Miranda Class Phasers

Here is a version at the matched saucer widths. I think you're right for purposes of scaling, it's close enough.



From a designers intent standpoint, an excerpt from Memory Alpha which has an excerpt from The Star Trek Magazine:

..the USS Reliant, was designed at Paramount by Joe Jennings, Mike Minor and Lee Cole. On the design Jennings noted,"It was the first time a new spaceship had been designed since the Klingon battle cruiser. That was a lot of fun. She was supposed to be a coastal and geodetic survey ship, like a buoy tender. She would be armed perhaps, but only lightly; she wasn't a lion ship like the Enterprise. Also, remember, the Enterprise was supposed to be an exploratory vessel, where the armament was secondary. That was even more true for the Reliant; she was supposed to just stick around in the known universe and take care of things that everybody already knew about.(...)It was fun to try to make it look identifiable different; we had long postulated that the circular saucer said "This is Starfleet Navy," and it uses engines that looked pretty much like those on the Enterprise."(Star Trek: The Magazine Volume 3, Issue 5, page 69-70)

​

And about ship sizes from alt.tv.star-trek.ds9:

Chris wrote:
> Well, I am looking for some ship size info.. I know that the Enterprise is
> about (or exactly) 641m long, and the Borg ship is about 3 times that at
> 2000m (all dimentions).. I'd really like to know how USS Voyager, USS
> Defiant and the two known Jem Ha'dar ship classes (the fighter and the
> battleship) compare to those sizes. I would imagine that all of the latter
> are smaller then the Enterprise however the Jem Hadar battleship could come
> close? Any info on that at all?

> Trypt



Akira = 860'
Sabre = 625'
Steamrunner = 800'
Vor'Cha = 1500'
Neg'Var = 2250'
Jem Hadar Battle Cruiser = 2500'
Jem Hadar "Bug" Fighter = 500'
Cardassian "Hediki" Fighter = 500'
Voyager = 1200' to 1250'
Defiant = 560'
Small Bord of Prey = 360'
Martok's Bird of Prey = 450'
Runabouts = 65'
DS-9 Station = 5280'
Reliant (Merada Class) = 500' to 560'
Some fans may argue these sizes with me...but these ARE what we use on
the Trek shows. You may get some variation in an episode in order to
satisfy a particular story point.

David Stipes, Visual Effects Supervisor, DS-9

​

EAS lists the Reliant as 243m. Memory-Alpha lists it at 233-234m. My model comes in at 242.7m with a matched beam and 227.6m with a matched bridge dome.

Regarding "outgunning and outrunning":

In TOS there is the Orion small scout ship in "Journey To Babel" that was configured on a suicide mission to destroy the Enterprise. The ship's power output was so high that her phaser strikes were more powerful than the Enterprise's and still be able to outrun the Enterprise. So we know from precedent that power output, not size determines firepower.

But, we do not know in TWOK whether the Reliant or the Enterprise is more powerful in an undamaged state. We do know that in "The Search for Spock" that the Enterprise held speed records that Stiles wanted to break, so odds are that the Enterprise (when not crippled) is faster than Reliant (when not crippled).

 

Very well.
I stand Corrected. Since this was the origin of the contention and considering your confirm-able efforts of scaling (photo) matching then it would indeed seem they are quite similar in volume and presumable in tonnage aswell as per G2K's volume assessment. They have to be both Heavy Cruisers...or the more canon Battlecruiser Class (as designated by the Klingons.) For the 24th century these would be light cruisers.

You're going to have to try to keep up.
I've been on the "No speculation" path since Page 6 post 79.
A VAST Majority of your post have been ignored for this and other reasons.

How you view it is none of my concern. Cap it for emphasis all you won't but it doesn't make it true. The pattern you see is the one you want to see, that's made evident by your previous strings of Red Herring and Starwman Fallacies. These are by nature fallacies of desperation where by the only recourse is to mutilate the opponents statements for the FACADE of a direct attack against the argument. After seeing this from YOU, imagine how unruffled I am at something as trifling as hyperbole.

The only thing I'm concerned with is the FACTS, logical deduction and evidence. That's how you get to the bottom of things. NOT by sticking to your guns even when you're proven WRONG (as I was). I have NO use for ego. That is why I apologized. I did NOT "stop posting altogether". (you think to MUCH of yourself.) You never replied to my apology or anything else on that thread, thus no reason to post again.

