# Are there too many Starship classes?



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

We all know about Franz Joseph and his technical manual where he illustrated different classes of starships by simply recombining the nacelles, saucer and secondary hulls.

This idea was canonized by dialogue in TMP and visually with the Reliant in TWOK.

Since then, fandom has created countless classes of ships using this idea.

For me, the idea is getting quite ridiculous, as a modern military simply doesn't have a class of vessel for every single little function.
Vessels are more and more 'multi function'. As is the Enterprise, a science vessel and a capable warship.

I'm not trying to discount everyones favorite design - or tweek on a design.

But if you could only pick out 6 classes of starships to flesh out your starfleet (keeping function in mind) what would they be?

Of course lets keep an era in mind, so in this case, TMP era.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Interesting observation and something I tend to agree with. 

I seem to recall that the POINT of the Enterprise (and her sister ships) was that they were the all-in-one. A general purpose do it all. A STARSHIP.

Remember back in the original series? Kirk was a Captain of a STARSHIP, that made him something really special, something above the ordinary. And originally, there weren't too many of those things. 

Now, my 'head canon', there's an explanation. When we watch Original Trek, as the series evolves and generates back story/history/continuity, I have believed we're also watching the actual evolution of the United Federation of Planets. I posit it actually didn't exist as such until Journey to Babel. So Starfleet evolved from UESP, Constitution-class Cruisers were all designed and built under Earth auspices, blah blah blah.

Kinda-sorta like how the original idea for the United Nations was that everyone would have a say, it would be democratic but really, deep down at the core, it's American led and would promote American ideals of freedom and peace. THAT didn't last too long. 

So now we live in a 'Thousand Ship Starfleet' and I guess it does make some sense to have specialized ships. I think the problem lies in the idea that so MANY of these designs, particularly the fan driven ones, are variations of warships. There we get into the problem of...what, Galactic 'realpolitik'? Borg? Heck yeah you gotta throw everything you can at that. The Cardassians? Not so sure there. Klingon and Romulan confrontations are generally small incidents. 

We then get into 'Galactic Economy'. It seems the budget should be practically infinite as the Federation 'doesn't use money' (per se) and manufacturing is more or less limited only in terms of energy at any specific moment (seriously. Replicators with quantum level Heisenberg compensators and storage like a transporter should be able to make ANY material perfectly, even the fabled 'gold pressed latinum'. Consider: When a Ferengi beams to a place, his Latinum IS BEAMED WITH HIM...hence, it can be duplicated. ha.  ), so 'cost' doesn't really exist in the Federation. Resources are effectively infinite.

huh. mind, we KNOW there are Federation 'boneyards' of surplus ships. 

Hm. there's ideas tickling around the back of my mind suddenly.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Keep in mind the reason for the Reliant looking so different from the Enterprise was so that the folks watching could tell the difference between the 2 when they met in battle.


----------



## bccanfield (Nov 17, 2002)

It is logical that starship design could have started out like Ford's Model T where, as Henry Ford stated: “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black”.

As time moved on, and they built their "replicator economy", it also makes sense that ship designs became as ubiquitous as 20th automobile models; with the model equivalents of Fords, Chevys, Dodge etc etc.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

ClubTepes said:


> We all know about Franz Joseph and his technical manual where he illustrated different classes of starships by simply recombining the nacelles, saucer and secondary hulls.
> 
> This idea was canonized by dialogue in TMP and visually with the Reliant in TWOK.
> 
> ...


I absolutely agree. Way too many variations of variations for the sake of variations. As such, all of them lose their impact. To me, the most singularly iconic ship design is still TOS Enterprise. With TOS KBC a distant second. The TMP Enterprise is a great effort, but as far as impact it falls short of TOS version because... well, it's basically a juiced up version.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

irishtrek said:


> Keep in mind the reason for the Reliant looking so different from the Enterprise was so that the folks watching could tell the difference between the 2 when they met in battle.


Yes, as well as the famous 'dislike' for the Enterprise, because it was 'hard' to find good angles and was a pig to shoot.

