test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Taxonomy of Space Ships
bluegeek
Member Posts: 0 Arc User
Looks like an interesting article on the classification of spaceships.
http://bit.ly/1GbMGil
Feel free to discuss!
http://bit.ly/1GbMGil
Feel free to discuss!
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Post edited by bluegeek on
0
Comments
In my headcanon, despite being the size of a Constitution-class cruiser, the nacelles-in design (as opposed to a pylon design) allows the Galor to safely execute maneuvers that would put unacceptable hull stress on many species' ships of comparable size.
And certainly the way the Galor acts fits the destroyer description in other ways--particularly the fact that you almost always see them run in packs.
(A touch on Cryptic's part that I particularly appreciated: seeing the Galor given one of the highest turn rates for a "cruiser" in game. Somebody paid attention on that one.)
On the other hand, I suspect the Keldon is a true cruiser. At least, that's how I've always figured it in headcanon.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Also appreciate the history behind the terms being used well. Destroyers are weird. The naval arms race meant battleships were big and had huge guns, but didn't have light guns in the pre-aircraft era, but the invention of the torpedo meant these very, very expensive ships were easy prey to small coastal boats. So destroyers were designed by the Navy to fight off the small boats.
Then they gave them torpedoes, so they sort of became the lightly armored do-anything escort role they more or less remained in.
I may be biased a little by the old FASA game though, which had a similar classification scheme to the article's.
Though the article does make the excellent point that one navy's cruiser may be another's corvette, especially in sf with the varying technology, which has probably a lot to do with Galor mission deployments. (They seem to be, technology wise compared to Starfleet, lunch meat one-on-one for any reasonably modern Federation starship).
Member Access Denied Armada!
My forum single-issue of rage: Make the Proton Experimental Weapon go for subsystem targetting!
I know the ships don't all fall neatly into each of these categories, and I'm not sure the Dev team has a strong definition for "this is a frigate, this is a destroyer, etc."
I would almost certainly put BoP's into the corvette class after reading this, whereas most of the escorts and science vessels would end up as either frigates or destroyers.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
besides all that, there is very heavy usage to star wars and especially halo to "prove" the point about. that already has pointed towards a bias before i got half way through it. all it shows is a lack of interest or lack of attention to detail of using a bigger broader base to work from.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Considering it's talking about classifying warships in SPACE... Star Wars and Halo are viable sources because of their heavy use of warships in space.
Granted the TCS Victory or TCS Lexington from Wing Commander would have been excelent choices to show what a carrier in space is... makes sense to use things just about everyone is familiar with, and that means using resources from Star Trek, Star Wars, and Halo.
Although technically the TCS Victory wasn't a full carrier like the TCS Lexington. The Victory was classified as an ESCORT Carrier, pushed into front line service by the mounting losses the Confederation was suffering at the hands of the Kilrathi.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
Why the negativity?
The guy isn't setting himself up as an expert or telling people what to believe.
He's stating historical facts about military ship classes and extending those to S/F ships we've all seen before. It's clearly an opinion piece, but it's an informed one.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I also like that he focuses on Star Trek and Halo a lot
Anyone want to give me a Temporal Heavy Dreadnought pack? I'll be your friend
Still, even though we only saw the Galor completely humiliated like in "The Wounded" that one time, they did always run in packs, and alone could never be a match for a capital ship like the Enterprise. Now, a whole pack of late-model Galors swarming the less maneuverable Enterprise...that could be a lot more troublesome.
And bluegeek, at least personally, I think that some thought like this DID influence dev decisions, at least where the Galor is concerned.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
If I were to translate STO ship classifications, I'd probably classify Birds-of-Prey as Destroyers. Particularly the author's WWII definition as "anti-everything", since they can be quickly modified to work as an anti-anything ship given their universal bridge officer seating.
I'd classify the Pilot Ships as Corvettes, since they're small, maneuverable, nimble, and easily fit the roles described.
The term "Escort" and "Destroyer" are pretty interchangable in STO, and I've never quite understood the distinction outside of hearsay.
The Escorts with an Engineering slant I'd probably have reclassified as Heavy Frigates. This would include the Steamrunner, and Akira-line of ships, along with the Patrol Escort family.
One of the things the author didn't mention is how politics often decides how a ship is classified, usually as a result of budget allocation or maritime treaties that decided how big a particular type of ship could be.
For instance, the Five-Power Treaty and London Naval Treaty had limitations drawn up that the signatories obeyed (at least until WWII).
When it comes to Assault Cruisers and Star Cruisers, Assault Cruisers I usually define as capital ships with the ability to project power outside of their territory, which would be a lot like a battleship -- but I'd consider Assault Cruisers are more self-sufficient and generalized (in that they aren't as specialized as battleships). Star Cruisers on the other hand I'd classify as long-range exploration vessels, more similar to the Galaxy-class. While it could be fitted as a battleship (like the Galaxy was in the Dominion War), originally their mission profile would be exploration.
