• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The First Seventeen Classes...

T'Girl,

I don't see the logic in having one of the letter include the name of the ship's class in the registry...
Nor do I.

Of course, what sources you choose to include as reference material will have some bearing on what is done with the NCC bit.
Is is just TOS, where NCC is the only thing known? Do we include TAS, where we have a historic reference of the NCC placed after the number on the Bonaventure and contemporary examples like NCC-F1913? TNG, which gave us NSP and NAR (and a historical reference to NAR in the Mariposa, which allows a 23rd century usage?)

To me the it should be, if the letters must mean something, N for UFP/Starfleet. Second letter is functional, A for auxilary, C for combatant, S for stores/supply. The third letter delineates the function further, R for research, C for cruiser*, P for provisions or passengers, etc.

As I said before though, I don't think the system should be fixed and unchanging over the 200 year history of the UFP. Not very believable or realistic IMO. But if you must make it so, I'd go with something like the above...

*(the historical definition of this word from the age of sail was a ship tasked to operate for long periods independent of the fleet. Since that is also pretty much what a starship is, NCC gets slapped onto the majority of SF's multipurpose vehicles.)
 
I really hate to put my foot in this pool, but thought I would throw in my $0.02 worth.

In modern parlance, "SS" refers to "steam ship," e.g., a ship powered by steam. Could the "N" refer to Federation with the "CC" refering to the power plant the ship utilizes? "Cochrane Capable" for instance (bad example, but I think you get the idea).

Again, just a thought. YMMV
 
I don't see the logic in having one of the letter include the name of the ship's class in the registry...
Just a way of breaking down each series of ship types further, each series of ship types is divided into 26 sub-series or classes. Each class is name for the next letter in the alphabetic sequence. The C-series would be classes 53 (A) through 78 (Z).

If the Federation had been around for a thousand years, maybe. A little over a century, I don't think so.
At thousand years? Maybe not. When the Federation was first formed, the various original members had their own fleets. I think that after the Fedration was formed the members kept much of their fleets, however the units that were transferred into Federation service would have been consolidated into Starfleet. These ships would have been given new identification under Starfleet's identification system (largely would have kept their original names). These alone would account for dozens of ship classes.

Many subsequent new members would also transfer some of their ships into Starfleet, which would also need to be re-identified as well. In addition, there would be ships purposefully built solely for Starfleet's use throughout the first century, not just cruisers and destroyers, but multiple surveyors, tugs, tenders, transports. After a single century there could easily be 55 classes. Probably more than 55 classes.

The Constitution's are a somewhat older ship, if the Enterprise is the 17th design within her class, that makes her the 16 variant. Each variant might only have a few ships each.

Kirk, in reference to the Enterprise, said; "There are only 12 like her in the fleet."

By Kirk's era, Starfleet might be composed of several hundred ships (maybe thousands), of a wide variety of classes.

:)

This all is just shear conjecture on my part.

:)
 
The idea that Jefferies put out there was that the Enterprise was the first one of the seventeeth design, hence 1701. And that was really just a way of rationalizing a choice of the numbers that were really chosen because they're the easiest to distinguish at a distance, or on a small screen.
 
Of course another thought that keeps bouncing around my brain is if there is some way that the NCC code and/or the 17th design thingie could be used to explain why the Enterprise had Starship Class on her dedication plaque ...
 
Of course another thought that keeps bouncing around my brain is if there is some way that the NCC code and/or the 17th design thingie could be used to explain why the Enterprise had Starship Class on her dedication plaque ...

I'd like some fandom explanation of that. Constitution class makes sense, but Starship Class sounds so majestic/magical. It also sounds like it could be old-timey by the late 23rd century, or an outdated term.

Like the term Starship was redefined, and then it was outdated because other ships caught up...

Anyway...
 
Of course another thought that keeps bouncing around my brain is if there is some way that the NCC code and/or the 17th design thingie could be used to explain why the Enterprise had Starship Class on her dedication plaque ...

I'd like some fandom explanation of that. Constitution class makes sense, but Starship Class sounds so majestic/magical. It also sounds like it could be old-timey by the late 23rd century, or an outdated term.

Like the term Starship was redefined, and then it was outdated because other ships caught up...

Anyway...
Well before the advent of ST:ENT I had a half-formed notion that usage of the term starship was similar to usage of the term dreadnought about a hundred years ago.

HMS Dreadnought, launched in 1906, represented such an advancement in naval technologies that her arrival essentially obsoleted most of the world's navies. And battleships were referred to as dreadnoughts and pre-dreadnoughts for the early part of the 20th century.

In the same vein, a starship represented such an advancement ("the time barrier's been broken!") that for a while, it was a term that referred to a special class of vessels which used the new tech (dilithium or A/M maybe?) and not to one particular design. (I like the idea that it was dilithium because that seemed to be the resource everyone was scrambling to find in Kirk's time)
 
Last edited:
Of course another thought that keeps bouncing around my brain is if there is some way that the NCC code and/or the 17th design thingie could be used to explain why the Enterprise had Starship Class on her dedication plaque ...

