The potential for refits

[Mikey]

First let me say f**k you for misquoting what I said. Or just plain out lying about what I said. Either way doesn't matter to me.

It wasn't a quote, it was a paraphrase - and a correct one. If you wnat to chicken-shit your way out of what you said, then you'll have to do a better job of it then accusing me.

The New Orleans class was seen 8 years before the Akira class. That should be easy, even for a mod.

I know I'm assuming too much, but you can read reg numbers, right? You saw the new Orleans class in a situation where the wreck of an Akira may or may not be seen. Proves nothing to me.

You have two ships, one that is 8 years older with a primary armament of PTLs. Now 8 years later you have a newer ship with a primary armament PTLs. The difference between the two is size and ability.

And role. Or perhaps this is where you're going to say that the primary armament determines the role, and then cry about how stupid we are for thinking that you said that primary armament determines the role.

If a ship built around PTLs is meant for a different role then another ship built around PTLs. Then tell me what the difference is. You still haven't managed even that much.

This all started because I defined separate roles. You began to shout because someone disagreed with you. Can't remember that far back, eh? I think it was maybe half a day or so. Don't tell me I "haven't manage even that much" if I have and you choose to ignore what's been said to try and convince yourself of your own argument.

Context, I haven't met a person here who can even read let alone get the idea of context. What is the advantage of PTs over phasers in trek...? Think range... then take ships that are built mostly around PTLs instead of phasers. That gives you a ship meant in mind to fight at long range. Same f***ing point as I started with that you just can't seem to wrap your head around.

So, again you say that similar primary armament means similar primary role. Yet you correctly decried the idea that in WWII (for example) a Gato-class and a PT boat had differnet roles. Difference must be in number of torpedoes, sustainability of fire, and endurance of the vessel. (Lord, where have I heard that before?) Pick which of the two contradicting arguments you want to make, and stick with it.

A.) if you could read worth a s**t I wouldn't have to repeat myself so much.

You can repeat something with no basis in fact as much as you want - that doesn't make it true.

B.) cheap or expensive is based on materials not money. Which ship is made up of more material with more complex parts? Thats the more expensive one. We had a debate like this when I first joined this site and I think you were even the one pointing this out.

More material? Akira, sure - more common material and more standardized tech. The Defiant is the one with pulse phasers, with QT's with ablative armor, with never-before-seen shuttlecraft, with a power generation system giving it a higher power-to-weight ratio by orders of magnitude, etc., etc. If the Defiant used the exact same standard of materials and tech as the Akira, you'd have a point. But it doesn't, and you don't.

New Orleans class.
a.) built in a time of peace where SF didn't want to look like it was going to threaten anyone.
b.) built in a time when SF was more looking to explore vs fight.

Akira class.
a.) built with the mind of fighting a war.
b.) built with the idea of a possible uber enemy coming.
c.) most likely part of program to replace the old ass cruisers that SF had been stuck with.

More germane to the fact that they had two disparate (sorry, Deep - that means "different") design intentions than it is to your weird assumption.

[Deepcrush]

EDIT! I had an insult here but its not really needed since at the bottom I'm asking Mickey to restart with me at the beginning.

It wasn't a quote, it was a paraphrase - and a correct one. If you wnat to chicken-s**t your way out of what you said, then you'll have to do a better job of it then accusing me.

A paraphrase... right, that would explain a lot about DITL policy. If its a mod, its not lying, it's a paraphrase. Because I put in a long drawn out idea that a PT Boat (who's main source of fire power is 6 .50 cal machine guns) is the same thing as Seawolf Class SSN. OH you're so good....

EDIT! Another crack about mod's. Though be it deserved, not needed with the restart.

Now, if you were to say... that I compared an SSN to a SSBN through similar external design ideals but somehow missed the change in overall design purpose. That would have been ok. But, you came back a match between a 30 foot boat and a football field length submarine... So, that leaves you as a walking joke.

