Flare Sci-Fi Forums: semi-official starship classifications

This is topic semi-official starship classifications in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/209.html

Posted by grb on :

I discovered something in that old TNG technical manual:

"...Galaxy-class is catergorized as an Explorer...in a classfication system that includes cruiser, cargo carrier, tanker, surveyor, scout...shuttles are catergorized as craft to distingusih them from larger ships...."

So, I guess we can use that classifcation system as at least semi-cannon. After all, we used to take that 12 galaxy starhsips sotry in the TNG manual so seriously.

But, if this the classification system, where would we pout the various starships in it? Here are a few examples:

Explorer: soverigns, galaxies, nebulas, akiras (?), etc.

Crusiers: excelsiors, steamrunners, mirandas (maybe too small), etc.

surveyor, which i think is kidna confusing: nebulas, akiras, norways (they have those long warp nacelles, so maybe they can go on long starmapping missions), etc.

scouts: intrepids, sabers/sabres, oberths (in Star trek 3, sulu referrred to the grissom as a scout-class vessel, thought this may be an older classfication)

cargo carriers and tankers would probaably be classes we've never seen before, that are ussually found deep within fedceration space.

I actually don;t think that this is a good classification system. Where do the research vessels like the nova-class go? Where would the defiant go? I dunno, just thought i should mention this.

------------------
"How many people does it take before it becomes wrong?"- Jean-Luc Picard

"Fortune Favors the Bold."- Benjamin Sisko

"And so, the warriors, the peacemakers, the helpers, the saviors, the forgotten, and the remembered, they all signed on that data padd and a new federation was born...."- Shannon London-Karkarsku, leader of the Unisist Movement

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Gah!

Just get rid of "cruiser"; that's for warships.

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"CORUSCANT...DOES NOT COMPUTE...I mean, uh, you're under arrest." - Anonymous battle droid

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

*knocks Frank into a vat of molasses with a broom handle*

------------------
"But compared with Star Wars, Star Trek, for all its obnoxious spin-off "make it so" durability, is Hamlet and Lear alongside Saved by the Bell."

"Good old Liam as Qui-Gon Jinn, the hero in this film, is represented as fighting against the forces of greed. A Star Wars picture that preaches against greed is a little like Bill Clinton in the pulpit for a chastity-begins-at-home campaign."

-Rex Murphy on Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Yum.

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"CORUSCANT...DOES NOT COMPUTE...I mean, uh, you're under arrest." - Anonymous battle droid

Posted by Trinculo on :

This is not a complete list. The class designations escort, frigate, and runabout are missing. And the class designations have sub class designations (ex. Cruiser-Heavy, Medium, Light). There may be also other class designations.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Don't forget transports...

------------------
"There's always a bigger fish..."
-Qui-Gon Jinn, Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Gah!

Frigate is also a warship designation.

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"CORUSCANT...DOES NOT COMPUTE...I mean, uh, you're under arrest." - Anonymous battle droid

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

Give it up Frank.

Or I'll post my argument as to why the Intrepid class should be a Sloop.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

I've always had a problem with this whole naval designations thing anyway. The whole basis of the New Orleans being a Frigate was one line of dialogue by Riker, he of the heinous "Yamato-E" error. Cruisers I don't mind, there are pleasure cruisers as well as war cruisers. But what is a Frigate? Can anyone define it? Hell, I couldn't tell you what a 20th-century one is, let alone a 23rd-century one!

Battleships, now: in "Yesterday's Enterprise" Picard calls the E-D a battleship, but in fact in that alternate timeline no way would they build a ship like the Galaxy-class. It's not a warship, and no amount of kicking ass in TNG and "SofA" can persuade anyone otherwise.

So, I'm with Frank on this one, apart from the Cruisers. . . which I think fit in nicely between the Explorers and Scouts. Ships like the Steamrunner fir this bill perfectly.

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

The definition of a frigate has varied slightly over the centuries but has always been roughly the same: "the smallest ship capable of independent patrol".

This fits fine with the Starfleet usage to describe the New Orleans - smaller ships are either largely non-military (scouts, surveyors) or are intended to be part of a larger group (escorts, corvettes if they exist in SF).

Frigate fits in fine with the other Starfleet designations. It's destroyers that are questionable.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

By all means, post the sloop argument.

A frigate is larger than a corvette/gunship and smaller than a destroyer, used as a support or escort ship, or for patrols etc.

Wasn't the Galaxy already in use by the time the war from "Yesterday's Enterprise" went to full swing?

