On Ship Design Longevity
- Thread starter Mysterion
- Start date
The US military is having some SERIOUS problems with procurement at the minute. They are stuck trying to make the best possible ship, the best possible fighter etc regardless of price and therefore are building equipment even they can't afford. The F-22 is an amzing bit of kit but given a choice of 170 F-22s or 600 F-15 Actives, which would the USAF have chosen?
What is really needed, in both the US and UK, is for the JSF to be a massive success. If it turns out a bit better than an F-16 block 52 for five times the money, it will be a disaster.
If I were a crewmember of a starship then I expect every detail of the ship to be build to last, there's no room for error in space.
I'd rather argue there's plenty of room for error; Scotty can always jury-rig something, and the ships keep on fighting even after large bits of them have been blown off...
Not all ships would need to be that tough. For most, it would suffice that they hold together when not fired at by a superior enemy. Beyond that, it would probably be a good idea to cut corners in terms of quality if that helps produce greater quantities.
That project was intended to fight an enemy that would cut Burkes to pieces in no time flat (that is, any enemy with global recce and saturation air/missile/sub strike capabilities). This enemy is now gone (nobody has the recce, let alone the strike, so there's no need for naval stealth), so "substandard" products once again suffice.
The same would probably hold true for Trek. Some cutting edge ships might be needed against the worst and most advanced enemies, but most adversaries would always be primitive in comparison with Starfleet, and could be effectively defeated by substandard products (that is, products that were standard a few centuries ago).
Timo Saloniemi
Not all ships would need to be that tough. For most, it would suffice that they hold together when not fired at by a superior enemy. Beyond that, it would probably be a good idea to cut corners in terms of quality if that helps produce greater quantities.
That project was intended to fight an enemy that would cut Burkes to pieces in no time flat (that is, any enemy with global recce and saturation air/missile/sub strike capabilities). This enemy is now gone (nobody has the recce, let alone the strike, so there's no need for naval stealth), so "substandard" products once again suffice.
The same would probably hold true for Trek. Some cutting edge ships might be needed against the worst and most advanced enemies, but most adversaries would always be primitive in comparison with Starfleet, and could be effectively defeated by substandard products (that is, products that were standard a few centuries ago).
Timo Saloniemi
It's been a while since I heard what's going on over in the JSF Program, only that it was WAY overrun (like almost, if not all, of the DoD acquisition programs).
Of course, weird as it sounds -- if you're NOT overrun, then there's the perception that your program is not performing or is flawed, and thus is liable to be on the chopping block for the next budget go-round. Quirky logic, to say the least.
Another train-wreck of a program that's out there is the LCS. Crikey, it makes the one I was/am involved in (the 'Deepwater System') look almost golden!
(I say "was" in that the 'Deepwater' moniker is no more, but the various projects underneath it are still alive, just separate acquisition programs vice one giant "System of Systems" idea.)
Cheers,
-CM-
It's entirely plausible to have a ship already in a museum while another ship of the same class is still in active service, even decades later. The WWII-era battleship USS Alabama was retired & became the centerpiece of a state-run memorial in 1964, while the closely-related USS Missouri was reactivated & served in the 1st Gulf War in 1991, before being decommissioned in 1992.
So it's very possible to have a ship class represented in a museum while sister ships continue to serve for a long time afterward. That could easily be the case for the TOS-era Constitution class ships, not all of which might have been upgraded.
Alabama and Missouri are not the same class. Alabama is South Dakota class and Missouri is Iowa class. They really don't have much to do with each other. They have a different hull form for starters.
They are both from the same stock of 1940s battleship construction program, both hypermodern vessels for their time. They have basically identical armament and protection; the only meaningful difference, the greater top speed of the longer-hulled Iowas, would have been of no real consequence in the use to which the refitted ships were put. An Iowa could no more cruise at 33 knots than a South Dakota could at 28, and these ships weren't expected to do anything at dash speed any more; only cruise speed mattered.
Of course, if one is only going to refit a small fraction of one's arsenal, one may pick the absolute best even if the differences are minimal. Similar issues may have ended the story of the Constitutions in Starfleet: the ships were mariginally inferior to Mirandas, so when a standard type was chosen for continued production, the Miranda class won.
