Of course now I'm wondering if it really is a Dreadnought "class" or a Dreadnought "type" since the dialogue is "Dreadnought Entente". Would having a 3rd engine make it so much more effective than the Connies or is there something else unique about being a "Dreadnought"?
Dreadnought
- Thread starter Transk53
- Start date
Picard's Stargazer had 4 nacelles and that wasn't a dreadnought.
Trek likes to use Navy terms, so what is a Dreadnought in Navy terms? Take that and apply it to Trek. (at least superficially)
Dreadnought: A battleship armed with six or more guns having calibers of 12 inches or more.
Obviously the naval definition is meaningless when referring to starships.
Well the first Dreadnought was actually a ship in the British Royal Navy that was so named. She was launched in 1906. All Victorian era steam-driven battleships are frequently referred to as "pre-Dreadnought" ships. This particular vessel inspired all the major navies to build super-battleships up to the end of WWI when the term began falling out of fashion due to a naval treaty that restricted many government's sea power. By WWII the term was hardly used at all. The oldest American Dreadnought currently in existence is the U.S.S. Texas which was launched in 1912 and is currently a muesum ship.
How the term would have resurfaced in time for the 23rd Century's Federation-class has always been a mystery to me. I suppose they just mean it as a designation for a super-heavy ship that is pretty heavily gunned and has more of a strategic use than a tactical use. I must stress that this definition is only my own supposition.
--Alex
How the term would have resurfaced in time for the 23rd Century's Federation-class has always been a mystery to me. I suppose they just mean it as a designation for a super-heavy ship that is pretty heavily gunned and has more of a strategic use than a tactical use. I must stress that this definition is only my own supposition.
--Alex
"Dreadnought" can also simply be synonymous with "battleship." Technically, all super-Dreadnought and post-World War I designs are Dreadnoughts, so I suppose that definition isn't entirely a stretch. Perhaps Starfleet simply preferred one term over the other when they resurrected the battleship type?
In naval strategy, as I understand it, the role of a battleship is to engage with and destroy the enemy's primary battle fleet(s) in concert with other battleships, or to prevent battle by the threat of doing so.
This is contrasts with the role of a cruiser - like the Enterprise - which generally operates independently, conducting missions such as scouting, patrol, etc. (And sometimes joins small groups of cruisers in battles that are typically of local rather than strategic importance).
To give some sense of the difference in scale between these types: When the last battleships were built, heavy cruisers carried 8-inch guns and 3 to 8 inches of armor, while battleships carried 16-inch guns and 11 to 20 inches of armor (and were capable of surviving anything less than a direct hit from a nuclear weapon).
In Star Trek terms, we know that the Galaxy-class was considered a battleship design in "Yesterday's Enterprise", and "Conundrum" (by amnesiacs in the latter case). The Excelsior-class, which the MSD and hull damage in Generations suggest is of similar size to the Galaxy-class, seems to have been regarded with comparable awe in its day. The same could be said of the massive new Enterprise from the last film. Any or all of those three types might be regarded as a Dreadnought in simple terms.
Or we could assume that since Starfleet enjoys the benefit of hindsight as regards the original term dreadnought, it has opted to specifically reuse the term for what it thinks is the first step away from inferior older first-rate combatants into a new era - but a recognizably transitional step, one that will soon lead to "proper" battleships that are not hobbled by the clumsy three-nacelle arrangement but simply feature a regular pair of bigger, superior engines.
Dreadnoughts might have existed between 2259 and 2295, say - designed as a way of turning a Constitution cruiser into a proper battleship, then produced in variants through the Klingon conflict, and finally retired for good when the Excelsiors were introduced, and when Khitomer clauses in any case required the scrapping of vast numbers of "capital ships".
Timo Saloniemi
Dreadnoughts might have existed between 2259 and 2295, say - designed as a way of turning a Constitution cruiser into a proper battleship, then produced in variants through the Klingon conflict, and finally retired for good when the Excelsiors were introduced, and when Khitomer clauses in any case required the scrapping of vast numbers of "capital ships".
