Classifying Starships

[Husky_Khan]

So in this Creative Writing foray I tried to classify Federation starships in a bit of a humorous manner. Even in modern navies though ship classes seem to be pretty murky.

What is everyone's idea on various starships from our favorite sci-fi settings? Does the Federation only have cruisers (or battlecruisers) and lesser vessels at least prior to the Dominion War?

The Imperial Star Destroyer seems to be clearly not a destroyer but a form of battleship or perhaps a battlecarrier (much like Battlestars).

What is everyone else's opinion on our franchises favorite starships and how they would be categorized or class-ified?

 

[Deleted member]

My pet peeve is battlecruiser referring to a ship smaller than a battleship instead of an utterly huge vessel larger than a battleship which goes absolutely as fast as possible in straight line acceleration.

I think ISDs were actually consistently shown performing destroyer functions for Executor in ESB and ROTJ so the name is perfectly appropriate.

 

[Big Steve]

My pet peeve is battlecruiser referring to a ship smaller than a battleship instead of an utterly huge vessel larger than a battleship which goes absolutely as fast as possible in straight line acceleration.

Even I've fallen for that brain bug before. "Battlecruiser < Battleship, so Battlecruiser must be smaller" is how it works, I think, as people don't realize the engine plants to make the BC concept work are freaking huge and heavy.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

Trek and Wars are horrible at consistent ship classification.

Actually, if you want it done right then look at David Webers Honorverse. Ships are classified based on the role they are designed to fill.

 

[Flintsteel]

Trek and Wars are horrible at consistent ship classification.

Actually, if you want it done right then look at David Webers Honorverse. Ships are classified based on the role they are designed to fill.

What? Isn't Weber the source of the idiocy of having battleships, dreadnoughts, and superdreadnoughts all in the same fleet?

Frankly, authors do not put anywhere near enough time into ship classification schemes, and just use whatever sounds cool - which means 90% of the time copying World War Two class types, except with effectively zero understanding of them. And unfortunately, in order to build a proper ship classification system, you really need to figure out your military technology and how that influences and limits warship design. Only then can you figure out what types of ships would be used.

 

[S'task]

Does the Federation only have cruisers (or battlecruisers) at least prior to the Dominion War?

Err... no?

Prior to the Dominion War we see many different types of Federation Starships. While the majority are Cruisers (which fit's Starfleet's operation profile), just look at the Battle of Wolf 359 and the aftermath. There's numerous smaller ships that really aren't Cruisers there, like the New Orleans class which is likely a Destroyer or Escort type ship. The Oberth class as well was a dedicated Science and Research ship. One could argue that the Miranda class, while popularly called a "Light Cruiser" never really was used in that role outside of Star Trek II, and by the TNG era appears to have been used as a Destroyer in fleets.

Really in the TNG era the only Cruisers we saw acting as Cruisers were the Galaxy class, Nebula class, and the Excelsior class. Everything else worked mainly in other roles. Sure, the bulk of seen ships in Trek were cruiser types, but that was more of a convention of the type of show Trek was, being focused on a single ship on an extended mission, so of course we saw mostly Cruisers, as if they encountered another ship it was also likely to be a cruiser since it was out there. There was also budget limitations, CGI for TV sfx also didn't really get close in quality to prop work until late DS9 / Mid-Voyager, which also corresponds to when we saw an explosion of new ships in Trek. Prior to that point, which was most of DS9 and all of TNG, new ships required NEW PROPS and that was time and cost expensive, so they would do the minimum they could on that front which meant reusing older props (which was why Excelsiors were so common in the TNG era) and we only rarely saw new Federation ships.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Err... no?

Prior to the Dominion War we see many different types of Federation Starships. While the majority are Cruisers (which fit's Starfleet's operation profile), just look at the Battle of Wolf 359 and the aftermath. There's numerous smaller ships that really aren't Cruisers there, like the New Orleans class which is likely a Destroyer or Escort type ship. The Oberth class as well was a dedicated Science and Research ship. One could argue that the Miranda class, while popularly called a "Light Cruiser" never really was used in that role outside of Star Trek II, and by the TNG era appears to have been used as a Destroyer in fleets.

