Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

[Nob Akimoto]

To me it's more a numbers game. If we kept up the same number of ships from the Cold War and continued to upgrade them, we'd have more capable ships today. Instead we have far fewer ships and that means we're less able to absorb losses if we were to be involved in a war.

Ah but I'm not talking about old vs new. I'm talking about numbers of ships. (And to your argument, "A modern DDG could wipe the floor with a squadron of older ships" but a squadron of modern DDGs will wipe the floor with a squadron of older ships.)

On both of these, the problem you encounter is one of scarcity.

While the Federation is a post personal scarcity society (at least in some sense, given the marginal cost of energy is near 0 with cheap fusion), it's clear that there's bottlenecks in everything from ship power sources (dilithium) to physical locations to build ships to trained personnel.

So for any given amount of resources you can focus on building more capable ships or a greater number of them.

There's a reason why naval treaties focused on tonnage rather than other measures like budgets or unit numbers. The displacement of individual ships was perhaps the greatest single determinant of their capabilities. The Washington and London treaties helped keep a tight rein on battleship displacement and capabilities until they were abrogated, and once the treaties were done away with, the size and capabilities of battleships ballooned to about half again the size as the older ones.

The numbers game can be effective, but only if you have a nigh infinite naval budget and a substantial commitment that can't be covered any other way. Either way it's a great way to commit yourself to budgetary overstretch. In constant dollar terms, it's easy to forget that the DoD budget hasn't changed all that much from the Cold War era (and since the War on Terror has increased). A modern destroyer displaces as much a Cold War era cruiser with substantially better capabilities. It also has about half the crew. Maintaining numbers would always have some sort of penalty, whether in capabilities or budgets. Now given that there's plenty of resistance of a trillion dollar defense budget, I highly doubt you'd get enough votes if you decided the DOD budget needed to be closer to 30% of GDP than 10%.

Same would go for Starfleet. They have limitations, though mostly in terms of ship building/refitting capabilities (number of shipyards, slips, etc) and crew. So once the need for keeping sheer numbers around to cover every cubic lightyear of space available became lower, they'd probably shift toward getting more bang per buck.

For example, the Hermes and Saladin classes had crew complements of about 195-200. By contrast a Miranda's complement was about 350. So for every 3 Mirandas you could crew 5 of the scouts/destroyers. From a war time point of view, having 5 ships to send to 5 different sectors is attractive. From a more peace oriented view, you'd rather have the 3 much more capable and flexible cruisers wandering around. I'm guessing what happened in the post-Khitomer era was that Starfleet decided on ships that were most efficient from a capability for crew complement perspective. Hence they could build larger numbers of Mirandas, replaced Constitutions with Excelsiors and the like. (You could crew 2 Excelsiors for every 3 Constitutions, and from a tonnage point of view, you get a lot more ship from 2 Excelsiors than 3 Constitutions)

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It could be also because the military arm of Starfleet was retired after The Undiscovered Country

It wasn't. Stop saying that.

It was. Stop trying to claim otherwise unless you've got proof.

There's no proof that it was in the first place other than the snark of one alarmist officer (and one murderous traitor) who doesn't know what she's talking about.

So no, the military assets of the fleet were NOT dismantled after TUC. Epsilon Nine and its sisters possibly were, as was (probably) Space Station K-7. Their military value would have been dubious anyway, but it gave the Klingons an excuse to transfer their resources to things OTHER than military spending.

 

[Nob Akimoto]

It wasn't. Stop saying that.

It was. Stop trying to claim otherwise unless you've got proof.

There's no proof that it was in the first place other than the snark of one alarmist officer (and one murderous traitor) who doesn't know what she's talking about.

So no, the military assets of the fleet were NOT dismantled after TUC. Epsilon Nine and its sisters possibly were, as was (probably) Space Station K-7. Their military value would have been dubious anyway, but it gave the Klingons an excuse to transfer their resources to things OTHER than military spending.

I agree on this one, but I'm also thinking that Starfleet did get an opportunity to pull ships off the frontlines that they would've otherwise kept deployed and replaced them with more effective or more efficient ships. Hence we see the huge proliferation of Mirandas and Excelsiors.

 

[Praetor]

Good point, but there does appear to be something significant or special about the Mirandas and Excelsiors, insofar at least that we see more volumes of them than almost any other class of ship, over a longer span of time.