I never understood that nonsense. A craftsman works WITH the material, not wasting time bitching about what it isn't. An artist finds limitations useful, working within limitations shows skill and talent. 

"boy, sculpting this statue out of marble sure is a pain in the butt. Why can't it be as easy as wood? I hate marble. Can't nail anything to it"


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

The Reliant and TMP Enterprise to me are good examples of class differentiation.

I agree with you, ClubTepes, that it's gotten a bit out of hand with the number of canon and especially fanfiction classes that are out there.

I just think that comparison of The Motion Picture Enterprise and the Reliant doesn't illustrate the issue too well.

To me, considering the limitless resources and economic issues brought up above one would have to ask, what are the limiting factors that Starfleet and the Federation have to deal with when designing starships?

To me, the one remaining factor impossible to fully overcome is people.

There are only so many qualified people. Whether we are talking Starfleet Academy or some other training facility based on another member world,

there are only going to be so many Engineers, scientists, trained command staff, etc. Though they do seem to have an unending supply of Red Shirts! 

That being the case, the size and configuration of each ship would probably most aptly be determined by the type of mission and the number of people needed.

To me it is clear that the Reliant was so much smaller because even with no secondary hull the saucer section can hold a lot of people and equipment.

A Constitution class ship, TOS or Refit, needs all that extra space and equipment because their mission is radically different.

They have a scientific mission to explore the edges of the Federation and go beyond explored territory. Also with an eye to learning what's there and where it is safe to expand, as well as making diplomatic First Contact with warp-capable species (and apparently Federation ships can throw the warp requirement out the window if the society in question possesses enough dilithium crystals or anything else of value the Federation needs).

So a Constitution Class ship needs lots of scientists, lots of storage and production capacity in the event they need to produce products for trading or to assist those in need, and since it's unknown territory - a whole lot of weapons and heavy shielding in case they need to engage in combat.

For the same reason - need for a good deal of storage space and production facilities prior to distributing needed supplies - as well as situations where a very large number of people might need to be treated at once - a medical services class ship like the one seen in the final episodes of TNG would probably be needed too.

Ships that patrol the known edge of the Federation would need to have a good deal of armament, weapons and fast engines - but like the Reliant would not probably need a secondary hull.

So I can see maybe four absolutely necessary ship types:

Constitution Class
Destroyer Class
Science Class (to study in depth areas within the established Federation territory)
Medical Services Class
and maybe Troop Carriers.


The one class I personally never bought into was the Galaxy Class.

It never made sense to me to have a ship where entire families,

including spouses and children, on a ship whose' mission is to explore

new and dangerous territory and make first contact.

It sounded very progressive and open minded, but it makes no sense to
me to have non-mission related people on board - especially children - 
who not only aren't part of the mission but also could conceivably endanger
the mission.

Wesley Crusher, to me, was the poster boy for the dangers inherent in 
including someone who is neither in Starfleet nor a civilian researcher/employee.

So the Galaxy Class starship never made sense to me. At least as it was used
in TNG.

With the possible exception of the one alternate timeline episode in which it served to also carry troops.

Freighters, Tug vessals, if one were to consider them as serving in Starfleet, might be other possible classes,

But I can't see the need for over say 10 classes that are actually Starfleet classes.

Your mileage may vary!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Steve H said:


> Yes, as well as the famous 'dislike' for the Enterprise, because it was 'hard' to find good angles and was a pig to shoot.
> 
> I never understood that nonsense. A craftsman works WITH the material, not wasting time bitching about what it isn't. An artist finds limitations useful, working within limitations shows skill and talent.
> 
> "boy, sculpting this statue out of marble sure is a pain in the butt. Why can't it be as easy as wood? I hate marble. Can't nail anything to it"




Clarification please!


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Clarification please!


The complaint of the guys at ILM who were 'shooting' the Enterprise model.

They complained that it was hard to find angles that made the Enterprise 'look good'.

And I sort of agree from a filming composition standpoint.
There are shots of the E in ST:VI that aren't too flattering to the design.


