Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
T-Negative #27 (Yes, I *found* it!)
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peregrinus: [QB] In no particular order: Starfleet calling a Klingon ship a Battlecruiser, and Klingons calling a Starfleet ship a Battlecruiser seems, in light of all the other supporting evidence on the two race's/organization's nomenclatures, to be a Klingon thing. Don't know if I've mentioned my [i]Ambassador[/i] conclusions on here yet, but I think we also have Explorer-[i]Ambassador[/i]s. The ones in the [i]Enterprise-C[/i] configuration are the Explorers, while the ones in the [i]Yamaguchi[/i] configuration are the Heavy Cruisers. The differences are minor, but permanent enough I don't think it's something that would be possible in a spacedock layover. Enough plumbing and positioning changes are involved that they have to be intended and built - from the keel up - as one or the other. I apply the same process retroactively to the [i]Excelsior[/i] class. The stock [i]Excelsior[/i]s, whether with one or two deflection crystals, are the Heavy Cruisers. The later [i]Enterprise-B[/i]-style ships are the Explorers. That handily answers why Starfleet would continue ordering ships of the earlier design after the later design was introduced. By that token, I include "Tactical Cruiser" in my type designation glossary as a Cruiser-sized vessel with more of an emphasis placed on fleet actions, combat capability, and/or border patrols along contested boundaries than your run-of-the-mill multimission Cruiser (Light, Regular, or Heavy). That's all my rambling at the moment... --Jonah [/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