Top 5 Interstellar Warships That Were Classified Completely Wrong
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 พ.ย. 2024
- Separating the warships of an interstellar navy into distinct types can often be more difficult than you might expect. But sometimes the end result is a warship whose classification makes no sense whatsoever.
The Templin Institute. Investigating alternate worlds.
New episodes every week.
Other Divisions & Branches:
🔹 Patreon | / templininstitute
🔹 The Templin Commissary | shop.templin.i...
🔹 Twitch | / templininstitute
🔹 The Templin Archives | / @templinarchives
🔹 TH-cam Membership | / @templininstitute
🔹 Submit Your Episode Idea | ideas.templin....
Communications & Media:
🔹 Website | www.templin.in...
🔹 Discord | / discord
🔹 Facebook | / templininstitute
🔹 Twitter | / templinedu
🔹 Instagram | / templininstitute
🔹 Subreddit | / templininstitute
🔹 Mailing Address | Unit 144 - 919 Centre St SW Calgary, AB T2E 2P6
Background music "Building New Horizons" by Chris Haigh. Used under license from PremiumBeat.com
Ending music "Battle Forever" used under license from Shutterstock.com.
A couple notes on this video! First, due to a glitch in Templin Institute software, we misattributed the Omega Class to the wrong universe. Hey, when you're dealing with a half dozen alternate realities, this is bound to happen. Second and more importantly, we mention a few times that Corvettes typically have crews much larger than just a few dozen. This is not always necessarily the case, but since it's usually relegated to older designs that have lingered in service, I still feel calling them "fast attack craft" is more appropriate and in line with modern naval doctrine.
Make up for it by making more videos on modern Halo Lore like the Ancient Human Empire (Anscestors) and the Forerunner Empire because there is some great Lore there.
gozanti looks more like patrol vessel/cruiser to me (hence the cruiser class most likely too....)
I think calling the Infinity a "Supercarrier" is appropriate because it is inherently unique, being based on non-reproducible Forerunner technology. There's also the fact that, unlike typical carriers, the infinity seems more than capable of engaging capital ships with it's own weaponry, even without the assistance of it's wing or a battlegroup.
look at the USS kitty hawk sold for a penny
I always wished that the earthforce group which arrived at B5 had called Delenn's bluff. I always wanted to see Omegas vs the Sharin cruiser, we never really got that.
On the subject of the "combat cruiser", Star Trek also has "Exploration Cruiser" as a ship classification, so it might be that "Cruiser" has come to mean "Ship intended to go on extended missions away from friendly ports" rather than explicitly referring to warships, which is a thing the Federation doesn't like admitting to having in the first place.
which would be going back to the original definition of the Cruiser: a ship that cruises, ie sailing between foreign ports and showing the flag in port and diplomatic visits often for years at a time
Star Trek also has "Exploration Cruiser"
Which the TMP novelization says is The Federation giving a non threatening name to their BATTLESHIPS.
Cruisers were originally designed to go on long voyages without sails in the early days of steam ships, so that fits with early cruisers
That makes sense. The US navy used some cruisers in escort duty while some sailed alone. also, the were divided according to gun caliber as light and heavy. currently we have missile cruisers that specialize in attacking an enemy fleet. while the US uses cruisers as part of the fleet
@@whee38 cruisers predate the age of steam ships. they just weren't a dedicated ship class but any ship doing the cruising mission. the first class called cruisers were the Cruizer class brig-sloops of the mid 18th century RN
I always kinda assumed the Gozanti’s cruiser classification was an artifact that it started life as a Civilian transport ship before becoming militarized
Yep. By definition it's an auxiliary cruiser.
I could see this argument holding water, especially given that Queen Amidala's ship was called a cruiser despite being completely unarmed and not any bigger than the Gonzanti.
Cruiser could easily be a civilian classification as well as a military one.
They were cargo ships weren't they?
I thought the gozanti was a freighter class
This might make a bit of sense, but when it comes to civilian hardware introduced into military service, no Navy is going to care too much about it was originally called and instead rename it to fit their own terminology. A good example of this would be the luxury liners turned troop transports in the World Wars. You also see it a lot in civilian aircraft that are used by various militaries as transports. The original name might stick around unofficially, but on anything related to supply chains or logistics, they will always be referred to by some new name to avoid confusion.
There are at least two supercarrier classes used by the UNSC, the pre-war Punic and the post-war Infinity. With the Athens light carrier and Epoch heavy carrier, I believe that they needed a way to better describe these ships, instead of just calling them super heavy carrier.
Also, both the Punic and the Infinity can carry frigates in their hulls.
With the combat cruiser, I believe that they specify this because of the existence of the exploratory cruiser.
there are some better sounding options in my opinion if "carrier" is just too generic. "Escort Carrier" might work for smaller carriers, although the UNSC seems to prefer what we would call "Assault Ships" (a mix of a carrier and troop transport). When it comes to the biggest carriers though, I still prefer "fleet Carrier".
@The Templin Institute I would say this is a time when the terms could be generally interchangeable. Super carrier generally stays within the naming convention, referring to the size of the vessel. Fleet carrier would also work due to the Infinity working as the flag ship of a fleet of other warships. I would lean toward Super carrier due to the fact that Infinity is often shown to be working independently of any support craft that aren't being carried internally.
@@nick-314 In naval parlance, a fleet carrier doesn't need to be part of a fleet. It's stupid, mind you, because they're big, valuable vessels that are hard to replace (and if the UNSC _Infinity_ works without a fleet as a matter of course, then the UNSC is staffed by morons; if it's only escorts are parasite ships (that _could_ have been built and deployed independently) then the _Inifinty's_ designers are also dumb.)
Regardless, a fleet carrier is just the largest carrier your fleet doctrine/technology allows.
Mind, I don't agree that it fits this list; it's not completely wrong, it's just a disagreement in nomenclature, which is directly the opposite of what the video's preamble assured us was the case.
@@TemplinInstitute I agree but you are basically conceding there that there is no backing for your point in the video, that's just a name you thought sounded dumb. Good thing you preemptively included the honourable mention to keep the count at 5
@@boobah5643 They couldnt be build independently and keep up with it easily, because IIRC Infinity had a MUCH more advanced FTL drive, and thats why it needed to bring some escorts along.
I can see supercarrier being an official designation for carriers that carry other proper warships, which the infinity does with its own complement of frigates within its hangars.
Or even a heavier carrier, maybe with higher small craft capacity and/or more armor and heavier guns to protect itself.