----------



## Scott1768 (Jul 19, 2011)

Oh, I dunno. The destroyer is a type of ship, for instance. But there are currently 3 different classes in service: the Kidd class, the Arleigh Burke class, and the new DD-21 class.

The same with aircraft carriers. Until Enterprise was decommissioned, there were 3 classes in service as well: Enterprise class, Nimitz class, and the new Ford class. And then there are the Assault carriers - Tarawa and others.

If we have that much diversity just in the current US Navy, imagine what the space fleet of a galaxy-spanning federation of planets would have.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The one class I personally never bought into was the Galaxy Class.
> 
> It never made sense to me to have a ship where entire families,
> 
> ...


Hear hear!!

They could have just slapped some engines on the space station in Star Trek III: TSFS and called it "Space Station Class".


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

bccanfield said:


> It is logical that starship design could have started out like Ford's Model T where, as Henry Ford stated: “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black”.
> 
> As time moved on, and they built their "replicator economy", it also makes sense that ship designs became as ubiquitous as 20th automobile models; with the model equivalents of Fords, Chevys, Dodge etc etc.


Not to go against my original intention, but you bring up a very good point, on the 'replicator' slant. Tho I disagree slightly on the car analogy.

The variation on cars is based on the different aesthetic desires of the individual customer.
(which gets us into a different discussion - in the real world, with 3D printers now printing automobiles. People may someday design their own cars and have them printed out. You think there are a lot of different cars now - wait till THAT happens).

BUT - the actual TYPES of cars remains fairly small. Sedan, SUV, Truck, etc. 

On the replicator technology........ I hate the idea of welders as depicted in the JJ verse.

Today, 3D printers are starting to print different materials at the same time. They can print plastics, metal, organics, food - yes food.
The idea of cobbling together different materials one at a time is starting to become antiquated even today.

I think starships would be 'grown' by replicator and transporter technology.
Look at the dry-dock in TMP.
What are all those blue panels (Andy Probert originally designed them to be lights) but they became something else. 
I imagine the dry-dock as a massive replicator.
Hyper accurate, containing matter transmission and tractor beams to keep the subject in perfect position, as pieces are beamed into place. 
(maybe pieces are still made on earth if you need that idea, but they could be beamed up into position). The 'welding' taking place as pieces are beamed in.

Then, as an example, when the Enterprise came in to be refitted, pieces could could have been dematerialized and their matter reconstituted into the new design and materialized back into position.
It could be said that the 'spirit' of the ship is still there, because even though 'looking different', its still made of the same materials that Kirk traveled around in for years.
That idea could also free up the notion that there must still be some original structural pieces in there somewhere that would conflict with what is now the new ship.

So, either a new construction or a refit, just as it takes large amounts of time today to print something in 3D, I imagine that it would still take an appropriate amount of time to print/replicate/refit something as big and as complex as a Starship.


NOW, some variation of classes that seem repetitive, could be explained away as being suited not so much as to task, but to the individual race that populates it.
Remember in TOS when the USS Intrepid went down, it was said that the ship was crewed by Vulcan's.
Living conditions and race/cultural differences might necessitate some variations on ship configuration for races that can't function on the same ship.

But even given that, I still think that there are too many classes.

But here are my Fav's and what I think a fleet would need.

Heavy Cruiser - Constitution Class (USS Enterprise). The general multi-task workhorse of the exploration program.

Tug - People talk about things like 'troop carriers'. A ship devoted to that type of mission is really unnecessary, when you can have different pods that can be switched out. The Tug design can carry large amounts of supplies, troops, etc. Even medical pods can be quickly mounted and rushed to where they are needed.

Destroyer/Frigate - (Im not a fan of the single engine Scout/Destroyer design) In this case I like the Abbe class. More of a warship to patrol the edges of the Federation.

Now I don't have great job classifications for the next two, but I must say that I like the designs.

USS Reliant.

USS Phobos.

