What do you think is the optimum WatchKeeping/WatchStanding schedule for StarFleet?

[Kamen Rider Blade]

"the only ship in the Quadrant."

How often do StarFleet ships get lost in a different Quadrant?

I can only count of 4x instances of that happening so far.

USS Enterprise-D gets sent to TriAngulum Galaxy, but gets back thanks to the Traveler
USS Voyager gets sent to the Delta Quadrant
USS Equinox gets sent to the Delta Quadrant
USS ProtoStar gets sent to the Delta Quadrant.

 

[Oddish]

Federation ships are, in general, not warships. Consider the Defiant: it's a small, six-deck ship, but its phasers ripped Jem'Hadar warships to pieces with one burst. Compare that to how a Galaxy class did against those same ships. If that Galaxy class had been purpose-built as a warship, it would have pulverized those three attackers without even slowing down.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Federation ships are, in general, not warships. Consider the Defiant: it's a small, six-deck ship, but its phasers ripped Jem'Hadar warships to pieces with one burst. Compare that to how a Galaxy class did against those same ships. If that Galaxy class had been purpose-built as a warship, it would have pulverized those three attackers without even slowing down.

I concur, UFP ships are Hybrid vessels, they are tasked with multiple responsibilities, ergo the design is so incongruous.

That's why I say they're a Hybrid of WarShip, Luxury Hotel, & Science Center.

That's their role, they are designed to be a Hybrid vessel.

UFP & StarFleet accepts that Hybridization and lives with it.

Look at the Klingon Designs, those are purpose built WarShips.

They're sleek, lean, small, low mass.

 

[Oddish]

With the resources required to build and crew one Galaxy, you could probably build 15 or 20 Defiants. And with the Borg-inspired tech that Voyager brought back, you could make them even scarier than they were during the Dominion war.

 

[C.E. Evans]

How often do StarFleet ships get lost in a different Quadrant?.

The term "the only ship in the Quadrant" (never used without quotation marks) was an old Trekker saying or colloquialism to describe why the Enterprise always seemed to be the only ship in range to handle whatever emergency was going on in a given story. In other words, it always has to be a situation where other ships are always too far away to assist.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

The term "the only ship in the Quadrant" (never used without quotation marks) was an old Trekker saying or colloquialism to describe why the Enterprise always seemed to be the only ship in range to handle whatever emergency was going on a given story. In other words, it always has to be a situation where other ships are always too far away to assist.

IC

With the resources required to build and crew one Galaxy, you could probably build 15 or 20 Defiants. And with the Borg-inspired tech that Voyager brought back, you could make them even scarier than they were during the Dominion war.

That's why I always put a significantly higher # of Smaller Vessels in my Standardized 26th century fleet compositions.

=D

 

[Dumbbell]

True, TNG with its Galaxy class design formally presented us with the idea that entire families would permanently live in space on a starship rather than on an entire planet.

However, I think that idea was not as fully explored as it should have been in TNG. This might have been in part because some acceptable stories were too small in scope, in terms of the number of characters and in terms of avoiding making permanent changes to the overall setting, which would be very annoying to other stories already in process.

The Galaxy class and her crew and passengers offered so much unused potential. It literally defied imagination.

Now, if you want to convert or grow the Galaxy class into a military-controlled city-state with fighters and troops, your civilian population who are interested in science, music, and art for the betterment of mankind and for pleasure rather than to better wage war, would most likely choose to live elsewhere. And if not, just imagine the public backlash of keeping a civilian population aboard such a warship! You would literally be hiding your forces behind a wall of your own civilians! What would that look like? Presenting such an openly hypocritical front could only invite disaster. You might be able to make it look like you can separate your war machine from your civilians, but it would only look that way.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

if you want to convert or grow the Galaxy class into a military-controlled city-state with fighters and troops, your civilian population who are interested in science, music, and art for the betterment of mankind and for pleasure rather than to better wage war, would most likely choose to live elsewhere.

That's probably what Starfleet did with all those other Galaxy-class ships which we saw fighting in the Dominion War. I doubt any of them had families or civilians aboard.

