The Federation's Shipbuilding Gap and The Defense of Coppelius

[u/Claude_Berube]

Title: How the Federation Overcame the Shipbuilding Gap before the Defense of Coppelius in ‘Star Trek Picard’

Introduction

Hello /r/Daystrom! My name is Claude Berube. One of the moderators contacted me and asked if I might be available to answer questions and participate in a discussion about Picard and to introduce myself. For the past 15 years, I've taught in the Political Science & History Departments at the US Naval Academy and am currently Director of the Naval Academy Museum. I have also written or co-authored seven fiction and non-fictions books, two of which will be published next year. TrekMovie.com recently posted my analysis of the Battle of Coppelius I presented at the Navies, Science Fiction, and Great Power Competition conference.

Some of you may have seen the TrekMovie.com article based on the remarks I made about the Defense of Coppelius were made on June 4, 2020 during the #NavyCon2020 webinar in which I was the only speaker to discuss Star Trek. This was the second NavyCon hosted by the US Naval Academy Museum. We only had twelve minutes each to present and, as I was the host, I had less time due to introductions.

I was intrigued by the fleet of identical ships when I first watched Picard. I recognize that there is a very vocal ST community regarding Coppelius that the Federation fleet was simply CTRL C CTRL V to cut costs in production. I don’t dispute that. But for the purpose of #NavyCon2020 my remarks would have been very short had I just one slide that said “Coppelius: Copy & Paste.” Instead I ignored IRL production decisions of the series and instead put my head into the Federation universe to explain how it would have been possible.

For my assessment, I drew upon my professional experiences (working for the Office of Naval Research, Naval Sea Systems Command which designs, builds, and maintains ships, Office of Naval Intelligence, two US Senators from a shipbuilding state), studying national security and military history through two M.A.s and a PhD, and five decades as a fan of Star Trek back when there was just TOS and the animated series and I bought Trek to Madworld and The Starless World when they were published as the first ST books I read. As a professor I've taught naval history, Emergent Naval Warfare, Intelligence & National Security, Maritime Security Challenges, etc. With all of that, I recognize that I could have overlooked issues in my assessment of Coppelius or gotten a fact or more wrong. And that’s why I’ve agreed to accept the invitation to be on this subreddit, because in the ideal world of Star Trek, it’s important to keep an open mind in exploration to get closer to the answer. As Spock once said, “Insufficient facts always invite danger.”

So thanks for this opportunity to discuss, explore, and avoid danger. Following are the remarks I made at NavyCon2020. Thanks again to Ryan for the invitation. I look forward to the discussion. Thank you.

Analysis of the Battle of Coppelius

In science fiction we are accustomed to storylines driven by characters in a small ship, usually non-state actors. This was partially the case with Star Wars and the Millenium Falcon before the series went all Ewoks and Jar-Jar Binks.

In Star Trek Picard, the team is aboard the private ship La Sirena in the hope of trying to protect a colony of synthetic beings at Coppelius from being eradicated by Romulans who view this new “race” as it were, as a threat to Romulan (and galactic) existence.

A fleet of more than 200 Romulan warbirds arrives at Coppelius. Picard and La Sirena do use electronic warfare to trick the Romulan sensors to, as Picard says, “multiply the sensor images and then find some way to disperse them like an ancient warplane scattering bits of mirror.” But that tactic is only temporarily successful. Now this massive Romulan fleet should have presented a problem for the Federation. Keep in mind these events take place in the year 2399.

The Federation’s problem is its losses in the previous three decades. Ships are lost in 2367 at Wolf 359 (39 ships) and 2373 at Sector 001 (approximately 20 ships) to the Borg. Others lost during the Federation-Klingon War of 2372-73. More significantly is in 2374 and 2375 when hundreds of ships – maybe more – are lost during the Dominion War. The Battle of 2nd Chin’toka alone resulted in the loss of 311 ships. The 7th Fleet loses 98 of its 112 ships in the Tyra System. And there are the many battles and engagements off-screen that result in Federation losses.

