What the op has failed to notice is the USS Enterprise will always be top of the line, no matter what "new" ships come out she'll be upgraded. why? Because she's the flagship of the Federation and also an NPC ship that makes our builds look silly. And I agree, just because you can't fly an oddy worth the smeg... I know I can't but that doesn't mean it's a bad ship, far from it.
and my T4U Vesta is far from obsolete. No she doesn't have what most T6's have, but she holds her own.
Defending The Galaxy By Breaking One Starfleet Regulation After The Next.
Starfleet divided the quadrants (Alpha and Beta) into 4 sections each and each had it's own fleet. Each of these fleets had mulitple flagship. The term flagship in the context of Starfleet means simply the command ship in the fleet. So each Quadrant split into four then further divided by patrol areas resulted in each fleet having more than one flagship.
Do you know if there is one for the TOS era?
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Eld' I totally agree with you, it seems that he does act that way, as well as hurling insults and getting personal to those who disagree with him. I've seen it before, but hey it's his reality and we should just be happy to be living in it I guess. No probs' , no longer worth my time.
I'm with you on the cruisers. Its the context, I also believe that the term heavy cruiser has been thrown around in canon as well.
You are completely right on the cruiser thing. The Constitution was designated a "Class I Heavy Cruiser" in the TMP era (not in dialogue) and cruisers were generally classified by their tonnage and mission profile. We had Cruisers, Star Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Light Cruisers in addition to Escorts and Frigates as well as "Attack Fighters". I think we didn't have "Destroyers". We had "Destroyer Units" but the centaur itself was not classified as a "Destroyer", only the function it fulfilled in that particular role. I might be mistaken, I admit I don't know, maybe someone can rehearse the dialogue of that episode? The heaviest and presitgious classes of ships were designated "Explorers", though (not in dialogue).
Never the less I am baffled that so many people make Starfleet's militarism it's primary role when it clearly isn't. Rodenberry made that very clear and this sentiment prevailed later on. What he and the shows also made clear, however, is something a lot of people don't want to understand: Just because it is not a classic military does not mean Starfleet is in any way shape or form underprepared, unable to fight, weak or foolish. It is a different mindset we have to wrap our heads around which was concieved in a time of real life war weariness. Today our society is as martialized and warmongering as it was 70 years ago - wether or not this is a good thing everyone has to answer for themselves. But naturally the concept of Starfleet doesn't go very well with that mindset.
What we can observe is that Starfleet is the primary space faring service of the UFP. They broaden the knowledge of the stars, scientific endavours, first contacts. Starfleet's credo is "Ex astris, scientia" for crying out loud. But as their vessels are at the edge of their space in the first place they naturally incorporate the military defense of the UFP and it's citizens in their mission profile which is also due to the fact that it is a service made up from all member worlds and species. This service substitutes for all previous militaries which guarantees the stability of the UFP and minimizes the risk of people breaking away and waging war on their own. A major point of star Trek is that Humanity (read: explicitly Humanity) is beyond militarism. The concept of military action and combat was revolting and barbaric not only to Picard but a lot of people in the shows - but they were still prepared for it. Picard was an excellent tactician if need arose but his preference of not fighting should not be confused with weakness. Are people really so blant not to see that? Do we really need to have the bigger stick and use it all the time?
Because Starfleet clearly had the bigger stick. But the message was not to use it. Starfleet ships were all armed and completely combat ready relative to their class because they would incorporate everything that would be necessary in space and that included defense. The Explorers were sent out on lengthy mission in unknown space on their own. How could anyone with a straight face call that "peaceful" and "pacifistic" when every second encounter they had was some semi-omnipotent being that wanted to murder your face? Seriously, if I hear that dung again that the Galaxy was not combat ready because "time of peace and blah blah" I'm going to TRIBBLE in someone's yard.
Starfleet does incorporate military functions and they use terms similiar to our present day militaries. But it is only a part of their duties. Every Starfleet member is trained for combat situations but they are more akin to minutemen in that regard. Just wrap your head around the fact that it is possible to have a powerful space faring force that is not hell-bent on dominating everything by said force.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I admire your tenacity angrytarg, but I don't know why you bother anymore.....Here? With this level of comprehension? I've all but given up. You'd be better off talking to a brick wall, you'd have more chances of being understood.
Another player, skollfur I think has or had a signature that said "Comprehension on the STO forum?" with a pic from 'Dumb and Dumber'. Pretty much sums it up.
I don't know. Boredom. Trying to avoid actual work. In need of someone to fight with. I don't know. I need help XD
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I admire your tenacity angrytarg, but I don't know why you bother anymore.....Here? With this level of comprehension? I've all but given up. You'd be better off talking to a brick wall, you'd have more chances of being understood.
Another player, skollfur I think has or had a signature that said "Comprehension on the STO forum?" with a pic from 'Dumb and Dumber'. Pretty much sums it up.
How so? Just because some of us believe that Starfleet is not an exploratory agency with defense aftertones? So because we believe in something different that makes us of less intelligence? Talk about the opposite of IDIC eh.
How so? Just because some of us believe that Starfleet is not an exploratory agency with defense aftertones? So because we believe in something different that makes us of less intelligence? Talk about the opposite of IDIC eh.