BATTLE CARRIER! ,infinity has Mac's powerful than the orbital Mac cannons , it justified to call it a battle carrier
The Star Wars universe also has 'Bulk' cruisers and other civilian craft with the moniker cruiser. That leads me to believe the universe has multiple definitions of what a Star Cruiser is, which may differ between Civilian and Military circles. The Gozanti is a primarily civilian craft, first developed during the old republic that was adapted for Imperial Service. My theory that the term cruiser is just a hold over, much to the chagrin of Imperial Officers who would rather it be categorized under the conventions of the Anaxes war college.
We have the same definition in real life. It fits the definition of an Auxiliary Cruiser, AKA an Armed Merchant Cruiser.
One source defines ‘bulk cruisers’ as warship/freighter hybrids. So cruisers that aren’t as well armed and armored as a normal cruiser, and use the space opened up by that to fit bigger cargo bays. The Trade Federation warships used to blockade Naboo might qualify for the designation, since they were originally large interstellar bulk cargo ships that were converted into heavy cruisers/carriers, and probably still have more cargo space than ships designed to be warships to begin with.
A ship from another franchise that might qualify is the Ferengi _Marauder,_ a ship of comparable size and strength to the Federation’s _Galaxy_ class cruiser, but possessing considerably more storage space with which to perform acts of mercantilism. It gets away with being as powerful as a cruiser despite being a cruiser/freighter hybrid because the Federation doesn’t build proper cruisers either, they build upscale hotel and convention center/cruiser hybrids.
There's something to be said for the idea that a "cruiser" can be a non-military ship an FTL context, where one might want to use it to describe ships that can "cruise" for extended periods on their own (blurred by the fact that many universes arm even civilian ships, so you might see a civilian-owned cruiser more poorly armed than a small patrol ship).
On top of that, unscrupulous ship-makers might have incentives to stretch the civilian use of "cruiser" to sell ships that can barely operate for a few months before having to dock for supplies and repairs. No doubt the target of many jokes from experienced spacefarers.
"Ha, another one of those QuikTek 'cruisers' is coming in for supplies. Taking bets on whether they can even make it to Bernard's Star before turning back!"
@@Xalerdane Kind of highlights how far the Ferengi were able to push their wealth into strength (albeit at a limited scale and with no ability to project it), and how lucky the Federation's enemies were, given that the Galaxy-class rivaled or exceeded the strongest purpose-built warships of their nearest rivals despite purposefully holding itself back to support exploration and diplomacy. Until you push them too hard, and then you get an "escort" ship like the Defiant that can go toe-to-toe with ships many times it size.
@@Nerd_Detective That is how I look at it. In both cases the ship needs to be capable of extended voyages away from ports that can supply it. In civilian circles it is more of a marketing term. For the Military, they use it when referring to a general purpose warship. A vessel that is as comfortable on frontier patrols as it is in a battle line. The only problem is that begins to overlap with how the term Frigate is often used.
In the real world the Venn diagram of what is a Frigate and what is a Destroyer is starting to overlap. In the Star Wars universe this may be the case with Frigate and Cruiser. The Nebulon-B and Munificent classes are both categorized as frigates, but those ships couldn't be more different.
The distinction of a "combat" cruiser in Star Trek makes some sense for the Federation, considering that every version of the Enterprise is some sort of cruiser, but usually it's considered an exploration ship.
I second this, the Federation is already hesistant to build "escort" ships and names them something less agressive. It makes sense that they would like to differentiate their own exploration cruisers from the warships of others.
I just assumed that when they scanned the ship, the computer's IFF just noted the fact that this otherwise normal cruiser had several heavier-class weapons than perhaps the typical cruiser would have, and assigned it the 'combat' cruiser designation. Like, "Oh this one is a cruiser. It only has a couple of phasers. But this one here, of the same make? It's got heavier phasers, and a torpedo launcher, and a higher top speed. So it's used for actually FIGHTING stuff. It's a Combat cruiser."
@@Kalebfenoir "a couple of phasers" already equals a planet destroying superweapon, so...
I believe the UNSC super carrier designation stems from the capacity of the Infinity and the Covenants Super carriers to not only carry a compliment of fighters and shuttles but there own fast attack craft, gunboats, and corvettes. In the Spartan Ops intro scene the Infinity is seen deploying its own smaller support craft. Possible reasoning for the designation.
*Frigates. The Infiniti can carry anything smaller than a heavy frigate. Which lends more credence to your argument.
Oh, and it can carry 6 of them.
So, the UNSC Infinity is essentially a Traveller Battlerider Carrier. 😆
I think the definition of "super" carrier comes in not just in size but capability. The Infinity was designed as essentially a deep-space forward operating base, as well as a warship, in addition to carrying it's own personal escort fleet. A regular carrier would be dependent on the ships it carries, as much as the ships it carries are dependant on it. The Infinity and the other Super Carriers are also formidable warships on their own, and are also carriers. I would also suspect that the Infinity or other Super Carriers could also act as mobile shipyards for vessels up to their maximum hanger size and house manufacturing facilities for most standard vehicles and hardware.
@@hanzzel6086 actually its 10 of them
@@ckl9390 given it was designed to be an ark for humanity in the event earth fell Im inclined to agree especially with the shipyard capability; even smaller and older vessels like the SoF had extensive manufacturing facilities so Infinity at the very least had equivalent facilities
With the Omega-class ... it seems Babylon 5 does the Star Wars thing where "Destroyers" are actually the largest ships in the navy, like Star Destroyers. Because while it is weird to refer to the Omega as a Destroyer, its replacement, the Warlock-Class is also referred to as a Destroyer. And President Sheridan, when he starts the program that leads to the construction of the Excalibur, officially refers to it as a Destroyer sized vessel to complement the White Stars.
Thats just an irl thing at this point. The largest surface combatant in basically any modern navy is going to be a destroyer. The few cruisers that are still in service are around the same size or smaller than modern destroyers.
Arguably the same issue happens here on Earth. Some new European ship classes are larger than their predecessors (that were also classified as destroyers) are classified as frigates. The Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force in particular and the French Marine Nationale (until recently) classify their longer range, ocean going warships as destroyers, regardless of size, with frigate/corvettes/destroyer escorts for the littoral patrol forces. The US Navy has no frigates (for now) and the backbone of the surface fleet are the DDG 51 (Burke) Class. The 3 DDG 1000 (Zumwalt) are the size of WWII cruisers with respect to displacement and arguably should be classified as such given their new role.
That being said, one of the original members of the Earth Alliance is the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United States, Netherlands, and like South Africa per B5 lore. I think the Earth Alliance Navy has a logical designation system, initially with Olympus Class Corvette (jump gate dependent), Hyperion Class Cruiser (smallest jump engine equipped), and then Nova Class Dreadnought, perhaps better analogous to the days of sail with less ship classes and types. It reflects that shared nautical background scifi borrows from pretty well in this case.
