Class 5 Type-14D "Firehawk" Subspace Early Warning & Control
Description: The T-14 Firehawk is Starfleet's starship-based tactical battle management subspace early warning, command and control vessel. Additional missions include surveillance coordination, strike and interceptor control, search and rescue guidance and communications relay. An intergral component of the expeditionary strike wing, the T-14 uses FTL long range surveillance sensors to provide early warning, threat analysis against potentially hostile targets.
Background: The T-14 became operational in 2354 directing fighters during the Cardassian war. During the Dominion war T-14 squadrons were deployed in all major battle engagements. The extended range sensor module doubles the distance of a starship's long range sensors and provides a communications and control relay from the flight deck to the cockpit during combat operations.
Point of Contact Starfleet Aviation Command Det. C5 Projects Public Affairs Officer Starbase Miramar, Complex 3 Sector 009 SCN# 92136
General Characteristics Length: 14.7 meters Height: 6.4 meters Wingspan: 8.2 meters Weight: 30,248 kilograms Maximum Speed (Subspace): Warp 5.3 Range: 20 light years at maximum warp Power plants: (2) Yoyodyne TF-56A-425 warp nacelles (2) Cochrane Systems MR-688 impulse reactors (2) Cochrane Systems RC-452 thrusters Sensors: SF/SAS-66 Active subspace sensor SF/AQR-42 Electronic Sensor Jammer SF/SRX-62D FTL Tactical Imagery system SF/ANR-98 navigation sensor SF/APX-100(V) IFF Mk-40 VII transponder Armament: (4) Type 5 MK-24 Mod III segmented phaser array Crew: Five (pilot, co-pilot, sensor operator, tactical information coordinator, communications officer) Contractor: Dyson Scott Aerospace Corporation Date Deployed: 2354FEB13 31123.5
Think of this as Starfleet's version of the Navy's E-2 Hawkeye. Say a ship's long range sensor scans out to a 5 light year bubble around the ship, deploying this craft at that 5 light year distance increases the range to 10 light years.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Nice. Looks kinda like a runabout. Might there be a combat (more heavily armed) version?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I really don't see starfleet using such an overtly offensive platform like this. I would imagine in the event of an armed conflict that it's fleet of surveyors, scouts and science vessels would fulfil this kind of role. Hell, a Danube with a specialised sensor/comms module could do the job. Nice rendering though.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
It's not a fighter, so no, there's not a combat version. It's a combat support vessel.
I know in the canon Trekverse there's no need for a craft like this. But I aint John Eaves creating stuff for the canonverse, I'm doing my own vision of Trek.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
So Its more like a ST version of an air control ship/awaacs (or awaccs however it is spelled) plane.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
It's AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System).
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I'd say 5 LY is kind of a short range, what does a GCS have for it's sensor range. I thought in the area of 20 LY. Could be wrong though.
For it's 'peace' time role it could easily be a scout type ship.
Clergyman is right, it is a nice rendering.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
5LY for high-powered SR scan, 20 for low-power LR scan.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Thanks, my TNG:TM seems to be filed other than where it should be.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
I was just making an example of how the craft extends the long range sensor area. I don't know what the actual distance is. I also suppose it varies for ship to ship.
And I didn't mean to sound like an ass in my last post. I know that what I make doesn't fit in with the canon Trekverse, I like to put a military style to it.
The pod on the top is like the dish you see on Navy E-2 Hawkeyes or AWACS which is used by the Air Force I think.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
If you're doing a more militant Starfleet, why not do it up in Mirror Universe livery? Either as an alternate-alternate reality where the Empire never fell or the same one where the Rebels got their act together and rebuilt the empire using Defiant based technology...again.
Then at least it'd have a place in Trek.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
Hobes = Homicidal Psycho Jungle Cat = Asshole?
Nyet! Asshat, mayhaps (and you can borrow mine, if you want...)...
AWACS in SF? hmmm... nope. Unless the ship is stand alone in deployment, it'll need a mother ship to be based out of. and that pig doesn't look like it'll fit in any hangerbay...
NOW, however, since any Alt/Mirror Universe MIGHT, since the idea of dropping ships mounted outside a ship hull is more dangerous (and since life is cheap in the empire anyway...), i could imagine such a vessel used in such a way to be a VERY sucky job...
