StarDestroyer.Net BBS

OK over at Trek BBS the idea has been put forth that large starships are a waste of materials and personel . Is this true if not what are your reasons for believing so?

Its depends on the situation. Larger ships can mount larger weapons to a degree that smaller ships could never hope to match. Larger ships are also effectively invulnerable to smaller ships once they reach certain size.

http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat ... art=1&vc=1 heres the origional thread

Simply put, the volume of a ship increases faster than the surface area. Granted an Startrek ship is not blockish like a Star Wars or Honor Harrington Ship and has alot of open space but the surface area vs volume should still hold true. One advantage might be a larger shield generator per surface area than a smaller ship might be able to afford.

Need to add a bit more to my previous message. The problem with the discussion is that they don't really know what they are talking about. For example, Captain J talks about gaining 10,000 tons between the South Dakota II class due to increase in caliber. The problem is that according to Norman Friedman, virtually all of the tonnage is due to the more powerful engines. Also, as you get longer, you need to armor more area which increase your armor. The Iowa is only marginally better protected than a South Dakota II and that is more rearranging the armor than anything else. All US battleship were built to 108 feet (Panama Canal) and displacement increase means mostly extra length. The part on better armor is also a falacy because you can use better armor on a larger ship as well as a small ship and you can use more of it.

on the gripping hand, smaller ships are cheaper to maintain, don't require as expansive docking facilities, are probably more maneuverable ... you have an excuse for leaving your family home and when they finally explode under a turbolaser barrage or for cause of antimatter containment failure they are not nearly as wasteful of crew as the Galaxy Class

You are right, two destroyers can be in two places while one cruiser can only be in one place. There is a term called "Steel is cheap." That is that the electronics are the expensive item and a larger hull with the smae sensors / otehr electronics may be a better investment. For example, a Imperator class SD might actually only be a little more expensive than a Victory while having much greater capabilities.

One must also acknowledge that larger ships can opperate at greater distances and range. Size of ship will often be dictated by territory size.

It depends on the offense vs defense balance. Nobody builds huge aircraft for combat because they will simply be shot down. In a situation where offense beats defense, small numbers of large craft are stupid. In a situation where defense is strong, they aren't.

There are a bunch of serious problems with the question. The size of the ship is a function of these factors:

1) Technology
2) Role
3) Opposing Forces
4) Geopolitics

And even then, you should have a large range of vessels in different sizes for different tasks. So, the real answer is, it depends on what you are trying to achieve with a given ship class.

The equivilment attacks of smaller boats such as PT Boats against battleship, the small boats have rarely done well. For example, in the Battle of Leyte Gulf at Surigao Strait, I have read that the PT boats did little to the Japanese Battleships and it is the American Battleships that did most of the damage. Another example is the British Battleship Warspite attacking a group of german destroyers in Narvik Fjord Battle and either putting several out of action or destroying 8 of them. This one action effectively put the German destroyer forces out of action for all of ww2.

I am also talking about true broadside to broadside combat which a heavy armed and armored ship can in many cases beat several smaller verssels. My favorite example is a ww2 example. The US built the Iowa class battleship and the Alaska class large cruiser (normally called battlecruiser) during World War II. Now the Iowa class cost around 100 million when they were built in ww2 and the Alaska class cost aroudn 75 million each to build in the one source I have. The crew listing of a ww2 Iowa is 1921 crew and the Alaska is listed as 1769 meaning the battleship requires not much more crew. Now, the Iowa has the same speed, aproximatedlt twice as much armor (the ships are around the same length so require about the same areas armored), has a real torpedo defense, and to be honest even old battleships would probably be able to beat the Alaska while the Iowa is a match for virtually any battleship. According to www.warships1.com and other sourcess, The Alaskas were almost as expensive to build and maintain as the Iowa class and had none of the protection, range, firepower, or variety of uses as them.