Future Ship Design

[Andymator]

... and all based on the Naval term "flag ship", which still only means one thing in a Naval context.

Yes, that's right, but not what we are talking about. I am addressing your statement that Star Trek is somehow responsible for twisting the phrase into something other than it's original usage, which I pointed out is not the case. The term is now (and probably will be in the future) used to mean something besides a Royal Navy boat commanded by a Royal Navy flag officer.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Yes, that's right, but not what we are talking about.

I don't know what you're talking about, but that's definitely what I am talking about.

I am addressing your statement that Star Trek is somehow responsible for twisting the phrase into something other than it's original usage, which I pointed out is not the case. The term is now (and probably will be in the future) used to mean something besides a Royal Navy boat commanded by a Royal Navy flag officer.

You are definitely reading more into my comment than you should.

I am not saying that Star Trek is responsible for usage like, "the iPod is the flagship smartphone for AT&T". I am saying that Star Trek is responsible for misuse like "Enterprise is the flag ship of the UFP Starfleet".

Ergo, Star Trek has misled its fans into thinking that the phrase "flag ship" (in its Naval context only) means something that it does not mean.

 

[Andymator]

You are definitely reading more into my comment than you should.

I am not saying that Star Trek is responsible for usage like, "the iPod is the flagship smartphone for AT&T". I am saying that Star Trek is responsible for misuse like "Enterprise is the flag ship of the UFP Starfleet".

Ergo, Star Trek has misled its fans into thinking that the phrase "flag ship" (in its Naval context only) means something that it does not mean.

Okay... If I am wrong about the following points, I would appreciate your corrections.

1: The fictional entity Starfleet is not synonymous with the Royal Navy, or the United States Navy, or any modern naval force.

2: The fictional entity Starfleet has been shown to employ a usage for the term "flagship" that is also commonly used today in several contexts.

If both of those assumptions are correct, then how is it possible to "misuse" the phrase? This is a work of fiction about a futuristic organization that uses the word in a specific fictional context, and not even about boats no less.

If I am to accept your logic, then Star Trek is also responsible for misleading it's fans into believing that everybody wears brightly colored spandex onesies on today's aircraft carriers.

I refuse to believe that any more than an infinitesimal fraction of people who enjoy Star Trek would be dumb enough to confuse Starfleet with the Royal Navy.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Look, I really don't think I explained myself well at all in my initial complaint.

I hope that THIS summation will suffice.

1. Star Trek uses the term "flag ship" in its fictional narrative in a way that is different from the way modern Navies use the term flag ship in their Naval context.
2. This has caused some Trekkies to incorrectly think that the Star Trek meaning of "flag ship" is the correct usage for modern Naval ships, merely because they don't know better and Starfleet tends to ape so many modern Naval traditions anyway.

In Star Trek, "flag ship" seems to mean, "The premiere vessel of Starfleet, the one that is iconic of the United Federation of Planets".

In modern Navies, "flag ship" means only "that ship which currently has a Flag Officer embarked as commander of the squadron, task force, fleet, or other formation".

At any one time, the UFP seems to really only have one "flag ship" (which seems to always be called Enterprise), while modern Navies can have many "flag ships" all at one time.

I know I really seemed to make a big deal out of this, and it's really my fault for not explaining myself well initially. But seriously, you have no idea how irritating it is to be a Naval veteran AND a Trekkie, because you constantly hear odd questions from your landlubber Trekkie friends such as, "Oooooh you were on the Nimitz! Is that the Navy's flag ship now, or is it still the aircraft carrier Enterprise?" The first few times you hear questions like that, you chuckle warmly and explain the faulty premise. The 500th time you hear a question like that, you say to yourself, "Geez, don't Trekkies do their homework? I thought they were supposed to be knowledgeable and well read individuals for the most part."

 

[AggieJohn]

I mean really have you ever herd of a single capital ship ... setting sail alone?

Submarines.

All the time.

... especially the flag ship of a navy ...

There's no such thing as "the flag ship of a navy". Star Trek has misled its fans into thinking that the phrase "flag ship" means something that it does not mean.

Submarines are not capital ships. They have two purposes, hunter-killers, and ballistic missile launchers. They are big and powerful but thats more a result of their amazing development over the last hundred years. They mainly provide screening for fleets. They are not flag ships. You are right the term flagship is usually reserved for a ship carrying a admiral in command of a task force.

However when I say flagship I think a carrier or a battleship, a task force command ship. The Enterprise D in particular was a "flagship" a seasoned commander, a huge ship full of families, should not be alone. Case in point the Enterprise C was attacked and destroyed resulting in a black eye for the Federation and a huge propaganda victory for the Romulans. You would not see the US send out the USS Iowa alone, or the British Deploy the Victoria alone. They always left in battle groups. The real issue is also, my examples are dedicated battleships who could handle themselves. The Enterprise D is not a battleship, its out exploring the unknown. Its first mission it runs in the fraking Borg. Might want to have some military back up around especially if your going to take kids with you. Starfleet was being really irresponsible in my view.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Submarines are not capital ships.

I concede that point.

 

[AggieJohn]

Submarines are not capital ships.

I concede that point.

I will concede to you that Star Trek is totally misleading in the Nature of a Flagship. Realistically I am sure cost had something to do with the number of ships with the enterprise. I mean most of the ships in the first few seasons of the TNG were stock footage and left over models. Not something new to Star Trek, hello Romulan D-7 Cruiser

There seems to be a strange issue with the Federation and the nature of fleet operations. I mean why the fear of being promoted to admiral? Admirals command ships, in fact they command "flagships"? Hell the only one who gets that was Admiral Riker from the series finally? Serious Riker got it and Picard and Kirk did not?

