www.ditl.org

m52nickerson wrote:

Reliant121 wrote:You made the point that a sov could withstand another sovs firepower. You must prove it. Not seafort. If you cant, then you default loose the point.

It can't be proven directly, since we don't see two Sov battling. That does not mean that Seaford can say the the Sov can't stand up to its own fire power and as such could not be considard a battleship. What we do see is the Sov standing up to firepower from a bigger and more powerful ship, that have many more weapons for quit some time. That evidance shows that yes a Sov could stand up against another Sov.

Not the point. He didnt claim that it cant stand up to its own weapons as far as i know (if he did then my mistake). So he isnt at fault.

m52nickerson wrote:That is right, and there is no proof. That does not however prove your claim that a Sov could not stand up against its own weapons.

There is no proof involved on his end; it's irrational to ask someone to prove the absence of a state which has never been observed. The burden of proof is on the person who makes the assertion that such a state exists - i.e., you said that a Sov could withstand its own firepower, even though such a situation was never observed. Therefore, the proof must be provided that it could withstand its own firepower. That's not a knock against you - it's just the way logical deduction works.

m52nickerson wrote:You mean the part were after you said they would nto have made a difference, but throw them in anyways?

He said those two ships wouldn't have tipped the scales; but what commander wouldn't use his two heaviest battlecruisers in a fleet action?

m52nickerson wrote:One of which had right after its finished its shack down had to undergo massive repairs, and the other who knows?

If one had completed its shakedown AND gone on-mission already, what reason is there to assume that the other isn't ready for duty?

m52nickerson wrote:That does not mean that the Sov can be considard a battleship because it does not have more of something.

Right, unless you omitted a word. We are considering the Sov to be a battlecruiser, rather than abattleship, because it was built with less armor than possible, and with the apparent intent of using speed and agility as a primary defense mechanism.

m52nickerson wrote:It was however more advanced than anything they had fielded before.

However, there it is.

m52nickerson wrote:Again what are you talking about?

The fact that the Dominion had a diverse and robust industrial and technological base.

Leaving the rest because Mikey dealt with it nicely.

m52nickerson wrote:

"Had to"? Prove it.

It is proved by the fact that they did it, unless you want to claim the Jem'Hadar just did not feel like taking it out with their weapons and ramed it for the hell of it.

Dax specifically stated that there was no need for a suicide run on the Odyssey, and Sisko suggested that they did it to make a point, and to show Starfleet the extent of their resolve and commitment to the Founders. A analysis I agree with.

Captain Seafort wrote:Nonetheless, removing the windows entirely would remove a key weak point in the ship's design. Moreover, this image, from DITL, shows that there are substantial rows on windows in the engineering hull - the section that should have the heaviest protection.

I agree, removing the windows would increase the hull's resistance, because like you, i also doubt that the windows are as resistant as the hull's other material, but this still doesn't prove that the Defiant has more armor on its hull then the Sov.
Remember my firepower claim?
You claim the Defiant has more armor:
Prove it.

You still didn't adress my point that having armor around those windows and making those windows sturdier would also increase the hull's resilience, or that the windows aren't that easy to target.
We've canonically seen the E-E take massive amount of damage and still function pretty well.
Those windows didn't seem so much of an issue.

Why would you waste a good crew, and a good ship, in actions they weren't suited for? I'm not saying the Sovs are poor ships, far from it - I'm saying that they're poor battleships. As battlecruisers, in the role the type were originally designed for, they'd probably do all right. Separate them from the main fleets and have them conduct raiding missions deep into Dominion territory - they've got strong enough shields to be able to hold in shorter one-on-one actions, they're very fast, and they're heavily armed.

Again, you're assuming that the reason they weren't in fleet actions was because they wouldn't do well, which you can't prove.
We've seen the E-E take massive amounts of damage, even when their shields are down, so we know the Sov can take it, at least as much as the GCS, so if we did see the GCS in fleet actions, then the Sov should perform as well, if not better, because they have more powerful weapons.
Again, neither of us can prove why the Sov weren't in the fleet actions.

They could have been used to reign in the Tholians who could have tried to annex territories during the DW.
There were also the Gorn, and it could have been on the klingon borders to the Federation when the alliance fell through.

Their firepower would be most needed at the decisive point. The war was never going to be decided on those other fronts - it would be decided on Cardassia.

