Dreadnought

[CorporalCaptain]

Without taking sides in this debate on the proper contemporary use of the word freighter, my research indicates that historically freighters were regarded as ships that specifically accepted payment to move cargo. Military transports on the other hand (generally speaking) do not accept payment to move cargo.

This distinction appears to have existed, because historically the word freight specifically referred to the payment for transferring cargo, and not the cargo itself. Today, the distinction between freight and cargo has become blurred, which I believe contributes to the dispute here.

 

[DrBashir]

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...

If the power is generated in the nacelles or there is a second engineering deck in the saucer then, if the primary hull seprates it's basically a Saladin class destroyer while the primary hull still has a large number of phasers. If nothing else it allows the saucer to escape at warp which the Constitution class cannot do.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

That's a lot of ifs, but yeah DrBashir's is an interesting proposal. FWIW, the saucer of the alternate future Enterprise dreadnought from All Good Things... did not have the property, as the third nacelle was mounted to its engineering hull.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

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.

Well, it's hard to disagree with that, though I'm not entirely sure what your take on the topic is. Me, I'm a student of history in general, and in particular of the two competing forms of governance... those moving towards greater centralized power (which, if unchecked, leads to utter tyranny) and those leading towards greater decentralized power (which, if carried to the extreme, lead to anarchy).

 

[7thsealord]

Without taking sides in this debate on the proper contemporary use of the word freighter, my research indicates that historically freighters were regarded as ships that specifically accepted payment to move cargo. Military transports on the other hand (generally speaking) do not accept payment to move cargo.

This distinction appears to have existed, because historically the word freight specifically referred to the payment for transferring cargo, and not the cargo itself. Today, the distinction between freight and cargo has become blurred, which I believe contributes to the dispute here.

To weigh in briefly, a freighter and a transport can be absolutely identical in design - with the only real differance being who is operating each.

For example, two ww2 Liberty ships built side-by-side. One goes to a shipping company, and henceforth is referred to as a freighter. The other ship goes to the US Army (yes, the US Army had quite a large fleet during ww2) and henceforth is referred to as a transport.

 

[Timo]

Escort Destroyers don't usually command the Federation fleet as we see in "Tears of the Prophets" and "Sacrifice of Angels".

...Although in certain circumstances, a fleet might receive vital observations, or in practice orders, from a submarine or comparable special vessel.

I have always had trouble believing that the low-ranking Sisko could have had anything to do with leading the fleet in "Sacrifice of Angels". And one of the things working against him really being in command is his tiny, labor-intensive ship whose piloting takes most of Sisko's time, whose sensing abilities never get much praise, and whose ability to accommodate a meaningful command staff for Sisko is known to be nil.

A Starfleet dreadnought might very well be a special command vessel, not differing much from a cruiser in size or armament or armor but possessing the required extra spaces, extra communications gear (see the two dish antennas on FJ's design!), and possibly a boost on the ship's ability to get to where things are happening, and to get out when things are happening wrong.

By the time of the DS9 battle, Starfleet would have so many big ships that any one of them could assume the command role, without need for specialization. But it would still be rather difficult for the Defiant to do so.

And from dialogue, we know that Sisko was involved in planning the attack (or at least was allowed by Ross to present a plan to Starfleet Command, a nice gesture from the boss). Whether Sisko actually commanded the fleet... Well, they never say that much.

Yet we do hear Sisko give specific orders to at least parts of the fleet, and we hear him give the initial order to launch the attack to all ships. It seems he did get "honorary command" of the operation, plus tactical command of at least parts of it, despite the major handicaps of lack of fleet command experience and an unsuitable ship to command from.

Later in "Tears of the Prophets", Sisko makes local tactical decisions. But there's less evidence there that Sisko would actually be in command of anything much. Again, only his planning role is explicit. So at least we can pretend that Starfleet still has a job for flag officers, a few actual flagships to spare for commanding fleets, and so forth.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[blssdwlf]

@Timo - not just planning but giving very specific orders an admiral might give from a command ship. Plus we also have his counterpart, Dukat, specifically calling out Sisko as the leader of the Federation fleet.

