Musing on the 12-ship fleet

[Forbin]

...and the supposed 6-ship Galaxy class run.

I'm reading an Osprey history on the Royal Navy during 1793-1815. Roddenberry's "Hornblower in Space" sound bite keeps flowing thru my brain while reading about how RN captains were autonomous when far from home, the way Kirk was supposed to be. Then I came to the chapter on how fighting ships were rated at the time, and how few "first rate" ships there were at any given time.

A "first rate" was a ship-of-the-line of 100 guns or more, with three gun decks (i.e. HMS Victory). A second rate had 90-98 guns on 3 decks. A third rate vessel had 64-80 guns on two decks.

Between 1803 and 1815, there were never more than eight first rate ships in the fleet, and no more than 12 second-rates, at any one time. Third rates usually numbered over 100, though.

Well, the comparison is fairly obvious. The "only 12 like her in the fleet" line ran thru my head often while reading that chapter. There are only 12 Connies in the fleet (and later, only six Galaxies) because they're the "first rates" of their time - big, expensive, and you don't really need more than that because you have lots of smaller ships running around for the other stuff.

Off to bed now.

 

[Timo]

OTOH, I'm not really opposed to the idea that Starfleet had ships far bigger than the Enterprise - say, those dreadnoughts of FJ fame, or those triangular-hull carriers, etc. The dozen surviving Constitution explorers could have been special (at least in the eyes of their masters) simply because there were only a dozen of them.

That's a very typical source of pride for vehicle owners and operators today. "Sure, it might not be the fastest or most powerful one out there, but nobody else has a similar one!". In naval terms, I could easily see the master of a sailing frigate ranking his ship higher than the main combatants, because the smaller, weaker but nimbler vessel gets all the interesting assignments and has operational independence.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Forbin]

DNs could be the first-raters, then, and Connies could be the second-raters. I wouldn't put them so low as frigates. The RN had something like 150 frigates at a time. Useful and handy little boats, sure, but too numerous to be considered special.

From what I'm reading in this book, frigates' job in fleet actions was to stay the hell out of the way and pass signals from the flagship to the rest of the battle line, while the big boys pounded each other. Although their regular job of cruising around solo, exploring and enforcing, sounds exactly like a starship's mission.

 

[Timo]

And the vessels that inherited the frigate mission for the age of steam- and early oil-powered navies, the cruisers, would be a rather nice analogy for the Enterprise. While they would continue to sail the seven seas in missions of enforcing, assistance and the occasional bit of remaining exploration, they would also be built in nice little batches that were true classes, identical between sister ships but clearly distinct from competing classes.

Say, Kirk could be making his "TiY" statement if he were the skipper of a Royal Navy Dido class light cruiser, proud of the special contribution this class makes to the AA capabilities of the fleet, even if other skippers have light and heavy cruisers of greater size, firepower or speed, and if yet others command battleships that would sink a Dido just by bumping at her.

This is what my favorite fanverse, the one from Ships of the Star Fleet, really mostly looks like. It's teeming with ships the rough size of Kirk's, but the others all have distinguishing features, and most fall short of the overall versatility of Kirk's ride.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[J.T.B.]

I've always advocated the 19th century — especially Victorian — RN as our closest r/w analogue to Starfleet. There is one big difference, though: Back in those days, you knew where the big threat was, and you knew where to put your most powerful ships. For exploring and policing, you could use some of your least powerful and cheapest warships. For Starfleet, it is more the opposite. The known "astro-political" situation appears pretty stable, but the most dangerous threats frequently come completely out of the unknown. Thus it is best to have some of the most — if not the most — powerful warships doing the exploring and frontier policing.

Sailing first-rates were almost a geometric increase in expense over a third rate, as they were dependent on a very scarce resource: trees large enough to provide "grown-in" timbers for many of their structural members. I doubt that kind of cost factor would apply to starships, but overall I don't think the first-rate ship of the line is a bad analogy. I can easily imagine most of Starfleet's duties being carried out more locally by small "sloop" ships, with the big cruisers being the ships to handle an important but relatively small fraction of Starfleet's tasks.

That being said, I have no problem with Timo's larger fleet with "twelve like her" being just one homogeneous component. "The Ultimate Computer" does make you wonder, if there were only twelve high-value vessels, would they put a third of them "in one basket" in a war scenario?

I guess I have to say there isn't enough to go on for me to feel strongly one way or the other.

--Justin

 

[SonicRanger]

. . . The dozen surviving Constitution explorers could have been special (at least in the eyes of their masters) simply because there were only a dozen of them. . .

