Frigates
- Thread starter James Wright
- Start date
Timo,
I have always had a tough time getting my mind around the destroyer/frigrate/corvette ship thing...(hey I'm an ex army guy)... your little desertation helps a lot!
Thanks!
Omega_Glory
Commodore
Timo,
What episode of TOS indicated the Enterprise was a "cruiser"? I must have missed the reference or just don't recall. Unless your'e refering to bridge station screens with FJ's blueprints being displayed.
What episode of TOS indicated the Enterprise was a "cruiser"? I must have missed the reference or just don't recall. Unless your'e refering to bridge station screens with FJ's blueprints being displayed.
Those, and ST3 Klingon dialogue. This only retroactively applies to TOS, of course; in there, the hero ship always was a "starship", which might be taken as a 23rd century expression similar to today's "battleship" in denoting a very specific ship type.
But material other than TOS has nicely and consistently put forth that "starship" is a generic word that encompasses frigates, destroyers, explorers and cruisers, and that Kirk's first Enterprise was indeed a heavy cruiser. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it, so I prefer to go along with it.
Timo Saloniemi
But material other than TOS has nicely and consistently put forth that "starship" is a generic word that encompasses frigates, destroyers, explorers and cruisers, and that Kirk's first Enterprise was indeed a heavy cruiser. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it, so I prefer to go along with it.
Timo Saloniemi
Didn't the side-by-side comparison schematics used in the briefing room for "The Enterprise Incident" and also Stephen Whitfield's "The Making of Star Trek" contain a reference to the Enterprise as a Constitution-class cruiser? I'm not 100% on that.
In "A Taste of Armageddon", Anan 7 gives orders to attack the Enterprise, referring to the ship as a "star cruiser". And in the novelization of TMP, as I previously noted, the Great Goddenberry himself christens the refit Big E a "heavy cruiser". Timo is also correct: in STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK, Kruge's lieutenant refers to the approaching refit Enterprise as a "Federation battlecruiser".
In "A Taste of Armageddon", Anan 7 gives orders to attack the Enterprise, referring to the ship as a "star cruiser". And in the novelization of TMP, as I previously noted, the Great Goddenberry himself christens the refit Big E a "heavy cruiser". Timo is also correct: in STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK, Kruge's lieutenant refers to the approaching refit Enterprise as a "Federation battlecruiser".
Omega_Glory
Commodore
The Trek III dialogue was the Klingons refering to it as a "battlecruiser", which it was from their point of view. It has nothing to do with what the Federation calls it.
The briefing room display is so hard to read, one cannot be sure what anything on it says. If we could clearly see the text on it would be one thing, but we cannot.
What Anan 7 wants to call it doesn't necessarily mean that's what the Feds use as a moniker.
The bridge displays from Star Trek II suffer from the same problem, cannot clearly see the text.
The bridge display from Star Trek III clearly says "Heavy Cruiser" with a schematic that looks almost like the old Enterprise. The NCC number is "200". If we assume it is a schematic of the same class as the orig E, then it would be canon that its a CA. I'm thinking that was the intention, although it is sloppy production work by the movie crew to have a schematic supposedly representing a ship when that schematic predates the ship by fifteen or so years. It had been 7-8 years since TMP (Trek time), you'd think that Starfleet would have updated the computer images by then.
The briefing room display is so hard to read, one cannot be sure what anything on it says. If we could clearly see the text on it would be one thing, but we cannot.
What Anan 7 wants to call it doesn't necessarily mean that's what the Feds use as a moniker.
The bridge displays from Star Trek II suffer from the same problem, cannot clearly see the text.
The bridge display from Star Trek III clearly says "Heavy Cruiser" with a schematic that looks almost like the old Enterprise. The NCC number is "200". If we assume it is a schematic of the same class as the orig E, then it would be canon that its a CA. I'm thinking that was the intention, although it is sloppy production work by the movie crew to have a schematic supposedly representing a ship when that schematic predates the ship by fifteen or so years. It had been 7-8 years since TMP (Trek time), you'd think that Starfleet would have updated the computer images by then.
And let's not forget the Roddenberry TMP-novelization passage, which further muddies the waters.
When you get right down to it, there really is not that much difference between descriptive terms like "heavy cruiser", "battlecruiser", "battleship" and "dreadnought" anyway. They all describe extra-big, extra-powerful, extra-well-armed/armored ships of the line that can go fast.