From "Sacrifice of Angels":

SISKO: Sisko to all ships. Cruiser and Galaxy wings, drop to half impulse. You too, Commander.
...
SISKO: Forget the Klingons. Our job is to get to Deep Space Nine and prevent the Dominion reinforcements from coming through the wormhole,
and that's what we're going to do. Attack fighters, tactical pattern Theta. Concentrate your fire on the Cardassian ships, and then split off into squadrons
and run like hell.
...
SISKO: Sisko to attack fighters. Prepare to engage on my command.
...
SISKO: Attack fighters full impulse. Fire at will.
...
SISKO: Ensign, send in the second wave. Tell them to keep targeting the Cardassians.
...
SISKO: Mister O'Brien, have Destroyer units two and six move in closer. They need more cover fire. And tell Captains Diego and Reynolds to stay alert.
They may try to outflank us.
...
SISKO: It is also an opportunity and we may not get another one. Ensign, have Galaxy wings nine one and nine three engage those destroyers.
All other ships, head for that opening. Anyone who gets through doesn't stop until they reach Deep Space Nine.
...
etc

From a second look at "Tears of the Prophets", the Defiant/Feds appears to be second to Martok's ship/Klingons. (I'd assume the Romulans were on the same footing as the Feds.) It appears that the Klingon, Feds and Romulans had their own lead ship but the Klingons were in overall command of the operation. (Interestingly, a larger ship wasn't in command of the Feds though.)

 

[Cary L. Brown]

All of that is accurrate, but doesn't mean Sisko was "in command." Any of you guys serve in the Army? What Sisko was doing was equivalent to what a "forward observer" does in the army, wasn't it? Passing along targetting and timing instructions? The F.O. isn't in command of an army, but does serve an important role in the C&C process.

 

[blssdwlf]

^ Mister O'Brien and that Ensign might be the equivalent of the "FO" you speak of, but Sisko is definitely giving the orders in a command capacity.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

^ Mister O'Brien and that Ensign might be the equivalent of the "FO" you speak of, but Sisko is definitely giving the orders in a command capacity.

An officer with the rank of Captain is giving "orders" to officers with the ranks of Commodore and Admiral?

Not so much, no.

Seriously. The sort of thing Sisko is doing is EXACTLY what an F.O. does. The FO will give "go orders" to various units on a battlefield to execute actions which are part of a plan.

Artillery units, led by Colonels or Lieutenant Colonels, take "orders" to fire from Corporals, in real life. This does not mean that the Corporal is in command of the Colonel, though.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Plus, Sisko is the guy in charge of DS9 and the Bajor sector, so it's only fair that he's the go-to guy on this operation.

 

[blssdwlf]

And the plan is coming from who?

Sisko

it's pretty obvious that Sisko is commanding the operation from the Defiant.

^ Mister O'Brien and that Ensign might be the equivalent of the "FO" you speak of, but Sisko is definitely giving the orders in a command capacity.

An officer with the rank of Captain is giving "orders" to officers with the ranks of Commodore and Admiral?

Not so much, no.

Seriously. The sort of thing Sisko is doing is EXACTLY what an F.O. does. The FO will give "go orders" to various units on a battlefield to execute actions which are part of a plan.

Artillery units, led by Colonels or Lieutenant Colonels, take "orders" to fire from Corporals, in real life. This does not mean that the Corporal is in command of the Colonel, though.

 

[BK613]

Without taking sides in this debate on the proper contemporary use of the word freighter, my research indicates that historically freighters were regarded as ships that specifically accepted payment to move cargo. Military transports on the other hand (generally speaking) do not accept payment to move cargo.

This distinction appears to have existed, because historically the word freight specifically referred to the payment for transferring cargo, and not the cargo itself. Today, the distinction between freight and cargo has become blurred, which I believe contributes to the dispute here.

To weigh in briefly, a freighter and a transport can be absolutely identical in design - with the only real differance being who is operating each.

For example, two ww2 Liberty ships built side-by-side. One goes to a shipping company, and henceforth is referred to as a freighter. The other ship goes to the US Army (yes, the US Army had quite a large fleet during ww2) and henceforth is referred to as a transport.

FWIW, the US Navy doesn't use the term freight and rarely uses the term cargo. It uses the term stores. As in, food stores, combat stores, etc. and a supply ship picking up inventory in port is said to be "taking on stores."

 

[Maverisms]

An officer with the rank of Captain is giving "orders" to officers with the ranks of Commodore and Admiral?

Not so much, no.

Seriously. The sort of thing Sisko is doing is EXACTLY what an F.O. does. The FO will give "go orders" to various units on a battlefield to execute actions which are part of a plan.

