Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Miranda Class

This is topic Miranda Class in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/900.html

Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :

Which ship designation do you prefer for the Miranda Class starship, frigate (startrek.com, "Night Terrors") or medium cruiser (DS9 Tech Manual)? And why?

------------------

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Posted by Michael Dracon (Member # 4) on :

Frigate

I first thought medium cruiser, but I think that's a better classification for ships like the Akira and Steamrunner class.

------------------
Ivanova is always right. I will listen to Ivanova. I will not ignore Ivanova's recommendations. Ivanova is God. *And*, if this ever happens again, Ivanova will personally rip your lungs out!

- Commander Susan Ivanova, Babylon 5

[This message has been edited by Altair (edited September 29, 2000).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Scrap Metal.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

Definitely not a Medium Cruiser. If a Heavy Cruiser is something of Ambassador size then a Miranda is too big a leap to be a Medium Cruiser. Possibly Light Cruiser, but certainly not a Medium Cruiser. I also don't like the phrase Medium Cruiser, it should just be Cruiser - it's the baseline against which other cruisers are measured and found to be heavy or light or fast or whatever.

Anyway, which Miranda variant in which era?

I believe in Avenger class Heavy Frigates and Miranda class cruisers in the late 23rd century.

By the mid-late 24th century most of the Avangers and son-of-Avenger types will have been mothballed whilst the Miranda will have been downgraded to Light Cruiser, or even Scout. (Brattain and Saratoga would both fall into this category) Some older vessels will have been converted for use cargo transports (USS Lantree).

When a shortage of armed ships when faced by the Borg and Dominion and number of the Avenger family were taken out of mothballs, brought up to modern standards (as far as possible) and classified as Destroyers. These are the ships that make up the Destroyer Wings in the Sacrifice of Angels and these are the 'Mirandas' which die in such a spectacular fashion.

As some usenet wit said "It's a good job that the Defiant had all those ablative Mirandas"

Of course, this is just my opinion. But if you like it you can see more at http://steve.pugh.net/fleet/mir_history.html

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

Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :

You have to take in to consideration the timescale involved. The Miranda has been around since at least the 2280's, probably earlier, the standards of a medium crusier would certainly change in the next 90 years. In it's hey day I would have been a formidable vessel and a good counterpart for the Constitution, but by the 2360's they would not be the equal of the latest ships and some would almost certainly be relegated to support and supply duties.

------------------
Cluck cluck jibber jibber, my old man's a mushroom etc.

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

From the canonical references, it seems that there isn't a very strong correlation between ship size and ship designation - witness Ambassador and Constitution heavy cruisers (these should once have been coexisting designs and thus concurrent desginations, since Ambassadors must date back to the early 24th century while Constitution shouln't have bowed out THAT much before Miranda and Constellation). Thus, I would be happiest if something in the mission profile or equipment of a starship influenced its designation.

So far, there is one canonical frigate design, that of the New Orleans class. Size-wise, it does not differ from, say, the Constellation ("star") cruisers. What if the deciding factor is the use of external pods for primary weapons carriage? Then a torp-podded Miranda would be a natural frigate as well, thus jibing with the fanfic view of the ship.

Designating the ships by primary mission profile would also be possible - perhaps frigates always do fleet escort duties, and thus are seldom seen operating solo? This would explain why we never *see* NO's... Of course, the first appearance of a Miranda already disagrees with this, since the Reliant seems to be performing a solo science mission... It would be difficult for the viewers to buy some other primary mission when a typical Enterprise-style solo survey is the one first shown.

Personally, I'd be happiest with calling the early Mirandas light cruisers to the Constitution heavy ones, and later "demoting" the ships to frigates or destroyers - but that would go against the TOS fanfic view, which I want to respect.

Of course, in real world ship designations are the antithesis of logic, so I wouldn't worry too much about Starfleet designations, either. During the cold war, a ship currently considered a frigate would have been a "destroyer escort", and a modern missile cruiser would have been a "frigate" or a "destroyer leader", depending a bit on size and the whims of the day. A TOS "frigate" could be a pre-TNG "medium cruiser" and a DS9 "destroyer" just as easily...