The destroyer designation is appropriate given the Omega Class is the backbone of the Earth Alliance fleet. It reflects the changes in technology and design philosophy from the prior generation of big Earth Alliance ships with the Nova Class Dreadnought (big with guns) and Hyperion Class cruisers (lighter armament) combination that saw service in the Dilgar (more successful) and Minbari (less successful) war. The EAS Lexington, a Hyperion Class Cruisers, was described as an old patrol ship in the Minbari War movie when General Leftert was trying to convince Sheridan to transfer as XO to the task force flagship heading out to make contact with the Minbari. In one of the "Voice of the Resistance" broadcasts, Ivonava mentions Earth Alliance destroyer and carrier groups who are tuning in against orders from the President Clarke regime. Omega Class destroyers are likely escorting the carriers assuming they are pure carriers with lots of starfuries or landing craft in the assault ship role. We have seen on screen multiple instances of "loyalist" Omega Class destroyers in a battle groups throughout the Earth Alliance civil war. Additionally the fleet mobilized to protect Earth from the Drakh at that point is pretty much all Omega Class destroyers. The Earth Alliance just never reclassified their older ships as they transitioned to using just the Omega Class as their primary warship type.
Get ready to hear the world Battlecruiser a lot
Yep.
Also "Heavy Cruiser" or "Assault Cruiser"
Drinking game?
@@smithjack1741 that sounds like death waiting lol
You do know that battlecruiser Is actually a tipe of ship, that actually existed
@@JoaoSoares-rs6ec Yes, but the term gets overused in sci-fi, particularly on ships that don't fit the definition. Things that should be called battleships or even just regular cruisers get labeled as "battlecruisers" presumably because it sounds cool. Which it does.
Captain: “What do we got on our scanners?”
Officer: “five cruisers, sir”
Captain: “Prepare for retreat”
Officer: “They’re Gozantis, sir”
Captain: “… prepare for battle.”
That's not going to be a battle, it's going to be a massacre.
Helmsman: "I'm just gonna drive through them"
Officer : "Sir we are also a Gozanti sir"
Captain:. I thought I was assigned to a crui..... Oh never mind , jump
Don't forget about the Dreadnought class Heavy Cruiser from Star wars legends. Which is about a third of the length of a imperial star destroyer, so it's at most a light Cruiser.
Edit: thank you all for your replies. I suppose compared to earlier Republic ships the heavy cruiser designation is fair.
Star Wars ship naming is pretty all over the place until you realize ships like the dreadnought are literally designs that have been around for hundreds of years in some cases
I think you can give the Dreadnought a pass though, since it's not really a ship classification, it was the name of a ship which set the standard for other ships of the same class, for example the British Navy actually recycled the name for their first nuclear power submarine in the 60's and they're recycling it again for their new Dreadnought-class ballistic missile submarines (which if we're applying the same logic would actually be an IRL example of the topic of the video).
@@Aries2890 Took the words right out of my mouth.
The distinction between a "Light-" and "Heavy-" cruiser is pretty flexible, and it is usually more dependent on armor and weaponry than on pure size. In WWII, for example, the difference between a light- and heavy cruiser came down to the caliber of its guns; light cruisers typically had 6-inch guns as their main weapons, whereas heavy cruiser guns were 8-inch.
IIRC the Dreadnaught-class was labeled as a heavy cruiser because it had very heavy firepower for a ship of its size.
The Star Destroyers themselves are wonky, they are *named* destroyers but their size puts them in heavy cruiser territory.
To be fair, Starfleet does use the "Exploratory Cruiser" designation for several of their ships, so the "Combat Cruiser" distinction isn't completely unwarranted.
A possible reason to call a cruiser a "combat cruiser" might be to distinguish it from other "specialized" classes of cruisers (maybe an "air defense cruiser" or a "support cruiser" or an anti-submarine warfare cruiser".
In that context, the "combat cruiser" could be the "standard", more generalist subclass.
Or one more heavily dedicated to ship v ship combat. Your standard cruiser may be generalized, while a "combat cruiser" may have stronger shields and more powerful weapons better suited to fight other starships.
I thought someone was trying for "Battlecruiser" and gotten their terminology wires crossed, myself.
In the broadest sense, a cruiser is a ship capable of and intended for long range independent operations. Since space is very, very big it'd make sense if most interstellar ships in a space opera setting are cruisers of some sort. But if every ship is a cruiser, it becomes a rather unhelpful designation and it's natural that subtypes would arise.
Sci-fi franchises often use "light cruiser", "heavy cruiser", and "battlecruiser" because those terms were used in WW2 so more people are familiar with those terms, but I think it's fine for those properties to use different ones. Historically, protected cruisers were intended more for scouting and armored cruisers were intended more for fighting it out and it'd be perfectly reasonable to instead call them "scout cruiser" and "combat cruiser". And due to how big and empty space is, there may also be a need for "patrol cruisers" because a corvette might not be big enough for interstellar operations in some settings where a corvette sized ship may have the range to patrol a star system or star cluster but not beyond. Star Trek in particular has politically motivated "we're not a military despite constantly fighting wars" ships that the Federation calls "exploration cruisers".
I believe it's just another case of the Federation attempting to avoid agressive terminology for their own ships. Just like calling their own destroyers "escorts", they call their cruisers "exploration cruisers". It would thus make sense they'd call a hostile warship a combat cruiser rather than just a cruiser in order to differentiate the two.
Since when does star trek have fighters and submarines in space 😂 ,not that they can depth charge cloak ships like subs , and ofcourse the courier ships and run abouts are not fighter which need anti air def
According to Wookiepedia, the Gazanti-class cruiser is also known as "Gazanti-class armed transport". A glorified armed freighter, if you will.
Yeah and the "Gazanti" is called the "Gozanti" 😂
Starship Troopers: The film makers probably continued the class name from the books, where the Rodger Young is described as a small ship carrying only a platoon of troops. Intended for small scale hit and run raids in enemy territory.
Just one of the many egregious butchering's the film makers committed in that farce of a film. Yes, I am a fan of the book!
That being said I am of the very same opinion, its pretty much certain that they changed the scale of the ships to fit in with their reimagining of Starship Trooper and did not bother to change the name to reflect the much larger ship. Probably because they are militarily clueless amongst other factors....
@@alganhar1 Considering Heinlein was a Navy veteran I'm glad you brought this up... I was curious. Didn't think he's make a mistake like that.
@@DarthBludgeon Look at modern Destroyers in the US, Congress wouldn't approve construction of more cruisers in the 80s, or there abouts, so the navy relabeled their new cruiser class as destroyers and Congress not only let them build all the "destroyers" they wanted the even let them build more of them! That's why Ticonderogas and Arleigh-Burkes are about the same size.