'Lt Bob. You get AWACS Duty for a month. Hope your Rad count is up todate, hehehehe...'
So ki?
A quick edit, thought: Why not add ECM to this ship's role. Active Jamming is something i can't recall being used as the techy plot-device-of-the-week...
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
It probably would have an excellent place in the mirror universe. I am reading an online fanfic about the romulan war, foucusing on Trip and Tpol who command the UES ENDEAVOUR, a modifyed NX class. The authour definately militaried-up starfleet for the stories, and it seems to make perfect sense given as it is war time and all. Maybe this craft would be like a war-time only design. Kind of like PT boats, after a war, they are relegated to light or no duty, but during a war see extensive use. Pulled out during the Cardassian and Dominion wars, and put back on the shelf afterwards.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Regardless, universes be danged, I like it.
Now, going out on a usual Flarite tangent.
Does a thread like this make us really geeky? I mean, Hobbes designs a ship and we try to make a place for it in any/every possible Trekverse?
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Yes. Yes it does.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Not geeky...Flarey. Geeks DREAM about being as pedantic as we are.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Yep, let me go get my pocket protecter.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Okay, Rev, I can deal with making geeks dream to be as bad as we are.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: Okay, Rev, I can deal with making geeks dream to be as badass as we are.
There, I fixed it for you.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
*shoves glasses up his face* Yes! Our magic is indeed mighty! *rolls a d6*
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
D6? Bah. D20 FTW.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: *shoves glasses up his face* Yes! Our magic is indeed mighty! *rolls a d6*
Hey I said pedantic, not sad. There's a very subtle delineation, like a noticeable lack of dice...a tendency to point out subtle delineations and to point out that you have pointed them out. *anti-feedback programming kicks in* Yeah.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
*mock-menacingly* Are you suggesting something which involves dice is sad? I'll have you know I'm an avid collector of dice...*rattles a box of crystal-shaped dice under your nose*
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Real geek gamers don't use dice. They write random number generation programs. With punch cards.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
FUCK! ASS!!
[ February 17, 2008, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Shik ]
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I don't have a problem with a vessel like this. The description might be militaristic, but it would make sense . . . especially on border regions . . . for there to be small mobile sensor platforms of this nature. Stationary platforms can only do so much.
My main issue would be that a sensor platform this small might not be able to detect and process a lot of the more esoteric technobabble.
In other words, some sneaky guy technobabbling his technobabble in order to defeat normal scans might defeat the sensors of this little thing, whereas Galaxy Class modifier-modifier-technobabbles might detect residual traces of stray technobabble indicative of the sneaky sonsabitch's technobabble.
But then, if we're pondering this as being a support vessel for something like those F-14-looking things I've seen on here, which would have even less scanning and processing power, I'd say this thing kicks ass. If you wanted badass sensors capable of finding some ship with lots of technobabble-action, you'd probably bring a starship anyway.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Being about the size of a runabout, I would speculate that it could be carried abord more combat oriented vessels, like the Akira, to increase sensor capabilities, if not range, then the deatailed-ness of the scans. I suppose it could turn any ship with runabout carrying capabilities into a somewhat dedicated science ship, maybe to take scans of a newly discovered planet or anomaly until a true science ship could get there. "Instant Science Ship"... HeHeHe Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Taking everything in to account, Rev being right, Fabrux correcting me (yet again), and Guardian's insightful technobabbling (which made since), I may have to do something, but I am not sure what. I may have to program a random number generator to solve my dilemma.
Anyone got a spare punch card? Heavy emphasis on card.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Hm, when is someone going to use the SS Raven design for something cool and tactical? So many potential hardpoints and surfaces for refitting or augmenting...
No offense but the runabout-class feels more and more like the 1984 Datsun among Starfleet vessels to me. It's almost Reagan-era.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
I'm no fan of the pacifistic Starfleet idea, so I absolutely love this design. Injecting more realism into the woefully underdeveloped Star Trek universe.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Underdeveloped?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Nobody said Starfleet was pacifist. If they were pacifists they would have so many weapons or fight in wars. Of course they're not exactly militant either. Where most fan designs like this fall over is in failing to understand that while most Starfleet ships are capable (if not exactly consummate) warships, they are not designed with offensive capabilities in mind, like say a Klingon or a Jem'Hadar vessel. It's not a choice between militant an pacifist as some would claim (for a start, true pacifists wouldn't even defend themselves) it's the difference between being aggressively offensive and being tactically defensive. Sorry to go on, but this is one of my major peeves about Starfleet fan designs and has been since I started releasing my doodles on the net. It's also the reason why I stopped reviewing JoAT submissions for Bernd, I just couldn't stand the endless torrent of over powered warships with names like "Dominator" and "Battle Queen" which to me (regardless of the artwork) is totally at odds with Gene's ideal for a more "evolved" humanity and displays a sense of jingoism that I'd hope we would have grown out of.
