StarDestroyer.Net BBS

BabelHuber wrote: If this is all you can say after falsely accusing me of thinking that star bases can warp around.

I was making a rather obvious (I thought) point that the Starbase obviously can't get to the colony, even if it is close - whereas a Starship with warp drive could.

babbling idiot wrote:Bullshit! The basic principle remains the same. You just need a different strategy for this supply chain.

You e.g. have to manufacture more stuff locally if the transport duration is bigger (= it could be more cost-effective to manufacture certain products in the area by shipping small factories than to transport them from other locations).

For products which still need to be transported, you need bigger warehouses to make up for a less frequent replenishment.

Of course you also would design your freighters accordingly, e.g. in the form of huge freighters which travel less frequently.

The only problem you would have is with products which need to be transported, but have a small shelf life, so the storage duration is limited. But this is also not unsolvable (e.g. by using faster, smaller freighters for such products).

And that's what they are clearly doing. We've heard of them using industrial scale replicators on colonies. The Maquis even stole a few. And we know that Cassidy Yates was a freighter captain, so we know that those exist despite your constant shadowboxing over the point. Hell, if you want to count the animated series, we also saw automated freighters in "More Troubles, More Tribbles" which were huge in comparison to Kirk's Enterprise-- probably even bigger than a GCS. But the one point that keeps sailing over your head is that practically every time we've seen the Enterprise, a non-freighter, doing cargo runs and other civilian work, it was doing it out on the frontier to support colony worlds. The models you talk about are more applicable to core worlds like Vulcan and politically important worlds like Bajor. That's why Earth has a big fleet always on hand and Bajor even had Starfleet's first warship ever put on call 24/7 for security reasons. Less important colonies on the other hand sometimes need the support of Galaxy class starships in the area both for the occasional emergency cargo run and all too frequent disaster relief, but they cannot count on having tons of specialist ships around precisely because of their location. Thus it is prudent to prepare the explorer ships for all of these roles even if it seems weird from a 21'st century perspective. It means deploying fewer ships in total, which keeps costs down for everyone.

This doesn't make sense. You do have to replenish remote locations, so you need a strategy for this.

I'm not talking about freight, you goddamn illiterate! You brought up the need for more specialist spaceships, and you mentioned using fighters for patrol duties. I'm trying to explain to you why they are inappropriate for the job, and have been trying to get that point across for several pages now.

This is a fucking strawman. Of course cheaper ships also need to be able to perform the tasks they are designed for. And of course there are limits on how small such a ship can be.

But this doesn't mean that relying completely on war-ready cruisers is the best way to go, because such a ship is fucking expensive and hence should be replaced with cheaper ships when possible.

You were the one who brought up fighter craft, not me, so take your strawman accusations and stuff them in your eye. The GCS may be used in war, but its not merely a warship the way the Defiant class, Prometheus class, and Fed fighters are. When they did build them for the Dominion war, according to the DS9 technical manual they left over 30% of the internal volume unfinished to save costs and get them to the front lines faster. IIRC, they also increased the number of phaser strips on them as well. Guess what kinds of facilities would have been left out? Civilian and scientific facilities, obviously. No point wasting space on potentially expensive and energy taxing holodecks when a battlebug could ram the nacelles at any time. That would also provide a neat explanation for why there were so many GCS's at Earth when Voyager returned: presumably Starfleet was finally getting around to installing those scientific/civilian facilities that were left out, and while each ship was in the que they must have been assigned to sector security. But the point is the class is an Explorer. There is historical precedent for exploration vessels to be well armed during the age of sail, both because Europeans were dicks, but also because they never knew when they were going to tick off the local kings and warlords even when they were being polite. So they brought cannons, muskets, and cutlass' just in case. And the Enterprise has had quite a few incidents of the latter description throughout her service time. Also, we have no idea what these ships cost: their price may be in greater proportion to their tonnage then presence or absence of specialist equipment. In which case, freighters may not be significantly more or less expensive than a GCS, except that they are not heavily armed because they are meant to be run by civilians in secure space. And in any case, none of this sounds like an unreasonable expense given the sheer number of incidents that the Enterprise had to sort out that no other ship was around to deal with, and which a supposedly cheaper ship might not have been equipped for. You just aren't running the cost analysis properly within the context of the show. They don't have the option to field specialist ships out on the frontier. They need generalized craft most of the time, and only when the Borg and the Dominion reared their ugly heads did it become prudent to finally buckle down and design dedicated warships to meet those threats.

And one more thing? Ton for ton, those specialist warships seem to do a lot more damage than a GCS can do to their targets. Defiant is famous for that, but so too did the Prometheus and a single Defiant manage to destroy a Romulan Warbird in seconds with concentrated fire. I highly doubt that Voyager, a ship of comparable size to the Prometheus, could do that. Which is all the more evidence that when the Federation does make warships, they make the explorer craft look pathetic in combat. Explorers are armed for self defense, and are strong enough no one fucks with them lightly. But warships are armed for assault, and having just one Defiant in the Demilitarized Zone made the Cardassians shit bricks when the Maquis hijacked their namesake.

BabelHuber wrote: No, you don't have a fucking clue about how logistic networks work, otherwise you wouldn't even start talking about distance.

This is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. The logistics networks involved in operating transcontinental shipping are vastly different than those involved in local deliveries by truck. There's a reason the traveling salesman problem is such an important component of modern logistics and economic theory.

In fact, this recent article in the International Journal of Logistics Management even says that the two most important components of supply chain performance are "time and distance". Here's another article that finds distance to be an important component of supply chain coordination. Or how about "cost is critical and distance is very important" from the 2014 International Conference of Logistics Engineering and Management? Or you can read this.