Really in the TNG era the only Cruisers we saw acting as Cruisers were the Galaxy class, Nebula class, and the Excelsior class. Everything else worked mainly in other roles. Sure, the bulk of seen ships in Trek were cruiser types, but that was more of a convention of the type of show Trek was, being focused on a single ship on an extended mission, so of course we saw mostly Cruisers, as if they encountered another ship it was also likely to be a cruiser since it was out there. There was also budget limitations, CGI for TV sfx also didn't really get close in quality to prop work until late DS9 / Mid-Voyager, which also corresponds to when we saw an explosion of new ships in Trek. Prior to that point, which was most of DS9 and all of TNG, new ships required NEW PROPS and that was time and cost expensive, so they would do the minimum they could on that front which meant reusing older props (which was why Excelsiors were so common in the TNG era) and we only rarely saw new Federation ships.

Sorry. Meant to say cruiser or smaller class vessels. Obviously Oberths being used as supply vessels wouldn't could as cruisers. This is what I get for spamming threads.

Still I got you to write out a solid half page response, so it's a win in my book. I need to be more careless in my writing in the future.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

What? Isn't Weber the source of the idiocy of having battleships, dreadnoughts, and superdreadnoughts all in the same fleet?

Battleships were old (no one was building new ones for decades or more), and their role was rear area defense (at least at the time of canon). Park one in a system and it was capable of wiping out pretty much any raiding force. But even then, they only remained in inventory because scrapping them didn't make economic sense for the PRH.

Dreadnoughts were the next iteration of the same premise (heavy capital ship made for fleet actions and capturing defended worlds). Slower than Battleships, newer technology and advantages of scale made them a superior platform. More expensive (and thus fewer could be purchased) but in a fleet action they were dollar for dollar superior to battleships; at the cost of fewer platforms.

Superdreadnoughts were the latest iteration of that role.

Honorverse naval tech advanced only slowly though (at least before Manticore made the next big tech leap), so a ship decades (or even a century plus) old could still be a viable combatant. So perfectly good ships stayed on active duty even if they were generations behind the current cutting edge and were obsolescent for their initially designed role.

My point, however, is that Webers classification scheme is internally consistent and based on role more than anything else.

Trek and Wars have every ship classified based on whatever a writer thinks sounds cool at that particular moment in time. In the case of Star Wars, the companies building the ships are the ones that got to decide what their classification was. Which is why you have the Dreadnought class cruiser as a distinctly different entity than the dreadnought classification. Or the Victory class Star Destroyer not actually being a Star Destroyer (its classified as a heavy cruiser).

EDIT: The Dreadnought class heavy cruiser is classified as a cruiser (and does not fall under either the Heavy Cruiser or Dreadnought ship classifications).

 

[Flintsteel]

Battleships were old (no one was building new ones for decades or more), and their role was rear area defense (at least at the time of canon). Park one in a system and it was capable of wiping out pretty much any raiding force. But even then, they only remained in inventory because scrapping them didn't make economic sense for the PRH.

Dreadnoughts were the next iteration of the same premise (heavy capital ship made for fleet actions and capturing defended worlds). Slower than Battleships, newer technology and advantages of scale made them a superior platform. More expensive (and thus fewer could be purchased) but in a fleet action they were dollar for dollar superior to battleships; at the cost of fewer platforms.

Superdreadnoughts were the latest iteration of that role.

Honorverse naval tech advanced only slowly though (at least before Manticore made the next big tech leap), so a ship decades (or even a century plus) old could still be a viable combatant. So perfectly good ships stayed on active duty even if they were generations behind the current cutting edge and were obsolescent for their initially designed role.

My point, however, is that Webers classification scheme is internally consistent and based on role more than anything else.

Consistent maybe, but not realistic. Rapid evolution of captial ship design, such that older vessels were completely obsolete literally happened in reality. Pre-dreadnoughts, dreadnoughts, and super-dreadnoughts all existed in the same fleets of the US, Great Britain, Germany, etc., at the same time. They were all still classed as battleships. In the US, all had the hull code of BB - they did not invent a new one when dreadnought-type ships were built, nor a new one when size creep let to the colloquial term of super-dreadnought.

