Basic answer to the question about Starfleet... It IS military.
It's just that what constitutes being military in their time is not what we would consider purely military now. Just as there are aspects of modern military services today that would hardly fit in well about 200-250 years ago.
Hi Jayru speaking for my self. The trek universe that I imagine is more about FJ's ship designations, followed by my few years of playing Starfleet Battles and how they designate ships. I also enjoyed all the FASA Roleplaying material never played the game but enjoyed the technical manuals. and I collected all sorts of tech material. Check out my deviant art page some time. The FJ blueprints started my love of Trek Tech.I have a broad question, one that really should be on another thread, given that Starfleet is a paramilitary organisation (lose one at that, no saluting etc), whose primary function is exploration, why do we always define ships in terms of military roles? I see this ship as a small capable science vessel.
Those are interesting points, and yes - it is something I hadn't considered. Although if mem serves wasn't CO of the starbase in 11001001 a Commander? Yes, it makes better sense that smaller ships and stations might not need a captain to run them. And the idea that Starfleet is a loose collective, rather than a die-hard military org makes proper sense - as you say, they have other duties.Well, here we go again.... This forum definitely needed ANOTHER debate on this.
I agree with you and disagree. I say Starfleet is NOT military, because it has many duties that fall outside of what a military does. I do agree with you that the concept of military changes over centuries.
What I've said in the past and will say here again....
Starfleet is NOT a military. It is a completely unique organisation that has many duties, including what a current day military would do. It has a ranking system based on military/naval ranks. Based on, not exactly like.
For example, it took until half way of DS9 for the writers to realize that someone with the rank of captain doesn't automatically receive a command but can also have other duties. Or for someone of the rank of commander to be the CO of a ship and be referred to as a captain. Hell, we should have seen system patrol ships with many 20 people onboard and a Lt. Commander as the CO. That would be more naval. We should have been seeing far more starships with admirals on it.
@JSnaith I'm so sorry for this long and unrelated post in your topic. I'll keep my peace now and only comment on your designs and progress.
Again, that is someone outside of the screen who is putting Starfleet into today's military terms. Now, whilst that is understandable, people would try to make sense of it that way. We never hear the terms corvetee, frigate, etc in terms of the show. Heavy Cruiser and Cruiser Light Cruiser are the only definitions we hear. That doesn't mean other terms don't exist. Does using current ship terms make sense in Trek? That's a hard question to answer. To an extent, maybe, but the roles these ships have are far different from the roles a current navy would use. Plus, to quote Kir,k "Starfleet is a combined service" (Tomorrow is Yesterday), so strictly speaking, it isn't a just Navy Service, but something else. Humm, food for thought.Hi Jayru speaking for my self. The trek universe that I imagine is more about FJ's ship designations, followed by my few years of playing Starfleet Battles and how they designate ships. I also enjoyed all the FASA Roleplaying material never played the game but enjoyed the technical manuals. and I collected all sorts of tech material. Check out my deviant art page some time. The FJ blueprints started my love of Trek Tech.
I noticed that myself, but my paper design predates Voyager by a few decades, lol.This feels like it's a predecessor to the Nova. It's got a similar size and profile.


A few decades? Only 15 years separate STIII (1984) and Equinox (1999). You hiding a time machine somewhere?I noticed that myself, but my paper design predates Voyager by a few decades, lol.

I like it. To me, it feels like a compact variant of the Clarke-class. Similar building blocks, arranged for what works best for their mission profiles.Comments welcome, and as always more soon!
I've long viewed Starfleet as having two personnel specialization tracks -- military and exploration. Picard is on the exploration track. Sisko is on the military track. And that would apply to ships as well -- the base models can be customized for more exploratory roles or more military roles.I have a broad question, one that really should be on another thread, given that Starfleet is a paramilitary organisation (lose one at that, no saluting etc), whose primary function is exploration, why do we always define ships in terms of military roles? I see this ship as a small capable science vessel.
Thank youSame to you have a happy and safe holiday season![]()
I want to say "great minds think alike," but given the state of my mind, I won't, lol. The Challenger is not without issues; there is no such thing as a perfect starship.A few decades? Only 15 years separate STIII (1984) and Equinox (1999). You hiding a time machine somewhere?
Kidding aside, great work! That side view really drives home that these are not small ships. It wouldn't even be able to fit in a football stadium!
I'm not aware of the Clarke Class, throw me a link and I'll have a look.I like it. To me, it feels like a compact variant of the Clarke-class. Similar building blocks, arranged for what works best for their mission profiles.
I've long viewed Starfleet as having two personnel specialization tracks -- military and exploration. Picard is on the exploration track. Sisko is on the military track. And that would apply to ships as well -- the base models can be customized for more exploratory roles or more military roles.
The Clarke, for instance, I can see in both a "heavy Oberth" role and a light cruiser role, and it would be outfitted differently for what it was needed for.
I think Starfleet ships, especially in the 2270s, are going to be designed to be (or be easily converted to) warships. Starfleet has fought three wars with the Klingons in the past thirty years or so (Four Years, Binary Stars, Organian). But that doesn't mean they aren't capable of having specialized science variants.
I thought that was what you called one of your ships earlier in the thread, vaguely inspired by the Surak from DC's Star Trek comics in the 80s. It's a bigger Oberth, but with a neck.I'm not aware of the Clarke Class, throw me a link and I'll have a look.
Gotcha ;-)I thought that was what you called one of your ships earlier in the thread, vaguely inspired by the Surak from DC's Star Trek comics in the 80s. It's a bigger Oberth, but with a neck.





The McCaffrey Class logo would have to feature a dragon.Would be nice to see some sort of class logo like you've been doing for your later images on the latest picture how about a comparison schematic as well? When you have the time. Great work as always
Fortunately, Ro Laran would know what to do.I love the McCaffrey class...
I picture Admiral Helena Cain(Nu BattlestarGalactica), being more than a tad confused about exactly what any Federation Starship is capable of...
Maybe...I could see Memory Alpha as a home away from home for Grissom adjacent ships.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.