Possible Defense for Enterprise

[Mark]

I was watching the wretched insanity of "Regeneration", starring the Borg....two hundred years before they were discovered. And I've found a defense for the insanity of B & B's timeline destrction.

Hypothisis: The series of "Enterprise" doesn't take place in the original timeline. It takes place in the Abramsverse timeline.

Fact. The original timeline was distorted by the Borg incursion in First Contact.

Theory. That attack spurred humanity to a more militaristic attitude, thus developing the Phase pistol, rather than the Laser, as well as designing the "Photonic Torpedo" decades before they originaly did. This press for new defensive tech is what led to the Kelvin having a TMP era deflector, as well as never before seen point defense systems. Thus the split of the Abramsverse took place well before the arrival of old Spock. This would also explain the reasons the timeline was so distorted in Ent seasons 1 and 2

[Vic]

This would mean that the Temporal Cold War is happening across multiple timelines not just one. So do the various Temporal Agencies exist in the various timelines or just one and operate in those various other timelines?

[Mark]

This would mean that the Temporal Cold War is happening across multiple timelines not just one. So do the various Temporal Agencies exist in the various timelines or just one and operate in those various other timelines?

If they are jumping around in time, they would kind of have to be working from multiple timelines......wouldn't they?

[Atekimogus]

It is a sound theory but it basically falls under wishfull thinking eg. how could we rationally explain Enterprise away and pretend it never "really" happened.

Also it was rather clearly mentioned that the focuspoint for the abrahmverse was the arrivel of the narada so I don't think Enterprise happened in the abrahmverse BUT considering the episode with the thousend E-Ds from multiple universes you are free to put Enterprise in any of those not belonging to the prime-universe and you have probably multiple excuses to do so. First Contact for example is a good one.

That said, altough it bugged me for a long time, watching Enterprise now I realize that it isn't really the badly done depiction of the pre-tos time that bugs me, no it really is how everyone acts like a jerk. Archer is a jerk, vulcans are jerks, every alien is a hostile jerk, the chief engineer is a stupid jerk, really you got the impression they only build this ship to send earths greatest jerks to where no man has gone before and good riddance.

[Mark]

But the jerks kept coming back.

My biggest problem with the explanation that the Narada is what screwed up the timeline is this.

The USS Kelvin had a navigational deflector dish that was 30+ years too advanced WHEN IT FIRST ENCOUNTERED the Narada. I've not been able to resolve that in my head.

However, assuming that the Borg incursion led to the technical push that everybody theorized the Naradas incursion did. Then the tech seen on Enterprise could have easily led to the nEnt.

Remember, the Narada's appearance was Spocks theory. He's not often wrong, but occasionally........he is.

[Captain Seafort]

I agree, but there's a lot more evidence than just the Kelvin's deflector. The big one is the size of the neoE (no pun intended) - it's over ten times the size of the E-nil, and bigger than a GCS. There's no way the mere appearance of the Narada could have boosted Starfleet's shipbuilding abilities, let alone by enough to have produced a ship of such size. This is reinforced by the fact that the Kelvin herself is bigger than the E-nil, despite being a mere survey ship. That's pushing credibility if she existed in that form in the original timeline, but not if the timeline had already been altered.

[Mikey]

This would mean that the Temporal Cold War is happening across multiple timelines not just one. So do the various Temporal Agencies exist in the various timelines or just one and operate in those various other timelines?

Why would it mean that? There's no evidence of the Temporal Cold War in the TOS - TNG - DS9 - VOY timeline, so why would Mark's explanation need for it to occur there?

[Atekimogus]

I agree, but there's a lot more evidence than just the Kelvin's deflector.

A agree, the deflector does look like an TMP style deflector. But then if you turn off the blue light it would pretty much look like a TOS deflector, so maybe we shouldn't be to harsh on TOS limited special effects. True, it is a hint though.

The big one is the size of the neoE (no pun intended) - it's over ten times the size of the E-nil, and bigger than a GCS. There's no way the mere appearance of the Narada could have boosted Starfleet's shipbuilding abilities, let alone by enough to have produced a ship of such size. This is reinforced by the fact that the Kelvin herself is bigger than the E-nil, despite being a mere survey ship. That's pushing credibility if she existed in that form in the original timeline, but not if the timeline had already been altered.

