Why do i see full captain for small ships like oberths and defiant cla
- Thread starter TEH BABA
- Start date
Re: Why do i see full captain for small ships like oberths and defiant
Only an issue if every ship is operating in volumes where such events are likely. I suspect such things are not high on the list of potential happenings for a ship patrolling the heart of the UFP or where the only first contacts are likely to be pre- or slow-warp civilizations (in which case the ship calls for a more qualified unit to come in and do the talking.)
Only an issue if every ship is operating in volumes where such events are likely. I suspect such things are not high on the list of potential happenings for a ship patrolling the heart of the UFP or where the only first contacts are likely to be pre- or slow-warp civilizations (in which case the ship calls for a more qualified unit to come in and do the talking.)
Re: Why do i see full captain for small ships like oberths and defiant
People,
One other aspect I'd like to add. As Merrick says in TOS ep Bread & Circuses, a starship is a special vessel and crew. While there are obviously many starships in Starfleet in the 24th century, perhaps full captaincies are reserved for those ships on deep space exploration missions, where there's a high chance there'll be first contacts. In other words, the word starship isn't used in the same sense as in the 23rd century, but here are special vessels. These are high-profile assignments, much like the U.S. Navy considers aircraft carriers high-profile assignments.
So your more run-of-the-mill ships, like escorts, scouts, science ships, and the like, can be commanded by those with ranks lower than captain. But Galaxy-class ships and other ships on similar multifunctional missions generally need a full Captain at the helm.
There are obvious exceptions, like Captain DeSoto of the Hood, because he indicates in Tin Man that his patrol is more run-of-the-mill.
Red Ranger
People,
One other aspect I'd like to add. As Merrick says in TOS ep Bread & Circuses, a starship is a special vessel and crew. While there are obviously many starships in Starfleet in the 24th century, perhaps full captaincies are reserved for those ships on deep space exploration missions, where there's a high chance there'll be first contacts. In other words, the word starship isn't used in the same sense as in the 23rd century, but here are special vessels. These are high-profile assignments, much like the U.S. Navy considers aircraft carriers high-profile assignments.
So your more run-of-the-mill ships, like escorts, scouts, science ships, and the like, can be commanded by those with ranks lower than captain. But Galaxy-class ships and other ships on similar multifunctional missions generally need a full Captain at the helm.
There are obvious exceptions, like Captain DeSoto of the Hood, because he indicates in Tin Man that his patrol is more run-of-the-mill.
Red Ranger
Re: Why do i see full captain for small ships like oberths and defiant
Yeah. Basically, we are talking about the problem of small ships having high-ranked COs, right? But how many small ships do we see with high-rank COs? Not all that many.
There's the Grissom, for which the "high profile mission" excuse has already been evoked. Then there are three ships of Miranda class in the 24th century that are puny in comparison with their contemporaries (even though they were mighty capital ships a century before), the Lantree, the Brattain and the Saratoga, for which we get to see the COs, and those turn out to be full Captains.
But what else do we have? The Voyager isn't that small, really. We don't know the size of the Drake, but we know she was a light cruiser, which supposedly ranks as a capital ship. The two New Orleans class frigate captains from "Conspiracy" aren't necessarily commanding tin cans, either: a "frigate" seems to be a ship at least as strong as a cruiser, if we believe that the New Orleans class looks like she does in the "Best of Both Worlds" debris field... (This would be consistent with 1960s-70s USN designations where frigates were the heaviest surface combatants apart from aircraft carriers, or with the 19th century parlance where frigate and cruiser meant the very same thing, or actually frigate was the heaviest sort of cruiser.)
That's not too many examples of small ships with big brass COs. We simply don't visit small ships very often, and our heroes don't deign to interact with the lowly COs and crews of such midgets.
Timo Saloniemi
Yeah. Basically, we are talking about the problem of small ships having high-ranked COs, right? But how many small ships do we see with high-rank COs? Not all that many.
There's the Grissom, for which the "high profile mission" excuse has already been evoked. Then there are three ships of Miranda class in the 24th century that are puny in comparison with their contemporaries (even though they were mighty capital ships a century before), the Lantree, the Brattain and the Saratoga, for which we get to see the COs, and those turn out to be full Captains.
But what else do we have? The Voyager isn't that small, really. We don't know the size of the Drake, but we know she was a light cruiser, which supposedly ranks as a capital ship. The two New Orleans class frigate captains from "Conspiracy" aren't necessarily commanding tin cans, either: a "frigate" seems to be a ship at least as strong as a cruiser, if we believe that the New Orleans class looks like she does in the "Best of Both Worlds" debris field... (This would be consistent with 1960s-70s USN designations where frigates were the heaviest surface combatants apart from aircraft carriers, or with the 19th century parlance where frigate and cruiser meant the very same thing, or actually frigate was the heaviest sort of cruiser.)
That's not too many examples of small ships with big brass COs. We simply don't visit small ships very often, and our heroes don't deign to interact with the lowly COs and crews of such midgets.