@@drafty9580 Well, that and technology changes to focus on missile launched weapons rather than gun emplacements meant a lot of roles could be folded into one multi-purpose ship. The term "Destroyer" originates form the early 20th century "Torpedo Boat Destroyer" (a small ship just a bit bigger than the torpedo boats, but fast and purpose built to hunt them). Torpedo boats where the bane of big cruisers and battleships, so they needed escorts... much like how the modern Aircraft carrier centerpieces of the US fleets require escorts capable of "destroying" submarines (as well as anything russian). The Russian navy is interesting since it's design philosophy was "stick as many missiles on a ship as possible, empty all the tubes at the incoming American aircraft carriers then abandon ship" cause they knew their navy was just simply for buying time, not actually beating the US navy. Their subs where the real asset. Hence American Destroyers being sub-hunters. 120 years ago the biggest naval threat was a tiny single, open decked torpedo boat zipping by your battleship and dumping a dozen torpedo's below the waterline. Nowadays, it's a nuclear armed sub sneaking into a harbor and unloading it's nuclear arsenal point blank into a dense population center where you have zero interception time. A few rungs down in nightmare scenarios, it's a sub sneaking close to the Aircraft carrier and gutting it. So "destroyer" fits the mission profile of what the Arleigh-Burkes primary roles are, destroying subs (the modern torpedo boats). The rest of the additional roles it had are b/c technology improvements got folded into the same role simply b/c they could. There isn't a reason for our doctrine to include as many specialized roles as it once did since today a single Areigh-Burke could outgun the entire navy of most nations all by itself.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the new Gerald Ford-class carriers could just ram into a Queen Elizabeth-class and just keep going as if it merely hit a speed bump. It's why everyone refers to American aircraft carriers as "super carriers". Everyone else has carriers that are just pretty pathetic by comparison.
Thank you for posting this. Despite the obvious love of the infantryman Heinlein was a navy boy. A squid wouldn't make a mistake like that.
I'm not even a military buff and this still gets me. We have to fudge and invent so much in sci-fi and while very fun, it's still a lot of work. So having a vast and well-documented resource for ship classification we can draw on, it only makes sense to use it.
My personal favourite is from a homebrew tabletop game a friend made long ago, "battle carrier". is it some unholy mix of a battleship and a carrier? No. It had fairly weak weapons and carried no attack craft. But it had an absurd amount of armour and HP pool, so it would "carry" the "battle". ugh. I swear he did that on purpose to piss people off LOL
Please tell this friend of yours that I hate him.
Check your ship classification privileges
I always got the sense that in the Star Wars universe, "cruiser" was thrown around as a generic term for any warship too large to be considered a starfighter. They also refer to frigates and the like as "capital ships", again by comparison to fighters.
Well the gat-12 skipray blast boats considered the smallest capital ship of the imperial navy despite only having twice the arnament and a light turbolaser cannon than an average star fighter
I don't know if it's worth noting that in the novel _Starship Troopers,_ the _Rodger Young_ is a relatively small vessel, transporting a single platoon of Mobile Infantry on commando-style raids into enemy territory. Heinlein, as an ex-Navy man, would have been quite familiar with different ship designations, of course. I think, these days, we might call such a thing an 'assault ship' or some such, possibly a 'light assault ship' to acknowledge its small size.
Yeah the movie did everything it possibly could to bastardize Heinleins work, really should not even be considered as a legitimate sci-fi film. It's explicitly meant to *mock* one of the most iconic books in the sci-fi genre. Starship Troopers gave the genre iconic concepts like 'space marines' and 'power armor'. it's really hard to understate just what an impact that book had in forming the entire genre of science fiction. This is why Heinlein is considered one of the three Greats of Sci-fi, up there with Isaac Asimov. Hollywood didn't understand it, so they very consciously made an effort to crap all over the title. I wish Templin would stop taking that film seriously, I'd rather they used info from the book when speaking of the Starship Troopers setting.
It's funny. I was just talking to my brother about how the Gozanti Class Cruiser is half the length of a Hammerhead corvette the other night. The problem with calling it a fast attack craft though, is that it implies it is fast, and does a lot of attacking. The Gozanti is a slow, heavily armored brick of a ship designed for protecting convoys. Sure, pirates and privateers as well as proper militaries like the Empire and Republic use the Gozanti to attack stuff but it focuses much more on defense than offence.
It’s not even a Fast Attack Craft, it’s a freaking _Customs Boat._
That would still be better to assign it the "Corvette" class because Corvettes are still either screen or picket ships.
The Gozanti is the opposite of a battleship in terms of weapons and armour but more than qualified in terms 9f speed
i enjoy it when a setting randomly throws out a setting-specific term for something that you'd just never find going by maritime logic- or repurposes a modern term for something wildly unusual, like having a 'carrier' that just transports entire fleets of ships for efficiency, like the spacing guild ships in Dune.
'Super carrier' is actually term i use in my own setting for carriers that transport fleets of warships rather than escorts and support craft- since they fill entirely different roles with super carriers being made to travel absurdly long distances and are strictly kept far, far away from the actual fire exchange once the fleet enters battle, while regular carriers tend to operate just behind the fleets to refuel smaller ships, perform rescue operations and help intercept missiles in emergencies.
I use ‘Supercarrrier’ to refer to Battleship-sized carriers.
Cruiser-sized carriers are called ‘Fleet Carriers’, and Frigate-sized carriers are ‘Escort Carriers’. There aren’t any carrier types in the smaller ship types, they’re too small to carry enough launchable craft to be worth it.
I just decided that battleship-sized ships that are partially battleship and partially carrier are called ‘Battle Carriers’.
---------------
There’s five sizes of FTL-capable ships in my setting, each sub-divided into Light, Medium, Heavy, and Super-Heavy.
Size 1: Clippers. Too small to be used as warships. Most are used for transporting messages between systems (there’s FTL travel, but no FTL communication.) They’re also used as couriers, VIP transports, and private yachts. Light Clippers are at least 600 meters in length, as that’s the smallest a ship can be and still be able to fit an FTL Drive. ‘Raiders’ (submarines in space) are this size.
Size 2: Corvettes, Escorts and Destroyers. ‘Corvette’ is a blanket term for everything that doesn’t qualify for the other two categories. ‘Escorts’ are ships of this size that are rigged for, well, escorting things. Usually freighters. ‘Destroyers’ are kitted for attacking bigger ships. This is also the size of ‘Sprint Traders’, small fast cargo ships that specialize in high value/time sensitive cargo.
Size 3: Frigates and Escort Carriers. This is the smaller of the two ‘jack of all trades’ categories. Frigates can be command ships of corvette flotillas on patrol, or serve in fleets in a supporting capacity. Escort Carriers are used to escort freighters and small convoys. ‘Merchantman’ is a category of frigate-sized freighter owned and operated by independent merchant-captains who don’t stick to a single trade route. They can’t carry as much as a pure freighter, but they’re better armed and armored and have longer range.
