Is the Luna-class an improvement?

[Christopher]

As far as I have read, the Luna is a perfect balance in exploration and a combat vessel.

According to the writers' bible I was given, the Luna class has a strictly conventional defensive package, nothing out of the ordinary. It's designed as an explorer first and foremost.

 

[Satyrquaze]

^Seconded.

Hey, I made an observation and raised a question based on that observation. Several people pointed out the flaw in my observation (none more eloquently than Christopher), and answered the question I raised.

No need for you guys to get pissed off over what is clearly an unrelated difference of opinion.

 

[Saquist]

As far as I have read, the Luna is a perfect balance in exploration and a combat vessel. Besides, the number of weapons on a vessel doesn't make it more powerful. If you look at the Arleigh Burke Class DDG and compare it to a Cleveland Class CL (comparable size in a mission), the Cleveland class has a much more armament, but the Arleigh Burke is vastly more powerful. Even if we go a little closer to the modern era, the Kidd Class DDG is larger and more armament, but the Arleigh Burke is still more powerful.

Naval ships only have a passing similarity to starships. The are both military offensive weapons of war but that is about it. They can't defend themselves from bellow and are just as vulnerable from above. Federation ships enjoy complete protection from all sides and usually complete offensive arcs 360 degrees around both planar axis.

From what I've gathered from Nemsis 52 disrupter banks, and 20 torpedo launchers might actually mean something significant in Trek.

I kind of like the Luna's look. It is much in tone with Starfleet's design ethic. Constitution Refit-Miranda, Excelsior-Centaur, Galaxy-Nebula, and now Sovereign-Luna.[/QUOTE]

^This is a public forum. This thread is equally the "business" of everyone who posts in it, and we are all free to contribute as we wish to the discussion.

It's okay.
I appreciate your efforts nonetheless.

 

[Christopher]

Naval ships only have a passing similarity to starships. The are both military offensive weapons of war but that is about it.

Hardly. Except for classes like the Defiant, Starfleet vessels are not "weapons of war." Most of them are multipurpose vessels intended largely for scientific, diplomatic, supply, and relief missions as well as defense when necessary. And they certainly are not offensive. Starfleet uses force only in defense, and as a last resort. The TNG Technical Manual puts it thusly (p. 133):

It is undeniably true that preparedness for battle is an important part of our mission, but we of Starfleet see ourselves foremost as explorers and diplomats.
...
Starfleet's charter... is based on a solemn commitment that force is not to be regarded as an option in interstellar relations unless all other options have been exhausted.
...
Starfleet teaches its people to use every means at their disposal to anticipate and defuse potential conflict before the need for force arises. This, according to Federation mandate, is Starfleet's primary mode of conflict resolution.

In other words, the purpose of Starfleet vessels and crews is not to wage war, but to prevent war. According to the original TNG writers' bible, there's a Starfleet axiom that "any military operation is automatically a failure."

 

[Saquist]

Hardly. Except for classes like the Defiant, Starfleet vessels are not "weapons of war." Most of them are multipurpose vessels intended largely for scientific, diplomatic, supply, and relief missions as well as defense when necessary. And they certainly are not offensive. Starfleet uses force only in defense, and as a last resort. The TNG Technical Manual puts it thusly (p. 133):

I've done quite a bit of analysis of Federation ships over the years. I've posted much of it here and else where. Some of the main facts are:

1. The primary ships of the Federation (Excelsior, Miranda, Ambassador and Nebula which have some of the older and most common registries are very well armed. (for their design and times) Usually 12 or more phaser and more than two launchers

2. The Federation has spent a considerable portion of the 24 century at war. The Cardassian War, the Tzenkethi War and the Dominion War.

3. The Registry supports a dramatic rise in ship production in the Early 24 century where the Federation produced tens of thousand of ships and apparently lost a considerable portion of them whether by destruction, decommission or lost. The magnitude of the increase was from less than 300 NCC's a year to over 1,000 a year

Federation ships for their size to weapons ratio cannot be dub true warships. Most Federation ships are Combat/Defenders. It'd say about 2/3's of the Fleet fit this classification due to their large size for diplomacy and scientific endeavors as well as colony efforts.

4. Crusiers are designations of size as:a large fast warship; smaller than a battleship and larger than a destroyer or more simply a detached mission of any capital ship.

Half of the remaining third are True Combat ships and the other half the third are Defenders with extremely limited weapons for their size. (this is of course not getting into how effective those weapons are now in the 24th century compared to when they were first constructed) that's how I've projected it.