 

[Nob Akimoto]

Well, let's assume a greatly simplified fleet composition for a moment.
In 2280 Starfleet has:
15 Constitutions w/complement of 500
35 Mirandas w/complement of 350
40 Soyuz w/complement of 300
75 Saladins w/complement of 200
75 Hermes w/complement of 195
For a total of 240 ships, and 61,375 personnel.

Starfleet decides that the Soyuz-class no longer fits their needs, and feel they need more ships to cover a larger number of sectors from Romulans and Klingons. So they mothball the 40 ships of that class, in favor of building more ships. They have the capacity to build all new ships, with a total of 60 ships needed over the next ten years (so 6 ships per year) and in 2290 they get:
20 Constitutions w/complement of 500
40 Mirandas w/complement of 350
100 Saladins w/complement of 200
100 Hermes w/complement of 195
For a total of 260 ships and 63,500 personnel.

Khitomer accords happens, Federation Council tells Starfleet that they can keep their current personnel counts, but that they won't get new shipyards or a budget increase for say the next 20 years. Starfleet's equivalent of the Admiralty Board then decides it'll mothball/decommission everything but Miranda-cruisers and bigger, badder Excelsior-class explorers. Since they don't get an increase in personnel numbers and they still have to deal with 6 ships per year, they start the slow process by building 4 new Mirandas and 2 new Excelsiors per year. So over the next 20 years they do exactly that and accounting for losses and the like they end up in 2310 with:
31 Excelsiors w/complement of 750
115 Mirandas w/complement of 350
Total Ships: 146, Personnel: 63,500

Now at this point the Federation Council says: "Well hey guys, we now have a lot more space to cover thanks to your exploratory efforts and we have a bigger budget, we can let you double the size of your fleet and shipyard capacity." Given the realities that Starfleet has a very large number of both Excelsior and Miranda-class ships about (and their supply chain/maintenance chain is biased very strongly in favor of those ships), they decide to maintain those as the mainline ships (with substantial modernization of course) for the time being while expanding their shipyard capability and building 8 Mirandas and 4 Excelsiors per year until 2320.
Accounting for losses we'd see a simplified fleet of something like:
175 Mirandas
60 Excelsiors
Total: 235 ships, Personnel: 106,250

Now by 2320s, Starfleet now has no more Romulans to deal with, they're richer than ever, but see that the Klingon Empire is starting to make noises again. As a show of force they start building new modern ships based on new technologies while retrofitting older ships with service life extensions/refurbishments. So about 2/3rd of their shipyard capability is taken up with repairing/upgrading their old ships (which can do this in 6 months) vs. the remaining capability used for building new ships. Half of the capability is used to build modernized Excelsiors and Mirandas in alternating years while the other half build brand new Ambassador-class ships which require 2 years to build vs the previous 1 year build-up. From 2320 to 2330 then (and assuming some losses) Starfleet changes to become:
165 Mirandas
60 Excelsiors
10 Ambassador
Total: 235 ships, Personnel: 111,750

You can continue a process of this sort well into the 2360s where you eventually end up with just 6 Galaxy-class ships being built in the 2350s, explaining why you see so many Mirandas and Excelsiors around. By building up such a huge store of them at some point in the 2290 - 2310s, Starfleet must've had a vested interest in continuing to develop technology/modules for them to upgrade with.

 

[Praetor]

Say, that's pretty good. I'd up the numbers by maybe 2 or 3x, though, mostly because to me DS9 implied higher numbers.

 

[Nob Akimoto]

I was using smaller numbers to be easy to keep track of. I'd probably increase the sheer numbers by 10x or so (maybe more given what we've seen of things like Utopia Planitia) as well as increase the number of classes being produced at various stages. In fact, I might even take a stab at it at some point.

But I think the general point stands.

 

[Praetor]

Ah, then I definitely agree, as that was my only real reservation.

 

[blssdwlf]

It wasn't. Stop saying that.

It was. Stop trying to claim otherwise unless you've got proof.

There's no proof that it was in the first place other than the snark of one alarmist officer (and one murderous traitor) who doesn't know what she's talking about.

What are you talking about? Neither one of the two in the conversation had anything to do with the conspiracy AND the guy answering the question would be in the best position to answer the question.

MILITARY AIDE: Bill, are we talking about mothballing the Starfleet?
C in C: I'm sure that our exploration and scientific programs would be unaffected, Captain, but...
​

You still have no proof.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Also, I'm pretty sure that Deanna Troi was part of the Enterprise crew when it was first commissioned. She was killed by Armus on Vagra-II in an attempt to get an emotional rise out of the Enterprise rescue team (Deanna, being the only person on the entire crew with a high regard for sentient life).