I'm sure they would, too.
Timo Saloniemi
Of course, if one is only going to refit a small fraction of one's arsenal, one may pick the absolute best even if the differences are minimal. Similar issues may have ended the story of the Constitutions in Starfleet: the ships were mariginally inferior to Mirandas, so when a standard type was chosen for continued production, the Miranda class won.
I'm sure they would, too.
Timo Saloniemi
Retiring the Constitution class always made perfect sense to me. After all it was a rather old class only modified to incorporate newer technology, and as such, it was not necessarily optimal configuration for said technology. For this reason I also assume Miranda to be completely new class, not a refit.
However, it does not necessarily mean that Miranda was more powerful ship per se, it might have well a matter of cost/benefit analysis. Constitutions might have been slightly superior to Mirandas, but more difficult/expensive to built. As the Excelsiors arrived to be the mainstay of the fleet -a role formerly held by the Constitution class- it made more sense to concentrate on building those for the missions that required the best of the best, and then let the cheap but reliable Mirandas take care of the less critical duties.
I just realized something today. The Constitution class was the first class we had seen. So it was the smart choice not to show the clas sin the TNG era. As far as I know, there is no canon information on when the class was first commissioned, just the launch date of the TOS Enterprise. So one can say the class were already aging by the time of the TOS movies.
Yeah, I always envisioned them first entering service in the early 2200s, with Enterprise being only a newer addition to the fleet. They would have been replaced entirely by the Excelsiors by the start of the 24th century.
And I'd be willing to bet the Excelsiors will be replaced by Sovereigns by the start of the 25th.
And I'd be willing to bet the Excelsiors will be replaced by Sovereigns by the start of the 25th.
I don't think that move is supported canonically, though. As I've said in other threads, that we never saw anything as large as a Galaxy in the TOS years doesn't mean they don't exist; even the J-Class cargo ships were considerably larger than NX-01.
Plus there's circumstantial evidence that such a move never actually took place. Constitution-sized (and smaller) designs continue to develop even in the 24th century, as with the Inetrpids, Novas, Defiants, Norway and Steamrunner classes. It's possible the Constitution was too small for the new mission roles it would have played on the rear-line (where Excelsiors were just big enough) but there's nothing to indicate Constitution was the largest of its day.
Plus there's circumstantial evidence that such a move never actually took place. Constitution-sized (and smaller) designs continue to develop even in the 24th century, as with the Inetrpids, Novas, Defiants, Norway and Steamrunner classes. It's possible the Constitution was too small for the new mission roles it would have played on the rear-line (where Excelsiors were just big enough) but there's nothing to indicate Constitution was the largest of its day.
"recce" ?? reconnaissance?
Well, it was certainly strongly implied that Excelsior was unprecedentedly large ship at the time it was built.
^Yeah, and it seemed pretty strongly implied that Excelsior was meant to replace, or at least, outrace, the Enterprise.
I feel pretty certain that the Constitution class was probably the biggest ship of its type in use during the mid to late 23rd century, but I am also comfortable with the idea that there might have been bigger ships with other purposes in use at the same time. If the Excelsior was a replacement for the Constitution class, then it does seem like Starfleet was upscaling.
I feel pretty certain that the Constitution class was probably the biggest ship of its type in use during the mid to late 23rd century, but I am also comfortable with the idea that there might have been bigger ships with other purposes in use at the same time. If the Excelsior was a replacement for the Constitution class, then it does seem like Starfleet was upscaling.
I sometimes wonder about the USS Enterprise's specific status during the early movies. In TWOK she was essentially a training ship, and by TSFS she was due to be decommissioned as being "too old." While that might not be an issue with the sister ships in the Constitution design family, it makes one wonder how "old" a ship can be and still remain in service.
Huh? When?
Longevity wouldn't simply be a factor of age. For five straight years Jim Kirk beat the crap out of the Enterprise. Pushing the engines to the max, multiple battles, time warps, straining all systems. Possibly after the rebuild of TMP she still wasn't quite right. After the battle with Khan, it seems that Star Fleet didn't want to repair her any more, "too old" meaning too broken down and no longer a asset.
