posted
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
>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.
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.
posted
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
>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
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
------------------ "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
"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
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
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
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic