Dominion Battlecruiser reappraised

[Mark]

Or if they were "refitted" to serve as destroyers.

[Deepcrush]

How would they refit them to be a lesser class?

[Reliant121]

Especially since, as many agree, They were the best they could possibly be in their utilitarian design. Powerful for their size, relatively fast and stable, easy to maintain. The perfect ship for Cardassia, why change it?

[Deepcrush]

For me, its just a safer bet that they just weren't Cruiser material anymore. The Keldons took that place, which bumped the Galors down to the Destroyer bracket.

IMO

[Mikey]

Makes sense. 'Trek seems to class ships as much by ability and designed role as by size - maybe more - so it stands to reason that a vessel which could no longer do the job of the SOTA cruiser, but could still function as a destroyer, gets re-classed as such.

[Deepcrush]

Makes sense. 'Trek seems to class ships as much by ability and designed role as by size - maybe more - so it stands to reason that a vessel which could no longer do the job of the SOTA cruiser, but could still function as a destroyer, gets re-classed as such.

Agreed it is then?

[Mikey]

I'd say so.

[Deepcrush]

Wow, that was easy...

[Mikey]

If you want, I could argue a bit... it would be difficult, seeing as how I already agree, but I could try...

[Deepcrush]

If you want, I could argue a bit... it would be difficult, seeing as how I already agree, but I could try...

Nah, you're no good with acting like a dumbass. I guess we'll just call this one done.

[ Galor was a cruiser but due to advances in ships was no longer able to match said bracket and was demoted to destroyer status. ]

[Mark]

How would they refit them to be a lesser class?

By scaling back resources of the new ships being built. Instead out outfitting them as cruisers, just pack enough into the hull to call it a destroyer and move on.

[Captain Seafort]

By scaling back resources of the new ships being built. Instead out outfitting them as cruisers, just pack enough into the hull to call it a destroyer and move on.

Or changing their weapons fit - it may be that cruisers are optimised for taking on enemy capships while destroyers are anti-fighter ships (or vice-versa). Alternatively cruisers and destroyers might have a different balance between energy weapons and PTs. It might even be a case of them sacrificing endurence for firepower. There are many different ways to define warship types, and size is only one of them.

[BigJKU316]

By scaling back resources of the new ships being built. Instead out outfitting them as cruisers, just pack enough into the hull to call it a destroyer and move on.

Or changing their weapons fit - it may be that cruisers are optimised for taking on enemy capships while destroyers are anti-fighter ships (or vice-versa). Alternatively cruisers and destroyers might have a different balance between energy weapons and PTs. It might even be a case of them sacrificing endurence for firepower. There are many different ways to define warship types, and size is only one of them.

Yeah, it really depends on what goes into the designation of a ship in a class. That being said I think since it is a Federation designation that moves them into the destroyer class (I think) it is likely that the threat assessment of them simply changed.

The US used to do that all the time with Soviet bombers of various types. Stuff that was once a heavy bomber became a medium bomber and so on as technology advanced. It was also fairly common with tank designations back when the whole medium and heavy tank designations were still used.

I tend to agree with the rest, the most likely answer is the ships designation was simply changed to reflect how it was being used at that point rather than there having been a major refit of the model. I am not sure what you could really change other than possibly dumping fuel storage and increasing torpedo storage that would be worth the effort. Even then I am not sure what the point would be as it does not seem as if these ships go a long way from home to begin with so I would doubt they have fuel for cruising on long exploratory missions.

[Mikey]

Indeed, I think I alluded to 'Trek designations having more to do with role than with size or even total firepower.

[Sionnach Glic]

That would certainly make sense.