Don't bother. Bother angrytarg and shpoks, if past posting is any indication, have a strong anti-military bent, and a skewered perception of armed forces that doesn't jibe with reality. :rolleyes:
The last two posts just confirms this further, along with shpoks attitude that anybody who disagrees with his views, and despite using logic to state why, are somehow "less intelligent". :rolleyes:
Don't bother. Bother angrytarg and shpoks, if past posting is any indication, have a strong anti-military bent, and a skewered perception of armed forces that doesn't jibe with reality. :rolleyes:
The last two posts just confirms this further, along with shpoks attitude that anybody who disagrees with his views, and despite using logic to state why, are somehow "less intelligent". :rolleyes:
I am starting to draw that conclusion myself. Sadly, I thought/hoped much of the anti-military sentiment had gone away in the 80,s its still alive and well, especially the negative connotation of the personalities, and intellect of those who serve(d). Militaries don't need to be militant to do their jobs, even when its time to kill people and break things. I will say that at least Angrytarg is civil in his discussions, instead of just trying to shout the other person down, I can respect him for that.
there is more then just the constellation. i was board and looked it up and found some interesting background information. in order form lowest registry to highest. all are official sources signed off by gene and on screen footage
USS Eagle (NCC-956)
USS Constellation (NCC-1017)
USS Republic (NCC-1371)
USS Intrepid (NCC-1631)
USS Potemkin (NCC-1659)
USS Excalibur (NCC-1664)
USS Exeter (NCC-1672)
USS Constitution (NCC_1700)
USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)
USS Hood (NCC-1703)
USS Lexington (NCC-1709)
USS Kongo (NCC-1710)
USS Merrimac (NCC-1715)
USS Defiant (NCC-1764)
now i like the idea they made in TOS as back groundis that the constitution was not the class leader but a sub type leader. the class was starship (according to the enterprises plaque) but the constitution was the first of the "MK-IX" sub class refits and they even changed some control panels on the ship to depict this. first time MK-IX was used was a ship registry list in court martial when they got to constitution in parenthesis they have MK-XI after it then they list the enterprise and rest of the ships with the same
Very interesting post. Especially on the subclass idea. Would definitely solve the inconsistency of only 12 Constitution ships (something that was said somewhere during TOS, just don't feel like looking it up atm). So thank you for this, really interesting. Would still mean that the Enterprise was the second Constitution-subclass Starship.
How so? Just because some of us believe that Starfleet is not an exploratory agency with defense aftertones? So because we believe in something different that makes us of less intelligence? Talk about the opposite of IDIC eh.
No, because the creator of this IP made it pretty clear as to where he was comming from in terms of the evolution of Starfleet and the Federation. Even the infamous 'B & B' built upon that in ENT, that's why I love ENT - it displays the beginning of that evoultion into the Federation with multiple alien species and the role of Starfleet in the new organization.
Neither of those 'I's in IDIC stands for ignorance. Starfleet clearly fullfilled many roles for the Federation, including being the acting military of the Federation amongst many others. Roddenberry clearly made his point about his vision, but to some around here he was just a clown because his vision of the future doesn't fit their very narrow-minded version of reality. Mocking his vision because Starfleet wore "pujamas" and not camo. :rolleyes:
If someone is not accepting that the Oak in front of them is a tree and not the stripper pole they preferred and imagined - then that's their problem, and yes, potentially evidence of having less intelligence.
Don't bother. Bother angrytarg and shpoks, if past posting is any indication, have a strong anti-military bent, and a skewered perception of armed forces that doesn't jibe with reality.
LMAO!!! "Strong anti-militarry bent" :rolleyes: Mate, I served in my country in what would be the analogue of your Navy Seals, assuming you're American. Voluntarily.
I don't have a "strong anti-military bent", however I'm bent against people trying to impose their vision on someone else's vision just because they don't happen to like it or agree with it.
If Gene imagined Starfleet as being full on military first, acting as a contemporary military in any.....let's say western country today, wearing camo uniforms instead of the "pujamas" you despise so much - I'd completely accept that. And I'd probably argue against the people who'd then be saying that Starfleet should wear "pujamas" and "Black & Decker dust busters" because it's the future.
I have no issues with Jack O'Neill being a U.S. military colonel, behaving like one and wearing the apropriate attire and using the apropriate equipment. On the other hand, you aparently have such issues in terms of this particular franchise.
The last two posts just confirms this further, along with shpoks attitude that anybody who disagrees with his views, and despite using logic to state why, are somehow "less intelligent".
It's not a thing of disagreeing or agreeing. It's about mocking the author of this franchise and trying to impose your views on his, when he is no longer with us.
But good luck with imposing your logic on a imaginary future sci-fi universe that spawned as a creative idea in someone else's head and only bound to follow the rules of their imagination.
I really don't know why I bother. Probably because it's maintenece time.
Recorded history................And living the history gives one a different look as to what is actually the truth
Some things are not recorded because of the populations attitude at the time such history is recorded
I know a little bit about Gene R and TOS star trek because I lived in that Era I watched the pilot episode Live on a 25 in black and white TV with rabbit ear antenna
Moses lived next door to me too yea im old
The late 60s was a terrible time for the military in the usa because of Vietnam and that is when TOS was created so the lack of military attention to Starfleet ships and crew was intentional and nessary for the time it was created or the show would have failed on the 3rd episode from anti military sentiment
very little calls to attention or saluting or overt military themes or military uniforms for Starfleet e the Bad guys Klingons romulans ect it was ok ...they were the bad guys !