Science Vessels I'd probably reclassify as Cruisers. Some ships like the Nova I'd classify as a Light Cruiser. The Nebula a Heavy Cruiser.
There are some special cases, like the Odyssey. It's been described as a Star Cruiser and a Dreadnought. I'd classify the Operations variant as a Star Cruiser, and the Science variant as a Star Cruiser, but I'd be more likely to classify the Tactical variant as a Dreadnoughts.
Just my opinion though. The KDF are not as scientifically focused, and have no reason to pretend to be 'benign', so the difference between a Battlecruiser and Battleship I usually leave up to their roles in a typical fight.
Vor'chas are more than likely to work in groups rather than solo, so it's easy to classify them as Battlecruisers. Negh'Vars on the other hand I'd regard as Battleships... and the Bortasqu' variants I'd all refer to as Dreadnoughts.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
Um... why would single seat fighters be ridiculous? There are many real examples of single seat fighers so the idea of single seat fighters is not foreign. The F-22 is a single seat.
Now... having the miniaturization needed for craft like TIE Fighters, X-Wings, and Vipers... that depends on the technological level of the builders.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
Science ships probably don't fit into the base hull classification codes of this since their weapons are weird, but most of them seem to be somewhere around light cruiser in size, and fill a destroyer role as fleet support, which is how the KDF classifies them.
Gulberat - not denigrating the Galor as much as using it as an example of what different navies capabilities can mean - it seems to vary to the needs but often a light cruiser pack or destroyer in Cardassian terms, but wasn't doing as well compared to Starfleet's workhorse cruisers of the time, as an example. The Wounded was sort of specifically pointing out a tech disparity at that time between the Union and the UFP.
Member Access Denied Armada!
My forum single-issue of rage: Make the Proton Experimental Weapon go for subsystem targetting!
The reason that fighters are pretty much disposable cannon fodder in Star Trek is because of the use of deflector shields and energy weapons. In short, both your defensive and offensive strength depend primarily upon the output of your warp core (note that the Defiant had a very large warp core for its size). As long as the target's shields remain up, torpedoes/missiles from a fighter would have reduced effect, and fighters lack the punch to take down the shields of a larger ship except when acting en masse. Making fighters viable would require that they have a weapon that can attack the target's hull almost as well with the shields up as with them down (e.g. some kind of enhanced-penetration transphasic torpedoes).
What conjecture? Research the various Navies of the world and you will see that this article is quite accurate.
Now if you are calling his application of Naval classifications to ships from various scifi shows conjecture then okay. I would submit that most scifi writers have a poor understanding of Naval classifications and they make many mistakes. Also consider that scifi writers are writing fiction not documentaries so it is not a big deal if they completely TRIBBLE up ship classification.
Then there are different definitions used by different navies. What we call a frigate Russia calls a cruiser and what we call a frigate has changed over time. Of course this author did mention that.
More Star Trek references would have been welcome.
I like to agree with you.
Although Cryptics definition of Escorts (or rather Destroyers) is more like a Spacefighter-with-the-armaments-of-a-Battleship. Which is really annoying imo.
Because, what's the point of commanding a slow and sluggish ship if a ship that can turn on a dime has the same offensive/defensive capabilities? (AND is much more versatile to use, instead of parking and FAW until the cows come home)
You're basicly fly a limited and extreme boring version of a escort, very bad game design Mr. Gecko.
100 % agree.
Starfleets classification of ships seems to change with politics and peace/war. A ship that's clasified as (Heavy) Explorer or (Star) Cruiser in times of peace can become a Battleship or Battlecruiser in war times. (even without any technical modifications)
Sometimes even depending on who is speaking, refering to Worf/Klingons who sometimes refering Starfleet ships in their military classification.
Personally i'd put the nova into the patrol craft or frigate corner and the Intrepid to the Light Cruisers. Nebula is a heavy cruiser, without doubt.
(Neb. is much more powerful than a Intrepid imo)
That sums it up perfectly imo.
A interesting (canon) case are the Romulans which soley seem to operate with one single type of ship (TNG/DS9/Voy) for decades.
Even the Cardassians have at least three ship classes that come off the top of my head.
(Keldon, Galor and Hideki class)
Single Seat Fighters in space I think are the problem of the poster you replied to.
There is the conception that a small fighter (single, double seated, whatever) in space is to a Cruiser in space like a F22 is to a naval cruiser in water.
But... The F22 doesn't swim through water. It flies in the air. It is in a different medium than the aircraft carrier or the cruiser.
But the space fighter is in the same medium as the cruiser.
The more apt view is: A small fighter in space is to a Space Cruiser like a ... motorboat is to a naval cruiser.
The article contained a few details that highlight this problem on the sea - corvettes were traditionally smaller - but they were not faster than the much larger cruisers! That's decidedly different how Sci-Fi often wants to treat it, but it is highly questionable. If you use the same medium, chances are good that you can get faster the bigger you can make your engines.
