Dreadnought

[CorporalCaptain]

My interpretation was always that the designation of Defiant as an "escort" was a euphemism.

But did you read the real-world definitions of these terms which I posted earlier in this thread? The Defiant fits, TO A T, the definition of an "escort destroyer." In terms of its design, its combat role, its requirements for support, etc, etc.

Here's dialog from a transcript of DS9: The Search, Part I, which we've been discussing:

SISKO: Officially, it's classified as an escort vessel. Unofficially, the Defiant's a warship. Nothing more, nothing less.
KIRA: I thought Starfleet didn't believe in warships.
SISKO: Desperate times breed desperate measures, Major. Five years ago, Starfleet began exploring the possibility of building a new class of starship. This ship would have no families, no science labs, no luxuries of any kind. It was designed for one purpose only, to fight and defeat the Borg. The Defiant was the prototype, the first ship in what would have been a new Federation battle fleet.
DAX: So what happened?
SISKO: The Borg threat became less urgent. Also, some design flaws cropped up during the ship's shakedown cruise, so Starfleet decided to abandon the project.

The overt mention in this dialog of the distinction between "official" and "unofficial" classifications is the most direct support of its classification being a euphemism.

Also, I think the Defiant is both too capable and too experimental (and therefore neither low cost nor suited for mass production) to be non-euphemistically classified as a destroyer escort.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer_escort and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_escort, destroyer escorts are not heavily armed, and they are low cost and suitable for mass production. Their role is primarily to escort convoys of unarmed vessels and defend them against attack by destroying the attackers. Also, according to that article, in modern classification schemes, DE is the same as a frigate. They are not intended to directly challenge main battle fleets.

Certainly, the description of the role of the Defiant in that dialog has nothing in common with the role that we used destroyer escorts for in World War II.

Furthermore, I'm comfortable speculating that the reason for the euphemistic classification was to keep knowledge of the actual potential of the Defiant classified during its development.

 

[Timo]

Certainly, the description of the role of the Defiant in that dialog has nothing in common with the role that we used destroyer escorts for in World War II.

To be sure, from Sisko's speech we only know the past role of the vessel, and that she failed in it. We don't exactly know the ship's current role, the one under which she is classified as Escort but serves as a "warship, pure and simple". Is it still "failed Borg-killer"? Is it "pierside queen"? Or did Starfleet find a use for the failed project after all, and was operating the ship in that role when Sisko got her for himself? The story doesn't quite tell.

I'm comfortable speculating that the reason for the euphemistic classification was to keep knowledge of the actual potential of the Defiant classified during its development.

Me, too. And it would be rather plausible to pretend that a ship that small is an Escort, since we see this ship later successfully serve in the Escort role - and we see Klingons utilize similar vessels in their own escort duties. For all we know, Starfleet has plenty of Escorts, which just never appear next to the familiar Cruisers and Frigates because escorting is such a special duty and ships specializing in that duty are fairly useless for anything else.

Pretending that the ship is an Escort does not equate pretending that she isn't a warship, though.

Furthermore, FWIW, a "new Federation battle fleet" doesn't preclude the existence of an "old Federation battle fleet". Rather, it could be argued the phrasing confirms it...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[J.T.B.]

Certainly, the description of the role of the Defiant in that dialog has nothing in common with the role that we used destroyer escorts for in World War II.

Furthermore, I'm comfortable speculating that the reason for the euphemistic classification was to keep knowledge of the actual potential of the Defiant classified during its development.

I guess it depends on what the threat is that the escort is supposed to protect against. The DE was the USN's answer for protecting shipping from submarines in WW2, and submarines had a lot of advantages, but they also had disadvantages compared to surface warships. DEs were sort of a "de-contented" destroyer, but main thing was that they didn't have to keep up with warships, just merchantmen and transports, so they didn't have to be fast like destroyers. Unlike the British, who went for the easily produced, commercial whalecatcher derived corvette, the USN wanted a more "naval" but still fairly easy-to-crank-out design that could handle long distances in the Pacific as well as the Atlantic routes.

But suppose the Federation is worried about very fast and powerful raiders preying upon its spacelanes? Think Graf Spee rather than a U-boat. A powerful, dedicated warships would answer very well there. Would a real navy ever use some of its newest, biggest and most powerful warships just to escort merchant shipping back and forth across the ocean? You bet, check out the WW1 records of US battleships Nevada, Oklahoma and Utah.



--Justin

 

[Maverisms]

Timo, you appeal to canon as inflexible, but you won't stop speculating. And just making up stuff wildly. I'll address your most ridiculous contention and then wash my hands of you.

Soft canon definitely does not include FASA because those products have been contradicted and weren't near "soft" to begin with. The policy of Trek's owners has been if it didn't happen on a screen, it isn't canon. That defines "Hard" canon. The implicit intent, that nothing else is canon at all, just doesn't work for people delving into the minutiae of Trek, so the soft canon has been limited to evidence of production intent. These are generally given credence until such time as they are contradicted by hard canon. Soft canon is debatable, but it isn't ignorable, simply because too many people are interested it.

I enjoy a good debate, myself. You are not a good debate. I can't possibly learn anything from you, because you just keep inventing stuff with out recourse to any actual facts. Simply refuting your wild theories is not debate. It's tedious.

Cary, I chose the argument I did to prove a point about selective canon choosing. You can't simply dismiss something because you think it was wasn't intended to be "seen." We know the production staff knows the audience has certain fanatical members, who will look for this stuff. The fact that you can point out so many examples of in-jokes proves it. Somebody went in a found it.

I wasn't arguing that the display was canon, I was arguing that your argument for dismissing was invalid. And it still is.