Gene R lived thru this time and it imprinted on him forever making him anti military themed about star trek........In the 80s when star trek board games and PC games were being created he relented a little and we started seeing a more military side of star fleet
Again it was about the mood in the country and it was more trendy to do so than it was in 1967
That's why starships were not warships in TOS or were there Flagships in TOS
It was 1967 people, and the USA was a different place than what it is now...Very differnt
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Im all for a featured episode where Shon has to self destruct that ugly ship and our character gets to stand next to Shon on a planets surface as we watch The Big FAIL burn up in the atmosphere.
Ive always said, if you give me some alternate hull options instead of the default beer belly it has, Id be willing to make a toon to fly one. Since Cryptic is desperate to sell ships, they could reintroduce the T6 Odyssey 3 pack, now with at least 2 MORE different saucers, necks, hulls, pylons, and nacelles. Make one variant nod more toward a bigger Sovereign and the other nod toward a bigger Excelsior.
STO: @AGNT009 Since Dec 2010
Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
The Enterprise itself is still considered the "Flagship" in Starfleet terms. A Symbol for the best in the Federation. However that does not mean it is the best ship to lead a battle group.
The Oddy was built as the last word in deep space exploration and its certainly meant for that.
But the Oddy had bad luck, it was certainly designed in the decades before the war with the klingons wich unfortunatly that war broke out and then there is the trouble with the romulans, undines, tholians etc.
Considering its original mission the Enterprise pops up quite often in the game so it is definitly on the front lines of all those conflicts. However it may not always perform the role as the lead ship if a ship with more firepower is needed.
Still we dont realy know how the Big E is configured and how Shon and his crew improved on the design. It definitly has quite a bit of plot armor.
From a players view the oddy is outperformed by the new command cruisers.How much the margin is depends on how much use you can squeeze out of another boff power and those command abilities. And the Hangar.
That might be mitigated at some point as im pretty sure theyll update the old bundles like oddy, vesta, bortasque etc.
However as im used to the t5u tac oddy it is not a bad cruiser at all. a2b+bfaw3+ts3+apb1 is quite good for a cruiser. Its certainly no record breaker but even with phasers and torps and the 3 set installed for fun i usually got over 25k dps.
Those T6 abilities and traits are nice and give some boost but its not world changing. It feels a bit different, true, but it depends on how you use it.
An additional Boff abilitiy is nice to have for sure, but it wont bridge a gap between a good or a bad build or an inexpierienced vs a veteran.
I bought the federation bundle because i liked the exelsior-ish design. My 5u Oddy was working just fine and i still like it looks and feel. Id take it into an elite stf any day.
But when i saw the bundle and the parts it comes with i needed to have them.
I bought it for the asthetics and because i love cruisers.
Do i feel they are Flagships? For a battlegroup or team, yes. Do they represent the Federation as a symbol of peace and exploration(with enought bite to deal with aggressors) like the Enterprise does? No, certainly not.
Those Command Battlecruisers are meant as teamleaders and support with enough firepower to be mostly independant of those it supports.
However it goes. Im pretty sure the Big E wont lag behind for long.
How so? Just because some of us believe that Starfleet is not an exploratory agency with defense aftertones? So because we believe in something different that makes us of less intelligence? Talk about the opposite of IDIC eh.
I never said less intelligent, but I agree that it is somewhat ignorant. Because what you think contrasts what was written before by the people developing the shows. So when you argue, for example, that all the people in the show just tricking themselves stating that Starfleet is not a military you are actually in error. They are right, because they were written that way. If your personal image of how it should be differs from that it's a diffeent animal entirely. But you are still factually wrong. Now one can discuss wether Starfleet was protrayed with growing militarism later on, it was most definitely, I won't fight you here - that however doesn't change the basis on which it was written and what was the mindset behind it's creation.
Don't bother. Bother angrytarg and shpoks, if past posting is any indication, have a strong anti-military bent, and a skewered perception of armed forces that doesn't jibe with reality. :rolleyes: (...)
My personal views aside I am deliberate to keep discussions about Star Trek as close to star Trek source material as I can. And that has a very clear stance on the topic. Like shpoks said, I will never fight you wether or not the stargate program is of military nature. But Star Trek has a different point of view on the matter and yes, I am aware that this is an odd stance in today's society. Society changed quite a lot. But that doesn't change Star Trek.
I am starting to draw that conclusion myself. Sadly, I thought/hoped much of the anti-military sentiment had gone away in the 80,s its still alive and well, especially the negative connotation of the personalities, and intellect of those who serve(d). Militaries don't need to be militant to do their jobs, even when its time to kill people and break things. I will say that at least Angrytarg is civil in his discussions, instead of just trying to shout the other person down, I can respect him for that.
