Source for Enterprise's designation as 'Heavy Cruiser'

[WAMTNG]

Hey classic Trek fans!
Can anyone give me an on-screen source for the Enterprise's designation as a 'heavy cruiser' (or any other Constitution class vessel for that matter)? I have plenty of secondary materials that support this designation, but I am scratching my head to remember any time that this class was mentioned on-screen in any Star Trek episode. If anyone has any leads, I'd appreciate it!

 

[J.T.B.]

I don't think there is one onscreen, except possibly Franz Joseph graphics glimpsed in the OS movies. In "A Taste of Armageddon" Enterprise was called a "star cruiser." In TMOST it was a "space cruiser." I think "heavy cruiser" came from the FJ plans and technical manual.

 

[Dukhat]

Here ya go:

https://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tsfshd/tsfshd0184.jpg

Notice that it’s the TOS Constitution class, not the refit. This diagram came directly from the FJ Tech Manual, and to my knowledge is the first instance in canon to use the ‘heavy cruiser’ moniker. In the same film, one of the Klingons refers to the Enterprise as a ‘Federation battle cruiser.’

 

[Phaser Two]

Never called a "heavy cruiser" in any onscreen TV episode. "Federation battlecruiser" according to the Klingons in The Search for Spock, in addition to JTB's examples.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I believe the old FJ "Heavy Cruiser" designation has been glimpsed on screen in Discovery and SNW, too.

 

[NCC-73515]

I only remember the Ambassador class Horatio being called a heavy cruiser by Data

 

[Warped9]

Although it’s not onscreen I believe the term “heavy cruiser” is used in The Making Of Star Trek where materiel from the series’ Writer’s Guide is referenced in describing the Enterprise. And TMOST was published in 1968.

 

[Maurice]

The Making of Star Trek, 1968


204 OFFICIAL BIOGRAPHY OF A SHIP AND ITS CREW


consider the size of the galaxy and the fact that there are only twelve starships in service. Suppose there are only three million Class M (Earth-type) planets. Divide by twelve starships. Even if they could visit a planet every month, the Star Trek series could go on forever!


IN ADDITION TO THE TWELVE STARSHIPS, THERE ARE LESSER CLASSES OF VESSELS, CAPABLE OF OPERATING OVER MUCH MORE LIMITED DISTANCES. THEY ARE INVOLVED IN COMMERCIAL VENTURES, SURVEY WORK, ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPEDITIONS, MEDICAL RESEARCH, AND SO ON. THE STARSHIPS ARE THE HEAVY CRUISERS, THE ONES WHICH CAN BEST DEFEND THEMSELVES AS THEY PROBE FARTHER AND FARTHER OUT, OPENING NEW AREAS . . . AND THEN THE OTHERS FOLLOW.

 

[Phaser Two]

It's always been interesting to me that despite the clear shift in real-world naval tactics to carrier-based operations by 1966, there's no sign of fighters anywhere in Star Trek. Star Wars of course has fighters, some ship-based. The Orville has ship-based fighter craft. But even the modern iterations of the Trek franchise really don't, and the original certainly doesn't.

 

[Maurice]

It's always been interesting to me that despite the clear shift in real-world naval tactics to carrier-based operations by 1966, there's no sign of fighters anywhere in Star Trek. Star Wars of course has fighters, some ship-based. The Orville has ship-based fighter craft. But even the modern iterations of the Trek franchise really don't, and the original certainly doesn't.

I think shields and deflectors are part of it. Since Trek starship defenses are energy fields one could postulate the inverse cube law would seem to favor bigger craft. Cube the volume, square the shield area. A fighter can't carry enough reaction mass to compete with the power output of a massive starship's shields.

Or it's just age of sail.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

It's always been interesting to me that despite the clear shift in real-world naval tactics to carrier-based operations by 1966, there's no sign of fighters anywhere in Star Trek. Star Wars of course has fighters, some ship-based. The Orville has ship-based fighter craft. But even the modern iterations of the Trek franchise really don't, and the original certainly doesn't.

Maurice makes some good points. In-universe, also, I think the Enterprise is so fast that fighter craft would have no advantage. Jets go over 20 times the speed of their aircraft carrier; there's just no comparison. So with the capital starship so fast and its shields so strong, fighter craft would have only some specialized applications left. They generally aren't worth carrying.

And obviously the very idea of fighters was out of the question in 1964, for budget and time reasons. Designing the show to have one major starship was going to be costly enough.

The absence of fighter fx in Star Trek may be part of what made fighters electrifying in Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, and Buck Rogers. But then again, I saw Buck Rogers on the big screen before the TV series premiered, and even though I was already "adapted" to the greatness of Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica, the movie still shot me full of adrenalin. Fighter battles were still amazing to me.

 

[Phaser Two]

I think shields and deflectors are part of it. Since Trek starship defenses are energy fields one could postulate the inverse cube law would seem to favor bigger craft. Cube the volume, square the shield area. A fighter can't carry enough reaction mass to compete with the power output of a massive starship's shields.

Ah, I like that thought, although Orvilleverse capital ships and Star Destroyers/Mon Calamari ships have shields as well (although not nearly as heavily emphasized in dialogue or plot). Another difference is the transporter, which in turn dramatically decreases reliance on shuttles. Perhaps that leads to less need for fighters, as escorting shuttles isn't nearly as important.

