Think of the difference between a Klingon D7 crusier and a bird of prey. The D7 can operate for years, the BOP can operate only for a few months before needing resupply and refurbishing.
Frigates
- Thread starter James Wright
- Start date
Yes - and the difference in designations ... just a matter of taste.
The Klingons like the term 'BATTLECRUISER', so every battleworthy, long-ranged ship in their fleet would probably use that term.
The Bird 'o Prey still doesn't fit entirely since some of us are quite aware that was -stolen- from the Romulans (but don't tell the Klingons that we know that, they're touchy).
The Klingons like the term 'BATTLECRUISER', so every battleworthy, long-ranged ship in their fleet would probably use that term.
The Bird 'o Prey still doesn't fit entirely since some of us are quite aware that was -stolen- from the Romulans (but don't tell the Klingons that we know that, they're touchy).
...Of course, ENT does a good job of convincing us that it was the Klingons who originally built winged ships named after avian themes, such as Warbirds, Raptors, Birds of Prey and probably others as well.
Or, alternately, ENT could be saying that humans learned their space warfare vocabulary from Vulcans, who (like their cousins Romulans) have a thing for birds. Thus, every Vulcan or Romulan ship would indeed be a bird of some sort, and every enemy vessel described by Vulcans or Romulans would be described in avian terms, too.
Earth terms such as "cruiser" or "frigate" or "battle cruiser" would be slapped onto the original Vulcan terms later on, and might be considered politically more desirable, or perhaps less so, depending on whose politics we talk about.
Timo Saloniemi
Or, alternately, ENT could be saying that humans learned their space warfare vocabulary from Vulcans, who (like their cousins Romulans) have a thing for birds. Thus, every Vulcan or Romulan ship would indeed be a bird of some sort, and every enemy vessel described by Vulcans or Romulans would be described in avian terms, too.
Earth terms such as "cruiser" or "frigate" or "battle cruiser" would be slapped onto the original Vulcan terms later on, and might be considered politically more desirable, or perhaps less so, depending on whose politics we talk about.
Timo Saloniemi
Well, ENT may - but honestly, I don't put much stock in most of the later Star Trek productions anymore.
I can watch 'STAR TREK' (ie TOS) anytime and enjoy it. I can attempt to watch TNG and sometimes enjoy it, DS9 usually, Bor...um I mean Voyager is a waste of time. ENT wasn't all bad, but it's mostly fogettable to me.
I know, old fogie and all that rot...
I can watch 'STAR TREK' (ie TOS) anytime and enjoy it. I can attempt to watch TNG and sometimes enjoy it, DS9 usually, Bor...um I mean Voyager is a waste of time. ENT wasn't all bad, but it's mostly fogettable to me.
I know, old fogie and all that rot...
Observe the following exhibits:
a) Spruance Class hull fitted with Anti-submarine warfare suite=destroyer.
b) Spruance Class hull fitted with conventional anti-air warfare suite=Kidd Class destroyer.
c) Spruance Class hull fitted with AEGIS anti-air system=Ticonderoga cruiser.
Same hull, same powerplant, mostly the same internals below the top deck. Just some electronics and superstructure alterations.
In today's world, cruisers don't really exist. Their roles have been absorbed by destroyers. The old destroyer roles have been filled by Frigates and corvettes. There's only 3-4 classes of cruisers in the world, and only one of them consist of more than 1 or 2 ships. That lone serial production cruiser, was built on a destroyer hull. However, the US Navy has a general guideline for these things.
DD) A destroyer is an ocean-going mult-purpose warship. Primary role is anti-surface and anti-sub.
CG) A cruiser is a ocean going vessel with a primary role of anti-aircraft or anti-missile defense. It should also be as effective as any other ship in land attack, anti-surface, and anti-sub warfare. Basically, it's a destroyer with anti-air emphasis.
FF) A frigate is an ocean going ship with less capability than a destroyer.
PC) Anything less than a frigate, or is designed for use in areas other than deep water, is a patrol ship/craft. The USN doesn't have many of these, at least until the LCS enters service.
It's not entirely consistent, as these things often get political. Recall, that Great Britain's Invincible Class carriers were originally called "through deck cruisers" to avoid budget cuts. One can imagine that the same thinking went into the Arleigh Burke destroyers, a 9,000 ton ship that in any other navy would be a cruiser but happened to come on line precisely at the end of the Cold War.
