Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 50 of 50

Thread: Of Explorers, Cruisers and Dreadnoughts

  1. #46
    Originally posted by NobAkimoto
    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.
    Actually B for carriers did stand for Battle.

    The Attack designation was dropped be the U.S. Navy on 30 June 1975, the same day the other designation changes went into effect. From that date all carriers were designated as CV or CVN.

    You are correct. The Ticonderoga Class was changed to close the "Cruiser Gap" which really didn't exist at all. The Soviets were building ships which they designated as cruisers but were actually smaller than some of theier own destroyers and the U.S. Navy had larger destroyers as well. So a "Cruiser Gap" existed on paper but not in real life.

    Does anyone use the European/NATO ship designation system for Starfleet in their games (R for Aircraft Carrier, D for Destroyer, F for Frigate, etc.)?

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Salinas, Calif., USA (a Chiefs fan in an unholy land)
    Posts
    3,379
    I'm not sure any modern designation would be appropriate for Star Trek. Starfleet clearly uses the Naval Construction Contract number (or Naval Experiment numnber) to identify its ships, regardless of the type classification.
    Davy Jones

    "Frightened? My dear, you are looking at a man who has laughed in the face of death, sneered at doom, and chuckled at catastrophe! I was petrified."
    -- The Wizard of Oz

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Posts
    51
    Originally posted by Eric R.
    Having looked at the Federation Class Dreadnaught's deck plans I have no problem what so ever saying the ship could have been a 23rd century era explorer, perhaps the first of her kind and thats the way I have used it ever since.
    Oooh! You have deck plans for the Federation Class Dreadnaught??? Where can I get a copy? Are they online somewhere? Please say yes. Thanks.

    Maltese_Falcon

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Albertson, NY, USA
    Posts
    1,467
    Hey Falcon, If it's the ones i'm thinking of, They're old. I got a copy at an I-Con Years ago.

    Karg

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO USA
    Posts
    1,352
    Another thing to consider in this thread is that ship designations often change as new vessels come along.

    The Constitution-class may have been considered a Heavy Cruiser when designed, with the Avenger/ Miranda being a Light Cruiser. With the commissioning of Excelsior, that may have been designated Heavy Cruiser, Constitutions redesignated simple Cruiser, and Mirandas relegated to Destroyer/ Frigate status... or remaining Light cruisers.

    The Burke class destroyers of the USN would be cruisers in any other navy.

    Class degignation also has more to do with mission than with size/ mass. A fast, middleweight ship might be designated Light Cruiser if she was designed with the primary mission of screening a battleforce, and Destroyer if her primary design mission was independent patrol and wolfpack attacks.


    Originally posted by Dukeroyal


    Actually B for carriers did stand for Battle.

    The Attack designation was dropped be the U.S. Navy on 30 June 1975, the same day the other designation changes went into effect. From that date all carriers were designated as CV or CVN.

    You are correct. The Ticonderoga Class was changed to close the "Cruiser Gap" which really didn't exist at all. The Soviets were building ships which they designated as cruisers but were actually smaller than some of theier own destroyers and the U.S. Navy had larger destroyers as well. So a "Cruiser Gap" existed on paper but not in real life.

    Does anyone use the European/NATO ship designation system for Starfleet in their games (R for Aircraft Carrier, D for Destroyer, F for Frigate, etc.)?
    “I am a soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight.”

    General George S. Patton, Jr.

Posting Permissions

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