What stops Starfleet from building more ships?

[Darth Wong]

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

Bullshit. There is no job in which the exact linguistic conventions governing this particular kind of verbal exchange in a Star Trek episode would be relevant.

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.

Yes, there's a legitimate claim, you fucking idiot: for the umpteenth time, it's part of the dictionary definition of the word. This means I don't have to prove it can be used that way; you have to prove that it would NOT be used that way.

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.

Fair enough, but I'd love to know how the fuck you determined that the only use of "ship" to describe aircraft is from Apocalypse Now, when it's part of the dictionary definition.

[Darth Wong]

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.

Yeah, that's the same one where they specify that it must have a sail.

[Crazedwraith]

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.

Yeah, that's the same one where they specify that it must have a sail.

Not really;

1 a: a large seagoing vessel b: a sailing vessel having a bowsprit and usually three masts each composed of a lower mast, a topmast, and a topgallant mast

The 'has a sail' is a separate and presumably older definition. Whereas the modern one just requires it to be large and seagoing.

[Darth Wong]

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.

Yeah, that's the same one where they specify that it must have a sail.

Not really;

1 a: a large seagoing vessel b: a sailing vessel having a bowsprit and usually three masts each composed of a lower mast, a topmast, and a topgallant mast

The 'has a sail' is a separate and presumably older definition. Whereas the modern one just requires it to be large and seagoing.

Nowhere does that definition specify that the "B" portion is archaic. In any case, the definition clearly allows for the use of the word "ship" to describe an airplane later, when quoted in full.

[seanrobertson]

I'll try this again ...

OK: prove it. If Starfleet ships enjoyed the kind of enormous unit-per-unit superiority you seem to claim, please explain why, in "SOA," the Federation fleet struggled* so mightily when "only" outnumbered 2:1.

1.) As noted there is really very little on screen that is useful in determining specifics of fleet battles. It is just a jumble of quick encounter sceens that give us nothing concrete as to fleet numbers, fleet dispositions, tactics, or really anything other than this ship here exploded. What we get is spoon fed to us through campy dialogue, and even that ususally just gives us a conculsion without in any way telling us how that came to be.

Campy's not something I often associate with DS9, but okay

I realize there's more to winning a fleet engagement than numbers and/or "lolz our ships are better"; as you and Michael both note, there are a ton of other variables to consider.

However, please keep in mind why I brought this up. You initially said that a "couple of hundred" ship Federation fleet in "Sacrifice ... " was "for all intents and purposes, Starfleet."

When I objected and started citing enemy fleet stats, you told me "tonnage is what matters" -- that is, the majority of Dominion Alliance forces are cockroach "fighters," which the average Federation ship outmasses by "five to twenty times" by your estimation.

I've only taken a tentative look at what constitutes the average Federation ship, let alone what she might mass. But before we go any further, I want you to clarify something for me (if you'd be so kind, which I'm quite sure you will be; you seem like a decent fellow).

See, you've repeated the "superior tonnage" claim several times, so I can only infer that you believe a starship's mass is correlated with its tactical strength.

Put another way: ceteris paribus*, if we assumed a Galaxy-class starship outmassed an attack ship by a factor of, say, 20, do you think it follows that the GCS is the equal of 20 bug fighters in combat?

If not, and if the mass-to-"strength" ratio isn't so linear, how many attack ships do you think it would take to equal a Galaxy?

How about a typical Excelsior?

A Miranda?

*Let's simplify this and assume equal footing, conditions and the like; e.g., no "Generations"-esque tricks for the little ship to fuck over the big one

2.) There are a thousand things independant of either ship numbers or tonnage that can drastically change a situation. Who is on the defense and who is in the offense? Who has pocession of planetary support and who doesn't? Who had better intelligence? Which ships are better maintained/have less battle damage? What are the skills of the commanders? We can go on forever.

We certainly could at that, and you're right. But what I'm ultimately driving at is your rationale for a comparatively small Starfleet being able to hold its own against the Jem'Hadar's fleet of mostly "little" attack ships. You reiterate the claim here:

However, since we have very little detail as far as concrete qualitative featuers we really can only rely on quanitative. There is no way to get around the fact that as depicted onscreen the vast bulk of Dominion combatants are 95m attack ships, many times out displaced by the average Federation combatant seen.

Well, frankly ... so what?

To be sure, I wouldn't suggest a lone cockroach -- or "Dominator," as we used to call them on an old DS9 usenet group -- would ordinarily be competitive with massive ships like the Galaxy or B-Type Warbird. Not without ramming the fuckers.

But Warbirds and Galaxies are nowhere near as common as the fleet fillers; i.e., the Mirandas and other sub-400m long Starfleet ships.

