posted
Well, I don't think it makes much sense to have 100+ year spaceframes out there. If the Constellations were retired '80 years ago' (Peak Performance,TNG), the Miranda's, with the some basic componets, would be outdated by the time the Ambassodors rolled around anyway. But if I can try to accept that they are still around, it would make better sense to have the Soyuz the TOS era one, because the Miranda's would be about 150 years old. The Soyuz probably started out with different componets (i.e. older looking) but equally compatible with the Constituions. Even if the Soyuz was a highly sucsessful ship, Starfleet wouldn't want a spaceframe more than 50 years old, and that means the Excelsiors are beginning to get old physically and visually getting to the end of their usable life, unless they are decommisioned ships serving with a planetary defense force, but with a Starfleet name and registry, which doesn't make a lot of sense, but wasn't I talking about the Soyuz? Because I have a tractor fifty years old and it is beginning to fall apart. When your 50 years old, your a senior citizen in the US, and while I have the upmost respect for our seniors, they begin to need more and more to survive, starting with medication (repairs) various machinerey, (taken off the front lines and put back in Federation space), and finally life support, (duct tape), and finally they go to the scrapyards. and with all the Miranda's getting activley destroyed in the Dominion wars, it would be safe to assume thet are on their last leg. SO the Soyuz was retired 70 years ago in 2368, 70 years ago would be 2288, and minus 50 years would be 2238, but enough of my essay for now, more later.
posted
I doubt the Mirandas in DS9 were 100 years or more old. They had registries in the 31000s which would put them after both Ambassador sets of 10000 and 26000. In addition, the Excelsiors were even newer with mostly 40000 registries. My opinion is that these ships were probably 40 years or less old and were veterans of the earlier Cardassian War in the 2340s (probably produced for that war).
...and (to bring it up again) you are being too harsh on the Miranda's performance in the Dominion War compared to the other classes.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
There's no need to assume that just because the Soyuz was retired early, it's ridden with design flaws or is an old spaceframe. It might be that this particular modification of the basic Miranda design simply wasn't needed later on, and they stopped building it.
Also, the Constellations weren't retired 80 years ago. The Hathaway was commissioned back then, while Picard's Stargazer (Constellation class) was old during his command ("Relics"). Remember, we also saw the Victory (NCC-9754) in 2365.
[ May 05, 2002, 19:51: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Im sure there are ship types in real life that were phased out as young vessels because technology eliminated the need for what they do, or because new style warfare made it unlikely to succeed at what it did. If Starfleet suddenly invented a single emplacement that replicated the functions of all the Soyuz' greeblies, it would make the vessel quite obsolete. Or if the performance of the Soyuz' special equipment was inadequate in the new requirements put to it, that it would be more than obsolete, it would be a hindrance to maintain purposeless vessels.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: Im sure there are ship types in real life that were phased out as young vessels because technology eliminated the need for what they do, or because new style warfare made it unlikely to succeed at what it did. If Starfleet suddenly invented a single emplacement that replicated the functions of all the Soyuz' greeblies, it would make the vessel quite obsolete. Or if the performance of the Soyuz' special equipment was inadequate in the new requirements put to it, that it would be more than obsolete, it would be a hindrance to maintain purposeless vessels.
Some ships in modern times were just mistakes to begin with . . . perhaps the best example is the Mississippi Class battleships: http://www.warships1.com./USbb23_Miss.htm
Another idea we might want to ponder when trying to figure out why certain ships seem to get decommissioned rather quickly is treaties. Whole classes of vessels were decommissioned circa 1923, when a naval arms limitation treaty (a la later nuclear arms limitation treaties) was signed.
While I don't know of anything quite so grand ever occurring in Trek, we do know that the Federation has signed treaties which limit the components of its starships . . . the Treaty of Algeron (or an addendum to it) which limited the Federation use of cloaking technology comes to mind.
Just a thought.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
Thank you -- that saves me the trouble of writing an essay on the subject. From all the specialized sensor rigs on the Bozeman, as well as other behind-the-scenes and novel-universe conjecture, she was a border-patrol ship. Given that our big enemies at the time were the Klingons, and given the timing Geordi's comment would indicate, I'd say the Soyuz class was retired as part of the Khitomer Accords.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Sounds about right. There are a couple of special-technology ships the Klingons would probably very much want banned in the Khitomer articles. For example, if the Soyuz was a spy ship eavesdropping on Klingon transmissions across the border, then it would definitely have to go.
Or if the Soyuz was specifically devised to detect cloaked vessels, the Klingons might insist on its removal since *they* would be the main cloaking threat of the time (the Romulans apparently being buddy-buddy with the Feds). A peace treaty sounds pretty hollow if the other side still maintains a force dedicated SOLELY AND SPECIFICALLY to the defeating of your trademark technologies.
I'd still say the Soyuz was structurally inferior, too. Bolting that much extra mass onto your arse can't be good for your health. So there would have been no sense in removing the outdated or politically incorrect "special" gear and operating the ships as "standard" starships. Hence, the early and total retirement.
posted
Bjo Trimble asked me if I could mention her website at http://www.bjotrimble.com, adding that she'll be updating it in the future (she gave me the info on the registry numbers in her Concordance, and is one of the most high-profile Trek people I've contacted yet.)
Anyway, all of the speculations are good. We probably ought to be careful with the dates, though -- 2368-80=2288. If Geordi was being more precise, the Soyuz could've well been decommissioned in the midst of the Klingon conflict. We do know from "Blood Oath" that Curzon was involved with some negotiations 81 years before, or in 2289, so maybe this is it.
posted
It is possible that the Soyuz was a stopgap ship, designed to fill in between a previous border patrol/ELINT ship and a new one that was experiencing design troubles. That would explain the class being retired 'early' and also the method of the modification, "Bolting that much extra mass onto your arse can't be good for your health".
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