It is undeniably true that preparedness for battle is an important part of our mission, but we of Starfleet see ourselves foremost as explorers and diplomats.
...
Starfleet's charter... is based on a solemn commitment that force is not to be regarded as an option in interstellar relations unless all other options have been exhausted.

...

Starfleet teaches its people to use every means at their disposal to anticipate and defuse potential conflict before the need for force arises. This, according to Federation mandate, is Starfleet's primary mode of conflict resolution. In other words, the purpose of Starfleet vessels and crews is not to wage war, but to prevent war. According to the original TNG writers' bible, there's a Starfleet axiom that "any military operation is automatically a failure."

Of course Starfleets purpose isn't to wage war.
But does that mean they don't use warships?

 

[Christopher]

1. The primary ships of the Federation (Excelsior, Miranda, Ambassador and Nebula which have some of the older and most common registries are very well armed. (for their design and times) Usually 12 or more phaser and more than two launchers

For defense, not offense. You said "offensive," and that is not correct.

2. The Federation has spent a considerable portion of the 24 century at war. The Cardassian War, the Tzenkethi War and the Dominion War.

The Tzenkethi and Cardassian conflicts were minor on the scale of the Federation as a whole. Remember, "The Wounded" established that the Cardassian war had been going on during the first two seasons of TNG, but those seasons clearly portrayed Starfleet as a peacetime organization sending out civilians and children on their ships, and portrayed Picard as an explorer who had little experience with taking life ("Conspiracy") and didn't consider war games a necessary or useful practice ("Peak Performance"). Clearly the Federation is such a vast civilization that a conflict on one border doesn't necessarily have a major effect on the rest of it. The only major, Federation-wide war we have any evidence for is the Dominion War.

Even aside from that, let's do the math. The Cardassian conflicts were from about 2355-67, on and off, and the Tzenkethi War was sometime during that same period. The Dominion War was 2373-5. Add a year for the conflict with the Klingons that preceded it, and we're talking only 15 years out of the century. And only the 2-3 years of the Dominion War constitute a major, Federation-wide war rather than an intermittent or localized border conflict. (Well, that and the Borg invasion of 2381, but that only lasted a couple of months and the final full-scale onslaught covered less than two days.)

3. The Registry supports a dramatic rise in ship production in the Early 24 century where the Federation produced tens of thousand of ships and apparently lost a considerable portion of them whether by destruction, decommission or lost. The magnitude of the increase was from less than 300 NCC's a year to over 1,000 a year

Exploration is a dangerous business. Look at how many Constitution-class ships or crews were lost between 2267-69 -- Constellation, Exeter, Intrepid, Defiant, Excalibur. None were lost during wartime.

For that matter, why assume that every possible registry number within a given interval was actually built? For instance, if the McGuffin class was NCC-4700s and they only built 13 of them, then there'd be no ships between NCC-4712 and NCC-4800, the prototype for the next class. So you may be overestimating the numbers.

Federation ships for their size to weapons ratio cannot be dub true warships. Most Federation ships are Combat/Defenders.

No, most Federation ships are explorers. You're making a mistake by limiting your thinking to combat-vessel analogies. There's nothing in "explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, boldly go where no one has gone before" about combat.

Of course Starfleets purpose isn't to wage war.
But does that mean they don't use warships?

Of course it does. A warship is a ship built for the purpose of war. Starfleet vessels are built for the purpose of research and peacekeeping. The Defiant was a warship, a ship built exclusively for combat, but it was clearly indicated that it was a unique class of vessel, an exception to Starfleet's normal design philosophy -- so much so that Starfleet wouldn't even openly admit what it was:

http://www.chakoteya.net/DS9/447.htm

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.

It doesn't get any more explicit than that. Starfleet vessels are not warships, with very rare exceptions.

 

[Timo]

Starfleet vessels are not warships

Says a Bajoran terrorist, with sarcasm dripping off her pretty lips. And Sisko scowls and ignores her.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Saquist]

For defense, not offense. You said "offensive," and that is not correct.

Since Offensive would mean to attack an enemy, and weapon is that which does harm or damage, external of the purpose of Star Fleets bottom line, then describing these implements as Offensive is according with their uses. Furthering the point, Federation ships have "alot" of them.