Also, keeping old battleships around when the new builds are undergoing size creep is of limited utility, because all types creep in size as well. Keeping a battleship around when a new-build heavy cruiser is bigger is nonsensical. Size creep effects all ship types, not just the capital ships.

 

[Deleted member]

Battleships were old (no one was building new ones for decades or more), and their role was rear area defense (at least at the time of canon). Park one in a system and it was capable of wiping out pretty much any raiding force. But even then, they only remained in inventory because scrapping them didn't make economic sense for the PRH.

Dreadnoughts were the next iteration of the same premise (heavy capital ship made for fleet actions and capturing defended worlds). Slower than Battleships, newer technology and advantages of scale made them a superior platform. More expensive (and thus fewer could be purchased) but in a fleet action they were dollar for dollar superior to battleships; at the cost of fewer platforms.

Superdreadnoughts were the latest iteration of that role.

Honorverse naval tech advanced only slowly though (at least before Manticore made the next big tech leap), so a ship decades (or even a century plus) old could still be a viable combatant. So perfectly good ships stayed on active duty even if they were generations behind the current cutting edge and were obsolescent for their initially designed role.

My point, however, is that Webers classification scheme is internally consistent and based on role more than anything else.

Trek and Wars have every ship classified based on whatever a writer thinks sounds cool at that particular moment in time. In the case of Star Wars, the companies building the ships are the ones that got to decide what their classification was. Which is why you have the Dreadnought class cruiser as a distinctly different entity than the dreadnought classification. Or the Victory class Star Destroyer not actually being a Star Destroyer (its classified as a heavy cruiser).

EDIT: The Dreadnought class heavy cruiser is classified as a cruiser (and does not fall under either the Heavy Cruiser or Dreadnought ship classifications).

All of that is simply an in-universe attempt to reconcile the dysfunctional canon anyway, though one grants that the "Star" rated ships being interstellar ships versus interplanetary regular ships makes some sense, i.e., a "Star destroyer" is actually larger than a "cruiser", and a "Star frigate" about equal to one.

 

[Husky_Khan]

My pet peeve is battlecruiser referring to a ship smaller than a battleship instead of an utterly huge vessel larger than a battleship which goes absolutely as fast as possible in straight line acceleration.

I thought battlecruisers typically still had somewhat lesser amounts of armements and armor though generally speaking.

I think ISDs were actually consistently shown performing destroyer functions for Executor in ESB and ROTJ so the name is perfectly appropriate.

Yeah but that's only because in the films the Empire only has like two different class of capital ships... well three if you count the Death Star.

Just seems odd that a Mon Calamari Cruiser is somehow a class clear above an Imperial Star Destroyer and those in turn are barely a step above our beloved Medical Frigate.

 

[Deleted member]

I thought battlecruisers typically still had somewhat lesser amounts of armements and armor though generally speaking.

Usually the same armament or at least 80% of the armament of the equivalent battleship. Less armour, sure, but propulsion machinery is so punishingly expensive in weight that they would still be physically larger and heavier than a battleship.

Yeah but that's only because in the films the Empire only has like two different class of capital ships... well three if you count the Death Star.

Totally Not True! You can see the 6km-ish long Communications Cruiser through the window of the Death Star II! And it's never clear if the hangarless Destroyer variant the Falcon flies over is just a Tector or possibly an Allegiance, thus a cruiser. We also see some evidence of an even larger reactor dome on something, probably also an Allegiance.

Just seems odd that a Mon Calamari Cruiser is somehow a class clear above an Imperial Star Destroyer and those in turn are barely a step above our beloved Medical Frigate.

Well, it makes sense when you consider that Home One was actually 3.8km long and there were two or possibly three of her class in the Rebel fleet. Also that the "cruisers" were converted merchants... Which meant they were really Armed Merchant Cruisers.

Though I do like the "Star" standing for a larger category of vessel of similar function meant for major fleet actions across interstellar distances. It solves most of the problems with Star Wars fleet classifications nicely.

 

[Flintsteel]

I thought battlecruisers typically still had somewhat lesser amounts of armements and armor though generally speaking.

