Of Explorers, Cruisers and Dreadnoughts

[Sea Tyger]

I mean look at the past 100 years of naval progress and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

It's probably a little longer than that. I think the last major revolution in ship designations was when ironclads and armored ships became prominent in European navies. That was in the latter half of 19th Century, but much sooner than the turn of the 20th C.

BB's had been around for a decade or two before the HMS Dreadnought was commissioned (1890s IIRC?) and revolutionized the concept of the battleship.

The aircraft carrier came about as a result of the invention of the airplane. The first carrier was a convereted cruiser or battleship hull with a wooden flight deck built on it.

Destroyer escorts have been around almost as long as destroyers, eventually being called "frigates" at some point after WWII.

Most of the change in ship classifications in the last century have been their roles within the fleet.

At first, carriers were basically escort craft, and their aircraft nothing more than scouts for the fleet. When the naval arms limitation treaties took effect in the 30s, carriers became more prominent (because of size and number restrictions on the big ships). Japan was the first nation to truly use the carrier in the modern sense (a forward-deployed strike platform), and the US was forced to respond in kind due to the damage at Pearl Harbor. Now, the carrier is the centerpiece of a fleet...the biggest, baddest bully on the block.

Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBNs) are another of the few real new designations of the 20th C., but they're really just a different kind of sub.

Swinging this back around to Star Trek, it's entirely possible that a major policy change within Starfleet prompted the creation of the "Explorer" type of ship, just as the invention of the airplane prompted the creation of a floating platform to carry the new vehicles.

[Imagus]

Tyger, I think you've got it right on most points.

I have to bring you up on this one though!

Originally posted by Sea Tyger
Destroyer escorts have been around almost as long as destroyers, eventually being called "frigates" at some point after WWII.

That really only applies to the USN and US-influenced navies. The Royal Navy has been using frigates since the 18th century at least. However, the term seems to mean something different in the USN parlance - in the RN, a frigate is the smallest ship of the line, with the destroyer being the next one up, then cruiser, then battleship. In the US, a frigate is usually bigger than a destroyer, and I seem to remember reading somewhere, it has a very specific role and size.

Getting back on topic

The evolution of types is something I think would continue through the life of Starfleet.

During the Romulan War, they probably only had a few basic designations, as ships operating a long time out of port would be heavily multi-role, so you'd probably see a cruiser, a destroyer and maybe a battleship. Fine distinctions like "heavy" and "light" or specialisations like "escort" would be irrelevant as they would place limitations on the use of precious battlefield resources. All vessels would be as heavily armed as they could manage.

By Kirk's time, we have a frontier situation where again, vessels are a long time out of port, and need to be multi-role. I always saw the Constitution as the flagship of the fleet. While it has a scientific role, it is also a military vessel (often the only one in the area), and a diplomatic vessel, so it had to be both powerful and capable of "showing the flag" (rather like the old imperial gunboats of the 19th century). The designation of "cruiser" is appropriate for such a multi-purpose vessel - it engages in long-distance cruises - and the type name is not threatening. Other specialised vessels would exist, including sub-cruiser military types (I'd imagine the frigate exists at this time - primarily as a less aggressive-sounding designation for a destroyer), but none would be as high-visibilty as the cruiser.

In the movies, the political situation is changing, the continuing aggression of the Klingons has forced a proliferation of military types (and IMHO a more military Starfleet). The Miranda and Excelsior classes have appeared (the former heavily armed) and there appear to be plenty of others. More type designations appear as vessels and roles appear to fill them. I suspect we now see escorts (again used as opposed to destroyer) and scouts making a serious impact in the shipyards.

Over the next hundred years, things calm down a bit. Starfleet returns to it's primary role of exploration, and the first true explorers appear. I might hazard a guess and say that the Galaxy is the first class of this type, and that maybe the type was named in honour of the original Enterprise NX-01 - which I would say is primarily an exploration vessel. Starfleet continues to fight wars (Romulans, Klingons, Cardassians) but none are threatening, so cruisers, frigates and escorts continue to exist in specialised variants, but not in great numbers. Explorers, scouts and surveyors appear in great numbers.

The Dominion War swings it all back the other way. Military vessels suddenly become important, so we see a proliferation of cruiser, frigate and escort classes. Non-military types gain higher weapon ratings. The only reason we don't see a battleship is development time. I dare say the Sovereign was designed as an explorer - a companion to the Galaxy, but then was retrofitted with higher firepower and a role change (I'd definitely put it in the heavy cruiser category now).