Well, that is assuming that the sole factor limiting ship size is the technological knowledge of a certain culture. Altough it is without a doubt a factor I think for cultures traveling faster than light the decisions about how big a ship needs to be is more guided by the function it is supposed to fullfil and less because of technological limitations. For example, the UFP surley has a similar tech-level as the romulan empire - I would guess they are pretty ahead of them, but that would be another discussion - yet the biggest ship they build is a GCS compared to the almost twice as long warbird. Considering the spacedock from STIII onward it seems that massive scale construction is not the problem so maybe the kelvin is not a shipclass, but one of her kind built for a very specific reason and therefore bigger than ships before and after her.

[Captain Seafort]

Well, that is assuming that the sole factor limiting ship size is the technological knowledge of a certain culture. Altough it is without a doubt a factor I think for cultures traveling faster than light the decisions about how big a ship needs to be is more guided by the function it is supposed to fullfil and less because of technological limitations.

True, but the fact remains that even in the mid-late 24th century Picard was in awe of the size of the E-Din "Farpoint". True, his previous command was an obsolete heap of junk, but it should be assumed that as an experienced officer he wouldn't be in awe of a ship well within Starfleet's capabilities over a century earlier - which it would have been if the neoE, bigger than a GCS, had been possible in the Geneverse.

For example, the UFP surley has a similar tech-level as the romulan empire - I would guess they are pretty ahead of them, but that would be another discussion - yet the biggest ship they build is a GCS compared to the almost twice as long warbird.

Which is evidence that, in some respects at least, Romulan shipbuilding techniques are superior to those of the Federation.

Considering the spacedock from STIII onward it seems that massive scale construction is not the problem

Agreed - the problem is probably one of moving the thing, and enabling it to withstand the stresses of high-g manoeuvring. There might also be issues related to the size of the warp field that would need to be generated.

maybe the kelvin is not a shipclass, but one of her kind built for a very specific reason and therefore bigger than ships before and after her.[/quote]

[Atekimogus]

True, but the fact remains that even in the mid-late 24th century Picard was in awe of the size of the E-Din "Farpoint". True, his previous command was an obsolete heap of junk, but it should be assumed that as an experienced officer he wouldn't be in awe of a ship well within Starfleet's capabilities over a century earlier - which it would have been if the neoE, bigger than a GCS, had been possible in the Geneverse.

Not necessarily, because regardless of construction capabilities the GCS still was the largest starfleet ship ever built and what is more she was far from a common sight at the time of the "Farpoint" mission. How many were around at that time? About three? (Galaxy, Yamato, Enterprise?) Save to say not many personell had seen one at that point, most of them still used to excelsiors, mirandas, ambassadors etc...

Also I am quite sure that most people would be incredibly awed if they today saw a blimp the size of the Hindenburg hovering over them. It is something the haven't seen in their lifetime and altough you know that in the past such huge airships where built you still would be awed. The same could be true for Picard.

Which is evidence that, in some respects at least, Romulan shipbuilding techniques are superior to those of the Federation.

Or could be evidence that Romulan shipbuilding techniques are inferior to UFP ones needing that much more space to create a competitive vessel. (Ditl rates a Warbird around the strength of a GCS and I agree, one on one they never seemed to have a clear advantage)
Or maybe they are so big because they are also needed to fullfill many additional roles to a much greater degree than the GCS. Having such a huge bird flying around with an exclusevly military role with no mayor war going on seems incredible wastefull imho.

Agreed - the problem is probably one of moving the thing, and enabling it to withstand the stresses of high-g manoeuvring. There might also be issues related to the size of the warp field that would need to be generated.

Agreed, that might be a problem.

[Captain Seafort]

Not necessarily, because regardless of construction capabilities the GCS still was the largest starfleet ship ever built and what is more she was far from a common sight at the time of the "Farpoint" mission. How many were around at that time? About three? (Galaxy, Yamato, Enterprise?) Save to say not many personell had seen one at that point, most of them still used to excelsiors, mirandas, ambassadors etc...

Exactly my point - the GCS was something exceptional. If they could have built something even bigger a century earlier, at the height of the Cold War with the Klingons, and with the Romulans stirring from behind the Neutral Zone, then why didn't they? Excelsior was considered something special, even without transwarp, and she's only a fraction the size of the neoE.

Also I am quite sure that most people would be incredibly awed if they today saw a blimp the size of the Hindenburg hovering over them. It is something the haven't seen in their lifetime and altough you know that in the past such huge airships where built you still would be awed. The same could be true for Picard.