I wasn't doing that to pick on you. At the base of it, I agree with you. Defiant wouldn't be classified as a battleship, and it is likely that that image was the result of "Hey, what's the Defiant's classification again?" "No time! Deadline. Just put something likely."

Surprisingly, even some of the most Trek fanatic folks on the production staff can't keep all the details straight.

The likelihood that is what happened, however, is not an argument for or against. We know the FJ stuff isn't canon because the arbiters of canon declared it so. Here, all you have is speculation, and that speculation does not account for the times when such details "not meant to be seen" turn out to accurate. How are we to tell the difference?

I stand behind the assertion that Starfleet doesn't do warships. It is one of the major inconsistencies in canon, but is has be surprisingly consistent. Starfleet is all about exploration. All of their ships (even Defiant) seem capable of exploring and doing science. Their ships are insanely versatile, and even their offensive systems have perfectly normal and obvious uses for a ship of exploration.

The inconsistency is in their comparative power with threat hardware. Klingons do build warships. Ton for ton, a Klingon ship should sport more firepower, and better defense than a Federation ship. But they don't. The combat capacity of Klingon vessels seem to about the same as Starfleet's.

The real reason for this is obvious. The writers need excuses for tense stand offs.

But consider it from a practical point of view. Ton for ton, Klingons do not out class the Feds. Which means if, the Federation decided to take something like a Galaxy or Ambassador class hull and delete the science and creature comforts for Weapons, stores and defense, the resulting ship would be a holy terror.

Starfleet sends its explorers to do battle. Enemies respect the power of these research vessels. And all the while, Starfleet is strategically deploying a fleet with one arm tied behind its back.

The Defiant was one rare shining moment of "This it what happens when you scare Starfleet into thinking it needs to stop being nice." As with all things Trek, it didn't work right until a series regular touched it. But there she was. So overpowered she could literally destroy herself just trying to move.

And for the most part, she never suffered the Worf syndrome. She wasn't built up only to get slapped down by the villain of the week (at least, not after the first time). To build drama in Defiant's conflicts, she was typically pit against overwhelming odds.

In short, the Defiant is what happens when Starfleet builds a warship. And she's small warship. Size may not play a decisive role in classification, but size does matter. Imagine, Defiant at Galaxy class scale. No room wasted on science facilities to make a university blush. No space given over to more shuttles that any sane person would want. No space for dependents, schools, parks, recreation facilities, day care, bars, showy map rooms, navigation experiments involving some of the largest animals on Earth, Diplomatic berthing, non-essential cargo. Hell, I'll leave the world class hospital in there, just because I can.

But wipe out all the nonessential stuff, and replace it with photorp magazines, phaser emitters, redundant shield systems, and scads of redundant power supplies.

The Fed's don't build warships only because they are peaceful by nature. They also don't have to. Or at least they shouldn't have to. There's really no other logical explanation.

And that is another problem with canon. The real reason for the inconsistency isn't tense stand offs. That plays a part, but it isn't the basis of it. The real reason is the Gene create a concept, and didn't fully think through the implications. Or if he did, he forgot to send anyone else the memo for inclusion in the series bible. The producers and writers didn't understand what they were dealing with. And how could they? They were making it up as they went along. Story was always more important than continuity. Somehow, Hollywood has come to the conclusion that continuity and consistency are incompatible with storytelling.

And as long as I'm on this rant, I can't blame them. Why? Eight words: City on the Edge of Forever + Time Travel. Time Travel is the mother of all inconsistencies. Even if you build a frame work that makes it work, you often rob the story of it's drama. Because "WE HAZ TIEM TRAVLES!!!" Yet, City is one of the best episode of Trek, bar none. If you demand consistency, you have to consider not doing that story. (Khan's enhanced memory is so good he doesn't forget faces, even if he never met the person.)

I do think producers get lazy about managing the details, but I wouldn't want them to put the details head of the story. Sometimes the story kicks too much posterior.

 

[Wingsley]

Why are Gene Roddenberry's words being ignored? From what I can understand from this strange "debate" emerging in this thread, it would seem what Mr. Roddenberry said in the TMP novelization would clear up quite a bit of this dispute.

It seems that some folks have very divergent views of, and applications for, what STAR TREK canon is and what it should represent. These views are apparently informed by other interests (gaming, fanon art, fan fiction, etc.) that have little to do with the actual content of a TV series, a movie or a book anyway. So why ignore this:

The craft now approaching Enterprise was, by official designation, at least, a long-distance shuttle. But the term shuttle was one of those misnomers which are often perpetuated by tradition in a service like Starfleet. It had begun long ago with moon shuttles, which had led to large planet shuttles, and now included this trim but powerful warp power craft which could have outraced the starships of only fifty years ago. It was, indeed, as foolish as calling the U.S.S. Enterprise a heavy cruiser, which it was most definitely not. It was the most powerful Federation vessel in existence, deserving at least the old naval description of battleship, although some admiral or statesman in the distant past had apparently seen the term cruiser as more civilized and less militaristic. Actually, most proper and accurate of all would have been to term the Enterprise an exploration and research vessel, which described its principal use and functions.

"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" a novel by Gene Roddenberry (page 115)​

NOTE: I added emphasis to focus in on a specific part of the passage quoted.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I'm not "ignoring" Roddenberry's words, exactly, but let's be blunt... he had no knowledge of naval tradition or terminology. Some of the other folks involved in making TOS did, however... as shown by how many things Roddenberry was quite insistent on were overtly contradicted by things seen on-screen during the show itself (ie, "everyone on board the Enterprise is an officer" versus the clear presence of "crewmen" of various enlisted grades, particularly during the first season).

Roddenberry's statement that the Enterprise was more like a "battleship" but that someone "made up" the term "heavy cruiser" merely goes to show that he had no knowledge of real naval terminology. He was smart enough to pick the brains of Jesco Von Puttkamer, but he would have been well-served to also pick the brains of at least one naval vet, while writing this stuff.

