What "Ship Types" Should Starfleet Have?

[Dayton3]

For the most part, it seems Starfleet uses the U.S. Navy (and other western navies) designations for their ships.

cruisers, frigates, and I believe we have heard the designation "battleship".

These designations are anachronistic even today.

In todays navies, if defined by function you basically have "carriers, antiair warfare escorts, antisubmarine escorts".

Aside from the term "explorer" it seems Starfleet hasn't changed their terminology.

I would like to suggest some new ship types to replace "cruiser, frigate, destroyer"............

"Explorer"

"Defender"

"Scout"

"Assault Ship"

"Patrol Vessel"

 

[Unicron]

* shrugs *

I like the classical lists myself. Personally I like to use a group of familiar designations, something like this:

Battleships (assault ships might fall into this family)
Carriers
Corvettes
Cruisers (including heavy, light etc.)
Destroyers
Dreadnoughts
Frigates
Scouts
Transports

Each of these would be a major classification, and then you'd have the more specialized subclasses under their respective groups.

 

[JuanBolio]

I believe you are incorrect that the terms are anachronistic even today, Dayton. The meaning of the names has changed to reflect the purpose of the ships in question. Cruisers, for example, are not simply anti-air escorts, but can also perform anti-sub, anti-surface, and shore assault perfectly well.

For space duty some things will have to change or be invented, sure, but I see no reason why some of the classical designations cannot be kept, especially for combat vessels of varying size, power, and mission duties.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Cruiser seems to be used a lot for ships in Trek. Indeed, the cruiser seems to be Starfleet's mainstay. Makes sense, since they take a lot of resources to build, so refitting them as opposed to replacing them would be desirable, wheras smaller ships are easier to phase out.

We've also seen Battlecruiser referred to a couple of times.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Personally, I would have capital ship types defined solely by their primary mission, regardless of size (but I'll list 'em here from biggest to smallest anyway):

Vanguard
Cruiser
Hospital Ship
Freighter
Tanker
Defender
Researcher
Scout

 

[Timo]

Cruisers, for example, are not simply anti-air escorts, but can also perform anti-sub, anti-surface, and shore assault perfectly well.

That's just the thing, though: all combat vessels can do all of those nowadays, to varying degrees. The humblest corvette carries the same gear as the most glorious battle cruiser, with all the destroyers and frigates in between doing the same as well. It's just a matter of quantity, of size.

Which would be fine and well if there were a logical progression, say, from corvette to frigate to destroyer to cruiser to battleship. But there isn't: a vessel in the 2,000 to 6,000 ton range can equally well be a corvette, a frigate or a destroyer. The only ships that today warrant the designation "cruiser" anywhere in the world, the Ticonderogas, are in fact built on destroyer hulls, and their mission gear is not particularly superior to that of destroyers.

Of course, much of this confusion comes from the fact that no two navies on Earth follow the exact same conventions. Starfleet would be just one navy, and could be expected to be self-consistent. But even Starfleet has to compete with other navies: the past Starfleets. Aging 23rd century cruisers may well be outbulked by 24th century corvettes, yet both may remain in frontline use.

The Soviets tried out a sensible system back in their day, ditching the arbitrary-ambiguous "frigate" and "destroyer" altogether and deciding that "cruiser" and "cutter" were measures of relative size rather than mission descriptions. However, foreign analysts corrupted that system by assigning false "frigate" or "destroyer" designations to the hardware; the modern Russian navy is once again prisoner of outdated tradition.

In many ways, Starfleet is in a position more closely resembling the sailing days than the 20th and 21st century navies. Its combat ships do not have "missions" as such, but are all quite multimissionalized, having no mission-specific hardware nor even a mission-specific balance of hardware types. It would make sense, then, to designate them according to relative size and power, just like sailing ships of old were rated simply by the number of cannon.

Since navies just adore tradition, it wouldn't be all that bad an idea to use those old and meaningless ship type names to denote the relative sizes in modern Starfleet. Saying that the middleweight is a "frigate" makes just as much sense as saying it is a "medium ship" or a "corsair" or a "starswift" or a "blue" or a "rhino".

It's just that we have had far too many ships of wildly varying sizes referred to as "cruiser". It would make little sense, then, to dwiddle with names like "frigate" or "destroyer" or "corvette" for the narrow range of sizes not already covered by the expansive "cruiser". And yet our heroes every now and then drop the f-word or the d-word on us, probably just to annoy us...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[RAMA]

For the most part, it seems Starfleet uses the U.S. Navy (and other western navies) designations for their ships.

cruisers, frigates, and I believe we have heard the designation "battleship".

These designations are anachronistic even today.