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"CORUSCANT...DOES NOT COMPUTE...I mean, uh, you're under arrest." - Anonymous battle droid

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

You want the sloop argument? Okay.

Star Trek was heavily influenced by the Horatio Hornblower books. These are set in the early 19th century. Sloops, at that time, were smaller, lighter armed, more manoeuvrable than frigates. They were often used for taking messages across the oceans, reconnaisance and operations in coastal waters where Frigates and ships of the line would run the risk of running aground. The nearest ship to these charcateristics in the 24th century Starfleet is the Intrepid class. Smaller than the New Orleans (a canonical Frigate), fast and manoeuvrable with good sensors.

And Sloop is a much more traditional naval term than scout so you should love this, eh Frank?

And no the Yesterday's Enterprise war had been dragging on for years by the time the Galaxy class entered service.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

You just described a corvette, actually.

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"CORUSCANT...DOES NOT COMPUTE...I mean, uh, you're under arrest." - Anonymous battle droid

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

Go and read your Hornblower again. HMS Hotspur was a "Sloop of War".

Corvettes are just light Frigates, after all the NATO designation of a Corvette is FFL.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

I believe you, but from what you mentioned, the design and role of a sloop is almost identical to that of a corvette.

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"CORUSCANT...DOES NOT COMPUTE...I mean, uh, you're under arrest." - Anonymous battle droid

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

The differences lie in the number of masts and the type of rigging, the depth of the draft, etc.

I believe, but I'm not sure that Corvettes are intended to fight in the line of battle, Sloops aren't.

In Trek you could say that one has one nacelle and the other two...

...but then you'd be heading back to the Starfleet Dynamics system of categorising ships by their shape rather than their function, which has naval precedents but which we both agree (shock!) that we'd rather not do that with Starfleet vessels where configuration has less impact on function than with wet navy vessels.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

. . . which surely negates the need to have so many specific categories? The ones GRB mentions would do fine, and the more exact size of ship might then be determined by range and mission. . ?

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

Well, I always believed in the dual classification system. You have you general navy designations of corvette, dreadnaught, frigate, cruiser, battleship, etc, to describe the SIZE of a vessel. But then you have the 24th century designations, scout, explorer, tanker, runabout for PURPOSE of a vessel. This has been supported some in Trek

Enterprise-D refered to as 'battleship' in "Yesterday's Enterprise". This could be the Naval Designation

Enterprise-C and Horatio referred to as cruisers on two occasions, "Yesterday's Enterprise" and "Conspiracy". In the same ep, the 2 New Orleans class starships are referred to as 'frigates'. Seeing how ever said the Horatio's designation went by size, they also did it for the 2 New Orleans, calling them frigates.

I know there are a couple more out there, I just can't remember them

------------------
"The one, the only, THE 359!"

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Okay, how does this sound...?

EXPLORER
A ship whose primary mission is the exploration of space. Often found charting systems and phenomena at the edges of Federation space. Some larger classes also used as diplomatic ships.
Cheyenne, Constellation, Galaxy, Intrepid (?), Nebula

CRUISER
A ship whose primary mission during peacetime is patrolling borders near potentially hostile space. Also used sometimes for missions that are more "military" in nature. Formerly, these ships were used as explorers are now (e.g. Constitution class of the 2240s-60s). During wartime, these ships make up the bulk of Starfleet's fighting forces.
Akira, Ambassador, Constitution, Excelsior, Hokule'a, Miranda*, Prometheus, Wambundu

FRIGATE
A ship whose primary role is defense. These ships are like cruisers, but there are fewer of them, and they tend to be smaller.
New Orleans, Miranda*

TRANSPORT
A ship whose primary role is to ferry groups of people (usually SF officers, but not always) from one place to another. These can range from light transports which carry smaller groups to heavy transports which are often used for moving large numbers of troops, especially during wartime. Some transports are converted for specific uses, such as hospital ships.
Istanbul, Olympic, Sydney, Whorfin, Yorkshire

SCOUT
Usually smaller vessels, used for scientific missions. They perform more in-depth studies than explorers.
Miranda*, Oberth, Soyuz

FREIGHTER
Obviously, a ship that primarily transports cargo from place to place.
Deneva, Mediteranean

RUNABOUT
A craft larger than a shuttle, but much smaller than a regular ship, usually assigned as an auxilliary craft for a starbase or space station.
Danube

* The Miranda class has been used primarily as a frigate during the Dominion War. In its early days, it was probably considered a cruiser, before Starfleet used the term "frigate". In peacetime, it is used as a scientific scout vessel.