Again, I am not trying to argue on a personal level. I have no problems with militaries in general. Militarism, however, does worry me. And yes I personally respect a man putting down arms more than one that starts a conflict - we all have our own background and experiences that shape our point of view and opinions. When we argue about Star Trek, though, than there is a very clear line - rodenberry or not, when the characters on the show say they are not military and they mean it then one has to wrap their heads around that concept, wether they like it or not. Thank you for voicing your respect towards me. I do respect everyone's opinion and stance wether or not I agree with it and I do try to not be disrespectful doing so. Well, granted, I can be in a bad mood. But other than that I try to behave
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I think the problem stems from few people understanding what the military actually does. I served in the US Navy for 11 years...5 of them onboard an Aircraft Carrier and I could tell you it's not all bombs and war.
Pre-9/11 we would deploy for 6 months...most of the countries we visited were diplomatic visits. Showing off the ship the public, meeting with local officials and press...then we'd go in the gulf and patrol the no fly zones....all of which are very Star Trek-like....
Other things we did was respond to distress calls, record and investigate weird weather and hazards to navigation. We'd all provide help and resources to nations hit with disaster. I have quite a few medals because we helped save people.
After 9/11 it was much of the same but with more action in the gulf.
also there are two usages for the word flagship:
1) The best ship in the fleet
2) The ship the admiral commands from
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I never said less intelligent, but I agree that it is somewhat ignorant. Because what you think contrasts what was written before by the people developing the shows. So when you argue, for example, that all the people in the show just tricking themselves stating that Starfleet is not a military you are actually in error. They are right, because they were written that way. If your personal image of how it should be differs from that it's a diffeent animal entirely. But you are still factually wrong. Now one can discuss wether Starfleet was protrayed with growing militarism later on, it was most definitely, I won't fight you here - that however doesn't change the basis on which it was written and what was the mindset behind it's creation.
My personal views aside I am deliberate to keep discussions about Star Trek as close to star Trek source material as I can. And that has a very clear stance on the topic. Like shpoks said, I will never fight you wether or not the stargate program is of military nature. But Star Trek has a different point of view on the matter and yes, I am aware that this is an odd stance in today's society. Society changed quite a lot. But that doesn't change Star Trek.
Again, I am not trying to argue on a personal level. I have no problems with militaries in general. Militarism, however, does worry me. And yes I personally respect a man putting down arms more than one that starts a conflict - we all have our own background and experiences that shape our point of view and opinions. When we argue about Star Trek, though, than there is a very clear line - rodenberry or not, when the characters on the show say they are not military and they mean it then one has to wrap their heads around that concept, wether they like it or not. Thank you for voicing your respect towards me. I do respect everyone's opinion and stance wether or not I agree with it and I do try to not be disrespectful doing so. Well, granted, I can be in a bad mood. But other than that I try to behave
While the core of Star Trek was supposed to be this future without conflict, darkness, everyone is equal to the point where there was supposed to be no enlisted because everyone is an officer, and so on. it veered away from that concept immediately within the Original Series itself. While Roddenberry tried to reinvent the concept for TNG, again, the series went away from it.
While you advocate that Starfleet is not a military, it is shown as a military. It does the exact same thing as our own military albiet differently. However, Starfleet is at its core the main defensive arm of the Federation and its main purpose is to defend the Federation. There are so many episodes where the Enterprise is pulled off an exploratory mission or a science mission in order to investigate a new threat. The Enterprise has been on many patrols whether its anti-piracy or Neutral Zone or DMZ, that is a pure military mission.
What you present as factual is actually your opinion of what Starfleet should do rather what was actually shown. Personally, it doesn't matter if they show the Enterprise exploring or patrolling or any other thing, as long as it is a good story, I'll enjoy it. In fact, I am one of the few that loved The Motion Picture because it started out as a very militaristic mission ending with a very opposite completion.
While the core of Star Trek was supposed to be this future without conflict, darkness, everyone is equal to the point where there was supposed to be no enlisted because everyone is an officer, and so on. it veered away from that concept immediately within the Original Series itself. While Roddenberry tried to reinvent the concept for TNG, again, the series went away from it.
I can see why you are saying this. I cannot say you are wrong, but most of what was shown was shown due to, well, show something It would be a boring show without conflict, yet when egnaged in conflict the message has always been to think and put the damn stick away. Besides, the utopian future was only concieved for Humanity on earth. Darker shades and conflict where everywhere else, even in human colonies. This was exploread even in the very first season of TNG (Tasha Yar, for example).
While you advocate that Starfleet is not a military, it is shown as a military. It does the exact same thing as our own military albiet differently. However, Starfleet is at its core the main defensive arm of the Federation and its main purpose is to defend the Federation. There are so many episodes where the Enterprise is pulled off an exploratory mission or a science mission in order to investigate a new threat. The Enterprise has been on many patrols whether its anti-piracy or Neutral Zone or DMZ, that is a pure military mission.
Yes, they do all of that but they are not a military. Starfleet is a concept that is fictious. It is 400 years in the future. It's not military nor civilian, it's "Starfleet". they do all of that but their very credo is exploration and broadening of knowledge while of course also defending the UFP. I am really sorry if I come around as stubborn, but it that concept so alien and hard to grasp? I don't mean to be disrespectful, really. And I do know that militaries today perform other duties except shooting. But the concept behind Starfleet is a different one.