In todays navies, if defined by function you basically have "carriers, antiair warfare escorts, antisubmarine escorts".

Aside from the term "explorer" it seems Starfleet hasn't changed their terminology.

I would like to suggest some new ship types to replace "cruiser, frigate, destroyer"............

"Explorer"

"Defender"

"Scout"

"Assault Ship"

"Patrol Vessel"

I think cruiser is a good general term for a medium sized multi purpose Starfleet ship. I also love "Explorer". Most of the other ones I see thrown around are to military. Defender doesn't sound bad though.

RAMA

 

[Eternality]

I'm a fan of the perimeter action designation, as well as the surveyor, but more as long term mission classifications rather than permanent types. In a Starfleet with thousands of ships and endless errands, I could envision smaller ships coming into the yards for a few months of refit for a new mission spec, while the larger starships can go about doing anything without that hassle.

 

[Unicron]

I prefer to use a term like corvette or escort for the PA designs, as that designation never made much sense to me. Some destroyer designs would also seem to fit into that category.

 

[Candlelight]

I always wanted to see a 'PT Boat' variant, with maybe a crew of a dozen or so.

 

[Praetor]

I very much like Timo's idea that the ship's designation should take size into consideration, and range as well. I would also say that Starfleet still doesn't build dedicated warships (Defiant excluded).

So just brainstorming the simplest categories, from large to small (and this would be 24th century):
Explorer - Galaxy and Sovereign
Cruiser - Excelsior, Akira, Nebula and probably most commonly seen Starfleet ships
Escort - Defiant, Sabre
Scout/Corvette - Oberth, Nova
Surveyor - Chakotay's raider (whatever it is)/ fighter class

And I think this would be kept separate from size considerations since cargo ships could be quite large:
Transport - Various cargo ships

And I would say that in each of those categories you would have Heavy, Medium, and Light, and the definitions of those would probably change heavily from the 23rd to the 24th century. For example, in 'Yesterday's Enterprise' Tasha Yar referred to the Ambassador class Enterprise-C as a Heavy Cruiser but given its size one would have thought it would have been commissioned as an Explorer but downgraded in rating after the commissioning of the Galaxy Class. I would say the Nebula class might be a Heavy Cruiser where the Intrepid might be a Medium. Excelsior I think would be Medium as well.

I would also say that you could have specialized types within each category, such as 'Through Deck Cruiser' (for the Akira, for example.) I'd also imagine that each category would have a combat rating for war scenarios such as the Dominion War, explaining why two larger Miranda Class ships would appear to take wing formation for the small Defiant- they have a lower combat rating than the Defiant.

 

[Unicron]

The Ambassador was also called a heavy cruiser when it was first mentioned in "Conspiracy."

Personally I don't really use the Through Deck Cruiser descriptor, because those vessels are essentially carriers. I also avoid terms like Explorer because I think that's too vague.

 

[Timo]

Personally I don't really use the Through Deck Cruiser descriptor, because those vessels are essentially carriers.

It's also an euphemism, a designation invented for a specific purpose at a specific point in history. Namely, the Royal Navy felt it wouldn't be given the permission to build aircraft carriers, so it decided to call them by a confusing name. Would Starfleet continue to use a name intended solely for obfuscation?

Well, why not? We still speak of "tanks", after all.

The "heavy frigate" as introduced in the Avenger class blueprints is another historically ballasted thing: the designation was specific to the early US warships that were much more heavily built and armed than the "real" frigates of the day, and were pressed on to capital ship duties, as the US lacked the resources to build actual capital ships. So basically, since "cruiser" is the modern word for a sailing frigate (the transition happened in the 1880s or so), "heavy frigate" should essentially mean "heavy cruiser". Which is perfect for the Avenger class, considering how Khan's vessel outgunned Kirk's in ST2. But it's also very confusing, since "frigate" and "cruiser" should be competing terms, not terms in simultaneous use.

One should also note that "frigate" at the time the Avenger blueprints were made was the modern US Navy preferred term for ships that later in the eighties would be known as "cruisers". A "frigate" at the time was not a small perimeter escort, but the largest of capital ships save for the antique battleships! That was no doubt due to the 1800s Continental Navy precedent, and was a US-specific thing.

Admittedly, we mostly have the British to blame for much of the international confusion. During the World Wars, the Royal Navy and its Commonwealth affiliates had to introduce a wide range of small warships for escort duties. At that time, naval classification schemes were relatively straightforward: the fleets had destroyers, cruisers and battleships, each with a specific role, size and design philosophy, and that was that. Now the RN decided to assign "free" names to its new escorts, raising from the dead a number of sailing ship designations and spreading them with abandon. Hence, we suddenly had "frigates", "corvettes", "sloops", "brigs", "trawlers" and "cutters" that were in no way related to the original usage of the terms. And that nonsense is what Starfleet largely builds upon.

