www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:However, Graham is right - off the top of my head I can come up with one very clear material limiting factor - dilithium. Dilithium appears to have to be highly processed (per the appearance of a dilithium "cracking" station) as well as completely, incontrovertibly necessary for FTL operation.

Also antimatter, which, I imagine, can't be so easy to produce in large quantities.

The dilithium/anti-matter arguments are so obvious I am almost ashamed that I did not notice them. Those are excellent points as well as Graham's arguments. I had no idea Great Britain dedicated so much of it's resources towards it's military at one time.

And if colonization is still a factor I could see such vessels and programs vying for control over a share of such precious resources.

Later, by TNG's time perhaps new methods of dilithium processing have made the precious ore far more easily obtailnable, or new warp engines operate on smaller amounts. It would explain how Starfleet could field such a large force by DS9's time.

Again, going by the presence of the cracking station, I don't think ore was the issue som much as the processing. For a given amount of crude oil, gasoline is much easier to produce (and the oil yields more) than diesel fuel, since diesel requires more cracking than gasoline.

The TNG TM claims that they developed a process to produce dilithium synthetically by the TNG era. Non canon, of course.

Again, that would explain why we only know of one shipyard that could produce a Constitution class starship. As to how many they could build at a time is up for debate, but it would stand to reason, that as the shipyard expanded it's capacity, that would explain the increase in Connie production.

katefan - My numbers are basically comparing the size of the US Navy, and extrapolating what the Federation would be capable of. If we focus on colonization, we could cut the number by some fraction (TBD). For the massive space stations, those would be counted as part of the surface bases in use by the US Navy. It would be harder to build a space station compared to a surface base, but again, the tech base is higher.

DeepCrush - I am assuming the Coast Guard in Starfleet terms would be in-system ships, atmospheric capable, or short-range warp vessels. The Battle fleet is the combat ships for direct combat. The Raider fleets are longer range vessels designed to penetrate enemy space and attack civilian targets. The Support fleet is the ammo, fuel, hospital, and transport ships.

GrahamKennedy - you are right we do not know the specific items. However we do know that current carriers require rare materials/equipment and parts that are extremely time consuming to manufacture. Until we have hard numbers, I'd go with the Navy/Coast Guard conversion, and we can work from there.

Praeothmin - this is TOS, where Kirk was willing to fight the Klingons over a strategically important planet, deliver advanced weapons to help a faction friendly to the Federation, and be willing to change a virtual war into an actual war. This is not hands-off peaceful TNG.

Mikey - dilithium could be a reason; do we have any idea how easy it is to find dilithium in STverse?

Lazar - antimatter needs energy and raw material. The Federation has solar panel technology (and fusion reactors) and hydrogen gas from a gas giant can be used for the raw material. Similar to the uranium extraction, refinement, and processing needed for a carrier's nuclear reactors.


Still, TOS was about the Enterprise exploring unknown areas, so we would not have seen known Federation homeworlds, with the extensive shipyards, mineral processing stations, and massive numbers of transports feeding the orbital factories.

Hmm, for numbers. Assume each spaceframe will last 50 years (before enough refitting to effectively rebuild the ship is needed). That means of the 1100 heavy combat ships that I came up with, only 22 are built per year. Divided by 30 Homeworlds, and that means no more than one large combat ship is built per Homeworld.

If you drop that to 20 years between rebuilds, that translates to 55 large ships built per year, or about 2 per Homeworld. So we could have small construction rates over Earth (for larger ships), and it would still allow a large fleet.

Coalition wrote:Mikey - dilithium could be a reason; do we have any idea how easy it is to find dilithium in STverse?

No - canonically it is (or was, at least) necessary to refine it. Calling the process "cracking," like crude oil is "cracked" today, indicates a fairly involved process. As GK notes, there is non-canon info that states that dilithium may be replicatable by TNG times; however, I only gave that as an example (as are warp coils, et. al.) of components of starship construction which could bog up the streamlined, automated, high-tech speedy process which was posited.

DeepCrush - I am assuming the Coast Guard in Starfleet terms would be in-system ships, atmospheric capable, or short-range warp vessels. The Battle fleet is the combat ships for direct combat. The Raider fleets are longer range vessels designed to penetrate enemy space and attack civilian targets. The Support fleet is the ammo, fuel, hospital, and transport ships.

The Coast Guard in Starfleet terms would be whatever ships they don't send out on missions. They don't really have a group of ships that we know of that are strickly for insystem defense.