Yes, I do make retractions if someone points out an error.
Once more I do not hold ground that's been proven wrong. (standard debate practices) I'm looking for the truth. I don't care that you see it as a weakness, this is my method of correction. At least I have one....

Try thinking...

The last statement stands against the argument's context. It also stands against statement one. I'll go ahead and afford you with the answer instead of drawing this out. Carriers are not designated by tonnage (which is the context of the argument)

This is your standard trifling response. It may not be WHERE I predicted but you're nothing if not consistent. You had a bad hand and had nothing of value to say against the logic. Stubborn, you stand your ground...why should I care what you ignore?

You would have me react to your petulance rather than you type some actual reasoning which you could have put in place of a most pathetic and transparent of rejoinders foreshadowed from your first sentence?

You're not the first person on a forum cursed with habitual lazy responses and you won't be the last. Shame on me for expecting something articulate...yes....please...ignore me. You make yours AND my job easier...

 

Just to muddy up things, let's remember that neither are cruisers.

And the specific concepts of "heavy" and "light" cruisers, the only time they really were used (1930-1945ish), never were related to tonnage. They were related exclusively to the caliber of the main guns. If it's below 6.1 inches, light. If it's above that but below 8 inches, heavy. If it's higher than that, you are guilty of violating the London Naval Treaty and apparently building a battle cruiser.

Timo Saloniemi

 

Regarding the classification of the ''Miranda''-class starship, the canon identifies the category of this class as either a science ship or a supply ship. I don't believe if it has ever been called a cruiser.

In the non-canonical realm, Sternbach, in the Deep Space 9 Technical Manual, categorizes this class as a medium cruiser, and states the length for this class at 277.76 meters.

It's not clear to me what the difference is between the three 'levels' of cruisers - heavy, medium, and light.

 

In the context of the DS9 Tech Manual, the heaviest light cruiser is 650,000 MT, the lightest medium cruiser is 622,000 MT and the heaviest 1,300,000 MT, and the only heavy cruiser is 3,055,000 MT... In short, no actual rhyme or reason there, but at least some sort of a trend to indicate that the adjectives refer to mass.

Also, the mass figures are reputed to have been chosen to be proportional to length, rather than volume - which makes no sense when we think of the considerable width of most ship designs, but sort of makes sense if we assume that the virtually one-dimensional nacelles are the densest and heaviest components. The two otherwise nearly identical Voyager kitbashes have very different warp engine lengths, and the long-nacelled one is quoted as more than twice as heavy as the short-nacelled one...

Historically speaking, the only working definition for "heavy" and "light" is the gun caliber, and there's no "medium".

Speaking in the Trek context, the only canonically known heavy cruiser (apart from the Constitution, whose identity was only given in some display graphics) is the Ambassador, and the only canonically known light cruiser is the unseen USS Drake, whereas the equally unseen USS Tripoli was called cruiser. Since two out of three are unknown designs, we can hardly draw conclusions!

Timo Saloniemi

 

And yet you've been tossing speculation left and right ever since, without ever bothering to present any hard evidence.

Neither are cruisers or destroyers. And by direct extension, neither are starships.

Which means the size difference between Reliant and Enterprise is entirely irrelevant, since a difference in volume and/or tonnage would not tell you anything at all about relative power or mission roles. A point you might have gotten sooner if you weren't too busy being pleased with yourself.

 

Yeah it's true. I don't think we can find a historical relevancy to 23rd or 24th century ships. But both naval and starships seemed to be just getting larger and more advanced dating the former classifications.

However the point was specifically that Carriers are never designated by tonnage but by function.

Purely argumentative.

Conjecture.We don't know that.It's your argument so trim the hedges. If you believed the context was invalid at the out set you wasted time entertaining it.

I disagree. My premise was that a smaller Reliant would fit the role of a destroyer.In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group and defend them against smaller, powerful, short-range attackers.-wiki

Begging Off your responsibility to get straight to the point does not impress me. You take every opportunity to Red Herring and take a shot. The distraction is yours and only yours.

 

Looks like you nailed it there. Nice job.

 

It's a deduction, pure and simple. If Starfleet vessel designations are based on old naval terminology, then they are not derived from tonnage. If the designations are based on mission role or capability, then they are STILL not derived from tonnage. If those designations ARE derived from tonnage, Reliant is close enough to Enterprise' size for them to have the same designation anyway.