I know I'm assuming too much, but you can read reg numbers, right? You saw the new Orleans class in a situation where the wreck of an Akira may or may not be seen. Proves nothing to me.

Right, good call. Because we know that the reg numbers are perfect for figuring out canon deployment times right...? Oh, wait, they're not! Nevermind... So sorry, would you care to try again?

And role. Or perhaps this is where you're going to say that the primary armament determines the role, and then cry about how stupid we are for thinking that you said that primary armament determines the role.

Oh cute, he's trying to insult someone. One problem. You mixed up role and armament. Role isn't determined by armament. Armament is determined by role. You have a purpose and you build a ship fit that. With your line of thought, you'd have to build a ship and then hope you found a role that it was perfect for. That would be a very bad idea. Unless you're GWBush. Because for him it was a great plan to bring the USA to it's highest pride...

P.S.
I do like how you're on a great role for avoiding any posting of evidence to say the ships are in fact different in their intended use while still crying that they're different. That's great... Good to see you learning from your fellow mod's. Go team work!

This all started because I defined separate roles. You began to shout because someone disagreed with you. Can't remember that far back, eh? I think it was maybe half a day or so. Don't tell me I "haven't manage even that much" if I have and you choose to ignore what's been said to try and convince yourself of your own argument.

Yeah, ok, sure... we'll go with that. Where is your evidence that the Akira is not in the same role as the New Orleans? Refresh my memory if you please. If I did in fact miss something. Then I'll give out a huge apology for everyone to see. I'll even make a thread for it! That and type it out in HUGE letters for everyone. Wouldn't be the first time I jumped the gun to quickly. We all know I like to bash people. Not so much because someone disagreed with me but they did or said something stupid. Like say, "Armor is obsolete for ground troops but makes sense on packing crates" or something along those lines. Whatever floats your fancy.

So, again you say that similar primary armament means similar primary role. Yet you correctly decried the idea that in WWII (for example) a Gato-class and a PT boat had differnet roles. Difference must be in number of torpedoes, sustainability of fire, and endurance of the vessel. (Lord, where have I heard that before?) Pick which of the two contradicting arguments you want to make, and stick with it.

Right, again you don't try to prove me wrong. You just yell out that you don't understand it. That's good, no really, that's great.

You can repeat something with no basis in fact as much as you want - that doesn't make it true.

Right, awsome counter debate there. Say I'm wrong and then jump to the next line without any support what so ever. Hell, don't even say what I'm wrong about. Because if you did, you'd have to support it.

More material? Akira, sure - more common material and more standardized tech. The Defiant is the one with pulse phasers, with QT's with ablative armor, with never-before-seen shuttlecraft, with a power generation system giving it a higher power-to-weight ratio by orders of magnitude, etc., etc. If the Defiant used the exact same standard of materials and tech as the Akira, you'd have a point. But it doesn't, and you don't.

HU SA! You said something that wasn't a dodge! I'm so proud of you! I'm not using quote box for anything below so that no one gets confused as to which topic we're still working. I didn't want to break up the above quote because then it would seem to easy to slip out of context. Just bare with me on this.

"More material? Akira, sure - more common material and more standardized tech."

Ok, first off why don't you tell the class what tech is being used in the Akira? Same with the materials. That would be good. Now, in truth, I agree that the Akira would be made out of more common tech and materials. Though for me its because of role and I'm not sure why you say so, so I just won't. But still, what tech and materials is the Akira class made from?

"The Defiant is the one with pulse phasers, with QT's with ablative armor, with never-before-seen shuttlecraft, with a power generation system giving it a higher power-to-weight ratio by orders of magnitude, etc., etc."

Well, QTs is right. That is a more advanced system. I won't debate that.