------------------
"Although I'm so tired, I'll have another cigarette. And curse Sir Walter Raleigh; he was such a stupid git."
-the Beatles, "I'm So Tired"

[This message was edited by TSN on May 27, 1999.]

Posted by Cargile (Member # 45) on :

(ok, what two buttons did I hit to clear this freaking field! I'll have to give you the shortened version.)

The chart I did for Starfleet Military Reserves website sums up things nicely.

Starship Categorization Tables. opens in new window. I don't use the category Scout, because it is a specific function and any ship can scout. Likewise any ship can survey. I've have planned my chart out according to size, purpose, and abilities. I have also invented the attribute of Mass Class, of which Cruisers hold three, Heavy to Light.
I've also broken down every vessel into four types, Starships, Starcraft, Shuttlecraft, and Spacecraft. Explaination on above site.

[This message was edited by Cargile on May 26, 1999.]

Posted by grb on :

Cargile, I think those names are a little too militaristic....they have nothing to do with what the starfleet ships are actually doing......

Has anyone ever considered that there might not be a classification system? What if instead of starfleet desging ships to be exploreres or cruisers or frigates, what if they designed them for what purpose was needed? Let's say.....

The galaxy class was built to serve as a long range starship capable of surveying, research, diplomatic, and defensive missions.

Thus, starlfleet buildds as big ship to accomodate all of these things. The galaxy class might be called an explorer, as might nebulas and ambassadors and akiras. But starfleet wouldn't send ambassador class starship to defend a borg attack just because its an explorer. they would send the galaxy class, because it is more heavily armed.

The defiant class was built to provide a quick response to the borg threat.

thus, starfleet built a small, heavily armed vessel that could be built quickly. The defiant might be classified a frigate, along with the miranda class. but starfleet ins;t going to send a miranda class vessel on a coiuvert mission into enemeny territory. They'll send the defiant because its more hevily armed, and as more advancd sensor systems.

I guess a classifcation system might be used. Afterall, we have haerd the yterms frigate and cruiser on star trek. but I'm just saying that these terms might be lighter than we think they are. We can see from above that all of these definiytions of frigate and corvette or scout and sloop or whatever overlap. The same might be the same in the star trek universe. one person might call the USS New Orleans a frigate, where someone else migth call it a cruiser.

------------------
"How many people does it take before it becomes wrong?"- Jean-Luc Picard

"Fortune Favors the Bold."- Benjamin Sisko

"And so, the warriors, the peacemakers, the helpers, the saviors, the forgotten, and the remembered, they all signed on that data padd and peace was made."- Shannon London-Karkarsku, leader of the Unisist Movement

Captain Alex Herenwhiner,
Transwarp inter-dimension timeship explorer U.S.S. Liberty

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

I think I'll just kill TSN at this point.

Don't underestimate the power of the Miranda.

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"CORUSCANT...DOES NOT COMPUTE...I mean, uh, you're under arrest." - Anonymous battle droid

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

Recently, Voyager was listed as a short-term explorer. I'm not going to tell the episode because I forget the name and I don't want to get the anti-spoilers mad

------------------
"The one, the only, THE 359!"

Posted by Trinculo on :

The DS9 TM gives the class designation of the Excelsior as Explorer.

In the episode "Datalore", the USS Tripoli is identified as a heavy cruiser.

In the same technical manual mentioned above, the Norway Class is identified as a medium cruiser.

In the episode "The Arsenal of Freedom", the USS Drake is identified as light cruiser. The top speed of the USS Drake is very odd. However, since there is a lack of information on this class, I believe the issue of the USS Drake's speed is not important.

In the episode "Reunion", the USS Arcos is identified as a freighter. This class has to be one of the smallest for there is only a two man crew-pilot and engineer.

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

*wades his way in*

*chains 359 and Frank together and drops them into the dual-classification bucket of molasses*

I dug up an old thread I posted to the Enterforum-F, that for some weird reason I had saved.