What you present as factual is actually your opinion of what Starfleet should do rather what was actually shown. Personally, it doesn't matter if they show the Enterprise exploring or patrolling or any other thing, as long as it is a good story, I'll enjoy it. In fact, I am one of the few that loved The Motion Picture because it started out as a very militaristic mission ending with a very opposite completion.
Factually stated on screen "Starfleet is not a military. It's purpose is exploration." - you cannot fight that. It's said in the show. It was written this way. This is the truth in regards to that show. If you say "No, Picard is wrong" you are arguing against a brick wall.
Believe it or not, we are on the same side regarding the rest of your statement, however Even on TMP
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
"A flagship is a vessel used by the commanding officer of a group of naval ships, reflecting the custom of its commander, characteristically a flag officer, flying a distinguishing flag. Used more loosely, it is the lead ship in a fleet of vessels, typically the first, largest, fastest, most heavily armed, or best known."
- This was quoted from Wikipedia.
So basically, a "Flagship" is any ship that the fleet Admiral parks himself. It's not always the "best in the fleet". Just as Airforce One is any plane the US President happens to be on, even if it's a Piper Cub.
The argument that it has to be the biggest and best, is not always relevant.
I believe Star Fleet is a military organization but one we are not use to seeing. The biggest clue is that it fought in wars.
Star Fleet also focuses on exploration over conflict.
IMO TNG under GR took a very anti-military slant because of what happened to Star Trek when it was taken from him...specifically Star Trek: Wrath of Khan which he though was too militaristic.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
"A flagship is a vessel used by the commanding officer of a group of naval ships, reflecting the custom of its commander, characteristically a flag officer, flying a distinguishing flag. Used more loosely, it is the lead ship in a fleet of vessels, typically the first, largest, fastest, most heavily armed, or best known."
- This was quoted from Wikipedia.
So basically, a "Flagship" is any ship that the fleet Admiral parks himself. It's not always the "best in the fleet". Just as Airforce One is any plane the US President happens to be on, even if it's a Piper Cub.
The argument that it has to be the biggest and best, is not always relevant.
I based my comment on my years in the US Navy not on wikipedia.
In 1981 President Ronald Reagan gave the USS Constellation his presidential flag and designated it America's Flagship...which it remained until it was decommissioned. I believe the title went to another carrier.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I believe Star Fleet is a military organization but one we are not use to seeing. The biggest clue is that it fought in wars.
Star Fleet also focuses on exploration over conflict.
IMO TNG under GR took a very anti-military slant because of what happened to Star Trek when it was taken from him...specifically Star Trek: Wrath of Khan which he though was too militaristic.
They are combatants in a state of war and are the acting military, I will never doubt that. But they are technically more akin to a paramilitary organization in that regard. Post WW2 Germany had the "federal Border Guard" (doesn't exist anymore as it was absorbed by the Federal Police) which were a police force under the ministry of internal affairs, not the ministry of defense. But in case of an armed conflict (cold war and so forth) they were combatants and were equipped with military grade gear. Outside of that though they had civil jurisdiction. Starfleet is kinda like that.
Mind you, it's only my attempt to explain. We have no real life coutnerpart to Starfleet.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
They are combatants in a state of war and are the acting military, I will never doubt that. But they are technically more akin to a paramilitary organization in that regard. Post WW2 Germany had the "federal Border Guard" (doesn't exist anymore as it was absorbed by the Federal Police) which were a police force under the ministry of internal affairs, not the ministry of defense. But in case of an armed conflict (cold war and so forth) they were combatants and were equipped with military grade gear. Outside of that though they had civil jurisdiction. Starfleet is kinda like that.
Mind you, it's only my attempt to explain. We have no real life coutnerpart to Starfleet.
I agree...it's why I said it's a military but not one that fits to our current definitions of a military force.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I based my comment on my years in the US Navy not on wikipedia.
In 1981 President Ronald Reagan gave the USS Constellation his presidential flag and designated it America's Flagship...which it remained until it was decommissioned. I believe the title went to another carrier.
This wasn't intended to be a political debate, and you don't have to go to Wikipedia to read the same definition, as it is posted everywhere. Simply Google it.
This is the accepted, and established definition of what a "Flagship" is. We in the US, are not the only ones in the world, and naval history predates us by a few thousand years. Just trying to point out the obvious.
I based my comment on my years in the US Navy not on wikipedia.
In 1981 President Ronald Reagan gave the USS Constellation his presidential flag and designated it America's Flagship...which it remained until it was decommissioned. I believe the title went to another carrier.
There are a couple of "Flagships" in the Navy, none of them are the biggest and best. they are actually older Amphibs, that have been fitted with more command and control systems than weapons.
The traditional flagship, currently, is still the U.S.S. Constitution, it is a ceremonial title only.
The two actual main command ships are actually from the 70's. The Blue Ridge and the MT. Whitney.
Comments
and my T4U Vesta is far from obsolete. No she doesn't have what most T6's have, but she holds her own.
Defending The Galaxy By Breaking One Starfleet Regulation After The Next.
While the new CBC's are certainly better than the Ody stats-wise, the T5U Vesta is STILL better than the T6 Pathfinder as far as I can tell.
Oddly, the T5U Long Range Science Vessel Refit is also still better than the T6 Pathfinder. More hull plus an additional console.
