The First Seventeen Classes...

[CuttingEdge100]

SpyOne,

The only problem with this I see is that if you have two NCC-1700's by accident. One's a small ship (like a destroyer), the other's the USS Constitution (which is a heavy-cruiser), unless computerized read-outs (transponder data and the like) read the full formal registry, which for the USS Constitution would be NCC CH 17-00, and for the smaller destroyer would read NCC DD 17-00

 

[Mr. Mugato]

What ON EARTH is the point of a ship registry that hides the important part (CH, DD whatever you wish to speculate) and lists the completely useless part (NCC). There is no point to the NCC if ALL ships have it. That would be like making t-e-l-e-p-h-o-n-e-n-u-m-b-e-r part of EVERY telephone number. It makes no sense.

It would be much more practical to have NCC stand for a heavy cruiser, NDD stand for a destroyer (etc. etc.)

THAT would actually serve a purpose.

 

[Wingsley]

If you're going to assume that NCC-1701 Enterprise is part of the 17th class of Federation cruiser (or Federation starship), this brings us to the obvious question: what do the previous 16 classes look like, and how do they differ from the Enterprise?

 

[Warped9]

What MJ intended isn't borne out by what we see onscreen. And so another explanation is needed.

 

[aridas sofia]

What ON EARTH is the point of a ship registry that hides the important part (CH, DD whatever you wish to speculate) and lists the completely useless part (NCC). There is no point to the NCC if ALL ships have it. That would be like making t-e-l-e-p-h-o-n-e-n-u-m-b-e-r part of EVERY telephone number. It makes no sense.

It would be much more practical to have NCC stand for a heavy cruiser, NDD stand for a destroyer (etc. etc.)

THAT would actually serve a purpose.

If "NCC" means "this is a ship commissioned in Starfleet", and if there are other ships that AREN'T commissioned in Starfleet, then the "NCC" part might be very important. Sort of like that blinking red light on the roof of the police car telling you to pull over.

None of the world's navies precede the hull number with the code designating type of ship when painting the number on the hull. The type of ship is obvious to anyone that needs to know.

Except, of course, a television viewer that doesn't know the difference between one type and another.

So, the only reason to have a hull number that would make sense "in universe" -- with destroyers and cruisers etc running around with the same number, like in the world's navies-- is because it would confuse people watching the TV.

 

[aridas sofia]

What MJ intended isn't borne out by what we see onscreen. And so another explanation is needed.

Only if Constellation is not from the tenth starship type.

And Bonaventure is.

Or vice versa.

Unless, of course... neither one is a heavy cruiser.

And you go by just the original Star Trek.

 

[Warped9]

And you go by just the original Star Trek.

Ah, now I think you're on to something.

 

[BK613]

To me anyway, it seems illogical to assume that the number selection process remained static over a period in excess of 100 years. Nothing I know of excludes the possibility that the 23rd century had one selection process for numbers and the 24th another, yet with the latter maintaining the NCC-xxxx pattern. For example, hull numbering could have started off as this thread suggests, with the numbers relating to the design, yet later, as the number of starships grew (and perhaps, as the Excelsior class exceeded 100 ships) the numbers became more tail number-like, and not tied to a class at all. Only to Starfleet in general.


Assuming the premise of this thread, we then have designs 10, 13, 16, 17, and 18 referenced in TOS.

Thoughts on "missing" designs:
-they were replaced by the newer designs.
-they were Seawolfs: designs that showed promise but were shown to be too difficult or too expensive to build after the prototypes were constructed.
-a tech schism occurred. Some new tech ("why, our new ships"... Jose Tyler) divided the fleet into ships that could be upgraded and ships that were too difficult and/or too expensive to upgrade.
-the ships were retired as a condition of some treaty.

 

[SpyOne]

SpyOne,

The only problem with this I see is that if you have two NCC-1700's by accident. One's a small ship (like a destroyer), the other's the USS Constitution (which is a heavy-cruiser), unless computerized read-outs (transponder data and the like) read the full formal registry, which for the USS Constitution would be NCC CH 17-00, and for the smaller destroyer would read NCC DD 17-00

I think you are mixing what I said with what someone else said.

