StarShip Classifications in your Head Cannon!

[Shamrock Holmes]

I think that just a few designations are better. In my opinion the longer names seen in the fandom like "advanced heavy tactical command frigate" might exist in the sense that they explain why two designs/classes of similar size or configuration might coexist, but I cannot see them being used in regular daily parlance.

...

A short set of terms like this makes sense for daily use. Here is the version I think about when analyzing the series, modifying the TNG tech manual system.

Explorer (peacetime name for Battleship)-big, expensive, only Galaxy and newer

Cruiser-general use ship, on the big side, covers most hero ships up to Ambassador

I'd also add frigate (may operate with escorts and scout in Destroyer Unit in wartime) - general use ship, smaller than a cruiser, includes smaller hero ships like the Intrepid, OG Connies and similar-sized supporting designs like Mirandas, New Orleans and similar. Mentioned in dialogue, rather than the TM so canon.

Cargo Carrier (peacetime name for Fighter Carrier)- big, but unlike the real Navy, smaller than a cruiser, Akira would be an example.

Tanker-smaller, still capable of general duties, or carrying supplies, like the Ptolemy.

Surveyor/Escort (peacetime name for Destroyer)-small, operates on the edge territory, mapping and some border policing, but can also carry cargo (Antares from TOS)

Scout-small, fast, plentiful, inexpensive, (Grissom would be a newer example)

So that keeps it down to 6 quick designations. But, an Intrepid and a Steamrunner might both be Destroyers with different longer classifications, but I don't like to use them often

While I buy the idea of Surveyours and Escorts being a similar "size", IMO it's more likely that they are a pair of complementary designs intended to work together in fleets (tho they might be able to swap in extremis).

Either Sabers or Defiants would be the Escorts to the Nova's Surveyour.

 

[Timo]

I think that just a few designations are better. In my opinion the longer names seen in the fandom like "advanced heavy tactical command frigate" might exist in the sense that they explain why two designs/classes of similar size or configuration might coexist, but I cannot see them being used in regular daily parlance.

Today, long names in naval warfare are indeed a "dockyard" thing, a fancy product name to be flaunted in marketing and budgetary debates. In practice, a Littoral Combat Ship is but a frigate by another name, and functionally considered one. Similarly, and lamentably, sensible Soviet designations such as Large ASW Ship got translated as destroyer, and modern Russian designations follow the "complex manufacturer designation / traditional practical name" pattern, with frigates and destroyers and cruisers galore.

This would support the idea that in general use, they are not many different classifications in use. Pike version of the ship might be just a cruiser, or even be a light cruiser, and Kirk's version a heavy cruiser, but I would expect both to be called "Constitution (or Star Ship) class" by anyone but a drydock master. In the heat of battle, the general idea that the ship is a well-balanced cruiser is likely more relevant than knowing whether is something like a "defensive strike armored light cruiser" as opposed to some other type of cruiser.

One might even go as far as say that "Starship class" is a functional description defining the vessel as being capable of all the "starship jobs", whereas any other designation means a more limited vessel. But the "popular" names such as Constitution class would come atop that, and be preferred in all identification, because those tell all the Starships apart from each other.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

One might even go as far as say that "Starship class" is a functional description defining the vessel as being capable of all the "starship jobs", whereas any other designation means a more limited vessel.

There's at least some indication that this is or was true (probably through the 23rd Century, potentially not the case by the late 24th (Explorer seems to have taken over this 'slot' by then). Certainly Scotty at one point considering starships and cruisers to be different things:

SCOTT: Aye. You're familiar with them?
PICARD: There's one in the Fleet museum, but then of course, this is your Enterprise?
SCOTT: I actually served on two. This was the first. She was also the first ship I ever served on as Chief Engineer. You know, I served aboard eleven ships. Freighters, cruisers, starships, but this is the only one I think of. The only one I miss.

 

[Timo]

Then again, there's that other "cruiser" to consider, the small pleasure vessel such as Aurora or the Solkar from DSC. A bit difficult to see Scotty "serving aboard" a tiny skiff like that (especially as an underling to an engineering crew!), but perhaps the pleasure cruiser concept covers a wider size range.

I'd like to believe in that distinction nevertheless, as the two Enterprises Scotty did serve on were both identified as cruisers in addition to at least one being a starship.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Then again, there's that other "cruiser" to consider, the small pleasure vessel such as Aurora or the Solkar from DSC. A bit difficult to see Scotty "serving aboard" a tiny skiff like that (especially as an underling to an engineering crew!), but perhaps the pleasure cruiser concept covers a wider size range.