You are so full of shit. And, given your previous behavior in this thread, I expect you to just completely ignore this post and continue spewing the same nonsense.

But I try to give you a clue: Distance means jack shit, the important factor is the transport duration!

Do you honestly believe that from a logistical standpoint transporting something 2 hours by an airplane is exactly equivalent to transporting something 2 hours by a bus? After all, it's the same duration! As the article I posted above shows, both duration AND distance are critical components of a logistics network. You can't ignore one in favor of the other.

Modern pharmacy corporations e.g. have a sophisticated logistic network consisting of manufacturing plants, regional distribution centers and local hubs (we ignore the supply chain feeding the manufacturing plants here, we focus on the actual delivery of products to the customers)

Example: You have your plants spread out over the world, you have 2 regional distribution centers and 20 local hubs in North America. These hubs supply the local pharmacies/ hospitals/ resellers.

The whole network is laid out so that you can deliver your products on-time by utilizing cheap means of transports (ships and trucks in the 21st century earth).

No, the network is laid out by utilizing EFFICIENT means of transport. There is a massive difference between "cheap" and "efficient". Do you really not understand the massive differences in scale between a logistics network connecting a local hub to regional distribution centers and the network connecting that hub to a broader international system? Hell, have you ever flown on a plane internationally and noticed how massively different the process is to flying domestic?

You do so by forecasting demand with algorithms based on past demands with seasonal patterns and whatnot. In addition, you can apply more sophisticated forecasting by e.g. analyzing the weather forecast - if it is dry and hot, people need different products compared to times when it's cold and humid and so on (the latter is actually very important in the area of crop science).

All of which is painfully irrelevant to what we are talking about.

Only in rare exceptions you use more expensive transports, like airplanes. And with "rare exception" I don't mean twice a day, but perhaps once per month.

Then why are there thousands of cargo aircraft operating regularly in the United States? And how do you explain Lufthansa claiming: "Pharma tonnage accounted for three freighters-worth every day."? Or this article noting that: "The pharma industry relies on air transport for its speed, reliability and efficiency in delivering high-value, time-sensitive, temperature-controlled cargo."? Could it be that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?

This should be the way the Federation should handle its logisctic train, not by regularily using cruisers as stopgaps.

I am getting sick and tired of you being such a slimy little shit. I have addressed this point TWICE already in this thread, and you have ignored both of those posts. Multiple other people have addressed it as well. In a recent post, SimonJester even specifically told you to go read those fucking posts. If you don't address them, I will report you for violating board rules. The mods are not as forgiving as I am.

To make it even easier for you, I will even quote the most recent post you ignored:

Where do you get the idea that the use of cruisers in emergency/priority missions is a sign of a faulty logistics network? I've already posted a real-life example of a military using a warship for cargo duty in a special situation (a point you largely ignored, by the way), and there are dozens of examples of naval vessels being mobilized for peacetime emergency situations. It clearly isn't as unprecedented as you seem to think, and it certainly isn't symptomatic of an organization with broken logistics.

Tribble wrote:IIRC the Defiant's top speed is warp 9.5, while the E-D's is warp 9.6 (which can be sustained for a max of 12 hours). Yes that is indeed slower, but for the missions it was built for, it seems to do just fine.

Can Defiant manage 9.5 for a comparable length of time? You've cited a fair amount of evidence for it, I suppose.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:This is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. The logistics networks involved in operating transcontinental shipping are vastly different than those involved in local deliveries by truck. There's a reason the traveling salesman problem is such an important component of modern logistics and economic theory.

In fact, this recent article in the International Journal of Logistics Management even says that the two most important components of supply chain performance are "time and distance". Here's another article that finds distance to be an important component of supply chain coordination. Or how about "cost is critical and distance is very important" from the 2014 International Conference of Logistics Engineering and Management? Or you can read this.

You are so full of shit. And, given your previous behavior in this thread, I expect you to just completely ignore this post and continue spewing the same nonsense.

At least I had a good laugh in the morning reading your bullshit, thank you. Did you only use Google to come up with some retarded arguments? Because this is how your post looks like.

If you would have actually have worked with serious software for supply chain planning (like SAP APO), you would know that computer systems plan supply chain networks using transport times and means of transport. You will find the distance as descriptive field on the database of course, but it's not used for actual planning.

Also you would now that the travelling salesman problem has to do jack shit with this in most cases: When you have your Purchase Order with the vendor in China and the goods recipient in USA, you plan a one-way trip from China to the USA, not more.

The travelling salesman sometimes play a role for Transport Planning with trucks, when one truck delivers products to multiple locations, but only in extreme cases (not when the truck e.g. delivers to 3 locations and is empty afterwards).

Do you honestly believe that from a logistical standpoint transporting something 2 hours by an airplane is exactly equivalent to transporting something 2 hours by a bus? After all, it's the same duration! As the article I posted above shows, both duration AND distance are critical components of a logistics network. You can't ignore one in favor of the other.

Show me a single SCM planning software solution where the distance is used for actual supply network planning, and not just as descriptive field or STFU.

And perhaps I have overestimated your knowledge, so I will spell this explicitely out for you:

In supply network planning, the basic principle is that the product needed must be at the correct location at the correct time.

This is a theoretical goal which cannot be fullfilled 100% of time, so cost plays a role here. So in your 2 hour example, you would of course use the bus to fullfill your demand, not the airplane. Both have a transport duration of 2 hours, but the bus is cheaper.

It can also happen that it is cheaper to not fullfill a demand at all instead of paying the money for an emergency transport with an airplane. But this topic is too complex to discuss it here.
The problems ranges from ethics (e.g. in pharmacy, where in extreme cases you would let people die if you'd ignore a demand) to strategic parameters (e.g. you have a very important high-volume customer, so you rather make a minus by using an emergency airplane than annoying your customer by delaying or cancelling his order).

