StarShip Classifications in your Head Cannon!

[Ithekro]

FASA and some of the others of that time were still using US Navy designations from pre-1975. When a Frigate was the size of a Cruiser (USN frigates pre-75 were Destroyer Leaders, large destroyers. Some were nuclear powered. The US cruisers at the time were the remaining World War II cruisers and USS Long Beach (build with a cruiser hull). In 1975, the remaining Destroyer Leaders (Frigates from 1955 - 75) were reclassified. The larger ones became Cruisers, and the smaller ones became destroyers. By 1975, the last of the World War II cruisers were leaving service, so the only "cruiser" in the fleet was USS Long Beach. The "cruiser gap" with the Soviets was closed by this designation change and the reclassification of the Ticonderoga-class as cruisers.

But because "Frigate" was the large surface ships of the fleet until 1975, FASA and the like had cruisers and frigates as the same size (roughly). Cruisers tended to be more science or multipurpose capable, while Frigates were more combat oriented, with later types carrying marine compliments. Other groups split the cruisers and frigates based on hull style. Cruisers tended to look more like Constitution-class ships with the saucer and secondary hull configuration. Frigates were more like the Miranda-class with an extended or bulked up primary hull, but no secondary hull. (destroyers tended to have just the sauces and warp nacelles)

However after 1975, the US Navy re-designation of the former escort destroyer line as frigates fit in with how the rest of the planet called such ships. Frigates now are small surface warships. The divide between cruisers and destroyers is remote at best since most cruisers are actually destroyers with extra features that are getting put on newer destroyers anyway. Unless something changes, the cruiser designation will likely vanish again once the Ticonderoga-class is retired.

 

[Donnewtype]

I always liked the fleet composition that the Technical Manual presented. With the establishment of the Federation you would draw upon the member's Navies/ Self Defense Forces/ Stellar Guard etc. only for a certain amount of time. A simplified fleet structure allows you to rapidly produce the ships you need quickly so that you can allow the member ships to go home. Having it's own unique ships would also present a impartial, neutral appearance compared to a ship belonging to a specific member's Navy.

 

[Donnewtype]

So now here is what the Fleet would look like
Corvette (Formally the Scout Class)

Frigate (Formally the Destroyer Class). Created to fill a role that emerged for a ship with shuttle capability but was not the size of the Heavy Cruiser

Heavy Cruiser (Flagship class of Starfleet)

Dreadnought Class. (One and half times the size and three time the firepower) When the only answer can be a big stick.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Heavy Cruiser (Flagship class of Starfleet)

Minor point, "heavy cruiser" as the only type of cruiser is redundant, the solo term would "cruiser" or potentially a clarifier based on role: battlecruiser/tactical cruiser/attack cruiser, diplomatic cruiser, exploration cruiser, medical cruiser...

 

[Donnewtype]

Ok, I can see where your coming from Shamrock, and if the class designation represents an evolution from one type of ship to the next then I could see the following:

The initial ships commissioned for the new Starfleet are the Corvette (Hermes Class) and Destroyer (Saladin Class) using a breakthrough warp nacelle design. The initial transport and tug capability are provided by repurposed commercial tugs and bulk transports.

The need for a shuttle equipped ship is quickly realized and so Starfleet creates what they first designate as a Frigate (Halifax Class) by rebuilding a select number of Corvette and Destroyer hulls. The ship is in turn reclassified as a Cruiser when the design succeeds beyond expectations and a new Heavy Cruiser (Constitution Class) is proposed by moving the shuttle bay to a new Secondary Hull.

The separate secondary hull now means the ship can employ two warp nacelles which result in unprecedented power and performance levels. A side effect though is the need for a dedicated navigational deflector system with its own separate transceiver dish. An unsolicited proposal for a Starfleet only Transport/ Tug using the twin nacelle design of the Heavy Cruiser results in the Ptolemy Class Transport with its revolutionary standardized containers.

As seen here:

 

[Boris Skrbic]

The starship classifications in my headcanon (as opposed to personal canon, which I don’t believe in) are those established by Franz Joseph, and they apply mostly to the late 23rd century, the time period matching the real-world use of the SFTM as a production resource.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

The starship classifications in my headcanon (as opposed to personal canon, which I don’t believe in) are those established by Franz Joseph, and they apply mostly to the late 23rd century, the time period matching the real-world use of the SFTM as a production resource.

I broadly speaking agree with him on the levels (flagship/"big stick", general workhorse, light specialist ship(s), support) but as I've previously indicated, I'm not as big a fan of his use of "aggressive" classifications when others will do the job. Personally, I'd go with: Federation-class command ship (mostly used as a 'tip of the spear' flagship), Constitution-class (heavy) cruiser, Saladin-class frigate, Hermes-class scout (surveyor?) and Ptolmey-class tug, and honestly I'm entirely convinced about the Saladins and Hermeses being a separate spaceframe either.

 

[publiusr]

The TAS Enterprise--to be the size it needs to be to have that huge shuttlebay--and the Discovery Enterprise with the pylons--looks a closer match than I thought.

 

[Mysterion]

and honestly I'm entirely convinced about the Saladins and Hermeses being a separate spaceframe either.

I've always assumed these ships were the same basic ship coming out the builder's yard, but were fitted-out differently internally for their different purposes. More weapons/tactical systems for the Saladin, less weapons and more labs/sensor systems for Hermes. And of course, differing crew complement/compositions.

 

[Timo]

This would be a very seventies thing to do, too - the Spruance hull was supposed to meet every need of the USN, from ASW destroyer to AA cruiser to compact carrier to amphibious assault vessel. Nothing ever came out of it, save for the botched sale to Iran that resulted in the four Kidds. But Starfleet might well have followed the philosophy to the hilt.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

That makes sense... more of a two-subclasses kinda thing then.

