Super Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,235
# 1 Taxonomy of Space Ships
05-22-2015, 09:02 AM
Looks like an interesting article on the classification of spaceships.

http://bit.ly/1GbMGil

Feel free to discuss!
Volunteer Community Moderator for the Star Trek Online forums -- My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. If you wish to speak to someone on the community team, file a "forums and website" support ticket here, as we are not able to respond to PMs regarding moderation inquiries.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek

Last edited by bluegeek; 05-22-2015 at 09:04 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,355
# 2
05-22-2015, 09:46 AM
Fantastic article, thank you for sharing
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,152
# 3
05-22-2015, 10:06 AM
Very cool! As a Cardassian fan I especially appreciated the attention given to the Galor and how it defies classification. I've actually had that be a plot point in stories before, that it was erroneously treated as a cruiser and given inadequate room to maneuver on Dominion battle lines--hence making them vulnerable cannon fodder instead of the powerful ships they can be if allowed to maneuver. (Not caring for Cardassian lives, the Dominion IMO just didn't bother to do it right. The guls knew this and sorely resented it.)

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. :-)
Delta Rising: Reanimate? (Y/N) Review Series COMPLETE!
Proudly F2P. Sig by gulberat. Avatar by balsavor.deviantart.com

Last edited by gulberat; 05-22-2015 at 10:09 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,565
# 4
05-22-2015, 11:07 AM
Quote:
In order to be considered a true carrier the vesselís main role needs to be the transport and deployment of smaller craft (or troops; as far as Iím concerned not all carriers are extremely large and I would classify troopships and assault ships as small carriers).
My roommate's last Naval assignment (before he transferred to the Army, which in hindsight may have been a mistake) was aboard the troop transport USS Belleau Wood, which also carried a small complement of helicopters for when they couldn't get close enough to shore to deploy the landing craft. Even it fits this description for "small carrier", which I suppose is just as well, as the ol' Ghetto Hood didn't fit neatly into any of the other categories discussed here.
-------------------------------------------
"Science teaches us to expect -- demand -- more than just eerie mysteries. What use is a puzzle that can't be solved? Patience is fine, but I'm not going to stop asking the universe to make sense!" - David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Republic Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 404
# 5
05-22-2015, 12:31 PM
Surprising definition of capital ships at the start as ones who can operate without a fleet for the start , but a good sort of translation of the usual sort of USN-style terminology for what sort of ships fill that role in sci-fi terms. Star Trek's always relied a lot on the post WWII classifications, which evolved a lot.

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).
"Fate: Protects fools, little children, and ships named Enterprise." - William Riker
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,235
# 6
05-22-2015, 12:59 PM
I wonder how some of this material might influence STO ship design.

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.
Volunteer Community Moderator for the Star Trek Online forums -- My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. If you wish to speak to someone on the community team, file a "forums and website" support ticket here, as we are not able to respond to PMs regarding moderation inquiries.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Career Officer
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,660
# 7
05-22-2015, 01:15 PM
so if i created my own website put my own opinion of what classifies a ship would that put my opinion as "the truth"? no, no it wouldnt. its the same here, there is nothing concrete, its a generic description of a few class types with a lot of conjecture.

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.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 and LTS in Apr 2013.
Quote:
The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts.
- Charles Darwin.
Does he have a point on STO forums? makes you wonder, huh?
Captain
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 15,615
# 8
05-22-2015, 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirrorchaos View Post
besides all that, there is very heavy usage to star wars and especially halo to "prove" the point about
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.
http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2014/144/0/2/sto_sig_character_by_rattler20200-d7jlk1h.png
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yang Xiao Long
At least you two have something that drives you. I've just always, gone with the flow, you know.
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,235
# 9
05-22-2015, 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirrorchaos View Post
so if i created my own website put my own opinion of what classifies a ship would that put my opinion as "the truth"? no, no it wouldnt. its the same here, there is nothing concrete, its a generic description of a few class types with a lot of conjecture.

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.
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.
Volunteer Community Moderator for the Star Trek Online forums -- My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. If you wish to speak to someone on the community team, file a "forums and website" support ticket here, as we are not able to respond to PMs regarding moderation inquiries.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek

Last edited by bluegeek; 05-22-2015 at 01:42 PM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 273
# 10
05-22-2015, 02:40 PM
omg thats soo much information. I'll read it, but a little at a time
I also like that he focuses on Star Trek and Halo a lot
__________________________________________________ ___
Anyone want to give me a Wells class Temporal Science Vessel? Ill be your friend
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:08 PM.