Last edited:
And that was just a small sampling of what was originally intended for said hull. In the seventies, there were serious plans for building semi-conventional mini-carriers and/or Harrier-carriers out of Spruances; of amphibious attack ships, fast transports and bombardment and command ships. The selling point of the grossly oversized sub-hunter was the built-in versatility. Once the sale was made, though, most of the other ideas were forgotten.
We seem to get something like that with the Miranda: the same basic hull is seen outfighting a Constitution, hauling supplies for distant outposts, doing science missions, and sporting an assortment of strange antenna spires or side pods. How much of that was originally intended, and how much is just later ingenuity in eking out a career for a generally outdated former frontline combatant, we don't really know... But the basic Reliant and the fancy Bozeman seemed to be contemporaries from the early years of that design, suggesting Spruance-like flexibility from the very start.
Timo Saloniemi
I thought the Reliant and Enterprise in their un-damaged state were evenly matched firepower-wise and the Enterprise was faster (afterall, she held the speed records). The Reliant was able to get and maintain the upper hand because Khan crippled the Enterprise in the opening volleys. I didn't really see that as "outfighting" the Enterprise.
Now, there probably aren't that many Constitutions left because they probably got into more trouble and stressed the heck out of their superstructure from all that high speed warping than the Mirandas though, IMHO
But there is something to be said for flexibility in design with the Miranda's boxiness
^I don't know. It was originally intended that USS Stargazer was going to be a Constitution-class starship in "The Battle." They were able to get the new Constellation-class model built and the dialogue was looped to replace Constitution with Constellation.
We also see the Constitution-class secondary hull and saucer in the debris field at Wolf 359 in "The Best of Both Worlds Part II."
I tend to think that the Constitution-class was still in service but with other fleets. I really believe that the Constitution model wasn't used because they believed that audiences might get confused that the model was Kirk's Starship Enterprise.
We also see the model of the Constitution-class with the turned-inward nacelles at Utopia Planitia in TNG "Booby Trap".
We also see the Constitution-class secondary hull and saucer in the debris field at Wolf 359 in "The Best of Both Worlds Part II."
I tend to think that the Constitution-class was still in service but with other fleets. I really believe that the Constitution model wasn't used because they believed that audiences might get confused that the model was Kirk's Starship Enterprise.
We also see the model of the Constitution-class with the turned-inward nacelles at Utopia Planitia in TNG "Booby Trap".
I see no problems with TNG Constitution. There are way too many problems with the Reliant v Enterprise fight because for one, Kirk didn't follow Starfleet procedures. In which I think that Kirk should have been court-martialed for at least the many deaths that occurred.
The way I've thought about it, drawing from the different material, was that frigates and cruisers are seperated by hull configuration, mission, and capability.
At some point, crusiers in Starfleet traditionally had a primary and secondary hull. This meant a fair amount of volume for crew, supplies, labs, sensors, computers, etc - and without cargo, propulsion systems, and embarked craft eating into it. Weapon systems also take up a smaller percentage of the entire volume of the ship, but they are extensive.
Frigates had a single unit, though larger than a cruisers primary hull. There's less space for crew, supplies, labs, sensor systems, computers - all those things needed for diverse missions, and it's shared with compromised space for the propulsion systems, the cargo, and the compliment for embarked craft. The weapon systems you have will take up a higher percentage of volume - at the expense of other things.
Cruiser -
Multirole, good capability. A primary and secondary hull, with some sort of connecting dorsal.
Frigate -
Limited roles - or single mission, lesser capability. Single integrated hull, perhaps with some pylons or pods.
Cruisers must be self contained to do what must be done, whenever and where ever. They carry a bunch of people onboard to make sure they can do what's needed. And they carry a lot of equipment to take care of those people. The sensor systems are robust and integrated well into a tight package.
Frigates - like Miranda/Reliant - take on more specific jobs. I would say one advantage of the Miranda design, and it's varients, is in embarked craft capability. It probably can carry more and different kinds of shuttle and landing craft than a Constitution cruiser could. The greebles on some of the others - specialized sensor equipment that could be swapped out for different missions (planetary surveys, communication snooping, cloaked ship tracking, tachyon pulses...). There may also be less crew required to operate these ships.
Both seem to be effective in a fight, but meanuverability would go to the Frigate. But staying power for the NEXT fight... that goes to the Cruiser.
