A word on Starship classes.

[valkyrie013]

Been having some thoughts.

What kind of classes of ships does the Federation Starfleet need?

So what does Starfleet do? Exploration mainly, but you have border patrol, science ships, cargo etc.

So let me do a brief synopsis of what classes they may need, please add or subtract based on what ever ya'll think. And this is just an initial list.

So.. lets say around 2370 or so for examples of classes but would probably be good for any era.

Exploration:
Heavy Cruiser: Galaxy class/ Ambassador Class
Medium Cruiser: Intrepid Class/ Excelsior class
Light Cruiser: Nova/ Rhode Island Class/ Miranda Class

Workhorse:
Medium Cruiser: California class / Excelsior Class

Patrol/Border/Defense:
Frigate: Sabre Class
Destroyer: Norway Class
Medium Cruiser: Steamrunner
Heavy Cruiser: Akira Class

Science:
Light Cruiser: Oberth Class / Nova Class

Was just having a thought, why are there so many different ships? what do they do?

 

[FredH]

Sell toys.

 

[Unicron]

Some classifications like frigate have varied a lot over the years in relation to their naval counterparts, as those roles have changed. Sources like FASA and Jackill/SotSF use frigates as major support vessels, kind of hybridizing the roles of a cruiser and a destroyer. Others like Starfleet Command 3 use them as light support vessels, in keeping with the modern naval use of a frigate being the smallest warship class.

I myself have never had any issue with Starfleet building dreadnoughts or other tactical vessels, in generally smaller ratios than cruisers and other multi-role platforms. I think given the Federation's long history of dealing with enemies and rival powers, it makes a degree of sense. I also think modern enemies like the Borg and the Dominion would make such vessels more necessary, if still a specialized support role. I do understand some of the real world rationale towards claiming Starfleet isn't solely a military body, but I also think it's silly to argue they'd never build real warships. I'll say no more on that subject.

I also think it's reasonable that the needs of the Federation evolve over time, as well as by plot. Picard's view in TNG that Starfleet wasn't primarily military makes sense in an era when one of the major enemies (the Klingon Empire) had evolved into a political ally and another major enemy (the Romulan Empire) was in self-isolation. In that context, it's quite logical for Starfleet to build fewer tactical vessels and a lot more exploration and multi-role vessels.

Perhaps it would be interesting to explore how readily these sorts of "build emphasis" shifts could happen if needed, as "The Wounded" implies the war with the Cardassians put a strain on the fleet economy and it's stated that Starfleet doesn't want a renewed war as a consequence of the USS Phoenix, as it's not prepared. The Dominion/Cardassian alliance certainly had a big edge early in that war, in no small part because the Dominion doesn't seem to have a lot of traditional civilian resources.

 

[DEWLine]

Sell toys.

You're not wrong!

 

[Dukhat]

Been having some thoughts.

What kind of classes of ships does the Federation Starfleet need?

So what does Starfleet do? Exploration mainly, but you have border patrol, science ships, cargo etc.

So let me do a brief synopsis of what classes they may need, please add or subtract based on what ever ya'll think. And this is just an initial list.

So.. lets say around 2370 or so for examples of classes but would probably be good for any era.

Exploration:
Heavy Cruiser: Galaxy class/ Ambassador Class
Medium Cruiser: Intrepid Class/ Excelsior class
Light Cruiser: Nova/ Rhode Island Class/ Miranda Class

Workhorse:
Medium Cruiser: California class / Excelsior Class

Patrol/Border/Defense:
Frigate: Sabre Class
Destroyer: Norway Class
Medium Cruiser: Steamrunner
Heavy Cruiser: Akira Class

Science:
Light Cruiser: Oberth Class / Nova Class

Was just having a thought, why are there so many different ships? what do they do?

Early TNG used naval terms to describe their starships (Heavy cruiser Horatio, frigates Renegade & Thomas Paine, light cruiser Drake), but after the first season those designations went out of use, probably because they sounded too military and that wasn't the direction they wanted to go.