Now while I wouldn't put this design in that category per see, it certainly leans in that direction, which to me isn't "our" Starfleet. As I said before, it's the Mirror Universe Starfleet. Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Well, I don't ascribe to any ownership of "our" Starfleet, so I guess it's easier for me. The realities of the Trek world dictate how I see it. The crap on screen is nothing more or less than the product of lazy writers and the needs of a particular script. Hamstrung by those faults, it's hardly surprising that the world they showcase is confusing, incoherent and often contradictory.
I guess I'm in the very small minority of fans who doesn't give a damn about 'Gene's Ideal' since, short of DS9, TOS is the most militant of all the series and the one most under the control of Roddy himself. It's only with TNG that he went insane and started spouting off all sorts of bullshit at direct odds with what was being shown on the screen. Show me the ocean surveyor or weather-tracking plane or presidential yacht in use today running around with nuclear weapons. The day that image can be reconciled with Trek's 'peaceful exploration with strategic WMDs' I'll change my mind Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Perhaps you don't understand that just because Starfleet is peaceful, the Romulans and Cardassians and Borg and on and on and on are not. They've said and demonstrated over and over again, "We are peaceful explorers who will not hesitate to use lethal force when - and only when - it is necessary."
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
It's bedrock hypocrisy. "I'm a peaceful man, but I'll kill you if I have to." The fact that you're capable of it means you're not peaceful.
Starfleet has never been anything but a highly militant organization. Lame protestations to the contrary don't matter. The evidence is right there on the screen.
You could never protect and police an empire the size of the Federation without Starfleet being precisely what it has to be - A Warfighting Military Force.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
First off, I didn't ascribe ownership of Trek to anyone. Secondly if " The realities of the Trek world dictate how you see it." and "The crap on screen is nothing more or less than the product of lazy writers" then I have to ask, why are you watching something that you think is crap?
As for TOS being militant, that was simply not so (nor for that matter was DS9). Again, as I pointed out before the confusion seams to come from an inability to distinguish the difference between killing someone in self defence or killing them because you didn't like they way they're looking at you. Starship Troopers is militant, Star Trek is not. TOS was certainly a bit on the cavalier side compared to TNG, as was DS9 but that had more to do with the setting than any fundamental philosophical delineation. The galaxy in TOS was a very wild place and took place mostly on the edge of what was known and as such was far more dangerous than in the time of TNG where space was by and large a much safer place, still in both shows the drama was always in the character and situations, not in the body count. DS9 on the other hand was a frontier show, like TOS and as such didn't feel as "safe as TNG did". That doesn't mean they went around looking for trouble.
As for comparing Starfleet to a modern ocean surveyor armed with nukes is a gross over exaggeration and betrays a total lack of comprehension. The oceans of today are NOTHING like space in the fictional 23rd or 24th centuries. If you must draw a nautical allegory then perhaps the Royal Navy of the 17 & 1800's would be more appropriate. Back then it wasn't unusual for a military ship to sail for reasons other than those of a purely military nature. The six gun HMS Beagle being a famous example or indeed the voyages of John Harrison. Now I wouldn't take that allegory too far as by all accounts Starfleet is primarily an exploitive agency. To my thinking they were only charged with the defence of the Federation because A) They're out there already B) in the early days they were the only organisation with sufficient experience to do the job that WASN'T a standing military (like say the Andorian Guard or the Vulcan High Command) and so were the only ones trusted by all sides to co-ordinate defence and police the mutual borders and of course B) they were open to members from all worlds. The closest thing in sci-fi that I know of would be the Rangers on B5, at least after the ISA was formed. To keep the peace, not enforce the peace. HUGE difference.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ahkileez: It's bedrock hypocrisy. "I'm a peaceful man, but I'll kill you if I have to." The fact that you're capable of it means you're not peaceful.