 

[WAMTNG]

Thanks everyone! Some quick responses...

Never called a "heavy cruiser" in any onscreen TV episode.

This is the confirmation I was fishing for - many thanks for stating it!

I don't think there is one onscreen, except possibly Franz Joseph graphics glimpsed in the OS movies. In "A Taste of Armageddon" Enterprise was called a "star cruiser." In TMOST it was a "space cruiser." I think "heavy cruiser" came from the FJ plans and technical manual.

This is extremely helpful - the scripts give us 'cruiser', just not 'heavy cruiser'. Many thanks!

In the same film, one of the Klingons refers to the Enterprise as a ‘Federation battle cruiser.’

I probably should have been clearer in my original wording - I was looking for a reference in the TV show, not in the movies. Although even allowing for this, the reference you share isn't necessarily definitive.

For me, the use of the images from Task Force Games or FASA boardgames or role-playing games is not going to make for a definitive canonical point; it's still 'within range' to reject these materials in our fanon. If Kirk says aloud "heavy cruiser", we have a more difficult task rejecting it. If it appears in a visual borrowed from another source, that doesn't (to me) automatically hurdle over the fanon barrier (especially not a Franz Joseph reference, because of the ambiguity of Joseph's reference books and the sheer non-canonicity of anything made by Task Force Games). We have interpretative choices: since we know these game sources from our world, which is strictly incompatible with the fictional world of Star Trek, the meaning we take from their appearance is ambiguous, and open to fanonical interpretation. It exists in a fascinating grey area.

The Klingon's verbal reference to 'battle cruiser' on the other hand, is clearly canonical. But all it adds to the canon is the Klingon's preferred designation, of course. I do greatly appreciate the inclusion of the image, though! This is super-helpful. I had never spotted this before. Thanks!

I only remember the Ambassador class Horatio being called a heavy cruiser by Data

Oh, and thanks for this, as I had thought it was Worf you namechecked 'heavy cruiser' in "Conspiracy", but I see you are correct that it is Data. Worf flags the other ships as 'frigates'. That's what kicked this off, as I'm writing the WAM for "Conspiracy", and so I was digging into the rather odd mentioning of ship designations in this episode. I'm pretty sure the term 'frigate' doesn't appear anywhere else in 20th century Trek...

Many, many thanks for all these helpful comments!

 

[J.T.B.]

It's always been interesting to me that despite the clear shift in real-world naval tactics to carrier-based operations by 1966, there's no sign of fighters anywhere in Star Trek. Star Wars of course has fighters, some ship-based. The Orville has ship-based fighter craft. But even the modern iterations of the Trek franchise really don't, and the original certainly doesn't.

Why would it? Aircraft operate in a completely different physical environment from water craft, at radically different speeds. In the absence of such a speed differential and effective one-shot ship-killing weapons, it seems to make sense that small craft don't offer an advantage.

 

[Phaser Two]

Why would it? Aircraft operate in a completely different physical environment from water craft, at radically different speeds. In the absence of such a speed differential and effective one-shot ship-killing weapons, it seems to make sense that small craft don't offer an advantage.

I don't disagree and actually find both approaches (fighters and no) interesting. But I think it's intriguing that just about every other space-based franchise features fighters, often quite heavily, whereas Star Trek does not.

 

[drt]

It's always seemed to me that Star Trek operates under the premise the bigger the reactor, the more power for movement, shields and weapons. Fightercraft are therefore slower and weaker than capital ships, so there's little use for them.

 

[J.T.B.]

I don't disagree and actually find both approaches (fighters and no) interesting. But I think it's intriguing that just about every other space-based franchise features fighters, often quite heavily, whereas Star Trek does not.

It wasn't really a thing, though, until the early '70s with the Yamato shows AFAIK. There were small "scoutships" and such in written SF, but not much that I am aware of where a small craft had any kind fighting advantage over a bigger one. I assume the introduction of the "fighter" (which term I don't like) idea was rooted in exposure to WW2 films and imagery over the preceding decades and a desire to transpose the excitement and energy of those visuals into a SF setting.

 

[Phaser Two]

It wasn't really a thing, though, until the early '70s with the Yamato shows AFAIK. There were small "scoutships" and such in written SF, but not much that I am aware of where a small craft had any kind fighting advantage over a bigger one. I assume the introduction of the "fighter" (which term I don't like) idea was rooted in exposure to WW2 films and imagery over the preceding decades and a desire to transpose the excitement and energy of those visuals into a SF setting.

Yes, and - for the final time - I find it interesting that Star Trek did not take that direction while pretty much every other space-based franchise did. Finis.

 

[J.T.B.]

Yes, and - for the final time - I find it interesting that Star Trek did not take that direction while pretty much every other space-based franchise did. Finis.

I'm just saying that TOS developed from earlier lines of SF, where "star fighters" weren't a factor.

 

[Commishsleer]

Didn't someone post a picture on here showing a plaque near the turbolift or somewhere near there saying the Enterprise was Starship class? And I thought Nimoy was asked once if he'd seen it or am I getting this mixed up with something else? or just imagining it? LOL