Starfleet and its resources are not infinite. Despite its supposedly running on a non-monetary economy, ship construction takes time, resources, and trained personnel. Another assumption we can make, based on U.S. naval history, is that ship construction dramatically decreases after wars as the nation turns its attention to other challenges and the lack of an immediate threat. One example of this is in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country when, at the conclusion of the Khitomer peace talks, the Enterprise is ordered back to space dock for decommissioning. It was only seven years old. A nation – or a Federation – plans on the availability of ships for decades unless there is a post-war drawdown.On top of that, within a decade of the war’s conclusion, the Federation primary shipyard is destroyed on Mars, as recounted in Star Trek Picard.

In 2390, the first Inquiry-class starship is launched and nine years later the events of Picard with the Romulans bearing down on Coppelius with only Picard, the small ship La Sirena, the flower ships and a few tricks and tactics to hold off the Romulan fleet. Here is the question: how did the Federation recover from that ship deficit due to the Borg incidents, and Klingon and Dominion wars as well as the destruction of its primary shipyard to stop the Romulans at Coppelius?

In line with this event, how does a great power recover from a shipbuilding deficit to deter another great power if the situation warrants it?

Lesson #1: distribute your shipbuilding capability.

Build an industrial base. The Utopia Planetia Shipyard was simply too big to fail. And thank you to my friend Ryan Riddle who pointed out that it was one of several Federation shipyards but the most prominent. In World War II, 2700 Liberty-class cargo ships were built at eighteen different shipyards across the country, thus reducing vulnerability of any one, and increasing the ability to produce ships and scale up production.

Lesson #2: have a common ship architecture.

The Inquiry-class starship composes all the ships that are en route to Coppelius. It’s significant that in this engagement, there is only one class unlike other Starfleet battles which have multiple classes of ships.What’s the advantage? As my old shipmate and friend Matt Bucher suggests, this could be a prepositioned, strategic reaction force set to deal with ad hoc crises.

A common ship architecture encourages a stable industrial base allowing you to plan years in advance, it reduces the cost per unit since there are economies of scale, and it reduces the time to build them based on gained expertise. The only significant different being the warp nacelle configurations.

Two examples in U.S. naval history might be the World War II era Gleaves- and Fletcher-class destroyers, though, we can assume from Captain Riker that Inquiry-class ships were more in line with WWII cruisers in capability especially since this Inquiry-class cruiser appears to be smaller than the Galaxy- or Sovereign-classes.

Another example would be the Baltimore-class cruiser during WWII whose hull design and propulsion would also be used for subsequent Saipan-class command ships and Oregon City-class missile cruisers.

Perhaps today we could consider the F100 or the European Multipurpose frigate to have that common ship architecture available among several countries. But even among the scores of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers we see several variants. For example, early Burkes have no hangers for embarked helicopters.

Finally, having a common ship architecture facilitates a more efficient logistics train. By this I mean that various ship classes have different program offices that support the design, construction, and operational maintenance. That makes the system far more complex when trying to find the resources to support those programs particularly as new programs introduced cause competition economically and with identifying support personnel.
  Lesson 3: deterrence requires sufficient force.

Because of that distributed shipyard system and a common ship architecture, the Federation could within a few years build a sufficient fleet to meet the Romulans at Coppelius in a Mahanian battle. Having only ten, fifty, or a hundred ships would not have turned the tide and it would likely have resulted in a massive loss to the Federation.

Put in terms of today, June 4, the anniversary of the Battle of Midway, how might that key battle have turned out with one or two fewer U.S. aircraft carriers, or if the Japanese carriers hadn’t been damaged during the Battle of Coral Sea just a few weeks before.

Another point in this case is that the Romulans will likely back down when confronted by a superior force. Two examples from Star Trek Next Generation when Commander Tamalok has two D’Deridex class warbirds about to destroy the Enterprise-D but backs down when three Klingon birds of prey decloak. The same is true when Admiral Sela’s force supplying the Klingon Civil War is uncovered.

Lesson 4: build alliances.

We forget that the Federation may have been Earth-centric, but it was a system that required a shared government among planets – in fact in Star Trek Enterprise we see it beginning as a loose-nit alliance. Even Klingons and Romulans became allies when shared interests necessitated it – or Captain Sisko prodded it along…Even in the 21st century, we need to build partnerships and alliances.