Do you know if there is one for the TOS era?
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
You are completely right on the cruiser thing. The Constitution was designated a "Class I Heavy Cruiser" in the TMP era (not in dialogue) and cruisers were generally classified by their tonnage and mission profile. We had Cruisers, Star Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Light Cruisers in addition to Escorts and Frigates as well as "Attack Fighters". I think we didn't have "Destroyers". We had "Destroyer Units" but the centaur itself was not classified as a "Destroyer", only the function it fulfilled in that particular role. I might be mistaken, I admit I don't know, maybe someone can rehearse the dialogue of that episode? The heaviest and presitgious classes of ships were designated "Explorers", though (not in dialogue).
Never the less I am baffled that so many people make Starfleet's militarism it's primary role when it clearly isn't. Rodenberry made that very clear and this sentiment prevailed later on. What he and the shows also made clear, however, is something a lot of people don't want to understand: Just because it is not a classic military does not mean Starfleet is in any way shape or form underprepared, unable to fight, weak or foolish. It is a different mindset we have to wrap our heads around which was concieved in a time of real life war weariness. Today our society is as martialized and warmongering as it was 70 years ago - wether or not this is a good thing everyone has to answer for themselves. But naturally the concept of Starfleet doesn't go very well with that mindset.
What we can observe is that Starfleet is the primary space faring service of the UFP. They broaden the knowledge of the stars, scientific endavours, first contacts. Starfleet's credo is "Ex astris, scientia" for crying out loud. But as their vessels are at the edge of their space in the first place they naturally incorporate the military defense of the UFP and it's citizens in their mission profile which is also due to the fact that it is a service made up from all member worlds and species. This service substitutes for all previous militaries which guarantees the stability of the UFP and minimizes the risk of people breaking away and waging war on their own. A major point of star Trek is that Humanity (read: explicitly Humanity) is beyond militarism. The concept of military action and combat was revolting and barbaric not only to Picard but a lot of people in the shows - but they were still prepared for it. Picard was an excellent tactician if need arose but his preference of not fighting should not be confused with weakness. Are people really so blant not to see that? Do we really need to have the bigger stick and use it all the time?
Because Starfleet clearly had the bigger stick. But the message was not to use it. Starfleet ships were all armed and completely combat ready relative to their class because they would incorporate everything that would be necessary in space and that included defense. The Explorers were sent out on lengthy mission in unknown space on their own. How could anyone with a straight face call that "peaceful" and "pacifistic" when every second encounter they had was some semi-omnipotent being that wanted to murder your face? Seriously, if I hear that dung again that the Galaxy was not combat ready because "time of peace and blah blah" I'm going to TRIBBLE in someone's yard.
Starfleet does incorporate military functions and they use terms similiar to our present day militaries. But it is only a part of their duties. Every Starfleet member is trained for combat situations but they are more akin to minutemen in that regard. Just wrap your head around the fact that it is possible to have a powerful space faring force that is not hell-bent on dominating everything by said force.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Another player, skollfur I think has or had a signature that said "Comprehension on the STO forum?" with a pic from 'Dumb and Dumber'. Pretty much sums it up.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Not found one yet....
How so? Just because some of us believe that Starfleet is not an exploratory agency with defense aftertones? So because we believe in something different that makes us of less intelligence? Talk about the opposite of IDIC eh.
That PDF is a fan-made document not made with Okuda's input. The site is called asdb.net and it is a good site.
Don't bother. Bother angrytarg and shpoks, if past posting is any indication, have a strong anti-military bent, and a skewered perception of armed forces that doesn't jibe with reality. :rolleyes:
The last two posts just confirms this further, along with shpoks attitude that anybody who disagrees with his views, and despite using logic to state why, are somehow "less intelligent". :rolleyes:
I am starting to draw that conclusion myself. Sadly, I thought/hoped much of the anti-military sentiment had gone away in the 80,s its still alive and well, especially the negative connotation of the personalities, and intellect of those who serve(d). Militaries don't need to be militant to do their jobs, even when its time to kill people and break things. I will say that at least Angrytarg is civil in his discussions, instead of just trying to shout the other person down, I can respect him for that.
Very interesting post. Especially on the subclass idea. Would definitely solve the inconsistency of only 12 Constitution ships (something that was said somewhere during TOS, just don't feel like looking it up atm). So thank you for this, really interesting. Would still mean that the Enterprise was the second Constitution-subclass Starship.
Join the Deltas today!
No, because the creator of this IP made it pretty clear as to where he was comming from in terms of the evolution of Starfleet and the Federation. Even the infamous 'B & B' built upon that in ENT, that's why I love ENT - it displays the beginning of that evoultion into the Federation with multiple alien species and the role of Starfleet in the new organization.
Neither of those 'I's in IDIC stands for ignorance. Starfleet clearly fullfilled many roles for the Federation, including being the acting military of the Federation amongst many others. Roddenberry clearly made his point about his vision, but to some around here he was just a clown because his vision of the future doesn't fit their very narrow-minded version of reality. Mocking his vision because Starfleet wore "pujamas" and not camo. :rolleyes:
If someone is not accepting that the Oak in front of them is a tree and not the stripper pole they preferred and imagined - then that's their problem, and yes, potentially evidence of having less intelligence.