Therefore, IF Reliant has a different designation than Enterprise, it isn't because of its size. So 6% or 16% doesn't matter one bit.

Your premise is that the Reliant is a fast maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battlegroup and defend them against smaller, powerful short range attackers.

You launch this premise despite the fact that, relative to Enterprise
- Reliant's top speed is unknown
- Reliant's maneuvering capabilities are unknown
- Reliant's role in fleet actions is unknown
- Reliant's efficacy against "smaller, powerful, short range attackers" is unknown.
- Neither Reliant nor any of its sister ships have ever been shown in this mission role.

Your ONLY support for this premise is that Reliant is--according to you--16% smaller than Enterprise, this despite the fact that modern naval vessels of the same designation can be anywhere between 20 and 30% smaller than other ships in the same mission role.

Now, what was it you said earlier about "conjecture?"

If I were trying to impress you I would wiggle my ears and sing the national anthem backwards. That would probably be easier than getting a straight answer out of you, though.

 

Without any further information, yeah, it is not possible to determine what the Reliant's classification would be. Depending on where you source the size, she's either about the same volume (+/- 9%) as the Enterprise or significantly less (DS9). Her actual capabilities like power output, speed and maneuverability are unknowns for the TOS movie era.

 

You don't know what deduction means.
You have but one premise "If Starfleet vessel designations are based on old naval terminology," whichyou assume proves your point,that's the definition of circular reasoning. Your premise or proposition in of it's self does not equate, mean or equal Star Fleet ships are not derived from tonnage. You are assuming that all parameters of the designation of naval ships are projected to Star Fleet ships. We don't know that.

Conjecture stands.

(sigh) It's not a premise. And you would assume to lecture me on logic and deduction.
It's a theorem or proposition.

True

True, however a smaller ship even in Star Trek is still ofte enough more maneuverable.

That's not true. We know that Mirandas were used to escort Defiant on numerous occasions. We also know that Mirandas were either part of the Cruiser Wing designation or were (most likely) assigned escort for Galaxy Wings and Cruiser Wings for which the name Cruiser and Galaxy designates the lead ship.

Not exactly. While it is unknown it can be deduced.

Unknown.

Your case against me is suffering from inflamed facts. These aren't exactly unknowns. We have information by demonstration or deduction, you jumped the gun on the big bold "ONLY".

We'll get to your issues on vocabulary later. Limited information often leads to conjecture but it shouldn't be the substance of the argument such as your example of circular reasoning.

Objectivity, from you, would be more than enough to impress me.
Logic, from you, would impress me.
Argument with out ego, from you, would impress me.
Listening, from you, would impress me.
Saying what you mean would impress me.
Anything aside from that is irrelevant.


What's more You haven't asked for any answers.
You've been dictating.
I really don't care either way. You are not even amateur at best.

I can't agree if she's similar in size and armament to Enterprise then heavy cruiser or battle cruiser is an appropriate designator. Escpecially since we know she out gunned Enterprise in the Nebula which is contradictory if you believe Warp Drive equals Main Power Fallacy.

 

SPOCK: She can out-run us and out-gun us. But there is the Mutara Nebula at one five three mark four.

The only fallacy here is that you believe that Reliant can out-run and out-gun the Enterprise when they are in their undamaged states. (Which ship do we know holds speed records that the Excelsior wants to break?) Of course we know Reliant "can" out-gun and out-run the Enterprise at the moment Spock said it because of their damaged states.

However, you cannot make the claim that Reliant can out-run and out-gun the Enterprise when both ships are undamaged.

And, it's Phaser Power = Ship's Power Output (Main Power+Aux+Batteries, whichever is available).

 

That was a three part statement, which now must be repeated:
1) If these designations are based on old naval terminology, they are not based on tonnage.
2) If these designations are based on mission role or capability, they are not based on tonnage.
3) If the designations ARE based on tonnage, then the size difference between Enterprise and Reliant is not large enough to conclusively give them different designations.

For Case 1), Enterprise may be a "heavy cruiser" in the same sense as its naval counterparts. YOU YOURSELF have claimed that Reliant was a destroyer in exactly the same sense using the same basic definition. Since that definition is not based on tonnage, then based on your own claims neither is Reliant's designation. You can always backpedal to Case 2, but since this means examining capability and mission role have nothing to do with tonnage, then Reliant's size compared to Enterprise is also irrelevant.

I'm not assuming anything at all, I've done nothing but identify the logical possibilities here.

