What stops Starfleet from building more ships?

[Stark]

Who says they get them 'wrong'? It's just pretty heavily implied that total fleet strength has increased by an order of magnitude, at least. Talking about industry is totally irrelevant since the DS9 fleets are shown to be heavily older ships like Excelsiors and Mirandas out of mothballs, not new-builds. Isn't there like 5 Defiants in all of DS9?

The media is totally irrelevant; Wolf 359 was described as a terrible blow BY MEMBERS OF STARFLEET, I believe even those like Shelby who were specifically tasked with Borg preparation and who would be well informed. Sure, TNG Starfleet is idealistic and stupid etc etc, but there's no getting around that in TNG 40 ships was supposed to be a lot, and in DS9 100 ships is supposed to be not really that many.

You can't depict the Fed as being in 'dire straights' for like, three years. They lost fleet after fleet after battle after battle, and yet the war went on. Some expected them to lose eventually, but they stood against the massive attrition caused by the war for quite some time - and in the end STILL had Excelsiors left over for their push into Card space.

[AirshipFanboy]

So far, I'm buying Wong's "they can't build more ships" argument over a motivation-shortage or a treaty-limitation.

The whole Washington Treaty WW2 business demonstrates politicians in RL like to keep fleet sizes down, much like in modern day with nuclear arsenals. Why should the UFP and its neighbors not do something similar?

Because such a treaty would be hard to verify, and would work against the interests of the strongest powers in the quadrant.

Keep in mind that the Federation had almost no knowledge of what the Romulans were doing before TNG: the Neutral Zone, and would thus be signing such a treaty while being almost completely in the dark about what its main enemy was doing.

Although ST:VI did mention "mothballing the Star Fleet", making it conceivable that renewed Khitomer accords kept fleet strength down, it doesn't make sense for TNG's Federation-Klingon alliance to limit its combined fleet potential while leaving its largest rival unchecked.

Furthermore, treaty limitations on new starships were never mentioned in the TNG era, even when you'd think they would be. They never mentioned arms-treaties when the Defiant or any other new ship's construction was discussed, nor did anyone mention how the Obsidian Order's secret fleet in the Orias system would upset the legislated balance of power.

I got bored and did this on ditl.org forum, if you want me to copy it over. Lots of non-Federationally-correct names for the fleets involved too.

Actually, I'd be very curious to see what you came up with. I usually like reading other people's fictional constructs and analyses. Do you have the link anywhere?

Look at the comma.

Thanks for the link; sorry I didn't notice it. I still think that your numbers are way too big. TOS made a lot of fuss about how super and special the Connies were; 1100 ships in their size class would seem to contradict that.

[lord Martiya]

4.) Throughout the entirety of the Dominion War the Federation was always depicted to be in dire straights. We see a less than a hundred ships onscreen at any given moment, and they never talk about anything more than a couple hundred.

Actually, in Favor the Bold the Federation combined fleet is faced by 1254 Dominion ships and is clearly said that the Dominion fleet outnumbered them of two to one, so the Federation fleet in the episode should be around 600 ships. Also, the combined fleet was not complete: its launch was rushed, and part of the planned ships (specifically the ones from the Ninth Fleet) were not available for the battle.

[Stofsk]

Starships are supposed to be monstrously powerful, and starbases comparatively are just sitting targets; that's the impression I got from watching TOS. It's pretty telling, for example in Search for Spock, as the Enterprise is making its escape, the station can only really send out the Excelsior to nab Kirk and company, it can't do anything by itself. It always bothered me why did the Klingons and Jem Hadar conduct strafe attacks on DS9 when they ought to have conducted standoff bombardment at long range with torpedoes. DS9 for some unknown reason simply changed the fleet action dynamic by several orders of magnitude. In its pilot episode the station had to contend with barely operating defence systems and facing off against three Cardassian front line warships, and suffering because of it. In the episode where the Dominion was introduced, a squad of three Jem'Hadar fighter ships faced off against a GCS and won through a suicide manoeuvre. Then starting from season 4, suddenly DS9 can handle fleets of warships, and fleets seem to number in the hundreds.

Way of the Warrior was the single most irritating example of Trek inconsistency. They brought in the Defiant specifically to handle the station's defences, the implication being there's only so much you can do for a stationary object, and it would be better to have mobile defence from a warship that was armoured and capable of manoeuvre. Then a year later, they turn DS9 into RAR BATTLESTATION PLUS, and it smacks of bullshit. And of course, it makes you wonder just how the hell Sisko planned to deal with DS9 in Favor the Bold.

[Bounty]

They brought in the Defiant specifically to handle the station's defences, the implication being there's only so much you can do for a stationary object, and it would be better to have mobile defence from a warship that was armoured and capable of manoeuvre.

The Defiant was brought it to have a armed presence in the Gamma Quadrant. I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think it was ever said be specifically for the station's defence - that's what the weapons upgrade was for. The Defiant, according to Sisko, wasn't meant to hold off an attack but to reach the Founders.

Checking the script, O'Brien says a weapons upgrade, keeping in mind the limitations of DS9's structure and power supply, would buy it two hours max in a battle - which is exactly what happens in WotW and CtA.