Timo Saloniemi
Yep, very dreadnought was named after a single ship, HMS Dreadnought, the key element of this ship was that its entire main battery consisted of ONE caliber, all ships before had usually only 2 main guns and then a confusing array of 9.2", 8" and smaller guns.
When Dreadnought appeared every warship on the entire planet was made obsolete in one go, every ship similar to her was referred to as a dreadnought, every ship before her are indeed called pre-dreadnoughts, later on the Brits came on with a design so superior to even their own dreadnoughts that it was called a super dreadnought, the Orion class was the first class of these, the Brits then went on to invent the fast battleship with the Queen Elizabeth class and also they invented the battlecruiser, pretty inventive people.
^ If we were to take a parallel to that Dreadnought, then expanding on Timo's thinking the Dreadnought Entente could have been the first Starfleet ship to standardize on one main gun system, the phaser gun, rather than a mix of phasers, lasers, particle beam cannons. And also according to wikipedia, the HMS Dreadnought was the first battleship to move to Steam Turbine. The Dreadnought Entente could have been the first ship to use lithium/dilithium energizers with regenerative power (in the TOS continuity.)
Well, if you read what I posed a few posts back (here: http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=5305565&postcount=8), I've already given what I believe is the "best possible answer" to your question. If you missed it, take a moment to read it over.
Basically, a dreadnought generates a lot more power, is very fast and powerful, but is not outfitted for long-range unsupported operations. And as a rule, for the Federation at least, they are "regional flagships."
And, as always, same name and a partial registry does not necessarily equal the same ship in FJ's tech manual.
I'm thinking something more akin to a Star Trek version of a certain Space Cruiser Yamato...
I'm thinking something more akin to a Star Trek version of a certain Space Cruiser Yamato...
As Albertese stated, the Dreadnought was our term for inflicting fear. The Battleship was what is was, The Dreadnought meant you could fuck up anything afloat. The early U-Boats still posed a threat. A Dreadnought simply means command and control of the elements. Oceans, Space, It simply has big guns and instils fear in anything.
The other ship we hear calls itself Scout Columbia so it appears more of a type than a class reference.
As I said, that's left up to fan interpretation. The scouts Columbia and Revere, and their registry numbers, are indisputably from FJ's manual, but like the Entente, are not seen, even though graphics representing their class are. But without exact correlation between the names/numbers from one movie and the graphics of another movie, we're back to square one.
Being a fan of FJ's work, I personally see no reason why those ships shouldn't be exactly what they were meant to be: the Hermes class and the Federation class, respectively. What's the point of thinking they were something else when they were fully intended at the time to be the above, unless we play devil's advocate for thought-experiments' sake? Sure, the Columbia and Revere could be, say, Oberths, and the "dreadnaught Entente" could be something other than the Federation class. But why, other than to further invalidate FJ when the original silly dispute about this died with Gene?
The model for power generation in Federation starships is now set. Central, internal M/ARC feeding energy to the warp nacelles to produce the warp field. FJ's designs are problematic at best under this concept.
Besides, scouts and destroyers are supposed to be small, fast, lightly armed, highly maneuverable ships. Again, FJ's designs, with a full size saucer and only one warp nacelle, doesn't quite fit.
Besides, scouts and destroyers are supposed to be small, fast, lightly armed, highly maneuverable ships. Again, FJ's designs, with a full size saucer and only one warp nacelle, doesn't quite fit.
Right. And the "model for power generation" in earthbound naval vessels is "now set" as well... and there has never been any different form of "power generation" in any naval vessel, has there.
For that matter, "the model for airborne propulsion" is "set" and there has never been more than one system used in that world, has there?
You can say, til you turn blue, that "everyone else is wrong because CRA has ordained the one true order," but that's not going to win anyone over. You can say "I believe that everything works this way" and that's not nearly as obnoxious as it is when you say "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong, and you're all stupid for not agreeing with me."
And we all know that you, personally, really, REALLY dislike FJ's work. You've never been shy about that. And that's fine, because it's your opinion, but you're not going to convince anyone who likes it to stop liking it, simply because you, personally, are "the authority" on the topic.
