Why is there resistance to the idea of Starfleet being military?

[Crazy Eddie]

Well, I must point out - this happens usually on frontier, not near the Federation "core worlds"

Well, it happened in three different movies, always to starships in or near the Sol system...

The core worlds (like Earth, Vulcan, Andoria) probably have enough dreadnoughts hanging nearby

It's unlikely the Federation has many (or ANY) starships that could be called "Dreadnoughts."

In fact, I'm reminded that the U.S. Navy doesn't even defend its shoreline with "dreadnaughts." The main source of naval power projection is actually AIR power, not naval power, which means that in the event of a wartime situation the U.S. Coastline wouldn't primarily be defended by warships, but by fighter squadrons flying out of airbases along the coast. For the same reasons as above: you can launch ALOT more fighters -- and a lot more missiles -- from ground platforms than you can from sea-based ones. The Navy is an excellent offensive system for power projection, but it wouldn't be all that effective used defensively.

any lone hostile Klingon/Romulan ship would not dare to pull such tricks here...

Nero did. Even managed to destroy Vulcan in the process. How he managed to get past Vulcan's defenses is a bit of a mystery, but it's a foregone conclusion he didn't think he could get past EARTH'S defenses once the alarm had been raised. This also suggests that Starfleet wasn't the main thing he was worried about, it was the Border Protection Grids he needed a way to avoid.

 

[Dilandu]

If starships had that kind of range -- which as far as we can tell, they don't -- then so do the defense systems.

Er... I took rock. Just a plain several-thousand-ton rock. I use tractor beam to tow it behind my starship, while it's accelerating toward enemy planet. When velocity is sufficient enough (high fraction of lightspeed), I release the rock, and it sail toward intercept point with planet. Then we have multi-gigaton planet-shattering kaboom (c)

There is no way that immobile defense system in space warfare could outrange the mobile warship, which is just hurling kinetic projectiles against the planet. Unless we have weapons that could reach lightyears... but in that case, the situation would be "planets firing at each other" (the analogue of ICBM warfare - in space).

If your entire fleet is dedicated to invading a particular planet, your enemy can drop a thousand satellites in orbit with a thousand photon torpedoes on each and hit you with a wall of flaming death before you even get to the edge of the system. Even assuming they even bother putting those weapons in orbit; if you factor in ground-based defenses, and the compact size of photon torpedoes, that planet can launch a MILLION torpedoes at you before you even get into transporter range. No matter how big your fleet is, you will ALWAYS be outgunned.

But for what possible reason I may need to go near the planet?

My fleet is MOBILE. The planet is STATIONARY. I could always predict the position of the planet.

You could have trillion torpedoes on the planet - I would use only one small asteroid tug, which would - far out of range - hurl kiloton-mass rocks at large percent of c on imterception course with planet. Ok, it would took several days for my rock projectiles to arrive - so what? The planet could not move, could not avoid intercept. Of course, you could use your quadzillion of torpedoes to shot my rocks down... but this isn't cost-effective, because while you are spending costly torpedoes, I'm spending only free rocks.

And even the small fragments, on large percent of C would be dangerous. So, what if I threw against your planet the relativistic grapeshot - a million of 1-kg asteroid fragments, on 99% of speed of light? Would you be able to shot them ALL down? I doubt that.

Yes, you attack a thousand foot tall fire breathing sea monster...

Fire breathing & sea doesn't mix very good. Then, the poor monster without the water to protect him would just fell apart under his own weight. Or boil into his own methabolism.

 

[Dilandu]

In fact, I'm reminded that the U.S. Navy doesn't even defend its shoreline with "dreadnaughts." The main source of naval power projection is actually AIR power,

In fact, before late-1930s, the main protection for US shoreline was exactly the dreadnought battleship.

And air power doesn't work in space.

For the same reasons as above: you can launch ALOT more fighters -- and a lot more missiles -- from ground platforms than you can from sea-based ones. The Navy is an excellent offensive system for power projection, but it wouldn't be all that effective used defensively.

Sigh. We, russian, have the coastal defense aviation that you, americans, could only dream about. We have Naval Missile-Carrying Aviation Reigments - state of art bombers (including supersonics), armed with heavy supersonic missiles. And they have powerfull support assets too: a lot of maritime patrol planes, coastal over-the-horizon radars, radio warfare stations, entire sattelite networks (some of them with active radars!)

