I think a reasonable number is about 5,000 ships. Giving there are 9 seperate mobile fleets of about 200-250 ships each giving a total of 1,800 to 2,250 ships. There are also system fleets that protect the major worlds like Vulcan or Earth with about 250-300 ships each. There are perhaps 6-10 of these fleets giving a total of 1,500 to 3,000 ships. There are also the Starfleet's exploratory branch with a likely total of about 750 ships.
Starfleet probably has over 30,000 ships of the smaller craft like the Danube, Peregrine, and the scout type ships.
Is this reasonable?
------------------ It is better to walk the path of the devil than to be in the path of the devil. Though it still might not be the right path.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
5,000 real starships (non-small craft) is really small. And we don't know there are only 9 defensive fleets. It's just the highest number for a fleet was heard was 9. For all we know, "Fleets" could be line "Divisions" in the Air Force, and there are hundreds of those.
------------------ "The things hollow--it goes on forever--and--oh my God!--it's full of stars!" -David Bowman's last transmission back to Earth, 2001: A Space Odyssey
We should also attempt to answer these questions. They may be easier, and point us in the right direction for estimating the size of Starfleet.
How large is the Federation? (population, planets, volume, surface area/perimeter)
How large is the current U.S. Navy, with a breakdown by type? How many carrier groups does the U.S. have?
Are there other "fleets" within the Federation? E.g. Earth Defense Force, Vulcan Defense Force, ... ? Would those be considered part of Starfleet, and/or share ships?
How long do Starfleet ships remain in service?
What is the *minimum* size of Starfleet, given all evidence to date? (e.g. total count of contemporary ships named; number of ships seen at once in CG montage, etc)
Personally, TOS and TNG always convinced me that Starfleet was small; a few hundred ships total in TOS, a few thousand at most in TNG, and mostly smaller or service ships in both cases. The DS9 battle scenes and an overview of registry numbers appear to contradict that - I consider it unfortunate. Throwing large Star Trek starships around like Star Wars fighters just looks dumb (and like a ratings grab). I also never liked the huge lists of ships seen in the SFTM - TOS made the Federation and Starfleet seem weak and tiny, not a culture that could produce hundreds of capital ships a decade.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
(it seems like we do one of these threads every three months)
Keep in mind that Peregrines and Danubes, are, for all intents and purposes, ships just like any other. They have names, NCC numbers etc. It seems reasonable that the fleet numbers expressed in various war arc episodes would include even the hordes of fighters (which might have been more than a quarter of the ship total in eps like SoA)
So.. numbers....
I can't see there being many more than nine Dominion War fleets. They do strike me as the largest subdivision of Starfleet, and each seemed to make up the sole fighting force on each front (ie. the third fleet on the Vulcan front, the sixth on the Bajoran front etc.) When not concentrating a direct assault on one target (ie. Chin'toka, Cardassia) each fleet was probably spread out a fair bit.
Assuming 350 ships to a fleet, of which 250 are Miranda or bigger, that means 2500 capital ships directly involved in the war effort. Add another 1500 elsewhere in the Federation, and that gives us 4000. Toss in another 6000 small ships (fighters, runabouts) and 10,000 freighters, tenders, transports, tugs etc. That's 20,000 ships in Starfleet. Some might say too small, but I'm cool with that...
------------------ "Truth about Santa Claus debunks Santa God. God evolves from Santa." -Gene Ray, http://www.timecube.com
[This message has been edited by The_Tom (edited July 11, 2000).]
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
One has to remember that Starfleet *is* too small in practice. It has a low starship density in peacetime, and it apparently takes a long time for it to muster wartime strength when a crisis looms. There are no major permanently deployed defensive fleets around Earth or other big planets in peacetime, or even in a time of recently heightened tensions. Even major border starbases in political hot spots cannot deploy war-strength fleets at short notice, as seen in "Redemption".
So it is a futile attempt to begin to calculate the fleet size from the requirements imposed on the Fleet (say, "efficient defence of a volume of space X lightyears across"), since the Fleet does not meet those requirements. There are obviously some bottlenecks that prevent the production of unlimited numbers of starships, so the Fleet is always short of perfect defensive let alone offensive strength.
Our best hope is to use the numbers directly available to us from the DS9 episodes - at least half a dozen fleets explicitly named (there could be gaps in the naming scheme, so there could be LESS than nine fleets!), 150-300 ships per fleet indicated, 250 crew per ship averaged from Wolf 359 casualty figures (but that was in peacetime). In addition, the final episodes suggest 1500 Klingon ships is significantly down from normal (so UFP ships should number more than 1500 normally, too), and some ten thousand ships from a joint FKR fleet are probably pitted against some 30 000 in the final battle.
I'm personally in favor of a 5000-8000-ship wartime Starfleet, not counting any small craft or noncombatants, and with a very thin logistic structure completely unlike today's navies (because the combat starships are so independent and multimission-capable by themselves). That would be enough to equip twenty fleets or so, and it wouldn't yet be such a huge coincidence that we didn't hear of double-digit fleet numbers in DS9. More than 20 fleets, and we definitely need an explanation for why we only heard of the low numbers.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Like the US Navy during the peace times, many ships are laid up or scrapped. If the Navy thinks there would be a war immeniate then they start a build up. Then during war, production is at an all time high.
Asssuming that the Starfleet's territory is (2D) 8,000 lightlears in diameter(please no arguements about this) Then it would be 64 million square lightyears. Then the 5,000 ship figure would be small considering that every 100 lightyears there would be a ship. With the 8,000 ship figure it would be 90 lightyears.
But then during the war, the opposite side of StarFleet's territory from where the war is happening, Starfleet would take about 90% of the ships stationed there would be reassigned to the war fronts.
------------------ It is better to walk the path of the devil than to be in the path of the devil. Though it still might not be the right path.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
There is also no indication that Starfleet stays in any kind of "Division" or "Squadron" organization during peacetime. The first we heard of individual battle fleets was during the DS9 war arc.
I doubt the ship are organized into groups like that when there is no war on.
------------------ "A gathering of Angels appeared above my head. They sang to me this song of hope, and this is what they said..." -Styx
The size of Starfleet is, like many things in Star Trek, subject to the studios' needs. In other words, don't look to the series to give a consistent answer.
Though this might be hard, I would suggest that we determine the size of Starfleet based on different criteria than those suggested by the series.