BUT WHY would you keep the Constitutions into TNG or the mid 24th century? Supposedly mutlirole, but no longer able to match what an Excellsior or Ambassador could do. No longer do they pack as much punch as the new ships, but also still not as meanuverable as the Miranda. There's also those three hull components to keep up - the Frigates are simpler to build and maintain. So, sure, I think you could 'downgrade' a Constitution into filling the TNG Miranda roles... but what used to be it's advantages are no longer advantages, and are even liabilities.
That's just my rambling take! =)
At some point, crusiers in Starfleet traditionally had a primary and secondary hull. This meant a fair amount of volume for crew, supplies, labs, sensors, computers, etc - and without cargo, propulsion systems, and embarked craft eating into it. Weapon systems also take up a smaller percentage of the entire volume of the ship, but they are extensive.
Frigates had a single unit, though larger than a cruisers primary hull. There's less space for crew, supplies, labs, sensor systems, computers - all those things needed for diverse missions, and it's shared with compromised space for the propulsion systems, the cargo, and the compliment for embarked craft. The weapon systems you have will take up a higher percentage of volume - at the expense of other things.
Cruiser -
Multirole, good capability. A primary and secondary hull, with some sort of connecting dorsal.
Frigate -
Limited roles - or single mission, lesser capability. Single integrated hull, perhaps with some pylons or pods.
Cruisers must be self contained to do what must be done, whenever and where ever. They carry a bunch of people onboard to make sure they can do what's needed. And they carry a lot of equipment to take care of those people. The sensor systems are robust and integrated well into a tight package.
Frigates - like Miranda/Reliant - take on more specific jobs. I would say one advantage of the Miranda design, and it's varients, is in embarked craft capability. It probably can carry more and different kinds of shuttle and landing craft than a Constitution cruiser could. The greebles on some of the others - specialized sensor equipment that could be swapped out for different missions (planetary surveys, communication snooping, cloaked ship tracking, tachyon pulses...). There may also be less crew required to operate these ships.
Both seem to be effective in a fight, but meanuverability would go to the Frigate. But staying power for the NEXT fight... that goes to the Cruiser.
BUT WHY would you keep the Constitutions into TNG or the mid 24th century? Supposedly mutlirole, but no longer able to match what an Excellsior or Ambassador could do. No longer do they pack as much punch as the new ships, but also still not as meanuverable as the Miranda. There's also those three hull components to keep up - the Frigates are simpler to build and maintain. So, sure, I think you could 'downgrade' a Constitution into filling the TNG Miranda roles... but what used to be it's advantages are no longer advantages, and are even liabilities.
That's just my rambling take! =)
I'd imagine it may be the case that whatever Constitutions survived were kept in use in some capacity or other, but that there would be no new-builds.
For example, the Royal Navy's active list includes HMS Victory (1759) and HMS Caraline (1914), so it's quite reasonable to think that there's the odd Connie still chugging around somewhere, probably as a training ship or (traditional sense) flagship.
dJE
For example, the Royal Navy's active list includes HMS Victory (1759) and HMS Caraline (1914), so it's quite reasonable to think that there's the odd Connie still chugging around somewhere, probably as a training ship or (traditional sense) flagship.
dJE
In a lot of modern navies (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, ect), the rank that in the US (and Starfleet) is called Lieutenant Commander is called Corvette Captain. The rank the US (and Starfleet) calls Commander is called Frigate Captain. And Captain is above that.
So one of the things a Frigate should be is a ship small enough that her CO is a Commander.
Wikipedia mentions that Frigates were ships that, while the same size as a Ship of the Line, were less well armed.
I vaguely recall that a Frigate was a warship with more cargo capacity, which sort of follows: fewer guns means more room for cargo, and vice-versa.
Modern frigates often sacrifice some armament to make space for a helipad. This might just be part of their anti-submarine role,but perhaps this is part of why they are designated as frigates: dedicating more space to non-combat (or non-direct, ship-to-ship combat) roles than a cruiser.
Which fits the Miranda to a tee, IMO: more space for labs and cargo, and maybe slightly less weapons than a cruiser. (Yes, we see a Miranda "outfight" a Constitution Class, but only when it got in a devastating first punch because Kirk kept his shields down. IMO, the Miranda of the period was not armed as well as the COnstitution, just close enough.)