What bothered me more was that DS9 was given a seemingly arbitrary power upgrade. In the early episodes, it was said that the station ran on only a few of it's broken-down fusion reactors, which makes sense for a station that was stripped and never meant for much more than ore refining anyway. then three seasons later, with no real obvious upgrades to that reactor cluster at the bottom of the station, it can power shields tough enough to hold back fleets? The weapons I can let slide because torpedoes shouldn't draw much power and the phasers aren't exactly über, but the shields should at least have warranted a "ps we installed new reactors" comment

[Patroklos]

Who says they get them 'wrong'? It's just pretty heavily implied that total fleet strength has increased by an order of magnitude, at least. Talking about industry is totally irrelevant since the DS9 fleets are shown to be heavily older ships like Excelsiors and Mirandas out of mothballs, not new-builds. Isn't there like 5 Defiants in all of DS9?

After a war spanning a few years, I would hope a civilization of Star Fleet's scale could pump out a good many warships. It was probably a good mix of both new builds and reactivated vessels as would be appropriate for a state in such a war. We see a good many old builds, but we also see a good many Galaxy-class/Nebula/Akira/etc. classes in those battles as well.

There is also nothing to suggest that in an effort to decrease production times Starfleet didn't simply reactivate older class production lines. Given the presence of replicator technology this wouldn't be a particularly hard thing to do.

Also, the assumption that all those Excelsior/Ambassador/whatever class are obsolete is folly. We have been using the Nimitz-class design for over 50 years now and not only are the older ones updated to be just as potent as the newest, but the newest builds incorporate every contemporary advance. We might see older designs in the sequences, but we have no idea how long the production line for those were maintained. For all we know they never stopped.

The media is totally irrelevant; Wolf 359 was described as a terrible blow BY MEMBERS OF STARFLEET, I believe even those like Shelby who were specifically tasked with Borg preparation and who would be well informed. Sure, TNG Starfleet is idealistic and stupid etc etc, but there's no getting around that in TNG 40 ships was supposed to be a lot, and in DS9 100 ships is supposed to be not really that many.

In DS9 a couple hundred ships gathered for a specific battle was all Starfleet could muster after months of preparation. For all intents and purposes that fleet was starfleet. I am sure there were vessels elsewhere to hold the line and not totally give the concentration effort away, but it was obvious every vessel that could be spared was concentrated. You are assuming this was just one formation of many when everything points to the opposite. Given an upper limit of a few hundred ships, losing forty vessels would be more devestating that Trafalgar was to France or Midway was to Japan. Especially since that was befer a year plus of the Federation gearing up for war.

You can't depict the Fed as being in 'dire straights' for like, three years. They lost fleet after fleet after battle after battle, and yet the war went on. Some expected them to lose eventually, but they stood against the massive attrition caused by the war for quite some time - and in the end STILL had Excelsiors left over for their push into Card space.

Were the Japanese not in dire straights for three years. At no point was the Federation fleet depicted as gutted. They had suffured defeats, but more on the scale of Coral Sea as opposed to Pearl Harbor. And also remember that the events that tipped the scale were not always based on Federation fleet actions, the addition of the Romulan fleet halfway through the war instantly doubled the forces of the alliance. Not only that, but the Dominion is shown suffering attrition as well.

The existance of Excelsiors at the end of the war is irrelevant. We were still operating some of our oldest battleships, cruisers, destroyers and carriers at the end of WWII. The first of Japan's carriers to go were their newest and largest. In fact, since you rely on your newer more capable assets more they are more likely to be taken out first. It is also irrelevant because you are assuming for no reason that the production lines of those classes are not still active and that those in service are not updated.

[Bounty]

In DS9 a couple hundred ships gathered for a specific battle was all Starfleet could muster after months of preparation. For all intents and purposes that fleet was starfleet. I am sure there were vessels elsewhere to hold the line and not totally give the concentration effort away, but it was obvious every vessel that could be spared was concentrated.

Uhm... no. That's just plain wrong. The SoA fleet was explicitly said to be made up of parts of three other fleets, out of the ten known fleets operating during the war, and at 600 ships it was only at partial strength. The task force from Operation return was all Sisko could muster on short notice and without crippling the other fronts, it was not "for all intents and purposes [...] Starfleet".

The dialogue makes it clear that there are still sufficient forces to both protect core worlds and continue defending the frontline:

Sisko, ADMIRAL ROSS, ADMIRAL COBURN, a human in his
late fifties, and a Vulcan, ADMIRAL SITAK, are gathered
around the wall monitor which displays Sisko's plans
for the retaking of Deep Space Nine.

SISKO
By putting together a task force
comprised of elements from the
Second, Fifth and Ninth fleets,
I believe that we can take back
Deep Space Nine -- the most
important piece of real estate in
the quadrant.

DEEP SPACE NINE: "Favor the Bold" - REV. 9/5/97 - ACT ONE 11.

15 CONTINUED:

ADMIRAL SITAK
Your plan, Captain Sisko, is not
without merit. However, I remain
skeptical.
(considering)
The Dominion will undoubtedly send
a large fleet to stop you.

SISKO
Which will divert their forces and
slow their advance into Federation
territory.

ROSS
As well as leave their flank
vulnerable.

SISKO
Giving us a chance to go on the
offensive, for a change.

ADMIRAL COBURN
There's one thing that still
concerns me...

SISKO
What's that, Admiral?

ADMIRAL COBURN
Earth. You've left it a very
tempting target.