Not in a fleet action involving hundreds of ships.
Even their greater firepower would not affect the battle when you depend on entire wings of ships to put part of the plan in motion.
We have no DS9 battle who's outcome would have changed if a Sov had been there, while there may be many smaller fights outside of the big group actions that were won exactly because they had a Sov available.

I'm not suggesting it's stronger - I'm saying it's relatively stronger.

Sizewize, yes, which brings us - again - to the point I was making, that the Sov was probably their current most powerful ship they can build successfully.

I'm not talking about refitting the Sov - I'm talking about building a dedicated warship of that size.

See my point above, which has yet to be disproven.

That "profound redesign" is what I'm advocating.

Ok, then we agree on this point at least.
I've conceeded the Battleship point on account of the firepower issue which I can't prove, but you still haven't been able to prove that Starfleet currently has the ability to build a Sovereign-size Defiant.
We can only both rely on our own positions, yours being they just didn't want to, mine being they either cannot at this moment and/or don't feel the need for one.

Other than all those windows...

Which point to a relatively weaker hull integrity then the Defiant, but still doesn't prove that the hull itself has less armor.
Overall, those windows are small, hard to target, and part of the hull.

When I said capital ship, I meant historical ones, from the World Wars.

Well, if you're going to compare our actual war designs to the Federation's, then every Fed ship, even the Defiant, would be failing, even for their specific roles.
You guys have shown time and again how the Federation and Starfleet's strategies are flawed, their designs bad, and how ST seems to fail at everything military.
It is only natural for them to fail at a Battleship design as well, when compared to their real-world counterparts.
That's just being mean to ST...

You're comparing the worst design in Star Trek to one of the better ones.

This "bad design" was successfully upgraded and field tested in the DW, and in fact were also very effective.
But the reason I'm using it as a comparison, is that it was brought in many lists as a Heavy Cruiser, a role for which many people seem to think it would succeed at.
so the "upgraded" GCS must not be so bad.

So? The F-15 is slower and much less stealthy than the F-22. Does this mean that the US can't produce aircraft as fast and stealthy as the F-22? Of course not.

Bad comparison.
The Sov would be the F-35, the Scimitar would be a plane superior in every way to the F-35.
It's as if China was to devellop, say, a MiG-37, far more advanced then even the MiG-35, based on the Russian designs.
the Scimitar is not just faster, it has better shields, better firepower, a better cloaking device, it's basically better at everything then the D'Deridex (which is slower then a GCS, and cannot fire while cloaked, has weaker shields) and far more powerful then the Valdore (which also cannot fire when cloaked, has weaker shields, and has less firepower).

The JH shrouds.

I knew that, my sentence was more like:
"You're saying that the personnal shrouds are technically superior to what the Feds could do?" in a shorter version...

Me wrote:First, the Federation has signed a treaty stopping them from researching and developing cloaking devices.

So?

So if you cannot do research and devellop it, it stands to reason you will not possess it.
The USA knows how to create nuclear warheads, just like Russia.
They don't because their treaty signed with Russia forbids them too.
If an alien were to come here and see the absence of nuclear warheads in the USA, could he be justified in saying:
"Oh, they're less advanced then we are, we have nuclear weapons and they don't!"
We know the Feds worked on cloaks before, cloaks that were so advanced compared to the other powers that they were able to phase through matter as well as cloak a ship.
If they are so good when able to use only part of their research teams (the cloak being a secret illegal project and all), imagine the kind of cloaks they could have built using their full research capability.
Just saying one power doesn't have Tech A doesn't they can't produce it or understand it.
The reason for the Tech's absence is also very important.

That entire system was dependant on the main Fed facility - when Data disabled that, he also disabled all the suits.

You're right, but they are still capable of creating those suits, which aren't "full" cloaks, but which also show that they are pretty advanced.

I'm not sure how this is relevant - whether it's got the same number of guns, but more powerful models, or the same model of guns but a lot more of them, it's still just as powerful.

Aren't Battleships supposed to have the biggest and most powerful guns, and not just the greater number of weaker weapons?
We don't know whether the Dominion Battleship was capable of delivering a more powerful blow then other Dominion ships, or just more blows of the same power.

Indeed. The same is true of the Negh'var's attack.