LMAO!!!
I don't have a "strong anti-military bent", however I'm bent against people trying to impose their vision on someone else's vision just because they don't happen to like it or agree with it.
If Gene imagined Starfleet as being full on military first, acting as a contemporary military in any.....let's say western country today, wearing camo uniforms instead of the "pujamas" you despise so much - I'd completely accept that. And I'd probably argue against the people who'd then be saying that Starfleet should wear "pujamas" and "Black & Decker dust busters" because it's the future.
I have no issues with Jack O'Neill being a U.S. military colonel, behaving like one and wearing the apropriate attire and using the apropriate equipment. On the other hand, you aparently have such issues in terms of this particular franchise.
It's not a thing of disagreeing or agreeing. It's about mocking the author of this franchise and trying to impose your views on his, when he is no longer with us.
But good luck with imposing your logic on a imaginary future sci-fi universe that spawned as a creative idea in someone else's head and only bound to follow the rules of their imagination.
I really don't know why I bother. Probably because it's maintenece time.
Some things are not recorded because of the populations attitude at the time such history is recorded
I know a little bit about Gene R and TOS star trek because I lived in that Era I watched the pilot episode Live on a 25 in black and white TV with rabbit ear antenna
Moses lived next door to me too
The late 60s was a terrible time for the military in the usa because of Vietnam and that is when TOS was created so the lack of military attention to Starfleet ships and crew was intentional and nessary for the time it was created or the show would have failed on the 3rd episode from anti military sentiment
very little calls to attention or saluting or overt military themes or military uniforms for Starfleet e the Bad guys Klingons romulans ect it was ok ...they were the bad guys !
Gene R lived thru this time and it imprinted on him forever making him anti military themed about star trek........In the 80s when star trek board games and PC games were being created he relented a little and we started seeing a more military side of star fleet
Again it was about the mood in the country and it was more trendy to do so than it was in 1967
That's why starships were not warships in TOS or were there Flagships in TOS
It was 1967 people, and the USA was a different place than what it is now...Very differnt
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Ive always said, if you give me some alternate hull options instead of the default beer belly it has, Id be willing to make a toon to fly one. Since Cryptic is desperate to sell ships, they could reintroduce the T6 Odyssey 3 pack, now with at least 2 MORE different saucers, necks, hulls, pylons, and nacelles. Make one variant nod more toward a bigger Sovereign and the other nod toward a bigger Excelsior.
Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
my 2 cents about the "Flagship" issue.
The Enterprise itself is still considered the "Flagship" in Starfleet terms. A Symbol for the best in the Federation. However that does not mean it is the best ship to lead a battle group.
The Oddy was built as the last word in deep space exploration and its certainly meant for that.
But the Oddy had bad luck, it was certainly designed in the decades before the war with the klingons wich unfortunatly that war broke out and then there is the trouble with the romulans, undines, tholians etc.
Considering its original mission the Enterprise pops up quite often in the game so it is definitly on the front lines of all those conflicts. However it may not always perform the role as the lead ship if a ship with more firepower is needed.
Still we dont realy know how the Big E is configured and how Shon and his crew improved on the design. It definitly has quite a bit of plot armor.
From a players view the oddy is outperformed by the new command cruisers.How much the margin is depends on how much use you can squeeze out of another boff power and those command abilities. And the Hangar.
That might be mitigated at some point as im pretty sure theyll update the old bundles like oddy, vesta, bortasque etc.
However as im used to the t5u tac oddy it is not a bad cruiser at all. a2b+bfaw3+ts3+apb1 is quite good for a cruiser. Its certainly no record breaker but even with phasers and torps and the 3 set installed for fun i usually got over 25k dps.
Those T6 abilities and traits are nice and give some boost but its not world changing. It feels a bit different, true, but it depends on how you use it.
An additional Boff abilitiy is nice to have for sure, but it wont bridge a gap between a good or a bad build or an inexpierienced vs a veteran.
I bought the federation bundle because i liked the exelsior-ish design. My 5u Oddy was working just fine and i still like it looks and feel. Id take it into an elite stf any day.
But when i saw the bundle and the parts it comes with i needed to have them.
I bought it for the asthetics and because i love cruisers.
Do i feel they are Flagships? For a battlegroup or team, yes. Do they represent the Federation as a symbol of peace and exploration(with enought bite to deal with aggressors) like the Enterprise does? No, certainly not.
Those Command Battlecruisers are meant as teamleaders and support with enough firepower to be mostly independant of those it supports.
However it goes. Im pretty sure the Big E wont lag behind for long.
I never said less intelligent, but I agree that it is somewhat ignorant. Because what you think contrasts what was written before by the people developing the shows. So when you argue, for example, that all the people in the show just tricking themselves stating that Starfleet is not a military you are actually in error. They are right, because they were written that way. If your personal image of how it should be differs from that it's a diffeent animal entirely. But you are still factually wrong. Now one can discuss wether Starfleet was protrayed with growing militarism later on, it was most definitely, I won't fight you here - that however doesn't change the basis on which it was written and what was the mindset behind it's creation.