For your average person, fair enough. For Picard to be awed by the E-D if Starfleet had been building ships that size for decades, would be as ridiculous as a US Navy officer of decades being awed by a supercarrier. His reaction is more one I'd expect from the first CO of the Forrestal.

Or could be evidence that Romulan shipbuilding techniques are inferior to UFP ones needing that much more space to create a competitive vessel. (Ditl rates a Warbird around the strength of a GCS and I agree, one on one they never seemed to have a clear advantage)

I said superior in some respects. I.e. they can build bigger ships - while modern technology generally focusses on increasing performance while maintaining or decreasing the size of something, superior size is also an indicator of technological ability.

Or maybe they are so big because they are also needed to fullfill many additional roles to a much greater degree than the GCS. Having such a huge bird flying around with an exclusevly military role with no mayor war going on seems incredible wastefull imho.

1) You can have an exclusively military design while still performing many roles - look at the US supercarriers' and assault ships' roles in disaster relief for example.

2) It might seem wasteful in peacetime, but not having them would be a good way to risk loosing a war. Take the supercarriers for example, or nuclear ballistic missile subs.

[Atekimogus]

Exactly my point - the GCS was something exceptional. If they could have built something even bigger a century earlier, at the height of the Cold War with the Klingons, and with the Romulans stirring from behind the Neutral Zone, then why didn't they? Excelsior was considered something special, even without transwarp, and she's only a fraction the size of the neoE.

A good point altough the reason why they didn't build bigger ships might be because of the dogma of that time. Large ships - even though powerful - could have been viewed as inflexible, evenmoreso because they needed to guard against enemies on more than one fronts. And of course it might be because larger ships are more a symptom of peaceful times because the risk loosing one is to great and you be better of with more smaller ones during war time. Isn't it said that during an all out ww2 war even supercarriers wouldn't fare very well and sooner or later the navies would switch to submarines?

For your average person, fair enough. For Picard to be awed by the E-D if Starfleet had been building ships that size for decades, would be as ridiculous as a US Navy officer of decades being awed by a supercarrier. His reaction is more one I'd expect from the first CO of the Forrestal.

True of course, but my point was more that starfleet didn't build such huge ships for decades. Maybe they build only a view at the very beginning of the UFP - like the kelvin - because they needed such big ships to overcome technological difficulties of that time and a few breakthroughs allowed them to minimize the ships for years to come as seen in the prime universe.

It might seem wasteful in peacetime, but not having them would be a good way to risk loosing a war. Take the supercarriers for example, or nuclear ballistic missile subs.

True but then I would imagine that those big ships are docked somewhere most of the time and not burning fuel during joy-rides but I admit that is not my field of expertiese:).

[Captain Seafort]

A good point altough the reason why they didn't build bigger ships might be because of the dogma of that time. Large ships - even though powerful - could have been viewed as inflexible, evenmoreso because they needed to guard against enemies on more than one fronts. And of course it might be because larger ships are more a symptom of peaceful times because the risk loosing one is to great and you be better of with more smaller ones during war time. Isn't it said that during an all out ww2 war even supercarriers wouldn't fare very well and sooner or later the navies would switch to submarines?

There are advantages to building large numbers of smaller ships rather than a few big ones, but for the great powers that can only ever be an issue of fleet balance, not one of neglecting to build any big ships at all. While flexibility is important, raw firepower and protection is also important, and for that the bigger the ship is, the better - they can carry bigger weapons, more of them, and protection can be better both in absolute terms and as a fraction of their total mass.

True of course, but my point was more that starfleet didn't build such huge ships for decades.

Because they were incapable of doing so, just as Earth was incapable of building Yamato-sized battleships during the late 19th century.

Maybe they build only a view at the very beginning of the UFP - like the kelvin - because they needed such big ships to overcome technological difficulties of that time and a few breakthroughs allowed them to minimize the ships for years to come as seen in the prime universe.

You're treating great size as a disadvantage. This is true in some circumstances, but not for battleships, and especially not space battleships.

True but then I would imagine that those big ships are docked somewhere most of the time and not burning fuel during joy-rides but I admit that is not my field of expertiese:).

On the contrary - they spend a great deal of their time forward-deployed showing the flag and being on-hand in case of a regional emergency, and much of the remaining time preparing for such deployments. Or, in the case of ballistic missile subs, cruising somewhere in the ocean maintaining the deterrent.