I'd respectfully disagree here. While this is certainly one possibility in the alternate timeline, I think it's more plausible that the Enterprise crew never performed some of the same missions and never visited Vagra II because Troi's shuttle was never there. She could be anywhere in the alternate Federation

They ALL could be anywhere in the alternate Federation, but for some reason they're all on the Enterprise just as before. The only one missing is Worf, while everyone else -- even Guinan -- are on the Enterprise exactly where we'd expect them to be.

Their missions might be different, but Scifi logic means the parallels would be preserved. Troi's shuttle mission might reflect the fact that in the alternate timeline the Betazeds are considered expert infiltrators and intelligence operatives due to their empathy and telepathy; in this case, Troi is coming back from an FOB where she helped interrogate a captured Klingon officer and extracted some valuable information from him before the shuttle crashed and Arnus killed her.

Significantly, it explains why Tasha is on the Enterprise and Troi is not. It isn't that Tasha was died killed on Vagra-II, it's the Tasha wasn't the THE ONE who died on Vagra-II.

 

[blssdwlf]

To me it's more a numbers game. If we kept up the same number of ships from the Cold War and continued to upgrade them, we'd have more capable ships today. Instead we have far fewer ships and that means we're less able to absorb losses if we were to be involved in a war.

Ah but I'm not talking about old vs new. I'm talking about numbers of ships. (And to your argument, "A modern DDG could wipe the floor with a squadron of older ships" but a squadron of modern DDGs will wipe the floor with a squadron of older ships.)

On both of these, the problem you encounter is one of scarcity.

Well now you're just changing the conditions to include resources instead of just purely numbers. But I'll play

While the Federation is a post personal scarcity society (at least in some sense, given the marginal cost of energy is near 0 with cheap fusion), it's clear that there's bottlenecks in everything from ship power sources (dilithium) to physical locations to build ships to trained personnel.

Yes.

So for any given amount of resources you can focus on building more capable ships or a greater number of them.

That's true at different given times in history. I'd imagine that the amount of resources increased between TUC and say 20 years prior to "Yesterday's Enterprise" because the respective space powers are able to explore and acquire new planets with resources.

There's a reason why naval treaties focused on tonnage rather than other measures like budgets or unit numbers. The displacement of individual ships was perhaps the greatest single determinant of their capabilities.

The Washington and London treaties helped keep a tight rein on battleship displacement and capabilities until they were abrogated, and once the treaties were done away with, the size and capabilities of battleships ballooned to about half again the size as the older ones.

Okay, you've lost me here. How do the above Washington and London treaties that limits capabilities by displacement connect to fixed resources? From their descriptions it reads that the countries had plenty of resources to build more but the treaties were designed to artificially limit construction by ratios to other countries (among other criteria).

The numbers game can be effective, but only if you have a nigh infinite naval budget and a substantial commitment that can't be covered any other way. Either way it's a great way to commit yourself to budgetary overstretch.

Isn't that a given if a country overstretches and builds more than they can afford? I was thinking that a country is building what they need and can afford because they already have X number of ships to start with.

In constant dollar terms, it's easy to forget that the DoD budget hasn't changed all that much from the Cold War era

According to this article, the DoD budget took a 36% hit after the end of the Cold War up till the War on Terror.

(and since the War on Terror has increased). A modern destroyer displaces as much a Cold War era cruiser with substantially better capabilities.

Yes, in general newer ships equal better capabilities. (Except for nukes. I don't think our post-Cold War ships carry any nuclear missiles.)

It also has about half the crew.

But isn't that in exchange for increased complexity and technical training to operate and maintain the new equipment?

Maintaining numbers would always have some sort of penalty, whether in capabilities or budgets. Now given that there's plenty of resistance of a trillion dollar defense budget, I highly doubt you'd get enough votes if you decided the DOD budget needed to be closer to 30% of GDP than 10%.

Or was it more like 20%? Anywhoo...

edit: no you're right at 10% of GDP.

Same would go for Starfleet. They have limitations, though mostly in terms of ship building/refitting capabilities (number of shipyards, slips, etc) and crew. So once the need for keeping sheer numbers around to cover every cubic lightyear of space available became lower, they'd probably shift toward getting more bang per buck.

That I agree with. I just think the more "bang per buck" is weighted towards science and exploration over military.