However... Shuttlecraft? Not really a ground breaker. Pulse phasers? Again not a huge deal, they were using these in TOS and TOS-Ms. Power generation system. Maybe, or maybe its that they let the WC dump straight into the pulse phasers (i'd guess rather then using a charge up system like we see with most phasers). Kira pointed this out to Tom Riker right before he stole the Defiant. These ideas could be more of a throw about. Do they or don't they make a ship more difficult to produce vs a ship three times their size? Maybe, no joke or insult here. It's very possible. But, where is the support of this? I'm a big SW, B5 and 40k junky but with ST not so much. I may have missed something that ties this all together and destroyers my thoughts on this whole matter. If so, please do point it out.

The only part of this that was off was the "higher power-to-weight ratio by orders of magnitude" comment. When Kira was speaking to Tom Riker (Pretending to be Will Riker) the were comparing the Defiant to Riker's ship ie the E-D. Now, giving the Defiant as much credit as possible. Kira's comment of a 30% boost from the WC power dump would make the Defiant's forward battery 130% of a type X. No where near where you've placed it but still far above that of an Akira.

More germane to the fact that they had two disparate (sorry, Deep - that means "different") design intentions than it is to your weird assumption.

Oh man, you were doing so well above... Then you just tripped. You see, whenever you want to insult someone you have to first state that they were wrong. Then say why in your opinion they are so. This would then be followed by support (ie canon/evidence). Once you have done this proceed to rip apart their idea into little bits and pieces. All the while using your evidence to tell them why each piece is so pathetic and wrong. Once you've made a good stomping and bashing of the person's thoughts. Only then can you follow in with the killing blow of insults.

You've missed almost all of these. Granted you are new to the idea of bashing someone and its a real talent to be able to break a person down. A talent that I was born with to much excess. Though I'd trade it in a heart beat for some fucking math skills. I mean what a fucking joke. I can land a hit at 100m within a 5m blast but I couldn't figure out the math of it to save my life. Which is something they say we should be able to do! Such is life. My friend Kurt, he just looks at the angle and range and BOOM, he just knows. I hate him so much!

Now that we've begun to fall into the circle of insults... maybe we should just restart the debate. Fresh and new.

Starting positions were...

Deepcrush -

New Orleans - 5 PTLs and 3 visible Phasers. Small ship but with a large PT output. Safe bet puts it as a missle ship. Stand back and blast away.

Akira Class - Upgraded (in the replacement sense) version of the New Orleans. 15 PTLs and 3 known phasers. Though larger and with a superior PT armament. Seems a natural step up when dealing with a war time SF. Much like how submarines have grown in size over time yet the most basic mission stays the same. Sure, they pick up extra tasks now but still that same old gul in the end.

Defiant Class - I say its cheaper. Ablative armor, was added later and not part of the orginal product run. QTs, ok this would be costly. Though, in order just to be equal to the Akira's cost. Each QTL would have to cost 5 times as much as a PTL. Possible but a big big reach. Power from its pulse phasers. 30% better then a single type X. Akira still has 3 type Xs. Crew of 50, thats only a fraction of the crew of an Akira. Truth be told while there are things that are more costly pound for pound on the Defiant vs the Akira. There really isn't any reason to believe that a Defiant class ship is more expensive then the Akira.

Mikey - (I won't speak for you so if you'd please just fill out below.)

New Orleans -

Akira Class -

Defiant Class -

[Captain Seafort]

A.) DITL has it green listed as a source. Unless you have something to say otherwise.
B.) DITL has it green listed as a source. Unless you have something to say otherwise.

Prove it. Not "state what colour it's in on DITL". Either state the episode in which the mass of these ship's was stated, and provide the exact quote from the script (shouldn't be too difficult - they're on TrekCore and ST Minutiae) or concede the point.

C.) If the UFP doesn't use money then what do they count for value? Don't think to hard, burst that last brain cell and you'll be totally worthless rather then just mostly worthless.

Quantity of material is part of the cost. Not all of it. How difficult is it to produce that material, in terms of energy, man-hours, and workforce training? How difficult is it to design the ship, or develop the electronics it uses, in terms of man-hours and workforce training?

An F-22 has an unladen weight of less than 20 tons, and has a unit cost of about $138 million.
A C-130J has an unladen weight of over 34 tons and has a unit cost of about $62 million.