No, the network is laid out by utilizing EFFICIENT means of transport. There is a massive difference between "cheap" and "efficient". Do you really not understand the massive differences in scale between a logistics network connecting a local hub to regional distribution centers and the network connecting that hub to a broader international system? Hell, have you ever flown on a plane internationally and noticed how massively different the process is to flying domestic?

This is some very funny nitpicking you do here.

But this doesn't change the facts: You have a demand at a location, and to fullfill this demand you take the cheapest means of transport possible to maximise profits. Of course only if the vehicle arrives in time.
If the ship is 2 weeks too late, your only viable means of transport could be "airplane". Then you decide if you use it, delay the order or cancel it.

The cheapest means of transport is also the most efficient. Reason: As means of transport, you usually have modelled ships, trains, trucks and airplanes in the system.

I have never ever seen a supply chain with means of transports of type "rowboat" or "intercontinental rocket, so these aren't taken into account in the first place, only those which make some sense.

Then why are there thousands of cargo aircraft operating regularly in the United States? And how do you explain Lufthansa claiming: "Pharma tonnage accounted for three freighters-worth every day."? Or this article noting that: "The pharma industry relies on air transport for its speed, reliability and efficiency in delivering high-value, time-sensitive, temperature-controlled cargo."? Could it be that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?

Because the planning is not 100% correct, so you still need airplanes to get your stuff to the customer.

And in rare exceptions, an airplane even could be the only viable means of transport, e.g. when you have medicine with a very short shelf life. But this is such a rare exception we can ignore it here.

As longer as I read your stuff, as clearer it gets for me that you only talk about theory, you cannot actually have used an SCM system in real life.

Otherwise you would be aware of such little things as punishments for late deliveries.

Example: Let's say you deliver shock absorbers to an automotive manufacturer. If your shock absorbers don't arrive in time, the factory stands still. This costs you a fortune. Hence in the worst case, you deliver your shock absorbers via airplane to keep the factory running. You lose money doing so, but delivering late costs much more.

Where do you get the idea that the use of cruisers in emergency/priority missions is a sign of a faulty logistics network? I've already posted a real-life example of a military using a warship for cargo duty in a special situation (a point you largely ignored, by the way), and there are dozens of examples of naval vessels being mobilized for peacetime emergency situations. It clearly isn't as unprecedented as you seem to think, and it certainly isn't symptomatic of an organization with broken logistics.

It's not unprecedented, but it is the rare exception, not the rule. You cannot just take the 0.0001%-case and shout "see! It does happen!"

Regarding the Federation, I'm tired of this discussion. You seem to think it's OK to use a Galaxy class to analyze solar flares or transport colonists, and this is fine for me. I have my opinion, you have yours.

BabelHuber wrote: Regarding the Federation, I'm tired of this discussion. You seem to think it's OK to use a Galaxy class to analyze solar flares or transport colonists, and this is fine for me. I have my opinion, you have yours.

It's just that your conclusion is based on faulty facts and twisted evidence. Your opinion is wrong because you don't understand the facts.

You say it's not ok for a Galaxy class ship to analyse solar flares.

That's what they're designed to do. It's the basis of the ship and part of the overall mission of Starfleet itself.

I don't know how else to phrase this. It's like I'm showing you a circle and you keep saying in your opinion that's not what a circle should look like. And people are measuring it and showing you it's a circle, and drawing diagrams and showing you the definition of what a circle is - and you just ignore it, say it's your "opinion" and that you're getting bored now.

This level of debate is childish. You are incorrect. You are going to have to deal with that.

Brainless wrote:You were the one who brought up fighter craft, not me, so take your strawman accusations and stuff them in your eye. The GCS may be used in war, but its not merely a warship the way the Defiant class, Prometheus class, and Fed fighters are.[

First of all, I can also change your name

Secondly, this discussion has become fruitless. As I see it, there are two basic assumptions:

1) Space is a dangerous place, and hence dangerous adversaries can be expected anywhere on the Federation's frontiers

2) The Federation is big, and there are lots of backwater areas where you won't expect dangerous threats, including some border regions.

If the former is true, you need cruisers everywhere, at least on the frontiers. Sending in lesser ships is too dangerous.

If the latter is true, using cruisers everywhere is a waste of money, since in extreme cases, a handfull of Peregrines could do the job locally. In other cases, a cheap frigate is enough (or two), and in some cases you need a real cruiser.

My assumption is 2). If your assumption is 1), there is no point in arguing about details, we simply disagree regarding the basic premise.

Prometheus Unbound wrote:You say it's not ok for a Galaxy class ship to analyse solar flares.

That's what they're designed to do. It's the basis of the ship and part of the overall mission of Starfleet itself.

I don't have a problem with a Galaxy visiting a star with interesting solar flares, dropping of a satellite to monitor it and then continue.

But sitting there and monitoring it is something completely different, and yes, I thinkit is a waste of resources to use a Galaxy for this.

BabelHuber wrote: At least I had a good laugh in the morning reading your bullshit, thank you. Did you only use Google to come up with some retarded arguments? Because this is how your post looks like.

If you would have actually have worked with serious software for supply chain planning (like SAP APO), you would know that computer systems plan supply chain networks using transport times and means of transport. You will find the distance as descriptive field on the database of course, but it's not used for actual planning.

Unsubstantiated bullshit. Either post evidence of your claims or shut the hell up. I posted multiple sources to prominent academic journals in the field that proved my point. You jacking yourself off and making vague references to database software does not refute any of the points I made. Either post evidence or concede.