You can repeat, over and over, that "there is one matter/antimatter reactor, in the main hull," but there is no evidence to support your conclusion on this topic in TOS times except that it's YOUR CONCLUSION and that we're all obviously morons for not seeing things as you, personally, do.
The original design intent was that the power was generated in the nacelles during TOS. The majority of on-screen dialog and plot demonstrated that this was the case. ONE EPISODE has lines supporting your personal perspective on the matter.
Yet you keep "authoritatively stating" that it's a "closed topic."
I ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THIS TOPIC. And so do many, many other people. It's not a "closed topic" and you can't make it so by repeating it until you beat us all into submission to your will.
And, let's be blunt, the FJ stuff works, and works perfectly well, as long as you accept that power generation occurs in the nacelles rather than in the main hull. And FJ's work is in agreement with Matt Jefferies' reason for putting the engines out in external housings rather than right inside the hull.
It also makes a certain degree of sense, if you treat this era of Federation shipbuilding to be one of tremendous expansion, that they'd try to use common shipbuilding elements... common framing shapes, common installed hardware, common servicing systems at bases, etc. Modularity is actually a lot more reasonable than "everything custom" is, especially during periods when resources are limited and demand is high.
What's INSIDE one of those hulls... scout, destroyer, tug, cruiser... is likely tremendously different.
Why multiple engines on a cruiser and not on a scout or destroyer? Well, maybe you can actually travel just as fast (even faster, when considering the vastly reduced overall mass) with a single nacelle, but you have less maneuverability. If a ship is intended to be a "straight line sprinter," a single self-powered engine" (along the aerospace model which Matt Jefferies intended), and if cost (in terms of actual currency, or merely in terms of raw materials and time expenditure) is an issue, it makes perfect sense.
Your main objection to FJ's stuff is that you've, ON A PURELY PERSONAL BASIS, "retconned" all of TOS to be in the EXACT SAME MODEL AS TNG IS.
But there's no reason for us to believe that TOS, TMP, and TNG follow even remotely similar models.
That's like saying that a paddlewheel riverboat must operate on the exact same principle as the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier does. After all, "they're both in the same universe" and "built by the same organization" (the US navy) so they MUST be based upon the exact same implementation of the exact same technology, right?
Why do you have a problem even accepting that, MAYBE, the TOS ship and the TMP ship didn't use the same technology, and that the TMP ship and the TNG ship did not use the same technology?
Hey, look... airships... hmmm... some of them are filled with lighter-than-air gas and float. Some use rotating blade lift systems. Some use fixed airfoil wings.
By this argument, we need to "retcon" all of those to all use one common system, don't we???
It's just silly. It really, really is.
Please elaborate on how FJ's designs are any different or problematic than any other canon ship design.
Please give the canon source for how Starfleet determines what constitutes a scout or a destroyer. And to my knowledge, no canon ship in Trek has ever been referred to as a destroyer anyway.
*Edit* Looks like Cary L. Brown beat me to the punch. Like my new avatar, Cary?
Last edited:
Hi throwback, is that from a display in the episode as I don't see anything about a "battleship" in the dialogue?
Cary L. Brown said:
That sounds a bit like a generic warship (except for the flagship part
) The TMP dreadnought as a historical analogy to the HMS Dreadnought I think sounds more interesting though. FWIW, I don't have a problem with the 3 nacelle FJ Dreadnought. I just think it'd make some sense if it was the ship that the rest of Starfleet patterned from
Damnnnnnnn.
Good post Cary.
CRA, I don't think the case is closed.
Personally, every time I saw a TNG-style "warp core" inside a TOS Connie, it never-EVER looked right. I've rather enjoyed the perspective that Cary's ship brought to the table. (I wish that thread was still going!)
Good post Cary.
CRA, I don't think the case is closed.
Personally, every time I saw a TNG-style "warp core" inside a TOS Connie, it never-EVER looked right. I've rather enjoyed the perspective that Cary's ship brought to the table. (I wish that thread was still going!)