If I were to make a comparison - look at DS9's Defiant-class which showcases that a pure military ship in Starfleet is actually very small and uses a small crew as a result. Building a bunch of pure warships to me would indicate that it would be cheaper in material and crew, IMHO.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm going to start back again with numbers.

Second, US Navy Force levels between the Cold War and modern USN aren't particularly helpful when you look at the composition of the ships employed.

To me it's more a numbers game. If we kept up the same number of ships from the Cold War and continued to upgrade them, we'd have more capable ships today. Instead we have far fewer ships and that means we're less able to absorb losses if we were to be involved in a war.

Incorrect: we have more ships of the SAME TYPE, which means we are more able to absorb those losses than we would have been before; the loss of a single CGNs and a couple of Tico cruisers would have seriously compromised the Navy's planning in 1985; in 2005, you'd have to sink at least ten Aegis destroyers to cause the same disruption, and the Arleigh Burkes are considerably harder targets.

Ah but I'm not talking about old vs new. I'm talking about numbers of ships.

The U.S. Navy built and maintained not more than 70 guided missile destroyers at any given time between 1957 and 1993. The current tally stands at 62, with 5 more under construction. The FFG series is different matter, but there are still 12 Perry class frigates in active service compared to the 51 originally built (which is kind of impressive considering how laughably useless they presently are).

There's also the little fact that of the 52 SSN688s originally built, 40 are still in service, and the retired subs have been replaced by a mix of Virginias and Seawolfs for a total of 53 SSNs now in service; about as many as we had at the height of naval operations in the 80s. Most of the surviving 688s are equipped with VLS tubes and are capable of firing anti-shipping missiles and Tomahawks and are thus equivalent to submersible DDGs; there's also the Ohio SSGN conversions, which makes you wonder what anyone ever saw in the old CGNs.

If you want to talk numbers, then at least recognize that the number of combat vessels hasn't changed much in the past twenty years despite the fact that -- with the advent of sub-launched harpoons and VLS weapon systems -- their capabilities have more than doubled over the same period.

Incidentally, this is approximately equivalent to what we see in Starfleet. In Kirk's time, we're told there are only about a dozen Constitution class starships in the entire fleet, in addition to an unknown number of lesser vessels. In Picard's time, about a dozen Galaxy class starships and an unknown number of lesser ones. However you interpret Starfleet's standing after the Khitomer accords, it's clear they actually got STRONGER, not weaker (especially since the ship that wound up replacing the Enterprise only a year later is larger and more powerful than anything Kirk had ever commanded).

Lastly, even this goes to assumes that the Klingons are the only or even the biggest threat to the Federation during the 23rd century. Even a cursory viewing of TOS shows this not to be the case; the Klingons are a recurring nemesis, but Starfleet logs repeated encounters with alien doomsday machines, star-eating space amoebas, carnivorous space monsters, and major population centers being attacked by omnicidal death probes not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES in the span of only fifteen years. In real-world terms: imagine if every naval vessel since 1905 carried equipment capable of dissipating thunderstorms and/or hurricanes. That's the world that Starfleet inhabits: their equivalent of "hurricane season" is a regular fleet action; they have fighter squadrons that specialize in shooting down tornadoes. They're not going to demobilize just because one of the two-dozen hostile aliens they share a border with is going bankrupt. If anything, it'll make them less conservative and more willing to take risks on newer/bolder/untried designs.

In the end, there is one and ONLY one part of Starfleet that was ever considered for dismantling, and Spock lays it out plainly: The dismantling of our space stations and starbases along the Neutral Zone. Nothing else happened; nothing else WOULD have happened. And in the end, we're talking NEGOTIATIONS: it's not even certain that all of those star bases were decommissioned, considering many of them could just as easily be converted to peaceful/scientific purposes anyway.

 

[blssdwlf]

I'm going to start back again with numbers.

Second, US Navy Force levels between the Cold War and modern USN aren't particularly helpful when you look at the composition of the ships employed.

To me it's more a numbers game. If we kept up the same number of ships from the Cold War and continued to upgrade them, we'd have more capable ships today. Instead we have far fewer ships and that means we're less able to absorb losses if we were to be involved in a war.

Incorrect: we have more ships of the SAME TYPE, which means we are more able to absorb those losses than we would have been before; the loss of a single CGNs and a couple of Tico cruisers would have seriously compromised the Navy's planning in 1985; in 2005, you'd have to sink at least ten Aegis destroyers to cause the same disruption, and the Arleigh Burkes are considerably harder targets.