Size 4: Cruisers, Battlecruisers, and Fleet Carriers. Cruisers are like Frigates, but bigger and slower. They can be fitted for almost any kind of role. Battlecruisers are equipped with Battleship-caliber weapons, and as a consequence lack most of a cruiser’s armor and amount of time it can stay out of port. Only found in military fleets. Fleet Carriers are also only found in fleets, and likewise cannot function independently for any length of time. ‘Bulk Freighters’ are cruiser-sized transports.
Size 5: Battleships, Super Carriers, Battle Carriers. Biggest, strongest, toughest, slowest, and most expensive. Fill ‘‘em full of guns and point them at the space stations orbiting a planet owned by someone you hate. Super Carriers carry more attack craft than Fleet Carriers, and can even carry some of the really big stuff that normally requires an orbital installation to operate out of. Battle Carrier = “I want a Battlestar.” Mass Freighters are fuckhueg cargo movers that can also carry fleets of Cutters. Speaking of:
Size 0: any ship capable of lifting off from a planet under its own power and has enough space onboard for multiple decks and/or a degree of operational independence but isn’t big enough to fit an FTL is called a ‘Cutter.’ Governments use Cutters as Customs Boats and Search and Rescue ships. Militaries use them as Torpedo Boats, Heavy Attack Craft, and Insertion Craft/Heavy Fire Support/Mobile Command Centers for ground forces. Private owners use them for just about everything.
Shout out to "Star Destroyer," being radically off from our understanding of destroyers while also managing to redefine the term across an entire universe.
I haven't watch SNWs yet but IIRC Vulcans did have a distinction between 'cruisers' optimized for different types of missions -exploration/science/combat/etc.
Seems reasonable to me, especially if 'cruiser' size ships are one of your fleets workhorses.
At least Obi-wan was correct on what the Death Star was (more specifically what it wasn't).
I mean, it took him a bit, though. He just let Han and Luke loudly argue about chasing that Tie Fighter...and he just sat there...being old. He also let Luke look down the barrel of a denergized lightsaber within the danger zone.
Jedi...
I imagine he was relying on the Force to warn him before Luke decided to turn it on.
The UNSC Infinity is not misclassified. The Supercarrier class started with the Punic class which carried Paris class Frigates, and the carrier class one size smaller is the Epoch class heavy carrier, which did not carry frigates. Supercarriers may also be designated as such because they carry Super MAC cannons.
The Subjugator Class Heavy Cruiser from Star Wars the Clone Wars was a bit of an understatement in the name.
A factor leading to "wrong" classifications are when something used to meet what the definition was 100 years ago, then the definition needed to update for any number of reasons, but that particular craft did *not* fall out of use, and so becomes grandfathered in. Or the inverse of that where the definition staid the same, but the thing got iterated on to the point where it technically no longer meets the definitions. Early submarines meet the definition of a boat, modern ones do not; we still call modern subs "boats."
I think it's worth noting how real life also does weird things with a ship's class.
Fast Battleships and Battlecruisers have a large amount of overlap. A youtuber by the name of Drachinifel covered the topic, and really the lines between the two are highly dependent on your investment in your navy. The Iowa Class could be considered a Battlecruiser, but the lack of the Montanas would firmly keep Iowas as Battleships in terms of relative comparison.
Meanwhile in the same navy and the same era, the Alaska Class "Large Cruisers" were built as large cruiser killers armed with 12 inch guns and ostensibly fit the idea of a Battlecruiser in all but actual designation. But they were not considered Battlecruisers proper and were officially discouraged from being called such.
Ah the Alaska , king of cruisers in wows 😂
1:43 the Viscount class Star defender is another example of politics influencing the naming of a ship. It’s basically a super star Destroyer
I honestly wish there was more of this in scifi. People underplay the effect politics actually has on naming conventions and even design. The Federation from Star Trek absolutely abhors making their military vessels look the part in addition to basically refusing to give their ships traditional military roles.
A real-world example of this would be the Chinese Communist Party whose entire political doctrine revolves around personnel expendability and thus either never or very rarely even allow designers to add armor to any of their vehicles. Regardless of whether it's a main battle tank or carrier. We've now confirmed this thanks to the greatest intelligence agency mankind has ever created: War Thunder. Essentially, CCP MBTs frontal armor can be penetrated by a measly 105mm which is essentially a light gun you could expect to find on an armored car.
@@Ryanowning don’t forget Japan’s not carrier
The reason for the Omega Class Destroyer and Hyperion class Heavy Cruiser's misidentification is due to a mistake made by CGI visual effect company for the Babylon 5 production team mislabeling the rendering files in both pre and postproduction. The script writers and showrunners didn't catch the error until multiple episodes were already in the can. So, the decision was made to keep the running gag going for the rest of the series. Much in the same way the reimagining of Battlestar Galactica production budget got really tight in the beginning of the series and were told to start 'cutting corners'. So, the production designers and set dressers started to trim off the corners on the papers, printouts books and manuals they get their hands Ronald Moore loved it. They had to do it for the rest of the show's run much to their bane.
About the "Combat Cruiser"....I think the classification is sound. During WW2 the classification of a "Fast Battleship" was used to distinguish it from other, similar ships. Maybe, even if they are well rounded ship´s, they have minute differences which makes them extra suitable for specific tasks. Like extra capacitors for stronger shields, a larger crew compartement for ground operations or boarding actions or just somehing like a system to allow a longer time at maximum warp. That would warrent the designation "Fast Cruiser" in my book (or maybe "Long Range Cruiser").
That only makes sense from inside that one navy; it's a distinction that isn't going to mean anything to a foreign navy, unless they're neck-deep in a war (or preparing for same) _and_ they're close enough to being a peer that it might matter.
For random alien civ of the week? No.
To me, the Infiniti seems like it's a supercarrier because its a carrier that is also armed to work like a battleship and engages directly with enemy ships unlike what you would do with a carrier
BATTLE CARRIER, the word you are looking for is Battle carrier
If I don't see the BC-304 Daedalus class on here imma be pissed off.
uh oh
@@TemplinInstitute better lock down the institute
@@TemplinInstitute That's an ominous Uh-oh...
the Daedalus class is a Battlecruiser, also a Deep Space Carrier, because it is designed for independent operation. Able to outrun anything it cannot outfight and outfight anything it cannot outrun. It makes sense (in space) it would be a battlecruiser.
Also, if you image Earth building a 'battleship," it would be bigger, and slower but with more firepower than the Daedalus-class.
@@ak102986 I doubt it highly. The Daedalus is overwhelming centred around it's powerful shields.
It's engine and hyperdrive are nothing special and it's firepower is downright anaemic. To be a battle cruiser it would need a much more powerful hyperdrive.