Personnally, I don't believe in the idea of a large, expanded Federation and a fleet of ten of thousands of starships and lesser starships, i.e. runabouts. Starships are built over a period of years, staffed with crew members who spend three or four years in the various military academies, and need maintenance facilities. To support such a large fleet, the budget (even non-currency economies, i.e. barter, have a budget) of Starfleet would be dominated by a military industry complex. This contradicts the known information about the Federation. Further, from reading ancient history, I know that governing a large region of territory, either as a contigous whole or as a region of mini-domains, is not the easiest way of doing things-maintaining communication, maintaining trade routes, maintaining peace and security. This is true today in our contemporary world. To do this in space, this would be impossible. The time for travel between stars would be measured in months and a crisis could emerge that Starfleet would be slow to respond to because of the distance.
If I am writing the shows, I would have a fleet of about 500 primary fleet ships and a smaller number of secondary fleet ships (home fleets) at Federation worlds in an area smaller than a thousand lightyears. This is more realistic.
------------------
takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory
[This message has been edited by targetemployee (edited July 11, 2000).]
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I don't think that is even remotely correct. If the what the series says about the size of the Federation then only 500 ship is pretty small. I would think that during peacetime, Starfleet has aboyt 2,000 ships and during war time about 5,000 ships. Those addtional ships are from the mothball fleets much similar to the the real US Navy.
------------------ It is better to walk the path of the devil than to be in the path of the devil. Though it still might not be the right path.
Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :
The United States has about 400 ships that are used to patrol the world and maintain a presence in international affairs. This includes secondary ships-tugs, freighters, oil tankers, hospital ships, etc. Further, there are approximately 15 carrier fleets in operation today. I know from the news of the USS Abraham Lincoln, USS Eisenhower, USS America, USS John F. Kennedy, and USS Carl Vinson.
Another consideration- technology is furthering the ability to predict an enemy's behavrior and the analysts of the technology plan a response to this behavrior. The result is that there is a need for less ships and personnal. Battles in Star Trek are based on an understanding of World War II where capital ships engaged in close combat. This is aesthically pleasing to both the studio, who decide on the matter, and to fans who like watching large starships explode apart. My feeling is that battle in space would actually be less pleasing to the viewer, more confusing (what is up? what is down?) to the casual viewer and beautiful to the trained viewer, and very dangerous (an exploding starship would create debris that would or could cut into other starships). Another consideration-warfare is no longer unlimited as in World War II. Warfare is becoming limited-people don't want to lose loved ones in combat when other alternatives are available. And people, with the exception of a small minority, are mostly satisfied with the results of a limited war.
Based on our contemporary society, with the Federation being the US, I would enivision giant automated starships alerted by border detection installtions, and possibly patrol ships, that would engage the first wave of enemy ships followed by primary capital ships with smaller lesser ships to further lessen the number of enemy ships, and then a home fleet, based at a member world, to sweep up the remainder. This is simply and would lessen the number of lives lost. And produce good press. (In Star Trek, there would seem to be primary capital ships with lesser starships and no automated starships nor home fleets. The fact that there are no automated starships is strange for in the series there is mention of automated freighters. Why didn't the Federation build automated starships? I feel that from watching the battles in DS9 that the Federation doesn't value life. Their society has advanced technology that can be used to preserve life.)
And for landing troops on an enemy planet. I believe that the Federation would first scout the planet, target and destroy military installations and personnel, and then land troops when the planet is secured by a small detachment of highly trained soldiers.
Based on what I spoke of above, I believe the total number of ships to be far less than is implied in the series. There would be a small number of primary ships for exploration, resolving local sector disputes, opening trade routes, spreading the word of the Federation, and so on; a greater number of smaller ships with more specific tasks-tugs, transports, carriers (as in cargo), patrol ships, scouts, and so on; and a number of automated warships that are used in times of crisis. Each member world would have a varied number of ships based on budgetary concerns and their views on the matters of war and peace.
------------------
takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory
[This message has been edited by targetemployee (edited July 11, 2000).]
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Don't forget the Science and Medical Ships as well. There are ships that are designed for research, medical, and supply purposes only, they don't have the necessary power to fight.
As well, many of these "secondary" vessels do have the NCC registries only. You'll have to look at that.
------------------ "My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht." Psychiatrist: "Again."
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Here's some historical data on the size of the US fleet in WWII to think about.
During WWII, the US Navy had 3400 large ships (1000 tons or more, from carriers to destroyer escorts and subs) and 6200 small seagoing ships (less than 1000 tons, including gunboats, torpedo boats, frigates, corvettes, subchasers). This doesn't count an additional 4000 costal or harbor craft and 60,000 amphibious assault boats (landing craft).
Large combat ships: From 1937 to 1945, the US built 39 fleet carriers (CV), 86 light and escort carriers (CVE), 13 battleships (BB), 63 cruisers (CC/CL), 423 destroyers (DD), 331 ecort destoyers (DE), and 246 submarines (SS) for a total of 1201 ships. All but 88 entered service from 1941 to 1945. An additional 168 ships were under constructon when the war ended. Commissioned ships in service during the war included 25 BB, 28 CV, 94 CVE, 91 CC/CL, 620 DD, 337 DE, and 350 SS for a total of 1545 large combatants. Therefore, before the war the navy had only about 344 large combat ships. In addition to these ships were 1400 amphibious shipping transports.
So a single country like the US in WWII, with a population of about 140 million and 18 million men and women in the armed services had an ocean going navy of around 10,000 ships. This doesn't include civilian transports. So, I think a figure of 30,000 for a wartime Starfleet is reasonable, if we include all ship types.
------------------ When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :
The figures from World War II are a reflection of the combat that was fought then, not fifty years later. I have heard stated many times in many documentaries that the evolution of the airplane and advanced sensing technology of the last fifty years has rendered the combat of the last great war obsolete. A carrier fleet can do as much destruction as was done in the whole of World War II. The United States has about fifteen such carrier fleets. Think this way, the United States can wage fifteen World War IIs.
I just don't buy the concept of a large fleet for several reasons. I stated one reason above. The other reason is that the fleet suddenly has thousands and even tens of thousands of ships.
Brief history of the Federation from 2345- 2345 to 2366 Border wars, Cardassians, Tzenkethi, Tholians, Talarians. Federation is fighting on multiple fronts. 2367 Battle of Wolf 359 2372 Hostilities with the Dominion
During the period of 2366 to 2372, the Federation is hard pressed to deliver ships to the Wolf 359 fleet and to the blockade of the Romulan border. 40 ships lost is considered a major blow to the Federation. Suddenly, in 2370's, the Federation has tens of thousands of ships to fight the war. How did we go from having a small fleet to a large fleet? Wouldn't the large fleet be operational during the 2350's and the 2360's when the border wars were occuring? This is a major inconsistency in the series and can't be overlooked.
