www.ditl.org

But we've heard the Connie declared a Battlecruiser. She may have been a Battleship at some time but the Excelsior changed that.

Miranda = cruiser
Connie = Battlecruiser
Excelsior = Battleship

We've heard the Connie declared a battlecruiser by KLINGONS who have a different outlook on things than Starfleet of that era. As for being a battleship as opposed to a heavely armed explorer, just look at Enterprise's mission statement. "To explore strange new worlds.............."and so forth. As for science labs being thrown in after the fact, come on. The Connies had the most extensive scientific facilities of any other ships in the fleet. That's not something that happens by accident or as an after thought. And for me to be saying this in itself something, because I, by nature, am a tactically oriented person. I'm not a scientist and hell for me would being stuck on an Oberth or Nova.

If you take a Nebula class starship, which most likely we can all agree was designed to be an explorer, strap an enhanced weapons pod on it, and refit it's weapons to match a GCS, does it BECOME a battleship, or does it remain a heavely armed cruiser? What was the ship designed for, and what is it's mission statement?

Deepcrush wrote:But we've heard the Connie declared a Battlecruiser.

Difference in terminology between the Feds and the Klingons perhaps. They call the Negh'var a "cruiser", despite the fact that it probably outguns anything short of a Sov or a Dominion Battleship.

She may have been a Battleship at some time but the Excelsior changed that.

Why? That's like saying the Colorado class stopped being battleships when the Iowas came along. The Excelsiors were certainly faster, better protected and better armed than the Connies, but that would have no effect on whether the Connies were battleships - it would simply make them obsolete battleships.

Captain Seafort wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote: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.

Which would be a REALLY strange thing to say. If you were on board USS Iowa and somebody asked if it was a warship, I can't imagine anybody giving any other answer than "yes".

As for Troi's track record when it comes to the party line... I'm sure the inhabitants of Turkana IV would be happy to know that.

Um, what has Turkana IV got to do with the Federation?

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.

You actually think that's what these people meant by what they said? Seriously?

It's certainly one of it's primary roles,

No, sorry, there's no such thing as having more than one primary role. It's against what the word means.

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.

Nobody is suggesting the GCS is a civilian ship that somebody stuck armaments onto. Clearly the ship has a military role and is designed to be capable of fulfilling it, I've said as much myself. But that's not the issue. The issue is what the primary intended role is. Look at the ship; what is the majority of its volume and resources devoted to? What fraction of it is taken up by armament? Then do the same for the Iowa.

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 rather speculative that the saucer arrays are more powerful, actually, though it's a fairly trivial point here.

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.

Again, it's in no dispute that the Galaxy is a powerful ship. The Borg themselves called the E-D the most powerful ship in the Federation, as I recall, and I've no doubt the average Galaxy doesn't lag that by much. My point is that it's irrelevant how powerful it is. It might outgun any other ship ten to one, but if it's not primarily intended to function as a ship of war, then it is not a warship.

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...

Then it is still NOT a duck, unless it actually meets the definition of a duck. Which in this case is what the primary intention of the designers was.

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.

I suspect we are using different definitions of stupidity. In my book, the Federation's approach to the universe may not be a well founded one just as Chamberlain's wasn't. However, in both cases it would be naieve indeed to simply label them idiots. Chamberlain was most emphatically not an idiot. He was a smart and educated man who tried hard to avoid war, and failed because his worldview didn't match the world he was actually in.

In the case of the Federation... well how have they actually done under the approach you decry?

TOS : Held the Romulans and Klingons at bay, simultaneously.
TNG : At least fought the Cardassians to a draw. Held off the Romulans still. Defeated attacks by the Borg.
DS9 : Defeated the Dominion, Breen, Cardassian alliance.
VOY : Defeated the Borg repeatedly, defeated 8472, with but one of those ships you decry so much.

In other words... they basically never lose. In over a century of known timeline, the Federation has never once outright lost a war that we know of. For a bunch of blundering idiots, their worldview seems to work remarkably well, doesn't it?

Captain Seafort wrote: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.

Wasn't she involved in the mission to rescue Sisko in the previous episode, along with the Odyssey - a GCS?