In the Mandalorian episode 'The Heiress', the Imperial Gozanti is repeatedly referred to as a Freighter. No mention of a Cruiser designation.
The Freespace Universe where every capital ship is a Destroyer and the smaller Destroyer type ships are called Cruisers is the most memorable example for me.
You're so right about the Starship troopers corvette, I've always wondered how they settled on that classification for such a large and powerful ship (Although it also had dedicated carrier and cargo varients which can be seen of you look closely) It is however an absolutely incredible ship design, I've always loved the way it looks.
The sleeker "Athena class" that replaced it was nice also. And from a time where they'd build a 6ft model of it just for a few seconds screen time at the end of the movie... Good Times.
Tbf i think when classifying Infinity she was always going to be a bit weird as both it and its sister ship eternity were originally intended as Ark ships to preserve humanity with the human covenant war going decidedly south, only being entirely recommissioned as full time warships after the UNSC's victory. With that in mind she has a lot oaf features and capabilities you would necessarily expect to find on other super carriers like say the Punic class. I'm not sure fleet carrier works that well for me with infinity though, as the ship was specifically built to act almost entirely independently as an ark ship. She doesn't have a fleet escort for example as she carriers her own frigates as part of her air wing.
Interesting point about the combat cruiser one, Star fleet (at least in that era) is not a military organization yet they still build ships they classy as cruisers, as well as just coming out of a conflict. It’s possible during that Klingon war the cruiser classification was divided into combat and scientific cruisers, so calling a ship a combat cruiser could be a hold over from that.
So many destroyers are called that because "they destroy things"
3:31 the carrack class light cruiser is technically a frigate under the anaxes war college system
There exists a time period when Armoured Corvettes were the heaviest most powerful battleship aflote.
An Armoured Frigate was an armoured ship with a single gun deck with 18+ guns. But these ships were so heavily built that they carried the heaviest guns available. 32 pounders and heavier.
An Armoured Corvette was the next evolution towards the predreadnought battleship. It was an armoured ship with less than 18 guns. But these guns were even heavier than before. From 7 to 10 inch guns and bigger.
The Destroyers from Homeworld.
They're slower, bigger, and beefier than the Frigates. I'd expect them to be around the same size, probably with reduced armour but faster and harder hitting.
I think it works, IRL frigates are usually smaller than destroys (with a few exceptions like when the US was calling guided missile destroyers, frigates), and in Homeworld the jump in size between ship classes is always huge, the jump from corvette to frigate is similarly massive.
yea can't mistake a Destroyer for a Frigate in Homeworld
Great vid! I'm suddenly reminded of the Freespace game series. I loved those games but holy crap their ship class conventions for size were so so wrong. Cruiser
Welcome back, Templin!
i love that when the unsc messes up with the realism it’s when the studio changes. oh how it’s fallen from grace
Coming soon: the breakdown of the USS Never Wrong, Truth class Fact Cruiser
There was an episode in Clone Wars where the Confederate droids call one of their starships Battlecruisers, but the Republic calls them Frigates.
Different groups, especially opposing forces can't/won't agree on what to classify ship types.
"Supercarrier" is a perfectly good designation. It explains what it is, and gives a size designation. It's true we don't use the term, but that isn't a good enough reason to call it wrong. The UNSC probably already has or had carriers of the "fleet" type anyway.
The Omega-class got the "Destroyer" moniker as the first ships in the "New Line" Earthforce Navy. The "Old Line" was the Olympus Corvette, Hyperion Cruiser and Nova Dreadnought, of which only the Hyperion remained under construction post the Earth-Minbari War (though surviving Novas were retained as troop transports). The original concept was for the Omegas to BE escort vessels for a significantly larger Cruiser design, but that was never built, and the only other ship in the "New Line" constructed was the Poseidon-class Supercarrier. Then, since Earthforce had apparently gotten used to their standard warship being a "Destroyer", they just went ahead and named the first "Third Generation" design a Destroyer as well - the Warlock.
Star fleet using calling explicit warships "Combat _____" almost seems derogatory and I love it
The Rodger young is another example of the movie getting the book wrong, in the book the young is a small ship, as there are the regimental transports. But the movie needed big impressive ships, and the Rodger young was just the name they used. Justice for the book!
(Ahnold voice) "It's not a cruisah"
Maybe the Infinity is considered a supercarrier because it literally has hangar bays to carry extra capital ships. I could imagine that actually becoming a point of distinction in such a future
Destroyers at the start of the 20th century were small short range craft which displaced around 500 tons and were generally considered the second smallest type of warship in a fleet. Currently, the Flight III Arleigh Burke class destroyer displaces 10,000 tons and is the main (and second largest) surface combatant in the US navy. To give you an idea of scale, the Battleship Maine displaces around 10,000 tons.
I thinks its entirely plausible that future fleets could be composed of giant, heavily armored, and heavily armed vessels, which they call corvettes.
A real life example is the Australian Navy. Australia just finished building 3 Guided Missile Destroyers which displace 7000 tonnes. We are now replacing our 3600 tonne ANZAC class Frigates with a beefed up Type 26 Frigate displacing 10,000 tonnes.
The worst example of the double class name thing is no doubt the Star Wars Dreadnought-class Heavy Cruiser, which is neither a dreadnought, nor a heavy cruiser.
HMS Dreadnought (meaning fear nothing) was a British Battleship so revolutionary that it redefined the term battleship. Battleships were now refereed to as pre-Dreadnaught type and post-dreadnaught type battleship. The Dreadnought-class Heavy Cruiser is just a type of heavy cruiser that the lead ship was likely named Dreadnaught or the manufactures wanted to convey that their cruiser had nothing to fear. And if I remember the legends lore correctly, the Dreadnaught class had a similar affect on Star Wars ships as the HMS Dreadnaught did IRL.
Another Honourable mention to that Land Cruiser.
Technically the Gozanti is a modified transport. Used for planetary patrols. It would have 4 TIEs on the bottom.
The Baron from Battletech. Star League's Destroyer class ship that is really an attempt to fit a Battleship's specs into a Frigate and seeing what would happen.
5:33 Or a Dreadnought-class cruiser.
Personally, I find the idea of a "destroyer can only be small support capital ship" to be stupid. Its name is derived from "Torpedo Boat Destroyer". However, what the destroyer is supposed to destroy is ultimately up to the setting. If due to centuries of linguistic drift and navel reclassifications or because it takes place in a setting has an entirely different frame of reference to modern Earth humans, that the powers that be decides that a "destroyer" is short for. say, "Starship Destroyer" and is meant to represent some of the heaviest combat vessels out there, that is up to the authors of the setting.