ROSS
Earth would still be defended by
the Third Fleet.

[Patroklos]

4.) Throughout the entirety of the Dominion War the Federation was always depicted to be in dire straights. We see a less than a hundred ships onscreen at any given moment, and they never talk about anything more than a couple hundred.

Actually, in Favor the Bold the Federation combined fleet is faced by 1254 Dominion ships and is clearly said that the Dominion fleet outnumbered them of two to one, so the Federation fleet in the episode should be around 600 ships. Also, the combined fleet was not complete: its launch was rushed, and part of the planned ships (specifically the ones from the Ninth Fleet) were not available for the battle.

1.) We have consitantly seen that the bulk of Domionion fleets are made up of those little scout type things, which as seen on screen are cannon fodder to a Defiat-class vessel and thus even more so to to a Soverign/Galaxy/Nebula. Its not just numbers, its tonnage. It seems the Dominion goes for either really big or really small. We have no idea what the ratio is between those sized vessels, but from what we have actually seen Dominion fleets are primarily swarms of fighter craft suplemented by Cardassian cruisers for the middle weight combatants.

2.) 600 is still inside a limit that does not really change anything I have said. Those events are one year into the war, two years plus after Wolf 359. Compare the US fleet in 1941/42 to the one in 1944, the growth is impressive. Add another year and it is exponential.

If the US had lost three carriers in the Pacific in 1941 that would have been 50% of them. If they had lost three carriers in 1944 (two years later) that would have been 11%, AFTER previous wartime losses. You have to look at losses and numbers in such a total war setting.

For records keeping the US fleet had seven carriers of three classes at the beginning of 1942. Thes included two Lexingtons, on Wasp-class, and three Yorktown class. The USS Ranger remained in the Atlantic. In 1944 the fleet had twenty eight carriers; one Yorktown, one Lexington, one Ranger (in ghte Atlantic), and one Wasp thn there were fifteen Essex and nine Independance (smaller) carriers.

[Patroklos]

Starships are supposed to be monstrously powerful, and starbases comparatively are just sitting targets; that's the impression I got from watching TOS. It's pretty telling, for example in Search for Spock, as the Enterprise is making its escape, the station can only really send out the Excelsior to nab Kirk and company, it can't do anything by itself. It always bothered me why did the Klingons and Jem Hadar conduct strafe attacks on DS9 when they ought to have conducted standoff bombardment at long range with torpedoes. DS9 for some unknown reason simply changed the fleet action dynamic by several orders of magnitude. In its pilot episode the station had to contend with barely operating defence systems and facing off against three Cardassian front line warships, and suffering because of it. In the episode where the Dominion was introduced, a squad of three Jem'Hadar fighter ships faced off against a GCS and won through a suicide manoeuvre. Then starting from season 4, suddenly DS9 can handle fleets of warships, and fleets seem to number in the hundreds.

Your first critisism here is not really relevant. Starbases can't move, thus obviously they can't chase down starships. However, within the range of its weapons systems it has every ability to be master of its domain given its size.

I was always bothered by the lack of seige warfare too. It could simply be that a starbase like DS9 that has tonnage far in excess of any likely mobile starship simple has the power and larger ordinance to outrange any likely combatant. You would probably need a starship specifically designed for the purpose of siege warfare (though given the abilty to just strap war drives onto large missiles, this is still not a good explaination).

Way of the Warrior was the single most irritating example of Trek inconsistency. They brought in the Defiant specifically to handle the station's defences, the implication being there's only so much you can do for a stationary object, and it would be better to have mobile defence from a warship that was armoured and capable of manoeuvre. Then a year later, they turn DS9 into RAR BATTLESTATION PLUS, and it smacks of bullshit. And of course, it makes you wonder just how the hell Sisko planned to deal with DS9 in Favor the Bold.

Eh, obviously having a mobile defender is usefull in confronting threats before they reach you. The idea behind forts it that they are your backup, if you are relying on them then you are already on the defensive.

[Patroklos]

In DS9 a couple hundred ships gathered for a specific battle was all Starfleet could muster after months of preparation. For all intents and purposes that fleet was starfleet. I am sure there were vessels elsewhere to hold the line and not totally give the concentration effort away, but it was obvious every vessel that could be spared was concentrated.

Uhm... no. That's just plain wrong. The SoA fleet was explicitly said to be made up of parts of three other fleets, out of the ten known fleets operating during the war, and at 600 ships it was only at partial strength. The task force from Operation return was all Sisko could muster on short notice and without crippling the other fronts, it was not "for all intents and purposes [...] Starfleet".

1.) You are assuming that just beause there is a 10th fleet that there exists a 1-9. Look at most current real world militaries and you will notice the sequences for armies/fleets/airforces are not complete. Fleets and armies are created on a whim for specific organizational purposes and disbanded/reorganized/deactivavted on the same whim. We still have the 101st Airbore division an not only do we not have 101 airborne division but we don't have 101 divisions period. The US has a seventh fleet, but it does not hat a first.

2.) You are assuming all fleets are created equal. Being an organizationl division only, a fleet defending a less vital sector of the front is not going to be as robust as one devending an extremely vital sector. Not only that, some fleets might not be combatant in nature at all. They could exist for nothing more than running the training vessels of the Federation. They could be a constantly contracting and expanding mobile reserve. The point is that there is no quantitative measurment of what a "fleet" is.

