Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
since when was voyager said to be a warship?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Red Admiral: [QB] Exactamundo Seven Languages, I agree entirely that 'no warships' is just a Starfleet PR tag. If you really think about, Starfleet and Federation would've been utterly conquered long ago without them. They are a military force and have to defend and patrol a massive region of space, and over the years have accumulated a multitude of adversaries. Look at the defense forces such as Section 31. I've always been a proponent of Starfleet's angle of adopting naval terms, in itself a military. we know all this. One of the pages on my site deals with ship designations. As well as a little creativity to fill in certain gaps and grey areas this is based on canon knowledge. [URL=http://www.trekmania.net/the_fleet/utopia/DEFINITIONS.htm]http://www.trekmania.net/the_fleet/utopia/DEFINITIONS.htm[/URL] Its a canon fact that Starfleet uses the terms Frigate, Cruiser, Escort and Destroyer. The latter three alone were used by Sisko in the DS9 Dominion war to describe Federation taskforces. Perhaps as Seven Languages suggests, all ships are adequately armed to deal with potential threats, and could quietly be described as potential ships of war. Voyager included. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3