Didn't Kirk already refer to the "USS" portion as the "United Star Ship (or Space Ship depending on the episode)? That would rule out the use of Starship as the purpose for the NCC.

Of course, YMMV.
 
In the same vein, a starship represented such an advancement ("the time barrier's been broken!") that for a while, it was a term that referred to a special class of vessels

ENT sort of contradicts that, as all the vessels in the 2150s are considered starships, too.

But one might argue that "starship" still is a term equivalent to dreadnought or battleship - and that each and every of the ships in ENT were dreadnoughts or battleships in terms of relative importance. After all, while established naval powers in Earth's history might be mostly visible through their use of light units such as frigates or cruisers to patrol the far fringes of their reign, ascending naval powers would tend to only operate "parity ships", that is, their heaviest battleships, when they wanted international visibility. The mighty Vulcan ringships might have been "starships" all - and Earth would insist on referring to NX-01 as a "starship" as well, purely for reasons of prestige.

By the time of TOS (and specifically ST4), there would again exist a more "honest" division to "starships and lesser vessels". Yet as the TNG era dawned, it might be that Starfleet would have a logical reason for calling all of its assets, down to the smallest and humblest, "starship". After all, thanks to evolving technology, even those small and humble units would be mighty and powerful in comparison with the 2150s standards - yet mere 200 years would not significantly alter the galactic norm, so the relative ascent of Starfleet importance would be evident.

Timo Saloniemi
 
In the same vein, a starship represented such an advancement ("the time barrier's been broken!") that for a while, it was a term that referred to a special class of vessels
ENT sort of contradicts that, as all the vessels in the 2150s are considered starships, too.

Which is why I said this before the rest of my comments:

Well before the advent of ST:ENT I had a half-formed notion that usage of the term starship was similar to usage of the term dreadnought about a hundred years ago.
 
Regarding the designation of "Starship", I think it could be argued to be a special designation to ships in the cruiser classification or above, much like how "warship" is defined by a vessel of cruiser-type or bigger (cruiser, battleship, carrier).

As for the NCC "tail-numbers", I think it would be best for N to mean something like National, implying the vessel is utilized by the UFP regardless of it being Starfleet or Civilian.

As for the second/ second and third letters, for the time being, I'm making an executive-decision here (This is my thread, so I ultimately have the final call).

DREADNOUGHTS

I'm uncertain whether to use dreadnought, as it sounds excessively militaristic, which is out of character for Starfleet, however there could be a class of vessel that could be an "ultra-ship", which would be dreadnought like. Here are several proposed designations

BB = Dreadnought Battleship (Derived from the United-States Navy
KC = Dreadnought (Derived from the Star Trek Novel "Dreadnought!")
SC/CS = Supercruiser (Since "Battleship" sounds out of character for Starfleet in that it sounds excessively militaristic, Cruisers seem to be normally the biggest heaviest class of ship, and Super Cruiser would be a Super-ship)

CRUISERS
C = Cruiser
CC = Fast Cruiser

DESTROYERS
D = Destroyer
DD = Fast Destroyer

FRIGATES
F = Frigate
FF = Fast Frigate
 
We've seen civilian ships with registries of NAR (Earth registry) and NSP (Vulcan), so at the very least, that first C would seem to indicate a Starfleet vessel. And we've seen a second C applied to everything from a Galaxy and Sovereign class starships all the way down to Danube class runabouts.
 
:vulcan:
Aridas Sofia,

Even though no current Navy lists the type of ship on the designation, there are some ship designs currently which are largely based on the same hull -- the Spruance and Ticonderoga Classes are examples of this -- one a cruiser and another a destroyer.

Yes, but the Ticos are only CGs because of politics - renaming them as cruisers "closed" the 'cruiser gap' with the Soviet Union.
 
:vulcan:
Aridas Sofia,

Even though no current Navy lists the type of ship on the designation, there are some ship designs currently which are largely based on the same hull -- the Spruance and Ticonderoga Classes are examples of this -- one a cruiser and another a destroyer.

Yes, but the Ticos are only CGs because of politics - renaming them as cruisers "closed" the 'cruiser gap' with the Soviet Union.

...perhaps the reason why we have 'Explorer' and 'Escort' in the 24th century. (And not battleship and destroyer).
 
:vulcan:
Aridas Sofia,

Even though no current Navy lists the type of ship on the designation, there are some ship designs currently which are largely based on the same hull -- the Spruance and Ticonderoga Classes are examples of this -- one a cruiser and another a destroyer.

Yes, but the Ticos are only CGs because of politics - renaming them as cruisers "closed" the 'cruiser gap' with the Soviet Union.
Well partially true. The "cruiser gap" was more of a early 70s thing and the 1975 "NATO realignment" was considered the resolution of that. The Ticos weren't even ordered until 1978.
The AEGIS radar system played a more significant part in the decision to change their classification, since it redefined the Ticos role in fleet operations. IOW, they were no longer doing the same mission as the Spruances and that difference, along political and PR reasons, prompted the change.
 
Captain Robert April,

If you read in my earlier thread, the plan I was adopting was essentially similar to David Shaw, more or less starting fresh from the end of TOS, and NAR and NSP registries AFAIK did not appear until after TOS
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top