Classifying Starships

[Spartan303]

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.

That's actually explained in some lore stuff. EA brass pulled an end run around on the Senate. Apparently the Senate was concerned about how the Minbari might react to Earth building a new Capital ship Dreadnought. With the war over and many peaceniks in the Senate there was a lot of fighting over the ship and its expenditures. So the EA top brass took the inoffensive name 'Destroyer' instead of Dreadnought and ran with that. Amazingly enough, it worked.

 

[Deleted member]

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.

The only rational thing to do is assume in Babylon 5 that the words now refer to different things than they used to refer to. Otherwise they just make absolutely no sense at all. They are probably functional definitions of combat role.

 

[Human Primacy]

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.

I never implied anyone here said that. I'm talking about the general practice of trying to fit the square peg of naval designations into the round hole that is the functions that a starship might have. It's not the first place I've seen it brought up. There's this weird attachment to the whole "Space is an Ocean" trope, both in writers and fans, and I think it's important to remember that no, space is not an ocean. It functions entirely different, and the needs and restrictions for a spacefaring vessel are quite different from a seafaring one, and as such, will have very different attributes that make the sea vessel comparison a little inept.

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.

You keep talking about curbing discussion, which I'm not sure why? The only thing I was saying about that is that the "setting doesn't have to make sense because there's magic" type of fallacy that you were dipping into for like one sentence. People do use that to shut down discussion, whether knowingly or not.

I don't really see why having a framework to classify starships is necessary at all. My whole point is that basing it off a maritime framework is arbitrary.

Take Star Trek, for all of Starfleet's attachment to naval tradition (which I think is odd for spacefarers, since they would seem to grow out of aviators, not sailors, but that's besides the point), its ships don't really map to naval roles in any way. Starting with the fact that they aren't solely military in function. Starfleet is the Federation's de facto military force, but their primary function is exploration and diplomacy. Their larger ships are well armed enough that they could commit genocide on any pre-warp societies in an afternoon, but that's more about the power of the weapons they've developed, rather than being heavily armed. Some of them are also minor, mobile space colonies, with crew families and other civilians aboard. They also are designed largely to operate in isolation most of the time, which destroys most comparisons to modern sea ships that operate in specific roles as part of a fleet. They'll organize multiple ships to deal with specific needs, but most of them operate independently, and are quite well equipped to do so.

 

[Deleted member]

@Human Primacy I don’t want an exact equivalence, but I would expect “destroyer” to describe a functional role of “primary screen element for larger warships”. Is there any reason a destroyer couldn’t also be a cruiser (multirole warship for independent missions)? No, though to us it seems like a waste to mix those mission sets, but perhaps it actually isn’t. Still, if those functions weren’t being performed, why would you use those names to describe ships at all?

 

[Human Primacy]

Still, if those functions weren’t being performed, why would you use those names to describe ships at all?

That's the question, isn't it? It's weird that they misuse them, but also weird that they use them at all. I think a lot of it comes down to people who don't know much about the subject writing what sounds good to them. I'll admit, "Star Destroyer" is a pretty excellent name, even if it doesn't equate to either an actual destroyer, or really anything that floats.

Mixing mission sets might seem odd, but there may be a different design philosophy because they limitations are different in space. We've made some impressively large ships, but there is a limit to how large we can make them and have them be practical. We have to account for weight and displacement with a ship, but those things don't exist in space. And if your space ships need to be FTL capable, that technology may require absurd amounts of energy, so that having a power plant for it on every ship is impractical. It might make more sense to make one exceptionally large ship that effectively acts as the entire fleet. That would still have drawbacks, like slower acceleration due to the higher mass, and having only one target, but depending on how warfare plays out in space, that may or may not matter.

 

[Deleted member]

@Human Primacy I think that the critical difference is that I assume "suspension of disbelief" and analyze the situation in terms of their being an in-universe coherent reason for the name, rather than just "the writers chose something that sounded cool".