 

[Oddish]

Now, if you want to convert or grow the Galaxy class into a military-controlled city-state with fighters and troops, your civilian population who are interested in science, music, and art for the betterment of mankind and for pleasure rather than to better wage war, would most likely choose to live elsewhere. And if not, just imagine the public backlash of keeping a civilian population aboard such a warship! You would literally be hiding your forces behind a wall of your own civilians! What would that look like? Presenting such an openly hypocritical front could only invite disaster. You might be able to make it look like you can separate your war machine from your civilians, but it would only look that way.

Not saying Starfleet shouldn't have Galaxy class ships roaming about, they actually should. But maybe build fewer Galaxy ships, and have a few more Defiant class warships available. Just in case you run into a situation like in "The Jem'Hadar", when you have an unexpected encounter with powerful and fanatical enemies.

The Final Frontier is a dangerous place, after all.

 

[Dumbbell]

No doubt, you are right about the civilians leaving their mobile homes behind and shacking up on some space station or planet during the war hoping that the house where their kids were born doesn’t blow up while its out shooting aliens without them.

I hated that Dominion so-called War.

It was more like a family feud where everybody in the neighborhood grabbed their guns and jumped in the back of their trucks to go kick some aliens back to where they came from.

But, then, if I want war, I watch Battle: Los Angles or something like that. Something with warriors what that can fight for real.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I prefer civilians to either live on Space Stations or PlanetSide in their homes.

StarShips are reserved for those who don't mind being seperated from civilians and their civilian families while they're on deployment.

 

[Orphalesion]

StarShips are reserved for those who don't mind being seperated from civilians and their civilian families while they're on deployment.

I disagree, because that limits the types of characters we can have.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I disagree, because that limits the types of characters we can have.

I'm looking at it from a practical standpoint based on IRL.

Given how many times a StarShip encounters a crisis, I don't think it's safe for civilians to live on a StarShip.

 

[Dumbbell]

It seems like you would prefer a Federation that has a purely military subdivision. Starfleet, as depicted, does not seem to be good enough in that it is almost always on the fence between military and civil service and so is not very good at either.

It is organized somewhat like a military organization, but it is way too busy not looking or acting like one, even when at war.

I would not be at all surprised if even a 21st Century SWAT team (for sure a Stargate SG-1 team) could take over an entire starship if only they could somehow land near the bridge and the officers on it.

So, questions…

Do you imagine a Starfleet with an entirely hardcore military subdivision within it that is always on the ready while the rest of the Fleet does its half-hearted thing, or do you imagine a Starfleet that maintains a certain half-hearted level of readiness that ramps up in stages given the circumstances until it finally reaches a hardcore level (one that we have never seen as of yet) when required?

This might affect your scheduling.

Also, what Star Trek era do you prefer?

I’m good with the motion picture up to Star Trek III. That’s where I like to stop the clock.

 

[Oddish]

Different starships should have different missions. The Enterprise, pets and daycares and all, is fine for transporting ambassadors through secure areas and performing surveys of uninhabited systems: it's got weapons and shields for extreme situations, but doesn't expect trouble. For exploring new places and going where no one has gone before, you want something like Voyager: sleek, fast, still plenty of scientific capability, a little more of her space devoted to firepower, and no pets or families. And for patrolling assorted neutral zones or investigating trouble, you want a squadron of Defiant-class "escort" ships.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

It seems like you would prefer a Federation that has a purely military subdivision. Starfleet, as depicted, does not seem to be good enough in that it is almost always on the fence between military and civil service and so is not very good at either.

The thing is, StarFleet has leaned too heavily into the Explorer / Scientific side. When it needed to be ready to be a military at the drop of a dime, it was slow to react and that resulted in countless deaths on their own side.

My belief is that a 50/50 balance is in order. Yin & Yang. For Military Readiness / Scientific Explorer.

It is organized somewhat like a military organization, but it is way too busy not looking or acting like one, even when at war.

I would not be at all surprised if even a 21st Century SWAT team (for sure a Stargate SG-1 team) could take over an entire starship if only they could somehow land near the bridge and the officers on it.

That's a fundamental weakness with it's readiness, how many times has a StarFleet outpost or Vessel been taken over by a boarding party? Far too many for my tastes.

So, questions…

Do you imagine a Starfleet with an entirely hardcore military subdivision within it that is always on the ready while the rest of the Fleet does its half-hearted thing, or do you imagine a Starfleet that maintains a certain half-hearted level of readiness that ramps up in stages given the circumstances until it finally reaches a hardcore level (one that we have never seen as of yet) when required?