Yup, she was...

On a more important note.
Since not only more but most of the evidence we have shows the GCS is not a battleship... WTF is she?

Deepcrush wrote:Yup, she was...

On a more important note.
Since not only more but most of the evidence we have shows the GCS is not a battleship... WTF is she?

We don't really have a word for it, because it's not a type of vessel that exists today.

A present day equivalent would be something like an ocean-going research vessel which had extensive conference facilities and accomodations built in, along with a suite of SAMs and cruise missiles. It would cruise the oceans doing research. It would host scientific conferences sometimes. It would also sail to troubled spots and offer its services as a facility for negotiation. The G8 leaders would fly out to hold their meetings on it. And in wartime, it would serve a combat role.

There's no such ship, never has been, and likely never could be. So there's simply no name for it.

In Trek, it goes by the tag "Starship", a label which today means any interstellar vessel, but in Trek seems to be reserved exclusively for the types of ships Starfleet operates.

Well thats just great... Thanks Starfleet!

GrahamKennedy wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:Yup, she was...

On a more important note.
Since not only more but most of the evidence we have shows the GCS is not a battleship... WTF is she?

We don't really have a word for it, because it's not a type of vessel that exists today.

A present day equivalent would be something like an ocean-going research vessel which had extensive conference facilities and accomodations built in, along with a suite of SAMs and cruise missiles. It would cruise the oceans doing research. It would host scientific conferences sometimes. It would also sail to troubled spots and offer its services as a facility for negotiation. The G8 leaders would fly out to hold their meetings on it. And in wartime, it would serve a combat role.

There's no such ship, never has been, and likely never could be. So there's simply no name for it.

In Trek, it goes by the tag "Starship", a label which today means any interstellar vessel, but in Trek seems to be reserved exclusively for the types of ships Starfleet operates.

A huge shame if you ask me - I think the UN should build one.

Good luck, the UN couldn't take a crap without a year long debate...

GrahamKennedy wrote:Which would be a REALLY strange thing to say. If you were on board USS Iowa and somebody asked if it was a warship, I can't imagine anybody giving any other answer than "yes".

Agreed, unless the term was politically unnaceptable. A similar situation would be the "Combat Cars" the US army was equipped with in the 1930s. They were tanks, but since tanks were "offensive" weapons and therefore verboten, they were called "Combat Cars".

Um, what has Turkana IV got to do with the Federation?

It was part of the Federation until everything fell apart. Demonstrating that when Troi claims that poverty, violence, etc, have been eliminated, she's lying through her teeth, and so anything she claims in support of the party line is suspect.

You actually think that's what these people meant by what they said? Seriously?

I'm trying to find a solution that fits all the facts. One of which is that the GCS is a battleship.

No, sorry, there's no such thing as having more than one primary role. It's against what the word means.

Fair enough, in that case I correct my statement to combat being the GCS's sole primary role, which the others being important secondary roles.

Nobody is suggesting the GCS is a civilian ship that somebody stuck armaments onto. Clearly the ship has a military role and is designed to be capable of fulfilling it, I've said as much myself. But that's not the issue. The issue is what the primary intended role is. Look at the ship; what is the majority of its volume and resources devoted to? What fraction of it is taken up by armament? Then do the same for the Iowa.

Can't be done, unfortunately, as we don't have figures for the volume taken up by the warp core, PT tubes, etc. In any event, it wouldn't tell us much. A lot 16th, 17th and 18th century merchant ships were more heavilly armed than a lot of contemporary warships, and in design terms were similar to the GCS in that they sacrificed combat effectiveness for their other roles. They were not warship, however - they were never sent into combat, and only fought when cornered. The GCS is sent into combat.

It's rather speculative that the saucer arrays are more powerful, actually, though it's a fairly trivial point here.

They're certainly the most frequently used, and are at least as powerful as the rest of the arrays given their use, but as you say it's a minor point.

Then it is still NOT a duck, unless it actually meets the definition of a duck. Which in this case is what the primary intention of the designers was.

I disagree. The GCS was armed like a battleship. This much isn't in dispute. It was used as a battleship. Therefore, it's a battleship.