BabelHuber wrote: Also you would now that the travelling salesman problem has to do jack shit with this in most cases: When you have your Purchase Order with the vendor in China and the goods recipient in USA, you plan a one-way trip from China to the USA, not more.

This statement completely betrays your utter ignorance of the issues we are talking about. A logistic network BY DEFINITION is more than just a one-way transfer of goods from point A to point B. Literally the entire science of supply chain management is based on the fact that logistics networks for any reasonably sized organization are FAR more complicated than simply "one-way trip from China to the USA", and that they need to efficiently move goods from multiple origins to multiple destinations over myriad distances within a finite period of time with finite resources.

Seriously, how fucking stupid can you be? You apparently don't even know the definition of "logistics network." Here, let's extend your own example. You have a Purchase Order with the vendor in China; where in China is the product produced? How is it transported to the airport or seaport where it will be transferred internationally to the USA? Where in the USA is it going, and how will it get there? Even in your moronic oversimplification you have glossed over a wide variety of pertinent details in logistics management.

BabelHuber wrote: Show me a single SCM planning software solution where the distance is used for actual supply network planning, and not just as descriptive field or STFU.

You didn't answer the question, you dishonest little shit. You just dodged it with another vague reference to software, which is utterly irrelevant (and unsubstantiated ... you have not produced any evidence in this thread that you have any relevant experience with the software, or how that software is relevant to what we are talking about, or that you have ever even SEEN this software ... we are not taking your dishonest word for it, shitstain).

Again:

IS TRANSPORTING SOMETHING 2 HOURS BY AIRPLANE THE SAME AS TRANSPORTING SOMETHING 2 HORUS BY TRUCK? Yes or no, asshole. You are claiming duration is the ONLY variable necessary in planning transportation, despite the fact that multiple sources from academic journals in the field of question disagree with you. YOU need to justify your claims, I have already justified mine.

BabelHuber wrote: In supply network planning, the basic principle is that the product needed must be at the correct location at the correct time.

This is a theoretical goal which cannot be fullfilled 100% of time, so cost plays a role here. So in your 2 hour example, you would of course use the bus to fullfill your demand, not the airplane. Both have a transport duration of 2 hours, but the bus is cheaper.[/quote]

Okay, guess we have to uses buses instead of planes from now on, because 2 hours by bus is the same as 2 hours by plane!

Are you really so stupid that you can't understand the massive difference between transporting something 2 hours by air versus 2 hours by bus?

BabelHuber wrote: It can also happen that it is cheaper to not fullfill a demand at all instead of paying the money for an emergency transport with an airplane. But this topic is too complex to discuss it here.
The problems ranges from ethics (e.g. in pharmacy, where in extreme cases you would let people die if you'd ignore a demand) to strategic parameters (e.g. you have a very important high-volume customer, so you rather make a minus by using an emergency airplane than annoying your customer by delaying or cancelling his order).

This is all utter gibberish, completely ignoring the point. Since you are apparently too stupid to understand this, PLANES TRAVEL FURTHER THAN BUSES IN THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME. Why the hell do I need to spell this out for you? Transporting something 2 hours by plane is NOT the same as transporting something 2 hours by bus, because they travel MASSIVELY different distances within that same time frame, which effects how and when you decide to use one means of transport versus the other. If you are trying to transport something 2000 miles, a plane is more efficient than a truck. DISTANCE IS THE CRITICAL FACTOR. Just as all of the links I posted in my last posted showed. Again: I have presented my evidence, YOU NEED TO PRESENT YOURS. Your say-so won't do it.

BabelHuber wrote: This is some very funny nitpicking you do here.

It's not nitpicking. If you really don't understand the difference between "cheap" and "efficient" you aren't qualified to talk about supply chain management. Period.

BabelHuber wrote: But this doesn't change the facts: You have a demand at a location, and to fullfill this demand you take the cheapest means of transport possible to maximise profits. Of course only if the vehicle arrives in time.
If the ship is 2 weeks too late, your only viable means of transport could be "airplane". Then you decide if you use it, delay the order or cancel it.
The cheapest means of transport is also the most efficient. Reason: As means of transport, you usually have modelled ships, trains, trucks and airplanes in the system.

This is blatantly false. Air transport is cheaper than sea transport, for a variety of reasons. However, if you are trying to move large tonnage, sea transport is more efficient because ships can carry more than a plane. This is incredibly basic stuff, here, of which you are apparently utterly ignorant.

BabelHuber wrote: I have never ever seen a supply chain with means of transports of type "rowboat" or "intercontinental rocket, so these aren't taken into account in the first place, only those which make some sense.

You have clearly never seen a supply chain AT ALL, given the idiocy you have said in your thread. "DISTANCE DOESN'T MATTER IN SUPPLY CHAINS LOL".

BabelHuber wrote: Because the planning is not 100% correct, so you still need airplanes to get your stuff to the customer.

So you seriously think the ONLY reasons there are thousands of cargo planes transporting pharmaceutical goods is that the companies are incompetent with their planning? I guess they should hire you .

Of course, with this comment you also prove you didn't read the links I posted (I doubt you even clicked on them). Considering one of them very clearly explained why air transport for reasons other than "oops we fucked up the planning lol".

BabelHuber wrote: And in rare exceptions, an airplane even could be the only viable means of transport, e.g. when you have medicine with a very short shelf life. But this is such a rare exception we can ignore it here.

Except the link I just posted PROVES THAT IT ISN'T A RARE EXCEPTION, you illiterate buffoon.

BabelHuber wrote: As longer as I read your stuff, as clearer it gets for me that you only talk about theory, you cannot actually have used an SCM system in real life.

Otherwise you would be aware of such little things as punishments for late deliveries.