TOS Dreadnaught. I imagine the role of the Dreadnaught would be that of a central command ship that oversees the deployment of a number of the Scout/Frigates in a particular area.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Scott1768 said:


> Oh, I dunno. The destroyer is a type of ship, for instance. But there are currently 3 different classes in service: the Kidd class, the Arleigh Burke class, and the new DD-21 class.
> 
> The same with aircraft carriers. Until Enterprise was decommissioned, there were 3 classes in service as well: Enterprise class, Nimitz class, and the new Ford class. And then there are the Assault carriers - Tarawa and others.
> 
> If we have that much diversity just in the current US Navy, imagine what the space fleet of a galaxy-spanning federation of planets would have.


That true, but that is based on the progression of time as new classes of destroyers come into existence.

I could see a TOS and a TMP destroyer serving next to each other. But not 20 different destroyer classes from the same era.


----------



## The_Engineer (Dec 8, 2012)

Replicators didn't come into the picture until ST:TNG. You can see in the trek movies that they were prepping their meals. The tech manual had only 5 classes which started to expand in the movies and by TNG exploded to a lot of classes. I'm not sure what the official class is for the Reliant (Fasa stated it was a light cruiser, although other sources listed it as something else, perhaps frigate). Grissom, I would take would have been a science class, and we saw a federation freighter in ST3. I'm not sure what class type Excelsior is and some have argued in ST6 when the Enterprise-A was going to be decommissioned that the entire Constitution class was being phased out and replaced by Excelsior class.

It's also interesting in seeing the evolution of star fleet ships from TOS to Voyager. I have read discussions on how the dorsal fin is a weak spot and too thin. In the Excelsior design they made the dorsal fin really thick and this carried over to the Ambassador class and Galaxy class designs. By the time you get to Voyager (and Sovereign and Nova class) the designers got rid of the dorsal fin so that the primary hull connects directly to the secondary hull. 

I always liked the Reliant design, nice and compact. I also love the Phobos design (although I don't like the split secondary hull).


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

The_Engineer said:


> Replicators didn't come into the picture until ST:TNG. You can see in the trek movies that they were prepping their meals.


Actually, replicators MAY have been in TOS.
There are a few scenes where they get meals out of the food servers in the walls. Especially in 'Tomorrow is Yesterday', the ensign asks what the Security guard would like. "Chicken Soup" he replies. The Ensign takes out the appropriate card, sticks it in the reader, a few sounds and voila, Chicken Soup comes out.

But also, a galley has also been referred to in both TOS and the movies as well.
Kirk talking about Thanksgiving and in ST:VI the scene where they vaporize the pot containing the mashed potatoes.

So, take it how you will, but my ideas made allowances for either opinion when I offer the 'build it on earth and transport it into place' option.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ClubTepes said:


> Actually, replicators MAY have been in TOS.
> There are a few scenes where they get meals out of the food servers in the walls. Especially in 'Tomorrow is Yesterday', the ensign asks what the Security guard would like. "Chicken Soup" he replies. The Ensign takes out the appropriate card, sticks it in the reader, a few sounds and voila, Chicken Soup comes out.
> 
> But also, a galley has also been referred to in both TOS and the movies as well.
> ...



Agreed. I think it's possible that there are "backup" kitchens and food supplies, in the event something goes wrong with the replicators. Also, their might be situations where - for whatever cultural reasons - on special occasions food is cooked and served traditionally (like the Thanksgiving turkeys) but that 98% of the time the meals are replicated.

You really can't believe there are no replicated meals considering the short amount of time - your example of "Tomorrow is Yesterday" is perfect - between inserting the food cards and it appearing.

There is unquestionably times in TOS in which they apparently do actually cook. But there also is no denying that most of the time the food is replicated.


----------



## TIEbomber1967 (May 21, 2012)

I've looked at A LOT of starships over the years, and there are more than a few that I like visually, but I think Starfleet could probably get by on just 3 or 4 classes.
I know this isn't a popular choice, but I think a Grissom-type ship would be perfect for the work horse of starfleet. It could easily be a modular ship, where depending upon the current need the necessary secondary hull would simply be bolted onto the bottom of the ship. Don't like the Grissom, then a tug would do just as well. There is no need to design a new class for different types of missions, just design different bolt-on modules/secondary hulls/containers.
The only other class you may need are ships specifically designed for fighting, Ships with a low profile, plenty of armor/shielding, and lots of weapons.
Maybe one other class, 'cuz I'm sure I'm forgetting something.