 

[C.E. Evans]

IMO, it's simply a case that Starfleet isn't today's navy simply transplanted into the future. While it shares many similarities and traditions with today's navies, but it's ultimately a different organization. I think the term "Federation flagship" is a term/honorific unique to Starfleet--and maybe only of the 24th-Century Starfleet--signifying the primary ship chosen to represent the Federation in major affairs with other galactic governments. This wouldn't preclude other flagships in a more traditional sense of the term, but "Federation flagship" is probably just a fairly new Starfleet thing with no previous historical precedent...

 

[AggieJohn]

IMO, it's simply a case that Starfleet isn't today's navy simply transplanted into the future. While it shares many similarities and traditions with today's navies, but it's ultimately a different organization. I think the term "Federation flagship" is a term/honorific unique to Starfleet--and maybe only of the 24th-Century Starfleet--signifying the primary ship chosen to represent the Federation in major affairs with other galactic governments. This wouldn't preclude other flagships in a more traditional sense of the term, but "Federation flagship" is probably just a fairly new Starfleet thing with no previous historical precedent...

Excellent point, Starfleet is not a current navy, they even say their not a military arm but rather a exploration branch. However, they, like it or not, are the only defense the Federation has. So I think that examining through the lens of a modern navy is fair. Considering that the current US Navy does provide an exploration and humanitarian service for the country. They don't explore as much but are limited to earth only for now.

I guess one question to ask is when Starfleet was created what traditions did they establish themselves on? NASA, Earth's Navies, Air forces?

 

[Chaos Descending]

Well, from what we've seen on screen we KNOW they borrowed a LOT of traditions from Navies. Off the top of my head, two examples are the fact that they use Navy ranks instead of Army, and they still have Boatswains that pipe officers aboard.

 

[C.E. Evans]

IMO, it's simply a case that Starfleet isn't today's navy simply transplanted into the future. While it shares many similarities and traditions with today's navies, but it's ultimately a different organization. I think the term "Federation flagship" is a term/honorific unique to Starfleet--and maybe only of the 24th-Century Starfleet--signifying the primary ship chosen to represent the Federation in major affairs with other galactic governments. This wouldn't preclude other flagships in a more traditional sense of the term, but "Federation flagship" is probably just a fairly new Starfleet thing with no previous historical precedent...

Excellent point, Starfleet is not a current navy, they even say their not a military arm but rather a exploration branch. However, they, like it or not, are the only defense the Federation has. So I think that examining through the lens of a modern navy is fair. Considering that the current US Navy does provide an exploration and humanitarian service for the country. They don't explore as much but are limited to earth only for now.

I guess one question to ask is when Starfleet was created what traditions did they establish themselves on? NASA, Earth's Navies, Air forces?

To me, ENT kind of depicted Starfleet somewhat like NASA combined with early U.S. Continental Navy. And in time, Starfleet's size, importance, and mission objectives grew. Starfleet likely chose a naval organization structure because it was considered the most efficient, given the kind of organization it was. But had the founders of Starfleet perhaps been more of an air force inclination, it probably would have gone that route instead, IMO.

Prior to ENT, though, I would have said that Starfleet borrowed many traditions from the World War II-era U.S. Navy, and maybe a bit here and there from the Napoleonic Wars-era British Navy (at least during Kirk's time, anyway).

Even so, it seems that Starfleet didn't keep or observe every tradition, policy, or practice from Earth's navies, so there are bound to be noticeable differences from how Starfleet does things and how today's navies work.

 

[Satyrquaze]

Star Trek has misled its fans into thinking that the phrase "flag ship" means something that it does not mean.

I'm not a fan of your usage of the word 'misled' here. It's not like canon Star Trek writers are saying that the US Navy has ever had a "Flagship" as Starfleet does in the 24th century. They aren't even saying it was that case in the 23rd century.

Anyone with the intelligence to do their own research or have the knowledge going in knows what the facts are, or at least can easily find out for themselves.

Starfleet is not the US Navy. It has never to my knowledge claimed to be so.

At best, your usage of the word 'misled' is misleading.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Star Trek has misled its fans into thinking that the phrase "flag ship" means something that it does not mean.

I'm not a fan of your usage of the word 'misled' here.

I'm not a fan of your failure to read the rest of my posts in this thread before you posted.

I recommend you do so.

 

[Satyrquaze]

Touche'

But the fact that you needed to explain your point over several posts prooves my point about your post being misleading.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Counter-Touche'.

 

[FordSVT]

Admirals in Starfleet don't typically command ships, though I believe we've had Admirals on board ships directing fleet engagements and supervising short-term missions.

What they seem to be, most of the time, are bureaucrats, administrators and planners. They are more like governmental ministers and secretaries. Admirals are in charge of divisions of Starfleet, or entire fleets of ships, or sectors of space, usually based out of a space or planetary station. Captains do the face to face, captains command the ships of the line. Commanders may command smaller, secondary ships and installations.

No, Starfleet is clearly not organized like the modern US Navy. It draws inspiration from it, but you cannot use one to argue a hard point for the other. You can't say, "That cannot be in Starfleet, because in the Royal Navy....".

 

[goofy]

I'd really love seeing more non-Terran designs built / repaired at Utopia Planetia or DS9. I'd love to see more schematics of alien/non-Human ships toward DS9/VOY.

 

[MNM]

See the Star Trek: Voyager re-re-launch by Kirsten Beyer.

I wouldnt, it's not very good.

 

[BillJ]

See the Star Trek: Voyager re-re-launch by Kirsten Beyer.

I wouldnt, it's not very good.

Much better than the show it's based on.

 

[Admiral_Young]

No it isn't. I was disappointed by the first two books.