And by the entire intention of the writers in introducing a "new class" of ship designed for fighting, an idea that Starfleet "began exploring" five years before because of "desperate times" (quotes from script)
To be sure, the desperation specifically referred to the Borg, and the answer was supposed to be any functional anti-Borg gimmick, not necessarily a thoroughbred warship. Sisko's creation was just one of the many spinoffs, and apparently not the right solution to the problem.
Fancruft has held this to be so for decades and I'm as familiar with the products of this desire as you are, but few go so far as to claim that this comes anything close to what we've seen on screen; I figured I'd answer from this perspective
Fair enough. But Kirk's ship already seemed to be the ideal ride for a man who considers himself soldier first and foremost. And to say that Starfleet is sold short on the combat abilities of its ships would go against the theme of victorious battles in TOS, or of smug superiority of arms in TNG. So one has to take care not to go overboard with the idea that Starfleet ships are "noncombatants" because they aren't "pure" warships. Certainly Kira seems to claim Starfleet doesn't believe in warships in general, no matter the degree of purity, and
that part should be taken as sarcasm.
Going by onscreen sources, we have never been told that the Trek hero ships would have been designed with a purpose
other than combat primarily in mind. The
Galaxy class looks the same whether on a mission of exploration and diplomacy, or desperately fighting back the Klingon war machine in an alternate timeline. When Harry Kim complains that the
Intrepid class isn't good for his musical performance, the counterpoint that Paris chooses is combat performance. And even the humblest
Nova science vessel, explicitly dedicated to planetary surveys, is armed to teeth.
So the evidence is ambiguous, and the reasoning could go either way. That is, unless one accepts those aspects of "militaristic" fandom that seep onto the screen at times, such as the FJ destroyers and dreadnoughts in TOS movie background graphics.
I always wondered if "Destroyer Units Two and Six" referred to the groups that were supposed to be drawing off Cardassian destroyers, since we definitely did hear that word applied to the Cardassian ships once or twice
Good point. The terminology certainly seems mixed, including "
Galaxy wings" (that may very well consist solely or primarily of
Galaxy class vessels, as up to four are seen rushing into the same breach in "Sacrifice of Angels") and "attack wings" (apparently described by the nature of their mission). The mix could well include a wing designated by its intended targets.
Or any larger and fancier ship, which would presumably be packing sensors up to the task
One might argue that mines are intended to go for big ships, and that a smaller even if less capable one would have an easier time going hunting for such mines. That's why today's sweepers tend to be underpowered (big engines would trigger magnetic as well as acoustic mines), small and on the weak side (as strong steel hulls would again be triggers) and underarmed even for self-defense (same with big guns and radars).
Also, the smaller a ship you lose in this risky business, the better. But yes, a large drone carrier that stands off at sufficient distance might also be practicable. Difficult to tell since our heroes have had other ways to deal with mines so far.
Timo Saloniemi
There's something very un-Starfleet about the use of dangerous and indiscriminate munitions in this way.