I do enjoying seeing all the different designs though. Some real creativity out there amongst all the Star Kludge


----------



## The_Engineer (Dec 8, 2012)

ClubTepes said:


> Actually, replicators MAY have been in TOS.
> There are a few scenes where they get meals out of the food servers in the walls. Especially in 'Tomorrow is Yesterday', the ensign asks what the Security guard would like. "Chicken Soup" he replies. The Ensign takes out the appropriate card, sticks it in the reader, a few sounds and voila, Chicken Soup comes out.
> 
> But also, a galley has also been referred to in both TOS and the movies as well.
> ...


I'm not sure where I read this from (Fasa?) where they explained how TOS food replicators work was when someone slid the tape card into the slot, the computer dug out the food from storage, cooked it and placed everything together on the tray and then used conveyor belts to move the tray into the food replicator cubicle (all in about 20 seconds) where the person would then remove it. In the trek movies, the tech advanced by getting rid of the conveyor belts and using a transporter (intra-ship beaming) to beam the tray into the replicator cubicle.

I would break down the different types as (from the tech manual):

Scouts, destroyers, tugs, Cruisers (Light or Heavy), and dreadnoughts. Then I would expand that with freighters, frigates, and science. As swapable (sp?) modules/different configurations go, the Miranda class (Reliant) was still used in TNG time and had different configurations (like the Bozeman - soyuz class). I also read that the Enterprise-B's secondary hull bulges were removable modules and mission specific.

I never did like the Grissom, as others have mentioned, how do you get into the secondary hull? Some have stated that the pylons are too small to have a turbolift car inside and therfore you would need a staircase or ladder to access it (which would take along time). Fighters are, I think new - Defiant class (and perhaps others) which was created as a Borg fighter.


----------



## TIEbomber1967 (May 21, 2012)

The_Engineer said:


> I never did like the Grissom, as others have mentioned, how do you get into the secondary hull? Some have stated that the pylons are too small to have a turbolift car inside and therfore you would need a staircase or ladder to access it (which would take along time).


Transporters. No, not simply beaming through space or ship to ship where things can move in relation to each other, but a hard-wired system where your energy is moved along transporter specific conduits.
Heck, even without a hard wired system beaming from one dedicated transporter pad to another dedicated transporter pad where the distance and coordinates NEVER change (except in case of MAJOR structure damage) would make it nearly foolproof.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Well there is always this for reference:

Or this:

Or even this:

 
-Jim


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I REALLY like the Okazaki chart, even if 90% of the ship designs are firmly in the "WTF?!?" category. 

But no love for the transports from the Animated Series?


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Steve H said:


> But no love for the transports from the Animated Series?


I dunno............................


-Jim


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Well, thankee very much, Jim! 

It would be neat for PL to make that in 1/1000, but I suspect 'snowball in hell' is the chances.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Wow, after glimpsing those charts, I'm now sure that there are indeed too many ship classes. But I guess since this is the digital age and none of these ships are afforded the due respect that is required and earned of a craft that actually has to be painstakingly built for filming, every slight variant from any designer's quick imagining can join the fleet.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Steve H said:


> But no love for the transports from the Animated Series?


I love 'em so much I made my own variant!










But I guess that means I'm contributing to the problem, huh?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

The_Engineer said:


> I never did like the Grissom, as others have mentioned, how do you get into the secondary hull? Some have stated that the pylons are too small to have a turbolift car inside and therfore you would need a staircase or ladder to access it (which would take along time). Fighters are, I think new - Defiant class (and perhaps others) which was created as a Borg fighter.


There's a school of thought (that I subscribe to) that the secondary hull is a completely automated, unmanned, interchangeable pod. The only time crew would need to access it would be for maintenance or repairs.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Steve H said:


> But no love for the transports from the Animated Series?