The Tzenkethi and Cardassian conflicts were minor on the scale of the Federation as a whole. Remember, "The Wounded" established that the Cardassian war had been going on during the first two seasons of TNG, but those seasons clearly portrayed Starfleet as a peacetime organization sending out civilians and children on their ships, and portrayed Picard as an explorer who had little experience with taking life ("Conspiracy") and didn't consider war games a necessary or useful practice ("Peak Performance").

Officially there is no word on how long the Tzenkethi War proceeded and there is no mention of it in TNG yet Sisko was clearly involved along with Admiral Leyton.

According to Memory Alpha (who maybe correct or in error) the Cardassian War started in 2347. A treaty was established in 2367. More than 5 years of war. 19 years and what is described as numerous conflicts and skirmishes.

Clearly the Federation is such a vast civilization that a conflict on one border doesn't necessarily have a major effect on the rest of it. The only major, Federation-wide war we have any evidence for is the Dominion War.

The only major war proven is the Dominion War the other wars are expressed explicitly and somewhat implicit as to how serious they were. Evidence exist but somewhat contradictory to the scene and quite circumstantial. Piecing together the writers whims has always been problematic. I don't suggest there is any real continuity only a pretense at it.

Even aside from that, let's do the math. The Cardassian conflicts were from about 2355-67, on and off, and the Tzenkethi War was sometime during that same period. The Dominion War was 2373-5. Add a year for the conflict with the Klingons that preceded it, and we're talking only 15 years out of the century. And only the 2-3 years of the Dominion War constitute a major, Federation-wide war rather than an intermittent or localized border conflict. (Well, that and the Borg invasion of 2381, but that only lasted a couple of months and the final full-scale onslaught covered less than two days.)

According to my count nearly a Quarter Century of War. 19 years of Cardassian Conflict until the Treaty, 3 years of Dominion Conflict. One year of Klingon Conflict in the latter half of the century.

Included on top of that number is the Sheliak Treaty of Armens which implies a conflict (never stated explicitly)
A Ferengi Conflict that led to them entering into the Khitomer Accords.
And Despite the First Khitomer Accords a second Accords in the 24th century that implies heavily that without the self sacrifice of the Enterprise-C, 20 years before the Enterprise-D, that the Federation and Klingons were still in some sort of degenerating relationship. We're not given details. We can only speculate as to these being open conflict or some other sense... Tumultuous over lapping conflicts .

Exploration is a dangerous business. Look at how many Constitution-class ships or crews were lost between 2267-69 -- Constellation, Exeter, Intrepid, Defiant, Excalibur. None were lost during wartime.

For that matter, why assume that every possible registry number within a given interval was actually built? For instance, if the McGuffin class was NCC-4700s and they only built 13 of them, then there'd be no ships between NCC-4712 and NCC-4800, the prototype for the next class. So you may be overestimating the numbers.

Those ships represent only a hand full out of tens of thousands lost. If thousands of ships were lost I would rather describe that as fatal and not just dangerous.

As for the NCC's being blocked by class, I have no evidence to indulge in that particular conjecture. Rather DS9 heavily implies that every number is a contract vessel. As mentioned before it is factual that the Dominion had 30,000 ships between it's self and the Cardassian Union. With the Klingons only having 1200 and the visual evidence supports a greater number of Star Fleet ships in every single engagement over the Romulans. Voyager and DS9 also imply that prototype ships are sometimes non commissioned in the case of Prometheus and Defiant but their number still counts. The Excelsior implies that prototypes are given an official contract of construction being converted to NX to NCC which I've speculated means that the class has entered official production in numbers.

But I need something that implies that a running count is something other than a progressive increase, something from canon. Running counts depict progressive order. We do know there are consecutive ship registries, 1700, 1701, 1703. Intrepid suggest that NCC's are given chronologically not in blocks. Voyager is deduced to be the second ship of the class even though it's 56 units after Intrepid by the fact that she is the first ship to be tested in deep space. Other than the mere conjecture that not every number is a filled number which only serves the purpose of being incredulous, I've personally found no such evidence. Is there something that implies otherwise to you?

No, most Federation ships are explorers. You're making a mistake by limiting your thinking to combat-vessel analogies. There's nothing in "explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, boldly go where no one has gone before" about combat.

