Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 50

Thread: Of Explorers, Cruisers and Dreadnoughts

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    East Sussex, UK
    Posts
    871
    Thanks guys, that makes sense, especially Karg's CA explanation. After all, the first cruisers were quite lightly armoured as I recall, built for speed rather than protection. Then you slap armour on them, and they become both heavier and "armoured" - hence CA.

    Excellent work!
    Jon

    "There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, where the sea is asleep and the rivers dream; people made of smoke and cities made of song.
    Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, and somewhere else the tea is getting cold. Come on, Ace, we've got work to do."
    THE DOCTOR, "Survival" (Doctor Who)

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Denver, CO, USA
    Posts
    118
    Originally posted by Karg

    Maybe some of the Navy Vets/Historians could give us a better clue?
    Um, my degree IS in history, with a concentration in Military History. You're right, the "A" did initially stand for "armored," but it soon shifted to mean "Heavy." For instance, the "Nimitz" class carriers were initially designated CVNA - Aircraft Carrier, Nuclear, Heavy, not armored...

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    I guess I'm Un-Canadian: No Beer, No Hockey, No Paul Martin!
    Posts
    656
    And here is where I show how confused this made me:
    I thought the A in CVNA was for Attack.
    Wasn't CVA an Attack Carrier
    CVL a Light Carrier
    etc.
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those
    who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."
    Dante Alighieri

    "A day without sunshine is like, you know, night."
    Sandra

    "Michael Moore is reminiscent of a heavy-handed Leni Riefenstahl, who glorified Nazism in the 1930s." Peter Worthington, Toronto Sun.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Albertson, NY, USA
    Posts
    1,467
    No, I beleive that the A would make it an Armored Carrier

    Karg

  5. #35
    Originally posted by Kaiddin
    And here is where I show how confused this made me:
    I thought the A in CVNA was for Attack.
    Wasn't CVA an Attack Carrier
    CVL a Light Carrier
    etc.
    You are correct. The designation CVAN is for Attack Aircraft Carrier, Nuclear Powered.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UT, USA
    Posts
    2,090
    But what about the USS Midway. Commissioned in 1945 as (I believe) CVB-41, became CVA-41 in the 50's or 60's, and was later decommissioned (in the 90's) as just CV-41.

    Any thoughts?

    UPDATE: Never mind. Just got off the phone with my dad (who served on the Midway from 1957 to 1959. I t was commissioned as CVB-41 (B is for Battle Carrier), later changed to CVA-41 (A for Attack Carrier), and later changed again to just plain CV-41 (for just plain Carrier).
    Former Decipher RPG Net Rep

    "Doug, at the keyboard, his fingers bleeding" (with thanks to Moriarti)

    In D&D3E, Abyssal is not the language of evil vacuum cleaners.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Soviet Canuckistan
    Posts
    3,804
    Check under his rants section, very useful article I found

    http://www.sub-odeon.com/stsstcsmua/stsstcsmua.html

  8. #38
    Midway was launched as a "Large" carrier.(The "B" is thought to have stood for "battle" but as the "Alaska class Large Cruiser" was a a CB designator, the assumption of "large" is probably more accurate.)

    When the Midway was finally stricken she had become one of the smaller carriers in the USN.

    Also the "A" in the CVA/CVAN stands for Attack, it's a political designation more or less given to carriers which had nuclear strike capability. It also meant it operated primarily nuclear attack craft rather than a multi-mission mix. This was abolished in the early 90's I believe after the end of the Cold War, and the multi-mission deployment of CAW's.

    While sharing the "CA" designator heavy cruisers and armored cruisers are rather different beasts, with the latter being a post-Dreadnought era development which were larger more powerful scout/light cruisers, while armored cruisers are pre-Dreadnought era ships that were more battleship like in arrangement.

    Suffix of adding an "A" for a CA is now technically obsolete, as "Attack" and "Auxillary" has taken over that area. Meanwhile "H" is used for Hospital or Helicopter.(Example being the DDH series helicopter equipped destroyers of the JMSDF)

    Also designation changes were rather rare with the exception of the major rearrangement of designations in the mid-70's(I think it was anyway), when the US Navy decided to drop it's then current designation of Frigate(A large destroyer, DL/DLG) and reclassify the smaller ships as guided missile cruisers(CG) to fill the "cruiser gap" with the USSR.(I think FASA Trek used the pre-1975 definition of "Frigate")

    In addition another example is the Ticonderoga class was reclassified a cruiser(CG) from it's DDG classification in 1980.

    So the lack of battleships could simply be a part of "political correctifying" Starfleet.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Keflavik, Iceland
    Posts
    265
    *(attempts to prod thread back towards Star Trek)*

    The USS Explorer and her impact on Star Fleet’s capital ship nomenclature.