You need to re-check your numbers. Other than a minor bump in Destroyers and tripling of Mine Warfare ships, we have FEWER ships as stated before and we are less able to absorb losses.

Dates being used: End of Cold War, 1991. 2005 is 4 years into the War on Terror. These stats are all from the US Navy.

1991: Cruisers 47 / Destroyers 47 / Frigates 93 / Subs 87 / SSBN 34 / SSGN 22 / Mine Warfare 6 / Amphibious 61 / Aux 112 = 509, not counting a Battleship.
2001: Cruisers 27 / Destroyers 53 / Frigates 35 / Subs 55 / SSBN 18 / SSGN 0 / Mine Warfare 18 / Amphibious 41 / Aux 57 = 304
2005: Cruisers 23 / Destroyers 46 / Frigates 30 / Subs 54 / SSBN 14 / SSGN 4 / Mine Warfare 17 / Amphibious 37 / Aux 45 = 270

And since you and others point out that these ships are more capable and do more bang for the buck, each loss of ship will be felt even MORE.

In the end, there is one and ONLY one part of Starfleet that was ever considered for dismantling, and Spock lays it out plainly: The dismantling of our space stations and starbases along the Neutral Zone. Nothing else happened; nothing else WOULD have happened. And in the end, we're talking NEGOTIATIONS: it's not even certain that all of those star bases were decommissioned, considering many of them could just as easily be converted to peaceful/scientific purposes anyway.

Spock speaks of starbases and space stations while the Military Aide asks about the whole Starfleet to clarify. The answer is more broad and it tells us that only the Science and Exploration programs will be unaffected. That leaves the all the other programs being affected, including the Military.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'd modify your numbers a bit because I still believe that the Federation has been expanding in an "onion layer" fashion for most of its history and uses the same types of ships in each layer, era after era. Thusly:

Well, let's assume a greatly simplified fleet composition for a moment.
In 2280 Starfleet has:
15 Constitutions w/complement of 500
35 Mirandas w/complement of 350
40 Soyuz w/complement of 300
75 Saladins w/complement of 200
75 Hermes w/complement of 195
For a total of 240 ships, and 61,375 personnel.

You're forgetting the Constellations, which are just coming into service around this time. There's also the Akyazi perimeter action ships, which are only about as canon as the Hermes/Saladin types but are basically the grandaddy of USS Defiant. Not to carry over from the other thread, but I happen to believe the Constitution class is a rather old design by this point (since we never see any other than Enterprise after TOS) and by the 2280s they're in the process of being replaced as the "layer" they helped to chart becomes more and more civilized, the worlds they explored experience colonization and development booms.

I also don't believe there were EVER that many Soyuz-class ships. I think that was a specialty design built for a very specific purpose or set of purposes and not that many of them would even have existed.

So I'd modify this. In the 2280s we'd have:
5 Constitutions w/complement of 400
10 Constellations w/complement of 500
35 Mirandas w/complement of 350
5 Soyuz w/complement of 300
45 Saladins w/complement of 200
55 Hermes w/complement of 195
80 Akyazi w/complement of 80
For a total of 235 ships, and 46,875 personnel.

The Saladins and the Hermes are old designs as well, being no longer even necessary since the patrol zones they once covered can now be handled by remote sensing devices and fast-acting speedsters like the Akyazi perimeter action ships. If anything we'd have LESS of those, not more. OTOH, the Excelsiors are just coming off the production line and moving into the "next layer" exploration zones just beyond the 5-year-mission exploration region while the old Constitutions continue to be replaced by Constellations in their increasingly busy neighborhood. the Akyazi's get upgraded too, so in 2290 they have:
5 Excelsiors w/complement of 800
4 Constitutions w/complement of 400
20 Constellations w/complement of 500
40 Mirandas w/complement of 350
30 Saladins w/complement of 200
35 Hermes w/complement of 195
85 Akyazi w/complement of 80
15 Akula w/complement of 85
For a total of 239 ships and 52,050 personnel.

In the Khitomer accords, the neutral zone outposts are either shut down or demilitarized (and thus converted into research laboratories). The Saladins and the Hermes no longer have a reason to exist; the existing Miranda production line is in full swing and new hulls can be built to take over their remaining border patrol duties, their security patrol duties are covered by the Akyazis and the outposts they usually defend don't exist anymore. THEY would be scrapped, but at this point they're practically ancient anyway, yes?