My personal views aside I am deliberate to keep discussions about Star Trek as close to star Trek source material as I can. And that has a very clear stance on the topic. Like shpoks said, I will never fight you wether or not the stargate program is of military nature. But Star Trek has a different point of view on the matter and yes, I am aware that this is an odd stance in today's society. Society changed quite a lot. But that doesn't change Star Trek.
Again, I am not trying to argue on a personal level. I have no problems with militaries in general. Militarism, however, does worry me. And yes I personally respect a man putting down arms more than one that starts a conflict - we all have our own background and experiences that shape our point of view and opinions. When we argue about Star Trek, though, than there is a very clear line - rodenberry or not, when the characters on the show say they are not military and they mean it then one has to wrap their heads around that concept, wether they like it or not. Thank you for voicing your respect towards me. I do respect everyone's opinion and stance wether or not I agree with it and I do try to not be disrespectful doing so. Well, granted, I can be in a bad mood. But other than that I try to behave
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Pre-9/11 we would deploy for 6 months...most of the countries we visited were diplomatic visits. Showing off the ship the public, meeting with local officials and press...then we'd go in the gulf and patrol the no fly zones....all of which are very Star Trek-like....
Other things we did was respond to distress calls, record and investigate weird weather and hazards to navigation. We'd all provide help and resources to nations hit with disaster. I have quite a few medals because we helped save people.
After 9/11 it was much of the same but with more action in the gulf.
also there are two usages for the word flagship:
1) The best ship in the fleet
2) The ship the admiral commands from
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
The farthest back I could find was TMP era
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
While the core of Star Trek was supposed to be this future without conflict, darkness, everyone is equal to the point where there was supposed to be no enlisted because everyone is an officer, and so on. it veered away from that concept immediately within the Original Series itself. While Roddenberry tried to reinvent the concept for TNG, again, the series went away from it.
While you advocate that Starfleet is not a military, it is shown as a military. It does the exact same thing as our own military albiet differently. However, Starfleet is at its core the main defensive arm of the Federation and its main purpose is to defend the Federation. There are so many episodes where the Enterprise is pulled off an exploratory mission or a science mission in order to investigate a new threat. The Enterprise has been on many patrols whether its anti-piracy or Neutral Zone or DMZ, that is a pure military mission.
What you present as factual is actually your opinion of what Starfleet should do rather what was actually shown. Personally, it doesn't matter if they show the Enterprise exploring or patrolling or any other thing, as long as it is a good story, I'll enjoy it. In fact, I am one of the few that loved The Motion Picture because it started out as a very militaristic mission ending with a very opposite completion.
I can see why you are saying this. I cannot say you are wrong, but most of what was shown was shown due to, well, show something
Yes, they do all of that but they are not a military. Starfleet is a concept that is fictious. It is 400 years in the future. It's not military nor civilian, it's "Starfleet". they do all of that but their very credo is exploration and broadening of knowledge while of course also defending the UFP. I am really sorry if I come around as stubborn, but it that concept so alien and hard to grasp? I don't mean to be disrespectful, really. And I do know that militaries today perform other duties except shooting. But the concept behind Starfleet is a different one.
Factually stated on screen "Starfleet is not a military. It's purpose is exploration." - you cannot fight that. It's said in the show. It was written this way. This is the truth in regards to that show. If you say "No, Picard is wrong" you are arguing against a brick wall.
Believe it or not, we are on the same side regarding the rest of your statement, however
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
- This was quoted from Wikipedia.
So basically, a "Flagship" is any ship that the fleet Admiral parks himself. It's not always the "best in the fleet". Just as Airforce One is any plane the US President happens to be on, even if it's a Piper Cub.
The argument that it has to be the biggest and best, is not always relevant.
Star Fleet also focuses on exploration over conflict.
IMO TNG under GR took a very anti-military slant because of what happened to Star Trek when it was taken from him...specifically Star Trek: Wrath of Khan which he though was too militaristic.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I based my comment on my years in the US Navy not on wikipedia.
In 1981 President Ronald Reagan gave the USS Constellation his presidential flag and designated it America's Flagship...which it remained until it was decommissioned. I believe the title went to another carrier.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
They are combatants in a state of war and are the acting military, I will never doubt that. But they are technically more akin to a paramilitary organization in that regard. Post WW2 Germany had the "federal Border Guard" (doesn't exist anymore as it was absorbed by the Federal Police) which were a police force under the ministry of internal affairs, not the ministry of defense. But in case of an armed conflict (cold war and so forth) they were combatants and were equipped with military grade gear. Outside of that though they had civil jurisdiction. Starfleet is kinda like that.
Mind you, it's only my attempt to explain. We have no real life coutnerpart to Starfleet.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I agree...it's why I said it's a military but not one that fits to our current definitions of a military force.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
This wasn't intended to be a political debate, and you don't have to go to Wikipedia to read the same definition, as it is posted everywhere. Simply Google it.
This is the accepted, and established definition of what a "Flagship" is. We in the US, are not the only ones in the world, and naval history predates us by a few thousand years. Just trying to point out the obvious.
There are a couple of "Flagships" in the Navy, none of them are the biggest and best. they are actually older Amphibs, that have been fitted with more command and control systems than weapons.
The traditional flagship, currently, is still the U.S.S. Constitution, it is a ceremonial title only.
The two actual main command ships are actually from the 70's. The Blue Ridge and the MT. Whitney.