You know that, but where is the evidence that those -- the Federation's own "average" vessels -- outclass Dominators simply because they're larger?

While you posit that, remember "A Time To Stand"? Sisko and company piloted a stolen Dominator into bad guy space. Before they got there, USS Centaur attacked them. Sisko's people, being good Starfleeters, only shot to disable Centaur's weapons.

Therefore, finishing her off wouldn't be such a big deal: if Centaur can't shoot back, all she can do is run away or sit there and be blasted. Either way, she loses.

Centaur is ~210m long to the Dominator's 95m. She has long nacelles, but her saucer alone would have a volume many times greater than a Dominator.

It's tempting to say she's a really old ship, but the registry (in the 40,000s) doesn't really support that. And she wasn't exactly a poorly-armed ship: she obviously had photorps and at least four dorsal phaser banks.

I hate any variation of the "holding back" argument, but Sisko didn't go all-out in trying to whip Centaur. But the fact remains, even with restricted fire, the Dominator lived up to its [non-canon ] namesake

So, how much more massive does a typical Starfleet ship need to be if it's gonna beat a Dominator in a straight-up fight?

(Aside: Before we get to Defiant, do we really need to argue that she's not a clear exception to the rule? She's said to be "one of the most powerful warships in [the Alpha] Quadrant" circa "Defiant." And even in her maiden voyage, she royally fucked over a Dominator with a single volley ("The Search") -- something the far, far more massive Galaxy-class Odyssey could NOT do in "The Jem'Hadar.")

There could be a dozen reasons for this. I fail to see how this refutes that Federation warships are many times larger than their Dominion counterparts.

I never disputed that.

What I dispute is your assumption that the average Starfleet fighting ship -- whatever that truly is -- is invariably superior to the Dominator by simple virtue of greater mass.

Superficially, that seems a reasonable assumption: after all, a GCS should be able to take down an Ambassador, which should be more than a match for an Excelsior which, in turn, trumps a Constitution -- and so on.

But when you look at how effective the so-called "little" Trek warships are, all that shit goes out the window. Has it occured to you that, in order to consistently defeat a small, but overgunned ship like a Bird-of-Prey, Dominator or Defiant, you'd need an overwhelming advantage in power production/mass?

The only ships available to the Dominion in numbers comparable to Federation ships in size are the Cardassian cruisers, and they are seen rather sparingly as well compared to their smaller Dominion allies.

Several people here are basing their belief in Dominion dominance on numbers alone, and then using this to justify the assumption that the Federation can only compensate for this with its own increased numbers. This is folly.

I agree, to an extent. And I appreciate your effort to keep numbers on the conservative side.

Just the same, I don't see the Federation making up for a huge numerical deficit with bigger (and presumably more powerful) ships.

Why? Because several times now, I've admitted that the bugships aren't anything earth-shattering; however, they're not just ineffectual crap, either. Defiant is the only ship that's made mincemeat of the bugs when up against superior odds. Even the big, mighty Odyssey couldn't knock one of them out in "The Jem'Hadar."

[Crazedwraith]

Nowhere does that definition specify that the "B" portion is archaic. In any case, the definition clearly allows for the use of the word "ship" to describe an airplane later, when quoted in full.

Fine. For clarity. The full definition, which you brought up and didn't, you know, quote at all.

Main Entry:
1ship Listen to the pronunciation of 1ship
Pronunciation:
\ˈship\
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English scip; akin to Old High German skif ship
Date:
before 12th century

1 a: a large seagoing vessel b: a sailing vessel having a bowsprit and usually three masts each composed of a lower mast, a topmast, and a topgallant mast2: boat ; especially : one propelled by power or sail3: a ship's crew4: fortune 3 <when their ship comes in they'll be able to live in better style>5: airship, airplane, spacecraft

Now, while you obviously were using point 5, to back up your case. That all spacecraft can be refered to as ships. I was merely trying to point out your cited definition in no way precludes the alternate interpretation that ship = large vessel, especially given that science fiction often falls into the 'space is an ocean' trope.

Also ship as all spacecraft is a 20th Century definition and we only a few kinds of space craft all operating on the same scale. Thus we have no need to distinguish between large ships and small craft. The Federation does and therefore might use the word differently to now.

[Darth Wong]

Fine. For clarity. The full definition. You brought up and didn't you know, quote at all.

Maybe I wasn't expecting some stupid asshole to nitpick his way to glory, when anyone could click on the link.

Now, while you obviously were using point 5, to back up your case. That all spacecraft can be refered to as ships. I was merely trying to point out your cited definition in no way precludes the alternate interpretation that ship = large vessel, especially given that science fiction often falls into the 'space is an ocean' trope.

