Official DITL Miranda Class Starship Appreciation Thread

[Captain Seafort]

To toss my two cents worth in here gang, I think a huge part of this episode was a crock. How much of your skill DEPEND on your memories and experience??? You can't really remove one and not the other.

Agreed. However, it's shown in the episode that they retained their professional knowledge, despite losing all their personnal history.

Without understanding WHY the GCS has been so heavely armed (i.e. Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, and other assorted hostile species) it would be easy to judge it as a battleship with it's weapons complement. Archer said something similar about not wanting to make first contact in a battleship, until he realized what it's really like out there. So, it's an easy mistake for the inexperienced (which all the crew was again at that time) to make.

This doesn't refute my argument. Indeed, it strengthens it considerably, by pointing out all the reasons why the GCS is a battleship - the galaxy is a very hostile place, so the Federation needs a ship that can take on the warships of its rivals. I.e. it needs a battleship.

[Deepcrush]

This doesn't refute my argument. Indeed, it strengthens it considerably, by pointing out all the reasons why the GCS is a battleship - the galaxy is a very hostile place, so the Federation needs a ship that can take on the warships of its rivals. I.e. it needs a battleship.

I agree that the UFP needs a battleship, but just because they need one doesn't make the GCS one. There are reasons to support the GCS being a battleship. There are more reasons against it. In lying the problem.

[Deepcrush]

Agreed. However, it's shown in the episode that they retained their professional knowledge, despite losing all their personnal history.

Doesn't matter... the crew were mentally incomplete. There for their judgement is not a fair one.

[Graham Kennedy]

Troi's quote reeks of dodging the question, especially with her track record of lying through her teeth to support the Federation's party line.

No, it reeks of refuting the question. She's clearly distinguishing Federation Starships from warships. You may not like it, you may accuse her of lying, but that is clearly what she IS doing.

As for the Sisko-Kira exchange, the Defiant occupies a unique place as Starfleet's first single-purpose dedicated warship, rather than the warship-plus-a-ton-of-other-crap designs such as the GCS.

Yes, but it isn't about the Defiant. She says "I thought Starfleet didn't believe in warships.". Not talking about Defiant, but in general. She's incredulous that they built something like the Defiant, a warship.

Of course not. The GCS, however, has considerably more firepower than a pistol.

Yes, but is combat the primary intention of the designers?

I would argue the opposite. The Cardassians, for example, are evidently a significant military power, and capable of taking on Starfleet on something approximating parity given that they did well enough during the Fed-Cardassian War to force a give-and-take treaty, rather than a Fed-dictated one. Yet the E-D withstood fire from one of their main warships unshielded, and then swatted it like a bug. Similar treatment of Galors was seen from Galaxies in the Dominion War.

It's not about how poweful the ships are. It's about what their primary intended role is. I have no doubt that the Galaxy is the equal of most any ship of its time amongst the major powers. But that does not mean that combat is its primary role.

The Last Outpost - the E-D is sent to pursue a Ferengi starship to recover a stolen piece of equipment.
Angel One - the E-D is ordered to the Neutral Zone to confront a possible Romulan incursion.
Heart of Glory - the E-D is patrolling the Neutral Zone.
The Neutral Zone - the E-D is again sent to contront the Romulans.

That's just from the first season. Episodes in which the E-D is specifically tasked with military missions. In later seasons patroling the Neutral Zone or the Cardassian border became a regular task of the Enterprise

I don't have time now, but I'd be interested to do an episode by episode breakdown so we can see exactly what the E-D was employed to do most of the time. I'll wager that research and diplomacy will come out on top.

However, this doesn't really prove anything. I could repeatedly send a fishing trawler into combat, but it wouldn't make it a warship even if it won every time. The question is one of the intention of the designers.

Whether Starfleet intended it as a battleship with science labs or a science ship with massive armament is irrelevent. It is repeatedly and frequently employed as a battleship. In terms of correcting the design, I don't care whether the science labs or the guns go - you can't have both and expect it to perform optimally at either.

Well no, it's not irrelevant at all to what the ship's type is. If you want to argue that it was employed in a battleship role, then I am with you. But it is a non battleship filling the role. It's not a battleship.

The highlighted bit is the core why they're either guilty of gross stupidity, or malicious in the extreme.

No, neither one in my view. Every society trades lives for points of principle or convenience. So does every person, to an extent. The Federation does not want powerful dedicated military forces for philosophical reasons. It's a deliberate, conscious choice on their part which they know will cost them, and they accept that cost freely and willingly - none more so than the people who do the actual dying. There's nothing stupid or malicious about it.

[stitch626]

I have a question...
Can anyone think of an instance where a battleship (on Earth, in RL) was used for something not war related?