Note that I don't agree with the Defiant being the first warship designed by Starfleet, it just doesn't make sense. However I can see that it might be the first pure warship designed in the preceding fifty or sixty years.

Just a few thoughts!

[Eric R.]

Originally posted by Imagus




That really only applies to the USN and US-influenced navies. The Royal Navy has been using frigates since the 18th century at least. However, the term seems to mean something different in the USN parlance - in the RN, a frigate is the smallest ship of the line, with the destroyer being the next one up, then cruiser, then battleship. In the US, a frigate is usually bigger than a destroyer, and I seem to remember reading somewhere, it has a very specific role and size.

Upto the mid nineteenth century the Frigate was the main US warship in use, though a few ship of the lines existed especially the 120 gun USS Pennsylvania, which while launched was never completely finished. The US Revolutionized Frigate construction at the end of the 19th century with USS Constitution and her 4 sisters. These are the ships which caused the Royal Navy so much pain in the War of 1812 and resulted in the famous order that no British ship was to engage an American ship alone.

Anyways in the early 20th century frigates became picket ships in the US Navy posted away from the fleets main body to provide early warning and screening. They are still apart of the Carrier Battle and Amphibious Ready Groups (Currently the Oliver hazard Perry class Fast Frigate) and now operate in the ASW (Ant-Submarine Warfare) role and to provide some limited inshore support when needed.

Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates have almost become equal in size over the past 60 years (in some case even larger than old dreadnaught era battleships!) to the point some consider them all one and the same but they are internally built very differeant for their missions, for instances Firgates have much better Helicopter facilities than a Destroyer or cruiser. Other navies have continued to keep the size distinctions.

As to Starfleet,

I have tended to think that Starfleet even with it's naval past started out using a system similar to the old rating one, ships of a different rate where used in a specific role, as the needs of the fleet increased in the early 23d century types were reintroduced as armamment, protection and speed became more of a variable and allowed mission specific types and classes to be developed. The period 2151-2250(appox) was probably one of the most revolutionary periods in development as far as ship designs go. while the mid-24th will be refered to as simply the second golden period when technology only enhancing proved ship types.

[Eric R.]

Originally posted by Sea Tyger



Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBNs) are another of the few real new designations of the 20th C., but they're really just a different kind of sub.

Yea, just with the potention to launch well over 300 separate nuclear warheads over a target! SSBN in fact have more relation to battleships than to subs and thats why the US Navy has name them after states (traditionally used for only battleships or early armored and nuclear missile cruisers). Since the introduction of the sub launched Tomahawk missile now even SSN's have a potentional to hit targets inland thus they have recieved names after cities (traditionally used for cruisers.)

[Sea Tyger]

Well, the last surface ships to be named after cities were WWII-era cruisers, IIRC. The early SSBNs were actually of the Benjamin Franklin-class, named after great Americans. It wasn't until the Trident platform submarine was developed that the boomers started getting named after US States.

But, then, it is a testament to the changing roles of the various ship designations. The 18 Ohio-class boomers are our underwater battleships, enforcing America's strategic policy while the "hunter-killer" Los Angeles-, Sea Wolf- and upcoming Virginia-class attack subs perform a broad range of missions, including sea-to-land strike and special operations. The Virginias (three of which are under construction, with the fourth one beginning construction soon), will have vertical launch capability, simliar to that of the improved LA-class.

That's a long way from preying against enemy surface ships and hunting enemy submarines...although that's still part of their job description.

Sorry about being off-topic.

[Sea Tyger]

One mistake. A class of replenishment ships were also named after US cities, called the Wichita-class...the specific naming designation is "US cities that rest on the banks of rivers with Native American names." I should know: I served on the USS Milwaukee in the early 90's.

Now, on topic, finally!

Has anyone developed naming conventions for their self-designed ship classes? I'd like to see some of the ideas.

[Dukeroyal]

Originally posted by Don Mappin

The designation already exists in the NG. You guys really do worry about some of the strangest things.

[edit]
Er, I should say, the classifications (currently) exist--what you choose to do with them is up to you. Again, we provide the tools, you use them as you see fit.

Warships
Battleship (BA)
Dreadnought (DR)
Fast Attack (FAS)
Fighter (FX)
Explorers
Explorer (EX)
Heavy (EXH)
Light (EXL)
Cruisers
Cruiser (CA)
Battle Cruiser (CB)
Exploratory Cruiser (CEX)
Heavy Cruiser (CH)
Light Cruiser (CL)

Actually the designation CB is Large Cruiser. The designation was used for the U.S. Navy Alaska Class Cruisers of WWII.