I'd like to believe in that distinction nevertheless, as the two Enterprises Scotty did serve on were both identified as cruisers in addition to at least one being a starship.

Timo Saloniemi

Personally, I think they should have either stuck with the Solkar-class' original designation of corvette (per the DSC: OSC) or called it a runabout. (Inspired by "cabin cruiser" and the earlier cruising yacht).

However, I think the earlier TOS references probably equate more to the cruise ship, which is a design that classically could span a range of sizes between frigate and a battleship and the current record holder, the Symphony of the Seas displaces more than a Gerald R Ford-class supercarrier.

 

[Timo]

We do have reason to think that Scotty served on civilian ships - if the use of "freighter" here instead of the military "transport" isn't evidence enough, there's the bit about him being "engineering advisor" to the Deneva/asteroid mine runs. But the terminology is not clear-cut, the timeline even less so. Still, civilian cruisers are an explicit thing ever since "Way to Eden" at the very least.

One just has to wonder how many other designations we hear are ambiguous like that. "Frigate" used to be a hull form designation at one time, not necessarily narrowly specifying the free-ranging, cruising warship type or even the sail rig but more generally establishing her hydrodynamic form that could also serve in civilian roles. A civilian "destroyer" would be conceptually interesting to put it mildly, but we can't utterly rule out such things...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

AFAIK the term "frigate" classically refered to a single gun-deck warship (which is technically true of (most if not) all (modern warships) and is therefore incompatible with it being a civilian design (police frigate might be possible).

Scotty's civilian service has never been covered in any detail canonically, however both the comic Who's Who in Star Trek, Issue 2 and the TOS novel Kobayashi Maru indicate that he served as a teenager prior to attending the Academy, and therefore was likely a deckhand or ordinary crewman at the time.

Given the historical background of the "destroyer" as a patrol and convoy escort, I would suggest that escort is the civilian term for vessels of that size and performance, however cutter would also have some currency to it (though only really based on the USCG, cutters internationally are usually much smaller.

 

[Timo]

...Do civilian convoys like the fictional one in "Friday's Child" get civilian armed escorts? There'd be obvious demand for mercenaries of that sort, what with Starfleet always arriving a bit after the nick of time in that era.

Civilian and unarmed probably don't go hand in hand in any Trek era. Which may or may not affect the designation issue.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

I'd also add frigate (may operate with escorts and scout in Destroyer Unit in wartime) - general use ship, smaller than a cruiser, includes smaller hero ships like the Intrepid, OG Connies and similar-sized supporting designs like Mirandas, New Orleans and similar. Mentioned in dialogue, rather than the TM so canon.

I meant to add Frigate in my list as the term is explicitly used in TNG to refer to ships that would later be also be identified as New Orleans class.

However incongruous this might sound, I see a Starfleet frigate as the same as what this TNG tech manual calls a Tanker, as in my post (Ptolemy, Miranda, etc). It makes sense though. These types of smaller ships could escort cruisers, but also be tankers if so outfitted. We see Mirandas used this way in TNG; the New Orleans' pods make it possible for them, and the weird DS9TM Excelsior variants might be for this purpose, too.

While I buy the idea of Surveyours and Escorts being a similar "size", IMO it's more likely that they are a pair of complementary designs intended to work together in fleets (tho they might be able to swap in extremis).

Either Sabers or Defiants would be the Escorts to the Nova's Surveyour.

I agree with your assessment of the Surveryor/Escort classes. I was trying to pair up peacetime/wartime names to have fewer designations while keeping with the idea that at least the TNG era does not want to call things by wartime names (i.e. Explorer instead of Battleship)

One might even go as far as say that "Starship class" is a functional description defining the vessel as being capable of all the "starship jobs", whereas any other designation means a more limited vessel.

I think that your distinction works well to explain why "Star Ships" seem so rare in TOS and yet there are seemingly a lot more in TNG. It also could explain that earlier thread concerning why there are few to no Constitutions in TNG.

Mirandas could have been built as a "Star Ship Class" in the TOS/Movie era, to be evenly capable vessels, and though capable of any starship job, they may have been relagated to Cargo Carrier and Escort duties by TNG.

Alternatively, perhaps Crusier-type or Explorer-type starships always functioned with frigate-type or escort-type vessels a week or two distant in case of the outbreak of war. Numerous early TNG episodes speak of the Hood being a about 7-8 days away. Also, a number of TOS episodes mention a crisis being so dire that help could not arrive in time, perhaps implying that given two weeks, there would be help?