Roddenberry was still mostly coherent at this point in his life, so I am a bit harsher about his mistakes then than I am about what he did on TNG (when he was in the last stages of a degenerative brain disorder). In this case, what he wrote in that book was... a stretch.

Roddenberry was a fine storyteller, and had a good grasp of dialogue and characterization. But he wasn't the source of ALL THINGS STAR TREK, and with TMP, he'd really fallen into the idea that he was "the sole force behind Star Trek." So he put a bunch of stuff into the novelization which was... well... painful, pointless, pedantic preaching. This comment was one of those points, as far as I'm concerned.

There are things I LIKE about the stuff he added... like expanded info on Sonak and Lori Ciani (the two who died in the transporter accident), about Spock on Vulcan, about McCoy's "retirement" researching Fabrini technology, etc. But these were all CHARACTER elements, which was his strength.

Why are Gene Roddenberry's words being ignored? From what I can understand from this strange "debate" emerging in this thread, it would seem what Mr. Roddenberry said in the TMP novelization would clear up quite a bit of this dispute.

It seems that some folks have very divergent views of, and applications for, what STAR TREK canon is and what it should represent. These views are apparently informed by other interests (gaming, fanon art, fan fiction, etc.) that have little to do with the actual content of a TV series, a movie or a book anyway. So why ignore this:

The craft now approaching Enterprise was, by official designation, at least, a long-distance shuttle. But the term shuttle was one of those misnomers which are often perpetuated by tradition in a service like Starfleet. It had begun long ago with moon shuttles, which had led to large planet shuttles, and now included this trim but powerful warp power craft which could have outraced the starships of only fifty years ago. It was, indeed, as foolish as calling the U.S.S. Enterprise a heavy cruiser, which it was most definitely not. It was the most powerful Federation vessel in existence, deserving at least the old naval description of battleship, although some admiral or statesman in the distant past had apparently seen the term cruiser as more civilized and less militaristic. Actually, most proper and accurate of all would have been to term the Enterprise an exploration and research vessel, which described its principal use and functions.

"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" a novel by Gene Roddenberry (page 115)​

NOTE: I added emphasis to focus in on a specific part of the passage quoted.

 

[throwback]

WARSHIPS

From "Yesterday's Enterprise" (Tasha to Castillo):
"She [Enterprise - ed.] was the first Galaxy-class warship built by the Federation."

According to the dialogue, the Enterprise was commissioned in an alternate reality in 2363. When the starship had been commissioned, the Federation had been at war with the Klingons since the late 2340's.

FREIGHTERS

The world's navies do have freighters (cargo ships). For the USN, these freighters are operated by the Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force. Here is an example of a US Navy cargo ship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_and_Clark_class_dry_cargo_ship

TO TIMO

even though militaries only have transports, not freighters.

I get very annoyed with people when they state facts that can be easily refuted or verified by Googling the internet. Please check your statements before uttering them.

 

[J.T.B.]

even though militaries only have transports, not freighters.

I get very annoyed with people when they state facts that can be easily refuted or verified by Googling the internet. Please check your statements before uttering them.

Don't be annoyed. Note the link above refers to a "cargo ship," not a freighter. Though the dictionary definition "freighter" could technically cover military-operated vessels, in practice "freighter" is used pretty much exclusively for merchant ships.



--Justin

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Cary, I chose the argument I did to prove a point about selective canon choosing. You can't simply dismiss something because you think it was wasn't intended to be "seen." We know the production staff knows the audience has certain fanatical members, who will look for this stuff. The fact that you can point out so many examples of in-jokes proves it. Somebody went in a found it.

I wasn't arguing that the display was canon, I was arguing that your argument for dismissing was invalid. And it still is.

No, it's not.

Not unless you really do believe that the 1701-D really has a Porche, a giant mouse, a giant rubber duck, etc, aboard.

Not unless you really do believe that the 1701-D's sickbay medical monitors really do monitor "insurance remaining."

Not unless you really do believe that Kira's personal monitor screen has the title song lyrics to "Gilligan's Island" printed under the screen.

Anything which the audience was not expected to see clearly, can be treated in any number of ways, but should NEVER, EVER take precedence over a clearly described definition given elsewhere.

My point is not "invalid." You just really, really, REALLY want to believe that this "must be real" because it can be found by someone freeze-framing an episode of another series. One made by a different production team, no less.

Want the final word on this? Well... anyone here know how to contact Ira Behr?

I wasn't doing that to pick on you.

"Pick on me?" Not to worry. You and I aren't really acquainted, so I understand you don't know me well... but "feeling picked on" is about the last thing on my mind right now. Never fear.

At the base of it, I agree with you. Defiant wouldn't be classified as a battleship, and it is likely that that image was the result of "Hey, what's the Defiant's classification again?" "No time! Deadline. Just put something likely."

Yep, that's pretty much a direct restatement of what I said earlier.

Surprisingly, even some of the most Trek fanatic folks on the production staff can't keep all the details straight.

Like "how big is a bird-of-prey" or "how big is the Defiant," just for starters...

The likelihood that is what happened, however, is not an argument for or against. We know the FJ stuff isn't canon because the arbiters of canon declared it so.

Not exactly. Because SOME things that were "canon" at one point were later contradicted, and vice-versa.

At the time of ST-TMP, FJ's stuff was considered "mostly canon," except where it overtly contradicted on-screen stuff. It wasn't until much later that Gene Roddenberry decided to "retroactively invalidate" it. And at that point, Roddenberry had lost most of his marbles anyway, and wanted there to be a "warp 10 = infinity" rule in order to "simplify" things.

As far as I'm concerned, I still accept much of what FJ put out, even if I treat it as a "Stylized, and not entirely accurate," representation of things.