What I was saying was that each design of ship ordered by Starfleet (or whatever) would get a unique sequential prefix number. Thus, all ships that begin NCC-15XX would be of the same class, the 15th class of ships.
There could not be both destroyers and cruisers with the number 1700, since that number would designate a specific ship. 17XX was a cruiser, but 18XX might be a freighter, a destroyer, or a scout. (It turns out it was another cruiser, the Miranda Class.)

The addition I made was this: if they want more than 100 of a given class, they give it a new prefix number. Thus, if they built a whole lot of whatever ship got the 5XX numbers, they might start using the 7XX numbers for it. But only if they hadn't already given the 7XX numbers to something else.
This was intended to explain why, in TNG and DS9, ships of the Excelsior and Miranda classes were shown with some very different registries.
This would mean Excelsiors were given, at least, NCC-20XX, -25XX, -45XX, -139XX, -142XX, -144XX, -149XX, -182XX, -340XX, -389XX, - 405XX, -421XX, -422XX, -427XX, -428XX, -429XX, and -504XX.
Miranda were given NCC-18XX, -19XX, -211XX, and -213XX.

The biggest hiccup this gives in the 1900s, where there are Mirandas, the Soyuz Class (an obvious Miranda variant), and the Constellation Class. The handwavium I use for this is to say that the 1900s were used for a variety of Miranda variants, most of which were either refit to the Miranda Standard or retired, but the Constellation proved such a good design that they standardized it as a class, giving ships of that class NCC-28XX, -30XX, and -38XX.
(All registries taken from the Encyclopedia,)

I'm not saying this is canon, I'm saying it fits most observed facts and produces a desired result. If you desire a different result, feel free to discard it.

 

[Mr. Mugato]

If "NCC" means "this is a ship commissioned in Starfleet", and if there are other ships that AREN'T commissioned in Starfleet, then the "NCC" part might be very important.

You make a valid point.

I always considered the U.S.S. to signify that a ship was in Starfleet.

However, my point about there being unnecessary information painted onto the hull of Starfleet ships still remains.

Unless there are Starfleet ships that start with something other than NCC (which we never saw), or Starfleet ships that DON'T have U.S.S. before the name (which we also never saw), then ONE of them is redundant.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Interestingly, there is a CC designation in the USN for Command Cruiser. The Enterprise though doesn't really fit the profile if you ask me.

 

[aridas sofia]

Unless there are Starfleet ships that start with something other than NCC (which we never saw), or Starfleet ships that DON'T have U.S.S. before the name (which we also never saw), then ONE of them is redundant.

You're right. Even on naval vessels the "USS" isn't painted on the hull. It could be that either "NCC" or "USS" is a broader category. That, in other words, "NCC" is used for any Federation spacecraft while "USS" is reserved specifically for vessels commissioned into Starfleet. However your point is valid, and such a system seems unwieldy, while the remedy of having both mean "Starfleet" is redundant.

Of course, we know what was going on-- those designators were put on the hull to make the ship seem more familiar to people that had seen or sailed on Navy vessels, or had traveled on airliners. That very fact itself poses a problem, for the familiar "NC" was used for commercial aircraft (except for its earliest usage in the USN on such planes as the famous NC-4), and "USS" was used in the military. But that tells us more about how the people that made the show envisioned the organization that had sent out the starships -- as it was often stated, it was paramilitary and as such reflected some blurring of civilian and military boundaries.

 

[Mr. Mugato]

^^^ agreed.

Having NCC indicate any Federation ship is certainly plausible, if not entirely logical.

Assuming a standard 26 letter alphabet that would give you 17,576 3 letter combinations (if my math is correct ) That is an awful lot of non-Federation, space faring species to co-ordinate the 3 letter system with.

Of course they could have worked it out with only 1 or 2 species, randomly selected 3 letters out of a hat, and have a WHOLE BUNCH left over for future usage

 

[SpyOne]

My brother pointed this out: all New Jersey license plates it says both "New Jersey" and "Garden State". And both of those are unique to plates issued by New Jersey.
Just because ALL Starfleet vessels have registries beginning with "NCC-" does not mean that they would stop including the NCC- on vessels that were obviously Starfleet vessels. They might keep it as a matter of pride. If not pride in the registry itself, pride in the tradition that includes displaying the full registry number on all their ships.