 

[Darth Robbhi]

Space is like ocean in many big ways:

1. It will kill you in a heartbeat if something goes wrong.
2. Leave port/spacedock and you're out on your own.
3. Large numbers of people in a confined space with little to no privacy.
4. Depending on the communication systems, you may not be able to talk to anybody anything like real time, and may not be able to talk to anybody outside your own locality without moving to another locality.

In short, it poses many of the people-management, craft-management and survival issues we have in ocean-going ships. So, we are quite likely to adapt the solutions we used the last time we encountered these issues. That means we're quite likely to operate on a nautical or maritime framework, because the distance, communication, hazard and so forth are similar. Submarines are probably going to be your closest analogue to how ships in space will function - a self-contained world in a tiny shell which is insanely vulnerable to the forces beyond the hull. But, honestly, until very recently, surface ships were much the same, just better smelling.

Airplanes are fundamentally different, because they are transitory. You don't live in an aircraft, but you do live in a ship. I don't see the model holding up if space craft never touch a planet, moon or space station. I suspect the aviation model will be a lot more prominent in-system, around space-stations, inhabited planets, and so forth. Though that, too, has a maritime model - the small craft.

Beyond that, though, it all depends on how you communicate between planets and ships, and how your ships move across the stars. Something like the British rating system, where a ship is rated based on it's firepower and/or endurance, may well come about. Or, conversely, you may see something like modern escort classes, especially if you have space fighters, missiles, and so forth. I suspect a lot of the issue is that people use terms like "frigate," "destroyer," "cruiser" and "battleship" to indicate size, not function.

 

[Darth Robbhi]

@Human Primacy I think that the critical difference is that I assume "suspension of disbelief" and analyze the situation in terms of their being an in-universe coherent reason for the name, rather than just "the writers chose something that sounded cool".

At least for Star Trek, a lot of the gaming (so FASA and SFB) and technical books do try to put things on an in-universe, coherent basis, subject to the requirements of translating it to an audience for whom it is otherwise completely foreign. It's essentially metaphor, especially for TV and movies, where you have to be brief.

 

[LordSunhawk]

I wrote up the classification system of the ATL Imperials in my Star Wars Mirror crossover fic.

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/the-other-side-of-eternity.929/post-19350

 

[Husky_Khan]

Take Star Trek, for all of Starfleet's attachment to naval tradition (which I think is odd for spacefarers, since they would seem to grow out of aviators, not sailors, but that's besides the point), its ships don't really map to naval roles in any way. Starting with the fact that they aren't solely military in function. Starfleet is the Federation's de facto military force, but their primary function is exploration and diplomacy. Their larger ships are well armed enough that they could commit genocide on any pre-warp societies in an afternoon, but that's more about the power of the weapons they've developed, rather than being heavily armed. Some of them are also minor, mobile space colonies, with crew families and other civilians aboard. They also are designed largely to operate in isolation most of the time, which destroys most comparisons to modern sea ships that operate in specific roles as part of a fleet. They'll organize multiple ships to deal with specific needs, but most of them operate independently, and are quite well equipped to do so.

Like I linked in the original OP of this thread I already arbitrarily classified them in an exercise of absurdity and for bonus points, I did so in a Creative Writing thread written from the POV of view of a fictional character to protect the fact I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Frigates:

[snip historical BS]

The space based evolution of frigates has generally followed this concept of 'single mission specialization.' Epitomized by the popular and versatile Miranda-class, the frigate is often designed or refitted for specialized duties much like its maritime forebears. Transport and supply, defensive patrol, research and exploration and much more. In times of war, frigates are often utilized in support operations including patrolling and defending starbases and planetary system or protecting civilian shipping as well as a screen or reconnaissance for larger fleets. Frigates, while often the smallest class of capital starship, are still capital ships and despite their often single mission specialization, are still often capable of multirole operations even without a refit.