I also accept most of what was in the Medical Reference Manual And I accept quite a bit of what was published in "Starfleet Dynamics." And as much as possible, I accept what Shane Johnson put out in Mr. Scott's Guide.

Anthing that was published with the full vetting and approval of PPC's "powers which be" is part of what you call "soft canon" as far as I'm concerned, and much of what was NOT vetted by PPC falls into that category as well. In fact, in large part I PREFER things which were later retroactively "invalidated." The "retroactive invalidation" thing is just the behavior of stupid bratty children.

None of the published materials, INCLUDING ON-SCREEN MATERIAL, is entirely "accurate" because there is nothing to be accurate TO.

Our job, as fans, is to make it all fit in our own minds, as best as possible. Obviously, not every single frame ever filmed can be taken entirely at face value. If someone insists that I do that, this will RUIN the entire experience for me, and I'll have to accept that, by and large, Star Trek had a LOT OF CRAP which made it up.

Yes, I just said it. Star Trek is full of really bad stuff.

But it also has really good stuff, and the good is sufficiently good that I, and others, have come to care about it for that reason, over the years.

So, for me to enjoy and appreciate it, or for any of us to do so, we have to "selectively filter" it.

In my case, I selectively filter ALL Star Trek to fit in with reality as we know it today... physics, psychology, biology, engineering, military protocol, etc.

Why? Because the show has been created for people today, not for people living in the future. Is it possible that some of this will be dramatically different in the 23rd century? Maybe... but that's irrelevant, because this show was created based upon contemporary ideas and information, with just a bit of "magic" added in to let them do things that we, today, can't.

Here, all you have is speculation, and that speculation does not account for the times when such details "not meant to be seen" turn out to accurate. How are we to tell the difference?

I'm not talking about "speculation" at all.

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE GODDAMNED SCRIPT. THE CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS WRITING OF THOSE WHO CAME UP WITH THE CONCEPT OF THE DEFIANT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

In-universe... since Sisko is clearly and unambiguously shown to be the person who led the Defiant design and construction effort... you'd be hard pressed to find anyone more knowledgeable of the ship's design process than him, don't you think?

He said what the ship was. That anyone... ANYONE... would claim that this dialog is overridden by a crappy image only seen on screen for ONE FRAME is just beyond me. It's pathetic. It really, really is.

And I'm also talking about real terminology. Because this show was made for people TODAY, in OUR REAL WORLD, and all language has meaning. The meaning of the terms used are, and in fact MUST be, directed towards communicating with people today. Will language be the same in the 23rd century? Likely not... but that's irrelevant, because this show isn't "really" set in that time frame. It was set in the late 1960s, or the late 1970s, or the 1980s or 1990s, or even the early 2000s.

If a word has a particular meaning today, and the show is directed towards audiences alive today... then don't you think that the terms are being used according to contemporary definitions?

Maybe in three hundred years, the word "food" will refer to underpants, and the word "underpants" will mean what "glasses" means today. Irrelevant... because the writers are alive today, and are telling this story to an audience today.

I stand behind the assertion that Starfleet doesn't do warships. It is one of the major inconsistencies in canon, but is has be surprisingly consistent.

That's simply nonsense, though. The terms "frigate" or "destroyer" or "Heavy Cruiser" ALL ARE CONTEMPORARY TERMS FOR WARSHIPS.

Perhaps a better way to say what I think you're trying to say is that "Starfleet doesn't do DEDICATED, SINGLE-PURPOSE WARSHIPS."

Every starfleet ship is, in the end, a "warship." They really, really are (well, maybe Grissom is an exception?) But they are not DEDICATED WARSHIPS. They are "multi-functional ships."

I would say that this wasn't the case all throughout Starfleet history, and really the first "multipurpose ships" were the twelve cruisers of which 1701 was one.

I would say that the Enterprise, while under Pike's command, was a warship, plain and simple. And that it served much the same role that a modern Heavy Cruiser would serve today.

But when they added the full "science vessel complement" to raise the crew from 200 to 430, sometime after Kirk ran the thing into the barrier, this set the tone for later ships, for a while, ultimately culminating with the ludicrous design of the 1701-D.

The 1701-D was the ultimate "indulgent" design for a ship. It was all things to all people. Except, jacks of all trades are seldom masters of even one...

I would argue that the Sovereign is a multipurpose ship, but it's really a warship at its heart, with just a few "bonus" features. Just like the TOS Enterprise.

The role that the Defiant played, all throughout the Dominion War, was EXACTLY that of an "escort destroyer." And the role that it played in "First Contact" was that of an "escort destroyer" as well.

Remember, a destroyer is a small, fast, heavily armed and armored vessel, intended to engage attackers at a distance from the main elements of the fleet and to destroy them. An escort destroyer is the smaller end of that, and is not normally intended to operate independently, but usually stays close to it's higher headquarters (which could be a stationary base or a battle or carrier group, or even a civilian convoy of some form).

We saw how the ship was used on-screen. How it was used on-screen was entirely consistent with what Sisko's dialog defined the ship as being.

It's a "warship." Or, as I said before, a "dedicated warship." That means it has no "non-warship" amenities. No ability to provide medical support, or to rescue trapped civilians, or to perform major scientific analyses, or so forth.

Kira's line makes it clear that she finds it amusing that the Federation keeps building "nicey" designs.

That's sort of like how I react to those who try to use the US Military for jobs it's not designed for... to "nation build" or the like. IT IS NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT. The job of the military, in blunt terms, is to kill people and break things. Period.

Using it for other purposes is misuse of this asset.

Kira's comment makes it clear that she'd agree with me, and finds it pretty... well, silly?