3.) They do not say that all the core worlds are covered, they mention no other world other than Earth. If anything that points to the fact that they did leave good portions of the terriotory with nothing more than a skeleton fleet. The invasion of Betazed points to this not being an uncommon reality of war planning.

4.) The events of that battle span a story arch of 6 episodes. The time given for preparation was not insignificant.

[Bounty]

1.) You are assuming that just beause there is a 10th fleet that there exists a 1-9. Look at most current real world militaries and you will notice the sequences for armies/fleets/airforces are not complete. Fleets and armies are created on a whim for specific organizational purposes and disbanded/reorganized/deactivavted on the same whim. We still have the 101st Airbore division an not only do we not have 101 airborne division but we don't have 101 divisions period. The US has a seventh fleet, but it does not hat a first.

I assume nothing. There is canon evidence for the existence of a Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth fleet. These fleets are numbered sequentially with no outliers; there is no reason for a First, Fourth or Eighth fleet not to exist.

Even so, that is still seven fleets, showing that parts of three of them cannot possible comprise a majority, let alone the total, of Starfleet vessels.

2.) You are assuming all fleets are created equal. Being an organizationl division only, a fleet defending a less vital sector of the front is not going to be as robust as one devending an extremely vital sector. Not only that, some fleets might not be combatant in nature at all. They could exist for nothing more than running the training vessels of the Federation. They could be a constantly contracting and expanding mobile reserve. The point is that there is no quantitative measurment of what a "fleet" is.

You are correct. There are, however, instances where fleet sizes are directly stated. The Operation return fleet consisted of 600 ships; even if we ignore the fact that it was incomplete this means three fleets can comprise 600 vessels, or 200 per fleet. The Seventh consisted of 112 ships during one operation.

The numbered fleets in DS9 have always, always been mentioned in the context of being active combat fleets that persisted throughout the war. Whatever a modern day fleet may be, in DS9 they are considered to be large-size, independent combat forces with a roughly fixed size.

3.) They do not say that all the core worlds are covered, they mention no other world other than Earth. If anything that points to the fact that they did leave good portions of the terriotory with nothing more than a skeleton fleet. The invasion of Betazed points to this not being an uncommon reality of war planning.

Even skeleton defences are still defences, unlike you stated in your earlier claim that the task force in SoA was all Starfleet had to offer. Even a handful of ships per core world amounts to a fleet bigger than the SoA one.

4.) The events of that battle span a story arch of 6 episodes. The time given for preparation was not insignificant.

An "arch" is what you walk under. An "arc" is a continuous narrative in episodic fiction.

The timespan between Sisko getting the green light for his plan and the launch of the task force is precisely half an episode - the middle bit of Favor The Bold. The occupation too six episodes, the counterattack sure didn't.

[Patroklos]

I assume nothing. There is canon evidence for the existence of a Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth fleet. These fleets are numbered sequentially with no outliers; there is no reason for a First, Fourth or Eighth fleet not to exist.

You are obviously assuming such, as you just admitted that there is no evidence of a First fourth and eight fleet existing. Using your logic, why does the US fleet not have a first fleet despite having second-seventh?

Just to belabour the point, I will list you the current divisions of the US army.

1st, 1st, 1st(thats right there are three!), 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 10th, 25th, 82nd, 101st. Accoding to you there are apparently 90 other divisions that must be somewhere, care to tell us?

Even so, that is still seven fleets, showing that parts of three of them cannot possible comprise a majority, let alone the total, of Starfleet vessels.

It tells us no such thing. Let me let you in on a secret, US Navy fleets have no organic vessels. Thats right, the numbered fleets do not own a single ship. All vessels are owned by the Atlantic and Pacific fleets. The numbered fleets are in charge of geographic areas and are only in control of vessels that are transiting through their area or operating in their area. That means that 5th fleet, in charge of the Persion Gulf, most of the Indian Ocean, and Red Sea has all kinds of ships because of the current conflicts (they have the same geographic mandate as CENTCOM). 4th fleet, however, in charge of South America, goes through most of the year with one or two ships if any. Just to belabor the point, 2nd and 3rd fleet control the Atlantic and Pacific coasts respectively and are only used for training (we don't do many operations in those peaceful waters). Vessles in port belong to no numbered fleet whasoever.

Again, you are assuming that just because an organizational division is called a "fleet" it is in pocession of an actual fleet of vessels. Furthermore, you are assuming that whatever number of vessels each one has they are all a significant concetration. There is nothing to attest to this.

You are correct. There are, however, instances where fleet sizes are directly stated. The Operation return fleet consisted of 600 ships; even if we ignore the fact that it was incomplete this means three fleets can comprise 600 vessels, or 200 per fleet. The Seventh consisted of 112 ships during one operation.

1.) Sisko's fleet was not a numbered fleet, so its size is irrelevant to determining normal numbered fleet operating numbers. It was a special concentration created for a specific purpose (as most battle fleets are in the real world).

2.) You are assuming that his fleet was made up of only vessels from the three fleets mentioned (as well as all of those three fleets mentioned). There is no reason for this.

3.) I really doesn't matter what size a fleet is at any one time. As I stated there is nothing that limits any fleet to any particular number of vessels. It could vary form ten ships to a few hundred all depending on the course of the war and the importance of that fleets stationing.