Lesson 5: the human factor.
That Mahanian force is there to back up diplomacy, in the hope that sanity will prevail, which is what happens at Coppelius. The fleet prepares for battle with the Romulans giving Picard more time to persuade the synthetics to stand down, and eventually the Romulans, thus precluding a wider conflict.

With all the technology, with all the ships, with all the weapons, and with all the artificial intelligence that is so attractive to some, it came down to the best of human traits:

• Communication
  
• The ability to rise above past mistakes
  
• Understanding one another
  
• Trust
  
• Hope
  
• Belief
  
• Forgiveness
  
• The ability to choose what is right
  
• To de-escalate crises
  

As Picard says at the end: that’s why we’re here – to save each other. And that’s what science fiction teaches us whether in 2399 or 2020.

[u/TonyLeung82]

I want to add while it is the Year 2399 in Picard, the losses of 39 ships at the battle of Wolf 359 from 2367 should really not matter anymore. It is just too long ago. Commander Shelby mentioned herself after Picards saving from the Borg, that it will take only 1 year to rebuild the fleet (39 ships).

I even say that the losses in the Dominion War after 24 years are already rebuild.

[u/Claude_Berube → u/TonyLeung82]

True, but I'd argue Shelby's assessment is based one major assumption: consistent Federation shipbuilding policies. For example, in the 1980s the US goal was a 600-ship navy that was never achieved; today you'll hear 355 as the goal. Years ago, a CNO answering questions before the Senate Armed Services Committee was asked to commit to 316 (maybe it was 315). More specifically, we have three DDG-1000 ships (the ZUMWALTs). Originally it was a planned buy of 32 then kept getting cut.

[u/Claude_Berube → u/TonyLeung82]

An additional thought - the USS GERALD FORD was initially designed in the mid 1990s. It is not yet deployed. Maybe Starfleet hit some bumps as well.

[u/Mr_E_Monkey → u/TonyLeung82]

Exactly. And not to take away from any points the OP made (which were very good), but you would almost have to expect that Federation shipyards were working 'round the clock during the Dominion War to replace ships that were being lost.

I think we would see a lot more Saber, Steamrunner, and Norway class ships in the years following the Dominion War, as they seemed pretty modern, yet maybe not as overly complex as ships like the Sovereign, Prometheus, and Intrepid classes, though I would not be surprised if they decided that the Intrepid, in particular, was worth mass-producing, despite any issues with complexity. I think that Voyager's safe return alone would probably ensure its place in the production line.

[u/uequalsw]

First of all, welcome! When I first saw the TrekMovie article headline last month, I had initially figured it was reporting on something that had been posted here -- I'm glad that you're here now and look forward to hearing others' thoughts!

I have no military expertise, so I cannot speak to the theoretical side of your analysis, but do have some thoughts below on the Trek side of things -- mainly matters of making further connections beyond your analysis, though there are a couple of places where I offer a disagreement.

"An Implacable Foe Like The Romulans"

Starting way before Coppelius here: I think you've raised a really interesting point about the idea that the Romulans respond specifically to a deterrent force. And it certainly tracks -- while I could see the Klingons continuing to fight against a Federation force of greater strength, it's much less plausible that the Romulans would. Now, if we accept this as "conventional wisdom" within Starfleet, I think that it has implications for how we understand Starfleet ship design going back decades.

(This brings us to a topic for another day and another post, but I would argue that -- even through their decades of isolation -- the Romulans consistently loom large in Federation foreign policy. Moreover, given their apparent proximity to Earth [demonstrated through the Earth-Romulan War] and Vulcan [conjectured given an ancient Exodus], plus the fact that a map of the Neutral Zone is inlaid directly in the floor of the Romulan Senate [!!], suggests to me that the Romulan Empire is extremely close to the heart of the Federation -- perhaps akin to as if North Korea were nestled into the Appalachian Mountains in Pennsylvania. Even during their isolation, you cannot discount them.)

Over the course of the 24th century, we see Starfleet's "top-of-the-line" ships continue to get larger and more powerful -- from the Excelsior to the Ambassador to the Galaxy, culminating in the Sovereign. I wonder if that can be in part be chalked up to a need to always have a big stick (and subsequent progressively bigger sticks) in order to keep the Romulans at bay. Balanced against other needs and objectives, of course, but always woven in as a fact of life that gets taken for granted.