The Defiant was not built for exploration, or science, or anything else. Even the Dreadnoughts have a peactime role (local policing and search-and-rescue and the like). But the Defiant has no other role than to fly around and blow things up. It's not a jack of all trades, but it IS a master of destruction.

That's what's different about the Defiant's design. For the first time since just before the "five year mission," Starfleet has a ship that's not supposed to be all things to all people.

Starfleet is all about exploration. All of their ships (even Defiant) seem capable of exploring and doing science. Their ships are insanely versatile, and even their offensive systems have perfectly normal and obvious uses for a ship of exploration.

Defiant was woefully ill-equipped for exploration... but it wasn't a bad choice for a "forward observer" role, given its ability to escape from hostile situations and to evade detection.

Pretty much any other ship in the fleet would have been better suited for exploration. But pretty much any other ship in the fleet would have been destroyed by the Dominion almost immediately.

The inconsistency is in their comparative power with threat hardware. Klingons do build warships. Ton for ton, a Klingon ship should sport more firepower, and better defense than a Federation ship. But they don't. The combat capacity of Klingon vessels seem to about the same as Starfleet's.

Not true. The TOS Klingon ship was significantly smaller than the TOS Enterprise. The TNG Klingon ship was significantly smaller than the Queen Mary... er, I mean the Enterprise D.

Their ships were smaller, but equally powerful and well-armed. So, "ton for ton," they're more powerful.

 

[Cicero]

Second major concern: I know that there are differing "world views" of the STAR TREK Universe, and that these views are informed by diverging interests (gaming, fan fiction, canon designs/artwork, etc.), but I do not understand the fascination with, and support of, the "Federation battleship" concept. If we assume that FJ's other designs did make it off the drawing board and that there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of those Hermes- and Saladin-class uni-nacelled scouts and destroyers flying about, in addition to over 100 Connies supposedly in flight as well, why would the Federation need to build any tri-nacelled battlewagons at all? If the calling card of a "dreadnought" of any era is power/firepwer, these other classes would seem to deliver all that would be needed in smaller, more easily-maintained configurations. Why deploy three Federation-class ships when it would obviously be more efficient to deploy ten or more Saladin-class ships? (That would also give the Klingons or the Romulans more targets to worry about.)

Somewhat counter-intuitively, it's generally less resource-efficient to build a large number of smaller ships than a small number of larger ships.

A case in point: The Iowa-class battleships were constructed for $100 million each (roughly $5 billion today) at the same time that Baltimore-class heavy cruisers were produced for $39 million each (roughly $2 billion today); aside from a slight advantage in speed, though, three Baltimore-class ships would have been no match for an Iowa.

Ship-building decisions are thus a trade-off: Is it more important to be able to field a large number of hulls able to cover a wider area thinly, or to build as many powerful ships as possible to secure the advantage when force is concentrated?

If the plan is to concentrate force either way, in the interests of total fleet strength, then battleships are a better answer than cruisers. On the other hand, if strategy favors small actions and ship-to-ship engagements, cruisers are superior to battleships. (Destroyers and other smaller ships are constructed to screen larger vessels, not to engage independently.)

Surprisingly, risk-assessments for catastrophic loss or mission kill produce similar trade-offs. A greater number of smaller ships will be more difficult to engage by virtue of sheer volume of targets, but will be more easily damaged or destroyed (even taking differences in armor and other protection into account).

During the dreadnought era, the Royal Navy favored a mixed system that used both a moderate number of cruisers - to defend and maintain far-flung colonies - and a large number of battleships - to concentrate force against the enemy battle fleet, or to threaten concentration.

The United States Navy, however, poured money into battleship construction and neglected cruisers. (By the time the US entered World War I, the US Atlantic Fleet was roughly comparable in size to the British Grand Fleet, despite our smaller naval investment.) Both fleets heavily built destroyers to screen against torpedo attacks on the battleships (and against submarines in general, once the extent of their threat became clear).

Which choice would Starfleet make? Which is right for it? Who knows.We've seen things from the perspective of a heavy cruiser, and from the point of view of a battleship stand-in. Unsurprisingly, their experiences point in different directions. The concentration of force principle is alive and well in post-TOS Star Trek, but the experience shown in TOS and the TOS movies is classically that of a widely-ranging cruiser.

If I were to guess, I would say that Starfleet would choose the Royal Navy's solution. Federation territory may be to vast to police with battleships, despite their utility in large-scale combat. (Another factor: battleships are more useful if you expect war, cruisers if you expect peace.)

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Surprisingly, risk-assessments for catastrophic loss or mission kill produce similar trade-offs. A greater number of smaller ships will be more difficult to engage by virtue of sheer volume of targets, but will be more easily damaged or destroyed (even taking differences in armor and other protection into account).

During the dreadnought era, the Royal Navy favored a mixed system that used both a moderate number of cruisers - to defend and maintain far-flung colonies - and a large number of battleships - to concentrate force against the enemy battle fleet, or to threaten concentration.

(...)

If I were to guess, I would say that Starfleet would choose the Royal Navy's solution. Federation territory may be to vast to police with battleships, despite their utility in large-scale combat. (Another factor: battleships are more useful if you expect war, cruisers if you expect peace.)

This is my understanding. In the case of Starfleet it is also my conclusion, but with some qualifications.

With respect to the specifics of the FJ dreadnought design, if it were a failure, then building any number of dreadnoughts beyond the experimental prototypes would not be indicated. A speculative example of a reason to classify the design as a failure might be if its warp engines were to become worn out more quickly than expected, say due to unexpected warp geometry effects resulting from the number of nacelles. Such a design flaw might radically increase the expected cost of maintaining the fleet to the point that many smaller ships would be more cost effective.