Destroyers and battleships should be vessels that are almost exclusively built for combat. As such, they are very scarce in Starfleet. IMO, the Defiant could be called either, although being small and maneuverable maybe destroyer is a better fit. I've seen it suggested that the Soverign Class is a battleship, but I'm not sure it isn't just a really big and well armed cruiser.
On the other hand, given the history of "cruiser" as merely a term for a ship intended (or tasked) with operating alone, without the support of a fleet, even a battleship could be a "cruiser" as well.
Corvettes are mainly identified by their speed. They should be smaller than a cruiser or frigate (if only to make the ranks make sense ), and it would be appropriate to give this name to ships designed for working in close proximity to planets, perhaps even entering the atmosphere. Voyager might be a really big Corvette.
So, IMO (and YMMV), Starfleet reserves the term "battleship" to be large ships with the best weapons and shields, with little non-combat facilities, that are specificly designed to operate in fleets (either with other ship types or in groups if like ships). Of which it has none.
Cruiser is the term for most Starfleet ships. Terms like "heavy" and "light" are used to classify them according to their combat capability (weapons, shields, etc).
Frigate is used to designate those that devote an unusually large amount of their space to non-combat equipment, making them less capable in combat than a typical ship of their size.
Destroyer is used to designate a ship that devotes an unusually large amount of their space to combat equipment, making them more capable in combat than a typical ship of their size
Corvette is for very small, highly maneuverable ships.
Some Starfleet ships are not really designed as multi-role ships at all, and these generally have a specific term describing the type of job they are designed to do, such as Science Ship, Freighter, Repair Ship, and Hospital Ship.
As for ships changing classification, remember that during TOS, the Constitution Class was the biggest ship we saw. Okay, it was the only ship we saw, but there was the implication that it was the biggest, most capable class in the fleet. In the Movie Era, the Excelsior was bigger and more capable. By the TNG era, the Excelsior was pretty small (compared to the Ambassador, the Nebula, and the Galaxy Classes). So the Excelsior Class likely got downgraded as larger, better armed and more capable ships got introduced. If your standard for a Heavy Cruiser is ten science labs and 14 phaser banks, then you need to reclassify an old ship with six science labs and 10 phaser banks.
Over those 100 years, old Excelsiors and Miranda went through refits that brought their equipment up to date and at the same time reduced their crew requirements. At the time of at least one of those refits, the ship may also have been re-classified from cruiser to frigate, or from heavy cruiser to light cruiser, to reflect where the ship now fit among its peers.
Old COnnies may have remained in service, but .... well, I've always liked the idea that the Constitution CLass suffered horrible attrition. They were the best Starfleet had, and got sent to all the toughest situations, and that unfortunately meant that a lot of them didn't come back. When the Excelsior Class came along, construction of the Constitution stopped, but there weren't very many of them left anyway. Mirandas kept getting made, and kept getting assigned to comparatively safe missions, so most of them survived.
I like to think that the reason Starfleet wanted to retire the Enterprise-A and create a new Excelsior Class Enterprise is that she was the only Constitution Class ship left (except for the pre-refit Excalibur, which suffered the loss of all hands when attacked by the M-5 in control if USS Enterprise, and made an exhibit in the Fleet Museum). But that's all just my non-canon guesswork.
So one of the things a Frigate should be is a ship small enough that her CO is a Commander.
Wikipedia mentions that Frigates were ships that, while the same size as a Ship of the Line, were less well armed.
I vaguely recall that a Frigate was a warship with more cargo capacity, which sort of follows: fewer guns means more room for cargo, and vice-versa.
Modern frigates often sacrifice some armament to make space for a helipad. This might just be part of their anti-submarine role,but perhaps this is part of why they are designated as frigates: dedicating more space to non-combat (or non-direct, ship-to-ship combat) roles than a cruiser.
Which fits the Miranda to a tee, IMO: more space for labs and cargo, and maybe slightly less weapons than a cruiser. (Yes, we see a Miranda "outfight" a Constitution Class, but only when it got in a devastating first punch because Kirk kept his shields down. IMO, the Miranda of the period was not armed as well as the COnstitution, just close enough.)
Destroyers and battleships should be vessels that are almost exclusively built for combat. As such, they are very scarce in Starfleet. IMO, the Defiant could be called either, although being small and maneuverable maybe destroyer is a better fit. I've seen it suggested that the Soverign Class is a battleship, but I'm not sure it isn't just a really big and well armed cruiser.