In short the only thing we have that speaks to the number of vessels in starfleet is the number 600 (not telling us the tonnage of any of those combatants) and what we have seen on screen.

The numbered fleets in DS9 have always, always been mentioned in the context of being active combat fleets that persisted throughout the war. Whatever a modern day fleet may be, in DS9 they are considered to be large-size, independent combat forces with a roughly fixed size.

The bolded part is nice, but irrelevant. Just because a fleet was active at one point in the war doesn't mean it was at another and thus is subject to rather severe shifts in the number of units assigned.

As far as them being considered large sized, independant, solely combat oriented or fixed in size, you just made that up. The whole problem is that we have never been given an order of battle or anything alse to make a qualitative judgement of what Federation fleet typically consists of let alone consists of at any given time.

Well you mentioned on instance of a numbered fleet specifically described as a hundred odd vessels, coming back from a pitched battle no less. That doesn't speak well to your theory.

Even skeleton defences are still defences, unlike you stated in your earlier claim that the task force in SoA was all Starfleet had to offer. Even a handful of ships per core world amounts to a fleet bigger than the SoA one.

I said no such thing, I said "for all intents and purposes." If you have 70% of starfleet concentrated at a single system the remander, spread out throughtout the entirety of Federation territory under threat, that remainder is an irrelvance.

You are again making things up. First of all defenses do not automatically equal ships (let alone capital ships). Second of all not all ships are created equal. They very well may have stripped the rest of the fleets of their capital vessels, leaving destroyers/corvets/patrol craft to show the flag elsewhere. That means that while the uninvolved fleets might may have a number of vessles, the tonnage is not there. Thirdy, you are again pretending they said core worlds when what they said was Earth solely.

Incidently you are also assuming "core worlds" means dozens of planets. It could be just a hand full and not nessecarily all requiring a defense (some are going to be further from the front than others). It is irrelevant though, nobody says "core worlds."

The timespan between Sisko getting the green light for his plan and the launch of the task force is precisely half an episode - the middle bit of Favor The Bold. The occupation too six episodes, the counterattack sure didn't.

And they give the timeframe when? So now your position is so enlarged that you think Starfleet has 600 close enough to concentrate within a few hours?

[Samuel]

I was always bothered by the lack of seige warfare too. It could simply be that a starbase like DS9 that has tonnage far in excess of any likely mobile starship simple has the power and larger ordinance to outrange any likely combatant. You would probably need a starship specifically designed for the purpose of siege warfare (though given the abilty to just strap war drives onto large missiles, this is still not a good explaination).

Actually giving their pathetic ability to manuver you could just stand off and bombard them with normal weapons. There is no need for special weapons when you can simply torch them with enough phaser fire.

We just don't see that happening due to stupidity/shitty aim.

[Bounty]

Before this turns into a quote spaghetti, let me ask you this:

Why do you assume that the fleet organisation practices of a space fleet in the future are exactly the same as the wet-water navy organisation of a modern-day army? Is the modern navy that similar to a Tudor fleet?

Your argument hinges on what comprises a fleet. You argue that this could mean anything and that conclusions are worthless - fair enough. That leaves you with "we don't know how Starfleet is organised", and there is nothing wrong with with that statement in the absence of evidence.

What I have a problem with is that you reject any attempt to understand Starfleet's organisation based on what is shown on-screen out of hand based on an analogy, and you should know how dodgy those are. So a modern-day fleet is an admin thing with no fixed size or purpose - does that mean a fleet in the 24th century is the exact same thing? Or can it be that Starfleet - the organisation that is relearning how to wage a war, the organisation that was caught with it's breaches down - is keeping its organisation simple, with simple numbered fleets acting as one unit, training as one unit, getting posted as one unit, and getting replenished to full strength after losses, all of which was shown in the series?

Look at what we do have. Seven fleet designations, sequential. Four of those with a known average size in the low-hundreds. A fifth with a likely similar size if it was to have any hope of stopping an assault on Earth - as Ross seemed confident it could do. Does that point to an intricate, abstract fleet organisation? Or does that point to a simple, straightforward, slightly dumbed-down structure as you might expect from an organisation that had to go from "ooh the pretty flower" to total war in a matter of months?

I think this is the crux of where we disagree and everything else flows from it, which is why I won't reply to your post point-by-point unless you specifically want me to, or if there's anything specific from it you want me to address. Do you at least agree that this is the point of divergence?

I'll just point to one minor factual error:

And they give the timeframe when? So now your position is so enlarged that you think Starfleet has 600 close enough to concentrate within a few hours?

After the meeting where the plan is agreed upon about a week passes (long enough for Odo to have a three-day blackout), and at the point where the partial task force is launched it was four days from full strenght; that points to, say, about two weeks to assemble the task force total.

[Patroklos]

Actually giving their pathetic ability to manuver you could just stand off and bombard them with normal weapons. There is no need for special weapons when you can simply torch them with enough phaser fire.

We just don't see that happening due to stupidity/shitty aim.

The point was that given the disparity in size between your larger starbase and your average mobile combatant starship, you can pretty much assume that the base will have the longer range and more powerful weaponry if the designers want it to. Thats why you would need ships specifically build to be "siege engines.," that could bring similar scale weapons to bare. Or you can just rush them like they do on screen.

Its a trade off. A starbase might be able to mount some impressive weaponry, but it is only at one place. A starship might have smaller scale weapons but it can be anywhere you need it to be.