Everyone is attempting to justify this expansion of the fleet. To my view, this is like the war games that children play. Children believe that large fleets are impressive in battle and like to have as many ships as possible. It is wonderful to destroy ships and see pretty fireballs. This is not very realistic, nor is the battle scenes in DS9.
Further, why do people feel the need to justify this expansion of the fleet (or other things, like the separation of World War III from the Eugenics War or the official history.)?
------------------
takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory
Posted by Fructose (Member # 309) on :
Well, at the end of BoBW, the Admiral says they'll have the fleet back up within the year. So under normal peace time they can pump out at least 40+ ships. If they go to war time production and recomission mothballed ships, they could easily jump the number up to the thousands. I think the Federation got lulled into a relax mode after years of minor conflict. They figured they are all powerful and don't need a big fleet. Then the Borg come along and they start to worry. Then they new threats from the Dominion. They probably started cranking out new ships years before they went to war. Even if they didn't want to go to war, they would need the ships to present a image of power. I say a good conclusion was that the fleet was at a low during BoBW and got ramped up for the war. That's what happened to the US before WWII. Granted war was different, but the same thing could have happened to the Federation as far as fleet size was concerned.
------------------ It doesn't matter if you don't know what you're doing as long as you look good doing it.
Posted by The Vorlon (Member # 52) on :
It's been said before, but I'll say it again... You DO realize that both the Borg invasion of "BobW" and the "Redemption pt 2" fleets were composed of only the amount of starships which could be pulled together in a few days time, right? You have a fleet stretched over 8000ly minimum (depending on which way you measure, 8000 cubic ly, 8000 ly across, etc), and mot likely a large amount out beyond that 8000ly exporing the unknown, and suddenly, you need a fleet at one spot ASAP. How many ships could get there in time? Most likely only those within 100ly radius, or less. With the Dominion War, SF had at least a YEAR to gather its ships...
The difference in fleet sizes is hardly hard to explain, and given how many ships ONE planet, or even ONE nation on ONE planet can support, 30,000 SF ships seems actually low to me, what with at least 150 member worlds, plus all their colonies, you've got much more than 1000 planets backing you up...
------------------ Sheridan: "Well, as answers go, short, to the point, utterly useless and totally consistant with what I've come to expect from a Vorlon..." Kosh: "Good." Sheridan: "I REALLY hate it when you do that..." Kosh: "Good."
As I explained before, in the Battle of Wolf 359 the Federation was at peace time conditions where there is a lower number ships in service than there is during war time conditions. Also pulling off other ships from their duties is sometimes a problem becuase that enemy could be using that fleet as a setup so where there is alrge gap from the ships that were pulled off can go through and destroy their target. Though considering that the Borg cube was only one ship and I doubt that the Borg would have sent another ship to be strategic.
Also if a government expects war, it will build up its forces so that they are not caught off gaurd when it actually starts. Possible figures are as follows:
After a war it is reasonable to keep the ships just in case.
------------------ It is better to walk the path of the devil than to be in the path of the devil. Though it still might not be the right path.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I posted the World War II figures just to show how much a single nation can produce in a course of a war. Anyways, the US went from a fleet of around 300 large ships to a fleet of 1500 large ships in about 5 years. During the war, the US could build a battleship in 32 months, a carrier in 15-20 months (vs. 32 months before the war), and an escort carrier in 8 months. Destroyers, subs, and liberty ships were built in 5, 7, and 1 month, respectively vs about 14 months before the war. In 1943 alone the US built more than 400 large combatants. Of course, the US switched over entirely to a war economy and diverted most production to defense use. The extent to which the Federation can or would do the same is unknown. With advanced production methods and 150 Federation members, Starfleet ships can probably be built at a comparable or even higher rate.
PS: Targetemployee, I am well aware that differences in technology (weapons speed, range, and yield) make comparisons of fleet sizes between WWII and the present day difficult (jeez, give me a break!). Of course, the main types of naval warfare in WWII (carrier vs carrier combat and amphibious landings) are unlikely to be as important today. I also know that a carrier task force can be destroyed from a hundred kilometers away by a single plane with a nuclear-tipped cruise missile and that we no longer use rickety little stringbags, which can't find anything on a cloudy day, carrying faulty 250-pound gravity bombs.
------------------ When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
So what you're saying is that with 150 members with an average of 3-5 billion on each planet that Starfleet can build more than just a few thousand ships? The problem I see with that Starfleet does have to maintain each ship with a crew and keep it fully operational. Also each ship needs to be refueled so that would mean that additional non-combat ships are needed maybe not Starfleet but it is needed by Starfleet. Also Starfleet teritory is very arge and needs starbases large and small.
If Starfleet had tens of thousands of ships (not Danube and Peregrine) then they wouldn't have to worry about 1,200 ships as indicated by SoA and Breen ships
------------------ It is better to walk the path of the devil than to be in the path of the devil. Though it still might not be the right path.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Keep in mind that even the largest aircraft carriers built in the US in peacetime take less than 10 years to build, whereas the Enterprise-D took over twenty. Construction times are most likely not directly proportional.
------------------ "Truth about Santa Claus debunks Santa God. God evolves from Santa." -Gene Ray, http://www.timecube.com
Posted by The Vorlon (Member # 52) on :
Ok, theory here...
SF has >30,000 ships supported by 150 member worlds x say, 10 colonies each... 1500 worlds. Of that, say 1 out of 10 has a significant starbase of some sort, so that's 150 starbases, but we know that's a low number, we've heard of higher... So obviously, the ration is more like 1 in 2 planets has a significant starbase. 750 major facilities, countless thousands of outposts, etc... You'd think such a large infrastructure could support a mere 30,000 ships, each requiring a LOT less than a starbase, and seeing how starships are actually fairly self-sufficient (a la Voyager). 30,000 x say, an average of 400 crew/ship = 12,000,000 officers, which is not outrageous for an entity with a population in the hundreds of billions... And that is assuming every one of those 30,000 ships is a capital-sized ship... Is this making sense to you? Seems fairly conservative to me.