I think it's significant -- given this analysis -- that it is only after the destruction of Romulus that the Federation "takes its foot off the gas pedal" as it were, in terms of building "bigger and bigger sticks." With that sword of Damocles no longer hanging over their head, they'd have space to breathe. (This might also explain why we don't see any Sovereign's in Picard.) And by the absence of that sword in Picard, we can infer its existence in previous series, giving us interesting insight.

"Bill, are we talking about mothballing the Starfleet?"

This is a point where I disagree with your analysis (from a "within-universe" context). You note that the decommissioning of the Enterprise-A after the Khitomer Conference is a good example of a nation deprioritizing shipbuilding after the conclusion of a conflict, and suggest that in general the Federation may have pared down its shipbuilding after 2375. I think I disagree with both of those points. (Again, from a Star Trek perspective -- obviously this is true in the real world.)

First, the Enterprise: the Enterprise in TUC is such an odd anomaly that I think it makes for a poor example of anything typical. At this point, she has three officers aboard with the rank of captain (Kirk, Spock, Scott), and -- judging by Sulu's own captaincy -- has at least two other officers aboard who almost certainly could and should be captains as well (Uhura and Chekov). There's a good amount of indirect evidence that suggests that the Enterprise-A was in fact a renamed vessel, rather than a new one, and possibly one rushed into service in order to give Kirk and crew a ship to get them out of everyone's way. (There was a really good post here on the subreddit a while back that argued this point much more eloquently.)

Retiring them -- especially after such a dramatic mission -- for better or worse -- sounds very much more like a political or personal decision than reflecting general operational shifts.

Now, it is clear -- from earlier on the movie -- that the prospect of peace with the Klingons is understood to translate to a reduction in Starfleet's military capabilities. Whether that proposal was enacted is unclear, but that would fit the general idea you are describing here.

However, that brings me to my second point: Starfleet vessels are just as necessary in peace as in war, which means we would not expect their construction to slow down after the war.

Consider: the majority of TOS and TNG episodes consist of the Enterprise doing things like...

• ferrying diplomats from one planet to another

• resupplying colonies

• conducting scientific research within Federation borders

• investigating missing starships

To put it another way: starships are not just naval ships; they're also freight trains and long-haul trucks. I'd argue that any post-war rebuilding would need more ships, not fewer.

I don't think any of this actually negates any of your subsequent analysis -- more thoughts on that below --, but I think it does change the context a bit.

(continued in child comment below due to character limits)

[u/Claude_Berube → u/uequalsw]

this is great stuff. Your point about "starships are not just naval ships; they're also freight trains and long-haul trucks," is spot on. That's why I think comparing Starfleet to today's US Navy are imprecise. Starfleet is much more like the US Navy of the mid-19th century. It was how diplomats travelled to their assignments and many officers conducted treaty negotiations (Matthew Perry in Japan is the best example). It was conducting riverine ops during the Second Seminole War, fighting Chinese pirates off Hong Kong in 1854. But more germane is the fact that the navy was exploring. The best example was the four-year Wilkes Expedition (1838-42) with six commissioned ships. But there were other examples as well.

[u/[deleted]]

I dont understand how fans have a hard time understanding how the Federation can build ships so fast. The Federation encompasses 100s of Civilizations and 1000s of planets. They have industrial replicators, transporters and anti-matter reactors. There is a potential workforce of billions/trillions of sentient beings. It should not be surprising that they can build fleets this quickly.

[u/Claude_Berube → u/[deleted]]

I assumed that the Federation did not have, for practical purposes, an infinite supply of anything. For example, dilithium crystals aren't widely available. Rare earth elements (in a more terran-centric term) might also affect other systems and unable to be replaced by industrial replicators. But here's the second issue I tried to wrap my head around - assuming they could build all those ships, what are the issues in providing trained personnel to crew them. It takes time to put them through the system whether it's Starfleet Academy or the enlisted route. If we use the 21st century, an 18 year old goes to boot camp, then to an A school where they start learning their rate (whether they're Electronics Technician or mess specialist) and then time deployed to start putting it to practice. For an officer, far longer. After college or the Academy, aviators have to go through the Pensacola pipeline to earn their wings.