Later on they continued to use the 'science vessel' term, but that wasn't dependent on the studio model they happened to use. Sometimes they used an Oberth, sometimes they used a Miranda, etc. And missions that seemed to fall under the aegis of what a science vessel would do were given to the Enterprise-D as well.

Also, the Starship Mission Status Okudagram seen in the background in several episodes showed that a specific vessel class could perform a variety of missions (i.e. an Excelsior class could be on border patrol, exploration duty, transportation of VIPs, etc.)

So it really seems like ships weren't constructed for any specific purpose. Which, in reality, wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to have 50+ different classes of starship essentially performing the same functions. Why build both a Nebula class starship and a Galaxy class starship when they do the exact same things? Why not have just one design?

 

[drt]

So it really seems like ships weren't constructed for any specific purpose. Which, in reality, wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to have 50+ different classes of starship essentially performing the same functions. Why build both a Nebula class starship and a Galaxy class starship when they do the exact same things? Why not have just one design?

This has always been a pet peeve of mine as well, dozens of designs that essentially perform the same job. It just gets progressively worse as it becomes easier to incorporate new models into the shows.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Was just having a thought, why are there so many different ships? what do they do?

What ever the plot demands.

 

[StarCruiser]

In the 'real world' (tm) navies often have multiple classes of ships doing the same, or at least similar work.

You have the US Navy's Washington Treaty Cruisers built starting in the late 1920's:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensacola-class_cruiser

Followed by:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northampton-class_cruiser

And then:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland-class_cruiser

Mixing with:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans-class_cruiser

And a one off just before the war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wichita_(CA-45)

Then the first of WW2:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore-class_cruiser

And so on. All in service doing the same basic job to variable levels of success or failure and some served well into the 1970's after multiple refits.

And, that's just the Heavy Cruisers. Never mind the Light Cruisers, AA Cruisers etc.....

 

[Ithekro]

Most are incremental improvements on the previous version or a change caused by other technological changes. Or treaty issues.

 

[StarCruiser]

Yes? And the point is that this is what actual does happen in the real world. The Royal Navy's roughly contemporary "County" class Heavy Cruisers had several distinct variants. Plus, the smaller York/Exeter (Cathedral class).

Starfleet could easily have several active classes of ships in the same role - a couple of older classes still active, a fairly new class still in production and possibly a brand new prototype that may or may not go into production etc...

 

[Ithekro]

That is an older practice on this world. The current model is to build more or less the same hull as many times as possible with technology improvements inside (Arleigh Burke-class), or variations based on the same design (Spruance, Kidd, and Ticonderoga-classes)

 

[Dukhat]

That is an older practice on this world. The current model is to build more or less the same hull as many times as possible with technology improvements inside (Arleigh Burke-class), or variations based on the same design (Spruance, Kidd, and Ticonderoga-classes)

Yes, a 2290’s Excelsior probably isn’t the same inside as a 2360’s Excelsior, despite their outward appearances being the same.

 

[Tuskin38]

Yeah the different variants are usually referred labelled as 'Blocks' on both ships and aircraft.

Edit: Sorry, Aircraft have blocks, ships have flights. Which sounds kinda funny.

The Arleigh Burke currently has 3 Flights, but there's also subvarients of the Flight II

 

[B.J.]

That is an older practice on this world. The current model is to build more or less the same hull as many times as possible with technology improvements inside (Arleigh Burke-class), or variations based on the same design (Spruance, Kidd, and Ticonderoga-classes)

Yes, a 2290’s Excelsior probably isn’t the same inside as a 2360’s Excelsior, despite their outward appearances being the same.

It could easily be argued that the Klingons take this practice to an even further extreme.

 

[Vagabond Elf]

I admit, I will always grumble about the idea of Star Fleet having "Dreadnoughts." Partly this is ideological - I don't care for a Federation that invests that many resources into a ship that's only useful for blowing up other ships and killing people. Smaller, dedicated patrol ships, certainly; multi-role exploration, diplomacy, and in extremis line-of-battle ships like the various Enterprises, of course. But not a dedicated battleship. I also like the idea that the Federation is wealthy enough that it can afford to build a ship that can go toe-to-toe with the best ship the Klingons have, and then add a full survey/exploration suite on top of that.