A bit over half the weight, more than twice the cost, which fucks up your assumptions pretty emphatically.

[Deepcrush]

Prove it. Not "state what colour it's in on DITL". Either state the episode in which the mass of these ship's was stated, and provide the exact quote from the script (shouldn't be too difficult - they're on TrekCore and ST Minutiae) or concede the point.

Since when do you care about where you read something? But whatever...

You're right, no where in any ep did we hear them say weight. So we'll go with sight from Message in a Bottle where we had a pair of Defiants next to an Akira. Akira was far far far larger then both of the Defiant's combined. Easy enough to guess that the ship being far larger uses more material to build. As for the two sites you have listed. Never heard of them so I don't know if they count for anything. So I won't use them here.

concede the point

This coming from someone who's had an entire Trade Mark against him is just funny to me...

Quantity of material is part of the cost. Not all of it. How difficult is it to produce that material, in terms of energy, man-hours, and workforce training? How difficult is it to design the ship, or develop the electronics it uses, in terms of man-hours and workforce training?

Right, roll your eyes to something already covered and pretend you just hit gold. Bravo... You have proven yourself as good as any mod could hope to be. Not saying much really but its still something.

An F-22 has an unladen weight of less than 20 tons, and has a unit cost of about $138 million.
A C-130J has an unladen weight of over 34 tons and has a unit cost of about $62 million.

A bit over half the weight, more than twice the cost, which fucks up your assumptions pretty emphatically.

Not really as one is a cargo plane and the other is the most advanced stealth fighter in the world. Other then being able to fly and having people on board they really don't have much in common. Much like Mikey not knowing the difference between a PT boat and a submarine. At what point do you just catch on that a life like your's really just isn't worth living...

So... again... we have...
A cargo plane is different then an advanced fighter.
A big ship is bigger then a smaller ship.
And a guy who can't concede even when a fellow mod tells him he's wrong what's me to concede about the above.

The joke that is this forum's leadership is still setting such a high standard.

[Captain Seafort]

You're right, no where in any ep did we hear them say weight. So we'll go with sight from Message in a Bottle where we had a pair of Defiants next to an Akira. Akira was far far far larger then both of the Defiant's combined.

Volume =/= mass. I'd have thought that even you would understand that.

Easy enough to guess that the ship being far larger uses more material to build.

Wrong. Obviously if the average density of the two ships were the same that would be the case. Prove that the Akira and Defiant have the same average density, despite the fact that the Akira's multiple rows of windows imply a similar design philosophy to typical Starfleet ships, with large rooms and a badly perforated main hull, while the Defiant clearly isn't, with small rooms, narrow corridors and a mostly windowless hull.

As for the two sites you have listed. Never heard of them so I don't know if they count for anything.

Since you're apparently too thick to use Google I'll help you out a bit.

ST Minutiae - I've even gone to the right page for you. If you want to claim those masses as fact, go through those scripts and quite the relevant passage, with a reference to the episode(s) you found them in.

Right, roll your eyes to something already covered and pretend you just hit gold.

Covered where exactly? If it's lurking somewhere in your walls of bullshit then kindly repost it without your usual hyperventilating and foaming at the mouth. Flaming only works if you're using it to accentuate a point, otherwise it simply obscures what little point you might have.

Not really as one is a cargo plane and the other is the most advanced stealth fighter in the world.

Given that the Defiant is Starfleet's first purpose-designed warship and the Akira, being older, therefore isn't one, I fail to see how pointing out that they're different types of aircraft helps your case at all. That's the whole point - different types of aircraft (or starship) have different costs per unit of mass or volume.

[Reliant121]

Flaming only works if you're using it to accentuate a point, otherwise it simply obscures what little point you might have.

It also adds nothing of value, and I believe starts erring into the caution stage. I can deal with insults and flames if it is used as punctuation, or the person is actually being a complete and utter stupid dick. I see neither side being a complete and utter stupid dick.

[Deepcrush]

Volume =/= mass. I'd have thought that even you would understand that.