By your assumption, the US carrier groups shouldn't even dare to came into range of USSR coastal aviation.

Problem was, that they dare. And they actually represented a great threat to USSR coastlines - so great, that eventually the USSR started to build carriers themselves, to move fight in sea.

The solution is, that the ships are MOBILE. They don't need to be as powerfull as ALL your coastal planes - they only need to overcame the coastal planes locally to do a lot of damage to your coastlines. The planes have limited range, you know. Planes from California would be little help against the carrier group, that trashed the Seattle.

The rule of warfare is, that mobility ALWAYS beat fixed defences. Especially in space, when there are a lot of space to maneuvre.

 

[Dilandu]

Nero did. Even managed to destroy Vulcan in the process. How he managed to get past Vulcan's defenses is a bit of a mystery, but it's a foregone conclusion he didn't think he could get past EARTH'S defenses once the alarm had been raised. This also suggests that Starfleet wasn't the main thing he was worried about, it was the Border Protection Grids he needed a way to avoid.

All he have is essentially the auxilary cruiser. Very advanced, but not the specific warship.

In compairson - it was as armed merchant raider from World War 2 get transported into the US Civil War. Could deal a lot of damage to naval ships & commerce - yes. Could single-handely take out the major port - no, because it would require too many ammunition to suppress coastal fortifications, and she (being an unarmored civilian ship with guns) could not dare to face even the smoothbore guns.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Er... I took rock. Just a plain several-thousand-ton rock. I use tractor beam to tow it behind my starship, while it's accelerating toward enemy planet. When velocity is sufficient enough (high fraction of lightspeed), I release the rock, and it sail toward intercept point with planet. Then we have multi-gigaton planet-shattering kaboom (c)

And I fire all of one photon torpedo and shatter said rock into a cloud of dust diffuse enough that a civilian deflector shield can scatter its particles to the solar winds. Then I fire ten photon torpedoes and blow your ship to smithereens.

There is no way that immobile defense system in space warfare could outrange the mobile warship, which is just hurling kinetic projectiles against the planet.

Because immobile defense systems cannot hurl kinetic projectiles to intercept them at literally any distance they want?

But for what possible reason I may need to go near the planet?

Because the effective firing range of most starship-based weapons is about one or two light seconds at most. If you're close enough to attack the planet, the planet's defenders are close enough to shoot back, and they've got ALOT more guns than you do.

My fleet is MOBILE. The planet is STATIONARY. I could always predict the position of the planet.

Yes, which means your enemy always knows, more or less, what direction you have to go in order to launch an attack. They station all of your weapons in that direction, and you're flying right into a kill zone.

Don't try to argue this point, as this is the basic assumption of Air Defense in modern warfare. If you want to attack a well-defended target with aircraft, you MUST to do something about its defenses first. This is where deflector shield technology is the game changer: a shield generator mounted on a planet surface can be hundreds of times more powerful than one on a starship, and the torpedo/phaser batteries behind it can be larger still. Suppression of enemy space defenses becomes an uphill battle that strongly disadvantages the brute-force approach, which is why nobody ever bothers to attempt it and instead everyone tries to be clever by sending infiltrators to pull the plug or boarding parties to take over their command centers.

You could have trillion torpedoes on the planet - I would use only one small asteroid tug, which would - far out of range - hurl kiloton-mass rocks at large percent of c on imterception course with planet. Ok, it would took several days for my rock projectiles to arrive - so what?

So I sit there for several days bored out of my mind watching your quaint little asteroid tug inch its way towards my planet, and then blast it into space dust with a single torpedo.

Besides which, sending an asteroid at a planet at a fraction of the speed of light is a good way to knock that planet out of orbit and render it uninhabitable for generations to come. It's stupid thing to do, however, if your goal is to CAPTURE the planet and colonize it yourself. If destruction of the planet is the objective itself, assaulting it with an asteroid strike is ALSO the least effective way to accomplish that.

Of course, you could use your quadzillion of torpedoes to shot my rocks down

Or I could use ONE, which is usually more than enough.

And even the small fragments, on large percent of C would be dangerous.

Assuming you're assaulting a pre-warp civilization that doesn't have deflector technology, sure. But you wouldn't NEED to bomb a pre-warp planet from orbit, you'd just beam down a security team and demand their surrender because they have no defenses in the first place.

Fire breathing & sea doesn't mix very good. Then, the poor monster without the water to protect him would just fell apart under his own weight. Or boil into his own methabolism.