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Take a look at some USN cruisers and destroyers, they use the same hull, different mission. The cruisers have a VLS with Surface to Air and Surface to Surface missiles while the destroyer has a VLS with, mainly, Anti-Sub Weapons. Electronics also differ. Outter appearance is almost identicle.
So a Miranda could be:
A Science/Research Vessel,
A Scout,
An Escort or Frigate,
or
A Medical Frigate.
Depending on mission profile, electronics, and weapons fit. Drop the trops, put in a few probes and fill the remaining volume with senors/fuel/labs and it's not the combat vessel it once might have been.

F-16 Fighting Falcons, weapons fit, to make an F-16 an RF-16, change a bomb/missile rack to a pod.

So I don't know, Frigate or Cruiser???

------------------
if you here me talking on the wind...

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

That's a good point. The fact that Ticonderoga cruisers and Spruance destroyers in USN service share the same hull and propulsion is mostly due to the fact that the Spruances were built as grossly oversized to accommodate future needs and weapon systems (there was a lot of debate originally when the huge Spruances sailed out with just a single ASROC launcher, a Sea Sparrow self-defence missile launcher, a helo and a stupid gun, and Soviet ships half the size carried a dozen weapon systems with ease). In contrast, earlier destroyers had been built with a different "economy" in mind - they were made "affordable" by making them as small and cramped as possible.

This sort of backstory could be used 1:1 for the Mirandas. Originally, USS Miranda may have been dubbed a frigate because she was doing a "frigate mission profile" with frigate (= smallish ship) systems even though she was built into a cruiser (= largish ship)-sized hull to accommodate future needs. Later, the designation may have changed to better reflect the hull size while the ship remained the same (which happened to the nuclear-powered California and Virginia frigates in USN), or then both the designation and the equipment were changed to turn the Mirandas into "medium cruisers" or possibly "destroyers".

And I wouldn't exclude the possibility of a "medium" prefix being used. In current navies, "light" and "heavy" are no longer used. They were invented for WW2 needs, to replace the outdated "armored" vs. "unarmored" cruiser designations, and virtually disappeared after the war. Whatever perverse logic has reintroduced them for Starfleet use may also have dictated the inclusion of the "medium" designation.

In any case, "light" and "heavy" cruisers are both TNG canon, while "medium" is not. No visually identified design has been directly associated with "light cruiser", though.

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Thanks Timo, I forgot the classes, and didn't want to wake anybody trying to find the book.

------------------
if you here me talking on the wind...

Posted by Constellation of One (Member # 332) on :

Actually, light and heavy were used to denote 6-inch or 8-inch main battery gun calibers, respectively. Light cruisers were frequently as "heavy" tonnage-wise as their heavy brethren and often slightly faster. They typically carried more main battery rifles and could fire faster, the logic being that they could literally smother their targets in smaller caliber shellfire. Friedman's US Cruisers has a detailed description of this design mentality. Their lighter armor put them at a disadvantage compared to heavy cruisers, however.

If you follow this older 1930s-era methodology, than the early Mirandas (Reliants, Avengers, whatever) could easily be termed light cruisers - somewhat smaller ships, heavily armed, capable of dishing out tremendous punishment for their era, but perhaps without the durability, redundancy, and survivability of the heavy cruiser Constitutions.

Just an idea.

------------------
Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Anti-Aircraft Cruisers of WW2 were also considered Light Cruisers. Their armament was light, with 3 and 5 inch guns and lots of .50 Cal and 20MM all over it.

For the ship designations shouldn't the focus be on the mid to late 60's and what was used then. If GR based Star Fleet after the USN, what was the Navy he looked out his window at?

This is for Ship Hull Classifications
http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/s_type.htm

------------------
if you here me talking on the wind...

Posted by Constellation of One (Member # 332) on :

True, the US did possess cruiser-sized ships armed with 5-inch guns, but the CLAA designation wasn't officially adopted until after WW2 ended. The Atlantas are more properly classed as super-destroyers based upon their armament and meager armor, a classification the Navy actually considered due to their size. They were initially designed to protect the battle line against enemy destroyer torpedo attacks, and so weren't armed with anything bigger than destroyer caliber. I would argue that the CLAA's aren't a true analogue to the Miranda-class, at least not during the Movie-era. During the TNG-era, well... that might be a different story.

