What stops Starfleet from building more ships?

[Darth Wong]

When it takes 4 of them working in unison to damage a single Galor, and two of them get blown into pieces, their usefulness only occurs in large numbers.

I take it you forgot how it took a kamikaze attack from a Dominion bugship to take out a GCS in the first such encounter even though it had no useful shields throughout the entire engagement because the Jem'Hadar weapons were passing right through them. Their weapons are obviously piss-weak, yet they get counted as "ships".

Except even if the entire fleet was made up of them, they are still outnumbered by the Dominion 2-1. Those things would have to be insanely effective.

Compared to bugships? I don't think that's an enormously high bar.

Watching the Sacrafice of Angles clips I have, here is what I gathered.

In the very first pass we see a group of 6 fighters pass a Galor causing minimal damage. The Galor returns fire destroying one fighter which crashes into the Galor with an explosion that looks comparable to a torpedo.

In the next scene with fighters we see 10 Fighters around a Galor (others are also present) and it appears that at least 7 of them are attacking this specific Galor. In the scene the Galor blows away two fighters while a Jem'Hadar cruiser takes down a third.

In the finale scene involving the fighters we see what looks like 6 different groups of 4 fighter flights. Three of these flights appear to be flying in a larger formation attacking a ship off screen. One of these flights of 4 is the primary focus as it makes a bombing run on a Galor. The damage is sufficient to cause the ship to start listing forward, so to speak. No fighters appear to be destroyed this time through.

While useful, they require large numbers to take on an enemy ship, and even then are often ganked in return. The enemy ship might be damaged or crippled, but the fighters are getting blown to pieces in a single shot.

So? Several bugships were unable to destroy an effectively unshielded GCS despite repeated attack runs and weapon volleys, yet they are called "ships". Hell, modern aircraft fighter pilots often refer to their planes as "ships".

The episode indicates a fair number of fighters. They utilize fighters solely for an extended period of time early in the battle. So the fighters have to fight on their own with no support from the larger starfleet ships. If the fighters are counted against the ship count, this is where I believe it causes problems. They are not effective even on a one-to-one basis. They require large numbers. And even the largest possible number of them if part of the ship count is only half of what the Dominion has fielded.

Another thing that comes to mind. Sisko calls these Fighters. Never anything else. They say their fleet is 600 ships strong. A fighter and a ship are two separate things in my book. The smallest Starfleet ship in the battle was either a Saber or the Defiant, at 120 meters. I find it a wild leap to consider the fighter also a ship. They specifically called them fighters, and they are drastically different from the ship, even in purpose.

Why would they count the fighters as a ship? Inflate their own apparent size for no good reason? And when already shown that they aren't even effective on a one-to-one basis, doesn't counting the fighters towards the ship total make the battle even more absurd that Starfleet even considered they could win with such small craft?

It does not make any sense. The fighter is an asset, but not a ship asset. When comparing fleet sizes, counting your 10 meter fighters against the enemy 80 meter corvettes as a straight numbers comparison just doesn't work. At this point you might as well count their shuttles towards the ship size. They have some weapons and are in the same size range. Why not? If we count fighters as an actual ship to inflate the size of the fleet compared to the Dominion, lets also count the shuttles. 3 shuttles per ship, and lets say 200 ships capable of carrying them. Thats another 600 "ships" to add to the fleet count.

I love the way you construct these elaborate speculations solely out of word choices, and ignore not only the present-day use of the word "ship" and the dictionary definition of the word "ship", but also the fact that counting smaller vessels helps resolve a serious continuity problem.

Counting fighters as a ship asset doesn't make sense. They should have counted the number of wings available.

It makes less sense not to mention them as assets at all, which is your pet theory.

But counting individual fighters towards the total ship count does not make an iota of sense in a direct force on force comparison. Especially when the fighters require numerical superiority to even be remotely effective, but face an enemy who has the superior numbers. Not counting the fighter wings available was a mistake. But in turn claiming that the fighters are part of the ship count makes things worse, not better.