*ahem*

quote:

OK. I think Explorer just means "big ship", the equivalent of battleship but not so violent-sounding. Because they're so big and comfortable, they Explore, but like all of Starfleet's ships they have a very multipurpose role. They are generally the most powerful starships out there, so from now on replace "Battleship" with Explorer.
Cruisers are smaller ships than Explorers that stick to the inner Federation. Remember DeSoto's line about the Hood in Tin Man... going back and forth between starbase all day long. In terms of size, there tends to be a bit of overlap with the smaller Explorers, so Heavy Cruisers are generally bigger than Light Explorers. Mirandas are Cruisers as they are primarily a multipurpose ship.
There is no Destroyer classification in the 24th century. It sounds far too nasty and as Baloo points out, it's become nearly synonymous with Frigate even today.
Frigates tend to have a more military nature (though these are still multipurpose vessels). I expect the bulk of heavy Federation escorts are Frigates, and most are out there patrolling the Tzenkethi border while everyone else
messes about with the Dominion. They basically overlap with all Light Cruisers, but ships like Mirandas don't qualify as one as they are more scientifically oriented.
Scouts are wee problem. Voyager is a scout, yet so are the little weeny Romulan Scouts ships and the
Insurrection one.
Escort was probably just a job description until the Defiant project came about . Then a name was needed to cover-up a warship with something less toothy-sounding.
As for the Prometheus.. um.. well... how about dragging 'tactical cruiser" or "strike cruiser" out of somewhere for
just this once? :-)
One last thing. I believe a class is assigned into one of the five at design go-ahead and rarely is reclassified from one to another. However, inside that classification, the terms "heavy" "medium" and "light" can be floated about, as they are relative. For example, the Constitution was originally a "heavy cruiser". Upon the arrival of the Excelsior, it probably got kicked down to "medium cruiser". (After the Akira et. al hit the scene, it might have been given the title "light cruiser" post mortem.) The Excelsior also got kicked from heavy to medium upon the Akira's arrival.

And, then, recovered from the wreckage of the Enterforum-G,

quote:
OK.. may I outline my case...
As pointed out by pretty much everyone except Frank, a dual classification system is unneccessary.
As pointed out by pretty much everyone except Frank, Starfleet's vessels probably do not have very un-pc names like "Battleship" and "Gunboat"
As pointed out by pretty much everyone except Frank, words change over time and it is not at all unlikely that different meanings for current designations as well as entirely new designations exist in the 24th century that do not exist today.
My personal opinions on classification of Starfleet ships were used to create a table of the various classification's size and mission profiles. Not including Oberths, Olympics and various service ships, I classify vessels into six-odd classifications (Surveyor, Tanker etc. are classifications as well, but they don't appear on my chart.) It's sorta confusing, but hopefully the brighter ones of you should work it out quickly enough . Classification of the FC ships is somewhat arbitrary, as are the mission objectives of scouts due to a lack of info. I have followed IDCrisis' lead by having no Explorers before the Ambassador, which itself was reclassified to a cruiser following the arrival of the Nebula, Galaxy, Cheyenne etc.)
http://www.geocities.com:80/Area51/Zone/6151/classifications2.htm
My definitions follow.
Explorer
Starfleet's biggest and arguably best. The ships that most exemplify Starfleet's founding principles. Comfortable and spacious, they do much more than explore, but also serve as a diplomatic vessels and serve a variety of miscellaneous roles on the Federation's outer edges. Thanks to their massive powerplants, they are the closest thing Starfleet has to a battleship, and during wartime are the most potent parts of Starfleets arsenal (Defiant and Prometheus excluded).
Cruiser
The term "Cruiser" has evolved from the twenty-fourth century from a purely military role to that of a mid-sized, multipurpose ship that is generally similar to Explorers, but minus some of the plushness, though like Explorers families are aboard during times of peace. They differ from Explorers primarily by their tendency to stick the relatively tame interior of the Federation as per DeSoto's line at the opening of "Tin Man". Ships like the Miranda, though smaller than most frigates, are cruisers as they serve roles from science ships to cargo haulers to warships.
Frigates
Recipe for Frigate: Take one cruiser. Remove much of plushness. Remove much of scientific facilites. Remove families. Orient towards Federation defence (though not to the point of the Defiant). Serve, at much less the fat content of a cruiser. Suggested Serving: Damn Andorian Smugglers being pesky near starbase 211? Can't spare a big@ss ship to do the job? Or how about a really big shipment of antimatter coming in for use on Deep Space 5? Escorts not up to the job? New Orleans will fit the bill nicely.
Escorts
Recipe for Escort: Take one Frigate. Remove anything comfortable, remotely related to science or diplomacy, or any crew not useful 100% of the time. Shrink to fit. In case of top-secret Borg busting warship, add really big guns. Cover up details from Federation civilians.
Scout
Smallish and not too plush ship that is designed to do stuff the big ones can't do (in the words of Rick S. about Voyager). Not particularly concerned about cruising about the Federation stopping errant moons form falling out of orbit, they can range from Data's little overblown runabout to Voyager.
Raider
Created primarily because they really don't fit into any category. While not serving as attack fighters we're not too sure what they do. Probably a little bit of escorting, a little bit of serving as a "Coast Guard Cutter" type deally busting gunrunners etc.