Wrong. That interpretation REQUIRES exclusivity in the context of this thread. In other words, people are not just saying that it CAN be used that way; they are saying that it MUST be used that way. If the word "ship" can refer to aircraft or spacecraft, then they're wrong in assuming that it's somehow preposterous to think smaller vessels might have been counted as "ships" in a Star Trek episode.

[seanrobertson]

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?

I can't speak for Alyeska and the rest, but I can't imagine why the Federation fighters wouldn't be included in a ship count!

By the by: even if, in bizarro-world, a ship's partly defined by how much pain it dishes out (?), the fighters should still be considered proper ships. They might individually be insignificant, but we saw squadrons of them eventually take down a Galor. For the resources and manpower involved, those things seem like a damned good investment to me.

[Darth Wong]

I just think it's telling that the sort of semantic dispute where a normal person would shrug and say "Meh, could go either way" is treated by Trekkies as "OMG I can't believe you actually said that you must be INSANE". As I said earlier, it encapsulates a lot of the historical problem with Trek fandom.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I just think it's telling that the sort of semantic dispute where a normal person would shrug and say "Meh, could go either way" is treated by Trekkies as "OMG I can't believe you actually said that you must be INSANE". As I said earlier, it encapsulates a lot of the historical problem with Trek fandom.

I just find it telling that a thread that started off discussing the industrial and manpower capabilities of Starfleet has now devolved into semantic nitpicking about the possible misuse of the word "ship."

[Patroklos]

Bullshit. There is no job in which the exact linguistic conventions governing this particular kind of verbal exchange in a Star Trek episode would be relevant.

You sited your experiance of hearing it in contemporary use as part of your justification. It was not a justification that was required to make your point, but you used it anyway. I have spend years landing aircraft on naval flight decks, I have never once hear a single airframe of any type refered to as a ship.

My anecdote aside, I would challenge you to provide a relevant real world example. In order for you to make the point via the way you approched it the term should be in regular usage.

Yes, there's a legitimate claim, you fucking idiot: for the umpteenth time, it's part of the dictionary definition of the word. This means I don't have to prove it can be used that way; you have to prove that it would NOT be used that way.

Ah "fucking idiot" precious. You seem to be under the impression that I am disputing your point that it is a dictionary use of the word and it could very well and appropriately be used that way in the case in point. I am not, you fucking idiot.

What I am doing is disputing your attempt to further justify your already amply proven point by saying it is in usage that way today. It may be anecdotelly, but not in any frequency that proves your point in any way. Again, point to something, ANYTHING, that shows it used that way commonly today. People call planes mechanical birds sometimes, so fucking what?

Fair enough, but I'd love to know how the fuck you determined that the only use of "ship" to describe aircraft is from Apocalypse Now, when it's part of the dictionary definition.

That its the dictionary definition is irrelevant to is contemporary usage (which you brought upt to prove your point). There are thousands of words in the dictionary that are not used at all, let alone in every instance they are appropriate. You said you heard it on TV once, I said I heard it in a movie. That movie I heard it in ONCE was "Apocalypse Now," and try as I might I can not find a single other instance of it used that way other than that.

The fact that it was used that way in a single 20th century movie doesn't really matter much to determining the likelihood of that being the case in the 2400s.

Why the hell are we argueing about this. I don't THINK they are counting the fighters in their ship totals, but I don't KNOW that. You have made a very good point that they very well could be.

[Alyeska]

I can't speak for Alyeska and the rest, but I can't imagine why the Federation fighters wouldn't be included in a ship count!

By the by: even if, in bizarro-world, a ship's partly defined by how much pain it dishes out (?), the fighters should still be considered proper ships. They might individually be insignificant, but we saw squadrons of them eventually take down a Galor. For the resources and manpower involved, those things seem like a damned good investment to me.

Do you even realize what this does to a force on force comparison using simple numbers? How often do people use this approach when describing battles from other series? I haven't seen people do a lump comparison in Star Wars. The Battle of Endor. 900 Rebel ships vs 10,000 Imperial ships. No. Its usually described as two dozen Rebel ships vs 50+ Imperial ships. When people decide to go into more details, they also include fighter counts SEPARATELY. A fighter isn't even remotely comparable on a straight numbers base and must be counted as a distinct asset into itself. Thats why people typically start talking Wings or Squadrons in comparison to ships.

But when one side has 10 capitalships and 90 fighters, and the other side has 100 capitaliships, we don't go Side A has 100 ships and Side B has 100 ships. Thats intellectually dishonest. Especially when the people claiming its a valid count never actually use it themselves.