Anywho, 1200 ships is a considerable amount, even with 30,000. Remember, you cannot realistically have all 30,000 in one place at one time, they'd be spread across thousands of lys. 1200 ships would leave a moderate region of the Federation undefended, and would require time to redistribute the fleet to compensate. Therefore, during the wanning days of the Dominion War, those 1200 ships were the only ships within a reasonable distance, making them very important in the short term. Everyone always seems to fail to take travel times into account, including the actual show...
But obviously, 30,000 capital ships is very unresonable, an entity like the Federation simply has no need for that much military hardware, however, these figures show that it's not necessarily out of the range of possibility. Certainly, the fleet has never been below 10,000 ships, with perhaps 30-50% of them as capital ships of all sizes, the rest are fighters and support craft...
End theory, begin arguements.
------------------ Sheridan: "Well, as answers go, short, to the point, utterly useless and totally consistant with what I've come to expect from a Vorlon..." Kosh: "Good." Sheridan: "I REALLY hate it when you do that..." Kosh: "Good."
:::shakes head::: I SWORE I wasn't gonna get involved...PROMISED myself I wouldn't get involved....
Ah, fukkit.
I'm on the same side as Adam & Masao. There is zero reason why an entity as large as the Federation shouldn't have a combined fleet ranging in the tens of thousands. I've done my own thoughts on this, some of which I'll share here; for more in-depth reasons, you can consult my timeline or my J-Project FAQ.
By 2365, I figure Starfleet had approximately 17,000 vessels in service, �1500. That's COMBINED--"ships of the line," tankers, freighters, science vessels, medical ships, small transports, anything with an NCC prefix; that excludes anything like Peregrines & shuttles, which fall under craft (& probably number in the hundreds of thousands). Then the Borg hit. They hit hard & fast. As Adam said, 2 or 3 days, pull in as many ships as you can & make a stand. This was a turning point.
From this single incursion, we know the Defiant Project arose. Some have speculated that the Sovereigns were conceived of because of this event as well--beleive what you will. In any rate, there were obvious tensions rising & more Borg encounters (Excalibur & Endeavour, to name 2). Starfleet begins a crash program of upgrades, refits, & shipbuilding; call it a new total of 286 ships per year.
Flash-forward about 5 years. Bajor is now under Federation protection. The wormhole's been found. The disastrous first contact with the Dominion has occurred. The Cardassians are getting antsy & the Maquis are still annoying little globflies. Tensions rising again, Starfleet increases shipbuilding to 350 ships per year. Then the shit hits the fan. From the middle of 2371 to the beginning of 2376, Starfleet is embroiled in one militray action after another: the cold war with the Dominion in 2371, the Klingon conflict of 2372 & early '73, the 2nd Sector 001 Brog incursion & the "upping of the ante" vis-a-vis the Cardassians & the Dominion in 2373, the start of open hostilities at the end of the same year & running for 2 full years. By the end of 2371, Starfleet HAD to be on a major kick; in my own universe, I upped it to 1879 ships a year. Crews shouldn't be a problem--like WW2 & even the Gulf War, every able being probably signed up for service.
But why did we see so LITTLE of these ships until the war? Simple. There was no NEED to. Notice how the same names keep getting thrown around? The CairoHood near Klingon space, etc. These are their assigned areas, much like today's fleets Only certain vessels like the Enterprisewould be "floaters." And even in wartime, you still need to patrol your borders & keep a prescence. Remember in "Pale Moonlight," Worf mentioning that the Dominion was raiding from Romulan space? I'd certainly bee a chunk of assets there to stop that.
Eventually, I figure that by the end of the war at the end of 2375, Starfleet had about 28,300 vessels �2150. This is where the WW2 parallels end; in WW2, the uS had to eventually pare down the fleet, partially because of technological advancements, partially because of money, & partially because of the lack of need. But Starfleet has no money, there were no significant tech advances, & there's ALWAYS a need. As I state in my timeline, the first duty of the fleet is exploration. So go explore. You've forged new alliances, you have the Cardassians to help rebuild...& eventually, maybe exploration of the Gamma Quadrant can start again.
------------------ "Do you know how much YOU'RE worth??.....2.5 million Woolongs. THAT'S your bounty. I SAID you were small fry..." --Spike Spiegel
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Mr. Tom: I never liked that 20-year construction figure for the EntD. It seems to long. If I remember correctly, that's only from the Tech Manual and not established in an episode. Anyways, does that seem likely that the second ship of a class would take so long to build? Is that 20 years actual construction time or does that include design and development? Even if we can rationalize this length of time on the basis of the number of welds or carpets or whatever, I'm not sure whether Starfleet were actually want ships that took so long to build.
------------------ When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Posted by spyone on :
First, take note that the Galaxy Class took 20 years from concept to service, but only took about 10 to construct, and that includes severaly production delays.
According to the TNG Tech Manual: 2343-Galaxy Class project approved. They don't even have a design at this point, but they have a specification for what they want the ship to do. 2348-Hull materials selected and ordered. 2350-first frame components attached. Problems with the fabrication of the Warp Nacelles and the Computer Cores delayed part of the project, but 2357-USS Galaxy is commisioned. the exact date USS Yamato was commisioned is unknown, but it was before 2363 when uss Enterprise was commissioned.
Considering that the problems with the Computer Cores delayed all ships under construction by 2 years, and the Warp coils were delivered 4 years late, 13 years from bigining construction to commissioning isn't so bad.
------------------ You're a Starfleet Officer. "Weird" is part of the job.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Sorry, haven't read the TNGTM for a while. In any case, aircraft carriers built today don't take 13 years. I'd also point out that I imagine the Federation devoted a greater chunk of its resources to the construction of Enterprise than the government of the USA devoted towards the building of the USS Abraham Lincoln
------------------ "Truth about Santa Claus debunks Santa God. God evolves from Santa." -Gene Ray, http://www.timecube.com
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
So, if we needed to crank out Galaxies or similar-sized ships in a hurry, how long do you think it would take to build a single ship starting from the laying of the keel (or analogous component), not counting delays?
------------------ When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Seven months in true Kaiser fashion (meaning 24/7 working). The smart yardmaster would have concurrent work on 2 or 3 or possibly even 4 of the same class going on.
And here's a fun little bit of info. I looked in my Almanac of Naval Facts (� 1964 US Naval Institute) & found the fiscal year Navy strengths for WW2. Remember, FYs start 1 July & end 30 June. So:
30 June 1940: Navy strength 1099 ships, 203,127 men 30 June 1941: Navy strength 1899 ships, 358,021 men 30 June 1942: Navy strength 5612 ships, 843,096 men 30 June 1943: Navy strength 18,493 ships, 2,207,720 men 30 June 1944: Navy strength 46,032 ships, 3,623,205 men 30 June 1945: Navy strength 67,952 ships, 4,031,097 men
------------------ "Do you know how much YOU'RE worth??.....2.5 million Woolongs. THAT'S your bounty. I SAID you were small fry..." --Spike Spiegel
[This message has been edited by Shik (edited July 14, 2000).]
