www.ditl.org

Atekimogus wrote:Can't remember exactly but what was the name of the nebula-class ship in DS9 with the all vulcan crew? I bet not even this ship got a made up vulcan name !

Actually it did - the USS T'Kumbra.

Well I am honestly surprised at that. Nevertheless my point remains, that they are incredibly unimaginative in their ship/class names. Most of the time you wouldn't even credit starfleet with beeing an global earth organization, much less so an interstellar one with a multi-race setup

Nor should it, though it actually did. It was the T'Kumbra.

I think using actual soldiers for ship names IS an improvement.

Agreed, and the use of VC winners names fits well with the ship. I would suggest, however, that rather than limit the ship to VCs, use the names of winners of all top-level military gallantry awards - VC, Medal of Honor, Pour le Merite, and any Andorian, Tellarite, etc equivalents.

Captain Seafort wrote:I would suggest, however, that rather than limit the ship to VCs, use the names of winners of all top-level military gallantry awards - VC, Medal of Honor, Pour le Merite, and any Andorian, Tellarite, etc equivalents.

Seconded.

Well, but then starfleet isn't a military force, more of a police force imho. They even name their battleships explorers etc. so naming ships or shipclasses after feats of arms is something I can't see the federation doing. (Except for the troopship concept here discussed since it has a very narrow role were this would be fitting.)

I must say I always liked shipclasses named after galactic phenomena like Nebula, or Galaxy. That is really neutral and the reason it appears in english is the universal translator .

Starfleet has a long tradition of naming Starships after military related things. Not the least of which is Enterprise, named for a long line of Warships. Likewise Akagi, Hornet, Hood, Yamato, and many more.

That is true but seems to be more of a traditional thing not because they want to celebrate military history imho. Now I am absolutely not sure about this but do present day civilian ships actually have comparable designations like navy-ships? Or are they simply called "Type 6 Cargo Transporter" for example? (Apart from the well known luxury liners like Titanic, Queen Elisabeth but those are only a few ships hardly qualified beeing called a "class" of ships)

Class names seem to be much more diplomatic: "Constitution", "Galaxy", "Nebula", "Ambassador" etc.

Starfleet fullfills a military roll, so I'd call it a military. The peaceful names are probably all just necessitated by political correctness.

I mean, the US could call its newest carrier the USS Happy Bunny. It would still be a warship.

Dammit, Rochey - how did you find out about the "Happy Bunny" project?!

I have my sources. 8)

Atekimogus wrote:That is true but seems to be more of a traditional thing not because they want to celebrate military history imho. Now I am absolutely not sure about this but do present day civilian ships actually have comparable designations like navy-ships? Or are they simply called "Type 6 Cargo Transporter" for example? (Apart from the well known luxury liners like Titanic, Queen Elisabeth but those are only a few ships hardly qualified beeing called a "class" of ships)

They're usually either given overarching titles (like the RFAs old Round Table-class LSLs or the Maersk class), or they're named after the first ship of the class, just as warships are (the Titanic was Olympic-class).

I like it a lot but i have some doubts:
Those points on the spine are the type V banks, right? soo if those are planned for "air support" for the landers and the troops not for ship to ship combat or point defense, why put them on the top side, wouldn't be the belly a better place?

I guees the ship is capable of atmospheric flight, can the landers be launched in the air or must be in the space and is the ship capable of landing too?

Are the landers empty, useless shells or do they work as a command center, hangar, barracks, field hospital, etc? Maybe you can organize several of them as a small land base or outpost.

SomosFuga wrote:I like it a lot but i have some doubts:
Those points on the spine are the type V banks, right? soo if those are planned for "air support" for the landers and the troops not for ship to ship combat or point defense, why put them on the top side, wouldn't be the belly a better place?

Um, why would it? One side would only be better if you imagine that the ship has to orbit in one particular orientation... and I can't imagine why anybody would think that.

I guees the ship is capable of atmospheric flight, can the landers be launched in the air or must be in the space and is the ship capable of landing too?

The ship is not capable of landing. It could fly in the atmosphere, I guess; we've seen the Connie do that, even. It would not detach the landers in the atmosphere, it would do that in orbit.

Are the landers empty, useless shells or do they work as a command center, hangar, barracks, field hospital, etc? Maybe you can organize several of them as a small land base or outpost.

They are basically C5 equivalents.

Um, I don't know if I've made clear that the landers are perfectly reuseable...?

GrahamKennedy wrote:Um, why would it? One side would only be better if you imagine that the ship has to orbit in one particular orientation... and I can't imagine why anybody would think that.

lol, you are totally right, i was thinking in it like a plane or a chopper.

GrahamKennedy wrote:The ship is not capable of landing. It could fly in the atmosphere, I guess; we've seen the Connie do that, even. It would not detach the landers in the atmosphere, it would do that in orbit.

even the NX 01

GrahamKennedy wrote:They are basically C5 equivalents.
Um, I don't know if I've made clear that the landers are perfectly reuseable...?

I see them like perfectly reusable in its main role but i wonder about other uses like those i proposed earlier, seems logic IMO unless you are going to take them back to the ship immediately for another trip or something.