Bullshit. You've constructed an elaborate framework of speculation to justify this nonsensical assumption and none of it holds water. Yes, fighters can't take on much larger capships one-on-one. So what? The Dominion fleet ship count is heavily composed of small bugships, which we've established to have such piss-weak weapons that they can swarm an unshielded GCS without being able to destroy it.

[Stark]

Comparing raw ship numbers when ships vary widely in capability is stupid anyway; it's just marketing or politics (or ZOMG HUUUGE writing to impress nerds). I mean, why count Mirandas? Mirandas suck donkey balls in DS9; but they're counted. Jem Hadar ships suck, but are they really that bad considering their size? Any worse than Mirandas? It seems anal in the extreme to construct some arbirary bar of 'effectiveness' to what counts as a 'ship', especially considering on the Fedder side the effectiveness of one 'ship' is so ludicrously variable. Since it's not really meaningful anyway (is 10 'ships' vs 1 'ship' meaningful when it might be BoPs against Sovereigns?) making up FURTHER meaningless rules is stupid.

[Bounty]

So? Several bugships were unable to destroy an effectively unshielded GCS despite repeated attack runs and weapon volleys, yet they are called "ships". Hell, modern aircraft fighter pilots often refer to their planes as "ships".

And yet one bugship was able to go head-to-head with a Centaur. Like so many Trek ships their abilities were all over the scale depending on who as writing this week's episode, but overall, they're presented as being on the lower end of the cap-ship scale in terms of capabilities and use. Drawing the line between "fighter" and "ship" based on what they can blow up is rather than what they are (one-man armed pod vs actual independant spaceship) seems asinine.

[Stark]

Since nobody argues that Defiant isn't a 'ship', even size doesn't make sense. They're small, relatively rubbish ships, but so's a Miranda, a BoP, etc.

[Chris OFarrell]

Would someone point out where Federation Fighters were counted as a ship?

Seriously?

I mean the ship class were described as SHUTTLECRAFT in 'The Jem'Hadar' when the Admiral was talking about the combat experience of the DS9 crew, not starships. They are only a fraction the size of a 'Jem'Hadar Fighter', they are CLEARLY completely different types of ships, a real fighter the size of a SHUTTLECRAFT against a gunship the size of the Defiant...

Its rather absurd to think that they are counted in numbers of ships in fleets, anymore then a starships shuttle complement would be counted in fleets. And the term Jem'Hadar Fighter appears to be a Romulan term the AQ adopted, before the attack on the founders homeworld (and often after) they were just described as JemHadar ships or attack ships...

[Teleros]

Assuming Starfleet is usually spread more or less evenly across UFP territory, given the limits of Warp drive 40 ships is quite a lot even assuming an overall fleet strength far exceeding that depicted in DS9. They had what, 24 hours from the Swiss Army Deflector Dish failure to get those ships together? Assuming Trek ships can average 10,000c over that time anything more than 28 lightyears away was effectively out of it. And while Federation territory is comparatively tiny, it's not THAT tiny.

Another thing that would have made the loss at Wolf 359 more serious for the UFP would have been the fact that it was caused by a single ship. Whilst there were certainly mitigating factors as to why the Borg cube was so effective, the fact that it took on 40:1 odds and won would be a hell of a wake-up call to a power like the UFP. Then, you should factor in the quality of the ships that were destroyed, as well as how smug & self-assured the Federation may have been at the time.

The point is, all this would work towards blowing the loss of the ships at Wolf 395 out of all proportion to actual fleet sizes. If the US Navy lost a squadron of ships to a single speedboat, it'd be a disaster even if said speedboat had everything it needed to win the engagement and the number of ships lost was just 1% of the US Navy's fleet.

[seanrobertson]

Damn. What happened to my reply to Patroklos? I could've sworn I submitted it

Sorry to keep you waiting, Pat. I'll have to rewrite that reply later.

But first ...