Timo Saloniemi
Re: Why do i see full captain for small ships like oberths and defiant
Well, cruisers are the biggest ships in Starfleet service to our best knowledge: it's not a battleship navy. The mighty Ambassador, one of the largest things afloat, is explicitly "only" a heavy cruiser.
And as I said, Starfleet appears to use the designation "frigate" either in the 19th century sense or in the 1960s USN sense, to denote its most potent independent combatants, and not in the post-WWII Royal Navy sense, to denote its most worthless attrition units (which, ironically enough, is all that the RN can afford nowadays).
There just isn't that big a difference between an Excelsior, Akira or New Orleans, which represent the fleet mainstays - nor a major hop to the Galaxy or Nebula, which might be likened to aircraft carriers or similar units today, perhaps "post-capital" ships against the capital ship nature of the cruiser force.
Timo Saloniemi
Well, cruisers are the biggest ships in Starfleet service to our best knowledge: it's not a battleship navy. The mighty Ambassador, one of the largest things afloat, is explicitly "only" a heavy cruiser.
And as I said, Starfleet appears to use the designation "frigate" either in the 19th century sense or in the 1960s USN sense, to denote its most potent independent combatants, and not in the post-WWII Royal Navy sense, to denote its most worthless attrition units (which, ironically enough, is all that the RN can afford nowadays).
There just isn't that big a difference between an Excelsior, Akira or New Orleans, which represent the fleet mainstays - nor a major hop to the Galaxy or Nebula, which might be likened to aircraft carriers or similar units today, perhaps "post-capital" ships against the capital ship nature of the cruiser force.
Timo Saloniemi
Re: Why do i see full captain for small ships like oberths and defiant
Most potent? Frigates in the 19th Century were patrol ships, that tended to be significantly less well armed than ships of the line but perfectly capable, manoeuverable and cheap combatants.
They were only potent in terms of their numbers and application as well as the aggressiveness and skill of their crews. A ship of the line with it's bigger crew and dozens of guns would be far more "potent", IMO.
Eh? The use of the term frigate in the post-war RN comes from it's use in WW2 for escort vessels, like the River class. These were bigger than Corvettes but smaller than destroyers. This sort of bled into the use of the term Frigate for any small combatant, even with guided missile armament.
The Type 22 and 23 ASW Firgates are far from disposable attrition units. I suspect you are referring to the many old battered frigates that served off the Falklands? These were only largely worthless due to their age or design flaws caused by years of poor funding for the military, nothing inherent in their "frigate" designation.
In todays RN the frigates are ships generally built for ASW and "Destroyer" is reserved from primarily AAW ships, though in reality both are now becoming far more balanced for modern use.
I personally have always found the idea Starfleet would build classes of ships for any specific role to be a bit daft. They inherently need all ships to be able to do a bit of patrolling, a bit of exploring and a bit of fighting in order to always keep an effective presence. This seems especially true come the 24th century, where with the exception of the Oberth and Nova class we see pretty much everything else thrown at the Dominion.
Most potent? Frigates in the 19th Century were patrol ships, that tended to be significantly less well armed than ships of the line but perfectly capable, manoeuverable and cheap combatants.
They were only potent in terms of their numbers and application as well as the aggressiveness and skill of their crews. A ship of the line with it's bigger crew and dozens of guns would be far more "potent", IMO.
Eh? The use of the term frigate in the post-war RN comes from it's use in WW2 for escort vessels, like the River class. These were bigger than Corvettes but smaller than destroyers. This sort of bled into the use of the term Frigate for any small combatant, even with guided missile armament.
The Type 22 and 23 ASW Firgates are far from disposable attrition units. I suspect you are referring to the many old battered frigates that served off the Falklands? These were only largely worthless due to their age or design flaws caused by years of poor funding for the military, nothing inherent in their "frigate" designation.
In todays RN the frigates are ships generally built for ASW and "Destroyer" is reserved from primarily AAW ships, though in reality both are now becoming far more balanced for modern use.
I personally have always found the idea Starfleet would build classes of ships for any specific role to be a bit daft. They inherently need all ships to be able to do a bit of patrolling, a bit of exploring and a bit of fighting in order to always keep an effective presence. This seems especially true come the 24th century, where with the exception of the Oberth and Nova class we see pretty much everything else thrown at the Dominion.
Re: Why do i see full captain for small ships like oberths and defiant
I figured that Trek had a similar dynamic. Janeway is a full Captain because before the Dominioun War full Captains had to fight to get a ship. A situation which made Riker's refusal of a ship even more shocking.
Really I was under the impression that even Perry class frigates, a WWII O-3/4 bilet had full Captains in command. A case of a lot of officers and few hulls for them to go to sea in. And today CVNs had the ship commander, engineer and CAG ranked as full Captains. I expect that soon like on Space: Above and Beyond that CVN skipper will be a Commodore.
I figured that Trek had a similar dynamic. Janeway is a full Captain because before the Dominioun War full Captains had to fight to get a ship. A situation which made Riker's refusal of a ship even more shocking.