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Makes me proud to be an American.
Let say during wartime, .5% of the Federation's population went to join the service. With the Federation's population of about 350 billion then Starfleet's rooster would be well above a billion and perhaps almost 2 billion. That's more than enough to man a couple HUNDRED thousand ships if not millions.
However, it would not be good for the politics of the Federation to support that amount of ships. Hell, it would be like saying in today "We want to build 1,000 3 billion dollar aircraft carriers"
------------------ It is better to walk the path of the devil than to be in the path of the devil. Though it still might not be the right path.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
7 months for a Galaxy?? That seems pretty fast, given that you need to assemble about 5 million tons of stuff. The largest US WWII carriers (Midways) displaced only around 50,000 tons (1% of Galaxy!) and still took about 15-20 months to slap together. Maybe the lack of gravity and and the use of assembler robots help speed things along. Also, the nacelles and other components are probably in specialized facillities and attached when completed. So I suppose 7 months might be possible. (Of course, I think that this 5 million ton displacement is at least 3 times too high, but that's another issue)
The extent that the US population (as well as that of other countries) was mobilized for WWII is amazing. If the population of the country was around 140 million (adults and children), the 18 million in uniform represents about 13% of the country. You also need to include the millions more civilians in defense-related industries. Of course the US had universal male conscription, so It's unlikely that the Federation could reach this number. I doubt that the Starfleet has a draft. But the 0.5% that Matrix mentions should be more than enough to man all the ships we could ever conceive. So, the lack of manpower shouldn't ultimately limit fleet size, but might in the short term.
------------------ When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Well, like I said, Masao...that's in Kaiser fashion. It assumes that there's 3 full shifts & construction runs around the clock. If they take the night off, that of course would set things back.
BTW, I love your work on the Museum. We should get together soemtime--I've loads of ideas for patches, histories, classes, & other things..
------------------ "Do you know how much YOU'RE worth??.....2.5 million Woolongs. THAT'S your bounty. I SAID you were small fry..." --Spike Spiegel
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Thanks. I'm glad you enjoy the museum. Although I'm pretty busy with my own projects, I'd be happy to hear about any ideas you might have. Email me [email protected]).
Back to the topic. So I think it's pretty clear that Starfleet could build a fleet of 30,000 ships fairly rapidly if it wanted to, but the question is would it actually do so? Would such a large fleet be stategically necessary or useful?
------------------ When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
To add another variable into the debate, it seems that everyone's considering manpower to be the only commodity governing the size of Starfleet. What about operating costs? Who knows how taxing filling several thousand starships with antimatter is on the Federation economy? Or keeping them up to scratch with sensors and replacement parts?
------------------ "Truth about Santa Claus debunks Santa God. God evolves from Santa." -Gene Ray, http://www.timecube.com
Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :
Acutally 350 billion is a very low figure for the population of the Federation. Bashir suggested that 900 billion would die if the Dominion won. I remember awhile back a thread here that came to a figure of 1.3 trillion for the Federation. The rest of my points are the same as Vorlons. And I have one to add, the Federation being so spread out would need to keep large numbers of ships in other zones to protect its borders, thus limiting the number of ships it can send directly to the front. Also you'll recall that Gowron has sent some 1500 Klingon ships to a particular sector to fend off the Dominion advance whislt the allies regrouped. It was said that the Klingons were outnumbered by 20-1. So 30 000 Dominion alliance ships were in the region. Keeping that in mind, I'd say a realistic estimate for the Federation fleet is ahywhere upwards of 90 K ships. As high as 120K if you include medical and support vessels.
------------------ "More beer, more beer, more beer, more beer! ARSE!" - Ode to God.
Posted by spyone on :
two things I view as relevant here:
1) a post-industrial economy like the Federation presumably has allows a standing army of 1% of the population. This means that, if they wanted to, each planet of 6 billion people could support 60 million soldiers. starfleet could be truly huge if they wanted it to.
2) The Federation has production facilities at least equal to (and most likely better than) the pre-Dominion Cardassian union. Production figures for Cardassia are given in the DS9 Tech Manual: Each year the Cardassian Union can produce 78 galor Class warships, 352 fighters (about 1/2 the size of the Defiant), 188 freighers, 443 "heavy penetrators", 54,300 photon torpedoes, 583,000 troops, 21,600 officers, and 8,900 Guls.
------------------ You're a Starfleet Officer. "Weird" is part of the job.
Posted by The Vorlon (Member # 52) on :
So, we're all pretty much starting to agree on a fairly large Fed fleet, right? Okay, so then I'm going to throw registry numbers into the mix... =]
Currently, there are no NCC #s higher than 76000, and assuming that those numbers ARE chronological and are assigned to any ship SF builds (regardless of NCC/NAR, etc), then SF CANNOT have more than 76000 ships. Next piece of evidence; USS Ambassador with NX-10521 was built around 2315-2320, meaning that at that time, the Federation was no more than 11000 ships, which seems fitting for that era. During the almost 60 years between then and now, SF has built 60,000 ships or all sizes, and according to Romulan statements in "The Neutral Zone", the Federation had greatly expanded it's borders during the time the Romulans had been in isolation, this jives with the massive increase in fleet size.
Now, the oldest ships we've seen in the war had regs in the 31000 range. 76,000-31,000 - 45,000 ships most likely still in service. Again, Sternbach's comment about the 30,000 ship size of SF seems relativitly conserative, given various facts, and also quite realistic.
Gee, reg #s FINALLY work right for once. =]
------------------ Sheridan: "Well, as answers go, short, to the point, utterly useless and totally consistant with what I've come to expect from a Vorlon..." Kosh: "Good." Sheridan: "I REALLY hate it when you do that..." Kosh: "Good."
Well said. Keep in mind the fact that a war time production rate would be far higher than a peace time one. Also these figures tend to be pre-war. Thus the number of ships produced during the war cannot be determined, as we have no registries or databanks to refer to.