I take it you forgot how it took a kamikaze attack from a Dominion bugship to take out a GCS in the first such encounter even though it had no useful shields throughout the entire engagement because the Jem'Hadar weapons were passing right through them. Their weapons are obviously piss-weak, yet they get counted as "ships".

I dunno, boss. The bugships could've easily won that fight without the ramming maneuver.

I mean, we only saw the Dominion ships make two definitive passes, and it's clear their initial attack run fucked over the Odyssey pretty bad. See around the fifty second mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzARkU5l2JE

I realize Odyssey had no defenses, but we've seen unshielded Galaxies get blasted to far less effect; e.g., when the Enterprise encountered the "Husnock" ship a second time in "Survivors." The good old 400 GW attack dropped the E-D's shields effortlessly but a subsequent hit didn't even penetrate the hull.

The bugs' guns might not be the best around, but they were still pretty potent on this occasion.

[Darth Wong]

Would someone point out where Federation Fighters were counted as a ship?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ship

Seriously?

I mean the ship class were described as SHUTTLECRAFT in 'The Jem'Hadar' when the Admiral was talking about the combat experience of the DS9 crew, not starships. They are only a fraction the size of a 'Jem'Hadar Fighter', they are CLEARLY completely different types of ships, a real fighter the size of a SHUTTLECRAFT against a gunship the size of the Defiant...

Still on about this "they're weak so they're not ships" bullshit? Jem'Hadar bugships are worthless compared to the Defiant. We repeatedly see the Defiant destroy bugships with one or two hits, whereas it can take far more pounding than that.

Its rather absurd to think that they are counted in numbers of ships in fleets, anymore then a starships shuttle complement would be counted in fleets. And the term Jem'Hadar Fighter appears to be a Romulan term the AQ adopted, before the attack on the founders homeworld (and often after) they were just described as JemHadar ships or attack ships...

I love the way you act as if there's some fancy rule in Starfleet that the word "ship" should only be used in certain ways, and then act as if someone must present PROOF that people might use it as, you know, the fucking ENGLISH WORD that it is.

Frankly, this encapsulates the whole problem with the way Trekkies "analyze" things. You actually think it's preposterous to assume, in the lack of any contradictory evidence, that they would use an English word correctly.

[Bounty]

So when a modern-day carrier group puts out to see, they count every single launch, fighter, helicopter and lifeboat as a separate ship?

[DaveJB]

The bugs' guns might not be the best around, but they were still pretty potent on this occasion.

That was when the Jem'Hadar had their early advantage of the Federation having no form of defence against their weaponry. In the Defiant's first encounter with the Jem'Hadar it was utterly crippled in less than a minute and would undoubtedly have been destroyed if the Founders hadn't wanted the crew alive. By the time the Dominion War rolled around however, the Defiant (and other Federation ships) handled the Jem'Hadar weapons much better, probably due to research they got from that crashed Dominion fighter.

[Darth Wong]

So when a modern-day carrier group puts out to see, they count every single launch, fighter, helicopter and lifeboat as a separate ship?

Three points, moron:

1) Fighter pilots do in fact refer to their planes as ships.
2) Nobody assesses the strength of a task force by simply counting ships. If they wanted to assess strength, they would be far more specific and say "one carrier with X aircraft, two cruisers, etc"
3) Even if someone did do a simple ship count as you suggest, they might be using the "naval vessel" definition of "ship", which is specific to naval vessels and not aircraft. The "spacecraft" definition of "ship" would cover a fighter just as easily as it covers a capship.

As I said, you are demanding proof that they would use the ENGLISH LANGUAGE CORRECTLY, which is fucking retarded. The burden of proof is yours, and you haven't met it.

[seanrobertson]

But Bounty, lifeboats and helicopters are worthless for combat; Federation fighters, on the other hand ...

... well, alright: they're only a step above totally worthless , but they can still hurt enemy capships.

[Darth Wong]

Consider: if we use this stupid "we only call them ships if they are beyond a certain tactical effectiveness" criterion which the Trektards are promoting, then most modern ships should not be considered "ships"! The fighters are actually more dangerous.

