What if the Lakota-type had been approved for production?

[Mark]

Ok, you guys have made some excellent points. I'll concede that pulling ships off the line to upgrade may not have been the best plan.

However, how many of those upgrades could have been implemented in the "field"?

[Deepcrush]

Ok, you guys have made some excellent points. I'll concede that pulling ships off the line to upgrade may not have been the best plan.

However, how many of those upgrades could have been implemented in the "field"?

The QTLs could be done in the field. However the problem seems to be that number of QTs available for use. Phasers could be changed out, one at a time. However in wartime you wouldn't want a section of your ship shut down from use.

Nonetheless, the fact that the Dominion was in a position to take a world near the heart of the Federation shows that the Fed's situation was still somewhat precarious. If it had been something they could have shrugged off it wouldn't have pushed Sisko to resume his machinations to draw the Romulans in. I'm not saying it put the Feds in as serious a position as they were in before 2nd DS9, but it certainly wasn't something they could ignore

Fair points.

[Panzer]

So in February 1942, when Japan was still unstopable by our forces, the US knew it would never be over run and could afford to take the Tennessee offline for repairs/upgrades?

Repairs to the Tennessee were finished by February '42 - she only went in to dock for her big refit after Midway, when the IJN had been reduced to a shambles, and the allies were on the offensive in the Solomons. Thanks for proving my point

Not quite chief. Big refit = Lakota upgrade, repairs/minor upgrades = what I've suggested.

Using a couple of quotes from NavSource:

Tennessee (BB-43) at the Puget Sound Navy Yard on February 1942. Note that her cage-mainmast has been removed and that her 5-Inch guns have received splinter shields.
The time to replace the mainmast was taken due to the fact that the ship had to have her main battery regunned; if it hadn't been for that, she would have had her mast cut down in a similar fashion to that of the Maryland (BB-46) and Colorado (BB-45).

Still basic pre-war config, just minor upgrades and repairs to make it more effective until...

This view from dead ahead shows how the additional blisters to Tennessee's (BB-43) sides were added during rebuild in 1942-43 were faired into the bows.

Major refit to make it way more effective. Same as a full Lakota upgrade.

it's resources and man-hours

I'm not saying those should be ignored, but SF has never showed those to be issues. But the ships force could be used to help complete the upgrades (if NX-01's crew can install cannons in a couple hours it can't be that hard...) during repairs/supplying/etc to make it happen.

[Captain Seafort]

Not quite chief. Big refit = Lakota upgrade, repairs/minor upgrades = what I've suggested.

Minor upgrades are far more difficult on a starship than on a modern vessel - you can't simply lower stuff into place and bolt it on, you have to cut holes in the hull to install them, and then reseal it. Unless you need to do major structural work anyway to repair the ship, this is too resource-intensive to be applied to any ship that comes in.

it's resources and man-hours

I'm not saying those should be ignored, but SF has never showed those to be issues.[/quote][/quote]

Evidence? Apart from the obvious fact that both are finite, and therefore adding them to one job will prevent them from being used on another, we have solid evidence that it takes time to build ships - it was expected to take the best part of a year to get the fleet back up to strength after Wolf 359. A mere thirty-nine additional ship on top of normal replacement. I'd expect wartime rates to be somewhat higher, but they were also losing far more ships during the war.

But the ships force could be used to help complete the upgrades (if NX-01's crew can install cannons in a couple hours it can't be that hard...) during repairs/supplying/etc to make it happen.

Installing components that were part of the ship's original design, and were evidently designed to be disassembled and reassembled while under weigh , is a different kettle of fish to installing major new systems.

[Lighthawk]

You know, I'm rather surprised at how against the idea of upgrading a ship while it's under repair everyone is. I'm not going to say every ship should have been upgraded, or that upgrading a damaged vessel should have been standard proceedure, but I can't imagine that it just wasn't done at all.

In responce to the first arguement, about man power. Yes, if a given base/outpost is currently using all availible, including the ship's crew, personal on repair work, then worrying about upgrades is silly. But I can't imagine that every base and outpost through the entirety of the war was constantly running at full capasity on repair work. Certainly there had to be times when a ship would put in for repair at a base/outpost that had some people to spare for upgrade work. And I know what the likely counter arguement will be, that if they had extra people with nothing to do, they should have been doubling up on the repair work. Well maybe yeah, but you can't always do that. There is a limit to how many people you can put on a given task, before issues like cooridnation and simple space limitations makes it detremental to keep putting more people on the job. It's like saying " If I can fix my car in ten hours alone, then ten people should be able to fix my car in an hour." Only it really doesn't work that way. You really can't get that many people under the hood of a car without them bumping into each other. Plus some repairs have to get done before others, and some repairs involve testing parts and running the engine and all sorts of things that can get in the way of what others are doing even if they're not under the hood, but working on something else. Yes, during the worst part of the war, I'm sure most bases/outposts were running their repair crews triple shifts just to keep up, but I doubt that was the norm throughout the entire war.

The second big arguement is against wasting supplies on upgrades that should go to repairs. This might be a personal opinion, but I hardly see making a ship more capable then it is as a waste. A more powerful ship is less likely to be damaged and need repairs than a weaker ship, to a degree. I think you're getting more out of your parts using them to buff a ship up, so that maybe it only needs minor repair work after every engagement, rather than major repair work after every fight. Upgrade a ship and it stands a better chance of surviving a battle, so you don't need to replace it with a brand new ship that takes months to finish, instead a few weeks repair and it's back in the game. Also, I doubt every base/outpost would have a complete supply of every part for every type of ship in the fleet. Supplies can run out, especially for older models with outdated equipment. If an Miranda gets it's torp launcher blown off, and puts in for repairs and the base doesn't have that model launcher, I doubt the repair crews tell them " Well tought break, no torps for you." More likely they bust out a newer model that they do have on hand and make it fit, whatever they need to do.

Again, I'm not trying to say every ship should have been upgraded every time they put in for repairs, but flat out saying that it would be a waste of time and supplies to even consider it is rather silly to me.

[Mikey]

I, at least, haven't been arguing against the idea of simple upgrades that could be performed in the course of more typical repair work; if, for example, a phaser system needs to be gutted, then I agree that it makes sense to replace it with a better system. The problem stems when that upgraded system needs to be accompanied by a revamped power supply, etc., etc.; thereby turning a 2 week repair into a 6-week upfit. When you are at war, a greatly upgraded ship means exactly squat if it's in dock instead of on the lines. As we were discussing a Lakota-type upfit, that type of layover was what I was directing my arguments against.