I love the TAS freighter.
It doesn't bother me, as it is not a rearranged combination of saucer, secondary hull and engines.

However, I don't subscribe to the idea that it is small, as depicted in the remastered trek.
I feel that it has the same nacelles as what the Constitution class does.

Just as today's airliners can be mounted with different engines (such as either GE or Rolls Royce) different spaceships can be mounted with the same engines. Canon proof of this is the USS Jenolin in TNG.

Plus, a smaller 'freighter' doesn't make sense to me.
So, a larger vessel in the right proportions to fit the nacelles.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

The Excelsior was a complete new class, faster, larger, more heavily armed and shielded as the famous heav cruisers of the Constitution class. Several sources called them "Battleship".


----------



## cozmo (Nov 29, 2004)

ClubTepes said:


> But if you could only pick out 6 classes of starships to flesh out your starfleet (keeping function in mind) what would they be?
> 
> Of course lets keep an era in mind, so in this case, TMP era.


I'll bite, sorta'. TOS and TMP era are the only times Star Trek made practical sense. And they are pretty much interchangeable as to the designs.

During that era, up to the appearance of the Excelsior, the Constitution class was mentioned as *the* capital ship of the Federation. Even though the TOS Federation class was a Franz Joseph design. Just looking at the phasers on the Reliant, shows her to be at least as capable a warship as the Enterprise.

I never cared for the Franz Joseph destroyer, but the Ptolemy, *that* is a design that showed promise.

His philosophy is one that I like, use standardized parts and fit them together for different purposes. Except, IIRC, even he broke that with the Ptolemy by having the nacelle pylons attach to the primary hull instead of some kind of structure separate from the primary hull. That would make the primary hull more difficult to detach if things went sideways. The Reliant avoids that problem by changing the primary hull.

Putting aside the fact that there are more than six different classes of front line service ships in any true blue water navy even during lean times, and ships within those classes differ greatly, and the number of one off, or limited run ships also in that fleet, I will endeavor to keep it at six.

There are already six canon ships represented:
-Constitution
-Federation
-Ptolemy
-Destroyer
-Reliant
-Grissom

Make some changes to to the Ptolemy, then it and the Grissom could become the workhorses of the fleet. Use specialized containers or pods for those ships.

The thing that gets left out are the support ships and transports that outnumber combatants many times over. You also don't need a starship for system defense and interdiction. Those are other areas that are woefully under represented in the Star Trek universe.

That doesn't mean there cannot be lots of nifty designs between TMP and Next Gen.

As for replicating an entire starship, keep it. A starship needs to be welded and assembled, by real robots. Not to appear as if by magic.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Arthur C. Clarke said it best, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.". Also, intraship beaming would not be subject to separate frames of reference. If the targeting scanners are sufficiently accurate, then intraship waveguides wouldn't be needed either.


----------



## Kremin (Sep 26, 2012)

I always saw Reliant as a more planetary research ship, mostly because of the large shuttle bays. But I do see a multiple class role within Starfleet and possibilities of multi role and specialist ships


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, a planetary research ship probably wouldn't be standard-equipped with a giant 4-tube torpedo pod and fore-and-aft mega phaser emplacements. I'm just sayin'.  

I saw Reliant as more of a defense asset retasked with finding a planet for Dr. Marcus to use, either because they were in the area, or because they had nothing defense-ish to do at the moment.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

John P said:


> Well, a planetary research ship probably wouldn't be standard-equipped with a giant 4-tube torpedo pod and fore-and-aft mega phaser emplacements. I'm just sayin'.
> 
> I saw Reliant as more of a defense asset retasked with finding a planet for Dr. Marcus to use, either because they were in the area, or because they had nothing defense-ish to do at the moment.


Well, actually, the torp launchers could be mainly configured for various science probes, couldn't they? 

(mind, there's that pesky issue of getting in there to do stuff like make mods to the probes and stuff.  )

Mega Phaser, that's harder to give a pass to unless they're mining Phasers, designed to bore holes in asteroids and stuff. 

Naawww, that's all war fighting gear, you're right.


----------