StarFleet doesn't have to be a 100% entire HardCore military, but it has to be competent enough that when push comes to shove, that it's ready to do what it needs to do.

Even the US Military has their scientific research & general R&D departments.

They also have plenty of civilian aid and other missions that aren't just pure warefare.

Like I said, Yin & Yang. That 50/50 balance is critical.

This might affect your scheduling.

Also, what Star Trek era do you prefer?

I prefer the Berman-Braga era of TNG -> VOY.

That part of the 24th Century I do enjoy.

I’m good with the motion picture up to Star Trek III. That’s where I like to stop the clock.

I have my own 26th Century Head Canon that I'm working with that takes every existing Canon and works it into it.

Yes that includes Star Trek: Discovery and the 32nd Century, there are certain events and actions that I'd have Michael Burnham fix / retcon to provide a superior & brighter existence into the future of UFP & StarFleet along with ensuring that the future timeline of the UFP is protected long into the future.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Not necessarily when a vast complement of your ship is manned for noncombat duty, & you're reassigning a lot of them anyhow.

Is "duck and cover" really an assignment?

 

[Dumbbell]

I wonder if the military aid alliance between the Federation and Klingon Empire might have something to do with Starfleet’s apparent lack of military preparedness. Maybe, the Federation leans too heavily on its ally. That could be a problem if the Klingon Empire suspects weakness. Unless, the Empire itself is also weaker than it should be... Or, maybe, it is just that the most interesting characters to tell stories about are well-rounded out and not strictly the military types.

 

[C.E. Evans]

IMO, unless you've got billions and billions of starships, there's no way any government can adequately defend itself. Space is simply too big and too three-dimensional, and even if you got a big enough net, there are still places where an enemy can slip through. At best, you can defend this sector or that sector when you see an enemy coming that way, but unless you have an almost infinite number of Warp 10 starships at your disposal, you will always have a certain level of vulnerability that can (and often will) be exploited. And I don't think that's a problem only for the Federation...

Maybe why there might be an emphasis on diplomacy within Starfleet is to defuse potential conflicts before they escalate to the point where phasers and photon torpedoes are flying. Although the Federation has had its share of armed conflicts and has had more than a few bloody noses, it's possible that a great deal more conflicts have been avoided through diplomacy and negotiation.

I mean, if it wasn't for James T. Kirk, imagine how many angry alien women would be attacking the Federation right now...

 

[Dumbbell]

IMO, unless you've got billions and billions of starships, there's no way any government can adequately defend itself. Space is simply too big and too three-dimensional, and even if you got a big enough net, there are still places where an enemy can slip through.

Now you’re talkin’ my language! I completely agree. The average person does not fully comprehend just how vast and three-dimensional space is. Most people are too comfortable with thinking only in two dimensions. All printed Star Trek maps are two-dimensional, and all Star Trek starship combat games (board games or video games) are two-dimensional. A few non-Star Trek video games are what we call two-and-a-half-dimensional in that they represent height and depth as if in an atmosphere. Almost every representation of starships and fleets of starships you see on TV is two-dimensional. Even the largest fleets are all carefully organized with a ceiling and a floor with all ships oriented the same in relation to the imaginary ceiling and floor, at least up to the end of Voyager. Even the designs of the ships themselves all betray two-dimensional thinking, as if they were designed to fly in an atmosphere rather than space. It is a science fiction culture of two dimensions! Where space is just a highway, new worlds are just other cities, and starships are automobiles!

There is absolutely no way to force a claim to the vastness of space. Even the space between ours and the nearest solar system spans a distance of 10 hours at Warp 9! The very idea of claiming huge chunks of empty space is ludicrous.

But, a galaxy that is divided politically would very definitely lay claim to population centers, planetary resources, solar systems (if possible) and trade routes and other places within the space. Starships could be used to fortify those positions and patrol those routes. It seems, however, that the growth and expansion of the Federation has always outpaced its ability to militarily defend itself.

As a consequence of the vastness of space, you could lay claim to as much of it as you wanted, but most of it would always be blacked out and unknown as far as any real time analysis.

Of course Star Trek says different.