Same for the "USS": not needed, but maybe they kept it for non-technical reasons.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Yeah, and my California plates just say California.

Besides, they're for civilian use, not military. If they were military, I wouldn't have vanity plates.

Aircraft and warships are still the most relevant parallels, I think.

 

[Londo]

I think NCC simply means cruiser. Cruiser meaning long range ship, able to cruise at warp 5 for 72 hours or something, such a criterion would have made it quite special at the beginning of starfleet but failed to move with technology so by the 24th century even a runabout can be a cruiser.
Alternativly: USS is United [Federation of Planets] Star Ship, and NCC represents Starfleet, other three letter codes would cover local defence forces such as the Andorian Imperial Guard. Thus USS Kumari IDC-XXXX or any 3 letter combination you like. USS still implies a warship, thus giving leeway to the occasional appearance of simply SS for civilian ships.
[Edit] NX would then be a test ship while running trials before official acceptance.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

What about using CC as a term for Fast Cruiser? BB is used for Fast Battleship and DD for Fast Destroyer.

I'm wondering if there was a B for a non-fast battleship and a D for a non-fast destroyer...

 

[Gagarin]

*Shrug*

The NCC number for me correlates to design and construction - more or less appropriation and a way to keep track of the hulls. Names come and go and get reused, but numbers do not.

The USN has a few number 'restarts' and skips in its history. Sometimes ships authorized but never built still had their hull numbers skipped over.
They're also political. Giving Excelsior '2000'? Genious.
Something I know is above Star Trek, but... =)
United Star Ship, Naval Construction Contract...
NCC numbers are given to valuable moving assets. You don't give your shuttlecraft a NCC number and you probably don't give your inter-system space tugboat one. Because Trek likes to use comm systems, we aren't in touch with the valuble concept of identifying a ship from its markings - or trying to compare the typeface or language.

Or perhaps that's what they do when they say 'It appears to be of Xerotyroli origin...' (because it says so on the hull!) Someone posted already that though the USN has different numbers for different types of ship, they don't indicate anything but the number on the hull itself. (There's a Battleship 44 and also a DDG 44 - but you would NEVER confuse the two, so the hulls don't 'say' the BB or DDG part... the people who need to know, would know.) But from a Starfleet, or UFP, or any other spacefaring people with delusions of exploring - would YOU want an unknown, hostile, or suspicious species to know you just started mapping their homeworld on accident with your 'Heavy Frigate' or your 'Command Cruiser', or your 'Heavy Cruiser', or 'Battle Cruiser'? You probably wouldn't. OR you wouldn't want to give them an estimate of your military strength - how embarasing to get your butt kicked by a patrol corvette, when you're in what your nation calls a 'Battle Cruiser'? It's best to have a united front that doesn't seem too provocative or give away too much information.

Starfleet captains famously say 'this is ______ of the starship...' .

And no, BB wasn't used as 'Fast Battleship', exactly.

"Before 1920, ships were called "<type> no. X", with the type fully pronounced. The types were commonly abbreviated in ship lists to "B-X", "C-X", "D-X" et cetera—for example, before 1920, USS Minnesota (BB-22) would have been called "USS Minnesota, Battleship number 22" verbally and "USS Minnesota, B-22" in writing."

From USN Hull Classification symbol on Wiki. Not the best ref, but I don't have my naval books with me right now. For whatever reason, Hull Symbols all moved to have at least two letters.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Gagarin,

What does BB mean then, if B was battleship?

 

[Gagarin]

Gagarin,

What does BB mean then, if B was battleship?

It doesn't "mean" anything. It certainly doesn't mean "fast".

"In the new system, all hull classification symbols are at least two letters; for basic types the symbol is the first letter of the type name, doubled, except for aircraft carriers.In the new system, all hull classification symbols are at least two letters; for basic types the symbol is the first letter of the type name, doubled, except for aircraft carriers."

Before 1922 there weren't hull symbols as we know them today, there were abbreviations, but not hull symbols in an organized system.

For whatever reason, they (FDR?) doubled the letters for basic types. DD, BB.. eventually FF... CA probably was a ref. to them being armored / protected cruisers.

But it's a hull symbol, not an acronym.