I do like the sloop argument, though.. the entire thing about Voyager and Data's wee li'l scoutship being in the same classification has bothered me. Sloop does sound a little weird though...

Oh, and I just redid that classification chart in the link above...

------------------
"But compared with Star Wars, Star Trek, for all its obnoxious spin-off "make it so" durability, is Hamlet and Lear alongside Saved by the Bell."

-Rex Murphy on Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace

[This message was edited by The_Tom on May 26, 1999.]

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Frank: I knew you'd find flaws w/ my system, but surely it can't be that bad?! It includes all the classifications that are canon (that I know of), and it has frigates smaller than cruisers. Surely you aren't going to attest that Starfleet must use terms such as "battleship", "destroyer", etc....?

------------------
"I make fun of senior citizens, but obviously I aspire to be one of them, the alternative being what it is."
-Scott Adams, The Dilbert Future

Posted by Cargile (Member # 45) on :

Gee grb, that would be because the site I have is militaristic. Go figure.

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

Cargile sums it all up: the people who use terms like Battleship etc. aren't describing the Starfleet that we see on Star Trek. They're describing the militaristic Starfleet that exists in their own minds.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

The point everyone is missing is that these classifications aren't arbitrary; they're used in specific situations. Terms like cruiser and destroyer and unnecessary in peacetime, and classifications like scout and explorer are useless in battle.

And the idea that Starfleet wouldn't use designations like "destroyer" is pacifist propogranda.

"Send a destroyer to take care of those attack ships, quickly!"
"Sorry sir, but here in the politically-correct, touchy-feely, cater-to-the-nutty-population Starfleet, we don't use terms like "destroyer."
"Fine, send something! Now!"
"How about an explorer?"
"Sure, do it, do it! Augh! They just took out engineering!"
"Yes sir, I'll send the Hubcap."
"What?! That's an Apollo! Send an Akira! Send an--" *gets impaled by shrapnel and dies*

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"CORUSCANT...DOES NOT COMPUTE...I mean, uh, you're under arrest." - Anonymous battle droid

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

>The point everyone is missing is that these
>classifications aren't arbitrary;

Yes they are. They are the accidental end product of centuries of changing ships, changing navies and changing languages. No one sat down and worked them out for any logical reason.

The Navy could call things Tom, Dick and Harry instead of Cruiser, Frigate and Destroyer and things would still work just as well.

>they're used in specific situations.

Everyday naval practice is a specific situation?

>Terms like cruiser and destroyer and unnecessary
>in peacetime,

So the USN or any other navy doesn't use those terms in peacetime? What do they call their ships in peacetime then?

>and classifications like scout and explorer are
>useless in battle.

They are labels for types of ship and function exactly the same in battle as in any other situation.

The idea that every ship needs two labels, one for use in wartime and one for use in peacetime is simply nonsense. One label is all you need and the labels used by Starfleet are Explorer, Cruiser, Frigate, Scout, Escort, Surveyor, etc. Destroyer is possible (lots of non-canon mentions and one reference to Destroyer wings in DS9) but Battleship and Battlecruiser are highly unlikely.

You keep on putting in these cute pieces of dialogue, but you always miss an important point. For instance with your latest effort: a commander wouldn't say send a destroyer if destroyer wasn't a starfleet term. So your example falls apart at the first line.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

[This message was edited by Identity Crisis on May 27, 1999.]

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Agreed, as long as Tom, Dick, and Harry are clearly defined.

By "specific situation" I mean the roles of the classifications.

The USN wouldn't send its ships to go fishing, for example.

Why would "scout" and "explorer" be useful in battle? Are they going to send ships to go look for a planet or investigate a star or something?

You can't mix in "scout" with "frigate" or any other naval term. Ships that function as cruisers or corvettes might work just as well as scouts when there isn't a war on.

The admiral I mentioned wants a medium-sized, relatively fast vessel to disable the attack ships. What should he send? A surveyor, to survey the crew to death? If he looks for the proper term in a dictionary, he would find "destroyer" listed.