Yes, considering that (1) the Connies are 20+ years old in TOS and are seen as obsolete just a few years later and (2) there were between two and five Connies lost (depending on how you count) during the three years of TOS, there could have been many more Connies during their production run, perhaps as many as 50 (or even more).

 

[Timo]

"The Ultimate Computer" does make you wonder, if there were only twelve high-value vessels, would they put a third of them "in one basket" in a war scenario?

One might argue Starfleet wanted to remove undue variables from the test by using near-identical ships.

OTOH, I do like the idea that the Constitutions would be the leading, most capable explorers of Kirk's time, even if there are more badass fighting ships closer to the Klingon front or something. It might then be easiest to find and detach a few Constitutions for a deep space combat simulation, as opposed to dragging out a dreadnought or gathering a lot of destroyers in one place. Unexpected displacement of explorers by a few hundred lightyears would not attract Klingon attention quite as much as similar deployment of dedicated combat assets.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[aridas sofia]

I think the analogies to Age of Sail vessels are numerous and varied. On the one hand, what you point out is clearly true -- starships were supposed to be few and very special. OTOH, first rates were flagships, and usually deemed far less adequate at maneuvering and overall ability to translate bulk into power than the second rates, which were the real backbone of the line. So, at least in the Age of Sail, the ships that got the notice were not necessarily the best fighting ships.

Furthermore, the other fact you point out is true -- frigates were, from a strategic point of view, most like starships. They were free roaming, left to range widely in search of merchant shipping on which to prey. In line actions they were off the line -- fifth or sixth rates IIRC.

Finally, when you account for the real explorers, like those used by Cook or Bligh, we find ships that were converted transports or colliers. HMAV Bounty was a collier, and I believe so were Cook's Resolution (though she was later rated a sloop) and Endeavour (later a bark). So, at least for explorers, pure utility -- an ability to sail in shallow water -- was first and foremost, as well as the desire of the Admiralty not to tie up a fighting ship on a mission of pure exploration.

So, it is this mixed picture that informs what Roddenberry et al conceived. A starship capable of going to the edge of explored and settled space, and beyond, would be an expensive project. Outfit for a mixed military and exploratory mission, it would bear conceptual similarities to the frigate and the converted collier, translated into an entirely different environment. Crafted for a modern audience, it would also be informed by the modern navies and the contemporary space program, as well as the US Navy of WW2 and speculations about the space program of the future.

 

[ElScoob]

Furthermore, the other fact you point out is true -- frigates were, from a strategic point of view, most like starships. They were free roaming, left to range widely in search of merchant shipping on which to prey. In line actions they were off the line -- fifth or sixth rates IIRC.

Finally, when you account for the real explorers, like those used by Cook or Bligh, we find ships that were converted transports or colliers. HMAV Bounty was a collier, and I believe so were Cook's Resolution (though she was later rated a sloop) and Endeavour (later a bark). So, at least for explorers, pure utility -- an ability to sail in shallow water -- was first and foremost, as well as the desire of the Admiralty not to tie up a fighting ship on a mission of pure exploration.

I can't agree more. (BTW, you're quite correct--frigates were mainly fifth-rates, with a few older, smaller ones falling into the sixth rate and colloquially known as 'jackass frigates', though those became rarer and rarer as the building of heavier frigates became the norm. HMS Surprise as depicted in Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin novels, and the film Master and Commander: The Far Side Of The World, was a 28-gun sixth-rate.)

I see the 23rd century heavy cruisers as a sort of hybrid spiritual descendants primarily of frigates and converted small vessels used for exploratory missions, with a dash of, say, third-rate ships of the line thrown in. Under most circumstances, the role in which the heavy cruisers served would have been that filled by the frigates and the exploration vessels, particularly in terms of ranging far from home and being out of contact with higher authority (this being something Roddenberry seized on quite heavily... the most significant element of 'Hornblower in space' he used was the same concept of 'a man alone' that sparked Forester's creation of Hornblower and the writing of The Happy Return/Beat To Quarters).

The elements of the third-rate that come into play would represent those occasions where a heavy cruiser would be employed in a strictly combat role, in that the starship's overall level of power would give it a place in the proverbial 23rd century line of battle--much more a frontline combatant than a supporting vessel like a 19th century frigate.

(I say third-rate on the presumption that Starfleet's equivalents of first- and second-rates would be larger, slower, rarer vessels with far less broad capabilities outside of battle--dreadnoughts and such.)