In armor and armament, typically (depended on the nation in question), but because they were designed for speed, they were physically larger and have and equal or greater displacement (mass) as their contemporary battleship counterparts. A good example would be the Lexington-class battlecruisers and South Dakota-class battleships, which were contemporary designs. While they had effectively similar displacements (43kt+), the Lexingtons were a quarter again as long as South Dakotas (874 feet versus 684 feet).

Now, part of this is the simple physics of high-speed watercraft - huge portions of the total engine output is lost in the waves created by the ship moving through the water, so required engine power versus speed is not a linear relationship. To return to the previous pair, the South Dakota design made 23 knots on 60,000 shaft horsepower. The Lexington required 180,000 shp to make 33 knots, fully triple the engine output for less than a 50% increase in maximum speed. That engine machinery takes up a lot of space.

Just seems odd that a Mon Calamari Cruiser is somehow a class clear above an Imperial Star Destroyer and those in turn are barely a step above our beloved Medical Frigate.

People need to stop assuming that fictional class type designations have any relationship to the real-world ones. The idiocy that is the assumption of the 'Imperial Star Destroyer' being a small escort vessel of the fleet is stupid beyond measure. They quite obviously never were designed for the purpose of eliminating the threat of torpedo boats, so the word 'destroyer' being in their name has absolutely zero relationship to real-world wet-navy vessels that also have 'destroyer' in their name.

 

[Deleted member]

@Flintsteel it's always been tongue-in-cheek that we call ISDs Destroyers in that sense.... But legitimately they were small escorts for Executor in two movies.

Wavemaking runs 50% of the total energy put into a given ship speed.. If, and only if, you actually meet or exceed the "natural" speed for a ship's length. If you force a ship to a speed higher than is the natural length, then you pay for it absurdly in rapid growth of energy to drive the ship at that speed. That is part of why hull design is so complicated... Optimally you want to balance skin friction and wave-making effects, but in a modern warship this is almost always not possible.

 

[Human Primacy]

People need to stop assuming that fictional class type designations have any relationship to the real-world ones.

I think the overall attempt to try to tie spaceships to sea ships, in sc-fi, is a bit silly. I see why people do it, it gives a stylistic parallel to more familiar things. But when we get to the point of arguing how spaceship classifications relate to their sea counterparts, we may not be seeing the forest through the trees. Arguing that a Star Destroyer does or does not fit with some space equivalent of the contemporary definition of a destroyer is absurd, because it assumes a lot of parallels between sea and space combat that don't actually exist. There's no more reason to assume space combat would resemble sea combat, than air combat would resemble sea combat. Even modern sea combat itself looks a lot different than it did two centuries ago. I think the relevant question is why we'd classify spacecraft with the terms we use for ships, in the first place.

 

[Husky_Khan]

I think the overall attempt to try to tie spaceships to sea ships, in sc-fi, is a bit silly. I see why people do it, it gives a stylistic parallel to more familiar things. But when we get to the point of arguing how spaceship classifications relate to their sea counterparts, we may not be seeing the forest through the trees. Arguing that a Star Destroyer does or does not fit with some space equivalent of the contemporary definition of a destroyer is absurd, because it assumes a lot of parallels between sea and space combat that don't actually exist. There's no more reason to assume space combat would resemble sea combat, than air combat would resemble sea combat. Even modern sea combat itself looks a lot different than it did two centuries ago. I think the relevant question is why we'd classify spacecraft with the terms we use for ships, in the first place.

Discussion of science fiction in general can be considered absurd in many respects.

It's easier to frame a discussion by using already known ship classes and having the discussion evolve from that standpoint (ie what makes a Starfleet cruiser or Imperial Star Destroyer different from our classification of present day class roles for watercraft) then asking what actually seems like a pretty boring question. I'd prefer a question that can easily engage the fandom and canon materials and lore by taking what we've seen from the ships and their performances in space combat and having a nice discussion about how starship roles could change and evolve in regards to space combat and how various starships would fulfill them. Also because most of the lore of popular space based science fiction tends to be based off of maritime ship classifications anyways even if only done superficially.

So while I'm aware that defining sea classes is problematic to some, and for many too difficult an absurdity to overcome and discuss, I'd prefer starting somewhere instead of nowhere or some sort of completely arbitrary and/or random springboard for discussion.