In that case, this is like me saying:
"Well, the Sov is extremely powerful, because its shots destroyed the Borg cube in FC!"
Fact is, its shots destroyed the Cube after all these other ships had been firing at it for a long time, and a lot had also fired at the same time as the Sov attack.
Meaning we have no clear indication of the beam's power from the Dominion or the Neg'Vhar.

Praeothmin wrote:You still didn't adress my point that having armor around those windows and making those windows sturdier would also increase the hull's resilience, or that the windows aren't that easy to target.

I just wanted to touch on this. Part of the strength of a wall (or bulkhead, or whatever) is not just the material strength, it is the radial bending moment (as well as yield strength, but that's not as applicable to this topic.) You can reinforce the surrounds/supports of the window as much as you want, but the overall structural soundness of the bulkhead will be reduced because of the fact of a big hole in it - regardless of what you fill that hole with. In other words; if you have a solid plate of typical steel, the RBM of that plate will be greater than a similar plate with a hole cut out and replaced with titanium, or anything else. The local material strength of the titanium may be greater, but the structure of the plate as a whole will be compromised.

Mikey wrote:There is no proof involved on his end; it's irrational to ask someone to prove the absence of a state which has never been observed. The burden of proof is on the person who makes the assertion that such a state exists - i.e., you said that a Sov could withstand its own firepower, even though such a situation was never observed. Therefore, the proof must be provided that it could withstand its own firepower. That's not a knock against you - it's just the way logical deduction works.

I understand that I can't prove with absolute certenty that a Sov could stand up against its own weapons. What I'm saying is that there is evidance to support that claim.

He said those two ships wouldn't have tipped the scales; but what commander wouldn't use his two heaviest battlecruisers in a fleet action?

No good cammander would, the problem is that Seaford assumes that because they were not used it is because they could not stand up to the punishment. What we know of the Sov class does not support that, so there must be another reason.

If one had completed its shakedown AND gone on-mission already, what reason is there to assume that the other isn't ready for duty?

I have no idea. I doubt it is because of what Seaford assumes.

Right, unless you omitted a word. We are considering the Sov to be a battlecruiser, rather than abattleship, because it was built with less armor than possible, and with the apparent intent of using speed and agility as a primary defense mechanism.

What ship could you not put more armor on? Not to mention that armor on a starship is only part of the overall defence. The only Federation ship we see with a huge amount of armor for its size is the Defiant. Why? Most likely because it was designed to fight the Borg. Against the Borg there was a fear that they would be able to adapt and take down shield even faster or negate them all together. They could not do that with armor. Hell, watching DS9 half the time it seemed like the Defiant did not have Shields at all.

I don't know were you get that its speed and agility as its primary defence mechanism in a ship of that size. They will help, but its not going to be dodging torpedoes.

However, there it is.

Yes, there it was.

The fact that the Dominion had a diverse and robust industrial and technological base.

Ok, and somehow that means its weapons do more damage?

m52nickerson wrote:I understand that I can't prove with absolute certenty that a Sov could stand up against its own weapons. What I'm saying is that there is evidance to support that claim.

Then provide it dipshit. I'm getting fucking tired of your evasiveness.

No good cammander would, the problem is that Seaford assumes that because they were not used it is because they could not stand up to the punishment.

They're the most heavily-armed Fed ships we've seen, so it can't be a lack of firepower.
They were, at the time of commissioning, the fastest ships in the fleet, so it can't be a lack of mobility.
Ergo, it must be a lack of protection.

I have no idea. I doubt it is because of what Seaford assumes.

"We've been in space for over a year. We're ready." A direct statement from the Chief Engineer of a Sov.

What ship could you not put more armor on? Not to mention that armor on a starship is only part of the overall defence. The only Federation ship we see with a huge amount of armor for its size is the Defiant. Why?

Not just the only ship with significant armour, the only Fed shp with a proper armoured belt. Every other ship is covered with windows which, as has been pointed out time and time again, represent a significant weakness.

m52nickerson wrote:What I'm saying is that there is evidance to support that claim.

"Prove your assertion" and "Provide evidence to support your assertion" may, in this instance, be used interchangeably.

m52nickerson wrote:What we know of the Sov class does not support that, so there must be another reason.

Which reason would be... ?

m52nickerson wrote:I doubt it is because of what Seaford assumes.