You might be right about examining the Navy of Roddenberry's-era for comparisons. The frigate of the 1960s was a general purpose escort often tasked with convoy escort duties and some ASW work, the destroyer-escort of its day. Knox-class frigates come to mind (the real ones, not the fandom ships). That wouldn't match the Mirandas, which appear distinctly overgunned for such mundane tasks. Plus, when we first saw Reliant she was on a science mission.

However, Roddenberry did serve in the Pacific Theater in the Army Air Corps, and as such would probably have been familiar with US Navy ship types of another era; flying in a B-17, he had to have possessed some idea of what they looked like - can't go bombing the wrong nation's ship! World War Two notions of light versus heavy cruisers, their relative sizes, roles and firepower match the Miranda versus Constitution relationship better. I'm not saying its a perfect fit, just better. Given the way Reliant beat up on Enterprise, shields down or not, with her heavier torpedo and megaphaser armament, calling the Movie-era Mirandas cruisers of some sort is probably justified.

------------------
Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.

Posted by Gaseous Anomaly (Member # 114) on :

Heaven help the ship a B-17 would get medievil on. They were the "Fortresses", right? Long-range formation bombers?

Nothing else to contribute. Prattle away.

------------------
Remember December '59
The howling wind and the driving rain,
Remember the gallant men who drowned
On the lifeboat, Mona was her name.

Posted by Fructose (Member # 309) on :

Actually, the B-17 never did much damage to Japanese ships during WWII. They were horrably inacutate, thus needing dozens just to destroy one factory. When they bombed ships, the Japanese would just turn and virtually none of the bombs would hit. The real damage was done by B-25s that would come in low level over the water and "skip bomb" the ships. The AAA guns on the ships couldn't get low enough to hit the planes and the bombs would just skip on the water until they smacked the sides of the ships. But the B-25's tactic would only work if the B-17s could get the ships to turn. The guy that came up with that idea got a pretty hefty promotion out of it too. Just so you know.

------------------
It doesn't matter if you don't know what you're doing as long as you look good doing it.

Posted by Gg on :

I would think that the Miranda-class would be a frigate-type vessel. She's armed w/phaser banks, phasers cannons, & a torpedo pod which can fire fore/aft. Capt. Spock said in Trek II: "She can still out-run us & out-gun us." Also I thought that all cruiser-type vessels (movie-era) would have a secondary hull. But I can't confirm this. I believe I read this info in a fan-based book or mag, thanks.

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :

Well, that "phaser cannon" thing is a bit iffy, since there's no indication that the phasers on the Reliant's "roll bar" were any different from the phasers on her saucer hull. It's true that Khan used the roll bar phasers exclusively, but perhaps this was just because those were the only ones he'd figured out the triggers for? Or because those had the best firing arcs the way the ships were facing each other?

In DS9 battles, Mirandas always used their saucer-mounted phasers instead of the roll-bar ones.

Cruisers don't always have secondary hulls, btw. The four-nacelled Constellation class is established as a cruiser design in TNG "Peak Performance", even though she only has this one thick saucer hull.

Also, if one compares ships by numbers of visible weapon installations...

Constitution (refit): 12+4+2=18 phasers, 2 fwd torp tubes
Miranda: 12+4=16 phasers, 2 fwd+2 aft=4 torp tubes
Constellation: 12+5=17 phasers, 4 fwd torp tubes

Timo Saloniemi

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Trek does have a bit of a tendancy to label everything as a "cruiser" though...

And unless the refit-constitution had more phaser and photon banks than we saw, I'd definetly say that the Reliant out-gunned the Enterprise (which, as far as can be determinded, didn't even have a rear photon torpedo launcher).

------------------
"Why do you want to spend time with a deer? They're so stupid, they get hypnotized by headlights!" - Guido Anchovy

Posted by bear (Member # 124) on :

I think I will remain with medium cruiser for the Miranda because I think that designation cruiser doesn't refer to its military strength. Medium cruiser just mean the range or duration a ship can go before resupply.

------------------
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/9268/index.html