Because Combat and Exploration are not mutually exclusive of a starship's abilities I chose one aspect of focus to determine whether there abilities are more offensive or scientific. Aside from the mission statement and the Star Fleet bottom line I was only seeking to describe there abilities in a combat or non combat frame of reference. For instance a non combat ship like the Oberth has little to no offensive weapons and is dedicated (almost strictly) to scientific endeavors. There are other ships that imply the same such as the Steamrunner Norway and Sabre class. They all have less than Five phaser arrays which is a basic Star Fleet armament. Most of the StarFleet ships have 10 or more covering all arcs. That implies a priority of combat. The Luna class has prominent sensor packages. Ships that also have them are the Intrepid, Nova, Nebula and Galaxy. (strictly according to the hardpoints)

But I broke down classification explicitly on size/weapon ratio

Galaxy:
It's incredible size is not an offensive priority. That size serves non combat abilities, scientific laboratories , Colonization, Evacuation, diplomacy and luxury. (including an impressive full 360 sensor array)

Yet offensively it's more than well armed. 12 arrays and 3 cluster fire launchers. It's also quite fast.

The emphasis is Defender/ Combatant because it's size purpose dominates it's offensive purpose. or Explorer/Combatant

Intrepid
Intrepid on the other hand has far less space. It's not meant for luxury or diplomacy, colonization or evacuation purposes. It's hard points suggest that size is scientific.

Offensively it has more weapons than the Galaxy and nearly matched Defensive abilities. It's the fastest Federation ship aswell. It was described as quick and smart with a tactial sensor range of 15 lightyears which was far greater than Galaxy and better than any ship in the fleet. Intrepid is also highly manuverable for it's size.

There is an emphasis here on Combat with it's weapons and speed and yet a nearly equal role of exploration. I define it as a Combat/Defender or Combat/Explorer.

Defiant
It's size suggest limited space especially it's actual volumetric on the 120m ship most believe it to be. Limited scientific resources.

While it's armament suggest an extreme emphasis on forward offense with four canon and 2 launchers with other armaments depending on the episode. The ship is also extremely maneuverable

It's a Combat ship

Every Federation ship seems to fit this sort of classification much better than terms like Destroyer, battleship or frigate and it also properly fits the classification of "crusier" which is the common classification we've seen and heard in canon which defines as a detached (solitary) independent mission warship.

I've looked some definitions of Warship:
Warship: A combat ship.
Warship: a government ship that is available for waging war
Warship: A warship is a ship that is built and primarily intended for combat. Warships are usually built in a completely different way than merchant ships. As well as being armed, warships are designed to withstand damage and are usually faster and more maneuverable than merchant ships. ...
Warship: Any ship built or armed for naval combat


So that is the schism between what Star Fleet says they are an what the ships abilities prove to be. It's also (apparently) the on going debate between fans as to Star Fleets mission between what they say and the impression that is given with their ships (who the klingons certainly doubt), their uniforms, rank and structure.

I don't think there is a schism. The ships are commonly warships but the purpose is defense of the Federation and it's allies and peaceful exploration while it's membership or attendance is by far for the majority of scientific endeavors which is why I think Star Fleet weaponry relies on a high degree of automation and thus do not require large crews like comparing the original enterprise of 288 meters and 400 crew to that of the real Enterprise with a crew of 5,800 at 344 meters.

Starfleet vessels are not warships

Says a Bajoran terrorist, with sarcasm dripping off her pretty lips. And Sisko scowls and ignores her.

Timo Saloniemi

hmm. I'm not sure if that how it was intended, Timo.
I took her surprise as genuine. Why do you think it was sarcastic?

 

[Timo]

From Visitor's delivery. And it would fit perfectly for a Bajoran to be annoyed with the self-righteous pacifism of the Federation when her homeworld was left in the hands of cruel occupiers (and appeared to be the only world thus treated) in the aftermath of a conflict which the Federation apparently won hands down. Bajor was at the very doorstep of Cardassia, yet bordered on neutral space on the other side, indicating that the Feds had negated all Cardassian expansion in that direction yet stopped before liberating Bajor.

Even when serving with Sisko, Kira was always short on firepower that the Federation could have delivered to her if not for political considerations, right from "Emissary" on. That she now actually got some would have been a perfect thing to let some of the bitterness surface.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Saquist]

From Visitor's delivery.

That's tempting to go with but I don't see it.
Christopher's interpretation seems more justified. It was one line spoken incredulously but not necessarily sarcastically.

(I acknowledge that this would be a conflict for me to disagree with you but nonetheless)

And it would fit perfectly for a Bajoran to be annoyed with the self-righteous pacifism of the Federation when her homeworld was left in the hands of cruel occupiers (and appeared to be the only world thus treated) in the aftermath of a conflict which the Federation apparently won hands down. Bajor was at the very doorstep of Cardassia, yet bordered on neutral space on the other side, indicating that the Feds had negated all Cardassian expansion in that direction yet stopped before liberating Bajor.