Which would pretty much be your last words right before the thing charges out of the ocean and kills everyone.

Meanwhile, the Federation is protected by people who actually examine terrifying and impossible-looking problems and figure out how to solve them. "Oh, all this cleverness and research is fer sissies, just throw cannons and rocks at it until it dies" is a great Plan-A, but the stakes are high enough that the Federation will want a plan B.

 

[Dilandu]

And I fire all of one photon torpedo and shatter said rock into a cloud of dust diffuse enough that a civilian deflector shield can scatter its particles to the solar winds. Then I fire ten photon torpedoes and blow your ship to smithereens.

Exactly the wrong solution. I'm outside the range of your torpedoes, and I have plenty of rock to bring in. Say, a million of 1-kg fragments, coming at 99% c. And, this is only a single 1000-ton rock that I'm getting in. I could bring literally million kinetic projectiles per each of your torpedoes.

Because immobile defense systems cannot hurl kinetic projectiles to intercept them at literally any distance they want?

No, they couldn't. At least not that effective - because A - of gravity well, and B - because you need to hit the small rock with literally zero emissions (and a lot of relativistic factors!) with another rock. I only need to hit a planet. You lose in any situation, unless you have lightyears-range weapon (and we came to the point of "planets shooting at each other")

Because the effective firing range of most starship-based weapons is about one or two light seconds at most. If you're close enough to attack the planet, the planet's defenders are close enough to shoot back, and they've got ALOT more guns than you do.

Again, I use rocks. Their range are essentially limitless.

Or, I could use really big laser with really big mirror to melt your planetary facilities down from safe distance.

Don't try to argue this point, as this is the basic assumption of Air Defense in modern warfare. If you want to attack a well-defended target with aircraft, you MUST to do something about its defenses first.

You obviously missed the point, that any land-based anti-air defense could be saturated, or avoided. Low-flying cruise missiles were designed essentially for that: to avoid the SAM's by flying low. This is just economically impossible to saturate every important object with CIWS enough.

So I sit there for several days bored out of my mind watching your quaint little asteroid tug inch its way towards my planet, and then blast it into space dust with a single torpedo.

Again: I never ever came into your torpedo range. Which isn't limitless, because your torpedoes need to hit the actively moving ship, and forced to burn their engines.

Besides which, sending an asteroid at a planet at a fraction of the speed of light is a good way to knock that planet out of orbit and render it uninhabitable for generations to come. It's stupid thing to do, however, if your goal is to CAPTURE the planet and colonize it yourself. If destruction of the planet is the objective itself, assaulting it with an asteroid strike is ALSO the least effective way to accomplish that.

My goal, is force you to surrender. Since you already foolishly allowed me space superiority, I could make an example out of several worlds, to prove that resistance without space navy is really futile.

Because, frankly, what else could I do? It is simply impossible to sucsessfully invade the enemy homeworld - planet with literally billions of hostile population. The assault missions are only useful against small colonies - which probably haven't got gazillions of torpedoes to defend them) Against homeworlds, the only thing that could possbily work, is demand their surrender under threat of bombardment from space.

Assuming you're assaulting a pre-warp civilization that doesn't have deflector technology, sure. But you wouldn't NEED to bomb a pre-warp planet from orbit, you'd just beam down a security team and demand their surrender because they have no defenses in the first place.

Please show me, where in canon planetary-size deflector shields are mentioned? As far as I could recall, the planetary shields are limited to relatively small area - a single base, usually.

And even if you magical deflectors actually work, I could always just dump a really big cloud of cobalt-60 dust on the projected course of your planet, which would effectively make her surface heavily irradiated.

With all respect, Crazy Eddy, but you obviously have little understanding of "how the space warfare worked". There is no way to fight space war without achieving space superiority. The planets are tactically useless; the navies is what matters.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In fact, before late-1930s, the main protection for US shoreline was exactly the dreadnought battleship.

And if this was the late 1930s, that would mean something.

air power doesn't work in space.

Because spaceships... can't... fly?

Sigh. We, russian, have the coastal defense aviation that you, americans, could only dream about. We have Naval Missile-Carrying Aviation Reigments - state of art bombers (including supersonics), armed with heavy supersonic missiles. And they have powerfull support assets too: a lot of maritime patrol planes, coastal over-the-horizon radars, radio warfare stations, entire sattelite networks (some of them with active radars!)