Starfleet has never been anything but a highly militant organization. Lame protestations to the contrary don't matter. The evidence is right there on the screen.
You could never protect and police an empire the size of the Federation without Starfleet being precisely what it has to be - A Warfighting Military Force.
Ok, right there is where the problem is. The Federation is NOT an Empire. An Empire is a totalitarian institution, a Federation is a co-operative group of independent worlds that in this case also happens to be a Democracy.
As in no way is it hypocrisy to use lethal force force in self defence without being aggressive. To be militant is to be aggressive which means when you attack someone it's because you feel like it, or because you're angry or have something to gain. To be peaceful is to live and let live as far as the other person will allow. As I pointed out before, Starfleet and the Federation are NOT Pacifists but they're not Warmongers either. Just because they have power and the capability to level a planet doesn't mean they strut around like the galactic bullies making everyone do things their way.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Actually, have we ever seen on-screen that the Federation is a democracy? I don't remember ever hearing about elections, for example.
I'll reiterate what Reverend said twice...there's a difference between being peaceful and willing to defend yourself with lethal force, and being 'non-peaceful' or aggressive. What do you expect them to do, sit there and allow the Romulans or Klingons or Dominion to just kill them and devastate whole worlds full of people and art and life? That doesn't mean you're not 'peaceful.' Perhaps you're confusing the definition of 'peaceful' with that of 'pacifistic.'
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: First off, I didn't ascribe ownership of Trek to anyone. Secondly if " The realities of the Trek world dictate how you see it." and "The crap on screen is nothing more or less than the product of lazy writers" then I have to ask, why are you watching something that you think is crap?
The answer to that is simple, if self-serving. I like blinky lights. I like technowidgets. I loved DS9 because behind the widgets there was solid acting and a good story. I liked all the shows, but TNG the least. But I never have bought into the 'ideal' of Trek, because no matter how much Picard ran down 'lesser' peoples from his high-horse, he solved 90% of his problems with his ship's guns.
quote:As for TOS being militant, that was simply not so (nor for that matter was DS9). Again, as I pointed out before the confusion seams to come from an inability to distinguish the difference between killing someone in self defence or killing them because you didn't like they way they're looking at you.
I don't see where the need is for insulting my comprehension. DS9 and TOS' trek worlds were much different than the tripe offered up by TNG. They were darker, and the original Enterprise had a far more miltiary feel, despite the spandex and miniskirts. It's TNG that turned Trek into a hippie commune in space.
quote:As for comparing Starfleet to a modern ocean surveyor armed with nukes is a gross over exaggeration and betrays a total lack of comprehension.
Again with the insults. Can't you argue intelligently without ad hominem attacks?
quote:The oceans of today are NOTHING like space in the fictional 23rd or 24th centuries. If you must draw a nautical allegory then perhaps the Royal Navy of the 17 & 1800's would be more appropriate. Back then it wasn't unusual for a military ship to sail for reasons other than those of a purely military nature. The six gun HMS Beagle being a famous example or indeed the voyages of John Harrison.
The fact that these ships were built, first and foremost, as warships is somehow negated because they were temporarily assigned to other duties? If somewhere in the oceans a vessel belonging to one of the navies of the world is carrying food to a storm-ravaged island, does that make that navy a peaceful, humanitarian organization? It does not, because the core of that organization is always the same: Military.
How many times does one have to be slapped in the face by uniforms, ranks, badges, court martials, stockades, orders, mission reports, promotions and outright warfare before admitting Starfleet is not the NOAA?
quote:Now I wouldn't take that allegory too far as by all accounts Starfleet is primarily an exploitive agency. To my thinking they were only charged with the defence of the Federation because A) They're out there already B) in the early days they were the only organisation with sufficient experience to do the job that WASN'T a standing military (like say the Andorian Guard or the Vulcan High Command) and so were the only ones trusted by all sides to co-ordinate defence and police the mutual borders and of course B) they were open to members from all worlds.
Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Ascribing motivations without foundation. Calling Earth's space program "Starfleet" was the most colossal blunder Enterprise made, but it doesn't justify thinking that huge alien states like the Vulcans and the Andorians, with much larger space forces and far better equipped vessels would roll over simply because Archer and his friends smiled a lot and happened to be out there.
quote:The closest thing in sci-fi that I know of would be the Rangers on B5, at least after the ISA was formed. To keep the peace, not enforce the peace. HUGE difference.