Destroyers:

[snip historical BS]

In modern Starfleet operations, a Destroyer class starship such as the Intrepid-class are capable of long term, independent missions and deployments and capable of handling multiple different operations such as defensive patrol, diplomatic presence and exploratory survey missions simultaneously. During fleet operations, the Destroyer class would provide both a screening element of the main fleet of warships as well as combat support as their array of torpedoes and phaser arrays as well as powerful shielding and superior evasive maneuverability would compliment the slower but more powerful cruiser class starships.

Cruisers:

[snip historical BS]

For the Federation, the Cruiser class is the most prominent and iconic vessel of Starfleet. The Excelsior-class exemplifies the space based evolution of the cruiser as a fleet vessel. Cruisers like the Excelsior-class are often used as flagships of Starfleet Admirals, serve as powerful tactical platforms for show the flag (and show of force) operations and are large enough to serve a vast array of Starfleet operations, with enough logistical capacity to fully serve in the roles of exploration, research, diplomacy and civil affair operations simultaneously. This is most recently personified in the Galaxy-class cruiser including Starfleets flagship, the Enterprise-D. Often its formidable array of weapons and powerful deflector shields cause others to define the Galaxy-class as a battleship but that would be wrong. A Battleship is a vessel dedicated to war. A more accurate term would be defining it as a Heavy Cruiser. While it is highly capable tactically, combat operations are not a Starfleet vessels specialty but simply one role of many.

Battleships:

[snip historical BS]

Starfleet notably does not currently employ battleships though after the tragedy of Wolf 359, there are plans of creating more tactically versatile Starfleet vessels or refitting current vessels with more offensive capabilities. Many Cruiser class vessels of Starfleet dedicate large amounts of its crew, power generation, and space to research, crew comfort, enrichment and exploration which during time of war can be rededicated to an increase of offensive and defensive capabilities. One often simulated theory is the concept of a 'War version' of the Galaxy-class starship which would be a dedicated warship, necessitating the removal of most civilians typically on board a Starfleet vessels, as well as everything from holodecks (except for tactical simulations of course) to astrometric labs. With minimal accommodations for a 'militarized' vessel, already large starships like the Galaxy and Excelsior-class could be updated with even more powerful shields, extra phaser banks and secure storage and deployment of even more potent photon and newer quantum torpedoes while the impressive sensor suits could be dedicated to scanning for enemy vessels for weak points in shields, or even laying out tachyon beams to detect the subtle distortions of cloaked starships.

Corvettes/Escorts:

[snip historical BS]

With the emergence of the Borg threat, the Federation soon floated the idea of a 'battle fleet' doctrine. Primary among this Battle Fleet would be a large number of 'Escort' class vessels, small dedicated warships solely meant to work in conjunction with larger Starfleet vessels in fleet battles similar to that of our shared maritime history. Recent 'official' advances in tactical technology, such as phase cannons, integrated nacelles, ablative armor plating and the evolution in tactical doctrine such as multi-vector attacks and simultaneous multiple targeting capability lend well to the development of a dedicated 'Escort' class. The main drawback however would be the assignment of Starfleet personnel to what is essentially a 'single mission' capable craft, that of warfighting.

 

[Vargas Fan]

The Wing Commander universe seemed to have a fairly well defined class of capital ships. Frigates, destroyers, cruisers, the occasional corvette, and of course carriers split into classes like the Tarawa class escort carriers, basically jeep carriers, light carriers like the TCS Victory, others like the Bengal class Strike carrier and the Vesuvius and Midway supercarriers.

 

[Deleted member]

At least for Star Trek, a lot of the gaming (so FASA and SFB) and technical books do try to put things on an in-universe, coherent basis, subject to the requirements of translating it to an audience for whom it is otherwise completely foreign. It's essentially metaphor, especially for TV and movies, where you have to be brief.

