Flare Sci-Fi Forums: What is Intrepid?

This is topic What is Intrepid? in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/402.html

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :

What is the Intrepid-class categorized as? We know Sovereign is an Explorer and Defiant is an Escort. I've seen Intrepid been called an Explorer and a Scout - but what is it officially? Medium Cruiser is also possible, I suppose. Someone other than Sternbach must know this...

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, DS9 'Tears of the Prophets')
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

There was just a huge discussion about this on Sternbach's newsgroup, actually. All we found out is that many people aren't aware of the purpose or definitions of naval designations.

------------------
Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

Well, on the the show, Voyager was called a 'short -term explorer', which, I guess would count as a scout. And as for the Sovereign, well, she could be either heavy cruiser or explorer, but lets not get into a debate like this again

------------------
"I am Sci-Fi"
-The 359

Posted by Black Knight (Member # 134) on :

I would say light to medium cruiser or scout. But what did the sternbach group come up with?

------------------
A-"Dippidy Doo." Q-"What forms on your dippity early in the morning?"--Johnny Carson

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

Does it matter what they came up with? It's a completely futile argument. The references to certain ships as corresponding to a certain naval classifications are truly rare (and actual canon ones more so), and yet some people insist that this means that every type of vehicle that floats on water has its equivalent in Starfleet. "The Type-9 shuttlepod is, er, um. . . a coracle!" they cry; demands that the Akira be recognised as an aircraft carrier cannot be far off.

It's the same kind of ego trip that lead to all the FASA and Ships of the Starfleet rubbish - the hope that if you can get enough people repeating your theory it will somehow become canon.

The current case - the Intrepid is the best case in point. No-one was disputing its status as a Scout, yet as soon as a glorified runabout/shuttlecraft (and that's all it was - the other Starfleet personnel involved in the Ba'ku project were stationed on the Son'a ship, remember? - appears and is referred to (with no real justification) as a scout, suddenly the Intrepid can't be a Scout, because scouts are small runabouts/shuttlecraft!

For the last time, just because Riker called the New Orleans a Frigate, it doesn't mean that there are also corvettes, schooners, Boston Whalers and whatever else out there! Riker's a f***wit! He may be the first ever Trek character to have all his dialogue declared on-canon! "NCC-1305-E!" "What's Trilithium? Oh, the stuff we nearly had stolen from us in a high-profile terrorist raid, how could I forget?"

------------------
Phase 1: Steal Underpants
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit!

Posted by Black Knight (Member # 134) on :

Yes I agree that riker is an idiot, but do we have any onscreen evidence that voyager is a scout? And I too loath naval classifications in startrek, but since riker's frigate comment or whatever, I have included both types in my comments, hence cruiser/scout.

------------------
A-"Dippidy Doo." Q-"What forms on your dippity early in the morning?"--Johnny Carson

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

It was Worf who referred to frigates, not Riker.

And both the Intrepid and the Insurrection ship can be scouts because scout isn't a naval designation, and thus has nothing to do with size etc.

------------------
Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!

[This message has been edited by The Shadow (edited September 09, 1999).]

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

OHHHH. . . Worf said it! That totally invalidates my argument, and I shall leave these Forums and never return. *door slams; footsteps go down path; car drives off* Sarcasm mode off.

Explorer isn't a naval designation, yet it's the most common designation we've seen. But of course it sounds very non-military, and after three years of tedious Vietnam allegory on DS9 (except this time the US didn't lose) that's not sexy.

Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :

My, we are all in a bitchy mood.

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

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

"Fed up with ongoing petty arguments about inconsequential sh*te" mood is closer to the truth. I mean, am I the only one who thinks that inferring the existence of Starfleet Destroyers, Gondolas, Pedaloes and whatever else, purely from one throwaway line about a frigate, is anal-retentively moronic and far too militaristic for Starfleet?

Posted by JEM on :

'Pedaloes' brilliant
*LOL*

tFO does have a point, you shouldn't expect to be able to apply 20th century classifications to 24th century vessels no more than you could refer to a modern warship as a 2nd Rate Ship of the Line which was the way warships were classified in Nelson's time. As for the reference to 'frigates' (whoever made it), who knows what the term refers to in the 24th century-it might be a garbage-scow for all we know.

I just regard all vessels as being explorers with the possible exception of the attack fighters (Perigrines?-quickly ducks) but some are better able to take care of themselves than others.

BTW I visited Frank's site earlier today and my free pencil still hasn't arrived. Who do I sue?

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Naval designations are normal English words, and they use late 20th-century English on Star Trek. The following, in order of size, are the primary naval designations:

Battleship
Battlecruiser
Cruiser
Destroyer
Frigate
Gunship
Corvette

Battleships (more armor) and battlecruisers (better speed) tend to be about the same size, as do gunships (more weapons) and corvettes (better speed). There are other more specific designations, also.