I suspect we are using different definitions of stupidity. In my book, the Federation's approach to the universe may not be a well founded one just as Chamberlain's wasn't. However, in both cases it would be naieve indeed to simply label them idiots. Chamberlain was most emphatically not an idiot. He was a smart and educated man who tried hard to avoid war, and failed because his worldview didn't match the world he was actually in.

I'm not suggesting Chamberlain was an idiot, far from it. I'm saying that he was stupid. Different things. Likewise Picard is clearly intelligent - look at his archeological reputation, to the extent of giving conference speeches on the subject. He still drove through the middle of a sensor-blinding nebula in Nemesis, almost costing him his life, his ship, and Earth.

TOS : Held the Romulans and Klingons at bay, simultaneously.

Doesn't count - this was when Stafleet had properly-designed battleships like the Connie

TNG : At least fought the Cardassians to a draw. Held off the Romulans still. Defeated attacks by the Borg.
DS9 : Defeated the Dominion, Breen, Cardassian alliance.
VOY : Defeated the Borg repeatedly, defeated 8472, with but one of those ships you decry so much.

At what cost? How many people died because Starfleet lacks proper warships? Not to mention the Tomed Incident, the Fed-Cardassian war, and Wolf 359 which were stalemates at best and defeats at worse, and cost the Federation heavilly.

Oh God... here we go again...

Captain Seafort wrote:Agreed, unless the term was politically unnaceptable.

Or, as in this case, inaccurate.

It was part of the Federation until everything fell apart.

It was? First I've heard of it. Who says so?

I'm trying to find a solution that fits all the facts. One of which is that the GCS is a battleship.

Rather a circular argument, since the subject under discussion is whether the GCS could accurately be called a battleship/warship or not.

Fair enough, in that case I correct my statement to combat being the GCS's sole primary role, which the others being important secondary roles.

I would strongly disagree with that. The ship pretty clearly isn't intended primarily for combat, in my view.

Can't be done, unfortunately, as we don't have figures for the volume taken up by the warp core, PT tubes, etc.

It can't be done with great precision, perhaps, but we can certainly get an idea. For instance a cursory examination of the hull shows that very, very little of it is taken up by phaser arrays. There certainly seems to be space for many more photon torpedo launchers. I've certainly proved that the ship could easily accommodate a vastly higher stock of torpedo casings.

What we do see or hear of are large numbers of large, comfortable crew quarters, recreation facilities, cetacean tanks, and god knows what else that you really wouldn't want on a warship.

I disagree. The GCS was armed like a battleship. This much isn't in dispute. It was used as a battleship. Therefore, it's a battleship.

If so then our disagreement comes down to the definition of battleship and/or warship. The one I posted earlier indicates that a warship is a ship primarily designed for combat, which seems sensible to me. You are indicating more that if it is capable of fighting and used for such, then it must therefore be a warship. I can see why you would think so, but I disagree with that definition. It's too broad. It allows just about anything to be classed as a warship.

Take the Laurence M. Gould. Is it a warship? I would say not. What if it had been designed from the outset with an Oto Melara mounting? Is it a warship now? I would still say not.

Now take it back in time two hundred years. It's suddenly the fastest, most powerful ship in the world, bar none. With that gun plus radars and engines, it would be easily capable of sinking any battleship of the time. Many of them, even. Has it suddenly become a warship? I would still say not. Because it's not about the level of power it has, and it's not about how it is employed. Both of those are ephemeral things, easily changed at a whim of the operators. If employment and power define a ship, then a ship becomes a warship and then stops being a warship as circumstances change around it, which IMO is an absurd state of affairs.

But if we take the intention of the designers, as the article I linked earlier suggested, then things become far more sensible. Of course the LMG isn't one; it's a research ship, and if it somehow found itself fighting and winning battles then it's simply a research ship that's doing something other than the job it was designed for. Similarly the Iowa remains a warship, even if she were retired and deactivated and no longer capable of fighting at all - because that's what she was built to be.

Doesn't count - this was when Stafleet had properly-designed battleships like the Connie

Which rather presupposes that the Connie was a battleship - something it was never, ever referred to as, by the way. (In fairness it was once labelled as a heavy cruiser on a computer display.)