Another point to consider is that the cost of Federation starships could be concentrated in key areas of the ships, such as in the warp nacelles and in the phaser banks, which could make the number of nacelles a rough indicator of proportional cost (maintenance costs notwithstanding). This is one of many factors that could affect the calculus of determining optimal fleet composition. Another is the vastness of space, and the number of points requiring the attention of starships.

ETA: Eviscero made the last point about the vastness of space. I'm underscoring it, because if space is vast enough then that means the optimal balanced strategy might consist of only a token number of heavy ships, or I suppose in an extreme case of vastness conceivably none at all. This is a fine hair to split, but it's worth emphasizing, I think.

 

[Timo]

I get very annoyed with people when they state facts that can be easily refuted or verified by Googling the internet. Please check your statements before uttering them.

Perhaps I should have clarified...

Militaries do not have freighters. They have transports instead.

There. That's 100% accurate. Militaries obviously have ships dedicated to the hauling of cargo, just like they have ships dedicated to the hauling of troops, or horses for that matter. All of these ships are formally known as "transports". To call them "freighters" is a civilian error, similar to referring to a howlizer as a "cannon", or to an assault rifle as a "gun".

Any internet site referring to the use of freighters by a military is simply making the civilian error in terminology; the site should be referring to cargo transports instead. This is the correct terminology used both by the USN and the Military Sealift Command (which operates both USN and civilian vessels).

We don't know if Starfleet uses different terminology. We only know that the Borg Drone in "Drone" browsed through displays using the "freighter" designation - but he could have been browsing through a children's coloring book for all we know.

(Edit: perhaps I should have read through the page before typing, too. J.T.B already pointed out the error in the "error". Sorry about the redundancy!)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Maverisms]

No, it's not.

Yes, it is. And we can keep going on this line ad nausium. I already explained why I don't have deal with the in-jokes. Some display info is production crew amusement, Some is production intent, some it production error. The amusement is easy to locate, and can be dispensed with.

You fail to justify how you tell intent from mistake. And you are still doing it.

I don't really want to believe anything. If you had read what I wrote for comprehension, you'd know this. I don't think the display is valid. I simply admit that I can't prove it is invalid, and neither can you. Appeal to other invalidities does not invalidate that display. You need something better. I appeal to the universe's intent, the untold throwaway lines that imply that Starfleet is not a military formation, philosophically (Picard's "Remember when we were explorers?", etc). That and the fact that no lines of dialog were given, no actions taken on screen to imply that Starfleet classifies anything in its own inventory as a battleship.

Yet, I freely admit that if I were limited to working with that single bit of evidence from "Drone," I would be unable to refute it.

I want to claim that issue is what you really really want to believe, but I can't read your mind and I won't insult you pretending I can.

As far as I'm concerned, I still accept much of what FJ put out, even if I treat it as a "Stylized, and not entirely accurate," representation of things.

I also accept most of what was in the Medical Reference Manual And I accept quite a bit of what was published in "Starfleet Dynamics." And as much as possible, I accept what Shane Johnson put out in Mr. Scott's Guide.

Great, that's what you accept. You don't like where things when in the end. Fine. But Trek was still being produced after your cut off and canon was still being set. This argument isn't even invalid. It doesn't apply.

If the production has stated X is not canon, X is not canon. That should be the end of the story. I know the way the minds of Trek fans work in these things, so I know it won't be. But that said, I don't accept arguments based on non-canonic sources. I accept speculation, because it is interesting, but if the appeal is to a source designated not canon, then it isn't an interesting speculation. That's where I come from. Appeals to "Roddenberry messed up" or "Roddenberry was out of his mind" or "Berman and Braga suck" are just personal opinions.

Yes, I just said it. Star Trek is full of really bad stuff.

I said it, too. I am aware of this.

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE GODDAMNED SCRIPT. THE CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS WRITING OF THOSE WHO CAME UP WITH THE CONCEPT OF THE DEFIANT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

So am I. Sisko said she was a warship. She is a warship. She is classified an escort. I don't deny any of this.

He said what the ship was. That anyone... ANYONE... would claim that this dialog is overridden by a crappy image only seen on screen for ONE FRAME is just beyond me. It's pathetic. It really, really is.

Battleships are warships. So nothing is overwritten by the frame. Her classification as "escort" could be "Escort Battleship," Gasp. /sarcasm.

I told you, I don't believe the frame is valid. But that doesn't mean it isn't. I can't prove it. Nothing in Sisko's lines or the screen cap is definitive. Nothing is proven, and as I've just shown, they don't even have to contradict each other.

The main thing about that screen cap is, if it is canon, it proves that Starfleet does officially build warships. Not as simple on off experiments, or emergency measures, but as a policy.

It tells us nothing about the policy, just that it exists. That starfleet said, "We need battleships."

I think it is wrong to dismiss the vision of Trek in favor of a screen capture, but again, that is all I have to go on. The vision. I think the vision is evidence, and I think it is superior evidence.

I also think it is weak argument to assert something is "pathetic." That's just flame bait. Keep it classy.

And I'm also talking about real terminology. Because this show was made for people TODAY, in OUR REAL WORLD, and all language has meaning. The meaning of the terms used are, and in fact MUST be, directed towards communicating with people today. Will language be the same in the 23rd century? Likely not... but that's irrelevant, because this show isn't "really" set in that time frame. It was set in the late 1960s, or the late 1970s, or the 1980s or 1990s, or even the early 2000s.

Great. What terms are you talking about? Because I'm not aware of any terms that eliminate the no-warship concept. I can't find any canon references to frigates or destroyers. Landrover makes a "landcruiser" so I suppose I have to assume it is well armed because it is form of cruiser? /sarcasm.

Unfortunately, Heavy Cruiser is not definitive either. Military terms don't mean much to laymen. I could put DRMO in a script and confuse the hell out of about 99.7% of the American population. As has been pointed out, the use of the term cruiser was given by Roddenberry as a "soft term" back before his "mind went."