[Patroklos]

Before this turns into a quote spaghetti, let me ask you this:

Why do you assume that the fleet organisation practices of a space fleet in the future are exactly the same as the wet-water navy organisation of a modern-day army? Is the modern navy that similar to a Tudor fleet?

As far as a fleet being an arbitrary and circumstances specific force with no real fixed value? Yes. The details are of course off, but the same idea is the same. It was the same in Nelson's day, it was the same in WWI, it was the same in WWII, it is the same today.

We are talking about some very basic organizational concepts here. Your ridged "every fleet must be exactly this no matter what" is the surest way to defeat. Can you imagine if the US 4th fleet was outfitted exactly the same way as the 5th? What purpose would that serve?

You are free to speculate as to what requirements would force to the Federation to organize in the way you suggest, but that doesn't change the fact that nothing on screen points to that.

Your argument hinges on what comprises a fleet. You argue that this could mean anything and that conclusions are worthless - fair enough. That leaves you with "we don't know how Starfleet is organised", and there is nothing wrong with with that statement in the absence of evidence.

Except we have observed fleet battles on screen, we know these constitute the powers mentioned scraping everything available together with preparation time, and this leads us to be able to speculate. Besides that, we have an upper limit, 600, which we can go by. Everything should be discussed in light of that.

What I have a problem with is that you reject any attempt to understand Starfleet's organisation based on what is shown on-screen out of hand based on an analogy, and you should know how dodgy those are.

No, I don't. Quite the opposite, I am making every attempt to tell you what a Federation fleet is not (sometimes through common sense, but mostly from what we see) so that we can better attempt to understand what it is. That is far more useful than just assuming it is whatever we want it to be.

So a modern-day fleet is an admin thing with no fixed size or purpose - does that mean a fleet in the 24th century is the exact same thing?

If you want to postulate that it is something else, you need to show something that points to that. As of right now, nothing could lead anyone to the conclusions you are making.

Or can it be that Starfleet - the organisation that is relearning how to wage a war, the organisation that was caught with it's breaches down - is keeping its organisation simple, with simple numbered fleets acting as one unit, training as one unit, getting posted as one unit, and getting replenished to full strength after losses, all of which was shown in the series?

Again, you are assuming that all the above is the case. Nothing points to that. At the very least you need to provide real world justification for your assumptions (most of what you have suggested are REALLY bad ideas) and then we can look at whether those fit what we see.

Look at what we do have. Seven fleet designations, sequential.

They are not sequential. You yourself stated that they skiped three, and if I remember correctly they were not all introduced in numerical order so I am not sure why you claim they are sequential or why that even mattesr. Any designationg system is going to be sequential in some fashion.

And as I told you, there is nothing that states that they have to have all th numbers in between. Here is an example. In operation Barbarossa the Germans at one point had army groups A-G. As the line contracted they very often disbanded some army groups and gave their resources to others. Sometimes the restablished them when the line required it. Other times, for recordskeeping purposes they just continued down the alphabet even though previous letters were no longer in use so nobody would confuse the 1943 Army Group B with the 1941 Army Group B.

The point is you are assuming that becaus there is a 5th fleet there must be a 3rd, and I am telling you that there is no reason to assume this. Every human military organization in history will show you this abundantly.

Four of those with a known average size in the low-hundreds.

We know no such thing. We have one example (that you gave) that gave us the strength of one numbered fleet at one point in time. It was also a fleet returning from battle, so it is safe to assume that it was augemented for its operation (as well as having suffered casualties). Nothing indicates that this is a normal ship number for itself let alone other fleets.

A fifth with a likely similar size if it was to have any hope of stopping an assault on Earth - as Ross seemed confident it could do.

Do you have any knowledge of the galactic geography of the area? Can some areas be held with fewer ships than others? Of the tonnages of the ships involved? Were all those defenses in the form of ships? Would a fleet defending the heart of a nation fortified against war need a full mobile fleet of the same nature as an offensive one? Again, you are assuming a great many things.

Does that point to an intricate, abstract fleet organisation? Or does that point to a simple, straightforward, slightly dumbed-down structure as you might expect from an organisation that had to go from "ooh the pretty flower" to total war in a matter of months?

Since your question is based on assumptions with no basis in the universe in question, it is irrelevant. There is nothing that points to the "dumbed down stucture" you allude to, and if it did it would only open itself up to impossibility due to the complete stupidity of them following the form you attribute to them now.

I think this is the crux of where we disagree and everything else flows from it, which is why I won't reply to your post point-by-point unless you specifically want me to, or if there's anything specific from it you want me to address. Do you at least agree that this is the point of divergence?

Of course there is a point of divergence, you are making up a mini fan fic and pretending it has basis in the cannon

I'll just point to one minor factual error:

After the meeting where the plan is agreed upon about a week passes (long enough for Odo to have a three-day blackout), and at the point where the partial task force is launched it was four days from full strenght; that points to, say, about two weeks to assemble the task force total.

More assumptions.