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"CORUSCANT...DOES NOT COMPUTE...I mean, uh, you're under arrest." - Anonymous battle droid

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

>Why would "scout" and "explorer" be useful in
>battle? Are they going to send ships to go look
>for a planet or investigate a star or something?

Explorers are Starfleets best armed ships so they'd be very useful in a battle.

>You can't mix in "scout" with "frigate" or any
>other naval term.

Yes, you can. Each label describes one sort of ship. It doesn't matter what the historical origin of that label is.

>Ships that function as cruisers or corvettes
>might work just as well as scouts when there
>isn't a war on.

They might function as scouts but they would still be called cruisers and corvettes because scout refers to a different sort of ship.

>The admiral I mentioned wants a medium-sized,
>relatively fast vessel to disable the attack
>ships. What should he send? A surveyor, to survey
>the crew to death? If he looks for the proper
>term in a dictionary, he would find "destroyer"
>listed.

He looks in a dictionary in the middle of a battle? Get real. He knows from training and experience exactly what that sort of ship is called by Starfleet and he uses that term. That term may be Destroyer or it may be Pansy. But he knows what it is and his crew knows what it is.

I want a tool to dig a hole. I look in a dictionary and see that the tool I want is called a spade. If I was in the army then I would have been trained to call it an 'entrenching tool'!

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

[This message was edited by Identity Crisis on May 27, 1999.]

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

There you go. If a ship acts as a scout, it's a scout. That's the whole point of classifying ships in the first place!

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"CORUSCANT...DOES NOT COMPUTE...I mean, uh, you're under arrest." - Anonymous battle droid

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Starfleet wouldn't give every ship in the fleet multiple different classifications for use at different times. The ship is what it is. If a Cheyenne-class ship is told to go meet up w/ the cruiser Gobbledegook, the captain isn't goign to say "Cruiser?! Are we at war?!". He's going to know that, since it's peacetime, a cruiser isn't necessarily acting as a warship. It might be charting gaseous anomalies around Uranus. Starfleet gives each ship one classification, and SF officers are trained to know what those classifications mean.

Another (canonical) example: We know that, in that one DS9 ep (I can't believe I've forgotten the name already), the USS Grissom was carrying something like 1200 troops. Now, if this was the Excelsior-class Grissom, as it probably was, it wouldn't have been carrying that many people unless it was transporting them. Now, by your arguements, the Grissom's classification would have had to be changed from whatever it was (I would argue "cruiser") to "transport", otherwise it couldn't be used as a transport.

Grissom's captain: "Yes, I'm sorry, Valkyrie. We would come to your rescue, but we're a transport this week. If we helped you, we'd have to become a cruiser again, but then we'd have to dump all these soldiers we're transporting, because we wouldn't be a transport anymore. As you know, Admiral Gerratana ordered that no ship can perform a duty unless it is classified to do so..."

------------------
"I make fun of senior citizens, but obviously I aspire to be one of them, the alternative being what it is."
-Scott Adams, The Dilbert Future

Posted by Warped1701 (Member # 40) on :

LOL!!

------------------
"Angels and Ministers of Grace, defend us"
-Hamlet, Act I, Scene IV

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

There would be no point in identifying the Gobbledegook as a cruiser in peacetime, though.

Ships can perform more than one role, of course. But many ships are built for specific roles. Let's say Starfleet has two classes of ships, both built for surveying planets. One carries few weapons, but the other is heavily-armed (let's say it's usually sent to border planets and the like). If both are called "surveyors," then they wouldn't be easily differentiated from each other in battle.

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"CORUSCANT...DOES NOT COMPUTE...I mean, uh, you're under arrest." - Anonymous battle droid

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Well, who knows, maybe they would call it a "cruiser-surveyor", or something...

------------------
"I make fun of senior citizens, but obviously I aspire to be one of them, the alternative being what it is."
-Scott Adams, The Dilbert Future

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

Frank: The better armed surveyor that was going to be used in battle wouldn't be a purpose-built surveyor, then, would it? And therefore it would be a cruiser or a sloop or something.

------------------
"But compared with Star Wars, Star Trek, for all its obnoxious spin-off "make it so" durability, is Hamlet and Lear alongside Saved by the Bell."

-Rex Murphy on Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

No, it was a purpose-built surveyor. They just gave it enough weapons to defend itself well.