An interesting related thought that comes to mind concerns Kirk's opening voice-over in the unaired version of "Where No Man Has Gone Before". He seems to suggest that the Enterprise's previous duties had been more akin to those of a sailing frigate, maintaining contact with colonies and performing law-enforcement functions or the like. The probe beyond the edge of the galaxy was a novel endeavor outside the bounds of the ship's usual assignments.

 

[Tigger]

I expect the Constitutions were the most...adaptable...ships of the fleet in terms of mission, which indeed would have made them both special and "rare". A jack of all trades is a master of none, so they likely would not have built a great number of them.

They were not as powerful as the dreadnoughts nor as nimble as the frigates/destroyers nor could they carry as much stuff as the tugs and might not have been as adept at exploring as the scouts.

But they could go toe-to-toe with the known (and many unknown) Threat forces, they were able to haul materials and supplies to assist in colonization and relief missions, and they could explore new worlds and new civilizations.

I agree using similar starships in similar missions would make the most sense to test the M-5. Also, because of the variety of missions she performed, chances were the Constitutions had the largest standard crew complements of any of the ships in the Fleet and automating them via the M-5 would save resources - and lives...

 

[BolianAuthor]

...and the supposed 6-ship Galaxy class run.

I'm reading an Osprey history on the Royal Navy during 1793-1815. Roddenberry's "Hornblower in Space" sound bite keeps flowing thru my brain while reading about how RN captains were autonomous when far from home, the way Kirk was supposed to be. Then I came to the chapter on how fighting ships were rated at the time, and how few "first rate" ships there were at any given time.

A "first rate" was a ship-of-the-line of 100 guns or more, with three gun decks (i.e. HMS Victory). A second rate had 90-98 guns on 3 decks. A third rate vessel had 64-80 guns on two decks.

Between 1803 and 1815, there were never more than eight first rate ships in the fleet, and no more than 12 second-rates, at any one time. Third rates usually numbered over 100, though.

Well, the comparison is fairly obvious. The "only 12 like her in the fleet" line ran thru my head often while reading that chapter. There are only 12 Connies in the fleet (and later, only six Galaxies) because they're the "first rates" of their time - big, expensive, and you don't really need more than that because you have lots of smaller ships running around for the other stuff.

Off to bed now.

That's a great analogy, and it works, but more with the TOS time period, than the TNG one, because in Kirk's day, a Starfleet Captain was far, and in unknown space, so he had complete authority to act, as communications between the ship and Starfleet took a while.

But by Picard's time, the Federation has a vast galactic subspace comm network, and even though the Galaxy-Class can venture out to fantastic distances, Picard and his crew can pretty comfortably consult with the brass back on Earth for guidance, via subspace radio, so while Picard does have a lot of authority to act on his own, by TNG's time, the superiors are more accessible.

 

[Captain Robert April]

The general idea from the producers' point of view was that the Enterprise and her sister ships were the largest vessels ever constructed, by Earth at least.

 

[Timo]

...However, it never quite becomes onscreen fact. That is, no guest star or other character goes "Look at the size of that thing!" or "That's no moon.." or anything like that. Some villains respect the power of the starship, but even those are generally ignorant semi-primitives: no Klingon or Romulan quite establishes Kirk's vessel as the most fearsome adversary type imaginable.

There is some allure to thinking that Kirk's was the biggest in the Federation. But there's also a lot to be said for the sailing frigate analogy. And sometimes it's best for drama if the hero doesn't hold the biggest guns.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Cary L. Brown]

OTOH, I'm not really opposed to the idea that Starfleet had ships far bigger than the Enterprise - say, those dreadnoughts of FJ fame, or those triangular-hull carriers, etc. The dozen surviving Constitution explorers could have been special (at least in the eyes of their masters) simply because there were only a dozen of them.

That's a very typical source of pride for vehicle owners and operators today. "Sure, it might not be the fastest or most powerful one out there, but nobody else has a similar one!". In naval terms, I could easily see the master of a sailing frigate ranking his ship higher than the main combatants, because the smaller, weaker but nimbler vessel gets all the interesting assignments and has operational independence.

Timo Saloniemi

That's pretty much how I see it, too. I go a bit further, though...

I think that there may have been a lot more Constitution-class vessels. Remember, all Kirk said was "there are only twelve like her in the fleet." He didn't say "there are only twelve Constitution-class vessels."