Yes it would fit perfectly with those observations. The question is...is Kira doubting that the typical star ship is a warship or is she doubting the Federation's Company line. I think she's doubting the company line...she says "believe" in direct contradiction to his use of the term warship. It doesn't really tell us what she believes about the rest of the fleet's ships just this particular context of Defiant creation.

 

[Tomalak]

For that matter, why assume that every possible registry number within a given interval was actually built? For instance, if the McGuffin class was NCC-4700s and they only built 13 of them, then there'd be no ships between NCC-4712 and NCC-4800, the prototype for the next class. So you may be overestimating the numbers.

Exactly, and it's daft to think every single possible ship was armed to the teeth. Given the expansion of the Federation, I'd say a large proportion of those tens of thousands of ships were supply ships, freighters, colony and passenger ships, and smaller craft like the Jenolen and the Runabouts, each which has its own NCC number.

There was probably some predecessor ship to the DS9 Runabouts floating around. Give a load of them to every single Starbase, planet, orbital facility etc in the Federation, and the numbers easily stack up.

No need to assume Starfleet was cranking out 20,000 Excelsiors in the intervening period.

And another thought that occurs - given the Federation was supposed to have expanded quite a bit in the first half of the 24th century, that's a lot of new planets with presumably their own fleets. Perhaps these were absorbed into Starfleet and commissioned with NCC numbers? IIRC "Rapture" talks about the Bajoran militia being amalgamated with Starfleet once Bajor becomes a Federation member.

 

[Christopher]

Since Offensive would mean to attack an enemy, and weapon is that which does harm or damage, external of the purpose of Star Fleets bottom line, then describing these implements as Offensive is according with their uses. Furthering the point, Federation ships have "alot" of them.

Offense is the opposite of defense. Offense is initiating a fight. Starfleet doesn't do that. It defends itself if attacked.

Officially there is no word on how long the Tzenkethi War proceeded and there is no mention of it in TNG yet Sisko was clearly involved along with Admiral Leyton.

But there is no basis for the belief that it was a major conflict, and given that it must've been close to the beginning of TNG, and that TNG clearly depicted a Starfleet that was not even remotely on a wartime footing, the only reasonable interpretation is that it wasn't a major conflict. Add to that the fact that we barely ever even heard the Tzenkethi mentioned, and there is simply no justification for the assumption that the conflict was on a massive scale.

According to Memory Alpha (who maybe correct or in error) the Cardassian War started in 2347.

No, it said it started "as far back as 2347." That means that's the earliest possible start date that there is evidence for, but the actual start date is unknown. It's basing that date on the fact that the Setlik III massacre took place in 2347, but we don't know if that massacre was part of the same continuous conflict referenced as occurring in the 2350s and '60s.

A treaty was established in 2367. More than 5 years of war. 19 years and what is described as numerous conflicts and skirmishes.

But largely intermittent, and again, the evidence is that it was localized and didn't have a major effect on the Federation as a whole. The Galaxy class was built and launched during the Cardassian conflict, and it was the most peace-oriented starship design you could imagine, a university village in space, a luxury liner-cum-research institute with hundreds of civilians and children aboard. There is no way such a ship would've been designed in a time when the entire Federation was engulfed in some massive, all-encompassing war. The only way to resolve the continuity error that "The Wounded" introduced by retconning the Cardassian War into existence is to conclude that it was a small, localized conflict that didn't do much to put a dent in Starfleet's primarily peacetime-oriented mission philosophy.

The bottom line is that Gene Roddenberry created TNG to be a show representing a civilization in peacetime. He designed a lead ship that was peaceful in purpose, gave it a captain who was modelled on explorers and adventurers like Jacques Cousteau and Auguste Piccard rather than on soldiers, etc. Even back in TOS, where the characters were more overtly military, he showed us a Starfleet whose primary approach was to solve problems through reason and diplomacy rather than shooting stuff and blowing stuff up. Interpreting Star Trek as a franchise about war and battleships is like interpreting 24 as a franchise about Amnesty International. It's a fundamental misreading of the entire philosophy of the work.

And for the life of me I don't understand why anyone would want to demean this optimistic vision of the future by interpreting it as just another hackneyed space-war saga.

A Ferengi Conflict that led to them entering into the Khitomer Accords.