Seafort just above provided evidence that it is, in fact, ready. And there is absolutely NO evidence to assume that the other ship of the class wouldn't be ready.

m52nickerson wrote:What ship could you not put more armor on? Not to mention that armor on a starship is only part of the overall defence. The only Federation ship we see with a huge amount of armor for its size is the Defiant. Why? Most likely because it was designed to fight the Borg. Against the Borg there was a fear that they would be able to adapt and take down shield even faster or negate them all together. They could not do that with armor. Hell, watching DS9 half the time it seemed like the Defiant did not have Shields at all.

I don't know were you get that its speed and agility as its primary defence mechanism in a ship of that size. They will help, but its not going to be dodging torpedoes.

A poor choice of words on my part. I should have said "feasible with little impact on the ship's performance in its intended role" instead of "possible." As to mobility, a ship doesn't become the fastest in the fleet by accident. It is clear that high mobility was a purposeful part of the overall design, and that mobility is ostensibly used in both defensive and offensive positioning - like any other battlecruiser. Mobility in this case refers to tactical usage - it's obvious that I wasn't referring to the Sovereign as a dogfighter.

Ok, a few points to throw in. No names... other then the misspelled one.

A.) His name is Seafort, not Seaford. Throwing a Ford in the sea would just not work. Like the French Army.
B.) You may have a pretty metal helmet but if there's a big hole in it then I shoot for that hole. I don't have to give a damn how tough you think the rest of your shinny helm is. Thats works true for windows on warships.
C.) Its funny for me to watch a mod go through what I have to go through with the mods.
D.) If you have made a claim. You have to support it. You can't make a claim then tell someone else to prove it wrong.
E.) Because someone has weak ships doesn't mean they have weak weapons. Or take it as the reverse. Weak weapons don't make a weak ship.
F.) If race Alpha builds ship Alpha, that means they in fact have the tech needed in order to build ship Alpha. That's just how it works.

Just to throw in a bit about the lack of a sovereign in DS9. OOU: The models were built for the movie screen format and they probably didn't want to have to deal with the hero crews of two shows on the same screen.
IU: DS9 only showed a small part of the Dominion War. There has to be more to the war than what was shown, and there were references to things happening outside the sphere of DS9 (ie, Invasion of Betazed, Breen Attack on Earth). The 2 most advanced starships were probably kept close to home to use their speed and firepower to respond to threats to the core ("and they need us to put out one more brush fire" - Picard, INS), and for protetction. You don't want your new SOTA ship captured by the enemy. Even if it is the final assault of the war, there is still a chance it may be destroyed or captured. Knowing Starfleet, they wouldn't take the risk.

me,myself and I wrote:IU: DS9 only showed a small part of the Dominion War. There has to be more to the war than what was shown, and there were references to things happening outside the sphere of DS9 (ie, Invasion of Betazed, Breen Attack on Earth). The 2 most advanced starships were probably kept close to home to use their speed and firepower to respond to threats to the core ("and they need us to put out one more brush fire" - Picard, INS), and for protetction. You don't want your new SOTA ship captured by the enemy. Even if it is the final assault of the war, there is still a chance it may be destroyed or captured. Knowing Starfleet, they wouldn't take the risk.

You're probably right. Picard in the Ent-E offers a nice combination of velvet glove and steel fist. Picard is good with diplomacy, and the Sov class allows the Federation to put an imposing ship on its other borders where any problems that pop up can be fixed easily.

So you have Picard going around keeping other empires from attacking the Federation, while keeping the new prototype away from heavy combat. The smaller ships with the same technology were finished first, and this allowed Starfleet to work out the bugs in them before deploying them to the Dominion front. I'll bet a few changes were made to the Sovereign class based on those results, and as a result they have to do a full shakedown/testing anyway.

It is basically a win-win situation for Starfleet.

Win-win minus their nearly lossing a war... That they started!

I think the more likely suggestion is that the ship simply wasn't finished and ready for combat by the time the war ended. There were some important battles in DS9 that you'd expect to see the UFP's newest and most powerful vessel involved in.

Unless they kept it behind to protect Earth or it was on deployment so far away that they couldn't be moved in time for the Battles.

Fair point. We've criticized Starfleet time and again for leaving the core worlds or other strategically important locations woefully under-defended; maybe this is a case of them actually getting it right?