Dreadnaught is fine as it's never been a real warship classification. Dreadnaught was simply an easy way to refer to the new revolutionary style of battleships that emerged in the early 1900s and was named so after the first of said battleships, the HMS Dreadnaught. The Royal Navy has since then had two vessels named HMS Dreadnaught, both of which were/are nuclear powered submarines. About as far away from a battleship as you can get. The name 'dreadnaught' means 'to fear nothing' and so there's really no reason why any ship or ship class can't be called a "Dreadnaught".
@@jensonkiin3678 Depends on whether or not the setting uses 'dreadnought' as a classification; many settings do use it, specifically to mean a bigger, more powerful, more technologically advanced battleship, and usually replaces it in 'modern' navies in the setting.
There is one thing I feel like I should point out. In modern time, for smaller powers, Destroyers tend to be the ship of the line, the backbone of a Navy that can't afford Cruisers and up.
And countries that are even worse off tend to use Destroyers as capital ships, as flag ships. And Frigates and Corvettes as the main punch.
The Gonzanti is an interesting one, she's pretty much a freighter modified often as a makeshift fighter carrier or heavy landing dropship for armored units. She fills such a niche service for the Empire
Regarding the Omega class destroyer as compared to the Hyperion heavy cruiser:
Back in the age of sail, the definition of a cruiser/cruizer is a ship that cruises or does the cruising mission, ie sailing between foreign ports, doing port and diplomatic visits, showing the flag, and all for an extended period of time (incidentally this is why police cars are called patrol cruisers). On relatively close or safe stations this was a brig or sloop or corvette. On distant or dangerous stations this was a third rate, a heavy cruising ship if you will
The definition of a Destroyer warship originates in the lead up to WW1 with the torpedo boat destroyer. It was a ship meant to destroy torpedo boats, while also capable of attacking the various larger combatants. With Babylon 5 not having the area defence mission ships seen in current navies, the definition of a warship meant for dedicated offensive action against other warships (what the Omegas are most often seen doing) could end up being called destroyers
If one combines these two together one can get the situation in Babylon 5 where the heavy cruiser is smaller than the destroyer
For the roger young, saying you lost dozens of corvette transports doesn’t sound as bad as losing dozens of assault ships
For the Omega its basically the EA version of the USN Arleigh Burke class Destroyer.
Which has basically the same firepower of the Ticonderoga class cruisers, 122 missile cells for the Ticos to the Burkes 96 while both use the same combat system the Aegis. With the Burke having a slightly newer system.
We are basically in the period of the Destroyer title becoming the new DO ALL WARSHIP Title.
And there are other cruisers then just A Warship like you said.
Their is the Cabin Cruiser which is often use to denote small to medium civilan craft which have cabin and can cruise around for a few days or weeks. Fishing cruisers are also a thing, for long range fishing trips.
Then you have the Different type of warship cruisers.
Some of which should not see full combat.
Avaition Cruisers are one which are ment for mainly Flight Ops while being able to define itself from basically Raiders likes Corvettes and Destroyers.
Scouting cruisers are basically for long range patrol scouting and light skirmishing work.
Among others, serouisly there like 20 different types of cruisers out there
So a Combat cruiser will mean a cruiser type vessel that can actually face heavy mainline combat.
Remember its not the Size or Specs that make the Ship an X Type.
But the ROLE it serves in the Fleet and the Politics of its acquirement.
The term "combat cruiser" isn't something seen solely in Strange New Worlds. If I remember correctly nearly all or all of the Vulcan warships from Enterprise were labeled "combat cruiser". As for the Omega and the later Warlock class in B5, the classification of destroyer for something that would in our own world would be a cruiser, battlecruiser, or possibly a battleship is a bit strange. But most science fiction relies on the suspension of disbelief.
well, consider that our RL destroyers started out as 'torpedo boat destroyers', litterally 'the ships we built to destroy torpedo boats', where 'torpedo boats' could mean anything from row boats with spar torpedos through whatever point in the cold war that submarines switched from using torpedoes to anti ship missiles for attacking surface warships.
By a similar process you could end up with pretty much Anything labled a destroyer, provided it started out as a "destroyer of Xs" and there was no real competition for the term in the fleets of the day.
Star Destroyers may be confusing, as our naval Destroyers are usually smaller than cruisers. But our Destroyers were originally torpedo boats Destroyers, while Star Destroyers were designed to destroy cruisers...
In-universe they became a class unto themselves under the Anaxis War College system, generally being used for ships in the 1000-2000 meter range, which I find annoying because it goes, "Heavy cruiser-Star Destroyer-Battlecruiser", but the name is so ingrained in and out of universe that it stuck.
7:16, attention all personnel! We have a confirmed sighting of ANOTHER Space Kelso! I knew that Star Trek: The Next Generation had a Space Kelso, but I had no idea Babylon 5 also had a Space Kelso!
Gozanti is a "Cruiser" for many reasons, their is the Civilian version that is a "Cargo Cruiser" and a passenger variant that is a "Cabin Cruiser", most of the Military and Para-military types are "Cruising Cutters". the classification is a artifact of it's civilian origin and a descriptor of it's capability to "Cruise"
Is it possible all warships are actually 2009 Nissan Altima V6 that have been misclassified?
:Yes
Such a shame that writing and creating are in and of themselves talents and skillsets that need to be learned and maintained.
It means that artists and writers don't have room for all the crap they have to throw into their stories...
And that we end up with REALLY WEIRD search histories
An auxiliary cruiser is a civilian transport brought into military service and sufficiently armed to protect itself and its convoys. Escort carriers were a historic oddity but they also served an important convoy defense function by offering a platform still capable of transporting cargo while providing a limited anti-submarine and anti-aircraft capability. The main disadvantage was that such converted merchantmen had flight decks too short to land back on so the embarked aircraft were often ditched and the pilots retrieved later.
The Gozanti reflects this perfectly, having an externally secured starfighter compliment, still can haul cargo and is armed sufficiently to participate in convoy defense. It's an auxiliary cruiser escort cruiser hybrid.
I think it's also an important fact in worldbuilding to note that one race's destroyer is another's battleship and vice versa.
Think of Asimov's Foundation where an Imperial cruiser is a major find that makes whoever owns it a massive threat to the other worlds of the Periphery. I'm sure they all had cruisers of their own, but those were probably miniscule compared to an Empire ship.
Huh. I re-watched the ship types video for the fourth or fifth time last night and then you posted this video hours later interestingly enough.
Would love to see some videos on Infinity (the Wargame). Loving these!
The Aggressor class destroyer from Star Wars Empire a time War is clearly a battleship
I always thought the name was based on it's damage output. It's called a destroyer because it destroys things. It's more of a flying gun than a proper battleship.