I'd love to know how one keeps the peace without enforcing it.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Well I wouldn't expect Post WW3 humans to willingly accept a non-democratic government. Although, Enterprise did make it seem that future Federation members the Vulcans and the Andorians were not exactly democrats, perhaps as a result of the conflict between the two. Plus, I seem to recall something about criminals going to "rehabilitation centers" which also raises questions.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Ok, right there is where the problem is. The Federation is NOT an Empire. An Empire is a totalitarian institution, a Federation is a co-operative group of independent worlds that in this case also happens to be a Democracy.
A cooperative group of independent worlds where the largest military organization in evidences seems to have authority over every single person, planet and law yet shown on screen. No, that's not fascism - oh no. As your esteemed colleague has pointed out, not once have I heard of an election in Trek. The English language does not have a good enough term for what the Fed is, Empire fits the best.
quote:As in no way is it hypocrisy to use lethal force force in self defence without being aggressive. To be militant is to be aggressive which means when you attack someone it's because you feel like it, or because you're angry or have something to gain. To be peaceful is to live and let live as far as the other person will allow. As I pointed out before, Starfleet and the Federation are NOT Pacifists but they're not Warmongers either. Just because they have power and the capability to level a planet doesn't mean they strut around like the galactic bullies making everyone do things their way.
That sounds like the entire run of The Next Generation to me. The plot of every episode. Show up in their giant battleship, talk down to the locals, in the end 'they'll see it our way - they're not intimidated in the least by our planet-cracking weaponry'.
Hehe.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Well I wouldn't expect Post WW3 humans to willingly accept a non-democratic government. Although, Enterprise did make it seem that future Federation members the Vulcans and the Andorians were not exactly democrats, perhaps as a result of the conflict between the two. Plus, I seem to recall something about criminals going to "rehabilitation centers" which also raises questions.
I want to know how it seemed that Starfleet could show up on any planet and order the civilians and civilian governments around with impunity. They never seemed to answer to the public sector at all.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Well in "A Piece of the Action" doesn't Kirk essentially setup a non-democratic puppet government which will answer to the Federation? For me the root of the problem is that I've always been told the Federation and Starfleet can do no wrong. But why not?
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
I don't remember that episode, but I wouldn't doubt it. "The Father-Fed knows Best" seemed to be the theme throughout Trek.
What I particularly liked about DS9 was it showed some of the dirty underbelly for the first time. Not enough, by any means, but finally we got to see some of it.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Why can't it be accepted that Starfleet is like the NAVY of the Federation. Like a modern day navy, it has a science branch ( Oberth class, nova class), but it's main goal is to protect the space of the Federation. It's ships may make contact with planets and other governments, but who's to say that there isn't a diplomatic branch of the federation, that is completely different from starfleet. That branch has it's own ships, whose crews are less militaristic, like on a fishing boat. There are positions to be filled, and everyone has his/her place, but it is somewhat casual. We've seen Science vessels that are not Starfleet's, like the Vico, the Raven, or possibly the ship that Jillian Taylor is assigned to at the end of ST IV. She was, afterall wearing a uniform that looked a lot different from Starfleet standard issue. Even though Starfleet may send a ship in to an area to take scans and "discover " what ever weekly anomaly is there to be found, after the area is deemed safe, this Federation science organization may be sent in after the SF ship, or after the SF science ship that comes in second. SF may have a cargo division, but that may be used only for starfleet specific needs. Maybe the Federation has a Cargo organization, that is used to keep the infastructure of the ENTIRE Fed. flowing smoothly. Also, following in the lines of my rant, the Fed. would also have a transportation service. WHy would SF have to ferry everyone around to their destinations? The Fed. would also have an ARMY, used on planets to keep the peace, after the SF marines have landed and done their jobs. If you think of The Federation as a giant country, composed of thousands of islands, it would make sense that we see more of Starfleet( the navy) than anything else, but that doesn't mean that it is the ultimate multitasking orginization, the only organization that keeps the Federation alive.