The Battle Fleets may be another story. In TOS, SF would seem to show up with some rather power numbers pretty quickly. Though I doubt these would make up the bulk of the fleet.

Raiders Fleets... when have you ever heard of the UFP launching attacks against civilian targets? So these numbers really don't mean anything. If you are thinking about smaller ships you should be looking towards S/E types, not raiders.

The support fleet makes sense. The SF of TOS would need a great deal of long range support. This would be due to the massive numbers of outposts, starbases, colonies, mining ops and research stations.

Mikey wrote:No - canonically it is (or was, at least) necessary to refine it. Calling the process "cracking," like crude oil is "cracked" today, indicates a fairly involved process. As GK notes, there is non-canon info that states that dilithium may be replicatable by TNG times; however, I only gave that as an example (as are warp coils, et. al.) of components of starship construction which could bog up the streamlined, automated, high-tech speedy process which was posited.

I am assuming Starfleet can do simple subtraction. The following numbers are made up, but they should provide an example. I.e. a set of warp coils takes 24 months, a dilithium reaction chamber takes 16 months, and the entire ship takes 12 months.

Therefore, the yards will start construction on the warp coils now, in 8 months they will start work on the dilithium chamber, and 4 months after that they will start on the ship itself. Assuming the ships are turned out assembly line style, there will be a 12 month lead time (to get the first warp coils started), then every year the shipyard will be turning out a new ship. There will be 2 sets of warp coils being worked on at any time (except for the first and last 12 months), and there will need to be 2 dilithium chamber manufacturing centers. (yes I know that the timing won't be exact due to the need for the hull to be closed up around the warp coils and dilithium chamber, but the basic scheduling should be obvious)

Deepcrush wrote:The Coast Guard in Starfleet terms would be whatever ships they don't send out on missions. They don't really have a group of ships that we know of that are strickly for insystem defense.

We can make them warp capable, but with low fuel reserves, and more weapons/defenses/SAR equipment/labs/medical capacity/sensors/etc. Basically short-range vessels excellent for telling a pirate or other problem to go away, but not able to follow them back to their base. In running terms, it is the difference between a sprinter and a marathon runner.

Deepcrush wrote:The Battle Fleets may be another story. In TOS, SF would seem to show up with some rather power numbers pretty quickly. Though I doubt these would make up the bulk of the fleet.

Out of my estimated 1100 Constitution sized ships, the largest concentration I remember seeing in TOS was the 5 ships gathered for the M-5 experiment.

Deepcrush wrote:Raiders Fleets... when have you ever heard of the UFP launching attacks against civilian targets? So these numbers really don't mean anything. If you are thinking about smaller ships you should be looking towards S/E types, not raiders.

For Raider fleets, we can call them something else if you want (Rapid fleet strike, etc), but the key is that Starfleet would have another 10,400 combat ships from that group, for a total of 23,000 combat ships, of which 1100 are capital ships. I am figuring TOS Starfleet would strike civilian targets in time of war, or at least the Raider fleet would be used to hit sensitive military targets (training bases, shipyards, military industrial centers, etc). Their total strength is equal to the Capital ships (Constitution-class and similar sized), but they are composed of smaller ships, similar to the rest of the Battle Fleet.

Deepcrush wrote:The support fleet makes sense. The SF of TOS would need a great deal of long range support. This would be due to the massive numbers of outposts, starbases, colonies, mining ops and research stations.

My numbers are just from converting the US Navy to Starfleet. This is not counting the various civilian ships in the world's oceans today. Those would be used to transport low-priority goods to and from colonies, bases, etc. If Starfleet knows they will need fleet support in a certain volume in a year, they can send a fast freighter along with a warship to scout the volume initially, while a superfreighter carries the materials needed for a supply depot. The superfreighter has (major guesses here) 1/3 the top speed of the Starfleet freighter, but can carry 10 times the cargo for the same amount of fuel and dilithium.

You have some fair ideas for an independant race or faction. As if you were building your own. However this doesn't really hold well against what we know about the UFP. If you were to take what you know of the TOS UFP and apply its resources to your own methods then you could have a very powerful make believe faction.

We can make them warp capable, but with low fuel reserves, and more weapons/defenses/SAR equipment/labs/medical capacity/sensors/etc. Basically short-range vessels excellent for telling a pirate or other problem to go away, but not able to follow them back to their base. In running terms, it is the difference between a sprinter and a marathon runner.