[Captain Seafort]

I have a question...
Can anyone think of an instance where a battleship (on Earth, in RL) was used for something not war related?

HMS Prince of Wales was used as a diplomatic transport in 1941, and the Atlantic Charter was signed aboard her, HMS Vanguard was routinely used as a Royal Yacht, and one of the Lexington class carriers (originally laid down as battlecruisers) supplied Tacoma with electricity for a month in 1929 after the local power station broke down.

[Deepcrush]

For that to be fair, those battleships would have to have been built and then spent MOST of their careers serving those needs. Then such actions would have to be the norm among the whole fleet. A massive stretch just to say the least.

[Captain Seafort]

No, it reeks of refuting the question. She's clearly distinguishing Federation Starships from warships. You may not like it, you may accuse her of lying, but that is clearly what she IS doing.

It isn't clear at all - she says it's "a Federation starship". For analogy:

Person 1: You're aboard the USS Iowa.
Person 2: A warship?
Person 1: A United States ship.

As for Troi's track record when it comes to the party line:

CLEMENS
So there are a privileged few...
who serve on these ships, living
in luxury, wanting for nothing.
But what about everyone else?
What about the poor? You ignore
them...

TROI
Poverty was eliminated a long time
ago. And a lot of things
disappeared with it:
hopelessness... despair...
cruelty... war...

I'm sure the inhabitants of Turkana IV would be happy to know that.

Yes, but it isn't about the Defiant. She says "I thought Starfleet didn't believe in warships.". Not talking about Defiant, but in general. She's incredulous that they built something like the Defiant, a warship.

Two possibilities - she's surprised that Sisko's openly calling it a warship, she's surprised that Starfleet's built a proper single-role warship. Or she's in ignorance of the capabilities of the Galaxy, Nebula, etc.

Yes, but is combat the primary intention of the designers?

It's certainly one of it's primary roles, and given that (as I may have mentioned) the ship drops other missions to go and fight, but not vice-versa, it's certainly its primary role in practice.

The fact that this armament is an integral part of the design, rather than just as add-ons, also suggests a combat-oriented design from the outset. In terms of the luxury of its accomodation, and other non-military aspects of the design, the Galaxy resembles an AMC. AMCs, however, were passenger liners with guns bolted on. The fact that the Galaxy's armament is so integral and so heavy shows that the "battleship" aspect is a core part of the design, not some afterthought.

Even a theory that the GCS was intended to be a battleship only when separated falls flat, given that it's most powerful phasers are in the saucer section, and that the impulse engines contribute a significant fraction of it's total power.

It's not about how poweful the ships are. It's about what their primary intended role is. I have no doubt that the Galaxy is the equal of most any ship of its time amongst the major powers. But that does not mean that combat is its primary role.

I'm not just talking about the relationship between the GCS and the Galor, but between the GCS and the ships Starfleet used to fight the Cardassian War (probably Excelsiors, given that they seem to be Starfleet's workhorse). They must have been roughly equal to the Galor, given that the Cardassians were able to force a treaty in which the Federation surrendered territory. Yet the E-D thrashed a Galor in seconds flat. Such a disparity shows that massive firepower must have been a key GCS design goal , given the glacial pace of technological development, and the Excelsior's undisputed status as the battleship of the late 23rd century.

However, this doesn't really prove anything. I could repeatedly send a fishing trawler into combat, but it wouldn't make it a warship even if it won every time. The question is one of the intention of the designers.

Fishing trawlers by and large aren't built with heavy armament as an integral part of their design. The exception that proves the rule being the Flower-class corvette. An undisputed warship.

Well no, it's not irrelevant at all to what the ship's type is. If you want to argue that it was employed in a battleship role, then I am with you. But it is a non battleship filling the role. It's not a battleship.

It was designed and built from the start with battleship-scale weapons and defences, it is described as a battleship by its own crew, it is operated by teh Federation's military, it is routinely used as a battleship, and it routinely kicks the stuffing out of other powers' battleships. It if looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

No, neither one in my view. Every society trades lives for points of principle or convenience. So does every person, to an extent. The Federation does not want powerful dedicated military forces for philosophical reasons. It's a deliberate, conscious choice on their part which they know will cost them, and they accept that cost freely and willingly - none more so than the people who do the actual dying. There's nothing stupid or malicious about it.

I'm willing to accept that the Federation genuinely believes in the drivel it spouts, however that only absolves them of malice, not stupidity. Neville Chamberlain also had deeply-held and genuine beliefs against the use of force. Look where it got him, and Europe.

[kostmayer]

It's certainly one of it's primary roles, and given that (as I may have mentioned) the ship drops other missions to go and fight, but not vice-versa, it's certainly its primary role in practice.