But my main objection is purely etymological. "Dreadnought" does not equal "battleship." A "Dreadnought" is a ship whose main battery is all the same size gun, usually supplemented with a secondary battery of light, fast-firing, usually dual-purpose guns. This philosophy can be and was applied to not just battleships but also to light and armoured cruisers, and this is backed up by the documents of the time. Hell, in the Hansard Record of the debates in the Canadian Parliament over how to approach the "Dreadnought Crisis" the main argument is if Canada should contribute to the RN's building of Dreadnought battleships, or build her own navy centred on Dreadnought cruisers. Basically, every ship that fought in World War 2 (no, I haven't done a comprehensive survey so there might be some edge cases) was a Dreadnought, from the Tribal-class destroyers on up.

Extrapolating this to Trek, every ship we've seen is a Dreadnought, except I guess for Defiant. (The little Defiant, not the TOS cruiser.)

I know that language changes and I know that especially in sci-fi, "dreadnought" has come to be a synonym for "battleship." But it's wrong, it's dumb, and I will whinge about it at the drop of a hat.

 

[Dukhat]

Well, the only canonical dreadnought we know of is the Entente from TMP, and we don't even know what it looks like.

(The Vengeance from the KT doesn't count, because that's an alternate timeline.)

 

[drt]

Well, the only canonical dreadnought we know of is the Entente from TMP, and we don't even know what it looks like.

Considering the number of FJ Tech Manual images used in TMP, I'm ok with it being Federation class, particularly since they used the same registration number - plus, I guess both TWOK/TSFS and PIC inadvertently canonized the actual FJ Dreadnought design.

 

[Tarek71]

I think there would be fighter carriers or drone carriers of some kind, as capital ships.

So maybe

Star Carriers
Dreadnoughts
Heavy Cruiser
Light Cruiser
Destroyer
Frigate
Corvette
Patrol "boat" of varying sizes

I would assume dozens of different supply, tenders, survey, repair, salvage, subspace buoy tender, antimatter "tankers", cutters, and other vessel types.

 

[J.T.B.]

I also like the idea that the Federation is wealthy enough that it can afford to build a ship that can go toe-to-toe with the best ship the Klingons have, and then add a full survey/exploration suite on top of that.

In addition, it just makes sense that the exploration ships have as much combat potential as possible. The unknow has been shown over and over again to be as dangerous as known enemies, if not more so.

But my main objection is purely etymological. "Dreadnought" does not equal "battleship." A "Dreadnought" is a ship whose main battery is all the same size gun, usually supplemented with a secondary battery of light, fast-firing, usually dual-purpose guns. This philosophy can be and was applied to not just battleships but also to light and armoured cruisers, and this is backed up by the documents of the time. Hell, in the Hansard Record of the debates in the Canadian Parliament over how to approach the "Dreadnought Crisis" the main argument is if Canada should contribute to the RN's building of Dreadnought battleships, or build her own navy centred on Dreadnought cruisers.

That's not what it meant. In pre-WW1 discussion, the all-same-size battery distinction is only meaningful in relation to the pervious classes of battleship. Dreadnoughts were optimized for the main battery to be used at its longest range, rather than the mixed batteries of previous battleships that would be employed at intermediate ranges. "Dreadnought cruisers" meant battlecruisers. There were some at the time who thought that the Invincible type could replace the slower, more heavily armored battleship. By WW1, dreadnought is pretty much synonymous with battleship.

Basically, every ship that fought in World War 2 (no, I haven't done a comprehensive survey so there might be some edge cases) was a Dreadnought, from the Tribal-class destroyers on up.

No, nobody at the time would use the term that way.

 

[gerritfaber]

a lot of ships in startrek are called cruisers, or explorers, a lot of the time they are the same ships.
but then europe has a lot of frigates which would be called destroyers in other countries depending on armarment, so ship classification is always a mixed bag, sometimes they are called something because it looks better politicaly, like every ship in japan navy being a destroyer even though they are build like a carrier.