Nowhere has the word "ship" ever been defined as a concept which is contingent upon tactical effectiveness. This is just classic Trektard behaviour.

[seanrobertson]

The bugs' guns might not be the best around, but they were still pretty potent on this occasion.

That was when the Jem'Hadar had their early advantage of the Federation having no form of defence against their weaponry.

Yes, I admitted that. Did you not read this?

I realize Odyssey had no defenses, but we've seen unshielded Galaxies get blasted to far less effect.

In the Defiant's first encounter with the Jem'Hadar it was utterly crippled in less than a minute and would undoubtedly have been destroyed if the Founders hadn't wanted the crew alive. By the time the Dominion War rolled around however, the Defiant (and other Federation ships) handled the Jem'Hadar weapons much better, probably due to research they got from that crashed Dominion fighter.

Absolutely. We're told just that in "Call To Arms". I remember the dialogue very clearly:

Damar: Sir, [DS9's] shields are holding!
Weyoun: Impossible. Federation shields have always been useless against [Dominion] weapons.

I don't see how this negates what I said

[Ted C]

In Star Trek context, I would be inclined to regard a "ship" as a space vessel which can make interstellar trips under its own power. Essentially, if it has a warp drive, it's a ship; if it doesn't have a warp drive, it's a shuttle or something.

Federation "fighters" certainly qualify as ships in the way that Star Trek characters usually use the term.

[Darth Wong]

I realize Odyssey had no defenses, but we've seen unshielded Galaxies get blasted to far less effect; e.g., when the Enterprise encountered the "Husnock" ship a second time in "Survivors." The good old 400 GW attack dropped the E-D's shields effortlessly but a subsequent hit didn't even penetrate the hull.

Considering the fact that the guy controlling the Husnock ship did not actually want to harm the Enterprise, this is a pretty lame way to prove that an unshielded GCS can take a pounding. If you watched TNG, you should know that they made it pretty clear the ship would be very quickly and easily disabled without its shields.

[Crazedwraith]

In Star Trek context, I would be inclined to regard a "ship" as a space vessel which can make interstellar trips under its own power. Essentially, if it has a warp drive, it's a ship; if it doesn't have a warp drive, it's a shuttle or something.

Except all the shuttles do have warp drive. TNG characters frequently used them to vist starbases/conferences and the like across interstellar distances.

[Patroklos]

So? Several bugships were unable to destroy an effectively unshielded GCS despite repeated attack runs and weapon volleys, yet they are called "ships". Hell, modern aircraft fighter pilots often refer to their planes as "ships".

1) Fighter pilots do in fact refer to their planes as ships.

While I have heard this used in movies, I have never encountered this in the real world. Any mention of it is indeed anecdotal at best. I understand it may have happened, but it is obviously not the official or anything even reomotely approaching commonplace usage anywhere.

The Navy in particular makes a clear distiction between ships (things that float in the sea) and aircraft (things that fly).

As you stated though, there is no reason why in a space fleet anything of any size can't be called a "spaceship." I think your link to current terrestrial nomeclature is spurious given the extreme rarity of the usage you are alluding to.

[Darth Wong]

While I have heard this used in movies, I have never encountered this in the real world. Any mention of it is indeed anecdotal at best.

I'm not a pilot myself, but I've seen pilots being interviewed, and they used it that way.

I understand it may have happened, but it is obviously not the official or anything even reomotely approaching commonplace usage anywhere.

Do you need a dictionary as well?

The Navy in particular makes a clear distiction between ships (things that float in the sea) and aircraft (things that fly).

So? It is incredibly common to distinguish between cars and SUVs too; it doesn't mean that one can necessarily assume that a statement about "X millions of cars on the road" does not include SUVs.

As you stated though, there is no reason why in a space fleet anything of any size can't be called a "spaceship." I think your link to current terrestrial nomeclature is spurious given the extreme rarity of the usage you are alluding to.

And how have you established the "extreme rarity" of the use of the word "ship" in a linguistically correct fashion?