Plus this particular subforum is pretty slow and IMHO kinda boring and having actual scifi fandom discussions regardless of absurdity would be welcome to me. So I'm going to vomit up these threads as often as they come to me.

Though I do like the "Star" standing for a larger category of vessel of similar function meant for major fleet actions across interstellar distances. It solves most of the problems with Star Wars fleet classifications nicely.

So you'd see it as like a 'second' level of classification. You'd have the lower tier of ship classes and then an upper tier with the 'Star' designation for the larger capital ships because they'd be participating in major fleet actions. A Destroyer or Frigate in the Star Wars universe being a tier below a so called 'Star Frigate' or 'Star Destroyer?'

 

[Deleted member]

So you'd see it as like a 'second' level of classification. You'd have the lower tier of ship classes and then an upper tier with the 'Star' designation for the larger capital ships because they'd be participating in major fleet actions. A Destroyer or Frigate in the Star Wars universe being a tier below a so called 'Star Frigate' or 'Star Destroyer?'

Yes, exactly that. A Star Frigate would generally be very slightly larger than or the same size as a regular Cruiser and much larger than a regular Frigate, for instance, and we do see that to an extent, though the number of Star Frigates was very rare and mostly in the EU comics.

 

[Human Primacy]

Discussion of science fiction in general can be considered absurd in many respects.

Yeah, but that's getting close to the "fiction isn't real, so..." argument. You know the one. Where you point out a logical inconsistency, and someone argues that because the setting has fantastic elements, that this somehow makes it exempt from internal consistency.

There's nothing wrong with making the comparison, and in some settings it's more apt, because they're clearly going for that theme. But applying it with broad strokes to all sci-fi can be like you're judging them by rules they didn't agree to. Especially with more generic terms. "Space Cruiser" gets applied for lots of space ships, merely denoting its size. This probably did originally come from the naval designation, but it can be so far removed that it may not have been used to designate it was equivalent to the cruiser class of ship.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Yeah, but that's getting close to the "fiction isn't real, so..." argument. You know the one. Where you point out a logical inconsistency, and someone argues that because the setting has fantastic elements, that this somehow makes it exempt from internal consistency.

There's nothing wrong with making the comparison, and in some settings it's more apt, because they're clearly going for that theme. But applying it with broad strokes to all sci-fi can be like you're judging them by rules they didn't agree to. Especially with more generic terms. "Space Cruiser" gets applied for lots of space ships, merely denoting its size. This probably did originally come from the naval designation, but it can be so far removed that it may not have been used to designate it was equivalent to the cruiser class of ship.

Except no one is doing that. So far almost the entire discussion has been how to classify starships and problems with that. Literally no one has said... all starships of all scifi will fit into these maritime naval categories. Make it so! Your issue was literally brought up already in regards to someone bringing up the Honorverse only that discussion actually lead to more discussion, instead of an attempt to label it all as absurd.

So while I see your issue... again... I don't think it's an actual problem curbing discussion because I don't think using maritime terminology as a basis of framework is all that limiting or will stifle discussion or lead to absurd outcomes. And again I'd prefer having a basic framework to base discussions off of instead of doing something arbitrary and having a framework (based off of maritime terminology) is far better IMHO then not having one.

 

[Vargas Fan]

Babylon 5 is the strange one at times.

You have the Minbari Sharlin class Cruiser which is fair enough. The only other Minbari ships we see are the Nial fighters, the flyers, a couple of singleton craft and those older cruisers in War Without End.

Ditto with the Narn, we see the G'Quan class Cruiser. The only other capship of theirs we see is the T'Loth Assault Cruiser.

The Centauri have the old Primus, which is classed as a Battlecruiser. The Vorchan is a Frigate, I always thing of the Vorchan as a Bird of Prey analogue, a pack hunter.

It's the Earth Alliance that is the strange one. We have the Nova Class Dreadnought, which is fair enough. It's hull is packed with guns. Then we have the Hyperion, first referred to in "A Voice in the Wilderness" as a Heavy Cruiser. However, it's significantly smaller than the Nova which shares a similiar hullform plus rotating section with the Omega which for some reason is classed as a Destroyer. We also have the Olympus class Corvette seen in In the Beginning and Sleeping in Light. Lastly the Warlock is classed as a Destroyer I believe.