The Wing Commander universe seemed to have a fairly well defined class of capital ships. Frigates, destroyers, cruisers, the occasional corvette, and of course carriers split into classes like the Tarawa class escort carriers, basically jeep carriers, light carriers like the TCS Victory, others like the Bengal class Strike carrier and the Vesuvius and Midway supercarriers.

There’s no dispute that supplements will always be where you find this, with limited, very specific exceptions like Wing Commander... And there solely because everything was directly copied from WW2 practice.

 

[JagerIV]

In one of my sorta hard SF setting I was playing around with, things broke down into two primary classes:

Monitor Class: short range craft, in that setting primarily orbital defense craft, which lacked the capacity for interplanetary travel. In a more advanced SF setting, these might be ships without FTL engines.

Cruisers: ships that do have the proper engines for interplanetary travel.

 

[Deleted member]

In one of my sorta hard SF setting I was playing around with, things broke down into two primary classes:

Monitor Class: short range craft, in that setting primarily orbital defense craft, which lacked the capacity for interplanetary travel. In a more advanced SF setting, these might be ships without FTL engines.

Cruisers: ships that do have the proper engines for interplanetary travel.

That would be sort-of similar to the non-star / star classification for star wars. Though if you took it seriously the Venator would be a planetary dreadnought, not a Star Destroyer, because of its very short endurance. It couldn't be exact because we're trying to fit it backwards to something developed ad-hoc.

 

[Battlegrinder]

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.

Funnily enough, I have a similar issue, where a space navy has an abundance of battlecruisers, but no battleships, which always bugs me because battlecruisers are defined by thier performance relative to battleships.

The overuse of "dreadnought" also bugs me. Dreadnoughts were a type of battleship, not thier own unique class. I really hate it when a franchise has things that are clearly battleships, and uses them as battleships, but only calls them dreadnoughts (it's mildly more tolerable when you have battleships, and then an even bigger, badder ship thar you call a dreadnought. Still not great).

 

[Vargas Fan]

Regarding the Battlecruiser designation, it didn't help that IRL, each navy designed Battlecruisers in a different way with different priorities. US Battlecruisers were different from RN ones, which were all different from German ones etc.

 

[Flintsteel]

Regarding the Battlecruiser designation, it didn't help that IRL, each navy designed Battlecruisers in a different way with different priorities. US Battlecruisers were different from RN ones, which were all different from German ones etc.

Only in the specifics of the design, and that was driven both by the differences in naval doctrines and available technology. The intended role (anti-raider and heavy fleet scout) was the same for all nations.

 

[Deleted member]

Only in the specifics of the design, and that was driven both by the differences in naval doctrines and available technology. The intended role (anti-raider and heavy fleet scout) was the same for all nations.

Not quite. The USN pioneered a concept called “Distantial Operations” for its own abortive battlecruisers.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Funnily enough, I have a similar issue, where a space navy has an abundance of battlecruisers, but no battleships, which always bugs me because battlecruisers are defined by thier performance relative to battleships.

The overuse of "dreadnought" also bugs me. Dreadnoughts were a type of battleship, not thier own unique class. I really hate it when a franchise has things that are clearly battleships, and uses them as battleships, but only calls them dreadnoughts (it's mildly more tolerable when you have battleships, and then an even bigger, badder ship thar you call a dreadnought. Still not great).

Yeah there does seem to be a bit of a brainbug where dreadnoughts in both scifi settings and by the fandom are just considered a class above 'battleships' in just being some super-battleship type of class. Which is fine with me of course. If your in space might as well go big.

 

[Deleted member]

Yeah there does seem to be a bit of a brainbug where dreadnoughts in both scifi settings and by the fandom are just considered a class above 'battleships' in just being some super-battleship type of class. Which is fine with me of course. If your in space might as well go big.

I think it’s the unbounded scaling in scifi that drives it to some extent. Since there’s substantially more volumetric variations in starships there’s pressure to create more classifications by reusing every type of starship that has ever existed.