Example: Let's say you deliver shock absorbers to an automotive manufacturer. If your shock absorbers don't arrive in time, the factory stands still. This costs you a fortune. Hence in the worst case, you deliver your shock absorbers via airplane to keep the factory running. You lose money doing so, but delivering late costs much more.

All of this is utterly irrelevant to what we are talking about, and what I said in my post. I can only assume this is another attempt by you to move the goalposts because you are unable to answer the points I raised in my last post.

Nothing about what you say about punishments for late deliveries invalidates the importance of DISTANCE in planning logistics networks. For the third time: I HAVE POSTED MY EVIDENCE. I have posted numerous sources from reputable sources that demonstrate my point. You have not. Either present some evidence or concede.

BabelHuber wrote: It's not unprecedented, but it is the rare exception, not the rule. You cannot just take the 0.0001%-case and shout "see! It does happen!"

And yet if you weren't illiterate you would have seen that in this thread OTHER CASES HAVE BEEN POSTED. This wasn't a once in a lifetime outlier. In peacetime, military vessels are regularly used in roles other than pure combat, ESPECIALLY in EMERGENCIES. That's the point you continually ignore (or maybe you are too stupid to get it). The Enterprise is shown responding to EMERGENCIES, not routine cargo deliveries. Despite multiple people reiterating this fact, you continue to ignore it and pretend that the Emergency was a glorified UPS courier.

BabelHuber wrote: Regarding the Federation, I'm tired of this discussion. You seem to think it's OK to use a Galaxy class to analyze solar flares or transport colonists, and this is fine for me. I have my opinion, you have yours.

Concession accepted.

Considering your opinion flies in utter defiance of facts ("Hey, guys, distance is irrelevant to supply chains! It doesn't matter! DERP DERP DERP"), you may choose ignorance. But don't spew it all over the board like you've done here. You have betrayed an utter lack of knowledge of what the word "logistics network" even means ("Hey, guys, logistics networks are simple! You just one-way a product from China to the US! DERP DERP DERP"). Take all of your strawmen and red herrings and shove them up your ass.

Kind of a simplistic response to this topic (and a little late to the party), but even as far back as Star Trek VI we know that the military branch of Starfleet has been "mothballed" due to the Khitomer Accords, leaving the scientific/exploration branches as the sole recipients of funding and development. Carriers, launching fighter-type craft, can't really be sold as "scientific" under any means, unless they pull the "escort" card. But even then, isn't the Defiant-class the only "escort" they tried that with?

Now, maybe Starfleet post-Dominion War may try a carrier that launches nothing but "tactical probes" or other armed automated drones under the guise of deep space exploration/border monitoring. But the effectiveness of those would probably be pretty low unless they launch parasite craft akin to the Cardassian dreadnaught that Voyager encountered.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:This wasn't a once in a lifetime outlier. In peacetime, military vessels are regularly used in roles other than pure combat, ESPECIALLY in EMERGENCIES.

I'm lost as to the example given but this happened only a couple of days ago: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 96651.html

F16 fighter jet saves patient's life by flying medical equipment across Norway

Ziggy Stardust wrote:Unsubstantiated bullshit. Either post evidence of your claims or shut the hell up. I posted multiple sources to prominent academic journals in the field that proved my point. You jacking yourself off and making vague references to database software does not refute any of the points I made. Either post evidence or concede.

The description for transportation lanes starts here, in the menu on the left side you'll also see the means of transport:

https://help.sap.com/saphelp_scm70/help ... ameset.htm

Have fun going through it.

And sorry, I won't create an example in our APO test system and debug it together with you so I can really prove this. Believe me or not, I don't give a shit.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:This statement completely betrays your utter ignorance of the issues we are talking about. A logistic network BY DEFINITION is more than just a one-way transfer of goods from point A to point B. Literally the entire science of supply chain management is based on the fact that logistics networks for any reasonably sized organization are FAR more complicated than simply "one-way trip from China to the USA", and that they need to efficiently move goods from multiple origins to multiple destinations over myriad distances within a finite period of time with finite resources.

You don't seem to know how SCM planning works:

First, you have a demand in a Location(from Sales Orders, Planned Independent Requirements, Scheduling Agreements etc.)

Then, if you don't have the products in stock, you create a receipt to cover your demand (e.g. Purchase Requisition/ Order, Stock Transport Order), thereby taking the transport duration, goods receipt processing time etc. into account.

Afterwards, you do the transport planning, which of course isn't trivial. But still, usually you plan a point-to-point transport which has nothing to do whatsoever with the travelling salesman problem.

Of course, when your network is complex enough, in the end you use heuristics or optimizers to plan the transports, which you probably mean with "they need to efficiently move goods from multiple origins to multiple destinations over myriad distances within a finite period of time with finite resources."

Ziggy Stardust wrote:Seriously, how fucking stupid can you be? You apparently don't even know the definition of "logistics network." Here, let's extend your own example. You have a Purchase Order with the vendor in China; where in China is the product produced? How is it transported to the airport or seaport where it will be transferred internationally to the USA? Where in the USA is it going, and how will it get there? Even in your moronic oversimplification you have glossed over a wide variety of pertinent details in logistics management.

This is utter bullshit. You simply maintain your transport duration between 2 locations, which of course has to take that into account. But the SCM system doesn't care about such details which are unimportant for the planning itself. Loading/unloading etc. is modelled in the transport duration

The details are taken care of during supply chain execution, not planning

BabelHuber wrote: Show me a single SCM planning software solution where the distance is used for actual supply network planning, and not just as descriptive field or STFU.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:You didn't answer the question, you dishonest little shit. You just dodged it with another vague reference to software, which is utterly irrelevant (and unsubstantiated ... you have not produced any evidence in this thread that you have any relevant experience with the software, or how that software is relevant to what we are talking about, or that you have ever even SEEN this software ... we are not taking your dishonest word for it, shitstain).