But one of us started with the premise that Reliant is a "destroyer" because it is "a fast maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battlegroup and defend them against smaller, powerful short range attackers."

So which one of us is projecting modern definitions onto Starfleet?

In fact your EXACT WORDS were:

So I repeat: You launched this premise despite the fact that, relative to Enterprise
- Reliant's top speed is unknown
- Reliant's maneuvering capabilities are unknown
- Reliant's role in fleet actions is unknown
- Reliant's efficacy against "smaller, powerful, short range attackers" is unknown.
- Neither Reliant nor any of its sister ships have ever been shown in this mission role.

Your ONLY support for this premise is that Reliant is--according to you--16% smaller than Enterprise, this despite the fact that modern naval vessels of the same designation can be anywhere between 20 and 30% smaller than other ships in the same mission role.

Every single part of your premise is based purely on conjecture; the only part that ISN'T is the fact that Reliant is slightly smaller than Enterprise, and in no possible case is that difference large enough to support your premise in the first place.

Yes, they ARE exactly unknowns. The closest thing you come to a deductive statement is in saying the Mirandas were "escorting" the Defiant during the Dominion War, something we see exactly ONCE, despite the fact that Defiant is both smaller and more maneuverable than the Mirandas.

Come to think of it: Defiant has been shown several times in the "convoy escort" role, particularly in "Rules of Engagement." Defiant has been shown to be highly effective against small but powerful threats as early as "The Search." Defiant has been shown to be highly maneuverable and has very long endurance. If anything, the Defiant should be escorting the Mirandas, according to your premise.

 

That makes no sense...
The damage is irrelevant
You or Alpha has made the assertion that Main Power equals more powerful phasers, main power equals phasers, and that Main Power equals Warp drive. These assumptions are contradiction to his statements under the belief that Reliant merely had impulse...

That's the Fallacy.

It's still not a premise it's a syllogism and a bad one.
You still haven't narrowed down the conclusion "that there are no based on tonnage" with a second premise. It's still circular reasoning.

You didn't relate it right but this is the only proper syllogism in the group .

IF the designations are based on tonnage
IF Reliant and Enterprise have similar tonnage
THEN both ships are of the same class.

2 Premises followed by a conclusion is a syllogism.
In this case it is a logical syllogism.

That's wonderful but the basic definition I found may not delineate tonnage but it does give a size comparison. You're the one stuck on tonnage. I merely used volume to determine that size.

I am attempting to project some of the definitions per comparison.

However you are attempting to project all of those definitions which isn't possible.

That's because it was a premise.
The premise was dis-proven so it was merely a proposition. In other words it's not a given any more. Evidence shows the difference in size is 6% or less.Thus my previous statements stand.

No they aren't.
I haven't seen you work through the logic to come to that point.

It's not a deductive statement.
It's a declarative. A declaration of evidence to be specific.
And it's something we see EXACTLY 2x in Deep Space 9.

In this case Defiant is merely portrayed as smaller. Defiant's size is extremely variable. (Sacrifice of Angles had all kind of size problems) It is Defiant's role that is most important. It's given command over a wing of ships. It's the flag ship and the most powerful vessel present.

According to my Premise Defiant would be a Destroyer?
Indeed it would.

 

No, it's NOT a syllogism, nor intended to be one. It's a list of three possible conditions that are not presented separately.

For the third time:

1) If these designations are based on old naval terminology, they are not based on tonnage.
2) If these designations are based on mission role or capability, they are not based on tonnage.
3) If the designations ARE based on tonnage, then the size difference between Enterprise and Reliant is not large enough to conclusively give them different designations.

These are three possibilities which are mutually exclusive. For all three, there is no case where size actually determines the ship's designation e.g. "cruiser" or "destroyer." Do you intend to present such a case at any point in the future?

Tonnage is a function of volume, so that's just splitting hairs. Pick which case you're working with: are the designations determined by size, by mission role, or by analogy to 20th century naval designations?

But you haven't told us WHICH of those parameters you are trying to project. The only one you've actually mentioned is the relative size of the two ships, and yet it's already been shown that the size difference between Reliant and Enterprise is smaller than the difference between most modern naval vessels in the same class. All of the other parameters you mentioned followed exclusively from your assumption that a smaller ship MUST be a destroyer and therefore MUST have a similar mission role as 20th century destroyers.

In other words, Case #3 from the above list.