By your assumption, the US carrier groups shouldn't even dare to came into range of USSR coastal aviation.

Problem was, that they dare. And they actually represented a great threat to USSR coastlines - so great, that eventually the USSR started to build carriers themselves, to move fight in sea.

Hahaha.... NO.

I don't know what they told you over there, but it's been known in these parts that in the event of a shooting war with the Soviet Union, the lifespan of a U.S. carrier group anywhere along the Russian coast would be anywhere between 10 and 30 minutes. Standing orders for U.S. carriers in the event of war with Russia boil down to "The get the fuck away from Russia!" Saturation strikes with sea-skimming missiles and hypersonic cruise missiles were a HUGE problem that we never actually figured out how to solve and the only reason we're not still crapping our pants about is because the Cold War is over and we probably don't have to worry about it anymore.

Meanwhile, the Russian carriers -- I'm sorry "Aviation cruisers" -- were never designed to be a counterpart to American carriers. They're power projection systems, just like the carriers are. The Soviets had NO plans to take on the U.S. in carrier-to-carrier plans because they knew they couldn't build carriers powerful enough to make the contest interesting. They DID build the most advanced submarine force the world has ever seen, though, and that would also have sucked to deal with, but I digress...

Planes from California would be little help against the carrier group, that trashed the Seattle.

Because every fighter squadron on the west coast is just going to sit there and eat pizza while that carrier group carefully walks up to strike range of Seattle and starts launching attack planes before thinking "Gee, we'd better get up there and do something about it."

This is the point: you can send three carrier groups -- even U.S. carriers -- to attack the West Coast and they'd bring about 200 aircraft to the table.

The California, Orgen, Nevada and Washnington ANG all by themselves can match those numbers AND have greater logistical support, not to mention a larger number of ground-based anti-aircraft missiles with far greater range than the carrier's sea-based weapons. And this before you factor in the ACTUAL AIR FORCE stationed along with them. In the end, your three carriers and 200 planes are up against 1000 fighter craft and ten times their weight in firepower. This is not a smart thing for anyone to do.

Starship combat has similar logic. Weapon systems can be stored in larger numbers in fixed installations than they can on starships. It's even worse when you consider that the ranges of these weapons means that ANY installation on the planet can be brought to bear against ANY target within its line of sight; attacking starships can fall back out of range, but there's nothing much they can do to avoid detection except cloak themselves, and Federation worlds are protected by those pesky tachyon detection grids whose rules of engagement appear to be "shoot on sight."

The rule of warfare is, that mobility ALWAYS beat fixed defenses.

That WAS the rule of warfare until the Vietnamese proved otherwise. Now the rule of warfare is that air superiority requires both the supression of any air assets AND the suppression of ground-based defenses. If you can do one but not the other, you don't have air superiority, and the enemy can still cut off your attack routes and limit your mobility. Technology is a game changer like that.

What SHOULD have been a game changer in the Trek verse was the cloaking device, but Starfleet found ways around that. In the real world, the main thing keeping arms races from blowing up into shooting wars is the fact that the nations involved don't actually WANT to kill each other. This cannot be said for the Romulans: they DO want to conquer the Federation, and they would not miss any opportunity to do it if it presented itself. They even tried to invade Vulcan once before they got caught in the act. If their cloaking technology was good enough to defeat Federation defenses, they would IMMEDIATELY launch their fleet and start conquering Federation worlds one after another. It's not as if Starfleet is a formidable enough combatant to stop them, after all (they showed no fear of the Enteprise-D and no hesitation to fire on it whenever they thought it wouldn't start a war).

But those pesky tachyon detection grids keep the Romulans at bay, and have for some time. There's your example of a fixed fortificiation, and it works perfectly well in the Trek verse.

 

[Spot261]

Starship combat has similar logic. Weapon systems can be stored in larger numbers in fixed installations than they can on starships. It's even worse when you consider that the ranges of these weapons means that ANY installation on the planet can be brought to bear against ANY target within its line of sight; attacking starships can fall back out of range, but there's nothing much they can do to avoid detection except cloak themselves, and Federation worlds are protected by those pesky tachyon detection grids whose rules of engagement appear to be "shoot on sight."

You have an amazing grasp of a non existent area of expertise. I applaud you sir.

 

[Dilandu]

And if this was the late 1930s, that would mean something.

And if this was 1920s?

Because spaceships... can't... fly?

Because space battleship and space fighter are in the same medium.