------------------ "More beer, more beer, more beer, more beer! ARSE!" - Ode to God.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
So, if Starfleet could have a fleet well above the tens of thousands? I still support the idea that Starfleet might have a fleet about 10,000 ships spread all over their territory. Only reason why we haven't seen that many ships becuase it would take months to reach the battlefield from the other side of Federation territory. 30,000 ships? If Starfleet could build that many ships, Klingons, Romulans, Ferengi, and the Cardassions would be the intertgalactic INSECTS. But that would politically incorrect for that day and age.
Weyoun did say that the Dominion would need a large fleet to invade the Federation all the way to Earth.
------------------ It is better to walk the path of the devil than to be in the path of the devil. Though it still might not be the right path.
Posted by RAMA (Member # 380) on :
Here's an old pseries of psots of mine on the subject, plus some fleet figures of mine:
A collection of various posts from another board on the subject of starships.
His numbers got me to thinking about past ST non-fiction books that included rough figures on starfleet strength. Its very difficult to determine what they actually are today because the writers will never pin it down, and the original concept of Starfleet as a small quasi-military entity has changed into a huge warfleet equipped military organization. But here are some comparisons:
As I see it, the main sources of fleet composition and strength both semi-official and fan developed are the the Franz Joseph tech manual, and its related manuals developed by others (Starship Design, Fed Reference Series, related SPO books); The FASA manuals; and Starship Dynamics.
The other modern sources are the shows themselves and the new official manuals. You can get a feel from these various sources of what the fleet is supposed to be composed of, but its obvious that, while larger than originally conceived, it is much smaller than it is in DS9's time.
The Fed Reference Series suggests the fleet is organized into Service Force(auxiliaries), Type Organization (subdivision of fleet into ships of same type), Unit(Two or more squadrons of light starships), Squadron(Two or more divisions of same type), Division (basic unit of fleet starships-two or more ships of same type), Task Group, Task Element, Task Unit (sundivisions of Task Force), Task Force(any force organized to accomplish a special task), Force(Major subdivision of fleet), Fleet (Organization of all spacecraft under one commander and shall comprise of ALL types of craft necessary for major operations. This seems pretty logical, and in fact we see many of the same terms used today, so note that a fleet should include all types of craft.
The Fed Ref Series uses these ship classifications:
1. Class One Starship of the Line (anachronistic term even in the late 20th century)
A. Mk 1 Corsair B. Mk II Clipper C. Mk III Light Cruiser D. Mk IV Cruiser E. Mk V Frigate F. Mk VI Transport/Tug G. Mk VII Scout H. Mk VIII Destroyer I. Mk IX Heavy Crusier J. Mk X Heavy Destroyer K. Mk XI Battlecruiser L. Mk XII Heavy Destroyer M. Mk XIII Battlecruiser N. Mk XIV Corvette O. Mk XV Through-deck Cruiser P. Mk XVI Shuttlecarrier Q. Mk XVII Space Control Ship R. Mk XVIII Superscout S. Mk XIX Fast Frigate T. Mk XX Strike Cruiser U. Mk XXI Command Ship
It further names Class Two ships as support craft; and class Three ships as small spacecraft.
514 Independence Class Transports 306 Sherman Class Transports 15 Ptolemy Class
In addition, the related SPO book "Starship Design" suggests 362 ships of ALL types are constructed over a 5 year period, Of which 46 are cruisers and above. The total here is 1031. This doesn't include all possible ships, but major classes. I suspect they felt it was the bulk of the fleet.
One thing of interest here is that the total of auxiliaries is higher than the major combatants. If Monty is off on any figures, its probably his ratio of auxiliaries to warships. In todays navy, only 1/6th of the ships at the time of the largest US fleet in recent times were warships. Perhaps new technologies and replicators would reduce that number of support vessels, but it might still well be half of the fleet. So Monty's 156 transports seems like a small number.
Starfleet Dynamics puts the fleet size at 3137, of which only 937 are major combatants.
The STNG FASA manual:
38 Excelsiors 50 Enterprise 126 Constellation 240 Decker Class 12 Royal Sovereign Class 13 M'Benga Hospital Ships 17 Sagan Class Science Vessels 33 Wellington Class 25 Paine Class 22 Moscow Class 15 Ambassadors 2 Galaxy Class
The official ST universe today has many official classes and types, of which Monty names just about all. There is no set number, yet if we assume as many fleets as numbers (I believe 9 is still the highest?), then we multiply it by the 600+ of Sisko's fleet, we have at least 5400, though the composition is uncertain. Are they all warships? To sustain a war with the Dominion, a power which summoned over 2000 ships for an invasion, Starfleet must come somewhere near them in total numbers, though not over(add to that allied fleets of course). Monty's overall numbers may indeed underestimate the entire force as shown on the screen today.
A rough estimate of Starfleet ships:
Possibly 15 to 20,000, of which 10 to 12,500 are major combatants. This fits in nicely with Monty's estimate if he was not counting total auxiliaries.
(Notes on the listings: After each class the brackets contain ship type - listed at the bottom - and registry of class
==========================Monty's SHIPS OF THE STARFLEET as of Stardate 50902.1================================
TOTAL ACTIVE SHIPS...........12,506 "CLASS ONE" SHIPS............11,634
EXPLORERS --------- Galaxy (XL 70637)................44 (Yes, I know - that's a lot more than six!) Sovereign (XL 75089)..............4 Nebula (XM 60122)................93 Rigel (XM 62081)................157
ESCORTS ------- Defiant (EH 74205)...............43 Steamrunner (EH 52130)..........709 Springfield (EC 30302).........1081 Cheyenne (ET 60991).............634 Rapier (ET 74027)................49 (Included because I like it! Regisrty probly wrong)
SCOUTS ------ Intrepid (SS 74655)..............35 (Of which one is in the Delta Quad, of course!) Constellation (ST 1974)..........35 Korolev (ST 59620)...............58 Sequoia (SS 70070)...............36
Around the world different navies have different classifications, the Russians call their guided missle cruisers (CGN, CG in the US navy--named by propulsion, not size) "rocket cruisers". In addition the sizes of classifications overlap..any ship that is considered a cruiser is usually 6,000 or more tons, yet the British have no designated cruiser, though their Suffren and Bristol classes fit. They also tend to call cruisers and destroyer size ships "escorts" because they escort their small carriers. US navy destroyers are gigantic (8,000-10,000 tons)compared to most navies cruisers, but they are called destroyers all the same. Frigates used to be less than 2,000 tons and destroyers 2,000-6,000, but the Russian Kynda class(5,500+tons) is desginated a cruiser, and their Udaloys (8,000+) are called destroyers..go figure. Navies also tend to re-designate ships at will..the Virginia class CGNs were called FRIGATES, despite their 10,000 ton plus size, because the were designed to provide air defence for carriers only, but they are now called cruisers. One more note..in WWII, large cruisers with stripped down armor for fast speed, but the same armament were called battlecruisers, today there is no such classification, but the massive and powerful Russian cruisers of the Kirov class certainly do fit that description. So you see, even now the designations do not make much sense.