[Bounty]

You keep coming back to this mantra that I "assume things". No shit Sherlock, I'm assuming everything that isn't spelled out on screen; but when it is spelled out, at least I don't try to handwave it away by saying "but that's not how the 101st Airborne does it!!!". And what is spelled out is that whatever the fleet structure may be, the fleet from SoA did not draw away a majority of the ships in Starfleet, you can deduce that the average size of three fleets if 200 if they're at 600 total if you know basic math, and that you're reading way too much into a numbering system that is pretty much obvious to anyone with ten digits. No matter how retarded you think it is, or how retarded it actually is, because no matter how hard you want it to be different that's what's on screen.

[seanrobertson]

Patroklos,

Are you seriously suggesting Starfleet operated no more than a "few hundred ships" during the Dominion War?

That's absurd. How do you reconcile that tiny number opposite a Dominion fleet that numbered some 30,000 strong?

[JGregory32]

A good argument against Starfleet having a fixed fleet structure comes from the massed battles in DS9.

First, Sisko was in command of six hundred ships. Why was a station commander in charge of the fleet and not an admiral?

Second Sisko commanded from the Defiant, not a capital ship or one set up to handle fleet operations.
Admirals are mentioned but never in the context of fleet command, what are the admirals doing if not commanding fleets?

Third Sisko orders groups of ships according to class not any other kind of organization.

Forth, no tactics more advanced than a charge are used. Either because Sisko didn't know any (which questions why he was in command of the Fleet) or the captains of the ships involved didn't know how to work with each other.

Lastly, Sisko left the fleet behind in his rush to get to DS9. He does not turn command over to another nor does he face any kind of censure for abandoning the fleet.

All these argue for their not being any kind of formal fleet organization.

[Samuel]

Actually giving their pathetic ability to manuver you could just stand off and bombard them with normal weapons. There is no need for special weapons when you can simply torch them with enough phaser fire.

We just don't see that happening due to stupidity/shitty aim.

The point was that given the disparity in size between your larger starbase and your average mobile combatant starship, you can pretty much assume that the base will have the longer range and more powerful weaponry if the designers want it to. Thats why you would need ships specifically build to be "siege engines.," that could bring similar scale weapons to bare. Or you can just rush them like they do on screen.

Its a trade off. A starbase might be able to mount some impressive weaponry, but it is only at one place. A starship might have smaller scale weapons but it can be anywhere you need it to be.

In space range is not affected as much by the power you can supply to weapons as by the range of your sensors and the ability of the target to manuever.

[Bounty]

A good argument against Starfleet having a fixed fleet structure comes from the massed battles in DS9.

First, Sisko was in command of six hundred ships. Why was a station commander in charge of the fleet and not an admiral?

Second Sisko commanded from the Defiant, not a capital ship or one set up to handle fleet operations.
Admirals are mentioned but never in the context of fleet command, what are the admirals doing if not commanding fleets?

Third Sisko orders groups of ships according to class not any other kind of organization.

Forth, no tactics more advanced than a charge are used. Either because Sisko didn't know any (which questions why he was in command of the Fleet) or the captains of the ships involved didn't know how to work with each other.

Lastly, Sisko left the fleet behind in his rush to get to DS9. He does not turn command over to another nor does he face any kind of censure for abandoning the fleet.

All these argue for their not being any kind of formal fleet organization.

The CoA fleet wasn't a "fleet" by Starfleet terminology, it was a task force, put together for a single operation and put under Sisko's command because it was his plan and station. As for his "abandoning" the fleet - his orders were for any ship that gets through to head for DS9 no matter the circumstances; the one that got through just happened to be the Defiant. What was he supposed to have done, turn around?

[seanrobertson]

In any event ...

Correct me if I'm wrong, Bounty: when you brought up the fact that Fleet X, Y and Z each had hundreds of ships, weren't you trying to demonstrate that, contrary to Patroklos' claim, Starfleet undoubtably operates more than a "couple hundred" starships?

This whole 101st Airborne does this and the 4th and 5th USN fleets aren't similarly outfitted stuff is tangential. What does matter are the following questions:

How big is Starfleet?
Why isn't it bigger?

Michael answered the latter question, and I've spoken directly to the former: With the combined Jem'Hadar, Breen and Cardassian starfleets, the Dominion "Axis" was 30,000 ships strong as of "When It Rains ... ," four episodes before the series finale/war's end.

And guess what? After the Cardassians joined the good guys and Ma Changeling ordered all Dominion assets to regroup at Cardassia, Admiral Ross projects that the allied powers -- with the help of the Cardie forces -- would suffer 40% casualties, but would still defeat the Dominion fleet.

Think about that for a second. Yes, minus the Cardassians, the Dominion Axis no longer has 30,000 ships (further minus however many they lost in the penultimate engagement; and, of course, that sword cuts both ways: the UFP-KDF-RSA fleets would've taken a real beating, too).

On the other hand, given the manner in which a mere third of the Klingon military earlier spanked the Cardassian Union (does anyone else remember "Way of the Warrior"? "Return to Grace"?), it's ridiculous to think the Cardassian fleet bolstered the Allied fleet's numbers by anything even approaching an order of magnitude.

Consequently, when the Allies closed on Cardassia, the Breen-Jem'Hadar fleet they faced was probably an appreciable percentage of the Axis's total fleet strength. If a mere tenth of Dominion assets in the Alpha Quadrant were present at the battle, that'd still be THREE THOUSAND ships -- to say nothing of the orbital defense satellites.

How in the name of God would a Federation, with a "couple of hundred" ships at her disposal, ever face up to those odds?