So Starfleet's priorities are changed, but only vis a vis the Klingons. More Excelsiors are being built, and at some point USS Ambassador comes off the assembly line. By the 2310s:
1 Ambassador w/complement of 2000
35 Excelsiors w/complement of 800
40 Constellations w/complement of 500
70 Mirandas w/complement of 350
55 Akyazi w/complement of 80
45 Akula w/complement of 85
245 ships and 87,225 personnel.

See the pattern here: larger numbers of larger ships are being sent deeper and deeper into space. By the 2340s there are probably dozens of Ambassadors and twice as many Excelsiors; the number of starfleet personnel has already doubled in the past 20 years, but most of the growth is in deep space, with the big Excelsior and Ambassador classes.

This, IMO, has implications for the Klingon war. When hostilities begin, Starfleet is spread fairly thin and has come to rely on a small number of small, specialized vessels for local security while its most powerful vessels are widely distributed and spread out into the far reaches of space. Arguably, the Klingons have the exact opposite distribution: they send their smallest ships to probe their enemies for weakness and keep their larger ships close to the homeworld as part of their "real arsenal." This would mean that at the start of the war, most of the heavy fighting takes place on the frontier as the largest and most powerful Starfleet vessels have these epic knockdown-dragout slugfests with equally enormous Klingon dreadnaughts. They spend the first years of the war fighting over new resources, over planets, over contact with new races, over trade routes, over allies; basically, the same shit Kirk was fighting them over, only the stakes are higher and so is the body count.

Unlike Kirk's time, however, the dispute works its way inwards: Klingons keep annexing planets the Federation has claims on, and while they're still wrestling over those, they start to get more aggressive and move in on planets the Federation has claimed for decades. This is when the Klingons discover that the INNER frontier if the Federation is mostly patrolled by Excelsior-types, which, while numerous, aren't nearly as tough as the Ambassadors. Diving in deeper, they find the Constellations and the Mirandas patrolling the core sectors, ship designs they have known how to fight for decades and aren't all that tough at all. It dawns on the Empire that the Federation's core is more vulnerable than they've been assuming all these years, and they start to lay claims to HISTORICALLY Federation worlds.

In this history, the Galaxy class is built as a ship that can close that weakness: it's got the size and muscle you'd expect from the Ambassadors and their cousins, but with its separable saucer and high troop complement it can perform the duty of a Constellation or an Excelsior just as efficiently. The redesigned Galaxy class is therefore exactly the thing the Federation needs right now, and goes into production earlier and faster and with fewer bells and whistles.

Where in the Prime Timeline they're following a pretty normal progression -- going deeper into space, build a deeper starship -- and thus it makes sense that there are only between 6 and 12 Galaxy class ships for a region of space only recently opened up to the Federation. In the alternate timeline, however, they're not in an exploring mood. The Galaxy is the "King Tiger" of the Federation's war machine, with at least twenty in service by the time the Enterprise-C comes through the rift. But even then, in all likelihood it's too little too late.

The only outstanding question is why Starfleet never put a ship like Defiant into service around this same time. I'd like to think they did, although maybe just mass producing huge numbers of Akyazi/Akulas would have been sufficient for that purpose. Either way, it doesn't seem to be working against the Klingon as well as a huge number of Galaxy class ships would, and at this point it's too late for that.

Long post. Heh.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You need to re-check your numbers. Other than a minor bump in Destroyers and tripling of Mine Warfare ships, we have FEWER ships as stated before

But more of the SAME TYPE, as stated before. All the Charles F. Adams and Spruance types have been replaced by Burkes. The Ticonderoga class, which is also in the process of being replaced, is a "cruiser" in name only and is really just the Burke's slightly bigger brother.

That leaves us short about 25 ships. The missing ships are mostly the nuclear powered Belknap/Truxtun/Virginia/California cruisers that were decommissioned in the 1990s when their reason to exist -- the Soviet Navy -- evaporated. Almost every one of those ships were either one-of-a-kind or built with such a rare mix of hardware that they could not be replaced (or, in the case of Bainbridge, even REPAIRED) if anything were to happen to them. And this ignores the fact that the CGNs themselves are tactically inferior to even the Ticonderogas, to say nothing of the newer and more advanced Arleigh Burkes.