JEM: The pencil is in the mail.

------------------
Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!

[This message has been edited by The Shadow (edited September 10, 1999).]

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

Interesting point: in 19th-century US English, a Corvette was larger than a Destroyer. . .

I don't think that you can just say "they speak late-20th century English on Trek, and Frigate means 'this', therefore Frigate means the same thing in the 23rd century."

It just doesn't hold up. The only possible designation you could give the Defiant would be Destroyer. Yet it's smaller than a New Orleans which is allegedly a Frigate. Unless they're using 19th century US Navy terms. . . 8)

We got Transports, Yes. We got Explorers and Scouts (and Escort, when they can't bring themselves to say the word 'warship'), indeedy. The only Naval term I really like is Cruiser. It's a beautiful word. It has roots in half a dozen European languages, all meaning "to cross." And what better function for Starfleet ships can there be? To cross the void, in search of knowledge. . . far better than some word that to all intents and purposes adds ". . . and we're going to blow the sh*t out on anything that gets in our way."

There are war Cruisers, yes. But there are also cabin cruisers, land cruisers, police cruisers. . . Say the word 'starcruiser' to yourself. Doesn't it sound magical? It could be anything, a passenger liner, a vessel of exploration or even a warship. And some Starfleet vessles are all those.

------------------
Phase 1: Steal Underpants
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit!

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

It's been a long day: I'm tired, I'm bored, and I've been banging on about this too much. I keep having this feeling I've not put my case, my own theories, across well enough.

Look at any naval ship: you can always tell what it's meant to be. You can't with a Starfleet ship. There's hardly any two classes that you can put next to each other and say "these two are meant to do the same thing." Starfleet isn't about a giant interstellar game of Battleships.

When I got into this subject, it was through the original Utopia Planitia. That incredibly non-canon conjectural stuff that said "Starfleet saw the need for a new ship that did this, this, this and this, while doing this" - not "Starfleet decided to build another type of Frigate." They're generalists. They don't DO specifics. One gets the impression that they'd never built a ship quite as specific as the Defiant before. Admiral Hanson said of Lt. Cdr. Shelby "she got us thinking in different ways" - was this what he meant?

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

The Defiant can be a corvette or gunship (probably gunship).

"I don't think that you can just say 'they speak late-20th century English on Trek, and Frigate means 'this', therefore Frigate means the same thing in the 23rd century.'"

Yes you can. Otherwise Picard could ask for a pizza at a replicator and it would produce a tuna sandwich. It just wouldn't make sense.

Starfleet has plenty of specialised ships; they can do other stuff, but they were built for specific purposes. Otherwise Starfleet wouldn't be a viable organisation.

------------------
Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!

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

Oh, it's a gunship all right - but no way is it a Gunship by any definition you'll find from the past hundred years. See what I mean about the meaning of words changing? Corvette? You're just saying that because the Corvette is the smallest, like the Defiant. I can't remember the word ever being used on screen, either. . .

What is a Galaxy? Is it a warship? An exploration vessel? A science vessel? A passenger liner? A transport? It's been all those. What was its main specific function, and does it even matter? And you would then have us believe that it was built to be a warship, and is therefore a battleship, full stop, end of debate? I don't think so somehow.

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Words don't have to be used on-screen. They've never said "tuna sandwich" in a Trek episode, but that doesn't mean that tuna sandwiches don't exist in Trek.

The Galaxy is a multipurpose ship, yes...but that doesn't mean all Starfleet ships are multi-purpose. And a Galaxy can function as a battleship in combat, but that doesn't mean that's all it was designed for.

------------------
Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!

Posted by Sunspot (Member # 77) on :

Okay, you guys are fighting over this why?

------------------
"She's never letting me forget, I've always been an idiot"
-The Verve Pipe

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

What would you call the 'light short-term planetary survey vessel' Equinox? A Destroyer? Destroyer doesn't sound like the proper name for that kind of ship! It's a science ship! I don't give a damn how big it is, it's a science ship! What it does it what matters, not it's size!

And as for words changing, thats bull. Do we talk the same as people in the 1600s? Heck no. People from 400 years in the past weren't talking like that. 400 years in the future will be the same thing. Words change. I mean, look at 'gay' and 'fag' (for you Americans). Their meanings today are COMPLETLY different from their old meanings!

------------------
"I am Sci-Fi"
-The 359

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Exactly. Terms like explorer and scout are not naval designations, and have nothing to do with size, nor should they be mixed in with real designations.

Regardless of what might be realistic, on Star Trek they speak in the same language as we do today.

------------------
Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!