I probably just caused more confusion than I hoped to help solve. Sorry for that. Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean: Why can't it be accepted that Starfleet is like the NAVY of the Federation. Like a modern day navy, it has a science branch ( Oberth class, nova class), but it's main goal is to protect the space of the Federation. It's ships may make contact with planets and other governments, but who's to say that there isn't a diplomatic branch of the federation, that is completely different from starfleet. That branch has it's own ships, whose crews are less militaristic, like on a fishing boat. There are positions to be filled, and everyone has his/her place, but it is somewhat casual. We've seen Science vessels that are not Starfleet's, like the Vico, the Raven, or possibly the ship that Jillian Taylor is assigned to at the end of ST IV. She was, afterall wearing a uniform that looked a lot different from Starfleet standard issue. Even though Starfleet may send a ship in to an area to take scans and "discover " what ever weekly anomaly is there to be found, after the area is deemed safe, this Federation science organization may be sent in after the SF ship, or after the SF science ship that comes in second. SF may have a cargo division, but that may be used only for starfleet specific needs. Maybe the Federation has a Cargo organization, that is used to keep the infastructure of the ENTIRE Fed. flowing smoothly. Also, following in the lines of my rant, the Fed. would also have a transportation service. WHy would SF have to ferry everyone around to their destinations? The Fed. would also have an ARMY, used on planets to keep the peace, after the SF marines have landed and done their jobs. If you think of The Federation as a giant country, composed of thousands of islands, it would make sense that we see more of Starfleet( the navy) than anything else, but that doesn't mean that it is the ultimate multitasking orginization, the only organization that keeps the Federation alive.
FINALLY, someone that thinks like me. Thanks Sean.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Just thinking logically. As for the 22nd century Earth Starfleet, it would have had to take on a few more roles, like cheif duplomatic organization, primary science organization, and part of "the military"- the MACOs being the other part. For destinations that are far away by the standards of the time, ESF would be the primary transport organization, with colonies that are near earth mostlikely having their own dedicated transport services. This isn,t really much of a problem, because after a planet is colonized, which would require the use of a dedicated colonization vessel, any large group of people going to the far off colony would mostlikely be sent on a second large colonization ship, with the few straglers, or people needed in a hurry like a special doctor being carried by Starfleet. Once the technology of civilian transports reached that of starfleet, or at least a level of tech that SF found usefull, (like Warp 5 and protein resequincers, and transporters) Starfleet would not be required for this role.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean: I probably just caused more confusion than I hoped to help solve. Sorry for that.
Yeah, because it's a giant fucking block of text. Learn to use paragraphs, repost it & then get back to me.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Thank you. I'll try to remember that in the future.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
One of my favorite discussions with my other trekkie friends is how big the Fed's military is. To be effective over the amount of space and population they have to protect, Starfleet would have to have tens of thousands of ships and perhaps a billion plus personnel. The Fed Army would have to number in the billions. Add in equivalents to things like coast guard, terrestrial militaries, the Federation Navy thing, and so forth - huge military complex.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
It's just not about what we think is logical or not logical. Look at the screen - those ships aren't military ships. They have children on board. Arboretums, holodecks, social lounges, spacious quarters with luxurious accoutrements. They have massive scientific and diplomatic capabilities - sensor pallets, laboratories, guest quarters, conference rooms, the ability to modify internal environments to suit a variety of species comfortably. Even the brig is small and not very often used, and the crew is generally not even armed. Whatever the Federation is or isn't, whatever Starfleet as a whole is or isn't (to our speculation), the ships we've seen are clearly not primarily warships. Anything else is not canon and is just speculation.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
The Enterprise had children onboard. No other ship was shown to carry them except for Voyager, and that one just happened to be born aboard.
The Galaxy was a gigantic wallowing whale of a ship that that was extremely heavily armed.
It seems that each and every Starfleet ship is carrying around enough of an arsenal to completely depopulate a world. Soft carpets and pretty drapes aside, there was no ignoring the military environment aboard the ship.
What we see on the screen is merely the limits of the writer's imagination and the episode's budget. Were things designed with logic and realism in mind, the Trek world would have a much different look.
I honestly don't understand the willful determination it takes to try to twist the Trek world into what we're told it's *supposed* to be rather than admitting that the evidence doesn't support it.
Posted by emperorkalan (Member # 1821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ahkileez: The Enterprise had children onboard. No other ship was shown to carry them except for Voyager, and that one just happened to be born aboard.
The Galaxy was a gigantic wallowing whale of a ship that that was extremely heavily armed.