The fact that this armament is an integral part of the design, rather than just as add-ons, also suggests a combat-oriented design from the outset. In terms of the luxury of its accomodation, and other non-military aspects of the design, the Galaxy resembles an AMC. AMCs, however, were passenger liners with guns bolted on. The fact that the Galaxy's armament is so integral and so heavy shows that the "battleship" aspect is a core part of the design, not some afterthought.

Its science labs, diplomatic facilities, sophisticated sensor arrays were also intergral to the design. I still don't agree that it was used as a battleship anymore then in any of its many other roles.

Are you suggesting that if it wasn't a battleship it would get pulled out of a fight to go comet chasing?

It was designed and built from the start with battleship-scale weapons and defences, it is described as a battleship by its own crew, it is operated by teh Federation's military, it is routinely used as a battleship, and it routinely kicks the stuffing out of other powers' battleships. It if looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Its crew didn't have any were near all the facts. Science ships are operated by the Federations military. Its routinely used in its various other roles as well. I'd wager its science labs and diplomatic facilites stop all over other powers vessels as well.

Fun as this argument is, both sides seem to be interpreting the same facts in different ways - I'm not sure where its going to be concluded anytime soon.

Though I may keep posting, if only because I'm not comfortable with "WTF? Dolphins and whales on the E-D?" being my most active topic

[Bryan Moore]

I have a question...
Can anyone think of an instance where a battleship (on Earth, in RL) was used for something not war related?

HMS Prince of Wales was used as a diplomatic transport in 1941, and the Atlantic Charter was signed aboard her, HMS Vanguard was routinely used as a Royal Yacht, and one of the Lexington class carriers (originally laid down as battlecruisers) supplied Tacoma with electricity for a month in 1929 after the local power station broke down.

Beat me to it, man. The PoW as the only thing I could think of. This doesn't count museum ships, training ships, or blow-up targets.

[Captain Seafort]

Its science labs, diplomatic facilities, sophisticated sensor arrays were also intergral to the design. I still don't agree that it was used as a battleship anymore then in any of its many other roles.

Are you suggesting that if it wasn't a battleship it would get pulled out of a fight to go comet chasing?

I'm saying that if it wasn't a battleship it wouldn't get sent into fights in the first place except in the most dire circumstances (such as those that led to Oberths being sent into combat).

Its crew didn't have any were near all the facts.

They had all their professional knowledge, and full access to the ship's specifications.

Science ships are operated by the Federations military.

Ditto with the US Navy.

Its routinely used in its various other roles as well. I'd wager its science labs and diplomatic facilites stop all over other powers vessels as well.

See my post above, regarding PoW and Lexington.

Fun as this argument is, both sides seem to be interpreting the same facts in different ways - I'm not sure where its going to be concluded anytime soon.

I doubt it will be. This is one of those topics that pops up on a fairly regular basis and goes round and round in circles.

[Mark]

We all know that Starfleet believes in the multi role Starship. Lets go back a hundred years. The Constitution class was undeniably the most powerful and heavely armed ship in Starfleet in TOS, yet it was never called a battleship (except by the Klingons in STIII, and that was a Battlecruiser). She was built and designed as a vessel of exploration, but, when needed could easily fill a military role as we've seen. Just like the Excelsior and the Galaxy classes.

The only MISSION SPECIFIC ships that I've seen really are Science ships like the Oberth and the Nova. Most everything else is designed with some combat or defensive role in mind, that it could fulfil.

[Captain Seafort]

We all know that Starfleet believes in the multi role Starship. Lets go back a hundred years. The Constitution class was undeniably the most powerful and heavely armed ship in Starfleet in TOS, yet it was never called a battleship (except by the Klingons in STIII, and that was a Battlecruiser). She was built and designed as a vessel of exploration, but, when needed could easily fill a military role as we've seen. Just like the Excelsior and the Galaxy classes.

The Connie was never called a battleship, but that's what she was, and far better equipped for the role than any 24th century ship short of the Defiant. No civilians, no oversized crew quarters, and the labs were thrown in as an afterthought. Go and watch ST II or VI, and then come back and tell me that isn't a battleship.

[Deepcrush]

The connie was classed as a Battlecruiser, not a battleship. But still, combat was her first love. The only TOS battleship we've seen is the Excelsior.

[Captain Seafort]

To be honest, I don't really see the difference. Certainly by 20th century standards the Connie was a battleship - she could take too much punishment to be a battlecruiser. The Excelsior was simply a better battleship. Ditto with the Sov - she was fast, but her ability to take heavy punishment means she's better categorised as a fast battleship than a battlecruiser.