So you cannot name a software suite which plans with distance instead of duration. Concession accepted.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:IS TRANSPORTING SOMETHING 2 HOURS BY AIRPLANE THE SAME AS TRANSPORTING SOMETHING 2 HORUS BY TRUCK? Yes or no, asshole. You are claiming duration is the ONLY variable necessary in planning transportation, despite the fact that multiple sources from academic journals in the field of question disagree with you. YOU need to justify your claims, I have already justified mine.

It's not the only variable, you fucking idiot. As I already have stated, the second variable usually is cost (when you use an optimizer for the planning).

For heuristics, things can look different depending on the exact algorithm used (e.g. by using pre-set priorities to determine the "best" transportation lane)

And you have justified jack shit, you have just googled some articles, which everybody can do. But you have no clue how such systems work in real life. Check at http://www.help.sap.com, this should give you a clue (the sofware suit for SCM is called APO (Advanced Planner and Optimizer).

BabelHuber wrote:Okay, guess we have to uses buses instead of planes from now on, because 2 hours by bus is the same as 2 hours by plane!

Yes, because a bus can cover 1,600km in 2 hours

BabelHuber wrote:Are you really so stupid that you can't understand the massive difference between transporting something 2 hours by air versus 2 hours by bus?

You don't understand how planning systems work, so you come up with fucking bullshit like this. When I have a demand which can be covered by 2 locations:

Location A is 150km away (2 hours via bus)
Location B is 1200km away (2 hours via airplane)

Then the system selects a location (it would usually take the bus, this is cheaper). Afterwards, it doesn't give jack shit about what the means of transport is, except if you have a delay. In this case, you get an Alert.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:This is all utter gibberish, completely ignoring the point. Since you are apparently too stupid to understand this, PLANES TRAVEL FURTHER THAN BUSES IN THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME. Why the hell do I need to spell this out for you? Transporting something 2 hours by plane is NOT the same as transporting something 2 hours by bus, because they travel MASSIVELY different distances within that same time frame, which effects how and when you decide to use one means of transport versus the other. If you are trying to transport something 2000 miles, a plane is more efficient than a truck. DISTANCE IS THE CRITICAL FACTOR. Just as all of the links I posted in my last posted showed. Again: I have presented my evidence, YOU NEED TO PRESENT YOURS. Your say-so won't do it.

Check at http://www.help.sap.com if you don't believe me, I don't care.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:It's not nitpicking. If you really don't understand the difference between "cheap" and "efficient" you aren't qualified to talk about supply chain management. Period.

You are full of shit. You can use a cost-based approach or set priorities (depending on the algorith used for planning). This way you model your decisions period.

Since you don't get the difference between supply chain planning and transport planning, it would be better for you to shut the fuck up, you are mixing up things here.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:This is blatantly false. Air transport is cheaper than sea transport, for a variety of reasons. However, if you are trying to move large tonnage, sea transport is more efficient because ships can carry more than a plane. This is incredibly basic stuff, here, of which you are apparently utterly ignorant.

I have yet to see a company which prioritizes airfreight over sea transport if the ship is fast enough.

You know, you wouldn't load a ship with 1% of the cargo it can carry and send it away, you would put a few containers on a ship which does the travel anyways in this case.

I take this for granted when talking about such topics, but you try to be a wise ass by stating that it is inefficient to load a ahip with a few containers and let it drive 99% empty. Everybody knows this, there is no reason whatsoever to even talk about such shit.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:You have clearly never seen a supply chain AT ALL, given the idiocy you have said in your thread. "DISTANCE DOESN'T MATTER IN SUPPLY CHAINS LOL".

Distance technically does not matter for supply network planning, duration does (and cost). But as I said, I won't debug a system for you to prove it. If you don't believe me, believe whatever you want.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:So you seriously think the ONLY reasons there are thousands of cargo planes transporting pharmaceutical goods is that the companies are incompetent with their planning? I guess they should hire you .

They actually do hire me to enhance their SCM planning capabilities.

You don't seem to understand this, but planning fails all the time: You have unplanned machine downtimes, delays in the receipt of components you need for production, people get sick so there is no personal available to handle some machines on the shop floor etc.

The fact that you don't know this speaks volumes.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:Except the link I just posted PROVES THAT IT ISN'T A RARE EXCEPTION, you illiterate buffoon.

I don't give a shit about your link, it's still the exception, not the rule

Ziggy Stardust wrote:Nothing about what you say about punishments for late deliveries invalidates the importance of DISTANCE in planning logistics networks. For the third time: I HAVE POSTED MY EVIDENCE. I have posted numerous sources from reputable sources that demonstrate my point. You have not. Either present some evidence or concede.

Look at help.sap.com if you don't believe me, technically SCM systems don't work with distances, but with durations (and assigned costs/ priorities)

If you don't believe this, I don't give a shit.

You're really funny.

Are...are we still talking about Scientific vessels doing science things, or did I walk into the wrong thread?

no worries theres one person who I shall not name who can't seem to understand how things work, or is simply obsessed at idea that UFP is unable to have any level of competence what so ever to point that if a 3 year old can tell something is a bad idea UFP have physical compulsion to do so, on the other hand if a 3 year old can tell it's a good idea in the mind of this person UFP (or any ST power for that matter) is physically unable to do it.

Sorry, this I have skipped:

Ziggy Stardust wrote:If you are trying to transport something 2000 miles, a plane is more efficient than a truck. DISTANCE IS THE CRITICAL FACTOR. Just as all of the links I posted in my last posted showed. Again: I have presented my evidence, YOU NEED TO PRESENT YOURS. Your say-so won't do it.