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"CORUSCANT...DOES NOT COMPUTE...I mean, uh, you're under arrest." - Anonymous battle droid

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

Ah.. I now see where you're coming from. Mon dieu! How could we classify a surveyor that had been given added diplomatic capabilities so it could ferry ambassadors? Or what would we call a transport ship with special equipment enabling it to do sensor sweeps across the neutral zone? We must redo our classification system!

------------------
"But compared with Star Wars, Star Trek, for all its obnoxious spin-off "make it so" durability, is Hamlet and Lear alongside Saved by the Bell."

-Rex Murphy on Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace

[This message was edited by The_Tom on May 27, 1999.]

Posted by grb on :

How about this system?

Explorer- large ship, haeavily armed, capable of acting as long range scouts and surveryors: soverins, galaxies, nebulas, ambassadors

Cruiser- heavily to medium to lightly armed, capable of midrange xploratory missions:
heavy crusiers (largest)- akiras
medium crusiers (medium sized)- steamrunners,
light cruisers (smallest...but i guess that's obvious....)- norways

frigate- lightly armed, designed for short to mid range missions:
heavy frigate-?
medium frigate-miranda
light frigate-nova, oberth

scout- heavily to mid to lightly armed, capable of long to mid range exploratory missions:
heavy scout-intrepid
medium scout-saber/sabre
light scout- data's acout ship (USS Spot, Feline class)

escort (warship)-heavily armed vessel
heavy or medium escort- prmometheus class
light escort- defiant class

craft- a small ship, either a servcice vehichle or a short range personel transport:
runabout, shuttlecraft

For all of the above classifications, the heavy/medium/light system designate size and armaments.

Might this classifcation system include both range, armament, and technological advancdment into one simpl system?

------------------
"How many people does it take before it becomes wrong?"- Jean-Luc Picard

"Fortune Favors the Bold."- Benjamin Sisko

Captain Alex Herenwhiner,
Transwarp inter-dimension timeship explorer U.S.S. Liberty

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

Even I have to concede that there's something wrong with Oberth class frigate...

------------------
"A Star Wars picture that preaches against greed is a little like Bill Clinton in the pulpit for a chastity-begins-at-home campaign."

-Rex Murphy on Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

To summarize: Frank seems to believe that a ship is classified according to whatever mission it happens to be fulfilling at any given time. So the E-D was an Explorer, Medical ship, Battleship, Transport, etc. depending on which episode we're watching.

I, on the other hand, believe that a ship is classified according to it's overall capabilities and characteristics. A cruiser is a cruiser beacuse it fits the description of what a cruiser IS not because it's doing what a cruiser DOES as any specific moment in time.

Ask yourself which system is easiest for Starfleet to use.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

No, a ship should be classified according to what it is designed to do.

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"CORUSCANT...DOES NOT COMPUTE...I mean, uh, you're under arrest." - Anonymous battle droid

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

I'm so glad that you agree with me.

So that cruiser that was designed to be a cruiser, but which happened to be acting as a scout at a given time would be called a cruiser and not a scout as you said up thread? You admit that you were wrong when you said it should be renamed a scout when it was acting like a scout?

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

One objection I have is the way things sound. .. like this:

Starcruiser: Sounds good, doesn't it?

Star Frigate: yeurgh. Sounds like something out of a crap 80's SF movie, like the ones Corman did.

Star Battleship: Even worse. . . or Battlestar? NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Star Destroyer: As with Battlestar, no longer available!

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

No, no, no! A ship would not be "designed to be a cruiser" beyond it's size, weaponry, etc. The term "cruiser" merely describes it's role in battle, and is irrelevant anywhere else. OTOH, if this "cruiser" is also meant for deep-space travel, then it could be called a "scout." If it doesn't have a specific purpose, we can call it, well, a "multipurpose" ship (or "explorer" or whatever).

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"CORUSCANT...DOES NOT COMPUTE...I mean, uh, you're under arrest." - Anonymous battle droid

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

>No, no, no! A ship would not be "designed to be a >cruiser" beyond it's size, weaponry, etc.

Yes, yes, yes. Starfleet decides that it needs a new cruiser and so designs one. Everyone at Starfleet knows what sort of ship a cruiser is and thus knows what sort of ship is to be designed.

> The term "cruiser" merely describes it's role in >battle, and is irrelevant anywhere else.

No. Cruiser is a label for a type of ship. It therefore describes all the general characteristics of that type of ship: size, aramament, speed, duration, role, etc.