In other words these would be Mirandas. Cheaper then the Connies and used for home defense while the big guns head out to the borders. Again however, bigger = faster in ST. So these ships wouldn't match your sprinter ideal.

Out of my estimated 1100 Constitution sized ships, the largest concentration I remember seeing in TOS was the 5 ships gathered for the M-5 experiment.

But there aren't 1100 Connies. We know by canon that there are only 12.

For Raider fleets, we can call them something else if you want (Rapid fleet strike, etc), but the key is that Starfleet would have another 10,400 combat ships from that group, for a total of 23,000 combat ships, of which 1100 are capital ships. I am figuring TOS Starfleet would strike civilian targets in time of war, or at least the Raider fleet would be used to hit sensitive military targets (training bases, shipyards, military industrial centers, etc). Their total strength is equal to the Capital ships (Constitution-class and similar sized), but they are composed of smaller ships, similar to the rest of the Battle Fleet.

If you're going to invest so much into your raiders that they equal your main Battle Fleets. Then you might as well just build twice the numbers of big gun ships. Bigger = faster & stronger. Double the battleships means double the effort your enemy needs to stop them. It also means your enemy's border will be only half as well defended. In the end that would make it easier for a smaller raider force to break through and do damage.

My numbers are just from converting the US Navy to Starfleet. This is not counting the various civilian ships in the world's oceans today. Those would be used to transport low-priority goods to and from colonies, bases, etc.

The USN uses a massive number of support ships. Even more so during wartime such as WW2. Supply ships and transports often out number warships in battle groups.

If Starfleet knows they will need fleet support in a certain volume in a year, they can send a fast freighter along with a warship to scout the volume initially, while a superfreighter carries the materials needed for a supply depot. The superfreighter has (major guesses here) 1/3 the top speed of the Starfleet freighter, but can carry 10 times the cargo for the same amount of fuel and dilithium.

Again, bigger = faster in ST. Your smaller freighters would be used in supplying your depots. You're larger freighters would be assigned to the fleets. One because they can carry more supply and support the fleet longer. Two because the smaller freighters just wouldn't be able to keep up.

Deepcrush wrote:

Out of my estimated 1100 Constitution sized ships, the largest concentration I remember seeing in TOS was the 5 ships gathered for the M-5 experiment.

But there aren't 1100 Connies. We know by canon that there are only 12.

He didn't say Connies, he said Constitution-sized ships. The equivalent would be an Iowa's CO in late WW2 saying that there were only four ships like his in the fleet - he'd be right, but the US had a lot more than four battleships.

Captain Seafort wrote:The equivalent would be an Iowa's CO in late WW2 saying that there were only four ships like his in the fleet - he'd be right, but the US had a lot more than four battleships.

That is a good point, because it lets us reconcile Kirk's remark with the idea of a larger heavy cruiser fleet. The Starfleet Museum provides a good look at a conjectural TOS and pre-TOS-era Starfleet that included a greater variety of heavy cruisers.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:

Out of my estimated 1100 Constitution sized ships, the largest concentration I remember seeing in TOS was the 5 ships gathered for the M-5 experiment.

But there aren't 1100 Connies. We know by canon that there are only 12.

He didn't say Connies, he said Constitution-sized ships. The equivalent would be an Iowa's CO in late WW2 saying that there were only four ships like his in the fleet - he'd be right, but the US had a lot more than four battleships.

Oh, my bad. Misread that one.

Even still. If they could produce that many ships of that mass. You'd think there would be a greater number of Connies.

Lazar wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:The equivalent would be an Iowa's CO in late WW2 saying that there were only four ships like his in the fleet - he'd be right, but the US had a lot more than four battleships.

That is a good point, because it lets us reconcile Kirk's remark with the idea of a larger heavy cruiser fleet. The Starfleet Museum provides a good look at a conjectural TOS and pre-TOS-era Starfleet that included a greater variety of heavy cruisers.

I have trouble even playing with that site since it goes straight against what we've heard from TOS.

Deepcrush wrote:You have some fair ideas for an independant race or faction. As if you were building your own. However this doesn't really hold well against what we know about the UFP. If you were to take what you know of the TOS UFP and apply its resources to your own methods then you could have a very powerful make believe faction.