I think Star Trek never really suggests that smaller ships are faster. More manoeuvrable perhaps. FTL speed-wise, the shuttles might be fast, but they weren't faster than the ships that launched them.
You basically need some highly effective weapons like torpedoes to make small ships relevant in combat. But Star Trek also never really had that. Shuttles were decidedly lacking in firepower compared to bigger ships.
That energy must come from somewhere. A small ship like a fighter or shuttle simply cannot generate enough power to even scratch the surface of a much bigger ship. Additionally in Star Trek, a Starships targeting systems are much more advanced than todays.
Which means unlike in STO, speed doesn't have that much of a impact on getting hit or not. A huge ship like a Nebula for example could simply steamroll though dozends of spacefighters/shuttles without any big problem.
(leaving aside plot killing the big ships to demonstrate how dangerous the bad guys are.)
Star Trek, as noted in thread, isn't usually built like that, with bigger almost always means more effective, and ships' defenses easily capable of absorbing multiple salvos of relativistic projectiles and directed energy weapons. Ship speeds also don't seem to favor small ships at impulse velocities, and shuttles and fighters have a real disadvantage at FTL speeds.
Member Access Denied Armada!
My forum single-issue of rage: Make the Proton Experimental Weapon go for subsystem targetting!
Star Wars handwaves that with something called an "etheric rudder" in the EU (in the movies, they just work, and since it's not important to the plot, we don't worry about it); Trek makes use of some of the more esoteric aspects of Trek physics; oBSG originated as a SW ripoff, so there you go; nBSG tried to make some sense of the use of thrusters, but eventually wound up just handwaving; B5 did the most work toward making them realistic with the StarFuries (understandable, since JMS retained Harlan Ellison as a consultant), but even there there's an issue with fuel mass that we ignore for the sake of the story.
Corvette - Oberth, Pilot Ships, Nova and its variants, Aquarius
- Escort - Defiant and variants, Phantom
Frigates - Sabre and variants, Miranda and variants
Destroyers - Dervish and variants, Scryer, Solonae and variants, Wells
- Destroyer Leader - Kumari,
Light Cruiser - Intrepid and variants, Steamrunner, D'kyr,
- Cutter (due to the size, but underwhelming armament) Excalibur and variants
Heavy Cruiser - Prometheus and variants, Nebula and variants, Akira and variants, Constellation, Excelsior, Ambassador, Luna and variants, Destiny and variants, Chimera, Avenger
Battlecruiser - (Powerful Armament, Heavy Cruiser Armor, Fast ship) Galaxy and variants, Vesta and variants, Guardian, Constitution (TOS)
Battleship - Sovereign and variants, Sentinel and variants, Typhoon, Odyssey, Eclipse, Geneva and variants
Carriers - Armitage, Atrox, Jupiter
Hospital, Research - Olympic and variants
My character Tsin'xing
If fighters have small jammers on board and powerful manuevering jets, they can cause havoc in close-quarters combat.
And yes, B5 was pretty good with fighters. I also feel that Wing Commander was pretty good as it wasn't automatically banking when turning. There were actually 3 ratings for turning that fighters were scaled on in DPS (Degrees Per Second). Yaw, Pitch, and Roll.
Also... just like modern equivelents, starfighters could be outfitted with powerful ship killing warheads, making them dangerous in their own right. Star Wars had their bombers (Y-Wings and TIE Bombers), and Wing Commander had its bombers (Broadsword and Longbow for Confed). However, Wing Commander didn't handwave smaller size fighters like X-Wings. They had some size to them. The Arrow probably had more mass than the A-Wing. Yet the Arrow had a YPR rating of 80/90/90 DPS, and was a pretty decent interceptor.
Ultimately, although they are in the same environment, larger ships wouldn't have the speed and maneuverability of fighters, and being able to capitalize on that, even with the lower power, they could potentially be a dangerous asset. Star Trek never saw much use for fighters so citing Star Trek isn't a good argument IMO. The only time we really saw fighters was in DS9, Starfleet Command 1&2, and Star Trek Online. MAYBE in Klingon Academy as well to an extent.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
Ship Killer torpedoes are good. Space Machine Guns equivalents... less so.
Planes are dangerous in the real world because they're really fast and can launch ship-sinking missiles or at least drop such bombs.
Torpedo Boats were dangerous because they could fire ship-sinking torpedoes.
But if they had "traditional" cannons, they would simply not have been able to carry large enough ones to matter, nor the armour to last long enough to bring them to bear against anyone that matters except other ships of their size.
I like how they calssified the galor as a destroyer it does fit the bill no?
Idk but the galor always reminded me of the fletcher class destroyer of WW2 ERA as in it was almost as powerfull as light cruisers ,but it was small enough to be considered a destroyer but NOT and escort variety like the clemson class.