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