Given the numbers I am running (30 Homeworlds, 1 billion people per HW, and ~33 colonies support each of the HW via taxes and resources) the Federation could produce the fleet I listed. Or the Klingons, the Romulans, the Cardassians, etc.

Deepcrush wrote:In other words these would be Mirandas. Cheaper then the Connies and used for home defense while the big guns head out to the borders. Again however, bigger = faster in ST. So these ships wouldn't match your sprinter ideal.

Yeah, I was trying to compare that the Coast Guard type fleet would be short-ranged, and tried to go with a bad running comparison. Basically the Coast Guard ships might only have two weeks of endurance on their warp coils before they had to be taken offline and gone over. Actual Combat ships would have longer endurance. Coast Guard ships would travel around in-system using their fusion reactors and impulse drives while the engineers cleaned out the warp coils.

Basically the Coast Guard would have lower quality engines, because they are not expected to go long distances continuously. This allows them to be built faster and/or with fewer resources, at smaller/lower tech shipyards. You can even give them to a potential ally for in-system defense, as there is no critical technology on board and their range is low enough they will not get into too much trouble. The Coast Guard ships would be slower, cheaper, and shorter-ranged strategically.

Deepcrush wrote:If you're going to invest so much into your raiders that they equal your main Battle Fleets. Then you might as well just build twice the numbers of big gun ships. Bigger = faster & stronger. Double the battleships means double the effort your enemy needs to stop them. It also means your enemy's border will be only half as well defended. In the end that would make it easier for a smaller raider force to break through and do damage.

The total Raider fleet (~10,000 ships) would be equal to only the 1100 main Combat ships. In my fleet listing, the 1100 Constitution sized ships represent 1/4 of Starfleet's firepower, the rest of the Combat fleet represents another 1/4, the Raider is 1/4, and the Coast Guard might be another 1/4.

For the Raiders, assuming 10 Raider hulls are equal to 1 main combat hull, their job would be to hit 10 enemy targets while the enemy Battleship can only protect one. If the Battleship pursues one of them, the others are getting through. Of course, the Raiders can only hit the lighter targets, and you need heavier battleships to take out enemy starbases. So you could go with 2200 heavy combat ships, ~11k smaller combat ships, the ~10k strong Coast Guard, and go for more straight up fights (though with fewer smaller ships, the enemy could raid your systems). Or even the ultimate would be 4400 heavy combat ships, and no smaller stuff.

Ah, the fun of fleet composition and design.

Deepcrush wrote:The USN uses a massive number of support ships. Even more so during wartime such as WW2. Supply ships and transports often out number warships in battle groups.

True, but for routine operations (transferring colony production, moving people around), I'd figure that there was a 'civilian' fleet in operation. Cheap, slow, and everywhere. Setting up new colonies might use the Starfleet transports, or they just charter a bunch of civilian freighters and move the volunteers/volunteered and the necessary equipment to the target planet. I'd tend to see the Starfleet transports as moving military equipment to the various Starbases to keep the fleet and outposts supplied, similar to what current US Navy transports do.

For wartime, Starfleet might just draft/hire/buy the civilian transports, and use them for military cargo movement. I'll fully agree on the supply ships outnumbering warships in times of war though.

Deepcrush wrote:Again, bigger = faster in ST. Your smaller freighters would be used in supplying your depots. You're larger freighters would be assigned to the fleets. One because they can carry more supply and support the fleet longer. Two because the smaller freighters just wouldn't be able to keep up.

That is why I compared the same fuel usage. The civilian freighter is hauling 10 times the cargo compared to the military freighter, but its engine is operating at a slower speed, because it was cheaper/took fewer resources to make/the lower speed reduces the strain/etc. A larger military freighter would be faster and carry more cargo, but use more fuel. As always, tradeoffs.

I.e. you have three freighters, two of them will use 1 ton of antimatter to haul cargo to a specific planet, while the third will take 8 tons of antimatter. The first ship will take 2 weeks to get there, and deliver 100,000 tons of cargo. The second ship will take 6 weeks to get there, but will deliver 1,000,000 tons of cargo. The third ship will take 2 weeks to get there and deliver 1,000,000 tons of cargo. Which do you use?

Answer: Whichever is appropriate to the task. If you only have 100,000 tons of cargo, you use #1. If you have time and lots of cargo to move, use #2. If you need the large amount of cargo moved faster, go with #3.

Of course there are dozens of other comparisons that will have to be made, but that is why Supply Personnel always have aspirin handy.