Why would you maintain a truck as means of transport between 2 locations at all when the distance between them is 2000km?

Ziggy Stardust wrote:And yet if you weren't illiterate you would have seen that in this thread OTHER CASES HAVE BEEN POSTED. This wasn't a once in a lifetime outlier. In peacetime, military vessels are regularly used in roles other than pure combat, ESPECIALLY in EMERGENCIES. That's the point you continually ignore (or maybe you are too stupid to get it). The Enterprise is shown responding to EMERGENCIES, not routine cargo deliveries. Despite multiple people reiterating this fact, you continue to ignore it and pretend that the Emergency was a glorified UPS courier.

Yes, in rare cases, military vessels are used for emergency transports. In TNG, these exceptions seem to occur often, though.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:Considering your opinion flies in utter defiance of facts ("Hey, guys, distance is irrelevant to supply chains! It doesn't matter! DERP DERP DERP"), you may choose ignorance. But don't spew it all over the board like you've done here. You have betrayed an utter lack of knowledge of what the word "logistics network" even means ("Hey, guys, logistics networks are simple! You just one-way a product from China to the US! DERP DERP DERP"). Take all of your strawmen and red herrings and shove them up your ass.

Yeah, you did not even understand what I have posted, you can stick your strawmen into your ass.

BabelHuber wrote: Yes, in rare cases, military vessels are used for emergency transports. In TNG, these exceptions seem to occur often, though.

But it doesn't occur too often. The Galaxy class(and most Starfleet Starships of nearly any class) are explorers. Generalised ships. All the instances you mentioned were the ship working as intended.

Babel I'd love to hear what is your military experience that allows you to say what military ships are used for and not used for?

EDIT:in case you wonder my experience I served 11 months as a private in the Finnish Defense Force Navy in the logistics branch (I served in costal base hence private instead of seaman), oh and my duties had nothing to do with transporting things from point A to point B.

BabelHuber wrote:

You were the one who brought up fighter craft, not me, so take your strawman accusations and stuff them in your eye. The GCS may be used in war, but its not merely a warship the way the Defiant class, Prometheus class, and Fed fighters are.[

First of all, I can also change your name

Whats with the shocked look? Its all BBS code, anyway. I can flat out remove the name from a tag, add two names, not use a quote mark, etc. The coding isn't hard to master.

Of course, you could just be being sarcastic, but everyone with half a brain knows that its usually hard to translate sarcasm to text.

Secondly, this discussion has become fruitless. As I see it, there are two basic assumptions:

1) Space is a dangerous place, and hence dangerous adversaries can be expected anywhere on the Federation's frontiers

DEMONSTRATED. Have you ever watched TNG? I mean, any episode of it? Sure, not all of them involve combat with angry aliens, but those that don't deal with natural disasters and scientific missions... you know, the things you seem to think the Enterprise shouldn't be doing. Hell, they have colonies on the borders of states they know are hostile, yet those colonies don't have military support except from large ships designated for exploration. The Maquis are the perfect demonstration of this.

2) The Federation is big, and there are lots of backwater areas where you won't expect dangerous threats, including some border regions.

DEMONSTRATED. Relative to the speed of their warp drives, the edges of Federation space where the most remote colonies exist are far enough away from the core worlds such as Earth and Vulcan that the Federation hasn't even explored all of it. Much like the USA's territory became quite vast after the Louisiana Purchase. They frequently talk about it as the frontier, and many if not most episodes only make sense in a context where the nearest starship could be weeks or months away from the Enterprise. Hell, the sales pitch Roddenberry used back in the 60's outright compared it to a Western (which Roddenberry had experience writing). However, in those places you clearly do still expect danger precisely because of the remoteness, and the show (being television) thrives on showing us this fact in various forms week after week after week.

If the former is true, you need cruisers everywhere, at least on the frontiers. Sending in lesser ships is too dangerous.

If the latter is true, using cruisers everywhere is a waste of money, since in extreme cases, a handfull of Peregrines could do the job locally. In other cases, a cheap frigate is enough (or two), and in some cases you need a real cruiser.

Both are true, except your failure to realize that remoteness also increases the danger that otherwise mundane threats would represent. A medical emergency like an outbreak would be far easier to deal with on Earth because of its built up infrastructure and centralized location. On the frontier that same emergency might wipe out half a colony before help arrives. Which is why the largest ships in the fleet are built for speed as well as mission flexibility.

Why the hell would anyone conclude that these are mutually exclusive assumptions? In fact, it seems like if the second one is true--your own working assumption!-- then the other must also be true!

Your other problem is your utter failure to recognize how useless small fighter craft are out in such a location, since they would be sitting in a hangar not doing anything except wasting space and resources due to maintenance for 90% of the time; and in many cases their range limitations (which were specifically alluded to for the Peregrine class, whatever that is; remember, for all we know the Peregrine is actually that scout craft Data flew in Insurrection) and firepower limitations means that when combat threats do show up (since all known aggressor states use large ships as well) they are completely useless. They can only harm those ships in large numbers, as shown in TNG with the Maquis. And the colonies don't seem to be allowed military equipment anyway, as demonstrated by the Maquis needing to buy weapons off the black market from Quark and other non-Federation sources to turn their fighters and raiders into actual combat vessels. Deep Space 9, an actual deep space outpost specifically stated to be on the frontier, and also a politically important outpost... used runabouts exclusively until being assigned the Defiant. How do you explain that, smartass?

My assumption is 2). If your assumption is 1), there is no point in arguing about details, we simply disagree regarding the basic premise.