There was also the Saratoga with Sisko's family, a bit less "whale"-ish.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Well, the Saratoga is speculatred to be a science ship. I think that SF started to "soften" between ST VI, and TNG, thus somewhat explaining the carpeted floors and relative comfort observed in TNG.
The Cardassian wars happened like 20+ years eariler, the Klingons were subdued by the Khitomer Accords, and the Romulans were no where to be seen. THe borg had yet to be encountered, no one knew of the Dominion. It was a time of extreme peace ( for the Federation at least) and prosperity, like Pax Romana. So, Starfleet added a lot of luxury to their designs.
And, crews were supposed to spend lots of time onboard their ships ( 5 yr+ missions) so they have to have some sort of luxury, or morale would drop pretty fast. The standard tour opf duty in most Navies is what, 6 months to a year? ( I'm sure someone will know exact numbers) The Saratoga class looks like it has no where near the amount of luxuries that a Galaxy class has. Mostlikely because they were sent on shorter missions. As technology improves to allow longer missions, and crews were out in space for longer and longer periods of time, the crews required more luxuries to maintain morale and stay effective.
And the Galaxy class was like the "big experiment" with families en masse, wasn't it? I'm sure thart a few people on long durartion missions would be allowed to bring their families, and then, I'm sure that there would be a rank requirment, like leiutenant or hightr to be able to have family. THe family would also be going onboard at the understanding that they were risking their lives to do it.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ahkileez: I honestly don't understand the willful determination it takes to try to twist the Trek world into what we're told it's *supposed* to be rather than admitting that the evidence doesn't support it.
You maybe missing the point that people want to have the idealistic view of the future that Trek is capable of embodying. Realism and the idealistic visions of utopia can not be resolved in to one point of view.
So, while this debate has been interesting to some degree, it will end as the political and religious debate threads have here. Kind of petering out with no one's point of view changed and no one particularly enlightened.
It is like the concept of a money-less society that Picard touted. Not very realistic in the least, but very idealistic indeed.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
You're right of course, Ritten. I just hate being attacked because I like Star Trek but I'm not an acolyte of the Church of Roddenberry.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
You say you like Star Trek, yet you attack everything it stands for in the minds of fans and call it 'crap' ... Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Not to mention the fact that not everyone would consider this a utopia. Like your aggressive types.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
I expect to be struck by a bolt of lightning for saying this, but... it's just a tv show to me. A tv show with a lot of creative toys to play with for sure, but still just a show. Trek doesn't 'stand for' anything - to me.
An unpopular opinion, no doubt.
I don't consider our world a utopia. I don't think utopia's possible without every human on the planet being prescribed enormous amounts of lithium till we're nothing but drugged up bambis lying on the side of the road.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Well, the foundation of Communism was based off of an idea of a utopian society, and look how that turned out. Revolutionists were SUPPOSED to give their aquired power to the people, but selfish as people are, that always failed.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I like Trek, but I believe that the whole story was never told, just snippets, like a history book. I am far from a hardcore fan, other's I have known lived the life, which caused their families to wonder about their sanity.
One option that the 'solid' fan base is missing is that there is so much more to the idea of Trek than the screen will allow for. The idea that Trek gives of the possibilities is more key than the 'facts' shown on screen.
For the mainstream fans I pose a question. What is the difference between this type of craft and say, the Argus Array that could spy on what ever it was aimed at? An add on is could this craft be used as a sub space relay station that has a better chance of survival that Ariel's station? (I think that was her name.)
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Yes, it's a TV show, but that's a form of art, and art always has a message - it always stands for something. That's what art is. Usually TV stands for nothing more than corporate greed. But the point is, it doesn't have to be workable in real life, it's just a message. In Trek's case, a message of hope for the future - that maybe we won't nuke ourselves to hell or any of a dozen end-of-the-world theories that are so popular...It's a bit cheesy, but maybe we'll survive and build something grand and beautiful. Surely it won't be exactly like that old late-20th-century TV show, but that's not the point. It's just about hope, that people can learn to truly accept one another.
A bit corny, I know, but there it is.
Anyway, about the Hawkeye itself - I like it. It doesn't scream 'military' at me anyway. And Starfleet *was* pretty military during the Dominion War out of pure raw necessity - another message entirely: That war turns hope on it's ass and makes it violent and, well, warlike.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)