The air power dominated the naval warfare because aircrafts move in air, and warships move in water. There is difference in mobility that couldn't be avoided.

With the spaceships - there is no reason why battleship must have less acceleration than fighter.

I don't know what they told you over there, but it's been known in these parts that in the event of a shooting war with the Soviet Union, the lifespan of a U.S. carrier group anywhere along the Russian coast would be anywhere between 10 and 30 minutes.

Sigh.

Just... read the history. In 1982, the "Midway" actively operated near USSR coastlines for FOUR DAYS - and our navy doesn't even knew that it was here.

Please, read the history first, than threw some nonsence. You knew nothing about carrier tactics of the cold war.

Meanwhile, the Russian carriers -- I'm sorry "Aviation cruisers" -- were never designed to be a counterpart to American carriers. They're power projection systems, just like the carriers are. The Soviets had NO plans to take on the U.S. in carrier-to-carrier plans because they knew they couldn't build carriers powerful enough to make the contest interesting. They DID build the most advanced submarine force the world has ever seen, though, and that would also have sucked to deal with, but I digress...

...And you knew nothing about USSR carriers, obviously.

Thei main goal was to provide fighter support for maritime reconnaisance and strike aircrafts far from coastlines, to disrupt the enemy aerial reconnasiance and to support anti-submarine operations.

Then weren't supposed to take on the US carriers, yes. They were supposed to provide cover & reconnaisance for USSR missile-carrying aircrafts and submarines, which were supposed to attack the US carriers.

Please, stop talking about things you knew nothing about.

Because every fighter squadron on the west coast is just going to sit there and eat pizza while that carrier group carefully walks up to strike range of Seattle and starts launching attack planes before thinking "Gee, we'd better get up there and do something about it."

And you assume that carriers would just sail in parade formation, signaling "we are carriers!" to everyone around?

Read this first:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm

Then we could discuss.

The California, Orgen, Nevada and Washnington ANG all by themselves can match those numbers AND have greater logistical support, not to mention a larger number of ground-based anti-aircraft missiles with far greater range than the carrier's sea-based weapons. And this before you factor in the ACTUAL AIR FORCE stationed along with them. In the end, your three carriers and 200 planes are up against 1000 fighter craft and ten times their weight in firepower. This is not a smart thing for anyone to do.

One small problem. You land-based planes have no clue, where the carriers are. If they send reconnaisance aircrafts, they would be shot down by carrier fighters. If they send fighters to cover them, the land-based fighters, operating on the long distance from their base, would inevitably lose to carrier-based aircrafts, which have their base much close and could operate with much greater ordnance payload (while your poor land-based fighter would carry mostly the drop tanks).

So while your enormous airforce seems powerfull, in fact, it's the essentially blind, and tied to the place Goliath, trying to hit David.

Starship combat has similar logic. Weapon systems can be stored in larger numbers in fixed installations than they can on starships. It's even worse when you consider that the ranges of these weapons means that ANY installation on the planet can be brought to bear against ANY target within its line of sight; attacking starships can fall back out of range, but there's nothing much they can do to avoid detection except cloak themselves, and Federation worlds are protected by those pesky tachyon detection grids whose rules of engagement appear to be "shoot on sight."

Again: there is NO range for kinetic projectiles, and the rocks are ALWAYS cheaper than torpedoes.

This is exactly the reason, why in Cold War USA quickly gave up on the ideas of land-based missile defense for cities. They weren't cost-effective. The anti-missile cost MORE than ICBM or SLBM that she was supposed to shot down (and then the multiple warheads came, and situation became even more dire). The enemy could awlays concentrate the ICBM and SLBM strikes, while the ABM's could not be concentrated - I.e. enemy could always just saturate the defenses. And, to be effective, the ABM must be absolutely effective, because just ONE missed warhead means the destruction of the protected "soft" targets. The ABM's were fighting the lose battle; to win, they need to intercept EVERY warhead per given object, while the attacker need only the single warhead to not be intercepted to win.

Just imagine the shooting contest, with said rules:

* To win, you need to hit the center of EVERY target, If you missed one center, you lose.
* Your opponent, to win need to hit ANY target at all, not even in center.

How good is your chances to win? Even if you are the best shooter in the world with laser-scope, and your opponent is newbe with matchlock pistol, you chances is just statistically worse. Any mistake from your side, any distraction - and you lose.