    In 1906 HMS Dreadnought, a warship of the Terran Nation-State the United Kingdom was launched. This seagoing vessel was such a marked improvement in design and construction that she immediately rendered all her predecessors, then referred to generically as “battleships”, obsolete. Subsequent battleships which were constructed to mimic the Dreadnought’s advances and became to be know as Dreadnought battleships and then finally simply dreadnoughts.

    A similar technological and linguist evolution occurred centuries later with the design and launch of the United Federation of Planet’s heavy cruiser, USS Explorer. At this time, the early 24th century, the primary defensive and exploratory cruiser was the Excelsior class starship. While SF the Excelsior was the largest and most capable starship to date, the exploratory command was finding that they were unable to out fit the ships with the range of scientific equipment and logistical supplies needed for long range interstellar exploration missions. The Excelsior was an outgrowth of the failed trans-warp experiments of the late 23rd century as well as a direct response to the charged military tensions of that time. As a result the machinery spaces, once redesigned to utilize standard warp technology, consumed a greater internal volume than planned and a great deal of the remaining space was utilized for military requirements In short, while the Excelsior was a large ship the proportion of their habitable volume that was dedicated to peaceful pursuits was actually lower than that of the Constitution class that they replaced.

    As a result the Admiralty came to the conclusion that a new class of heavy cruiser was needed, one more capable of independent operation in the exploratory role. This was not an easy decision. With the idea of a “peace dividend” sweeping the UFP and a prevalent political climate that emphasized cooperation and non-aggression with our “Galactic Neighbors” it was clear that any campaign for increased spending by SF was going to be difficult. All the more so if the proposed project was seen by the Administration as a “military” project – as a new capital ship program might well be. Thus, when the proposal was put forward it was for an exploratory cruiser – with the emphasis very much on “exploratory”.

    To be continued (maybe)
    TK

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Keflavik, Iceland
    Posts
    265
    By the way - I made all that up -


    Just in case anybody didn't get that.....

    (well not the part about the Dreadnought)

    I'm going now......
    TK

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Denver, CO, USA
    Posts
    118
    You're right about "A" standing for "Attack" by the time it came to be applied to CVNs.

    D'oh!!

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Afghanistan
    Posts
    467

    Red face Sorry to be off topic but...

    Originally posted by Doug Burke
    UPDATE: Never mind. Just got off the phone with my dad (who served on the Midway from 1957 to 1959. I t was commissioned as CVB-41 (B is for Battle Carrier), later changed to CVA-41 (A for Attack Carrier), and later changed again to just plain CV-41 (for just plain Carrier).
    Wow! You're Dad served on the Midway? So did mine from 1981-83! Another wierd thing is hearing the Spruance-class Destroyers be declared old an outdated. I can remember when they were the "latest and greatest". Again my Dad served on the Spruance (DD 963) from 1974-77. I am getting old...
    Insert something clever

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UT, USA
    Posts
    2,090

    Re: Sorry to be off topic but...

    Originally posted by Dave Biggins
    Wow! You're Dad served on the Midway? So did mine from 1981-83!
    Too cool! My dad's cruise aboard her was the first one after her recommissioning as an angle-deck carrier.
    Former Decipher RPG Net Rep

    "Doug, at the keyboard, his fingers bleeding" (with thanks to Moriarti)

    In D&D3E, Abyssal is not the language of evil vacuum cleaners.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canyon, TX, USA, Sol III
    Posts
    1,783
    Originally posted by Sea Tyger
    Has anyone developed naming conventions for their self-designed ship classes? I'd like to see some of the ideas.
    My campaigns are generally set in the film era, as I was never all that fond of TNG, to be honest. I built a line of heavy destroyers (that'll probably get redesignated as frigates when I finally get a look at the NG in a few weeks) called the Carmen DeFalco class. Lots of firepower for their size, and able to withstand considerable punishment.

    The class is named for heroes of Star Fleet (I hate how it got compressed into one word), dating back as far as the NX-01 era. Yes, there will probably be a USS Jonathan Archer appear at some point in my campaign (I will, in fact, probably rename the class in his honor when I get around to starting the game up), and when the game goes past the events of ST: Generations, there will be a USS James T. Kirk commissioned as well. This gives me some flexibility in naming ships, as I can just pull a name out of the hat if I don't feel like drawing on someone from one of the shows.
    Patrick Goodman -- Tilting at Windmills

    "I dare you to do better." -- Captain Christopher Pike

    Beyond the Final Frontier: CODA Star Trek RPG Support

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Springfield, MO USA
    Posts
    201
    Back to the "dreadnought" classification for a moment...back up the thread a bit someone claimed that there was no canon evidence of Starfleet using that classification.

    That's not so. Cf the radio "chatter" from Epsilon 9 in TMP. The cleaned up and rechanneled audio in the DE has "dreadnought Entente" loud and clear. That makes it canon.
    Deo Vindice!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •