Catagorizing Starfleet ships

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-01-20 07:11pm

I classify ships based on what they do, not what they look like most.

Starfleet seems a lot more hardwired in ship design - granted, they ideally function as jacks-of-all-trades, but if anything the Dominion War should have resulted in a further specializing of ship roles. Calling them ships-of-the-line and torpedo destroyers makes more sense to me than trying to find parallels with a carrier-based navy that bases its designs around ASW and AA in varying sizes.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-20 07:15pm

Bob McDob wrote:I'd call the Akira a destroyer, for the reason that anything that fast and heavily armed with torpedos deserves to be a destroyer. Probably a destroyer carrier ... but then, there are lots of things called destroyers that carry fighters (Star Destroyers, Wing Commander ships ... well, STDs are definately battleships, and everything in WC carries fighters).

I guess Defiants would be borderline.

Sabre, Norway, and Miranda probably work better as destroyer escorts, seeing as they don't have the firepower to work independently. These would of course be primarily concerned with flanking, line harrasment and encirclement.

Steamrunner and Nebula probably act more as long-range artillary cruisers, bombarding the enemy from farther out.

I'd call the Galaxy a battleship, but then I'd call just about everything else a battleship in the sense that it's a ship-of-the-line. Actually frigate would probably be a better term. ST in general seems bigger on sailing analogy than dreadnoughts in general.

I think the Prometheus-B would invariably act as command ship.

Yeah, the Sovereign is a battlecruiser ... well, strike cruiser might be better, since they seem to invariably work alone, and was the E-E ever part of a battlegroup? (That and they seem too streamlined to be part of a battleline proper, and we all know about ST and looks ... well, I don't know)

You can't call the Akira a Destroyer while turning around and calling the Galaxy a Battleship. The Akira has more firepower then a Galaxy class does because of its torpedoes.

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-01-20 10:47pm

That's the problem; we don't really see the ships enough in context to establish their primary battlefield roles.

The Galaxy is a ship-of-the-line because it lacks the speed and range of the other ships, and it forms the backbone of Starfleet's battle lines.

The Akira could act as a light carrier and heavy support element for the ship-of-the-line (would that make it a frigate, then?), but from what I can tell it could also make hit-and-run attacks, attempting to encircle the enemy fleet. What do we know about Akira damaga absorbtion?

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2003-01-21 01:40am

maybe what we need to do is ask how is Starfleet set up is it set up like a late 20th century navy or more like the navy Britain had in the 18th century.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-01-21 11:33am

Bob McDob wrote: The Akira could act as a light carrier and heavy support element for the ship-of-the-line (would that make it a frigate, then?), but from what I can tell it could also make hit-and-run attacks, attempting to encircle the enemy fleet. What do we know about Akira damaga absorbtion?

Can't this make the Akira some sort of battlecruiser??? It's more heavily armed than a battleship, but it's not as big.

DocMoriartty · Post by **DocMoriartty** » 2003-01-21 02:11pm

The Panzershift had armor that could stop 6" gun fire but was completely vulnerable at any range from 8" fire. That means it has protection between a light cruiser and a heavy cruiser.

As an example if the Cumberland had made it to River Platte and engaged the Graf Spee I think even alone it would have had a very good chance of winning. Pretty sad when you consider the weight difference between the two and the broadside weight between the two.

Warspite wrote: I disagree, the armour from the Graf Spee (Lutzow Class) is equal to the Prinz Eugen (Hipper Class) or the Scharnhorst (class namesake), with sligth variations. The guns for the cruisers are 8" (per Naval Treaties), placing them in the Heavy Cruiser category, granted, the Bismarck had 14" guns.

But we stray, discussing naval semantics is not for this topic.

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-01-21 11:36pm

Simon H.Johansen wrote:Can't this make the Akira some sort of battlecruiser??? It's more heavily armed than a battleship, but it's not as big.

See, I've never really liked that classification. Sure, it's a battlecruiser, but what does it DO? Fed ship design is hardly modeled after early 20th century battlewagons, and isn't fit to the same standard as more multitasking designs such as Imperial ships.

I don't know, maybe "heavy torpedo destroyer-carrier". Come up with a better, more descriptive name

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-01-22 12:58am

Bob McDob wrote:The Galaxy is a ship-of-the-line because it lacks the speed and range of the other ships, and it forms the backbone of Starfleet's battle lines.

How does it lack speed and range when the ship was designed to be a long-range explorer originally, as well as being able to maintain Warp 9.6 (IIRC) for up to 12 hours and Warp 9.2 for longer?

I haven't heard of any speed/range figures for the Akira class ships.

As for the ungodly amount of torps on the Akira... I was never impressed by what I saw on screen. The Enterprise in "The Survivors" was much more impressive.

They can't be able to fire torpedos that fast anyways... those two little pylons have to carry torp casings AND antimatter to arm the torpedoes with, and I can't imagine torpedo casings traveling up the pylons that fast.

vakundok · Post by **vakundok** » 2003-01-22 03:49am

The Akira seen in Message in a Bottle used mainly (only) phasers against romulan warbirds in an overwhelmed situation. Are you definitely sure the main weapons of the Akira are the torpedoes?

Btw. I do not think it is a really good idea to categorize ST ships to naval categories which were originally based on mass. With the introduction of newer and larger vessels you will need to reclassify several or all of the older large designs. Eg.: The Excelsior was originaly the heaviest flagship (clearly larger than the "cruisers" of that time) but now it is only mid-sized "cruiser" at best.

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-01-22 06:18pm

Uraniun235 wrote: How does it lack speed and range when the ship was designed to be a long-range explorer originally, as well as being able to maintain Warp 9.6 (IIRC) for up to 12 hours and Warp 9.2 for longer?

Battle speed and weapons range?

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-01-22 07:27pm

Bob McDob wrote:
Uraniun235 wrote: How does it lack speed and range when the ship was designed to be a long-range explorer originally, as well as being able to maintain Warp 9.6 (IIRC) for up to 12 hours and Warp 9.2 for longer?
Battle speed and weapons range?

Two terms, taken from the marine world:
Maximum Continuous Output and Normal Continuous Output.
The former is only used in emergency situations and for short periods.
The latter is the normal engine output required for cruising.