There are no playable ships named "battlecruiser' either, nor do the Federation refer to their cruisers by that designation. Nevertheless, the Klingons refer to the Connie refit as 'A Federation Battlecruiser' in ST III: The Search for Spock.

What something is called and what it really is are not always the same thing.

becaue klingons call it a battlecruiser, doesn't really make it one either. A definition given by a hostile faction isn't a viable definition either.
And how would a klingon commander sound if he got destroyed by a science cruiser? I guess he will allways call his opponent who bested him something more frightening or powerfull. Being bested by a cruiser doesn't sound good to a klingon commander. Engaging a Battlecruiser, or Battleship seems more honorable.
i would go with the definition of the shipbuilder anyway.

The Enterprise was just coming into the system at the time. It hadn't destroyed them (and in fact never did, they did a reverse boarding action and captured the Klingon BoP without a shot from the Enterprise (which was actually in bad shape, with a crew consisting solely of the bridge staff).

You are really trying to argue that a proud honorable warrior race designate enemy vessels solely on some political basis? Either you accept objective evidence or you are just making arbitrary statements.

An enemy designation of a ship is more objective, not less, because there is considerably less incentive to mislabel enemy ships.

Edit: In response to another poster, you chided them for using a definition that would in some cases resullt in rowboats being considered battleships. Now you are saying that if the builder calls it a battleship, that's what it is regardless of armor. armament or displacement?

its still better to have a drone. its cheaper to make and cheaper on upkeep. and even still i doubt a jet can outperform a drone. even if u can jam the drone it will have a back up computer to stay on target and stay in the fight. you do know cars now have gps that keeps track of wheel movement and speed? do you know why? if it cant get reception the gps can still give directions even if you mess up and make a wrong turn it will get you back on tract.


from what i understood in ww2 a huge battle ship could not keep up with destroyers or even accurately hit them due to being too fast.

I think there is more incentive to mislabel enemy ships actually.
highly doubt that assumption. Since an enemy faction will allways take information and twist it to fit their purpose for any kind of reason.
It may very well be, that klingions refer to any ship of a specific size as battlecruiser of any faction.
Again it is a statement out of a movie, without further explanation. It may very well be that the writer put battle infront of it to make it sound more "like a klingon would say it". i speculate here, but so do you.

and concerning the rowboat statement, my comment had a sarcastic intention. Obviously some failed to see that point.
And to be honest, all relevant statements have been made before, no need to rewind it over and over. If you prefer to think of cruisers in star trek as battleships do so. If you want to call cruisers in naval warfare battleships, feel free to do so, but it will confuse others ,more informed, about the subject.
Enough evidence was presented to suggest otherwise, and definitions of battleships were presented.
If i see something in a post stated wrong i respond to it and lay it straight. If anybody prefers to disagree, he/she should atleast present some counter evidence.

If you jam a drone and it can't find its way back to a friendly landing strip, you have just lost a very expensive piece of hardware. A live pilot can navigate the old fashioned way, and land without instruments too if need be.

"Staying on target" does not ensure proper target recognition nor does it allow aborting if the target turns out to be civilian or friendly. A live pilot might not make the right decision there either (target recognition at high velocities is problematic), but they still have a better chance.

There is a lot more to being a practical road car than monitoring wheel movement and speed, and a reason cruise control is not yet a viable autopilot.

And if we ever get to the stage where AI's can handle combat as well as humans, heaven help us. You cannot build the laws of robotics into a weapon platform without breaking them.

By the way, there are potentially worse things than jamming, like hacking.

You have seen/read to many sci-fi movies/stories.

There is currently no drone that is cable of independent action.

The computer performs the orders given to it. Those orders are either preprogrammed (not feasible for areal combat) or transmitted from the controller via some form of wireless transmission. To my knowledge, no military drone is outfitted for air-to-air combat. So you would try to hit a jet with an air to ground weapon.
Good luck trying.

And you are correct Destroyer were faster than battleships. The usual reaction of a lone destroyer encountering a battleship plus escort had was to turn away as fast as possible and run.

And hitting a moving target with a large calibre gun from a moving weapon-platform is tricky, even today.

But a battleship of the Iowa class, for instance had a maximal firing range of 38 km. Hitting anything at that range with WW2-era fire-control would need a lot of luck. During the Battle of Surigao Strait the USS West Virginia (not an Iowa class, but an older design) had the target on radar at 38 km, a firing solution at 30 km but did not fire until IJN Yamashiro (another Battleship) was at 20 km range. First salvo hit the target.

So lets say effective engagement range for a Battleship was 20 km against a moving target. The Iowa could fire 2 shell per gun every minute. It had 3 guns per turret and 3 turrets for a total of 9 guns. Meaning every minute it can send 18 shells toward the target.

The fastest WW 2 destroyer was the IJN Shimikaze with a speed of 41 knots, or 75 km/h. It was armed with 5 inch guns, which usually had a range of 15 km. If the IJN Shimikaze would try to close the distance to the Iowa in a straight line and would be seen at a range of 38 km it would have been tracked for 13 or 14 minutes before it got to the effective firing range of the battle ship, it would need an additional 4 minutes, before it reached the maximum range of its own guns. In this time 72 16 inch shells would have been launched in its direction.

The Iowa carried also 20 5 inch guns inch guns in twin mounts, meaning 10 turrets, 5 on each side, which had the same range as the 5 inch guns on the destroyer. Each gun has a firing speed of 15 rounds per minute. So the moment the destroyer gets to open fire the secondary batteries on the BB open up. Meaning an additional 150 shells per minute get launched in the general direction of the closing destroyer.

The BB can take the hits of the 5 inch shells without to much trouble, the Destroyer can not.

So how long do you think it takes for the BB to turn the destroyer into a burning wreck?

That post exemplifies a peeve of mine with STO.

A modern battleship's effective range is twice the maximum targeting range of a STO starship, even against a static target.

The scaling is serious messed up.

thank you for the post, that cleared things up for me. as far as watching too many sci/fi movies thats not the case. i know military tech is about 10 years ahead of civilians tech. or 8 years, something to that effect. if we can get a gps that will still give directions if it cant get reception during the drive, then i should assume the military would have far better then that or atleast geared for thier needs. and its a reasonable assumption i think. during a drive, lose reception the gps knows wheel movements and even if you make a wrong turn it will still get you back on track. that means the gps is keeping track of your speed and wheel movements as well as "looking at a map". the drone has a very high chance of messing up with shooting friendly's maybe. we do have computer programs that recognize many things very acc. even if you try to hide face features and dye your hair it will still know you. and if a computer can track objects at high speed then im sure at some point in the future the usaf will be all drones. like i said a human can only take a certain amount of g-force. and a jet is only limited in this area of the pilot. when a drone is flown it takes 2 people. 1 looking at the screen the other looking at weps and compter stuff. from what i read they did not list what the other person was really doing.

I repeat. When we have an AI as versitile as a human pilot, we will have a lot of other issues to deal with (such as the social ramifications of having AI's as good as human pilots).