Posted by Black Knight (Member # 134) on :

Worf didn't neccissarily use frigate as a starfleet designation. Because he is a klingon, he probably thinks of starfleet ships from a more military perspective, maybe thats why he said frigate, not because of some starfleet designation.

------------------
A-"Dippidy Doo." Q-"What forms on your dippity early in the morning?"--Johnny Carson

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

I don't like the way you equate 'naval' with 'real.' There is still nowhere near enough conclusive evidence to suggest Starfleet uses a military classification system. And to have people virtually ordering me to think otherwise on the basis of one throwaway line really pisses me off.

The fact is, we don't know! I admit I could be wrong. Can my counterpart in this little contretemps do the same? If the much-dreamed-of ship book ever appears and it uses an undeniably military classification system, then so be it. I won't be happy about it, to say the least, but. . .

Excellent points raised there, Matt and BK. It continues to be my assertion that we just don't know enough about some ships' functions to be able to assign any kind of designation, let alone one based on ship size. As for Worf's choice of term, I rather suspect he would use the official term, not one that might mean something only to him. Nice theory, though. . .

So come on, Frank, admit it! They don't HAVE to have naval designations! They might! They might not! You can concede that much, can't you?

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

I'm not equating "naval" with "real." Designations like scout and explorer are perfectly good, but that doesn't mean they have any relation to ones like frigate, destroyer, etc.

------------------
Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Oh...I see what you mean. In the post you're referring to, change "real designations" to "real naval designations." :P

------------------
Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!

Posted by bear (Member # 124) on :

If a vessel's spaceframe is designed with life expectancy of 100 years, than its safe to assume that in a hundred year its tactical ability would have decreased dramatically, so using traditional naval designations to describe firepower doesn't work. All vessels of Star Trek are multipurpose in their design, so it makes sense that they would need something to differentiate between their abilities. If everyone agrees that Starfleet is not solely a military force than we also have to agree that the possibility of non-military designations may exist. We have heard ships being referred to as cruisers, scouts, explorers, and frigates, so is it possible that these are the main existing categories.

Frank: I already know your take on this topic and I don't require your input.

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

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

Nice one, Bear. Still waiting for Frank to admit he could be wrong. 8)

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

There's nothing wrong with reclassifying a ship if necessary.

"All vessels of Star Trek are multipurpose in their design."

Firstly, you probably mean Starfleet ships, not all Trek ships. Secondly, only a few of the largest Starfleet ships seem to be entirely multipurpose...most would have a specific function.

Again, classifications like scout, explorer, surveyor, etc. are perfectly valid, but they have no correlation to terms like frigate, destroyer, etc.

------------------
Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!

[This message has been edited by The Shadow (edited September 10, 1999).]

Posted by bear (Member # 124) on :

Firstly, what other ships did you think I was talking about Frank? Please, the last time I checked this topic was on Starfleet ship classification. Secondly, what the hell does "entirely" mean, given that we don't have a complete understanding of a ships day to day functions, you are going to tell me that there is a known amount of multipurposeness needed to be considered truly multipurpose.

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

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

You were over-generalising, though. We don't want any Romulans or Klingons to be offended.

Even though ships can do lots of stuff, most would probably have a specific function. For example, Oberths are generally assumed to be science/survey ships, although there's no reason to say they can't do other things also.

------------------
Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

Well, Frank, with the terms Explorer, Scout, Escort, etc., and only 2 naval designations ever really being used, have you ever thought of the fact that military designations have been adapted to fit into THIS way, instead of terms explorer, scout, etc and everything being adapted into the naval designations? I mean, you keep saying that some new 24th century designations should be added to the already known 20th century naval terms. Frankly (no pun intended), it APPEARS to be the other way around, since we appear to have heard more non-naval designations heard then naval designations.

------------------
"I am Sci-Fi"
-The 359

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

No, no, no...explorer, scout, etc. have nothing to do with naval designations like frigate, cruiser, etc. The two systems are separate from each other.

------------------
Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!

Posted by bear (Member # 124) on :

Is it not possible Frank that the terms Frigate and Cruiser could mean a ships operating range and not its firepower? Is it possible that ships capable of long interstellar travel are all classified as cruisers of one kind or another, and in fact isn't this what the DS9 tech states. The scenes that I have seen and the canon information that I have read seem to point to a simplified arrangement of designations. The fact that ship classes are more widely known than any military designation leads me to believe that ships are differentiated more by their class than any military designation.

I am sick of this thread, and it obviously is not being read by anyone with any other opinion than frank, so I move that the thread be closed.

