What happened to that reason? Or did the USN fail to have a replacement carrier in position for some reason?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[USS KG5]

^Ezzakly. Training and professionalism always trumps superior equipment and numbers.

Well in a small scale conflict with limited aims, yes. Though it is always worth noting that the Wermacht were consistently superior in terms of training, experience and equipment to their enemies throughout WW2 and were eventually defeated by numbers. It doesn't matter if it takes five Shermans to kill a Tiger if you have six Shermans, you still win.

Also, the Mirage III was not a superior fighter to the Sea Harrier. The Israelis did very well with them but in the low-level close-in dogfighting that was practised in the Falklands the SHAR could run rings around them, especially when armed with the Aim-9L.

 

[USS KG5]

Real world comparison: On 9/11, the Enterprise (CVN-65) was on her way back home after a rather long stint in the Persian Gulf. When news of the attacks came in, her skipper didn't wait for orders, he ordered the ship right back to the Gulf.

Interesting... One would think there was a reason she was coming home, such as a need for periodic maintenance. What happened to that reason? Or did the USN fail to have a replacement carrier in position for some reason?

Timo Saloniemi

I think the Captain realised that his ship was going to be ordered back anyhow and his tour extended so he turned around to get back quicker. Remember at the time it was thought there might be an immediate massive military response by the USA.

I believe the only thing that absolutely requires dockig at home for a nuclear carrier is re-fuelling, and every other need can be met at sea by replenishment ships.

 

[Timo]

That begs the question of why a carrier would ever sail home, of course. Some sort of maintenance (of the ship, or of the planes that would be cumbersome to air-ferry) was probably scheduled; whether this, or the need for another deck on the Gulf, was considered more crucial is the key issue.

The same rather goes for the starships we see. They seem rather self-sufficient for years at an end, and it apparently takes a lot to make one of them crawl to a starbase for repairs. Could Starfleet make do with a smaller fleet when its ships have much greater availability and endurance on station than their current counterparts? It's not as if a starship even needs much in the way of fuel or ammo replenishment, or at least we saw no frontline replenishment operations on screen during the Dominon War, and heard precious little about such things.

I gather starbases could be important refueling and replenishment stations in addition to serving as command centers and means of crew rotation, but most of the bases might well be incapable of major repairs work without hampering the Fleet's abilities, and some might even lack antimatter replenishment facilities.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Forbin]

That begs the question of why a carrier would ever sail home, of course.

Well, the crew does occasionally want to see their families, ya know.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

That begs the question of why a carrier would ever sail home, of course.

Well, the crew does occasionally want to see their families, ya know.

Well, ya know, in the latter-day Roddenberry's imagined future, we'd have EVOLVED beyond such attachments... instead, we'd find "family" wherever hot chicks in skimpy silver outfits were to be found.

 

[USS KG5]

That begs the question of why a carrier would ever sail home, of course.

Well, the crew does occasionally want to see their families, ya know.

Well, ya know, in the latter-day Roddenberry's imagined future, we'd have EVOLVED beyond such attachments... instead, we'd find "family" wherever hot chicks in skimpy silver outfits were to be found.

Heck I would anyhow - but im 27 and unmarried, so hey...