What the hell are you talking about? There's never been a state of war between the Federation and the Ferengi. The Ferengi were invited to participate in discussions for an expansion of the Khitomer Accords in mid-2381, but this was because they had been allied with the Federation during the recent Borg invasion. All the nations invited to participate in those talks were members of the anti-Borg alliance, those which had not already signed on with the Typhon Pact. And yes, there was one Ferengi mercenary who was employed by the nascent Pact to undermine some of the Federation's relief efforts, but she did not serve the Ferengi government.

As for the NCC's being blocked by class, I have no evidence to indulge in that particular conjecture.

I'm surprised you'd think otherwise. My understanding is that it's always been the default assumption of technical fandom: the first 2-3 digits represent the class, the rest represent the ship within that class.

Besides, who cares? The overarching fact is that Gene Roddenberry did not create Star Trek to be a series about warfare. War stories have been the exception rather than the rule over the history of the franchise. You can't change that by splitting hairs about ship numbers. And I can't imagine why the hell you would want to.

For instance a non combat ship like the Oberth has little to no offensive weapons and is dedicated (almost strictly) to scientific endeavors. There are other ships that imply the same such as the Steamrunner Norway and Sabre class. They all have less than Five phaser arrays which is a basic Star Fleet armament. Most of the StarFleet ships have 10 or more covering all arcs. That implies a priority of combat.

No, it implies a priority of SELF-DEFENSE. Combat is a last resort when all other, better options fail. Just because Starfleet vessels take care to protect their crews and passengers from the unpredictable threats of space, that doesn't mean they consider it their primary purpose to get into fights.

Yet offensively it's more than well armed.

DEfensively.

Defiant
It's size suggest limited space especially it's actual volumetric on the 120m ship most believe it to be. Limited scientific resources.

While it's armament suggest an extreme emphasis on forward offense with four canon and 2 launchers with other armaments depending on the episode. The ship is also extremely maneuverable

It's a Combat ship

Well, duh. I've said already that the Defiant is a warship, and it's explicitly been stated that it's unique among Starfleet vessels.

 

[Timo]

^^...And whatever the mechanism of expansion, we're still left with combat fleets that only number hundreds of ships (two fleets combined is just 600 ships in "Sacrifice of Angels"), and we never hear of a fleet with a number higher than ten. We're not speaking of tens of thousands of combat ships, then, but only thousands. Or then some incredible statistical fluke kept us from hearing of fleets 11 through 78, even though our knowledge of the Dominion war appears to span the entire theater from Bajor to the Romulan Neutral Zone.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Tomalak]

And for the life of me I don't understand why anyone would want to demean this optimistic vision of the future by interpreting it as just another hackneyed space-war saga.

How very true. I wouldn't have thought someone would tune into TOS or TNG every week for the super cool space battles, because they almost never happen.

Even the more militaristic episodes like "The Wounded" and "Chain of Command" are specifically about preventing war at all costs. That's why the contrast in "Yesterday's Enterprise" is so good, if the Enterprise were at war every day, it simply wouldn't work.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

I'm sorry but Starfleet is a military organization with an exploratory arm. You don't have designations such as frigate or heavy cruiser to denote explorers. Every Federation ship we have seen have some sort of offensive capabilities (phasers, torpedoes) and defensive capabilities (shields) down to the little runabout.

Regarding Christopher's idea about NCCs, it just doesn't work because the Defiant and the Intrepid class share the 74000s. The Galaxy and some of the Nebulas' share the 70000 and 71000s. I agree with Saquist in that regard. The registry NCCs are given whenever a ship enters Starfleet service from construction or non-Starfleet vessels being absorbed into Starfleet. I'm assuming the the Danube-class are only a recent modern version of the runabout and so the runabout classes have swelled the NCC registry by a lot.

 

[Tomalak]

I'm sorry but Starfleet is a military organization with an exploratory arm. You don't have designations such as frigate or heavy cruiser to denote explorers. Every Federation ship we have seen have some sort of offensive capabilities (phasers, torpedoes) and defensive capabilities (shields) down to the little runabout.

They are only "offensive" if you use them for those means. Federation ships don't go around attacking unprovoked, they only fire when fired upon. That makes them defensive. Starfleet isn't an organisation engaged in aggressive expansion by conquest. The weapons are for defensive purposes only. I struggle to see how someone can watch Star Trek and not come to this conclusion.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

I struggle to see how someone who Star Trek think differently. Just because Starfleet is a military organization doesn't mean it is out to conquer, which is an asinine way of thinking. I wouldn't want to live in a society where my protectors are merely explorers who don't want to protect. Especially, when said society is surrounded by hostile, aggressive, and territorial civilizations.