The Mirandas were always called cruisers since STII, and Starfleet would not need to change that, though they could. Lets call them frigates.
I love the explorer designation, it is fitting that the 24th century should have its own classifications, and it fits nicely with Roddenberry's original concept.
Nebula is very large, I think it could be called an explorer/cruiser easily.
Excelsior..I think they've gone overboard with multiple cruiser designations, as have you. Today no distinctions are made within cruiser classes in designation, though for description, it is a different story. I think strike cruiser and cruiser are fine for Starfleets purposes, and Excelsior is probably a cruiser.
Defiant: Escort, doesn't matter what kind.
Akira: I do not like the term destroyer for Starfleet ships, and that is never used. It is a cruiser.
Miranda: As I pointed out, could be called a cruiser by tradition, but it is a frigate in the 24th century.
Norway: Frigate seems to fit.
Same with the Saber class though escort may be more proper.
Inrepid/Constitution class variant: Yes, ugly as Hell. I'm not sure I care what class this is in.
Excelsior variant: Cruiser fits nicely. Heavy cruiser if you want to get technical.
Some more thoughts..Defiant could be called a FAC or "fast attack craft".
Here's an idea I like, along with Explorers, a new class could be developed altogether..one to replace the destroyer designation between frigate and cruiser...
Perimeter action ship is a new one, but I prefer something less combative, pehaps corvettes, but how about "venturers", "strikers", "starraker", "lancers"..Ok, they're not less combative, but they are different..
See Tom's post on what the Starfleet designations are, they are very reasonable. Here are some of my own and a modern comparison.
In todays US navy the major surface combatants are:
Frigate- Usually below 4,000 tons and less than 400 ft. Mainly anti-submarine warfare craft with minor anti-air capability. Designed for escort duty or short range patrol. Small and fast.
Destroyer- Usually 4,000 to 10,000 tons and less than 600 ft (Below 6,000 tons in most navies) Designed for ASW patrol, secondary AA capability and also to escort carriers.
Cruiser- Usually 10,000 plus tons and 500+ ft. Russian Kirovs are 38,000 tons, USS Long Beach is 17,000. Usually are most powerful ships in most navies, they are todays captial ships along with carriers. Most cruisers have anit-air warfare as their main mission in escorting carriers.
Battleships- All retired now, but they were usually over 40,000+ tons and 700+ feet long. Main mission was to engage other surface ships and bombard shore defenses.
Carriers- Carry aircraft to distant locations to project power. US fleet carriers are 1,000 ft + in length and 75,000 tons to 100,000. British carriers number 3 small carriers and are about 20,000 tons and 700 ft or so.
The Starfleet equivalents to the above(rough estimates):
Escorts(from DS9 manual): Less than 600,000mt and less than 300 meters in length. Fast and maneuverable.
Frigates: Small ships of about 200 to 350(656 to 1148 ft)meter length, less than 600-750,000 metric tons. Designed as escorts for larger ships and transports. Can conduct limited scientific studies but rarely venture for themselves into deep space. Replace destroyers in ST's universe.
Cruisers: Ships from 300 to 500 meters (about 1640 ft). Multipurpose ships equipped for most contingencies, from evac, to warfare, to exploration.
Light cruisers would be ships in the lower range of length. A difference between them and frigates of similar length might be tonnage or weapons carried. Possibly 700,000 to 1,000,000 metric tons.
Medium Cruisers: 800,000 to 1,500,000mt.
Heavy Cruisers: 1,500,000mt to 2.5 million mt
Explorers: 2 million to 5,000,000mt and 500 meter+ in length. Sovereign is 680 meters (2230 ft).
A list of all navy designations:
The United States Navy
The Navy Fact File Contents Last updated: 8 Oct. 1998
Submarines Attack Submarines- SSN Ballistic Missile Submarines - SSBN Deep Submergence Craft - NR-1 Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle - DSRV Research Submarine - T-AGS
Surface Ships USS Constitution - the oldest commissioned ship in the Navy : Aircraft Carriers CV/CVN : Ammunition Ships AE : Amphibious Assault Ships LHA/LHD : Amphibious Command Ships LCC : Amphibious Transport Dock LPD : Command Ships AGF : Cruisers CG/CGN : Destroyers DD/DDG : Dock Landing Ships LSD : Fast Combat Support Ships AOE : Frigates FFG : Fleet Oilers AO : Landing Craft, Air Cushioned LCAC : Landing Craft, Mechanized and Utility LCM, LCU : Mark V Special Operations Craft : Minehunter, Coastal MHC
: Mine Countermeasures Ship MCM
: Mine Countermeasures Ship MCS
: Patrol Coastal PC : Rescue and Salvage Ships ARS : Sea Shadow Experimental ship : Submarine Tender AS : Tank Landing Ships LST
: Military Sealift Command
: The Military Sealift Command operates more than 110 ships around the world. These ships carry the designation "USNS" (United States Naval Ships) and are not commissioned ships. Also, they are crewed by civilians. Some MSC ships also have small military departments assigned to carry out specialized military functions such as communications and supply operations. MSC ships carry the prefix "T" before their normal hull numbers.
Most ships are still multipurpose, but this has changed to with DS9 and the ongoing Dominion war, where some classes are dedicated military vessels. The same classifications we have now could well mean other things in the 24th century, hence the general terms such as cruiser and explorer..and I actually prefer these.
I like your system, its simple and makes sense and does take into account different missions of the 24th century, since those platforms are more multipurpose than 20th century ships.
"OK. I think Explorer just means "big ship", the equivalent of battleship but not so violent-sounding. Because they're so big and comfortable, they Explore, but like all of Starfleet's ships they have a very multipurpose role. They are generally the most powerful starships out there, so from now on replace "Battleship" with Explorer."
It means more than "big ship", it is technology unchained..a multipurpose vessel that has heavy armament, but has been mainly used for exploration becuause of its huge interior space and scientific labs/sensors. It can replace battleship or dreadnoguht, which I have also seen used unofficially.