Watch the show, dipshit. The fact that you are making assumptions rather than arguing from onscreen evidence means you ought to shut the fuck up.

NeoGoomba wrote:Kind of a simplistic response to this topic (and a little late to the party), but even as far back as Star Trek VI we know that the military branch of Starfleet has been "mothballed" due to the Khitomer Accords, leaving the scientific/exploration branches as the sole recipients of funding and development. Carriers, launching fighter-type craft, can't really be sold as "scientific" under any means, unless they pull the "escort" card. But even then, isn't the Defiant-class the only "escort" they tried that with?

Now, maybe Starfleet post-Dominion War may try a carrier that launches nothing but "tactical probes" or other armed automated drones under the guise of deep space exploration/border monitoring. But the effectiveness of those would probably be pretty low unless they launch parasite craft akin to the Cardassian dreadnaught that Voyager encountered.

After reading through what others have said here, I don't see any polity in Star Trek (most of all the UFP) using carriers. Between the limited speed of warp travel, limited application and limited endurance of the strike craft there isn't really a need for such things in setting. Then add in the internal volume that is being taken away for everything needed for the strike craft, and you can see why the UFP is reluctant to build a specialized craft when they greatly prefer their multi-role ships. The only times they are seen to invest in specialized ships is when they were in a de-facto state of war with the Borg or in open conflict with the Dominion.

Post-Dominion, I don't see the UFP keeping their Defiant-class and Prometheus-class ships in active service.

Plus Star Trek seems to really love the wall-o-ships style of naval combat, so that could be another reason why strike craft are only ever shown to play a major role in one battle.

SilverDragonRed wrote:

NeoGoomba wrote:Kind of a simplistic response to this topic (and a little late to the party), but even as far back as Star Trek VI we know that the military branch of Starfleet has been "mothballed" due to the Khitomer Accords, leaving the scientific/exploration branches as the sole recipients of funding and development. Carriers, launching fighter-type craft, can't really be sold as "scientific" under any means, unless they pull the "escort" card. But even then, isn't the Defiant-class the only "escort" they tried that with?

Now, maybe Starfleet post-Dominion War may try a carrier that launches nothing but "tactical probes" or other armed automated drones under the guise of deep space exploration/border monitoring. But the effectiveness of those would probably be pretty low unless they launch parasite craft akin to the Cardassian dreadnaught that Voyager encountered.

After reading through what others have said here, I don't see any polity in Star Trek (most of all the UFP) using carriers. Between the limited speed of warp travel, limited application and limited endurance of the strike craft there isn't really a need for such things in setting. Then add in the internal volume that is being taken away for everything needed for the strike craft, and you can see why the UFP is reluctant to build a specialized craft when they greatly prefer their multi-role ships. The only times they are seen to invest in specialized ships is when they were in a de-facto state of war with the Borg or in open conflict with the Dominion.

Post-Dominion, I don't see the UFP keeping their Defiant-class and Prometheus-class ships in active service.

Plus Star Trek seems to really love the wall-o-ships style of naval combat, so that could be another reason why strike craft are only ever shown to play a major role in one battle.

Well, we do see in ENT that the Prometheus class is still active in the 26th century, so apparently the design was very successful.

One would hope that Starfleet had learned its lesson about being complacent and maintain dedicated warships in addition to their generalist fleet even in peacetime, but memories are pretty short, and politics is politics. If the Feds don't face an equivalent enemy to the Borg or the Dominion for long enough, I can definitely see them going back to the kind of stance they had in early TNG.

Tribble wrote: Well, we do see in ENT that the Prometheus class is still active in the 26th century, so apparently the design was very successful.

It is very doubtful that a design could be so successful that it would still be a front line or even second line ship after that much elapsed time, unless technological progress halted completely at some point not long after it was built. That in turn is unlikely since some of the Voyager era powers had much more powerful ships then Federation spec, without relying on Borg tech to simply repair the ships rapidly in combat. Borg tech seems to have had some fundamental vulnerabilities.

A far more likely explanation is that the ship was very useful as a freakish testbed ship, which it appeared to be in the first place, following the likes of many historical examples, and so pondered along constantly testing new systems and equipment.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Tribble wrote: Well, we do see in ENT that the Prometheus class is still active in the 26th century, so apparently the design was very successful.

It is very doubtful that a design could be so successful that it would still be a front line or even second line ship after that much elapsed time, unless technological progress halted completely at some point not long after it was built. That in turn is unlikely since some of the Voyager era powers had much more powerful ships then Federation spec, without relying on Borg tech to simply repair the ships rapidly in combat. Borg tech seems to have had some fundamental vulnerabilities.

A far more likely explanation is that the ship was very useful as a freakish testbed ship, which it appeared to be in the first place, following the likes of many historical examples, and so pondered along constantly testing new systems and equipment.

Or, alternatively, given that Voyager and the last few Trek movies took place towards the end of the 24th century, the Dominion was defeated and bound to a treaty, the Borg were decisively harmed by the end of Voyager, there may have been an extended period of peace in which the hippie asshats of the Federation decided to sit on their hands and not bother coming up with new designs. The new innovations in ship technology brought back by future-Janeway could have been suppressed by the Temporal Prime Directive, thus inducing an artificial hindrance to technological advancement.

Admittedly, I haven't seen the episode in question, so I can't speak as to what all we saw there, mind... were they *definitely* Prometheus class ships or were they future ships with a similar aesthetic?

no ships in that scene were named or shown in detail so it could a prommie or a ship that looks similar. Out of Universe they probably threw in what CGI models they had avaible since they wouldn't be seen in detail anyway

Given how similar the NX-class hullform was to the Akira-class, it's entirely possible that it was a 26th-century ship with a similar aesthetic to the 24th-century Prometheus-class.