Unless I misread something, I'm pretty sure you don't accept that. But this is the "naval tradition" argument and I don't accept it. Not on Trek terms. On any. I spent years debating naval traditionalist about the Rank Structure used by Super Dimension Fortress Macross's United Nation's Spacy. The Spacy had ships so it had to be naval. Never mind the evidence showed that the ranks were not naval at all.

Ultimate, the evidence proved the Naval Traditionalist's wrong. Trek was not produced by the Navy. So appeal to naval tradition means nothing.

That's sort of like how I react to those who try to use the US Military for jobs it's not designed for... to "nation build" or the like. IT IS NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT. The job of the military, in blunt terms, is to kill people and break things. Period.

Using it for other purposes is misuse of this asset.

I never said the Starfleet couldn't fight. Hell, I made the case that Starfleet is so bad-assed it fights with one arm hobbled. Starships are capable of fighting. Starfleet knows that space is dangerous, and Starfleet doesn't skimp on protection. But protection doesn't take priority over exploration.

Warfare is not the ship's mission, therefore not a warship.

As an asset, Starfleet's mission is scientific, humanitarian and diplomatic. It also happens to be the Federation's defensive arm. It is not, strictly a military formation and does not see itself as such (again, numerous references on screen in scripts).

The Defiant was not built for exploration, or science, or anything else. Even the Dreadnoughts have a peactime role (local policing and search-and-rescue and the like). But the Defiant has no other role than to fly around and blow things up. It's not a jack of all trades, but it IS a master of destruction.

Granted. Defiant was built to fight. But they kept doing science with her. My point there was that even when Starfleet breaks out the big-guns and builds a warship, it is still a decent science platform. Not as nice as the crew was used to, but it worked.

The Defiant is an Abram's MBT with a CT scanner in it. She's a Glock-17 with a laser sight that does duty as a mass spectrometer in a pinch.

Starfleet is just like that.

Their ships were smaller, but equally powerful and well-armed. So, "ton for ton," they're more powerful.

That's a reach. All you get for that trade off is that "ton for ton, the ships had the same power levels." Your argument implies that the additional volume of a starfleet vessel is given over to systems other than tactical.

Which reinforces my point. Starfleet made bigger ships that seemed to have the same mobility and same firepower. So a full scale, dedicated combatant built by starfleet would outgun a Klingon of the same class.

Starfleet still fights with one arm pinned back.

 

[Deks]

Ds9 decided to muddle up A LOT of what Roddenberry envisioned in the first place.
As a result, it effectively ended up dumbing down A LOT of things.

However... in the sense of the Defiant and other SF ships... let's think of this like this:
Sisko said the Defiant was officially classified as an Escort... unofficially, it's a warship... designed to fight and defeat the Borg (something we have yet see it do... but I would surmise it was a step into a direction of making SF realize they needed to step up their technological development a bit).

Anyway... the point is that ALL SF ships are in fact multi-purpose vessels (this goes for the Defiant too).
It's just that in the case of Defiant, a lot more emphasis went into defensive/offensive systems (given what it was designed to do).
Nevertheless, this doesn't defeat the premise that the Defiant was capable of other tasks as well.

Also... I never really saw that much of an advantage in the Defiant to be honest.
All they did was gave the ship the ability to churn out more raw energy in pulses.
They can probably do that on ALL of their ship classes (most of which have a heck of a lot better coverage even) with proper modifications and different Warp Core designs.

The Defiant is small, maneuverable and powerful for it's size (predominantly because it lack most of the creature comforts that other larger ships seem to have - and in the case of medium and smaller ships of the late 24th century such as the Prometheus and Intrepid classes, if they sport creature comforts [which they do - at least the Intrepid does and Prometheus definitely seems large enough to], then those will be brought down to a smaller % in order to increase other ships capabilities so they can rival larger ones).

The Defiant has other things going for it... it's smaller, and probably takes less time to construct compared to other larger ships... but I REALLY think that they overdid it with the bunk-beds and submarine style because their technology probably wouldn't require THAT much cramped space for the crew.

Incidentally... the Nova class to my recollection was supposed to be the Defiant as far as I recall.
Small, heavily armed, etc.
Well, Voyager's writers DID state it had type X phasers just like the Intrepid, but it's role was heavily downsized in the show... a science vessel.
Though given it's design and capabilities, it COULD have been the Defiant.
It was supposed to have those large launchers in the front as far as I recall (in place of the second deflector dish).

 

[blssdwlf]

The role that the Defiant played, all throughout the Dominion War, was EXACTLY that of an "escort destroyer." And the role that it played in "First Contact" was that of an "escort destroyer" as well.

Escort Destroyers don't usually command the Federation fleet as we see in "Tears of the Prophets" and "Sacrifice of Angels". Isn't that a role for a ship with command and control capabilities... like a battleship?

It could go something like this in the briefing room:
ADMIRAL: And Sisko will be leading the combined fleets of..

(Very audible groaning)

UNNAMED CAPTAIN: Sir, no offense to Captain Sisko, but why are we being lead by an Escort ship?

ADMIRAL: (clears throat) Hmm good point. Computer, as of Stardate yadayada, the Defiant is now re-classified as a Battleship.

ADMIRAL: Anyone else have a problem with the Defiant?

GENERAL MARTOK: Ahahahahaa


Plus, we don't know what the role of the Defiant was in "First Contact" other than she was attacking with the rest of the ships.

Not true. The TOS Klingon ship was significantly smaller than the TOS Enterprise. ...
Their ships were smaller, but equally powerful and well-armed. So, "ton for ton," they're more powerful.