For the sake of completion, exactly WHICH previous statements are you talking about?

Which is what happens when you hit the "quote" button and type your responses line-by-line. The summary was contained in the following sentence thus:

This is not a separate thought from the sentence before it, so reassembling for clarity:

Yes, they ARE exactly unknowns. The closest thing you come to a deductive statement is in saying the Mirandas were "escorting" the Defiant during the Dominion War, something we see exactly ONCE, despite the fact that Defiant is both smaller and more maneuverable than the Mirandas.

FYI: Deductive statements are not facts, and neither are declarative statements.

There are not even THEORETICAL estimates that put the Defiant at the same size--let alone larger--than the Miranda class. Even those of us who believe in a larger Defiant than DS9 depicted stipulate a vessel at least 20% smaller than the Mirandas by volume.

Then let's look at Defiant's role, shall we? During DS9 Defiant fills the following roles:

- Installation defense (Favor the Bold, By Inferno's Light, A Call To Arms)
- Convoy escort (Rules of Engagement, Image in the Sand, The Sound of Her Voice)
- Engaging small, powerful targets that threaten larger vessels (Way of the Warrior, For the Uniform, most of the Dominion War)

2 and 3 are consistent with the destroyer role, as per your definitions. Add to that the fact that Defiant is one of the most maneuverable ships in Starfleet, plus the non-existence of aircraft carriers means there's no need for "escort" vessels as such (although space stations are similarly defended) then Defiant fits the destroyer role better than anything else in the fleet.

We have never seen the Mirandas escorting convoys.
We have never seen the Mirandas successfully engaging small, powerful threats.
We have never seen the Mirandas defending larger vessels or space stations from attack

We HAVE seen the Mirandas acting as couriers and supply vessels. We HAVE seen the Mirandas on deep space patrol and rearline duty (Unnatural Selection, The Voyage Home). We HAVE seen the Mirandas acting as deep space scientific research vessels (Night Terrors, Wrath of Khan) and we have seen them attacking independently of other larger vessels (The Emissary, Tears of the Prophets). The only time we have ever seen the Mirandas "escorting" anything was when two such vessels flew in close formation with the Defiant in "Sacrifice of Angels." There is no indication whether these were actually escorts or simply the only ships in the entire fleet fast enough to KEEP UP.

All of this indicates that the Defiant is suited for the destroyer role, while Miranda classes like Reliant are probably a slimmed-down heavy cruiser. To put this in perspective, the Reliant is probably the immediate Starfleet counterpart to the Klingon D-7 battlecruiser, while Enterprise would be equivalent to the slightly larger K'tinga.

The "flag ship" is rarely the "most powerful vessel present" in fleet actions, even in Starfleet. We know this because Admiral Hanson used an Excelsior class vessel as his flagship at Wolf-359, and Admiral Ross has been known to use the Intrepid-class Bellerophon.

 

A small nitpick: we don't really know that the Melbourne on which Hanson's flag flew was an Excelsior. Two models with that name failed to reasonably portray said name in the battle of "Emissary" - interestingly, a portion of the battle that seems to be too early for Hanson's famous last words about "the battle not going too well" and (as regards the behavior of the Excelsior) at odds with his intention to "regroup".

On the other hand, AFAIK, there's no evidence that the Bellerophon would have served Ross in any role after "Inter Arma". Or indeed that Ross had anything to do with that ship in that episode, either, beyond being a passenger.

All we know about flagships smaller than the largest starship present is that Adm. Nechayev didn't choose the Enterprise-D as hers in "Descent". We don't know what type of ship her chosen vessel Gorkon was; might have been the otherwise unnamed Excelsior that was shuttling her, might have been a ship three times the size of the E-D waiting in a less cluttered parking area.

Apart from that, I'd like to see newtype alpha's questions answered, too. Although I'd also like to draw attention to the most important combat roles performed by the Defiant: armed recce and infiltration. Those are pretty far from traditional destroyer work, and basically establish the ship as an attack submarine instead - a role that befits a cloakship particularly well.

Timo Saloniemi

 

EVEN IF that's true, you're trying to draw a deduction and the information you've provided doesn't allow the subtraction you think it does. The truth is you are putting together syllogisms only bad ones.

Tonnage equals the mass and volume.
I don't have to pick. Rules of deduction prevent me from making arbitrary decisions. If the definition of destroyer uses size then thus size.

I don't have to tell you anything.
This is a fact finding venture not an inquisition.