Just some thoughts about my imaginary way, even though we really don't get to see much of it it, that fleet operations might actually work in the show.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

This would support the idea that in general use, they are not many different classifications in use. Pike version of the ship might be just a cruiser, or even be a light cruiser, and Kirk's version a heavy cruiser, but I would expect both to be called "Constitution (or Star Ship) class" by anyone but a drydock master. In the heat of battle, the general idea that the ship is a well-balanced cruiser is likely more relevant than knowing whether is something like a "defensive strike armored light cruiser" as opposed to some other type of cruiser.

That's why I left the military designations for military purposes as needed and have the Explorer designations of Multi-Role Explorer (Lv. #) be the indicator based on what kind of stuff you want to get done when exploring.

Because in my Head Cannon the combat & Exploration are two different functions and you choose the tool needed for the job without conflating the two based on what Exploration or Combat needs you think will be needed.

 

[STR]

I would argue they are both. Which is very much a thing in the RW. It would be pretty unusual for every ship to be equally balanced in it's abilities. In fact, I'd argue that the four main hero ships of TOS-VOY demonstrate this. While both Enterprises are fairly balanced, Voyager is explicitly a smaller vessel that has less ability to act as a transport vessel or supply ship (and arguably as a diplomatic vessel), and may have significantly reduced scientific analysis and R & D facilities, the only area that it might equal the Galaxy-class is combat, but even if it's about the same offensively, I'd say that it is inferior defensively. The Defiant is good in a fight, but the best that can be said of it's science credentials is that sensors appear to be decent as it explicitly lacks science labs, and is very limited in the transport, supply or diplomatic roles.

Arleigh Burke and the (late) Spruance classes served far different roles and both are destroyers. The Ticonderoga class has mostly similar weapons, sensor, engineering systems, and (critically) mission to the Burke, yet the Ticonderoga is a cruiser. None of these type-names make any consistent sense.

Now, in Trek, we really don't have any idea what makes an Intrepid better than an Excelsior. We're just supposed to assume it is because it's newer. So we've got zero data but I'm supposed to organize these things into very narrow type classifications? Nah. Your request cannot be completed. Please try again.

Defiant, as always, is a special case. You could toss "warship" as a 3rd category alongside starship and shuttle and I'd be cool.

I also agree that the Mirandas and other classes were likely downgraded as they stayed in service while other bigger classes were brought into service.

One of the first things Discovery taught is was that it was foolish to assume ships were always smaller in the 23rd century than the 24th.

We also don't know what that extra volume really means, if anything. Maybe it's just space for improved crew accommodations. Those holodecks take up a lot of space. For all we know, the Ambassador was functionally similar (maybe an incremental advance) over Excelsior, but with the triple bunking removed.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Your exactly right STR, that's why I wanted to separate out the Exploration from the Combat.

They're 2x different focuses that need to use two different label/categorization systems to accomplish their respective goals.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

Voyager is explicitly a smaller vessel that has less ability to act as a transport vessel or supply ship (and arguably as a diplomatic vessel), and may have significantly reduced scientific analysis and R & D facilities, the only area that it might equal the Galaxy-class is combat, but even if it's about the same offensively, I'd say that it is inferior defensively.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss artistic intent in this ship-design context. I have read in numerous issues of the Star Trek Magazine and also seen YouTube interviews suggesting that to designer Rick Sternbach Voyager was actually meant to be more of a science ship than the Galaxy. This could make sense if we take into account the idea perpetuated by the video games that science ships are actually able to function in wartime as light ships with lots of weapons. The New Orleans and Nebula seem like they could be like this, too, what with their pods that could be equiped with so many different things.

However, you make also make a good critique of my designation system, as Voyager is also clearly able to carry fewer supplies than the Galaxy, arguing against it being both a Tanker and a Frigate, but it certainly seems like a frigate as I explained above.

For all we know, the Ambassador was functionally similar (maybe an incremental advance) over Excelsior, but with the triple bunking removed.

I think that it is true that the Ambassador is closely-related but much-expanded in terms of facilities to the Excelsior, rather than a totally new generation of ship. Probably it could carry more supplies for longer missions, since the secondary hull had a much longer section prior to the aft hull undercut. The only Excelsior mission length we know for sure is 3 years, as opposed to 5 for the Enterprise and 10+ intended for the Galaxy. With its long aft hull undercut and a largely open cargo bay just fore of it, perhaps the Excelsior would only be used for short missions.

One of the first things Discovery taught is was that it was foolish to assume ships were always smaller in the 23rd century than the 24th.