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

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Frank: You seem to think that the names of ship classifications has always been and always will be. That's just plain bullsh*t. Defintions change; words are invented; terms are dropped. Just look at when the different classifications were invented:

battleship: 1794
battlecruiser: 1911
cruiser: 1695
destroyer: 1300s
destroyer escort: 1924
ship of the line: 1706
frigate: 1583
corvette: 1636
sloop of war: 1706

Those terms don't all mean the same thing they did when they were created, and some aren't even used at all anymore. So what makes you think the scheme you're using now is somehow the ultimateone that will be used from now until eternity?

------------------
"Maybe they're trying to breed them..."
-guy in my math class, suggesting a reason for there being two overhead projectors in the classroom

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :

I can't help but sit back and laugh at the chaos I've caused with this thread

What makes you guys think that Starfleet must use traditional naval classification terms? Also, the Starfleet classification types refer to overall ship purpose - not their size or weapons, specifically. A scout doesn't have to be a small vessel and a warship doesn't have to be massive.

Can everyone please calm down? After all, Trek is meant to be entertainment to be enjoyed (not war)

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, DS9 'Tears of the Prophets')
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK

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

Don't take it personally, Daxxy. The majority of us know that the most likely explanation is that they use a mix of terminologies. But we're arguing against Frank, who has never once in his life admitted he might be wrong. That kind of certainty is actually bloody scary, but strangely compelling to observe. 8)

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Bear: A system where everything is a "cruiser" is not viable. And just because you're tired of a thread doesn't mean anyone else is.

TSN: Haven't you read the thread? Naval classificiations are still part of the English language, today's version of which is used on Trek. And thanks to information-distribution systems like the Internet and lack of wars, I doubt the naval classification system will change much in quite a while anyway.

Dax: Exactly. Ships of any size can be scouts, explorers, etc.

Lee: Of course I could be wrong, but I wouldn't argue for something unless I were pretty certain I were right.

------------------
Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

Gene Roddenberry used to say that everyone's TV had a built-in universal translator, making it so what we heard was in English (no subtitles!) and translated into modern-day English. Frank is getting at the fact that what we see on Trek is in our version of English, no matter whether or not the definitions will change over the next few hundred years.

I think.

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Exactly. And even if Sony and Zenith did manufacture universal translators and forget to mention it, we'd still be hearing late 20th-century English on TV anyway.

"In English, Data!" - Picard

------------------
Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!

[This message has been edited by The Shadow (edited September 11, 1999).]

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :

"I doubt the naval classification system will change much in quite a while anyway."

Hmm, well, you DOUBT it? Does it mean it IS going to happen that way? I mean, people doubted if supersonic flight is possible, but, well, you know the answer to that. Things change. They will change. It may not be immediate, but I think 400 years is long enough for there to be some major changes

------------------
"I am Sci-Fi"
-The 359

Posted by bear (Member # 124) on :

lol

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

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

In 400 years, language will probably be different in several ways, yes. But, that's irrelevant, since they speak late 20th-century English on Trek.

------------------
Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!

Posted by bear (Member # 124) on :

Frank: You are splitting hairs. If the only reason StarTrek appeals to you is because of the military aspect than I feel you are missing the whole point of Trek."nasty remarks..................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................."

My new designation

Cool Cruiser
Ugly Cruiser
Small Cruiser
Very small Cruiser
Slow Surveyor
Fast Scout
Huge Explorer
Funny Frigate
KISS Cruiser

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

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

What does the "military aspect" of Trek have to do anything? (Although I suppose I should mention that DS9 was largely about a war, and Starfleet is almost constantly at war).

------------------
Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Frank: They do not speak solely in twentieth-century English on Trek. If they did, words like "warp drive", "phaser", and "starship" would all refer to nonexistent objects. However, in the Trek universe, these things are quite existent.

Or, perhaps this is a better example... Remember the tie Worf referred to the debris of some ship as "flotsam"? Well, these days, "flotsam" specifically refers to debris that is floating on water. If all Trek words mean exactly what they mean today, then Worf must have actually been referring to some ship whose pieces were down on a planet somewhere, not the stuff up in space...

------------------
"Maybe they're trying to breed them..."
-guy in my math class, suggesting a reason for there being two overhead projectors in the classroom

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Those words/phrases are all new constructs, though. It's not a matter of randomly reassigning definitions.

Well, the second definition of flotsam at Dictionary.com makes no reference to the ocean. :P

------------------
Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!

[This message has been edited by The Shadow (edited September 12, 1999).]

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

And starship does have a current definition!

------------------
Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!

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

Gosh, I wonder what designation a White Star is? After all, if the Victory-class is a Destroyer. . . 8)

(and where the heck does 'Victory-class' come from anyway? It's not used in "A Call To Arms," nor is there any indication it was the first. Nor was there any mention of the other thing I heard - that only it had the Vorlon adaptive armour)

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

The designations in B5 are as messed-up as the rank insignia.

------------------
Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!