Artillery units, led by Colonels or Lieutenant Colonels, take "orders" to fire from Corporals, in real life. This does not mean that the Corporal is in command of the Colonel, though.

Yes, much so. Sisko was in command. He wasn't just passing firing orders, he was shaping tactical responses, and designating strategic objectives.

Forward observers don't do that. A high authority says, I want you to make a hole in the enemy line. A slightly lower authority says, I want you to hammer their strike elements until they break discipline and formation. An even lower authority says, Break out strike groups seven, eight and nine, and detail them on Enemy elements at these coordinates.

A FO says, SG-7-Niner, your target is at 3-4-8 mark 2, 3-k-klicks from your position.

Depending on the command structure, the high level can "usurp" the prerogatives of any lower level authority. Technically it doesn't depend on the command structure, but if there's a guy to do that job, a good Admiral will stay out of that guy's way and let him do the job. But Admirals and Generals can micromanage to their heart's content.

Sisko was commanding the fleet. Remember, the writers don't really care to understand the military. Having someone else in command would have diminished the main characters. It had to be Ben Sisko.

Sisko was micromanaging a bit. Typically a fleet commander would identify a weakness and order it exploited but leave the how to the lower level commanders.

It was Sisko in "Sacrifice" who identified the "trap" and order it exploited anyway. An FO, at best would send a "It's a Trap!" warning up the line. (Preferably with an Admiral Akbar gif attached). Sisko not only decides to exploit the trap, but designates how the fleet will respond to the trap elements.

EDIT: Yes, I served. Air Force. My dad also served, Army Aviation. My brother, half of my uncles on dad's side. My best friend was in artillery. He was also in nuclear artillery.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

FWIW, the US Navy doesn't use the term freight and rarely uses the term cargo. It uses the term stores. As in, food stores, combat stores, etc. and a supply ship picking up inventory in port is said to be "taking on stores."

Thanks.

 

[Captain Robert April]

It should be noted that Ron Moore did three years in Navy ROTC, so how the military works is not an unknown concept to him, and is probably a big reason why DS9 handled stuff like this at least in the ballpark of plausibility.

Just imagine how the Voyager team would've done.

 

[El Capitan]

If there really were hundreds of destroyer/scouts, then building a few dreadnoughts would not seem out of the question, at least as experimental ships for the purpose of racking up some star-miles on the design. If we can conclude three nacelles was a failure (except in some alternate future in which Picard and Beverly finally get down and tie the knot), then it's not unreasonable to assume it was a failure because the design was actually tried out.

On paper, the FJ dreadnought has tactical properties that no other ship has, that it can get from point A to point B faster than any other ship, and that it can carry more firepower individually than any other ship while doing so. That offers some options beyond those one could get by concentrating the firepower of numerous lighter vessels.

You are right... I read somewhere that in ST universe Drednought could be any ship class loaded with experimental tehnology like Excelsior with transwarp propulsion, Prometheus with multivector assault mode...

 

[Timo]

It might also be that "dreadnought" is a term specifying a three-nacelle configuration, rather than a mission profile or a standard of equip. Perhaps in the Trek universe, HMS Dreadnought had three propellers rather than four, and was the first battleship to feature this advantageous arrangement, and the name stuck for that reason?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[7thsealord]

Triple / quadruple propellor arrangements were fairly common in that era.

But there is no reason why the intent of the name may not have changed / evolved somewhat in a few centuries. Certainly, others have. Though, personally, I would always word-associate "Dreadnought" with "big-ass warship" whatever else might happen.

In various sources, Star Fleet's frontline vessels (including most of the Enterprises) are referred to as "cruisers". We can take it that "dreadnought" in this context is used for a class other than a cruiser. I, for one, am quite OK with the premise that Dreadnoughts are big expensive and comparitively specialized vessels, usually held in reserve for if some really serious *stuff* happens.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Triple / quadruple propellor arrangements were fairly common in that era.

But there is no reason why the intent of the name may not have changed / evolved somewhat in a few centuries. Certainly, others have. Though, personally, I would always word-associate "Dreadnought" with "big-ass warship" whatever else might happen.

In various sources, Star Fleet's frontline vessels (including most of the Enterprises) are referred to as "cruisers". We can take it that "dreadnought" in this context is used for a class other than a cruiser. I, for one, am quite OK with the premise that Dreadnoughts are big expensive and comparitively specialized vessels, usually held in reserve for if some really serious *stuff* happens.

Yep.