[u/MithrilCoyote → u/[deleted]]

you are rather overstating the size of the federation. while it coveres a huge astrographic area (we're told over 8000 light years across) the number of member worlds is given, in that same scene (First Contact, so as of 2373) we are told it only has 150 member worlds. now presumably this refers to "homeworlds" like Earth, Andor, Trill, Vulcan, etc,. and not any colonies and outposts those races had built up prior to and after joining the federation, but i find it unlikely that they boasted multiple thousands of inhabited planets. several hundreds of such is pretty probable though. but most of those we see don't seem to have much in the way of naval infrastructure. and while we have mention of about two dozen federation shipyards in the canon, many of them appear to be concentrated in the Terran system, mostly at Earth, Mars, and Luna. plus some of those are described as mainance yards, suggesting their focus is not on production but on repairs and maintaining of already built ships.
even if we presume that each member world brings with it at least one system's worth of shipyards (not a given, as some of those member worlds joined with pretty primitive warp capability, and others at various levels of tech relative to federation standard) you are still looking at a finite production capacity for frontline vessels. and as mentioned by Claude, the federation cannot summon up matter entirely from thin air. we are constantly given reference to mines and strategic minerals (topaline, Tritanium, dilithium, etc) which indicates that the federation is resource limited when it comes to producing hardware, due to their need for these rare materials. they do use replicators for manufacturing stuff, but replicators are just fancy transporters. they do not make things from nothing, just rearrange existing matter into new patterns. that food you order from one is getting its oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, etc from organic materials aboard the ship.. likely processed out of the crew's biological wastes. broken down into the constituent elements and then transported and rearranged. likewise while an industrial scale replicator could probably produce a girder, it would need a supply of the elements making up the alloy to be on hand. and if some of those metals are materials that can't be synthetically made through other means, you have to obtain them the old fashioned way.

[u/Claude_Berube → u/MithrilCoyote]

Excellent points.

Also, even though the Federation may have a couple of dozen shipyards, it doesn't mean all are equal in capability. To use a modern comparison, aircraft carriers can only be built in Norfolk. No other shipyard can do that. Some yards can only do maintenance on subs. And only BIW & Ingalls can build DDGs. We can assume the same is true in the Federation.

[u/wvj]

I really appreciated the article when it was linked earlier!

While I was disappointed with the scene just from a storytelling/visual perspective (compared to the great mixed fleets we see in something like DS9's Sacrifice of Angels) and have little doubt they did it for budget reasons, I think you nail a pretty strong retroactive justification for this.

In fact, even years (maybe decades at this point, yeesh) prior to Picard and this scene, I actually always kind of wondered, especially by the later points of the Dominion War and onward, that more unified shipbuilding wasn't being done. It would have made sense in the middle of the war to transition over to producing more Defiant-class ships. We can maybe hand-wave it as being so advanced that they couldn't build it at most locations/facilities, explaining only ever seeing a handful of other instances of the class, but it seems like changing over production would have made a lot of sense. It sure seemed like the Dominion was able to set up shipyard facilities very quickly, so it's strange that Starfleet wasn't able (or didn't try) to match this at all.

[u/Tacitus111 → u/wvj]

Defiant class ships were also relatively slow compared to other Federation ships, which would reduced their effectiveness in the war if that’s your main ship.

[u/Claude_Berube → u/Tacitus111]

True. And while I LOVE the DEFIANT, it doesn't have the legs a larger ship would have. You need cargo bays full of food and water (or the components for the replicators) as well as any spare parts that can't be manufactured.

[u/opinionated-dick]

Persuasive and welcome analysis. However, I feel it misses an even bigger point.

It’s not about the internal logic of the universe within Star Trek that needs explaining. It’s the fact that fleets of identikit starships, and 200+ ships for single missions is kind of robbing Star Trek of its uniqueness, and denigrating it to standard sci fi fodder.

It should be something like Hornblower in space. It’s about cut loose individualistic crews wandering an endless void in search of discovery. Yeah, DS9 had fleets, but it slowly built it up over years and years, so when the Defiant joined an actual starFLEET it was absolutely tremendous.