Since I never said they were equal I'm glad you added yet another meaningless reply. Thank you very much.

Wrong. Obviously if the average density of the two ships were the same that would be the case. Prove that the Akira and Defiant have the same average density, despite the fact that the Akira's multiple rows of windows imply a similar design philosophy to typical Starfleet ships, with large rooms and a badly perforated main hull, while the Defiant clearly isn't, with small rooms, narrow corridors and a mostly windowless hull.

Again, I never said they were of the same density. Another meaningless add in.

Since you're apparently too thick to use Google I'll help you out a bit.

I said I don't know about the sites value. Not that I wasn't willing to look for something. Yet another meaningless add in. You're so good at that.

ST Minutiae - I've even gone to the right page for you. If you want to claim those masses as fact, go through those scripts and quite the relevant passage, with a reference to the episode(s) you found them in.

I already said those masses weren't fact. They were just the best guess I had seen. What is your problem with reading?

Covered where exactly? If it's lurking somewhere in your walls of bullshit then kindly repost it without your usual hyperventilating and foaming at the mouth. Flaming only works if you're using it to accentuate a point, otherwise it simply obscures what little point you might have.

So you spent all this time trying to be important to the debate and you didn't bother reading what was going over before hand? Nice to see britain's finest...

Given that the Defiant is Starfleet's first purpose-designed warship and the Akira, being older, therefore isn't one, I fail to see how pointing out that they're different types of aircraft helps your case at all. That's the whole point - different types of aircraft (or starship) have different costs per unit of mass or volume.

Prove the Alira is older.
Prove the Akira isn't a warship.
No one said that the costs would be the same. We've already covered that.

Care to bring a point to this or are you just busy earning a post count?

[Deepcrush]

Flaming only works if you're using it to accentuate a point, otherwise it simply obscures what little point you might have.

It also adds nothing of value, and I believe starts erring into the caution stage. I can deal with insults and flames if it is used as punctuation, or the person is actually being a complete and utter stupid dick. I see neither side being a complete and utter stupid dick.

Nice since seafort flames people as often as I do and he's still trying to play high ground. Always cute when a retard wants to be superman.

[Captain Seafort]

Since I never said they were equal I'm glad you added yet another meaningless reply. Thank you very much.

Again, I never said they were of the same density. Another meaningless add in.

Easy enough to guess that the ship being far larger uses more material to build.

Assuming the larger ship is more massive means that you're assuming that mass scales linearly with volume.

I said I don't know about the sites value. Not that I wasn't willing to look for something.

*sighs*

provide the exact quote from the script (shouldn't be too difficult - they're on TrekCore and ST Minutiae)

I told you the value of the sites - they've got the TNG and DS9 scripts.

I already said those masses weren't fact. They were just the best guess I had seen. What is your problem with reading?

The Akira class is built from just over 3 million tons of material

The Defiant class is built from 355,000 tons of material

If those were simply "the best guess you had" then why exactly did you state them as if they were fact?

So you spent all this time trying to be important to the debate and you didn't bother reading what was going over before hand?

Oh I read it. The problem is that that much meaningless gibberish would make anyone's' eyes glaze over.

Prove the Alira is older.

The "Alira"? Never heard of it.

If you're talking about the Akira, then the Thunderchild from FC had the registry number 63549. The Defiant's is 74205. Ergo, the Akira is an older ship.

Prove the Akira isn't a warship.

You're making the claim, burden of proof is on you.

No one said that the costs would be the same.

You've been claiming that the Akira would be more expensive in some way. Prove it.

[Tsukiyumi]

*sighs*

Wow, dude, you're doing that a lot lately. You should have that looked at.

I told you the value of the sites - they've got the TNG and DS9 scripts.

Are you saying there's no canon info on the masses of the Defiant and Akira? No sh*t. Deep is going with the logical assumption that the Defiant is less massive because it's about three times smaller. Even if the materials used are more massive, there is certainly no indication that they have that much more mass.