When you get right down to it, there really is not that much difference between descriptive terms like "heavy cruiser", "battlecruiser", "battleship" and "dreadnought" anyway. They all describe extra-big, extra-powerful, extra-well-armed/armored ships of the line that can go fast.
There used to be fairly distinct differences between those types of ships.
Cruisers were of a certain tonnage and generally carried 8" guns. Heavy cruisers were, well, heavier.
Battleships carried 12"+ guns and extensive armor.
Battlecruisers could carry the same heavy armament, but without the heavy armor protection. Battlecruisers, being lighter, tended to be faster.
And then the pocket battleships...
Yeah, all big capital ships. But back in a certain day, there were specific differences.
Such classifications were meaningful and distinct, then became less, and so on. Maybe something similar happened in TOS era and TNG era.
Look up the New Orleans class heavy cruiser of WWII and the Atlanta class light antiaircraft cruiser class also of WWII, as well as the Cleveland class light cruiser another WWII ship, these are just a few examples.
James
James
Indeed, the names existed for a purpose. Although they were also misused purposefully; the British considered the German battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau mere "battle cruisers" because they had the armor but had an inferior caliber of main guns (originally - there were plans of upgunning). That was propaganda, though, and one might call it counterpropaganda that the Germans insisted on the battleship designation instead.
One might also say the names dragged a little bit behind technological developments in WWII. But that was nothing compared with what happened after the war... Those century-old designations are utterly undescriptive of today's warship types, yet they continue to be applied.
Quite possible. It does seem that after TOS, the idea of "ships lesser than starship" was abandoned, and even a runabout might be considered a "starship" in certain circles. But it also seems that the classifications mentioned in early TNG make something of a comeback in late DS9, where "destroyers" and "cruisers" again appear in the battlefleets... So perhaps we shouldn't believe in a change in terminology between 2364 and 2374 after all?
To nitpick - not quite. The terms "heavy" and "light" were introduced specifically to distinguish between cruisers that had guns of 6" to 8" caliber, and cruisers that had 6" guns or less. These were convenience definitions for observing international treaties, and had relatively little to do with ship size. Indeed, the Japanese built cruisers that had triple 6" turrets originally (so they were "light") but were always designed to receive twin 8" turrets in wartime (thus becoming "heavy").
Tonnage was another issue agreed upon in those treaties, and was given both in terms of tonnage per ship ("light" and "heavy" cruisers had the same limit in most treaties) and in terms of tonnage per ship category (that is, the sum total of displacements for all your light cruisers was set at a specific number). This caused some navies to build small ships (in order to get as many of them as possible), others to build big ones (in order to make each of them more powerful than the enemy counterpart). And it just so happened that most decided to build numerous lightweight "light cruisers" but less numerous and maximally heavy "heavy cruisers" within those limitations, thus giving some credence to the idea that heavy cruisers would be heavier - even though this was never the actual nature of the designations.
Timo Saloniemi
I'm not really well versed in ship terminology, though I've read a little about the subject (a little). From what I've read, including in this thread, is that the nomeclature evolves to suit the times. Regardless to how Starfleet would have decided to apply these terms to their ships, it seems reasonable to assume that their definitions would change over time- say between TOS, the movies, TNG and beyond.
But also based on what was posted here. As the Enterprise evolved over time, refitted so-on, her roles changed, then wouldn't the definition of the type of ship she is change as well?
Sorry if I missed someone answering that earlier. I was up at 5 am and it's still early. I'm amazed I can type.
But also based on what was posted here. As the Enterprise evolved over time, refitted so-on, her roles changed, then wouldn't the definition of the type of ship she is change as well?
Sorry if I missed someone answering that earlier. I was up at 5 am and it's still early. I'm amazed I can type.
^ You're on the mark, there.
If we assume, for sake of argument, that Kirk's Enterprise was always designated a "heavy cruiser" or "cruiser" of some sort, and you consider how the original 1701 evolved through refits over its operational lifetime, then yes, the Federation's standard for what is meant by a "cruiser" did indeed evolve.
If we assume, for sake of argument, that Kirk's Enterprise was always designated a "heavy cruiser" or "cruiser" of some sort, and you consider how the original 1701 evolved through refits over its operational lifetime, then yes, the Federation's standard for what is meant by a "cruiser" did indeed evolve.
Perhaps it would help to understand where the term "Cruiser" came from to start with?
Cruiser - literally means a ship that cruises. The term 'cruising' in Naval terms used to mean a long-range independant mission. Many different classifications of wooden ships could be assigned a 'cruise' mission including - most famously - Frigates.