[Atekimogus]

There are advantages to building large numbers of smaller ships rather than a few big ones, but for the great powers that can only ever be an issue of fleet balance, not one of neglecting to build any big ships at all. While flexibility is important, raw firepower and protection is also important, and for that the bigger the ship is, the better - they can carry bigger weapons, more of them, and protection can be better both in absolute terms and as a fraction of their total mass.

Good points supporting the theory that they were not capable of building bigger ships but what about the possibility naval agreements between the super-powers of the Kirk-era? That could be one reason why the most promiment ships were heavy cruisers or later even battle-cruisers, as the klingons once refered to the Enterprise. (Isn't a battlecruiser basically a pocket-battleship, with similar armament but less armor? Would fit to a scenerio where tonnage is limited by naval agreements.)

You're treating great size as a disadvantage. This is true in some circumstances, but not for battleships, and especially not space battleships.

That is true the a degree and stems largely from my viewpoint that altough star trek is very close to naval wars the ships work very differently imho. There seems to be the common assumption that bigger is better (which I support) because you could fit more weapons on the frame which I think is not an issue because you could probably fit the whole outside of a ship with phaser emitters which would do nothing if you cannot power them.
If you have ship like the GCS with enough emitters that you have a comfortable headroom even considering future warp core upgrades (operating under the assumption that having two large scale warpcores is unpractical for some reason) then I see no reason why you would build the ships any bigger (from a military point of view) except they need to fullfill certain other functions.

So altough Starfleet COULD probably build larger starships prior to the GCS they didn't, especially in the Kirk era because from a military pov there was nothing to gain BUT there could have been bigger more specialized ships been around like the odd Kelvin on long term survey missions lasting a few years with no outside support.

On the contrary - they spend a great deal of their time forward-deployed showing the flag and being on-hand in case of a regional emergency, and much of the remaining time preparing for such deployments. Or, in the case of ballistic missile subs, cruising somewhere in the ocean maintaining the deterrent.

Well good to know. My assumption stemed largely from the old Starfleet Command games were it was stated that the heavy cruiser type ship was the most economical, with dreadnaughts and battleships so costly to operate that they hardly are ever deployed by the respective empires and are mostly drydocked.

[Captain Seafort]

Good points supporting the theory that they were not capable of building bigger ships but what about the possibility naval agreements between the super-powers of the Kirk-era? That could be one reason why the most promiment ships were heavy cruisers or later even battle-cruisers, as the klingons once refered to the Enterprise.

There's no evidence of any such agreements.

Isn't a battlecruiser basically a pocket-battleship, with similar armament but less armor? Would fit to a scenerio where tonnage is limited by naval agreements.

Not quite - "pocket battleship" is simply a press term for the Deutschland/Lutzow-class heavy cruisers, which was never used officially. Battlecruisers do indeed have similar armament but less protection than battleships, but they do it in order to improve speed, and tend to be larger than contemporary battleships, not smaller.

That is true the a degree and stems largely from my viewpoint that altough star trek is very close to naval wars the ships work very differently imho. There seems to be the common assumption that bigger is better (which I support) because you could fit more weapons on the frame which I think is not an issue because you could probably fit the whole outside of a ship with phaser emitters which would do nothing if you cannot power them.

It's not simply a matter of hull area, but of magazine capacity and size of weapon. The greater the internal volume of the ship, the more and/or bigger reactors it can hold, and the more reactants, either for the warp core(s) or torpedoes. The more massive the ship, the greater the recoil it can absorb, and therefore the bigger the weapons it can mount (don't forget that even weapons firing massless particles have recoil). The reduced surface area-volume ratio of a bigger ship also means that it can mount thicker armour for the same fraction of it's mass.

If you have ship like the GCS with enough emitters that you have a comfortable headroom even considering future warp core upgrades (operating under the assumption that having two large scale warpcores is unpractical for some reason)

An assumption that is disproven by the fact that Voyager had two warp cores visible on its MSD, and that the E-E didn't have any problems leaving the Briar Patch in Insurrection after ejecting and blowing up its warp core.

So altough Starfleet COULD probably build larger starships prior to the GCS they didn't

There is, however, no evidence that they could build bigger ships, and plenty of evidence that they couldn't.

My assumption stemed largely from the old Starfleet Command games were it was stated that the heavy cruiser type ship was the most economical, with dreadnaughts and battleships so costly to operate that they hardly are ever deployed by the respective empires and are mostly drydocked.

Other than the obvious statement that games are non-canon, they're also a pretty poor method of judging the abilities of the universe they're based on, as their main objective is player enjoyment, not consistency with the source.