[Samuel]

Uh... you guys? Couple things about the episode.

The Federation forces had no intention of winning the battle- the goal was to get through to DS9. Don't ask why they stopped in deep space.


The fleet size of 1254 comes from O'Brien at the sensors and the "they outnumber us 2 to 1" comes from Bashir. Anyone know if he has refered to fighters as ships before?

[seanrobertson]

Considering the fact that the guy controlling the Husnock ship did not actually want to harm the Enterprise, this is a pretty lame way to prove that an unshielded GCS can take a pounding.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think it's quite as poor as you suggest. The dude didn't want to destroy the Enterprise, but it's not an all-or-nothing scenario; he couldn't fire very weak shots at them, either. He wanted to scare them off, and he couldn't do that without threatening their safety.

Besides, there are other examples, like from "The Wounded." Enterprise was unshielded when a Cardie Galor shot at her, and the damage there was superficial as well.

I know what you're going to say Before you run down Cardie firepower in general, though, compare how effective their weapons are against some other targets. We see a Galor fire two half-second bursts at a Miranda in this clip, clearly penetrating her shields and doing some kind of ... err, bright glowy-stuff damage (see 3:23-3:26ish).

Maybe Galor beam weapons vary somewhat in power and maybe Mirandas are weak little pissants. Personally, I rather doubt one Galor's packing ten times the heat of a sister ship; that doesn't seem rational, and there's no other evidence to corroborate such vastly different weapon loadouts among "classmates." I'd also find it incredible if a little old Miranda's shield couldn't withstand one powerful phaser blast or a photorp hit or two.

If you watched TNG, you should know that they made it pretty clear the ship would be very quickly and easily disabled without its shields.

You know I watched TNG!

And yes, the Enterprise was pretty much toast without shields -- if the enemy they ran up against was powerful, anyway.

Michael, keep in mind what I'm claiming: I'm not out to say unshielded GCSs can take a profound beating. I'm not saying bugship or Cardassian weapons are anything incredible, either. But I do think it's exaggerating to dismiss them as pathetic or piss-weak.

[Patroklos]

And how have you established the "extreme rarity" of the use of the word "ship" in a linguistically correct fashion?

It is rather important to my job, but honestly are you serious? Are you actually trying to say you think there is any legitimate claim that fighter aircraft are refered to as ships on a regular basis? Open of a Jane's. A casual google search yeilded nothing, and I even know the "Apocolypse Now" quote to look for.

EDIT: refined the search, the "Apocolypse Now" quote is the only hit.

In any case, I agree with you as far as spaceship characterization. Im media and science vessels the size of Apollo 11 to our mega wank SF creations are called ships, there is no reason to disqualify such usage in ST out of hand.

[Ted C]

In Star Trek context, I would be inclined to regard a "ship" as a space vessel which can make interstellar trips under its own power. Essentially, if it has a warp drive, it's a ship; if it doesn't have a warp drive, it's a shuttle or something.

Except all the shuttles do have warp drive. TNG characters frequently used them to vist starbases/conferences and the like across interstellar distances.

Some shuttles do have warp drive, so they could technically qualify as ships.

Maybe minimum crew complement, cruising range, or some other factor should be used to distinguish ships from "boats".

[Crazedwraith]

Would someone point out where Federation Fighters were counted as a ship?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ship

Amusingly, the very first definition in the above link, specifies that size is important factor determining whether is something is a ship. Small water going vessels are technically boats and not ships.

There's no real reason why the federation couldn't employ a similar system to distinguish between large starships and support craft like fighters, shuttles and runabouts.

[Darth Wong]

Michael, keep in mind what I'm claiming: I'm not out to say unshielded GCSs can take a profound beating. I'm not saying bugship or Cardassian weapons are anything incredible, either. But I do think it's exaggerating to dismiss them as pathetic or piss-weak.

You mean like the way Federation fighters have been dismissed by Alyeska et al as so pathetic that they should be completely ignored in any kind of ship count?