This is the fundamental rule of mass destruction warfare, guys. They work in space, too. There is no point in shooting down the projectiles - the opponent could always bring more.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Exactly the wrong solution. I'm outside the range of your torpedoes, and I have plenty of rock to bring in.

Then you're wasting your time, and I can do this all day.

No, they couldn't. At least not that effective - because A - of gravity well, and B - because you need to hit the small rock with literally zero emissions (and a lot of relativistic factors!) with another rock.

Or a dollar store solar probe that you totally gave me three or four days to go out and buy.

You do remember this is a Star Trek forum, right?

Or, I could use really big laser with really big mirror to melt your planetary facilities down from safe distance.

And the reason I can't do the exact same thing with a phaser beam is...?

You obviously missed the point, that any land-based anti-air defense could be saturated, or avoided.

And no one has ever successfully SATURATED a land-based air defense system since the invention of the guided missile. That is not a thing that really happens in the real world. It's been tried, by smarter people than either of us, with a truly DISMAL success rate.

What happens instead is that anyone who doesn't want to get their ass kicked in a modern military engagement relies on precision strikes to neutralize those defenses and their enemies try to stop them from doing so. The "Wild Weasel" missions of the Vietnam War grew out of this, which had the virtue of being both way more successful than clumsy saturation attacks, and also being stupefyingly dangerous for everyone involved. Whole new weapon systems -- anti-radiation missiles and jammer devices -- were develoeped for this purpose, and new tactics were developed to counter them. The contest between defense and counter-defense is a tense one and continues to this very day, with neither side gaining a clear advantage. It's a case of the unstoppable force vs the immovable object.

In the Star Trek universe where even basic warp capability implies the mastery of deflector shields and surface-to-orbit weaponry can be fired off the back of a pickup truck, the advantage is tilted heavily in favor of fortifications. Any DIRECT assault on fixed fortifications is an uphill battle that is asking for very heavy losses (just ask the Klingons) which is why it is so rarely attempted except when someone is desperate, suicidal, or very very clever (and the Klingons in "War of the Warrior" were two out of three of these).

My goal, is force you to surrender. Since you already foolishly allowed me space superiority, I could make an example out of several worlds, to prove that resistance without space navy is really futile.

It isn't, though. I don't have to hold you off indefinitely, just long enough for Starfleet to come along and chase you away.

Gowron couldn't invade a lone space station with a hundred warships, what makes you think he could capture a well defended planet that way?

It is simply impossible to sucsessfully invade the enemy homeworld - planet with literally billions of hostile population. The assault missions are only useful against small colonies - which probably haven't got gazillions of torpedoes to defend them) Against homeworlds, the only thing that could possbily work, is demand their surrender under threat of bombardment from space.

Which is why nobody ever invades anybody else's homeworld.

Please show me, where in canon planetary-size deflector shields are mentioned?

Aldea in "When the Bough Breaks."

Also the deflector system in "Paradise Syndrome" was specifically designed to deflect asteroids. Starfleet's had over a hundred years to study that system, but probably didn't need to, because the verteron array on Mars was also designed for this and was implied to have enough range to strike Earth from the surface of Mars.

I could always just dump a really big cloud of cobalt-60 dust on the projected course of your planet, which would effectively make her surface heavily irradiated.

And I could have sex with your mom without a condom. How would that help me take over your planet?

With all respect, Crazy Eddy, but you obviously have little understanding of "how the space warfare worked". There is no way to fight space war without achieving space superiority.

You DO know that space warfare is a fictional thing, right? You saying this as if it is a matter of fact is the epitome or pretentiousness. More importantly, Star Trek shows us not only is this possible, it's STANDARD PRACTICE. "Space superiority" isn't even a term of art IN UNIVERSE.

 

[Dilandu]

You have an amazing grasp of a non existent area of expertise. I applaud you sir.

I'm not. Crazy Eddie obviously didn't understood military tactics at all. Moreover, he didn't understood even the most basic assumptions of WMD warfare.

His ideas - is basically to build Maginot line in space. Even more, when French military actually considered Magiont line only as border protection to slow the enemy advance until the field armies mobilize, our Eddie suggested that there is no need in field armies at all, and the Maginot Line would be sufficient by itself.

I think, everybody knew, what happened in France in 1940s? The Maginot line, actually, did her job pretty good - but France still lost the campaign.

 

[Dilandu]

Crazy Eddie gone to personal insults, yeah. I think there is no point for me in arguing with such a child...