I never said a smaller ship "must" be a destroyer"
I never said it "must" have a similar mission role as early destroyers"

Proposition instead of premise.

You're implying rather boldly that i didn't know what the next sentence of your post was going to say. I overview the entire post before replying and then while reply I pull up a second window to show the same post just to understand the context. (some of your responses have been so trifling that I couldn't make reply in other way)

I've already addressed the flaws here.

In response to what? I didn't say anything about facts in that post. Are you talking to yourself or what?

Indeed.
To clarify I mean but similar lengths, around 8 decks at 200 plus meters.

Then let's look at Defiant's role, shall we? During DS9 Defiant fills the following roles:

Along with Galaxy, Excelsior and Miranda.
Practically any ship can defend.

Doesn't really mean much to isolate Defiant.
In history every thing from a Corvette, Frigate, destroyers, cruisers and battleships have been used in escourt duty.

That's not particularly as relevant as two Defiant's providing escourt for the Akira in Voyager. That seems to be a strong indication of a destroyer role.

I don't know about that.
What's an escourt as opposed to a battlegroup? I supposed an escourt is an attempt to defend other ships in areas that they weren't designed to defend. But Battlegroups could be arranged just the same for attack or defense.

True.
But we haven't seen many convoys except in DS9 which was Defiant-centric.

Nice qualifier there. But still we have seen them engage smaller powerful threats. Successful is unfair. No Federation ship HAS ever shown a successful attack against a Dominion ship except Defiant.

Not sure if that's true because in sacrifice of Angels we some Reliant in formation with the Galaxies. Was there an particular defensive action we can point to? No. But I have to conclude there is a reason for the formations.

I don't agree that Saratoga was independently attacking.
While a bit further away than the Ambassador Nebula combination they were on the same course and vector to the cube.

Yeah...but I have a problem with us mixing examples from 23rd and 24th century....I think they should be isolated because ships are much larger in the latter and much more powerful. Miranda seems to be a frigate at best in the 23rd century.

I didn't say the flag ship is "The most powerful vessel" present. (do you do that on purpose or is that actually what you hear in your head?)

1. I give you Excelsior but I have to point out that we don't now what modifications that ship may have had. (True we can't assume it had any mods)

2. Intrepid's are not inferior to many ships. It's top 4 in armaments and equivalent to a Galaxy in firepower (of course my estimate of firepower) and 3x FASTER than Galaxy.

(Hopefully you understand why I have no problem relating Intrepid as AS powerful in firepower as Galaxy because Defiant makes it clear that size is a non issue with power generation. Intrepid comes after Galaxy in design chronology and was specifically designed for combat operations as per it's first mission and this instance in DS9 isn't the first time the Intrepid got a vote of approval from an Admiral)

 

I'm trying to narrow down the number of possible situations available. I suggest you spend less time whining about what you think I'm doing and focus on the topic at hand.

If you're going by size, then Reliant isn't small enough to be a destroyer.

Then why are you here?

I'm not implying it, I'm just flat out SAYING it.

Nor did you PRESENT any facts in that post. A deductive argument isn't valid in the complete ABSENCE of facts. Likewise, you can't take a deductive argument from one situation and then turn around and use it as the factual basis for an entirely different one.

So that eliminates "defense against small powerful threats" from your navy definition...

So that eliminates "convoy escort" from your navy definition...

So that eliminates the Miranda as an escort vessel for the Defiant...

Conventionally speaking, escorts are PART of a battlegroup. Their purpose is to defend the primary element of the battlegroup (either destroyers or battleships) from those small, powerful threats you mentioned earlier, particularly aircraft, submarines and cruise missiles. This is the reason why WW-II destroyers were commonly classified as "destroyer escorts" and why modern AEGIS destroyers are considered to be air/sea defense vessels as part of a carrier battlegroup.

Interestingly enough: Starfleet has officially classified the Defiant as an "escort." This is probably a political compromise that started with "destroyer-escort" minus the "destroyer."

And a german shephard could be taught how to play the piano, but nobody's ever done it.

True.
But we haven't seen many convoys except in DS9 which was Defiant-centric.

We've seen EVERYTHING engage Jem'hadar fighters, so that one stands empty. If the Mirandas are destroyers just because they engaged Jem'hadar fighters, then so are the Ganges and the Rio Grande.