 

[Saquist]

^^...And whatever the mechanism of expansion, we're still left with combat fleets that only number hundreds of ships (two fleets combined is just 600 ships in "Sacrifice of Angels"), and we never hear of a fleet with a number higher than ten. We're not speaking of tens of thousands of combat ships, then, but only thousands. Or then some incredible statistical fluke kept us from hearing of fleets 11 through 78, even though our knowledge of the Dominion war appears to span the entire theater from Bajor to the Romulan Neutral Zone.

Timo Saloniemi

That's under the concept of "Theater of War"

A theatre is defined by the need for separate planning to be occurring at the highest command echelon of the participating armed forces, including where separate services are concerned. The delineation occurs along regional boundaries or maritime areas that require distinctly separate approach to planning from other regions bordering it. A single conflict may be waged in multiple theaters, and a single nation or an alliance may be participating in multiple theaters. Alternatively a nation may be participating in multiple but unrelated conflicts waged in separate theatres of war.

As we know the Sisko was responsible for the planning of the specific theater of war of the Bajor sector but there may have been others. And remember Sisko made his Operation Return fleet from "Elements" of those Fleets. What we saw was not representative of the entirety of those fleets.

So (just for speculation's sake) we know that Sisko's Fleet was 600. We know that Sisko wanted to match the Dominion Fleet of 1200 with ELEMENTS of the 7th, 5th and 9th fleets and a Klingon contingent. Those are quarters. If we apply that to the actual fleet since we know there was only 600 and two elements while the 9th Fleet element never arrived. That implies that an element size maybe 300. If there are indeed 4 elements to every fleet (conjecture of course) Then most fleets are 1,200 strong. With 10 Fleets on Record that's 12,000 ships.

Remember the 7th fleet was earlier decimated from 112 to 14 so the question is where did the other 188 ships come from, if that was the entire fleet?
This matches the canon description of 30,000 plus Dominion Cardassian ships. So obviously the Federation had to have equal to more. More if you consider how inferior Star Fleet was to the Dominion.

Offense is the opposite of defense. Offense is initiating a fight. Starfleet doesn't do that. It defends itself if attacked.

In a state of war Star Fleet has been shown to take the initiative to fight. Such as initiating the attack on Tarus III, that fleet I'm sure didn't wait for the ship yards to attack them. Nor did they wait for the Chintoka weapons platforms grid to come on-line and fire first.

Defense is often considered to be an action to ward off such as to block or shield. While offense is any attack, such as to parry. You can attack in your own defense but that's not my meaning in this context. There is different uses of the word such as how you're using it but it is a confusing position in this context sense we're speaking of combat ability and not intent and mission purposes...or rather I'm talking about combat ability and you seem to be talking about mission purposes. So clearly we're not on the same page.

But there is no basis for the belief that it was a major conflict, and given that it must've been close to the beginning of TNG, and that TNG clearly depicted a Starfleet that was not even remotely on a wartime footing, the only reasonable interpretation is that it wasn't a major conflict.

I can't make a statement either way especially because there is a gap of 12 years between Sisko'sAcademy days and the Saratoga 2354 to 2366. Picard took command of Enterprise in 2364 so that's room for a positive assertion even if you assume Sisko was on Saratoga for only 2 years.

No, it said it started "as far back as 2347." That means that's the earliest possible start date that there is evidence for, but the actual start date is unknown. It's basing that date on the fact that the Setlik III massacre took place in 2347, but we don't know if that massacre was part of the same continuous conflict referenced as occurring in the 2350s and '60s.

A massacre and the resulting actions of Star Fleet personnel like Obrien and Maxwell would be properly defined was open hostilities or conflict. Whether you would like to call it War or not is open for interpretation depending on the need or lack of officiality. I'm sure it felt like war to O'brien. I call it war, whether it was continuous or not I didn't make reference to.

But largely intermittent, and again, the evidence is that it was localized and didn't have a major effect on the Federation as a whole.

The Galaxy class was built and launched during the Cardassian conflict, and it was the most peace-oriented starship design you could imagine, a university village in space, a luxury liner-cum-research institute with hundreds of civilians and children aboard. There is no way such a ship would've been designed in a time when the entire Federation was engulfed in some massive, all-encompassing war.