On the other hand, given the history of "cruiser" as merely a term for a ship intended (or tasked) with operating alone, without the support of a fleet, even a battleship could be a "cruiser" as well.
Corvettes are mainly identified by their speed. They should be smaller than a cruiser or frigate (if only to make the ranks make sense
), and it would be appropriate to give this name to ships designed for working in close proximity to planets, perhaps even entering the atmosphere. Voyager might be a really big Corvette.So, IMO (and YMMV), Starfleet reserves the term "battleship" to be large ships with the best weapons and shields, with little non-combat facilities, that are specificly designed to operate in fleets (either with other ship types or in groups if like ships). Of which it has none.
Cruiser is the term for most Starfleet ships. Terms like "heavy" and "light" are used to classify them according to their combat capability (weapons, shields, etc).
Frigate is used to designate those that devote an unusually large amount of their space to non-combat equipment, making them less capable in combat than a typical ship of their size.
Destroyer is used to designate a ship that devotes an unusually large amount of their space to combat equipment, making them more capable in combat than a typical ship of their size
Corvette is for very small, highly maneuverable ships.
Some Starfleet ships are not really designed as multi-role ships at all, and these generally have a specific term describing the type of job they are designed to do, such as Science Ship, Freighter, Repair Ship, and Hospital Ship.
As for ships changing classification, remember that during TOS, the Constitution Class was the biggest ship we saw. Okay, it was the only ship we saw, but there was the implication that it was the biggest, most capable class in the fleet. In the Movie Era, the Excelsior was bigger and more capable. By the TNG era, the Excelsior was pretty small (compared to the Ambassador, the Nebula, and the Galaxy Classes). So the Excelsior Class likely got downgraded as larger, better armed and more capable ships got introduced. If your standard for a Heavy Cruiser is ten science labs and 14 phaser banks, then you need to reclassify an old ship with six science labs and 10 phaser banks.
Over those 100 years, old Excelsiors and Miranda went through refits that brought their equipment up to date and at the same time reduced their crew requirements. At the time of at least one of those refits, the ship may also have been re-classified from cruiser to frigate, or from heavy cruiser to light cruiser, to reflect where the ship now fit among its peers.
Old COnnies may have remained in service, but .... well, I've always liked the idea that the Constitution CLass suffered horrible attrition. They were the best Starfleet had, and got sent to all the toughest situations, and that unfortunately meant that a lot of them didn't come back. When the Excelsior Class came along, construction of the Constitution stopped, but there weren't very many of them left anyway. Mirandas kept getting made, and kept getting assigned to comparatively safe missions, so most of them survived.
I like to think that the reason Starfleet wanted to retire the Enterprise-A and create a new Excelsior Class Enterprise is that she was the only Constitution Class ship left (except for the pre-refit Excalibur, which suffered the loss of all hands when attacked by the M-5 in control if USS Enterprise, and made an exhibit in the Fleet Museum). But that's all just my non-canon guesswork.
I will admit, I'd have liked to see more small vessels commanded by a rank less than a full captain. It would depend on the ship's mission profile, but I could see it being plausible in some cases. I recall in 25th Anniversary, there's the Ptolemy class tug USS Masada which is said to be commanded by a lieutenant and have only a minimal crew (about 15-20), which fits its stated role as a supply ship. This number is a lot smaller than the standard given by FJ for the class, but it's certainly possible that the ship was either on reserve duty or perhaps scheduled for decommissioning or something, and didn't require a standard crew for its supply runs.
The idea that the Constitution (and its variants) suffered attrition is interesting too, as FASA certainly seemed to suggest that was the case. There were a fairly large number built, and many of those were lost, destroyed, scrapped, or decommissioned by the time of TNG. Some were still in active service after refits. So I like to think there would still be some left, although production would have lessened after the introduction of the Excelsior and other more advanced designs.
The idea that the Constitution (and its variants) suffered attrition is interesting too, as FASA certainly seemed to suggest that was the case. There were a fairly large number built, and many of those were lost, destroyed, scrapped, or decommissioned by the time of TNG. Some were still in active service after refits. So I like to think there would still be some left, although production would have lessened after the introduction of the Excelsior and other more advanced designs.