The thing is, the Mirandas never demonstrated any particular proficiency with engaging those targets either. Defiant did. And the only other class of ship with similar effectiveness against the Jem'hadar was the Klingon bird of prey. It is perhaps significant that the Mirandas are about the same size (though slightly larger) as the D-7 battlecruiser; in a conventional designation scheme, the bird of prey would indeed be a destroyer in the same caliber as Defiant.

Actually it was a hell of a lot CLOSER than the two larger vessels and engaged behind the Melbourne, which was destroyed instantly. The Ambassador and Nebula class both engaged immediately after Saratoga was caught by the Borg tractor beam.

Why? Both the D-7 and the K'tinga are still in service in the 24th century, much like the Mirandas.

You yourself already conceded a 6% size difference. If So if Miranda is a frigate, then so is Enterprise.

You said Defiant was the most powerful vessel present, and you said it was the flagship. If you didn't mean to imply that these two conditions were somehow related then you wasted both of our time by posting it in the first place.

It is to the Galaxy Class. And high warp speed doesn't make a lick of difference in a fleet action (especially when the entire fleet is fighting at impulse power).

Is that another random fact you've just pulled out of your ass? You're getting good at this.

 

Thanks for the suggestion but I know exactly what I'm doing. I don't have to figure you out at this point. Deduction is subtraction by logic. That's what you're doing....in a sloppy sort of way but the premises you're applying aren't givens their propositions you're formulating. I understand that they make sense to you but they are not givens.

Because I will it.
That will is not predicated on a requisite of your commands.

Then prophesying is not what you do best.

I really didn't need to as just presentation.

Didn't say it was.
Didn't say I was making a deduction.

I didn't create the wiki article.
It doesn't elminate anything it merely doesn't isolate exclusively any ship in the Federation Fleet to preform this task.

I didn't create the wiki article.
You're just not good at this. (being objective) It doesn't eliminate anything it merely doesn't isolate exclusively any ship in the Federation Fleet to preform this task.

You often see "no" when there is no answer at all.
Sometimes the answer isn't Yes or no, sometimes it's conditional sometimes it's maybe, sometimes it's unknown. But your logic is hampered by you pressing your objective rather than objectively reasoning on the facts.

Which is the problem with relating the two classes from 2 different centuries.

Understood.

That would seem logical as too Sisko's statements of some whole new fleet idea that Defiant was to be appart of getting away from Cruisers perhaps and going to mission ships.

What does this mean?

Not sure if you're agreeing or what.
We've seen No Federation ship successfully engage Jem'Hadar ships except for Defiant. Success is thus an impossible qualifier.

Again...I can't judge Miranda's efficiency (a ship can't be proficient) because no Federation ship has proven effective against even a Attack ship. I don't accept the Bird of Prey either. (but for my own reasonings on DS9's misbalance of firepower tiers)

What I can do is look at where they placed the ship in formation and they out numbered just about every other class in Sacrfice of Angels and regularly had 8 to 15 or more Mirandas in the fleet scenes...that's way more than any other ship and they seemed to be escourting Other ships now maybe that's just perception...

no,no
I don't mean closer to the Cube I mean closer to each other as pairs compared to Nebula/Ambassador which moved in tandem. Saratoga and Melbourne may have already broken formation.

But they would need to be reclassified because their firepower and their armor is considerably less than Vorcha and K'Vort or Neghvar which might be the new standard for ships of that class just as what's happened in the American Navy.

In the 23rd century the Miranda could have been a destroyer if it was as small as I thought it was. The Akula is likely a Destroyer though...but in the 24th century these ships are more like Frigates...

Your misunderstandings don't always start with me. I said Defiant's Role was important and I pointed out roles. I take responsibility for my missteps and you should too. (just a piece of advice you're under no obligation to take)

Not sure about that. It has more phasers than the Galaxy and more torpedo tubes. On the other hand Admiral Paris says "she's no Galaxy" but that "she's quick and smart." It's not very conclusive either way so I go with the armaments and effectiveness in battle.

It should but you're right, not in the Trek we know.

You can assume what you want of the statement fact or conjecture but I stand by it. Intrepid is extremely well armed. And one of few ships with that many phasers and torpedo combinations. Where Akira's and other ships were dropping like flies to the Borg Cube the Intrepid went up against numerous borg ships of different types and never suffered the casualties we see in First Contact. I do belive the movie was exaggerated for effect but the record is as the record is.

 

So, how 'bout those Phasers eh?