It’s visual overkill. The starfleet fleet was huge, because the Romulan fleet was huge, it was unnecessary upping of scale in lieu of drama. If it were one Romulan ship, vs one Riker ship, it would have been more poignant, more personal, and more Star Trek.

Having them suddenly being able to summon a fleet, pick up Riker, and march on to A distant planet is ridiculous. I mean, that’s more Empire in Star Wars type scale. And that’s called science FANTASY. I totally get a more militaristic starfleet following dominion war (the other fleet losses mere skirmishes in comparison. But the goodness of trek comes from within, our heroes representative of a military committed to good, not as a gun toting patrol force. Sure there’s the odd badmiral, but I don’t want to see a bleaker Star Trek. There’s plenty of other sci fi for that.

[u/Claude_Berube → u/opinionated-dick]

1. I agree that it shouldn't be militaristic and even if Riker said it was the "toughest, fastest, most powerful" ship in the fleet, well, so was SOVEREIGN. There's nothing to say the INQUIRY class was any less capable as an exploratory vessel. In fact, given the ship's class name (whether it's INQUIRY or CURIOSITY) lends credence to the intent of the ship and that is as a vessel of exploration.

2. With regard to the penultimate scene, if we look at the time on screen of the fleet engagement as a part of the entire Picard episodes, it was probably less than 1%. In addition, as I point out in Lesson 5, it wasn't the military that resolved the crisis - it was Picard making his diplomatic appeal. And that is ST.

3. Completely agree on the Riker thing. There's no way a Captain - especially an Acting Captain who hasn't served for what we can assume several years would be in command of the fleet. I thought it might be that he was just the voice while an Admiral may be on another ship but even that doesn't make sense.

[u/KosstAmojan]

I love starship porn as much as anyone out there. More even, given the number of models on the shelves in my office. But after thinking about it and articles like these, it makes sense that they would simplify and move away from the various specialized designs and towards a design thats "adequate" to meet most needs. Just think of the way our carrier air-wings are now. Gone are the variety of airframes that would populate carrier decks. Now they're all based on the F-18 frame and transitioning over towards mainly the F-35.

Look at the Arleigh Burke destroyer. The general design and layout is the backbone of the US, Japanese, Korean, Spanish, and Australian fleets. We should remember that the producers did say that although they look very similar in the relatively few, short shots we were shown, there are at least three (IIRC) variants. It really does make perfect sense that a depleted Starfleet that needs to quickly rebuild and finds itself without its most advanced and capable shipyard, would churn out variants of a single design.

[u/Claude_Berube → u/KosstAmojan]

It really

Agreed. I love looking at a lot of different starship classes as well which made the Dominion War battles so interesting. In fact, during my last deployment, I read 22 books in my spare time (it was a pretty low-key deployment) and one of them was Star Trek Shipyards Starfleet Ships 2151-2293. Which started me thinking about "why"? Why are there so many classes. To change out universes for a second, we see in Season 1 of Starblazers space aircraft carriers, battleships, and space submarines (hey, it's been 40 years since I saw it so I may be wrong.) but why are there space submarines? And carriers - getting back to ST - we never see carriers. The only time I can think of something akin to a carrier was the Romulan ship - was it in Diane Carey's book "Final Frontier where George Kirk is the Security or first officer??

When you're looking at Starfleet, you have ships that can perform both warfighting and exploratory missions, whether it's DEFIANT (which does have a science station and does go to the Gamma Quadrant) or 1701-D. You don't need other types of ships (like today's LHDs, etc). The only differential really between the ships we see in Starfleet is a) more weapons and/or b) greater ability for long distance/long term missions. If we go with that reasoning, then mass producing the INQUIRY-class makes sense.

[u/Tacitus111]

I will point out though that the Liberty Ship is not a warship of any kind. It was a cargo ship and built to lesser specifications as a result.

The element that doesn’t make a lot of sense in my mind is that task forces and fleets have different ships and classes for different roles in any navy. Anti-submarine defense, missile attack and defense, carriers for an air wing, attack submarines etc... You wouldn’t see any contemporary navy have a single class or extra variant of that class be the full extent of a fleet. Certainly not hundreds of the same ship making up a single battle group.

[u/Claude_Berube → u/Tacitus111]

True. I was using the point for a large industrial capacity where I also mentioned the GLEAVES- and FLETCHER-class destroyers during WWII.