At what cost? How many people died because Starfleet lacks proper warships? Not to mention the Tomed Incident, the Fed-Cardassian war, and Wolf 359 which were stalemates at best and defeats at worse, and cost the Federation heavilly.

We can only speculate about what would have happened if things were otherwise. No doubt if they had a giant fleet of super warships then the Federation might well have won more easily in those instances. But then again, if they had that then perhaps those around them would be so frightened that they would ALL turn on the Federation, and it would have gone down rather than won. For that matter perhaps the Federations own member planets would have rebelled or seceded, or not joined in the first place, if they looked on it as a much more militaristic entity.

Point being, we can both spin hypotheticals. What's clear is that the system passes the ultimate test - it wins, over and over. And while you might complain at the human (and alien) cost it exacts, those who join Starfleet do so knowing perfectly well what kind of organisation it is, and what the consequences of their service might be. It's what they believe in, and what they believe in has been pretty damn successful so far.

GrahamKennedy wrote:It was? First I've heard of it. Who says so?

Picard. From "Legacy":

PICARD (V.O.)
Captain's log, supplemental. We
are in orbit above Turkana Four,
an Earth colony that severed
relations with the Federation
nearly fifteen years ago.

I would strongly disagree with that. The ship pretty clearly isn't intended primarily for combat, in my view.

I would say the opposite. The E-D doesn't just fight because it happens to be attacked, or because it's in the area - it's often specifically sent for.

It can't be done with great precision, perhaps, but we can certainly get an idea. For instance a cursory examination of the hull shows that very, very little of it is taken up by phaser arrays. There certainly seems to be space for many more photon torpedo launchers. I've certainly proved that the ship could easily accommodate a vastly higher stock of torpedo casings.

Agreed, as far as you go. What volume do the phasers take inside the hull though? What volume do the torpedo launchers take? What's the volume of the warp core, and the fuel storage, and all the fusion generators and their fuel supply, and the shield generators?

What we do see or hear of are large numbers of large, comfortable crew quarters, recreation facilities, cetacean tanks, and god knows what else that you really wouldn't want on a warship.

You're complaining to me, of all people, about how the GCS is badly designed? I know that well, and have said so (once or twice). It doesn't change the ship's armament, or the fact that it's repeatedly sent into battle.

Take the Laurence M. Gould. Is it a warship? I would say not. What if it had been designed from the outset with an Oto Melara mounting? Is it a warship now? I would still say not.

Depends on what it's used for. If it's still used as a scientific vessel, then no it isn't. If it's repeatedly pulled off scientific missions to go chasing pirates off Somalia then I'd say it's a warship.

But if we take the intention of the designers, as the article I linked earlier suggested, then things become far more sensible. Of course the LMG isn't one; it's a research ship, and if it somehow found itself fighting and winning battles then it's simply a research ship that's doing something other than the job it was designed for. Similarly the Iowa remains a warship, even if she were retired and deactivated and no longer capable of fighting at all - because that's what she was built to be.

I would say not - if the ship is used for military duties such as I desibed above, then I'd say its a warship. Similarly, if the Iowa had her turrets pulled off and was sold off to be used as a merchantman, I would say that she was a merchant ship, not a warship.

Which rather presupposes that the Connie was a battleship - something it was never, ever referred to as, by the way. (In fairness it was once labelled as a heavy cruiser on a computer display.)

Look at ST II. Look at ST VI. That's a battleship, and one that not only acts as one but feels like one.

Point being, we can both spin hypotheticals. What's clear is that the system passes the ultimate test - it wins, over and over. And while you might complain at the human (and alien) cost it exacts, those who join Starfleet do so knowing perfectly well what kind of organisation it is, and what the consequences of their service might be. It's what they believe in, and what they believe in has been pretty damn successful so far.