After the introduction of steam power, and then iron and steel construction, the term 'Frigate' fell out of use and was replaced by the new classification 'Cruiser' to describe the type of ships that evolved from the old wooden Frigates.
Cruisers could be used for the classic cruising missions - be it a peaceful patrol of foreign ports, 'showing the flag' or hunting down a enemy ship in distant waters. Cruisers could also be used as the centerpiece of a small battlegroup or a screening ship for a large fleet.
The first official Cruisers weren't very big ships by modern standards, 4-5000 tons would be typical for most and no, they didn't all carry 8" (203mm) guns. They could carry anything from a ~4" battery to 10" artillery. Check out the Russian Cruiser "Aurora", or the US Cruiser "Olympia" for examples of around 1900.
Some Cruisers were referred to as 'Scout Cruisers', some as 'Protected Cruisers', some as 'Armored Cruisers'. The difference typically was size - grade of armor (or lack thereof) - and armament.
The types eventually congealed into 'Light' and 'Heavy' Cruisers after World War I during the two major naval arms control conferences (Washington and London Treaties).
'Light Cruisers' were defined as ships armed with guns of about 6.1" (155mm) or smaller not to exceed 10,000 tons standard displacement and 'Heavy Cruisers' were also officially limited to 10,000 tons, but could carry larger guns (usually ended up being 8" or thereabouts).
Despite these 'rules' (HAH!) Cruisers still varied wildly during the interwar years and once WWII started - all bets were off. After the madhouse of that war, the Cruiser - and the Battleship, Battlecruiser etc. was in a bit of a state of limbo since the Aircraft Carrier had usurped the primacy of the big gun.
Most navies realized the Battleship was mostly obsolete, but the Cruiser did find a home protecting the Carriers and performing missions which would be a waste of time for a Carrier, but too much for a smaller escort.
Of course now, the term is a bit lost since there are 'Cruisers' in service no bigger that 'Destroyers'. The only notable difference between some types may be the level and/or cost of equipment used on the ship.
A classic case of the blurred line is the Spruance class Destroyer vs. the Kidd class Missile Destroyer vs. the Ticonderoga class Missile Cruiser (aka Aegis Cruiser). All are built on the same hull design with the same basic engines (LM2500 series gas turbines) and have somewhat different equipment fits and different superstructures.
The old Soviet Navy broke away from the traditional terms during the Cold War and started using designations like "Large Antisubmarine Ship" (Bolshoi Protivo Lodochny Korabl) for any heavy (non-cruiser) ship built to hunt down subs, and "Kreiser" remained in service usually attached to any long-ranged ship designed for some specific task. "Raketny Kreiser" meant - Missile Cruiser and was usually an anti-ship/air defense type.
Now, what this has to do with the confusing terms used in Star Trek - I don't know, but it's interesting none the less.
Cruiser - literally means a ship that cruises. The term 'cruising' in Naval terms used to mean a long-range independant mission. Many different classifications of wooden ships could be assigned a 'cruise' mission including - most famously - Frigates.
After the introduction of steam power, and then iron and steel construction, the term 'Frigate' fell out of use and was replaced by the new classification 'Cruiser' to describe the type of ships that evolved from the old wooden Frigates.
Cruisers could be used for the classic cruising missions - be it a peaceful patrol of foreign ports, 'showing the flag' or hunting down a enemy ship in distant waters. Cruisers could also be used as the centerpiece of a small battlegroup or a screening ship for a large fleet.
The first official Cruisers weren't very big ships by modern standards, 4-5000 tons would be typical for most and no, they didn't all carry 8" (203mm) guns. They could carry anything from a ~4" battery to 10" artillery. Check out the Russian Cruiser "Aurora", or the US Cruiser "Olympia" for examples of around 1900.
Some Cruisers were referred to as 'Scout Cruisers', some as 'Protected Cruisers', some as 'Armored Cruisers'. The difference typically was size - grade of armor (or lack thereof) - and armament.
The types eventually congealed into 'Light' and 'Heavy' Cruisers after World War I during the two major naval arms control conferences (Washington and London Treaties).
'Light Cruisers' were defined as ships armed with guns of about 6.1" (155mm) or smaller not to exceed 10,000 tons standard displacement and 'Heavy Cruisers' were also officially limited to 10,000 tons, but could carry larger guns (usually ended up being 8" or thereabouts).