Ask yourself this. Would you individually count the fighters towards a fleet count in Star Wars? Have you? Would you in the future? Does it actually provide even a shred of usefulness to lump fighters into the same generic catagory as a Miranda or a Galaxy? A Miranda is at least within an order of magnitude of the same size as a Galaxy. A fighter is not.

[Stark]

In the other comaprisons you mention, comparing 'ship' numbers is equally meaningless. It suggests 1 'ship' is anything from a goddamn freighter or 'medical frigate' to the Executor. The numbers are meaningless, and their only use is to commnuciate numerical disparity and not any measure of capability.

Since fighters can apparently kill capital ships by themselves in ST (with numbers, but still less tonnage, ironically WW2 lol) they're not comparable to SW fighters in utility.

[Alyeska]

In the other comaprisons you mention, comparing 'ship' numbers is equally meaningless. It suggests 1 'ship' is anything from a goddamn freighter or 'medical frigate' to the Executor. The numbers are meaningless, and their only use is to commnuciate numerical disparity and not any measure of capability.

Since fighters can apparently kill capital ships by themselves in ST (with numbers, but still less tonnage, ironically WW2 lol) they're not comparable to SW fighters in utility.

So we are left with an even more absurd numerical disparity that further stretches belief.

What is more likely. They simply forgot to count and/or mention the fighters, or they counted the fighters and expected to fight a battle with a massive numerical disparity in hostile territory while conducting offensive operations against an enemy with ships that are comparable pound-for-pound to Federation ships.

[Stark]

So? Don't blame me for DS9's dumbass writing with fleet sizes that are vague, huge, and don't make sense.

I don't watch DS9, but since the Dom fleet is massively dominated by piece-of-shit bugs with small numbers of heavy ships, surely a sizeable fleet 'numbers' disparity is expected and not insurmountable?

[Alyeska]

I don't deny that it could mean that, but I contend that it likely does not because it makes the statement more confusing and nonsensical.

[Batman]

It should be noted that Wars fighters are comparatively tiny compared to Trek ones and ARE essentially useless against capital ships except when used in preposterous numbers and/or wanked by Allston/Stackpole 'based-on-game-mechanics' writing.

[Stark]

I don't deny that it could mean that, but I contend that it likely does not because it makes the statement more confusing and nonsensical.

How do you mean? I'm not very familar with DS9, but even if they had cardie ships too, they suck pretty hard. If there's 10 bugs for every 'proper' dominion or cardie warship, 1200 ships might be 100 or 200 'proper' ships and a thousand piece of ship bugs. 600 Fed ships (if you figure Excelsior is 'average') isn't really that bad a match anymore.

Wait a second; this is one of those big fight episodes. Don't the screenshots of the big scary 'wall' indicate ratios?

[Alyeska]

It should be noted that Wars fighters are comparatively tiny compared to Trek ones and ARE essentially useless against capital ships except when used in preposterous numbers and/or wanked by Allston/Stackpole 'based-on-game-mechanics' writing.

Star Wars fighters can vary in size. The Y-Wing is fairly large, as is the B-Wing and the Assault Gunboat. Even the X-Wing is a moderaly large craft. If you look at Federation fighters, they have a clearly visible cockpit cockpit. Comparable to many Star Wars fighters.

http://www.ditl.org/picship.php?fedperegrine&1

[Batman]

The X-Wing is comparable to a WW2 Spitfire dimensions-wise. And even assuming I'd be willing to trust DITL for dimensions you still need DOZENS of fighters to threaten Wars midrange capital ships with TT torpedos in fighterwank situations when TREK fighters apparently can do so all by their lonesome in single-digit numbers.

[Alyeska]

I don't deny that it could mean that, but I contend that it likely does not because it makes the statement more confusing and nonsensical.

How do you mean? I'm not very familar with DS9, but even if they had cardie ships too, they suck pretty hard. If there's 10 bugs for every 'proper' dominion or cardie warship, 1200 ships might be 100 or 200 'proper' ships and a thousand piece of ship bugs. 600 Fed ships (if you figure Excelsior is 'average') isn't really that bad a match anymore.

Wait a second; this is one of those big fight episodes. Don't the screenshots of the big scary 'wall' indicate ratios?

Cardassian ships aren't weak. They aren't overly powerful, but they aren't a Miranda or Excelsior either.

In a single fleet pass I counted 12 Cardasian Galor class ships, 16 Bugs, 6 Dominion Cruisers, and 11 Heideki (the small Cardassian ship just a hair under the Bug size). These ships are all in relatively close proximity. At longer distances most ships aren't identifiable except the Dominion Cruisers, and I didn't count them because it unfairly benefits the larger ships.