Similar to how (via upgrades?) we got the Reliant-subtype (cruiser), Lantree-subtype (supply ship), Saratoga (II)-subtype (exploration frigate?), Soyuz-subtype (recon/border patrol?)...?

 

[USS Triumphant]

I'm always torn about the subject of 23rd century ship designations, because on one hand, I like the idea that humanity would reach out in friendship, making designations like "destroyer" and "dreadnought" seem pretty at odds with the mission. But on the other hand, I really like the idea that Starfleet evolved more or less directly from the United States Navy - and that might involve using such designations as legacy if for no other reason.

This would be a very seventies thing to do, too - the Spruance hull was supposed to meet every need of the USN, from ASW destroyer to AA cruiser to compact carrier to amphibious assault vessel. Nothing ever came out of it, save for the botched sale to Iran that resulted in the four Kidds. But Starfleet might well have followed the philosophy to the hilt.

Sounds a bit like the philosophy behind the development of the Joint Strike Fighter. Including the part where it may turn out to be a big boondoggle.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Sounds a bit like the philosophy behind the development of the Joint Strike Fighter. Including the part where it may turn out to be a big boondoggle.

You're grossly mis-informed if you think it's a Boon Doggle. But that's off-topic and not what this thread is about.

 

[USS Triumphant]

You're grossly mis-informed if you think it's a Boon Doggle. But that's off-topic and not what this thread is about.

F-16s can whip its tail, and it's insanely expensive. So I think the verdict is out, since the project is ongoing. But you're right - that isn't what this thread is about, which is why my comment about it *possibly* being a boondoggle was an aside. The primary thing I was talking about was the construction philosophy of providing for many different mission profiles using the same basic frame, replacement parts, etc. And *that* is on-topic. Executed well, there's definitely merit to the notion, whether we're talking starships, naval vessels, or aircraft.

 

[Ithekro]

The Spruance hull was also used for the Ticonderoga-class.

 

[publiusr]

F-16s can whip its tail, and it's insanely expensive. So I think the verdict is out, since the project is ongoing. But you're right - that isn't what this thread is about, which is why my comment about it *possibly* being a boondoggle was an aside. The primary thing I was talking about was the construction philosophy of providing for many different mission profiles using the same basic frame, replacement parts, etc. And *that* is on-topic. Executed well, there's definitely merit to the notion, whether we're talking starships, naval vessels, or aircraft.

Agreed. I loved the diversity of the century series of fighters. Different mission, different plane But that was considered "too expensive" So we go one size fits all--and JSF was supposed to be less expensive than the old way.

But ships are big enough that you can get away with modular huls. Energiya was modular.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

I'm always torn about the subject of 23rd century ship designations, because on one hand, I like the idea that humanity would reach out in friendship, making designations like "destroyer" and "dreadnought" seem pretty at odds with the mission. But on the other hand, I really like the idea that Starfleet evolved more or less directly from the United States Navy - and that might involve using such designations as legacy if for no other reason.

Part of the reason that "dreadnought" especially annoys me when it's used for Starfleet (somewhat less so for say the Dominion) is that in the RW it was as much a "military history" term as an actual naval designation - for instance the Iowa-class is larger, faster and more heavily armed than HMS Dreadnought, but it was still designated as a battleship (albeit a 'post-Dreadnought battleship' in historical records) rather than a dreadnought.

I also think that Starfleet's 'top-to-bottom multi-role' philosophy - which the Defiant was initially an exception, but even this was reconned - isn't really credible for more than the top one or sizes to the extent that we are supposed to believe:

Super-ships like the Galaxy, Sovereign and TrekLit's Vesta-class (nominally exploration command ships in my headcanon) are big enough that they can be 'do-it-all' (combat, logistics, carrier, diplomatic, research), and cruisers (cf Age of Sail frigates or 21st Century destroyers) are pretty much this at least to a degree but with somewhat reduced multi-tasking ability. However IMO, the classification system should be more triangular or diamond-shaped:

Level I (Fleet Captain/Commodore): Explorer/Exploration Command Ship (multi-role, slightly heavier on research and diplomacy than combat)
Level II (Cmdr/Junior Captain): Exploration Cruiser (multi-role, mainly research/diplo) - Attack/Light Cruiser (multirole, mainly combat).
Level III (Lt Cmdr or Cmdr): Exploration Surveyor (multi-role, mainly research/survey) - Exploration Frigate (multi-role, recon, combat) - Diplomatic Courier (logistics/diplomacy)
Level IV (Civilan to Lt Cmdr): Civilian Freighter (logistics) - [Civilian] Scout Ship (recon, support planetside research) - Fleet Escort (combat) - Colony Support Vessel (logistics/carrier)

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Every Ship is "Multi-Role Explorer" to some degree.
Hell even the Defiant did some light-weight scientific missions every now and then.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

I'd say the Defiant functioned as a recon/probe vessel on occassion (gathering information) which makes sense given its strong sensors, but wasn't really a research platform IIRC, whereas the similarly sized Nova-class is intended as a small-scale survey and research vessel (the Rhode Island-subclass may be a return to the original pathfinder given its effectiveness against Klingon cruisers).

 

[Gabriel]

I'd say the Defiant functioned as a recon/probe vessel on occassion (gathering information) which makes sense given its strong sensors, but wasn't really a research platform IIRC, whereas the similarly sized Nova-class is intended as a small-scale survey and research vessel (the Rhode Island-subclass may be a return to the original pathfinder given its effectiveness against Klingon cruisers).

Yeah I have always wanted to reconfigure the nova as a Destroyer. Probably wouldn’t take major redesigns