I already said those masses weren't fact. They were just the best guess I had seen. What is your problem with reading?

The Akira class is built from just over 3 million tons of material

The Defiant class is built from 355,000 tons of material

If those were simply "the best guess you had" then why exactly did you state them as if they were fact?

This is nitpicking, but I agree; I think we've all accepted that while the DITL numbers are great for comparison, we can't use them for debates because a lot of them are GK's estimates.

So you spent all this time trying to be important to the debate and you didn't bother reading what was going over before hand?

Oh I read it. The problem is that that much meaningless gibberish would make anyone's' eyes glaze over.

Tsk, tsk. If you can't be bothered to read it, why respond?

Prove the Alira is older.

The "Alira"? Never heard of it.

Wow. Okay, Captain Spelling. From now on, I'll be sure to point out every grammatical mistake you make if we're arguing something. I've overlooked them before now.

If you're talking about the Akira, then the Thunderchild from FC had the registry number 63549. The Defiant's is 74205. Ergo, the Akira is an older ship.

That is logical, and since there was no A, B, C, or bloody D behind the reg, we can infer that it isn't just a newer ship carrying the same registry number from a namesake like the Enterprise.

Prove the Akira isn't a warship.

You're making the claim, burden of proof is on you.

I guess we could assume that it's a science ship with 15 torpedo tubes...

And, before you shout about canon, that info came from the people who designed the ship. I'm sorry, but I take what they say over the fact that we never got to see the Akira spam a bunch of torpedoes on screen.

No one said that the costs would be the same.

You've been claiming that the Akira would be more expensive in some way. Prove it.

Jesus wept.

The ship is at least twice the length (someone care to calculate the volume difference?), and carries more torpedoes, and crew. Of course, since no crew compliment was ever mentioned on screen, we can't say that for certain, except for logical deduction.

It's an older ship according to the reg numbers, so odds are it would have a larger crew than a more modern ship of the same size.

Yes, this is all speculation, but logic suggests that an Akira would be more expensive resource-wise than a Defiant, excepting the rare tech like quantum torpedoes.

I thought this originally started as a question of whether the Defiant would be cheaper than a New-Orleans class?

[Deepcrush]

Assuming the larger ship is more massive means that you're assuming that mass scales linearly with volume.

Wrong. A carrier has greater weight then a cruiser dispite the cruiser being more dense. Internal space wise... You're assuming whatever makes you feel right. A larger ship can have more open space aboard and still be heavier then a smaller but more dense built ship.

If those were simply "the best guess you had" then why exactly did you state them as if they were fact?

That was a mistake on my part that I conceded to. But, like so many other things in this debate. It was already covered.

Oh I read it. The problem is that that much meaningless gibberish would make anyone's' eyes glaze over.

You mean you couldn't find anything you could hope to spin and so you skipped it. Your normal SOP since before I even joined I'm told.

The "Alira"? Never heard of it.

Yes the good old Alira, she's a lot like your upper and lower case (c)(C)ruisers...

If you're talking about the Akira, then the Thunderchild from FC had the registry number 63549. The Defiant's is 74205. Ergo, the Akira is an older ship.

One HUGE problem. The Defiant is noted to be Starfleet's first warship. But the Akira, being a warship, can't be older then the Defiant. The design maybe older. But the ships themselves can't be otherwise the Akira would be the first warship of the UFP. So, which is right? DS9 or you?

Also, with the registry numbers... I guess we've never heard of them being reused have we???

You're making the claim, burden of proof is on you.

So you want proof that a SOTA/fighter carrier/PT spam ship only shown in combat is a ship meant for combat?

You've been claiming that the Akira would be more expensive in some way. Prove it.

Again, along with those other things you were to lazy or afraid to read ways back. This has already been covered. If you have a problem with what has been provided. Come back with a counter.

[Teaos]

I can't be arsed getting into the nitting gritty oh this debate but I have to say that just using logic is perfectly acceptable way to debate.