You're making basically the same error Congress made in the 60s with the "cruiser gap" panic. You're counting numbers and types and are paying no attention whatsoever to the capabilities those types bring to the table. By that same logic we could easily address the problem by reclassifying the littoral combat ships as "guided missile cruisers" for no reason. Sure, they're not proper cruisers at all and wouldn't last three seconds in any real naval battle, but we're just talking NUMBERS, right?

And since you and others point out that these ships are more capable and do more bang for the buck, each loss of ship will be felt even MORE.

Not nearly as much as it would the loss of one of the CGNs, considering their higher crew complement and far greater vulnerability, not to mention the fact that the 1960s era CGNs carried equipment packages for which few spare parts still existed in 1995 and definitely do not exist today.

In the end, there is one and ONLY one part of Starfleet that was ever considered for dismantling, and Spock lays it out plainly: The dismantling of our space stations and starbases along the Neutral Zone. Nothing else happened; nothing else WOULD have happened. And in the end, we're talking NEGOTIATIONS: it's not even certain that all of those star bases were decommissioned, considering many of them could just as easily be converted to peaceful/scientific purposes anyway.

Spock speaks of starbases and space stations while the Military Aide asks about the whole Starfleet to clarify. The answer is more broad...

Unlikely. The original script has the CnC finishing that statement with "... but the facts speak for themselves, Captain." This is a rebuke, not an explanation: "Stupid question is stupid."

and it tells us that only the Science and Exploration programs will be unaffected

Which is, at this point, about 95% of the fleet. About the only thing it explicitly DOES effect are the outposts along the neutral zone and what, in the script, Spock alludes to as "military expenditures," the absence of which would reduce pressure on the Federation economy.

That, too, alludes to fixed installations and fortifications that would require relatively high maintenance and constant upgrades to keep in a state of perpetual readiness against Klingon aggression. Absence the Klingon threat, those stations can be either demobilized or placed on reduced alert, at the disposal of the scientific and exploration programs Starfleet has already been running for the past 150 years already.

 

[Workbee]

Some great analysis here. Sorry to get off track, but something occurred to me after reading this.

So far it seems we are assuming that the Federation is only lost territory/space/planets to the Klingons through capture and occupation. I think it is important to consider that possibility that some of the planets or members of the Federation defected to the Klingons. War is arguably just as much about cutting off the enemy's supply lines as it is about battle tactics and firepower. I see no reason this couldn't hold true here.

We know from the Genesis Proposal in TWOK that the federation anticipated difficulty meeting the needs for a growing population. Since Genesis failed, it is likely that this would have become a problem, if it wasn't already. And entering into a full scale war would further tax resources.

We have seen the Klingons attempt to "court" planets that the Federation was attempting to negotiate mining rights with in TOS: Friday's Child. Once the Federation is unable to dedicate as many resources to support their colonies and members as a result of war, Klingons could quickly step in and offer compelling reasons for them to switch sides. Though the Klingons may not be as resource rich, they are very permissible to things that the Federation forbids. Such as the use of Orion slaves. Though abhorrent, if a colony is short on resources and faces starvation, the possibility of using slave labor to mine resources for trade and build infrastructure would start to become compelling.

Adding to the already scaled back military from the Khitomer Accords, the loss of resources from these worlds would put further strain on Federation, forming a vicious cycle. Ultimately, the loss of many of their supporters is what pushes the Federation into a losing position.

Of course, this basically goes against the assertions that there is no scarcity or poverty in the 24th century. But even if we assume this is true on the key federation worlds like Earth, I really can't see this being the case for every single federation colony and outpost. Of course, if we assume that the materials used to produce a starship can all be replicated, then its not really clear what other resources might be needed beside the dilithium crystals, antimater (however the heck that stuff is being made or collected) and trained bodies to crew the ships.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Some great analysis here. Sorry to get off track, but something occurred to me after reading this.

So far it seems we are assuming that the Federation is only lost territory/space/planets to the Klingons through capture and occupation. I think it is important to consider that possibility that some of the planets or members of the Federation defected to the Klingons. War is arguably just as much about cutting off the enemy's supply lines as it is about battle tactics and firepower. I see no reason this couldn't hold true here.

We know from the Genesis Proposal in TWOK that the federation anticipated difficulty meeting the needs for a growing population. Since Genesis failed, it is likely that this would have become a problem, if it wasn't already. And entering into a full scale war would further tax resources.