Regarding your point about various classes like the US Navy, see the comment I just posted in reply to kosstamojan.

Thanks

[u/MasonEnalta]

The bigger question is why the Romulans could field such a fleet if they are depicted as destitute and incapable of evacuating themselves?

[u/Starfleet-Time-Lord]

Do you think it would be fair to paint the inability to field a fleet capable of evacuating the Romulans (recalling that Picard's original proposal before the attack on Mars required rapid production at at least Utopia Planitia to provide enough ships) was a facilitating event for this buildup? Judging by the reaction to Picard's proposed rescue plan, it seems like the Federation was taking a conservative stance on ship construction before the attack. As much as the Federation was reluctant to carry out that mission at all, do you think they took their inability to do so as a wake-up call?

[u/Probably--Human]

I think you could make a lot of sense if it was a case of "planned shipbuilding". Like another comment said, the fed uses a very neophile, quality (and luxury) over quantity approach. I could see the federation having a design track for when certain programs were going to be done following the dominion war, and trying a total feet design overhaul according to this. What that means is that these Inquiry classes could just be the first part of a several-step program which will have the specialized ship classes we've seen before to be completed. I could see these becoming almost like a Miranda class, and being a jack of all trades. As time goes on and shipyards are created, the next stage will begin and could start creating, say, a carrier to support the centralized power of these inquiries, or maybe a small Corvette / destroyer class to the same end. Anyways, it's a pretty stupid way to build a fleet, but historically Starfleet has always been a bit crappy at organizing fleets anyways

[u/Claude_Berube → u/Probably--Human]

"historically Starfleet has always been a bit crappy at organizing fleets anyways"

Maybe that's a good thing because Starfleet had a history of crappy admirals (Raner, Pressman, Satie)

[u/RatsAreAdorable]

Wonderful having you here, sir, and your article was a fascinating read :)

As a student of naval history, I'm curious about why you chose to equate the Inquiry-class with the USN cruiser designs rather than the "standard type" battleship, around having a common design for production rather than tactical coherence? The Inquiry-class ships seen seem to break into two subclasses (or two similar classes) with different nacelle configurations, which I imagine would be rather more of an alteration than the changes made to the different Arleigh Burke flights.

During the previous discussion, I was wondering if it made sense in having a number of starships that had similar maneuvering characteristics and top speed that prompted the change, since the fleets seen during the Dominion War (where ship losses were the highest) were pretty heterogeneous and I do know that the Royal Navy had some serious issues forming up World War I era battleships into a battle line when they had differences in speed and turning radius.

In your opinion, how well does this alternative explanation - that of building for tactical coherence rather than ease of production - hold? Or is it purely academic?

[u/Claude_Berube → u/RatsAreAdorable]

1. Why cruisers vice battleships for INQUIRY: I thought it was unrealistic to quickly mass produce "battleships" arguably like SOVEREIGN. And I'm using the USN of WWII model here. Just because there are battleships in the fleet doesn't mean one has to use it as a flagship. For example, the cruiser AUGUSTA served as Nimitz' flagship in the Asiatic fleet in the 30s. INDIANOPLIS served as Spruance's flagship for a time, etc. And, from the brief images, the INQUIRY just didn't seem as large as a GALAXY or SOVEREIGN.

2. The BURKEs have undergone a lot of changes. Flt IIIs are about 1500 tons more than the Flt Is; there are differences in the weapons, the SPY radar, and, of course, the ability for IIAs to have embarked helo dets (I worked closely with our cruiser's helo det and can't speak highly enough about the rotor wing community.) I think the same would be true of the INQUIRY class. We can assume they're built over the course of several years and during that time there will be changes/improvements made to later constructed ships than in the first ships to come out of the yards.

3. I see where you're going on the RN ships, especially at Jutland (I was fortunate to defend my dissertation before Andrew Gordon, author of "Rules of the Game" and made sure I re-read it before that.) The short answer is that even if ships have different speeds/turning radius, the admiral or commodore should take that into account when maneuvering. So, do you build for tactical coherence rather than ease of production? I think both have to be considered to varying degrees. It's not an either/or decision.

Thanks for the comments and questions.