Sorry, not going to take ships from that new CBS show into consideration for my own interpretation. I consider that show's the up-scaled ships to be a stylistic choice that does not necessary reflect the correct scaling of the ships in-universe. That being said, if bigger ships than Enterprise-like cruisers existed, it would not break a basic system that considered any XL ships to be Explorers.

 

[Crazyewok]

Today, long names in naval warfare are indeed a "dockyard" thing, a fancy product name to be flaunted in marketing and budgetary debates. In practice, a Littoral Combat Ship is but a frigate by another name, and functionally considered one. Similarly, and lamentably, sensible Soviet designations such as Large ASW Ship got translated as destroyer, and modern Russian designations follow the "complex manufacturer designation / traditional practical name" pattern, with frigates and destroyers and cruisers galore.



One might even go as far as say that "Starship class" is a functional description defining the vessel as being capable of all the "starship jobs", whereas any other designation means a more limited vessel. But the "popular" names such as Constitution class would come atop that, and be preferred in all identification, because those tell all the Starships apart from each other.

Timo Saloniemi

"Starship" might be a more diplomatic term for battleship


Cruiser and frigate you can get away with without sounding too hostile but battleship has aggressive name and with Starfleet being so dishonest about itself (ie we are not a military even though we fight wars) they might have decided on a different term.

Likewise "escort" might stand for destroyer.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

"Starship" might be a more diplomatic term for battleship


Cruiser and frigate you can get away with without sounding too hostile but battleship has aggressive name and with Starfleet being so dishonest about itself (ie we are not a military even though we fight wars) they might have decided on a different term.

Likewise "escort" might stand for destroyer.

IMO "starship" is more "multi-role vessel". Both the NX and Connie resemble the 20th Century Cruiser/21st Century destroyer to me.

I agree with you on the politics of the "battleship" term for Starfleet. I've mentioned that tactical cruiser and attack cruiser have been suggested in secondary material for the Prometheus and maybe the Sovereign-class and Vesta-class as well.

If the Defiant-class is representive size wise of "escorts" is probably more "torpedo boat" or "WWII destroyer" than the modern definition.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

IMO "StarShip" more defines the traveling capability of the ship vs "SpaceShip"

"SpaceShip" might be good for local within Planetary System

"StarShip" is for traveling between the stars.

"GalaxyShip" will be for traveling between Galaxies!

"UniverseShip" will be for going between any where in the existing Universe!

"TimeShip" is for traveling across Time.

"DimensionShip" for crossing the Dimensional Fabric

"RealityShip" is for jumping between Parallel Universes.

 

[Ithekro]

The Japanese have been using "escort" for decades for basically every surface warship they have...including the recently completed "its not a carrier" carriers.

 

[Timo]

The word for JNSDF ships is generally translated as "destroyer" (which of course was predominantly an escort vessel after WWII, but not before that); I have no idea what the literal translation ought to be. Russians liked to speak of "squadronships" where the West spoke of destroyers, these being functionally the same thing since a single destroyer of old could never hope to achieve anything much; all others relied on direct translations of the original Spanish-French expression for a ship dedicated to destroying a threat to the big battleships (while, say, battleships weren't required to destroy anything in order to achieve their mission of strategic domination, but their name in basically all languages reflects their role of battling each other).

But yes, terminology obfuscates as often as it describes.

Perhaps worth pointing out here are the many instances where a naval designation is neither functional or falsely functional. "Monitors" and "dreadnoughts" are not descriptive of what these ships do - the names came to be purely because of proper name precedent, because of certain ships of this type being iconic (if not necessarily quite the first). And Starfleet still likes to use at least the latter designation.

Possibly "starship" is likewise a proper name that has stuck, even though it can be mistaken for a functional description the same way "dreadnought" perhaps can?

"SpaceShip" might be good for local within Planetary System travel while "StarShip" is for traveling between the stars.

Then again, the onscreen distinction between the two arises in "Bread and Circuses" when the boss man of a spaceship wants to point out that his opponent commands a starship instead. Yet even this spaceship got to an alien star system easily enough, on her "class four stardrive"...

There would be no competing definition of "spaceship" that the boss man could be referring to, as his conversation partner comes from a society that does not yet know how to get to space, and hasn't met other space travelers. That we'd know of.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ithekro]

Well "Starship-class" would suggest (with some navies) that there was a USS Starship at one point in time.

In other navies (British) it could be a designation based on what the class in generally named after (R-class, County-class), with all the ships on a class named after famous starships (Enterprise, Intrepid, Republic, Columbia).

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I'm not talking about a "StarShip-Class".

Just Type of vessel as "StarShip"