The only way to resolve the continuity error that "The Wounded" introduced by retconning the Cardassian War into existence is to conclude that it was a small, localized conflict that didn't do much to put a dent in Starfleet's primarily peacetime-oriented mission philosophy.

I would point out that the Memory Alpha article calls it the First of 3 major wars and stipulates that the Federation Fought to a stalemate with the Cardassian Union. In the episode you mention Picard does say that he was in battle with the Cardassians aswell and that this would be a "new sustained conflict" (according to the admiral) so there certainly is a conflict... for you, but then again I don't consider the Galaxy or the Nebula to be contradiction to that conflict of a major war.

The bottom line is that Gene Roddenberry created TNG to be a show representing a civilization in peacetime. He designed a lead ship that was peaceful in purpose, gave it a captain who was modelled on explorers and adventurers like Jacques Cousteau and Auguste Piccard rather than on soldiers, etc. Even back in TOS, where the characters were more overtly military, he showed us a Starfleet whose primary approach was to solve problems through reason and diplomacy rather than shooting stuff and blowing stuff up. Interpreting Star Trek as a franchise about war and battleships is like interpreting 24 as a franchise about Amnesty International. It's a fundamental misreading of the entire philosophy of the work.

I understand your perspective.

What the hell are you talking about? There's never been a state of war between the Federation and the Ferengi. The Ferengi were invited to participate in discussions for an expansion of the Khitomer Accords in mid-2381, but this was because they had been allied with the Federation during the recent Borg invasion. All the nations invited to participate in those talks were members of the anti-Borg alliance, those which had not already signed on with the Typhon Pact.

I had no knowledge.
I assumed the presence of the Ferengi at the accords was strictly towards banning the use of subspace weapons.

I'm surprised you'd think otherwise. My understanding is that it's always been the default assumption of technical fandom: the first 2-3 digits represent the class, the rest represent the ship within that class.

I've never even heard of such speculation.
Yet Fleet size is directly related to the issue of the combat nature that may or may not exist for Star Fleet.

No, it implies a priority of SELF-DEFENSE. Combat is a last resort when all other, better options fail. Just because Starfleet vessels take care to protect their crews and passengers from the unpredictable threats of space, that doesn't mean they consider it their primary purpose to get into fights.

The word combat merely signifies an engagement or battle it does not mean aggressor or self defense but it can mean either. I was describing the nature of the weapon not it's proper use by the entity which employs it.

DEfensively.

Was the Phoenix's weapons used offensively or defensively in "The Wounded"?

Well, duh. I've said already that the Defiant is a warship, and it's explicitly been stated that it's unique among Starfleet vessels.

It was merely an exemplification of a category.
You may regard it as an agreement if you wish.

I'm sorry but Starfleet is a military organization with an exploratory arm. You don't have designations such as frigate or heavy cruiser to denote explorers. Every Federation ship we have seen have some sort of offensive capabilities (phasers, torpedoes) and defensive capabilities (shields) down to the little runabout.

Perhaps I'm a big dummy but that is exactly how I see it.

I'm assuming the the Danube-class are only a recent modern version of the runabout and so the runabout classes have swelled the NCC registry by a lot.

This ship and the Insurrection Scout ship would be able to be produced in Great numbers Fleet Wide for stations and Starbases. So just considering the stations and Starbase we know of...105 and say each (average) had 5 or so Runnabouts that get listed as NCC's. That's 520. Not a huge impact on the NCC's you can double it if you think there are more Starbases than what's been shown. But I believe there isn't quite this large of a demand for them since War capable shuttles are shown to fairy people from ships to Starbases regularly and they don't impact the NCC's at all. I think it's possible that the runabouts are a Deep Space or Border World tool meant for the longer range. (Note that they can only achieve warp 5 probably just like the shuttles).

 

[ProwlAlpha]

Was the Defiant used defensively when Sisko contaminated the atmosphere of Solosos III? Actually, the Ferengi were aggressive and belligerent in the early days of TNG.

What I meant with the runabouts, is that every time a newer class of runabouts developed, the older ones would be decommissioned or sent somewhere and the new class would take over.

 

[Tomalak]

Was the Defiant used defensively when Sisko contaminated the atmosphere of Solosos III?

Remember how shocked everyone was? Even Klingon warrior Worf thought it was wrong.

Sisko was lucky no one died, but even so the contrivance that the Cardassian and Human colonists could just swap planets was a convenient bit of scripting.