I don't think so. The klingon battlecruiser in "Elaan of Troyius" was very hesitant to go head-to-head with the Enterprise until she was convinced she was crippled. "Ton for ton" the Klingon battlecruiser still was inferior to the Connie back during TOS, IMHO.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

The Defiant has other things going for it... it's smaller, and probably takes less time to construct compared to other larger ships... but I REALLY think that they overdid it with the bunk-beds and submarine style because their technology probably wouldn't require THAT much cramped space for the crew.

The Defiant is a lot nicer, and a lot roomier than modern submarines. The sets are extremely spacious if you compare them to some IRL naval ships. The bunks are a lot nicer than the ones in TUC on the Ent-A - they're more "Starfleet clean". The hallways are spacious and well-lit.

Plus, you know, carpet.

I'm not seeing this "submarine" deal, except in the interior doors.

Incidentally... the Nova class to my recollection was supposed to be the Defiant as far as I recall.
Small, heavily armed, etc.
Well, Voyager's writers DID state it had type X phasers just like the Intrepid, but it's role was heavily downsized in the show... a science vessel.
Though given it's design and capabilities, it COULD have been the Defiant.
It was supposed to have those large launchers in the front as far as I recall (in place of the second deflector dish).

The Nova-class is derived from the "Defiant Pathfinder" design that Sternbach whipped up for the DS9 Tech Manual, which did have those extra launchers (as well as a more Defiant-y hull pattern and color scheme). According to behind-the-scenes stuff, in-universe, the Nova is supposed to be derived from this early Defiant design, but it's not TV/Film canon, so include it in or reject it from your personal canon at your leisure. But, it was never really intended to be onscreen - it was basically a helpful illustration to go with the tech fluff in the DS9TM.

IIRC, the behind-the-scenes intent for Equinox was always to have a smaller, less powerful ship than Voyager, so I doubt it was ever intended to be onscreen as a heavily-armed gunboat.

 

[Captain Robert April]

It basically boils down to how you view the role of the nacelles.

If you think they generate power, then the FJ dreadnought is the way to go, because with that third nacelle, you've got 33% more power right off the bat.

If you think the nacelles use power, a third nacelle is just one more exposed target and drain on the power systems, and you'd get more mileage out of just beefing up the standard two nacelles, reducing the ship's profile, and adding some more weapons. Plus, another warp nacelle would be something you'd want if you want more warp speed, or at least the ability to sustain high warp speeds for longer duration, and that's something you'd want more on a scout, destroyer, etc. (the Stargazer makes much more sense as a scout than the Hermes ever will), rather than a big battlewagon.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

It basically boils down to how you view the role of the nacelles.

If you think they generate power, then the FJ dreadnought is the way to go, because with that third nacelle, you've got 33% more power right off the bat.

If you think the nacelles use power, a third nacelle is just one more exposed target and drain on the power systems, and you'd get more mileage out of just beefing up the standard two nacelles, reducing the ship's profile, and adding some more weapons. Plus, another warp nacelle would be something you'd want if you want more warp speed, or at least the ability to sustain high warp speeds for longer duration, and that's something you'd want more on a scout, destroyer, etc. (the Stargazer makes much more sense as a scout than the Hermes ever will), rather than a big battlewagon.

Yep, absolutely correct.

I see the roles of the nacelles as changing around the time of TMP. Prior to TMP, primary power generation was in the engines themselves. With TMP, primary power generation occurs in the hull (although there may be some additional power generation in the nacelles, we have no reason to believe this to be the case).

By the way, adding a third nacelle actually increases power generation by 50%... ie, with the added nacelle, instead of two, you get 150% of the total power generation (not counting auxiliary power - fusion reactors, in other words).

With the TMP-era model, the Federation (uprated) design actually had a second matter/antimatter reactor in the secondary hull, meaning that this ship had 200% of the power output of the Enterprise class. The additional nacelle would, at sublight at least, be nothing but a penalty, as you say, and would provide no additional power resources.

It's a major context shift between TOS and TMP. I, personally, think of this as the implementation of "First Federation" principles into Starfleet designs. Your mileage may vary...

 

[throwback]

DEFINITION - FREIGHTERS

A transport transports an item from point a to point b.
A freighter is a specialized transport. Freighters transport cargo.
Military fleets call freighters "cargo ships".
People ,such as myself, and dictionaries, as well, consider a freighter to be the same thing as a cargo ship.

CATEGORY - DEFIANT-CLASS WARSHIP

The Defiant is a warship.
She is categorized both as an escort and as a battleship.
The difference between the two categories may reflect design changes between the prototype and the production ships.
* For instance, the Miranda-class starship started as a medium cruiser. Ships within this class were modified to fulfill roles in the categories of supply ship (USS Lantree) and science research ship (USS Brattain). This pattern is repeated with the the Oberth-class starship in that the class fulfills the role of science research ship, transport, and supply ship.
* Another instance. According to the Ships of the Line calendar, the Ambassador-class starship was originally categorized as both an emissary and explorer in 2325. This category was changed later to heavy cruiser. (What exactly would be the "job" description for a emissary type starship?)

NOTES
A howitzer is defined as a category of cannon, and an assault rifle is defined as a category of gun by dictionaries. If there is a problem, it's how our language is full of synonyms, and our language is peppered with specialized terms, and how different groups of people use words, and how our words are influenced by political and social conventions. It can get very confusing.

This is why to me the statement that military navies don't have freighters is incorrect. The word "freighter" is synonymous with "cargo ship". So, technically, both Timo and I were both correct.

If I was bit harsh, I apologize. I was on another forum - a political forum - and I have to wade through messages written by people who wouldn't recognize socialism if it hit them in the face. The ignorance in this country is simply astonishing.

 

[Captain Robert April]

"Freighter" implies commercial frieght, hence why the military equivalent is referred to as a "transport".