 

[Sgt_G]

A military organization would not have....

You fail to comprehend the corporate stupidity of a large military organization. Spend 26 years in uniform like I did, and you'll begin to understand. I can't count the number of times new orders came down from upon high, and we thought or even said out loud, "Who's brilliant idea was that?"

 

[1001001]

Then you're wasting your time, and I can do this all day.


Or a dollar store solar probe that you totally gave me three or four days to go out and buy.

You do remember this is a Star Trek forum, right?


And the reason I can't do the exact same thing with a phaser beam is...?


And no one has ever successfully SATURATED a land-based air defense system since the invention of the guided missile. That is not a thing that really happens in the real world. It's been tried, by smarter people than either of us, with a truly DISMAL success rate.

What happens instead is that anyone who doesn't want to get their ass kicked in a modern military engagement relies on precision strikes to neutralize those defenses and their enemies try to stop them from doing so. The "Wild Weasel" missions of the Vietnam War grew out of this, which had the virtue of being both way more successful than clumsy saturation attacks, and also being stupefyingly dangerous for everyone involved. Whole new weapon systems -- anti-radiation missiles and jammer devices -- were develoeped for this purpose, and new tactics were developed to counter them. The contest between defense and counter-defense is a tense one and continues to this very day, with neither side gaining a clear advantage. It's a case of the unstoppable force vs the immovable object.

In the Star Trek universe where even basic warp capability implies the mastery of deflector shields and surface-to-orbit weaponry can be fired off the back of a pickup truck, the advantage is tilted heavily in favor of fortifications. Any DIRECT assault on fixed fortifications is an uphill battle that is asking for very heavy losses (just ask the Klingons) which is why it is so rarely attempted except when someone is desperate, suicidal, or very very clever (and the Klingons in "War of the Warrior" were two out of three of these).


It isn't, though. I don't have to hold you off indefinitely, just long enough for Starfleet to come along and chase you away.

Gowron couldn't invade a lone space station with a hundred warships, what makes you think he could capture a well defended planet that way?


Which is why nobody ever invades anybody else's homeworld.


Aldea in "When the Bough Breaks."

Also the deflector system in "Paradise Syndrome" was specifically designed to deflect asteroids. Starfleet's had over a hundred years to study that system, but probably didn't need to, because the verteron array on Mars was also designed for this and was implied to have enough range to strike Earth from the surface of Mars.


And I could have sex with your mom without a condom. How would that help me take over your planet?


You DO know that space warfare is a fictional thing, right? You saying this as if it is a matter of fact is the epitome or pretentiousness. More importantly, Star Trek shows us not only is this possible, it's STANDARD PRACTICE. "Space superiority" isn't even a term of art IN UNIVERSE.

Sex with your mom?

Jesus, dude.

Anything else like that and you'll receive a formal warning.

This has gone far enough.

Everyone please take a step back. I would just love to close this thread, so don't give me any more reason to do so.

 

[1001001]

Crazy Eddie gone to personal insults, yeah. I think there is no point for me in arguing with such a child...

You could have just let me handle it rather than responding with an insult of your own.

Please...drop it.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

With the spaceships - there is no reason why battleship must have less acceleration than fighter.

Right. Battleships basically ARE fighters. Thus "air power."

Just... read the history.

Take your own advice

...And you knew nothing about USSR carriers, obviously.

Thei main goal was to provide fighter support for maritime reconnaisance and strike aircrafts far from coastlines, to disrupt the enemy aerial reconnasiance and to support anti-submarine operations.

Yeah. That's called "power projection." What's the problem again?

And you assume that carriers would just sail in parade formation, signaling "we are carriers!" to everyone around?

We were talking about planetary invasions, yes? A large enough group of ships would pretty much have to travel in formation in order to reach the operations area at the right place at the right time to not get in each other's way. Again, if you're talking about your ability to sneak up to your enemy and tie his shoelaces together and maybe get out of dodge without getting killed, that's definitely dooable on ANY scale. But that's not an "invasion" and it's not something you're likely to pull off in wartime either.

Here, too, Star Trek has plenty of examples. Klingon and Federation ships conduct sneak attacks and raids on fixed fortifications all the time, neatly avoiding local defenses with high speed hit and run attacks. Klingon birds of prey and Defiant class ships are excellent for this. Jem'Hadar battle bugs probably specialize in it. But nobody's going to conquer a planet just by strafing an arms factory in downtown Seattle.