Battlecruisers are unofficially designated BC.

I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes, just being informative.

[Don Mappin]

Unfortunately a few of these typos didn't get fixed in time, which is frustrating because I know they're wrong. Believe it or not, I put a lot of naval research into the construction rules when doing the initial classifications. The battlecruiser designation was one of them. I'll take the blame, however, for screwing them up.

[Sea Tyger]

Personally, Don, it's not that big of a deal. Being a Naval history afficionado myself, I'm just glad you took the time to do the research on it.

[Razuur]

You guys are all so competent in naval descriptions, that I wouldn't even going near disagreeing with you.

A simpler answer might be that in Star Trek III, when Kirk is hivering over Chekov's shoulder and we learn that someone has broken into Mr. Spocks quarters, there is a screen with a schematic image of a constitution class cruiser. Across the top it says something like "C-10 HEAVY CRUISER" Now that may just be for the enterprise refit. I always assumed that the "C" stood for CONSTITUTION. I have always thought that the Constitution class and Enterprise Refit classes were both Heavy cruisers. i agree with the poster about the success of the vessel being it's "multi-role" capability.

As for the Dreadnought, there was a trek novel called i think "DREADNOUGHT" which was about an overpowered military ship which I always connected to the Star Guardian ( name?) class in the starfleet technical manual. I always figured that that behemoth was exactly what it claimed to be... a dreadnought for the time.

I too saw the Excelsior in the FASA supplements called a battelship. Most NG references have called IT a heavy cruiser. My explanation was this: In kirks time, that was a BIG ship with more firepower than anything in the fleet. By Picards time, there are Galaxies and Nebulas, and compared to them it is just a cruiser.

Razuur

[Sea Tyger]

I too saw the Excelsior in the FASA supplements called a battelship. Most NG references have called IT a heavy cruiser. My explanation was this: In kirks time, that was a BIG ship with more firepower than anything in the fleet. By Picards time, there are Galaxies and Nebulas, and compared to them it is just a cruiser.

That would be an accurate analogy, although it has no modern precedent in the US Navy. Most frigates these days are as big and as powerful as WWII-era destroyers. Heck, the Arleigh Burke-class of AEGIS-type guided-missile destroyers are more powerful than early (50's and 60's) guided-missile cruisers.

But the Navy doesn't reclassify vessels in the way you're describing, except to clarify specialties within a type of vessel (i.e., the difference between a Destroyer {DD} and a guided-missile destroyer {DDG}). Our oldest active combat ships still retain their original designation (one example is the Spruance-class destroyer...quite inferior to the Arleigh Burke, but still a DD).

That said, given the sheer difference in firepower and capability between 2285 and 2364, there was a legitimate need to reclassify what was once the biggest, baddest starship on the block.

[Cessna]

Originally posted by Game Show Man

The correct abbreviation for Battleship is (BB), BTW.

If you want to be REALLY picky - and isn't that part of the fun? - BB stands for "Barbette Battleship." This term was used in the late 1800s to identify ships whose main guns were mounted in rotating turrets - more precisely "barbettes" in the vernacular of the day - as opposed to ships whose guns were mounted in stationary casemates. Eventually (by the 1900s) all battleships utilized barbettes, and the designation stuck...

[Imagus]

Thanks for that Cessna, I'd always wondered about that one...

It does bring up a question though, why FF, DD, CA? If they're actual abbreviations, I can't figure them out

[Cessna]

Back in the late 1800s the only "lettered" ship abbreviations were single letters - like "B" for battleship and "C" for cruiser. At the same time that battleships became "BBs," two letter designations became the norm.

"CA" is "Cruiser, Heavy." The "A" stands for heavy - I'm not exactly sure why "A" was used.

Destroyers were initially "TBDs" - Torpedo Boat Destroyers - but as torpedo boats became obsolete and destroyers assumed their tactical role, the name was shortened to just "Destroyer." The designation "DD" was usedl to keep regular destroyers seperate from later ship classes like Destroyer Escorts (DE) and Destroyer Leaders (DL).

[Karg]

On some they are easy to figure and are abreviations

CA was an abreviation of Cruiser, Armored Which became the Heavy Cruiser

CL is Cruiser, Light

CH Had stood for Heavy Cruiser

Maybe some of the Navy Vets/Historians could give us a better clue?

Karg