No. I get it, you don't like it. Others do, and it's a sensible comparison, because Star trek was based on the Hornblower novels, in space, using the situations of the Napoeonic era fleet, but using the modern US Navy as the basis of the fictional organization to make it more understandable to the viewers. Now, later, Roddenberry lost control, Meyers made the military connection more obvious, and then when Roddenberry got control back he tried to claim Starfleet was not a military, but that was drivel when he said it, and hasn't gotten any more intelligible since.Can we please NOT?
We haven't seen Starfleet build anything that isn't very closely derived from modern ships, but inn Spaaace. The most divergent is the Explorer class, which is just a politically correct way of saying "Heavy multi-role Cruiser that can fight and explore, just like the CH-1701", while eschewing modern designations. There are still frigates, cruisers, fighters, etc. Cloaking devices make for functional submarines in space. It's largely WWII in 3-D, with a background of black curtains with pinholes.
Shortly after the UFP incorporated, there probably was a wide variety. But standardized technical architecture makes it a lot easier to operate jointly, and by Kirk's time, they had done that. We've never seen any real evidence that Starfleet is divorced from it's roots.