One small problem. You land-based planes have no clue, where the carriers are.

Again, you can hide a single carrier on a one-off sneak attack. Hiding an invasion force is much more difficult. Not impossible, just difficult.

If you manage to hide your attack force from detection anyway, what exactly is the utility of having a mobile defense again? Even starships can't intercept you if they don't know where you are.

Again: there is NO range for kinetic projectiles, and the rocks are ALWAYS cheaper than torpedoes.

So what? I live in a post-scarcity society and I have no shortage of them.

This is the fundamental rule of mass destruction warfare, guys. They work in space, too.

Again, we were talking about INVASION, not mass destruction. Invasion requires the conquest of a planet and its resources and the subjection of a population. DESTROYING planets is so ridiculously easy that you actually have to be super careful to KEEP them from blowing up.

 

[Ithekro]

I would point out that interplanetary weapons systems have been seen before, both as beam weapons and missile weapons. By worlds more primitive than the 24th century Federation's technology.

The Klingon world of Ty'Gokor has a planetary defensive shield as well as a tachyon detection grid.

Regular Asteroids do not seem to be an issue for a planet with a proper defense system. Tractor beams are effective shielding devices for such things. Just set up a repulsor field and the rock will be deflected off. Sure it might be wise to shoot several down before they reach the field, but what is essentially a crude mass driver long range bombardment system should be easily defended against given the technology present in the Federation. Only unusual material composition asteroids seem to vex the Federation, and that's only to the point they need to recalculate the weapon or power setting of the repulsor field and shield arrays to deal with them. Sometimes we see one starship having issues with large or exotic material asteroids. Most of this has to deal with the power consumption of the ship not being up to the task. A planetary power grid would seem to have the power needed for such things.

Add to this something like the Mars Defense Perimeter, and you likely have an automated long range grouping of anti-ship craft to deal with the mass driver delivery platform/tugboat.

V'Ger neutralized the Earth defense systems before putting its dematerializing bombs into orbit to threaten the carbon units into giving up the Creator.

Nero felt he needed to disable Earth's defenses in order to use a orbital drill to give his weapon a core shot.

Betazed's defense systems was decades out of date and understaffed so it was taken by a surprise attack by the Dominion.

The Federation attack on Cardassia was costly and probably would be been doomed had the Founder not surrendered. Even with the Cardassians fighting for their homeworld at the end, it is likely the planetary population would have been exterminated before the Federation could crack through the orbital defenses. And that's after blowing apart the Dominion Fleet, which is very explodable.

The Breen surprise attack on Earth did some damage to the San Francisco Bay Area, but it did not level the region, nor did any of that force manage to escape. The Klingons were surprised that someone even dared try to attack Earth directly. The Breen are known to have cloaking devices and their entry into the war wasn't announced really.

The Xendi prototype literally came out of FTL in orbit of the planet to fire a beam on it. The full on weapon did similar. Earth's defense systems appear not to be in place yet, nor does Earth even have a lot of the 23rd and 24th century technologies that would make a planetary defense system viable. (shield systems, photon torpedoes, tractor beams, and many other technologies) Also Earth had never even heard of this species before, nor this form of FTL travel. They had no clue they were under threat until Florida was being bisected.

Deep Space Nine was attacked a few times during the series. When the station was prepared for a fight, it took quite literally a whole armada of warships to even attempt a boarding action, and it take more to just outright destroy the station. Even when it was underarmed, it was still not advisable to attack the station with a single ship. The Mirror Universe version of the station would not have been ungraded like the Federation station, so the Alliance used two Galors, a handful of Birds of Prey, and a really huge flagship to take the place. They were held off by the station itself for a time, but driven off by Defiant and a raider.

Attacking a starbase is usually not considered to be a good plan. Even taking out a major shipyard tends to take a massive investment in ships unless one can come up with a "brilliant" science solution such as setting of a solar plume into the shipyard, and hope they don't have metaphasic shielding.

 

[BillJ]

The FEDERATION'S interpretation is that Starfleet is not a military organization.

Has anyone from the Federation government said that Starfleet isn't the military?

 

[Shawnster]

Has anyone from the Federation government said that Starfleet isn't the military?

And what do the other civilizations think of Starfleet and its role?

 

[Prax]

Has anyone from the Federation government said that Starfleet isn't the military?

Negative. Just one idealistic Starship captain.