We have seen the Klingons attempt to "court" planets that the Federation was attempting to negotiate mining rights with in TOS: Friday's Child. Once the Federation is unable to dedicate as many resources to support their colonies and members as a result of war, Klingons could quickly step in and offer compelling reasons for them to switch sides. Though the Klingons may not be as resource rich, they are very permissible to things that the Federation forbids. Such as the use of Orion slaves. Though abhorrent, if a colony is short on resources and faces starvation, the possibility of using slave labor to mine resources for trade and build infrastructure would start to become compelling.

I hadn't thought of this before, but this too is an excellent point. The TOS pattern of cold-to-hot war with the Klingons over potential allies fits the situation here, but there's also the fact that some previous allies -- the Elaasians in particular -- are liable to switch sides if they think the Klingons are the stronger party or prefer like the way Klingons do business.

Adding to the already scaled back military from the Khitomer Accords

See above. The "scaling back" is a dubious proposition considering all the OTHER shit Starfleet has to deal with, especially by the 2360s when the Cardassians have been lurking around for decades already. The newer ships built during/after the Khitomer accords are considerably more powerful, both tactically and systematically, than the pre-khitomer vessels they replaced.

Of course, this basically goes against the assertions that there is no scarcity or poverty in the 24th century.

There's no scarcity or poverty on EARTH. It very much exists pretty much everywhere else.

 

[blssdwlf]

You need to re-check your numbers. Other than a minor bump in Destroyers and tripling of Mine Warfare ships, we have FEWER ships as stated before

But more of the SAME TYPE, as stated before.
...
You're making basically the same error Congress made in the 60s with the "cruiser gap" panic. You're counting numbers and types and are paying no attention whatsoever to the capabilities those types bring to the table. By that same logic we could easily address the problem by reclassifying the littoral combat ships as "guided missile cruisers" for no reason. Sure, they're not proper cruisers at all and wouldn't last three seconds in any real naval battle, but we're just talking NUMBERS, right?

If we total only Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates the count is still 1991: 187, 2001: 115, 2005: 99, 2011: 109.

No matter how you try to spin which class or type is what, the simple fact is that from 1991 to 2005 there are HALF as many Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates (combined total).

Submarines went from 87 in 1991 to 54 in 2005.

And if you read my argument, its to maintain the same number of ships while keeping pace with technology.

Spock speaks of starbases and space stations while the Military Aide asks about the whole Starfleet to clarify. The answer is more broad...

Unlikely. The original script has the CnC finishing that statement with "... but the facts speak for themselves, Captain." This is a rebuke, not an explanation: "Stupid question is stupid."

Unlikely because it's not in the filmed movie. As filmed, the Military Aide asks about Starfleet, NOT JUST the starbases and spacestations - unless you think Starfleet is just only starbases and spacestations.

and it tells us that only the Science and Exploration programs will be unaffected

Which is, at this point, about 95% of the fleet. About the only thing it explicitly

Or at that point only 40% of the fleet is for exploration and science because the other 60% of the military has been keeping the Klingons in check. Of course we're both guessing since there are no stats about the percentages.

 

[blssdwlf]

The "scaling back" is a dubious proposition considering all the OTHER shit Starfleet has to deal with, especially by the 2360s when the Cardassians have been lurking around for decades already.

Random monster in TOS typically took 1 or 2 ships to take care of (like "The Doomsday Machine", "The Immunity Syndrome", "TMP"). The Whale Probe in "TVH" overpowered them all but that was still before "TUC". But if it it only takes 2 ships to handle a monster every two years then all Starfleet needs is have 4 ships patrolling for them and build 4 replacement ships every year

The newer ships built during/after the Khitomer accords are considerably more powerful, both tactically and systematically, than the pre-khitomer vessels they replaced.

Yet, some older ships that stuck around after the Khitomer Accords like the USS Repulse and USS Trial were kept upgraded to be just as powerful as their newer classmates. While other ships were retired but we don't really know why.

 

[blssdwlf]

Some great analysis here. Sorry to get off track, but something occurred to me after reading this.

So far it seems we are assuming that the Federation is only lost territory/space/planets to the Klingons through capture and occupation. I think it is important to consider that possibility that some of the planets or members of the Federation defected to the Klingons. War is arguably just as much about cutting off the enemy's supply lines as it is about battle tactics and firepower. I see no reason this couldn't hold true here.

I'd imagine this to be a serious issue after a few years of war. By year 20 in "Yesterday's Enterprise" it might even be a critical issue by which would be one of the factors for the Federation to forecasting their own surrender.