Frankly, I would vastly prefer a scifi show that bothered to invent its own logical designation scheme. But Star Trek still largely remains a 1960s military story (with lots of 1950s military spirit in it), and I have a soft spot for anachronisms...

Oh, and

I also avoid terms like Explorer because I think that's too vague.

"Destroyer" is equally vague. Yet the word has a very specific meaning in naval parlance, or at least used to have until WWII. "Explorer" could be similarly carefully defined in the Star Trek universe.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dayton3]

"destroyer" started out as "torpedo boat destroyer" because the destroyers job was to defend battleships from small boats mounting the newly designed torpedos.

Technically, a "destroyer" probably should've been called a "battleship escort".

 

[Timo]

"destroyer" started out as "torpedo boat destroyer" because the destroyers job was to defend battleships from small boats mounting the newly designed torpedos.

Exactly. But the word "destroyer" as such conveys none of that, and thus isn't any better than "explorer". Or conversely, "explorer" is no worse than "destroyer".

Later on, destroyers branched out to destroying capital ships with their mighty torpedoes, and the name was still appropriate. But then came WWII, and destroyers were used for shooing away (and not even necessarily destroying) aircraft and submarines; after the war, that was all they ever did. The name hasn't really been appropriate since then.

Russians/Soviets used the descriptive term "eskadership" or "squadronship" to show how these units worked in teams to kill capital ships. They never applied that on their subhunters or AA ships which did not work in squadrons. Western analysts applied the word "destroyer" on a variety of Soviet designs, though, and it has stuck for ships that actually specialize in sea control, fleet protection and such; "squadronship" is now basically considered synonymous with modern "destroyer".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[MarianLH]

The Ambassador was also called a heavy cruiser when it was first mentioned in "Conspiracy."

Refresh my memory--were the other two ships at that meeting referred to as frigates in dialogue? I remember that they were, but that might have come from FASA's TNG officer manual rather that the actual episode. It's been a long time.

I know Memory Alpha says they're both New Orleans class frigates, but their entries don't confirm that the term "frigate" was actually used in the episode.


Marian

 

[Unicron]

They were referred to as frigates in dialogue, but no class was given. They were later retconned as being New Orleans class ships. FASA did create their own Ambassador class, as the official design wouldn't be seen for a few seasons, and also created a frigate class based on the USS Thomas Paine. The USS Renegade wasn't mentioned in their work.

While it's true that the role of destroyers has changed historically, we don't know that they might not serve a proper function in the Trek universe. It's seemed to me from the various designs I've seen that Trek destroyers are similar to their original function, light warships that are small and cheap and can act as quick response/patrol vessels.

 

[JuanBolio]

"destroyer" started out as "torpedo boat destroyer" because the destroyers job was to defend battleships from small boats mounting the newly designed torpedos.

Technically, a "destroyer" probably should've been called a "battleship escort".

The one major problem with your re-designation system, which seems to involve giving ship types lengthy titles based on their primary mission duties, is that none of these designations sound cool. Cruiser, frigate, and destroyer do.

 

[kv1at3485]

^ I'm "cool" with things like "General/Large/Small Multivalent Unit", "General/Limited/Small Combat Unit", etc.. Then you refer to them as GMU's, SCU's, etc.. As you can see I've swallowed the Culture designation convention quite comfortably.

"Frigate', "destroyer", "cruiser", etc. are everywhere and anywhere that they've stopped being remarkable for me.

 

[J.T.B.]

I agree with Timo, it just depends on what arbitrary historical name you want to slap on the new ship type.

The diversification of warship types in the 20th century was spurred by the need to counter new offensive technologies: anti-torpedo, anti-sub, anti-air. In Trek, all vessels have the same basic weapons systems, small, medium or large, and can be used pretty much interchangeably between defense and exploration roles. I can see cruiser>destroyer>frigate making sense, but cruiser>frigate>destroyer would also have historical precedent. Since they're really disconnected from their historical antecedents, there's a lot of flexibility.

The one major problem with your re-designation system, which seems to involve giving ship types lengthy titles based on their primary mission duties, is that none of these designations sound cool. Cruiser, frigate, and destroyer do.

Well, who knows how long they will still sound cool? What about "sloop?" Doesn't seem too popular now, but a few hundred years ago they were very cool, dashing around alone, fighting pirates and privateers in pretty even match-ups. You're right, though, sounding cool is the top consideration for being used in fiction today.

--Justin