Despite these 'rules' (HAH!) Cruisers still varied wildly during the interwar years and once WWII started - all bets were off. After the madhouse of that war, the Cruiser - and the Battleship, Battlecruiser etc. was in a bit of a state of limbo since the Aircraft Carrier had usurped the primacy of the big gun.
Most navies realized the Battleship was mostly obsolete, but the Cruiser did find a home protecting the Carriers and performing missions which would be a waste of time for a Carrier, but too much for a smaller escort.
Of course now, the term is a bit lost since there are 'Cruisers' in service no bigger that 'Destroyers'. The only notable difference between some types may be the level and/or cost of equipment used on the ship.
A classic case of the blurred line is the Spruance class Destroyer vs. the Kidd class Missile Destroyer vs. the Ticonderoga class Missile Cruiser (aka Aegis Cruiser). All are built on the same hull design with the same basic engines (LM2500 series gas turbines) and have somewhat different equipment fits and different superstructures.
The old Soviet Navy broke away from the traditional terms during the Cold War and started using designations like "Large Antisubmarine Ship" (Bolshoi Protivo Lodochny Korabl) for any heavy (non-cruiser) ship built to hunt down subs, and "Kreiser" remained in service usually attached to any long-ranged ship designed for some specific task. "Raketny Kreiser" meant - Missile Cruiser and was usually an anti-ship/air defense type.
Now, what this has to do with the confusing terms used in Star Trek - I don't know, but it's interesting none the less.
Yes, the US Navy (and the Russians, Brits etc.) modified some WW2 cruisers with missile systems. Initially, it was to experiment with the new technology, but some were refitted for regular fleet duty and did serve quite some time.
I believe the USS Newport News was one of the last of the WW2 cruisers to be retired and that didn't happen till around 1975.
For weird looking refits - check out the USS Columbus:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-c/cg12.htm
I believe the USS Newport News was one of the last of the WW2 cruisers to be retired and that didn't happen till around 1975.
For weird looking refits - check out the USS Columbus:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-c/cg12.htm
If we assume that Starfleet employs starships of both "cruiser" and "frigate" classifications (which, canonically speaking, they apparently have) then perhaps it logically stands to reason that these two classifications indicate types of space vessels that are distinctive in some way.
The above quote on cruisers is interesting. If we consider that Kirk's TOS-era Enterprise was a "cruiser" for that era, then perhaps any "frigate" type vessels which served then were simply "ships that didn't cruise", in other words, starships not structured and/or outfitted for sustained long periods in deep space. And perhaps as warp drive improved, and starships were built or refit to become larger and have greater ranges, the definition of "deep space" cruising changed as well.
Think of it this way: Maybe there was a TOS- or TMP-era analogue to the Miranda. Maybe this ship was considered a "cruiser" at the time. But after the introduction of the newer, much larger Excelsior-class starships, the definition of "cruiser" migrated away from Miranda, which became a "frigate" by comparison since she was no longer considered a "deep space vessel".
More than likely - the primary difference would be their intended missions.
A 'Cruiser' might be meant to run longer deep space missions, further from resupply. That would mean such a ship would need a greater proportion of interior space for supplies, crew comforts etc.
A 'Frigate' might be meant for shorter missions and maybe more defense focused. As such, a larger proportion of space could be given over to weapons and defense systems, OR the ship could be a bit smaller and cheaper (whatever that means in the future).
So, in a way, it does fit. The nature of the Frigate as we know it now could have changed yet again...
A 'Cruiser' might be meant to run longer deep space missions, further from resupply. That would mean such a ship would need a greater proportion of interior space for supplies, crew comforts etc.
A 'Frigate' might be meant for shorter missions and maybe more defense focused. As such, a larger proportion of space could be given over to weapons and defense systems, OR the ship could be a bit smaller and cheaper (whatever that means in the future).
So, in a way, it does fit. The nature of the Frigate as we know it now could have changed yet again...
The makes sense in a way. We know the Enterprise's mission was for 5 years. Perhaps a frigate's is only for 2 years.
As to cheaper, since money doesn't exist in the future (of course, they have credits, but I digress) I would take that to mean fewer resources and time necessary to build a frigate than a cruiser.
YMMV
Exactly - cheaper in terms of material and production time. Frigates might also be a bit easier to support since they aren't intended to run far from home all of the time.
Cruisers, whether they be meant specifically for exploration, or for long-range defensive patrols, may have heavier support needs, and possibly larger crews.
Cruisers, whether they be meant specifically for exploration, or for long-range defensive patrols, may have heavier support needs, and possibly larger crews.