No one could ever prove the mass of a ship, but looking at size and using logic is a decent way to look at things.

[Captain Seafort]

Wrong. A carrier has greater weight then a cruiser dispite the cruiser being more dense. Internal space wise... You're assuming whatever makes you feel right. A larger ship can have more open space aboard and still be heavier then a smaller but more dense built ship.

Yes it can. Now prove that this is the case for the Defiant. And, of course, that all the rest of the extra tech the Defiant has (ablative armour, pulse phasers, QTs) are cheaper than the Akira's tried and tested tech.

One HUGE problem. The Defiant is noted to be Starfleet's first warship. But the Akira, being a warship, can't be older then the Defiant. The design maybe older. But the ships themselves can't be otherwise the Akira would be the first warship of the UFP.

Circular reasoning - we have very strong evidence that the Akira is older than the Defiant. We know that the Defiant is Starfleet's first warship. We do not know that the Akira is a warship. It's certainly well armed (although, as has been pointed out by Tsu, there's no on-screen evidence of the ship firing the number of torpedoes the model suggest it should be capable of), but so was the GCS, and that certainly wasn't a purpose-built warship.

Also, with the registry numbers... I guess we've never heard of them being reused have we???

The only time we've seen the same registration number reused was with the Defiant, and that required special dispensation.

So you want proof that a SOTA/fighter carrier/PT spam ship only shown in combat is a ship meant for combat?

Here we go again. Yes, there is some evidence that the the ship should be capable of PT spam, and of being a fighter carrier, but the fact remains that we've never seen it do anything close to that, and so it remains speculation. I reiterate that the GCS was a very heavily armed ship. It was not, however, a purpose-built warship.

Again, along with those other things you were to lazy or afraid to read ways back. This has already been covered. If you have a problem with what has been provided. Come back with a counter.

Your argument was "it's bigger, therefore it's more expensive". This may be true. However, as I pointed out with the F-22/C-130 comparison it is not necessarily true. Since the Akira is not a purpose-built warship (shown by the huge numbers of windows, and the fact that reg number evidence points to it being older that the Defiant) your argument that I am comparing dissimilar aircraft to similar starships is plain wrong.

[Praeothmin]

Wow. Okay, Captain Spelling. From now on, I'll be sure to point out every grammatical mistake you make if we're arguing something. I've overlooked them before now.

Well, see, since Deepcrush does that a lot (he did it to me in our first debate, and he does it once in a while to others too), and he also makes grammatical mistakes, I think Seafort is entitled to do it too...

Now, concerning the mass of the two ships:
The Akira, as I recall, is supposed to have a massive hangar throughout the saucer section, going from one side of the ship to the other.
Its windows are rather large, indicating that the corridors are probably like the ones in a Nebula or Galaxy, and it doesn't have armor on.
Now, the Defiant, on the other hand, is a compact design built with armor, small corridors meaning its volumic mass is higher then the Akira.
I doubt it masses as much as the Akira, but it may mass half as much, even if it has 1/4th the volume.
If its construction material is exotic, and since it has special weapons, Warp core and nacelles, and and all that armor, it's total cost may go as high as one Akira.

As for equal type of crafts' costs:
F-14 in 1998 : 38 Million $
F-35 in 2008 : 83 million $
F-22 in 2008 : 137.5 million $

Approximately same size (F-35 is a bit smaller then the other two), but since the technology is much newer in the F-35 and the F-22, they cost way more.
The Defiant may be the (big) fighter craft of the Capital ships, while the Akira would be the Aircraft carrier/Bombardment support craft.
Two different vessels for two different roles.

[Tsukiyumi]

Wow. Okay, Captain Spelling. From now on, I'll be sure to point out every grammatical mistake you make if we're arguing something. I've overlooked them before now.

Well, see, since Deepcrush does that a lot (he did it to me in our first debate, and he does it once in a while to others too), and he also makes grammatical mistakes, I think Seafort is entitled to do it too...

Yeah, I know. I was just, what's the expression, "taking the piss".