My point is the examples where its failed. After Tomed they accepted a treaty that hamstrung them against their greatest enemy. After the Cardassian War they were forced to hand over territory to another enemy, and pretty much ignored the pleas of their citzens for help when they were being attacked by that enemy. At Wolf 359 they lost thousands of lives because their ships weren't up to stratch - look at how their fire ripped a cube apart in FC, but were unable to so much as dent the one less than a decade earlier. This is because they've forgotten the fundamental adage that if you desire peace, you must prepare for war. If they're prepared to take shortcuts in warship design, then they must likewise be prepared to accept the silver medal position in any war they're involved in.

Captain Seafort wrote:PICARD (V.O.)
Captain's log, supplemental. We
are in orbit above Turkana Four,
an Earth colony that severed
relations with the Federation
nearly fifteen years ago.

That doesn't say it was a Federation colony. It says it was an Earth colony, and that it had diplomatic/trading/other relations with the Federation. That's no more reason to suppose it was a Federation member than Bringloid or Mariposa were.

I would say the opposite. The E-D doesn't just fight because it happens to be attacked, or because it's in the area - it's often specifically sent for.

We're just arguing round in circles. The fact that it was often sent to combat doesn't mean that it was primarily designed for combat.

Agreed, as far as you go. What volume do the phasers take inside the hull though? What volume do the torpedo launchers take? What's the volume of the warp core, and the fuel storage, and all the fusion generators and their fuel supply, and the shield generators?

Well, the MSD shows the torpedo launchers don't take up a particularly large volume. You could easily stack another in the neck, and put god knows how many of them in the saucer section. The interior working of the arrays are small enough that they're not even shown on the MSD, so they can't be especially large.

In contrast, look at the deck after deck that doesn't show major systems on that diagram. That's the science labs, cargo bays, crew quarters, recreation areas, schools, lounges, holodecks, and god knows what else.

Yes, we can't make precise calculations. But it's pretty clear that the weapons were not the priority here.

You're complaining to me, of all people, about how the GCS is badly designed? I know that well, and have said so (once or twice). It doesn't change the ship's armament, or the fact that it's repeatedly sent into battle.

No, no, NO. It's NOT a case of being badly designed. It's a case of the designers having other priorities than you think they should.

Depends on what it's used for. If it's still used as a scientific vessel, then no it isn't. If it's repeatedly pulled off scientific missions to go chasing pirates off Somalia then I'd say it's a warship.

So then, for instance, the Iowa class ships are not warships. They're not battleships. After all, they are not used as such and haven't been for quite a while.

if the ship is used for military duties such as I desibed above, then I'd say its a warship. Similarly, if the Iowa had her turrets pulled off and was sold off to be used as a merchantman, I would say that she was a merchant ship, not a warship.

And since the Iowa has spent many a year sitting in a dock now, she's also no longer a warship. No longer a battleship. Right? And the USS Nautilus. That hasn't been underwater in 28 years. So anybody who calls it a submarine now is an idiot, right?

My point is the examples where its failed. After Tomed they accepted a treaty that hamstrung them against their greatest enemy. After the Cardassian War they were forced to hand over territory to another enemy, and pretty much ignored the pleas of their citzens for help when they were being attacked by that enemy. At Wolf 359 they lost thousands of lives because their ships weren't up to stratch - look at how their fire ripped a cube apart in FC, but were unable to so much as dent the one less than a decade earlier. This is because they've forgotten the fundamental adage that if you desire peace, you must prepare for war. If they're prepared to take shortcuts in warship design, then they must likewise be prepared to accept the silver medal position in any war they're involved in.

Yes, they suffer casualties because of the way they do things that wouldn't happen if they did things your way. But you are assuming that they can act in isolation, do as you suggest without negative consequence. But they are part of a larger community, and that community reacts to them based on who and what they are. They've built the power base they have on the system they have. If the Federation started to radically change its character by militarising Starfleet, then who is to say that it wouldn't rip the organisation apart completely? Then Tomed and Wolf 359 may have consisted of lovely hardcore warships... but only one of them, because 3/4 of the Federation's industrial base went south when most of the planetary members walked away. Or the Klingons and Romulans and Gorn and Tholians may have joined in that war on the Cardassian side and finished them for good.

If they do what you suggest, maybe it would work, and maybe it wouldn't. But what they have been doing DOES work. Which is better, their proven system or your speculation?