Sure, the Feds had help -- a lot of it. As I already noted, the Cardassians joined the fight -- the Cardassians who, in spite of all their might, fought such an insignificant war with the Federation that we didn't hear about it for 3-4 years of TNG's run. The same Cardassians who were utterly decimated by a third of the Klingon Defense Forces in a matter of weeks, leaving the Union, as Dukat said, a "third-rate power."

And then there are the Romulans: that lot who considered the Federation their sworn enemy and, in spite of enjoying an easy unit-per superiority (Warbirds were at least equivalent to the Federation's very best at the time, the Galaxy-class starship), never dared to provoke all-out war with the UFP ...

... but, you say, that's because of the UFP-Klingon mutual defense treaty! Fair enough, but you might also recall that the Klingons and UFP fought a cold war of sorts for many decades -- indicating one side enjoyed no real advantage over another.

We can quibble about the particulars, but at the end of the day, a "couple of hundred" Starfleet ships makes ZERO fucking sense. Even if their average ship enjoyed a 2-to-1 superiority over alien enemies -- which is laughable -- 200 Starfleet ships + 400 Klingon* + 400 Romulan + 400 Cardassian = 1,400 ships.

Fourteen-hundred ships to not only defeat a technologically superior enemy, but one that's over TWICE its number ... plus those pesky defense platforms that shredded a fleet at Chin'Toka a year earlier.

Oh, okay

Get real. Maybe Starfleet was that small in the early 23rd century, but it's just plain damned stupid to suggest the fleet we saw in "Sacrifice of Angels" represented most of the Starfleet.

[Bounty]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Bounty: when you brought up the fact that Fleet X, Y and Z each had hundreds of ships, weren't you trying to demonstrate that, contrary to Patroklos' claim, Starfleet undoubtably operates more than a "couple hundred" starships?

Starfleet operates at least a thousand vessels dedicated solely to the Dominion War effort for any of the numbers in DS9 to make sense. If the Klingons can send 1,100 ships to the frontline, as they do in Whe It Rains..., from a fleet that was an even match with Starfleet despite being almost fully dedicated to combat vessels, there is no way the Federation would have survived fielding only 2-300 vessels which themselves are split between defence and exploration.

There is no way the Federation and Klingons could even put up a fight against a 22,000-vessel-strong Dominion with just 1,500 vessels.

There is no way the loss of nearly a hundred starships in a single battle could be considered a non-fatal blow to a couple-hundred strong Starfleet, yet that is precisely what happens in A Time To Stand - 98 ships lost, a devastating but survivable setback.

I think it'd be very hard to make a case for a Starfleet that doesn't consist of at least 2,500-5,000 frontline vessels - neatly splitting the alliance three-ways and still ending up outnumbered against the Dominion - unless you assume a massive, never-mentioned, never-shown technological advantage over every other power in the show.

People like to bang on about the Wolf 359 battle being a crippling blow, but the fact is, Starfleet suffered worse multiple times over the course of the Dominion War and always bounced back. To a peacetime Federation with only a vague memory of interstellar war those 39 ships were a punch to the face, but for the Federation operating a decade later and going up against a five-digit aliens fleet of doom? Those 39 ships were peanuts.

[Agent Sorchus]

Once again I am going to have to think about infrastructure.

It is stated that the Dominion and allies have 30,000 ships to fight the war with, but they were fighting the war solely in Cardassian space, with only the infrastructure coming from the seriously damaged war machine of Cardassia. The Breen are irelivent to the infrastructure that supports Cardassian defense, and they are apparently between Klingon and romulan space and as such not contiguous with the rest of the alliance which means that they can not lend the support of their indigenous support mechanisms to the alliance.

Meanwhile the federation and allies are more or less contiguous and have better means to support each other. Also IIRC the federation lost a number of non industrial planets whereas the Dominion lost at least Two shipyards. Despite being told that the Dominion fielded 30,000 ships they were reliant upon the industry that originally supported what seanrobertson concluded was a smaller portion of the 30,000. Logically those ridiculous figures of 30,000 ships should not have been all active.

If we also conclude that the average fleet size for the federation was around 200 with around 10 Fleets with similar numbers for the Romulans and the Kilingons, that gives us the equivalent of 6 thousand active federation vessels. 6,000 active vessels does not sound like a lot compared to the Dominions total fleet numbers, but that is a comparison of active to total, the actual comparison of active to active is going to be in favor of the federation due to the greater tonage of a federation vessel to the average for the dominion fleet. When the Cardassians dissolved the alliance the average tonnage for the Dominion falls of and if we include the 40 percent loses in to the analysis someone can logically conclude that the Federation did not 2,000 active warships.

[Captain Seafort]

People like to bang on about the Wolf 359 battle being a crippling blow, but the fact is, Starfleet suffered worse multiple times over the course of the Dominion War and always bounced back. To a peacetime Federation with only a vague memory of interstellar war those 39 ships were a punch to the face, but for the Federation operating a decade later and going up against a five-digit aliens fleet of doom? Those 39 ships were peanuts.

It's also possible that under peacetime conditions, with the fleet probably scattered fairly evenly across the whole of the Federation and beyond, 40 ships was a noticeable fraction of the forces available locally. With three years warning of the Dominion War, those ships further out were probably recalled to reinforce the Cardassian front, significantly increasing the number of ships available for the war.