"Cruisers are smaller ships than Explorers that stick to the inner Federation. Remember DeSoto's line about the Hood in Tin Man... going back and forth between starbase all day long. In terms of size, there tends to be a bit of overlap with the smaller Explorers, so Heavy Cruisers are generally bigger than Light Explorers. Miranda are Cruisers as they are primary.."
Cruisers are a large part of the fleet and they have to be large enough to sustain themselves over a long period of time. They should be quite capable of supporting explorer ships in any mission they encounter, and we can see that cruisers like the Consittuition were well capable of exploring deep space on their own as well, so I'd like to expand your excellent definition of cruisers.
"There is no Destroyer classification in the 24th century. It sounds far too nasty and as Baloo points out, it's become nearly synonymous with Frigate even today."
I agree about the nastiness, but frigates and destroyers are not interchangable today. While destroyers still have the ASW mission they also have a major anti-air capability, and frigates are not very good for this. Compare the Aegis Arleigh Burke with the Oliver Hazard Perry, and you'll see what I mean. Both of these types of ships are escorts in major fleets though, and that is what you may be thinking. ALSO, the term frigates resurfaced after many years in WWII as a major class of ship because of the escort role it performed. Most minor navies use this as their major type of warship today and it has gained a new respect. Like Starfleet ships, they are often built from modular components built at other nation's naval yards.
I don't feel frigates can overlap with light cruisers in overall capability.
I also don't think Intrepids are scouts, after all they are larger than Constitution class ships. You might consider them frigates..
I like strike cruiser as a classification.
We have seen cruisers, heavy cruisers, frigates, explorers, in the series. No destroyers or carriers in Starfleet.
In the US Navy, the Oliver Hazard Perry frigates are about 3,500 tons, and are much smaller than the Spruance and Arleigh Burke classes (8,000+tons each). In WWII, they tended to be much smaller even than that, but they were always smaller than destroyers.
TOTAL of Class I Ships..................13991.............1419
20 Fleets of 700 ships + Auxiliaries at full strength during a war footing.
Losses are roughly 10% of total combat fleet strength
________________________________________________
Transports....................................2355.................216 Other Auxiliaries...........................1040.................187 Long Range Shuttles......................1411...................34 Hospital Ships.................................112...................14 Other.............................................347...................19 ________________________________________________
TOTAL AUXILIARIES......................5265..................469
TOTAL ALL SHIPS.......................19,256................1889
*Mostly Dominion War Losses ________________________________________________
RAMA
------------------ Recession repression regression Shifts of scenery And warning tremors of landslides The sun comes down The mountains move aside Your kingdom slips out of your hands
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Gah! Classification debate!
------------------ "Truth about Santa Claus debunks Santa God. God evolves from Santa." -Gene Ray, http://www.timecube.com
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
*screams in horror*
------------------ Frank's Home Page "Frank is absolutely right." - Laz Rojas
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Gah! Someone used my Tomlyn class transport image without telling me!
------------------ "Huh. An intelligent guard. I never would have guessed." -Preed, Titan A.E.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I have to say, after some thought, that the Norway is not a very mass produced ship... I feel that it is probably a prototype ship with a few sister ships like the Defiant class, possibly another of the post System J25 encounter race to build new ships... that were left on the Drawing board. The pointed saucer and catamaran nacelles were they only two successes with this ship that were carried on over to the subsequent Intrepid and Akira class ships.
I think the only reason we saw any Norways at the Borg incursion of sector 001 was because they were mothballed somewhere in the system, maybe solely for the purpose of protecting sector 001 and the Terran System. Also, their destruction would have left a gaping hole in the defence of the sector which would have allowed the penetration of the Breen ships during 2375 - apart from their weapons.
------------------ "Neil says hi by the way" - Tear In Your Hand, Tori Amos
No comments please, I'll go calculate some reasonable and well-grounded figure tonight.
------------------ Advertisement in the United Federation NewsPADD, SD 53675:
"Now for sale at your local dealer: Antares class vessels, as good as new! They can shapeshift! Everybody in the galaxy has one! Now for only $800!"
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I thought about the Norway class and I came up with the same conclusion.
However the fleet would be
------------------ It is better to walk the path of the devil than to be in the path of the devil. Though it still might not be the right path.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I came up with the same conclusion with the Norway class but I didn't think that the Norway class was a protype class. Just a failed design.
I think that Starfleet's fleet size of combat capabel ships are 6,000 ships and 10,000 ships of non combat capable ships such as transports, and freighters.
------------------ It is better to walk the path of the devil than to be in the path of the devil. Though it still might not be the right path.
Posted by RAMA (Member # 380) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: Gah! Someone used my Tomlyn class transport image without telling me!
Oh, sorry?
RAMA the retroactive apologizer
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm certainly glad that's been cleared up.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
The fuck!? Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I suspect that we should not expect coherence or clarity from someone who posts the entire contents of the U.S. Navy Fact File index in the text of the message rather than providing a simple link...
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
But, when he printed it it fit on his arm.....
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snay: The fuck!?
Ditto.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Vorlon: So, we're all pretty much starting to agree on a fairly large Fed fleet, right? Okay, so then I'm going to throw registry numbers into the mix... =]
Currently, there are no NCC #s higher than 76000, and assuming that those numbers ARE chronological and are assigned to any ship SF builds (regardless of NCC/NAR, etc), then SF CANNOT have more than 76000 ships. Next piece of evidence; USS Ambassador with NX-10521 was built around 2315-2320, meaning that at that time, the Federation was no more than 11000 ships, which seems fitting for that era. During the almost 60 years between then and now, SF has built 60,000 ships or all sizes, and according to Romulan statements in "The Neutral Zone", the Federation had greatly expanded it's borders during the time the Romulans had been in isolation, this jives with the massive increase in fleet size.
Now, the oldest ships we've seen in the war had regs in the 31000 range. 76,000-31,000 - 45,000 ships most likely still in service. Again, Sternbach's comment about the 30,000 ship size of SF seems relativitly conserative, given various facts, and also quite realistic.
Gee, reg #s FINALLY work right for once. =]
Actually, there would only need to be one NX ship per class! FIgure one in ten NX ships become their own class of ships spawning between 50-200 ships each and you get a very large fleet. Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
????
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Clean-up time. I'm closing down most of the RAMA-inspired flamefests in S&T, and suggesting that the issue be discussed at the Lounge, where a suitable thread now exists. Have no fear, the "Size of Starfleet" question will pop up again in some form sooner than you think...
[email protected]).
![[Wink]](wink.gif)