www.ditl.org

Okay this has been mentioned in several threads now, the debate of big ships or several smaller ones.

The main points made are usually that more ships can cover a larger area and more individual missions and then regroup in fleet actions for big threats.

I support the idea of a mixed fleet of both but I unlike some still think the big ships have a VITAL roll to play in the trek universe.

Small or weak weapons fire does not stand a chance against an armored or shielded big ship.

Two big ships meeting in battle either could win but I doubt even two or three normal Intrepids could take down a Sovereign.

In the Russian Japanese war in the early 1900's the Russians did almost not damage to the Japanese because there guns were too small. Against an armored battleship anything less than 10 inches at the minimum were right near useless.

The same would apply now. The weapons Intrepids have would not be powerful enough to damage the Sovereign shields and hull in battle. Whilst the Sovereign would be easily able to penetrate the shields on the weaker ships.

If your enemy has big ships you MUST have an equal to it. The resources it would take to build one Sovereign that can take on the Flag ships of the Klingons are far less than the resources it would take to build enough small ships to be able to take them down.

Then you have the Political reasons to build them. They are big an impressive. Whilst that may not seam like a good reason it is necessary in politics.

We need both. Combined arms tactics is just as important in space as on the ground.
Look at modern naval fleets, we have massive carriers but without things like submarines and missile ships they would be defeated by an enemy who uses such vessels.
The same holds true for space warfare. What do you think would happen if the Federation built nothing but Sovereigns? They'd have an impressive fighting force, but it would be vastly outnumbered and outmaneuvered by other fleets.

True a mixed fleet is the ideal solution. But I also think that if you could only do one (Stupid I know) you would be better off build big.

Look at the Cardassians. A pretty decent sized fleet but nothing overly large and thus aren't that much of a threat.

Then we have the Son'a. They build a few big ones and are a semi decent threat.

If you could only build big or small? Hmm....I'd build medium.

You have a point about the cardasians. I guess it would depend on the technological gap between whatever races you are talking about.

I always assumed that the biggest advantage for bigger ships is actually for long range missions. I mean if you're going to the delta quadrant, would you rather be in a shuttle, runabout, Nova, Intrepid, or Sovereign?

Bigger ships have more crew, can do more functions, have more amenities, have more roles in all aspects, can carry more things (crew, fuel), are stronger, faster. The only downside is they require longer and more resources to build - surely in the age of Starfleet it's no super-immense hurdle (at least after the prototype is made).
In my opinion, the only time that smaller ships' benefits would get near to the benefits of bigger ships would be for battles, and even then I'd rather have the bigger ships.

But as has been said, I would overall prefer a mixed fleet.

I always assumed that the biggest advantage for bigger ships is actually for long range missions. I mean if you're going to the delta quadrant, would you rather be in a shuttle, runabout, Nova, Intrepid, or Sovereign?

Thats why its imprtant to seperate military and civilian navies. Military ships do not generally need to go months without resuplying if they are defending a planet or starbase. Science and explorer ships would.
This is one of the biggest problems with the incredibly incompetent Starleet.

That would make sense if it wasnt for the fact that most of the big ships are still around the core of the Federation.

They seem to use them as shows of power more than explorers.

Exactly, most of the large ships are kept in reserve around planets. The ability to go X months without resuplying is not as important as it would be on, say, a patrol ship.

Rochey wrote:
Thats why its imprtant to seperate military and civilian navies. Military ships do not generally need to go months without resuplying if they are defending a planet or starbase. Science and explorer ships would.
This is one of the biggest problems with the incredibly incompetent Starleet.

But isn't that the point of starfleet? To be explorers. All ships are science vessels (exc. Defiant), but with added defence. As opposed to the ships being military vessels with scientific capabilities.

Thorin wrote:
But isn't that the point of starfleet? To be explorers. All ships are science vessels (exc. Defiant), but with added defence. As opposed to the ships being military vessels with scientific capabilities.

Starfleets like the age of sail Royal Navy who did the bulk of the scientific work around the world by ferrying scientists on their voyages. Except in typical Roddenberry fashion he cocked it up, the age of sail Royal Navy sent military vessels with scientific contingents on board abroad, not scientific vessels with military personell abroad. Roddenberry got it reversed. How he manged this I don't know, considering that Kirk was at least partially based on the lead character from the Hornblower novels. A set of novels that take place during the age of sail.

Ciriously it seems that at least in TOS they had it right but in TNG where Roddenberry had the most influence is where the BS began.

He didnt cock it up so much as decided to make the future a better place.

Starfleet's problem is that they fill to many rolls. Starfleet should have a dedicated force just for combat. If starfleet can support a standing fleet of 8 to 9 thousand ships then why can't they part half of that just for war. 4000 ships split beween Sovereigns, Akrikas and Defiants would freakout even the founders.

Teaos wrote:He didnt cock it up so much as decided to make the future a better place.

What was wrong with the way TOS had it? That was perfect and the best of Star Trek.

Anybody who has played a large scale RTS game knows that diversity is an important aspect of a fleet, or a militia , or whatever group you are working with.

The Defiant class, for example, just isn't large enough on its own to contend with, say, a Dominion Battleship/Dreadnought, or a Sovereign class ship because it is not physically large enough... it doesn't have the power resources or the volume of torpedoes or the hull space for multiple phaser arrays. Of course it is not remotely useless, as we have seen...

I suppose in some ways it is a matter of efficiency. You build an Akira, which for all intents and purposes is a war ship, loaded full of torpedo launchers... even has a straight-through shuttle deck for combat flight operations... that ship would be used as an escort or for violent conflict, or long-range reconnaissance, as it is large enough to go without resupply for an extended period.

The Defiant could probably not survive out in the middle of nowhere. It has a tiny crew and few resources... not really any cargo capacity to speak of... that type of ship would, as it is used in DS9, be good for running security around a base or for small hit-and-run attacks, or as part of a battle group.

I guess you have to plan for the worst... all ships could be more-or-less heavily armed in case they came into contact with hostilities...


I guess in the end you have to construct a fleet with multiple roles in mind... just in case...

What was wrong with the way TOS had it? That was perfect and the best of Star Trek.

The list of things that I find wrong with TOS is to long to write.

I do find it odd that in the other threads people have said the big ships are useless but no ones saying that now.