Where did you get this daft idea that some terms are magically reserved for describing a ship's role in battle and must NEVER be used at any other time? It simply doesn't work like that. Go and look at any real world navy. You find ships called frigates (as most navies don't have cruisers any more) carrying out a wide range of roles (anti-submarine, anti-aircraft, interdiction, patrol, escort, training, testing equipment, being shown off the public, making courtesy visits to other countries, assisting in rescues, assisting in scientific endeavours, etc.) but always called frigates.

>OTOH, if this "cruiser" is also meant for >deep-space travel, then it could be called a >"scout."

It's either a cruiser or a scout. I'm sure that there are ships that could be classified as either a cruiser or a scout but Starfleet decides which one to call it and calls it that.

> If it doesn't have a specific purpose, we can >call it, well, a "multipurpose" ship (or >"explorer" or whatever).

All the evidence points towards Cruisers being multi-purpose ships in Starfleet.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

I got "this daft idea that some terms are magically reserved for describing a ship's role in battle" from a dictionary.

Modern frigates are still called frigates because of their role and capability in battle, though. Again, that's the point of the designations.

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"CORUSCANT...DOES NOT COMPUTE...I mean, uh, you're under arrest." - Anonymous battle droid

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?frigate

Three definitions of frigate in Webster's dictionary and none of them give it's role in battle.

>Modern frigates are still called frigates because
>of their role and capability in battle, though.

But they keep that designation all the time, not just in battle. So why do you insist that Starfleet changes the designation of a ship when it isn't in battle?

>Again, that's the point of the designations.

No, the point of the designations is to label different sorts of ship. How you go about choosing those labels is irrelevant.

The designations were originally given out on the basis of size and type of rigging. Remember that Frigates and Ships of the Line were also classified by their 'rate' which was derived from the number of guns. So the designations we use today are the ones that came from the non-battle characteristics, whilst the one that came from a directly combat related characteristic has been dropped.

Again reality seems to be against you.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Look at two and three. A frigate is a "war vessel intermediate between a corvette and a ship of the line" or "a warship that is smaller than a destroyer."

The only time a warship's designation would be useful is relative to battle, though. Modern frigates are called frigates all the time because they're exclusively warships.

The designations are for describing what the ships does. I don't see the point of them otherwise.

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"CORUSCANT...DOES NOT COMPUTE...I mean, uh, you're under arrest." - Anonymous battle droid

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

To describe what sort of ship the ship is. Rather obvious to most people.

------------------
-->Identity Crisis<--

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Yes, but the terms must have commonly-accepted meanings to be of any use.

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"CORUSCANT...DOES NOT COMPUTE...I mean, uh, you're under arrest." - Anonymous battle droid

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

>Yes, but the terms must have commonly-accepted >meanings to be of any use.

Frank, can you get it into your head the notion that in 24th century the word "cruiser" might not mean "warship between destroyer and battlecruiser in size"?

------------------
"A Star Wars picture that preaches against greed is a little like Bill Clinton in the pulpit for a chastity-begins-at-home campaign."

-Rex Murphy on Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Of course, neither we nor the creators of the show have the liberty of redefining words. When someone walks up to the replicator and asks for a tuna sandwich, we expect to see a tuna sandwich.

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"CORUSCANT...DOES NOT COMPUTE...I mean, uh, you're under arrest." - Anonymous battle droid

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

*screams*

------------------
"Should have changed that stupid lock. Should have thrown away the key. No no, not I, I will survive, right down here on my knees."
--
They Might Be Giants

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

"The only time a warship's designation would be useful is relative to battle, though. Modern frigates are called frigates all the time because they're exclusively warships."

So, you're saying that, whenever we're not at war, the navy scoops up all its frigates and puts them in a metaphorical box somewhere, and doesn't take them out until there's another war?

Obviously, warships are still used when there is not a war. And, at such time, the navy does not change the classifications of all the ships. They keep the same designations, whether there is a war or not. You're the one who says all the terms have to have the same meanings in the 24th century. Shouldn't that suggest that Starfleet also handles the classifications the same way, i.e. they don't change just because there is or is not a war?

------------------
"I make fun of senior citizens, but obviously I aspire to be one of them, the alternative being what it is."
-Scott Adams, The Dilbert Future

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

Okay, this is getting a little bit large. . .

------------------
"I also received an interesting, if some-what perplexing, note from a 13-year-old lad who asked if I "had a clue." I fear I cannot adequately answer, as I am not aware of any immediate clues at hand; but that is not to say there are none present." - T. Herman Zweibel