The Cardassians appear to have a 1-1 ratio of small to mid sized ships. The Dominion have what looks like a 3-1 ratio of small to large ships.

In a Federation fleet pass I see the following.

8 Excelsior ships
4 Galaxy class
14 Miranda class ships
14 other ships ranging from Defiant, Akira, Saber, and Steamrunner (call it 1 Defiant, 1 Saber)
16 Fighters

The Federation had a fleet consisting of about 4 large, 20 mid sized, and 16 small sized ships. 1.25-1 medium to small, and 4-1 small to large ratio.

So the Federation has a slightly better ratio of small-medium, but worse on small-large. If you count the fighters as small, it worsens all ratios. If you count the fighters, but simply compute tonage, the Federation is right fucked.

Aproximately 1,200 Dominion ships. Using a representation of the listed figures, the Cardassians represent 51% of the fleet, and the Jem'Hadar represent 49%. 51% of 1200 is 612. 49% of 1200 is 588.

306 Galor class ships
306 Heideki
147 Dominion Cruisers
441 Bugs

That is
147 Large Ships
306 Medium Ships
747 Small Ships

About 600 Federation ships.

Not counting fighters as ships
60 Large Ships (My count only showed Galaxy class, but we can also call ships like Nebula and Ambassador in the large range)
300 Medium Ships
240 Small Ships

Counting fighters as small ships
42.8 Large Ships
214.3 Medium Ships
342.9 Small Ships

Counting fighters as ships but separate from everything else
42.8 Large Ships
214.3 Medium Ships
171.4 Small Ships
171.4 Fighters

As you can see, counting fighters drastically changed the tonnage comparison. A simple tonnage comparison. Lets weight Large as 4, Medium as 2, and Small as 1.

The entire Dominion fleet has a total score of 1947 points.
Not counting the fighters, the Federation fleet scores 1080

That evens out pretty close to the 2-1 ratio established with a 600 ship fleet vs 1200 ship fleet.

Counting the fighters as small ships, the Federation drops to 942.7. Counting the fighters separately, say as .25, we get 814.25 points for the Federation.

[Alyeska]

The X-Wing is comparable to a WW2 Spitfire dimensions-wise. And even assuming I'd be willing to trust DITL for dimensions you still need DOZENS of fighters to threaten Wars midrange capital ships with TT torpedos in fighterwank situations when TREK fighters apparently can do so all by their lonesome in single-digit numbers.

Do you see the forum this discussion is in? This is not Star Trek vs Star Wars. I am not nor was I considering comparing them directly. I was simply pointing out simple size comparisons, nothing more.

[Stark]

Your 'tonnage points' system is, frankly, comlpetely misleading bullshit. If a 'small' is one, a 'large' should be closer to ten given the terrible performance of bugs.

The numbers extrapolation is interestign; that the Dom visually outnumbered the Fed in heavy units 2-1, while they had a massive superiority in smaller ships. This goes some way to handily explaining the whole issue; they were outnumbered 2-1 in ships that mattered, but their fleet was mostly near-worthless bugs.

[Alyeska]

Your 'tonnage points' system is, frankly, comlpetely misleading bullshit. If a 'small' is one, a 'large' should be closer to ten given the terrible performance of bugs.

The numbers extrapolation is interestign; that the Dom visually outnumbered the Fed in heavy units 2-1, while they had a massive superiority in smaller ships. This goes some way to handily explaining the whole issue; they were outnumbered 2-1 in ships that mattered, but their fleet was mostly near-worthless bugs.

I was using it as a very rough comparison. Tonnage wise, you are correct. But in Trek, the larger ships have not actually shown themselves to be as powerful as their tonnage would indicate. A Galaxy would be hard pressed to actually take on 10 small ships. Call it a combat tonnage comparison if you will. Its not meant to be highly accurate, but give a rough comparison to classify the differences in size and show what happens to the ratios when you start adding fighters into the mix through various means.

[Batman]

The X-Wing is comparable to a WW2 Spitfire dimensions-wise. And even assuming I'd be willing to trust DITL for dimensions you still need DOZENS of fighters to threaten Wars midrange capital ships with TT torpedos in fighterwank situations when TREK fighters apparently can do so all by their lonesome in single-digit numbers.

Do you see the forum this discussion is in? This is not Star Trek vs Star Wars. I am not nor was I considering comparing them directly. I was simply pointing out simple size comparisons, nothing more.

And I was pointing out why those size comparisons DON'T WORK. I wholeheartedly agree that Wars fighters vs capital ships has no bearing on Trek fighters vs capital ships.