My take on it is based upon matching that up with the mission of the ship (a rather "publicity-stunt-ish" thing, that declared "five years mission," isn't it?) and the massive increase in crew (including lots of academics and other, essentially, non-naval personnel).

My version is this: the original Constitution-class vessels were essentially conventional warships, with a crew of about 200. In peacetime, they would be assigned patrol and security tasks, but they were NOT science vessels or explorers. Those tasks would be served by dedicated science vessels or long-range scouts.

Then the "replicator" was invented, and Starfleet decided to put it to extensive use in a refitting of several (ie, TWELVE) Constitution-class hulls. By installing replicators on these ships, the total volume required for cargo an storage (foodstuffs, atmosphere, spare parts, etc) was dramatically reduced - ALMOST elminated entirely, in fact. This cleared out nearly half of the habitable space inside of the ship.

As a result, it suddenly became practical to put all of the mission-oriented elements of science and probe vessels (extra lab space, specialized sensor hardware, non-naval-purposed academics such as a "ship's historial" and so forth) into the same hull as the military-purposed Heavy Cruiser hull. These would have been the first "explorer-type" vessels.

Twelve were done, and sent out on a massive "publicity stunt" mission, serving real purposes of course but played up to sell the idea of this retrofit across the fleet to a Federation population who might otherwise have seen better purposes for their tax credits than refitting the entire fleet this way.

And evidently it worked, because pretty much everything got upgraded this way within a few years, and the Federation's borders and influence expanded significantly as a result, in large measure, of this "five years mission" program.

That's how I see it. Your mileage may vary. There may have been dozens, or even HUNDREDS (though that's probably high) of Constitution-class hulls, but only twelve got the initial, replicator-based upgrade into "explorers" during the early part of TOS.

 

[Racer_X]

I always got the impression that the Constitution-class ships were the equivalent to the modern (1960s) aircraft carrier: a handful of ships that are the backbone of the fleet. This is based on the 1) comparison diagram of the two Enterprise ships in TMOST, and 2) the comment in TMOST that the Enterprise was the largest ship built. So when Kirk spoke of "12 others in the fleet", I never felt it meant anything else. Also, when combined with ST being only 20 years removed from WWII, with both the writers and viewers familiar with the famous Pacific battles, it seems to be the simplest explanation.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I always got the impression that the Constitution-class ships were the equivalent to the modern (1960s) aircraft carrier: a handful of ships that are the backbone of the fleet. This is based on the 1) comparison diagram of the two Enterprise ships in TMOST, and 2) the comment in TMOST that the Enterprise was the largest ship built. So when Kirk spoke of "12 others in the fleet", I never felt it meant anything else. Also, when combined with ST being only 20 years removed from WWII, with both the writers and viewers familiar with the famous Pacific battles, it seems to be the simplest explanation.

The only issue I have with that is that space is a lot bigger than, say, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It's hard for me to accept the "space is small" feel that is necessarily conveyed by applying that sort of similarity rationale.

Space is big... really really big. I mean really, you just can't overstate how big it is. You may think it's a long way down to the corner drug store, but that's just peanuts to space. (apologies to Douglas Adams)

Honestly, that's sort of equivalent to assigning a dozen police cars to patrol all of North America. No matter how fast the car may be, it simply can't be everyplace at once.

 

[Tigger]

Honestly, that's sort of equivalent to assigning a dozen police cars to patrol all of North America. No matter how fast the car may be, it simply can't be everyplace at once.

But if there is no crime in North America, do you need more then a dozen?

 

[Timo]

Or to have an even more accurate analogy, if there is no evidence that crime is being curtailed...?

It may simply be that gas prices are so high that the United States cannot afford more than 12 police cruisers. Thus, most crimes go unattended for at least half a year, and entire cities may fall before the Federal police learns of the calamity in question. That is the reality we witness in TOS.

It's a good thing, then, that each of the police cars packs 430 officers armed with automatic weapons, carries a fully equipped crime lab, and mounts two turrets of 18 in naval cannon...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Forbin]

There is some allure to thinking that Kirk's was the biggest in the Federation.

Are we still talking about the ship?

 

[Vance]

I tend to think that the Constitution project was unique in that, unlike even similar ships (say the NCC-1650 series), she was specifically designed for the 'five year mission' role. She enjoyed a more robust assortment of abilities, even luxuries, that other, more-dedicated-role ships didn't have. Thus, only 12 of them.

This also allows for a similar type of starship (like, those 1650 series) which may be 'lacking' in some area (like, sciences, perhaps?) because they're built for a more dedicated-role, such as defense patrol, etc.