Counter argument: The Aggressor is actually a Star Destroyer, so the Destroyer classification fits within the Star Wars universes naming conventions. Also as a further point, and to add some confusion, in the Star Wars universe a Destroyer (with out the Star in front) is actually capital ship class with a size and armament between a Heavy Cruiser and a Battlecruiser, so even it was just a Destroyer it would still fit.
On the Roger Young, the book version was called a corvette and carried 1 platoon, so my guess is it was proper there, but the type was carried over to the movie, where it was massively bigger
Seems like ships named Dreadnaught/Dreadnought are rarely battleships.
In the game Independence War, the Dreadnaught is a corvette.
In Star Wars, the dreadnought-class a heavy cruiser or star frigate.
I always took the Rodger Young as a Transport that carried Corvettes.
Also the Halo Infinity Class Supercarrier would literally be a great candidate to be a Fleet Carrier considering the Infinity does carry a small fleet of Frigates within itself. Though IIRC they got their name because they were intended to be basically a fully functional mobile military base.
the corvette transport you mention is actually pretty easy to explain, it's not a corvette, it's a transport that *carries* corvette scale craft, IE a Carrier variant.
if we focus on the other half of the name and consider the possibility that lexical drift in the intervening years could have merged the terms transport and carrier, it makes much more sense.
The word "Cruiser" is so overdone in scifi imo, writers seem to think it means something along the lines of a cruise ship or something that can support itself on a long voyage.
Also the Minbari explanation has another flaw: If you don't want to provoke your enemy by building a large capital ship why name your new ship "Destroyer"? It sounds way too aggressive for the uninformed observer.
the original age of sail definition of a cruiser was a ship that cruised and could support itself on long voyages. They'd sail between foreign ports and show the flag in port and host diplomatic visits. They'd also spend years doing this. So this is writers going back to a definition that was in use for hundreds of years, rather than the 50 odd years of "large general purpose warship" current navies use
Freespace calling its largest, most powerful warship class 'destroyers' messed me up for years, the smaller screening craft 'cruisers', and the medium sized anti-capital warships 'corvettes' messed me up for years
5:06
That's putting it VERY lightly lol
I once tried to find reason in the ship classifications of _Star Wars._
After I managed to regain a shred of my lost sanity, I decided to ignore everything besides physical dimensions.
If it’s roughly the size of the CR90 corvette, it’s a corvette.
If it’s roughly the size of a Nebulon-B frigate, it’s a frigate.
If it’s roughly the size of a Star Destroyer, it’s a heavy cruiser.
If it’s big enough to make heavy cruisers look like bath toys, it’s a battleship.
Do an analysis on the ship classes and naming schemes in eve online, I'm sure you will be surprised with the depth
Interesting video, I gave it a like. However, there actually is a real world analogue to the last ship you mentioned, the “destroyer” that is obviously a larger and more powerful class of vessel. Japan’s navy currently has several “helicopter destroyers” that are technically destroyer class but are over 800 feet long and 20 000 tons displacement, making them comparable in size to WWII fleet carriers and larger than almost all existing cruisers. They are more of an amphibious assault ship/carrier than anything else but are designated as destroyers because carriers and assault ships are viewed as offensive weapons and possessing them would go against the defensive nature of japan’s self defense force.
Properly speaking, a 'helicopter destroyer' should be a ship specifically designed and built for destroying helecopters ('destroyers' being, properly speaking, 'torpedo boat destroyers') so I'd argue that that is the Japanese navy misclasifying their ships, rather than grounds to justify the scifi equivalent error.
Arguably, such ships should be "helicopter tenders", assuming they're fairly lightly armed for their size and one doesn't want to call them a carrier.
@@laurencefraser my point was that the japanese navy intentionally misclassified a very large ship as a destroyer for political/optics reasons, which is exactly what the last ship in this video did. we can argue about what the proper designation for the ship should be, but its very clearly not a destroyer lol. light carrier, assault ship, you could argue. helicopter tender isn't accurate enough because they can carry F-35s and other fixed wing aircraft with minimal modification and were designed to do so from the get go.
Great video always love these space navy deep dives. Some points for discussion.
The UNSC Infinity could be classified as a super carrier due to it's ability to carry other capital ships. Specifically the Stalwart class frigates.
Second when it comes to the Omega class destroyers to my knowledge prior to their introduction the Earth Alliance does not have a another destroyer class ship. The Omega is the first destroyer class and is later followed up by the more advanced Warlock class destroyer and the Interstellar Alliances Victory Class destroyer. As you point out classifications change through out time. The majority of the United States Navy's most numerus class are the Arleigh Burke destroyers (with 60 ish in service). It could be that for the next few centuries destroyers continue to surface navies and the Earth Alliance chose to follow that naming convention when launching it's new ship building program. Cruisers connotate exploration which got them into the Earth Mimbari war and it looks really bad when your are losing dreadnoughts left and right. Destroyers are a aggressive sounding name that might suggest defense.
Finally through some extra dimensional spying the Earth Alliance could have seen the development of the Star Destroyer class in Star Wars and decided they needed destroyers also but couldn't bring themselves to pay royalties.
I always assumed that SF ship type classifications were so wonky because writers just don't know the difference between various ship classifications and also don't care to.
There are also modern "Cabin Cruisers."
On the subject of Omega Class Destroyer - I think that yes, Earth was recovering from the Minbari War, and with the new tech they had, the Omega Class destroyer was the first in an entirely new fleet of ships, where even bigger cruisers and battleships were still getting built. Something like the change from wood to steel as a primary building material allowed for a dramatic increase in ship size. I forget just *how* new the class was, but think bigger ships were in production.
So the Havenite Frigate-class Light Cruisers from the Honorverse probably belong on this list, but later Honorverse stuff can get really weird, the Manitcorians developed a Destroyer and Light Cruiser at the same time, but the Destroyer is the bigger one (That one is explained but, and makes some sense)
Re the ST example, I think some sources class the Enterprise as an exploration cruiser, so there being combat cruisers in comparison makes sense.
Roger Young is not a Fleet combatant, its a Troop Carrier, Analogous to Amphibious Assualt Ships, its entire job is to dump a Stack of Starship Troopers, provide beachhead support, and leave immediately if faced with enemy fleets and heavy ground emplacements that can hit it. And its consistently used that way.
Regarding the Gozanti-Class Cruiser, the naming could just be a clash between pre-wartime standards and the incredible slowness of a massive star-empire's bureaucracy, where the reclassification paperwork just won't reach the right desk for approval, so they just have to keep calling it that for official paperwork. I mean, a consular-class was a cruiser until the new warships relegated it to frigate-status.
On the Omega-class, one thing that happens in navies sometimes is a ship is actually downgraded in rate and class even if the type remains in service, say if their own or other powers prove to out-class them, literally. (ie, a cruiser one decade might be re-tasked as a frigate or destroyer as bigger and better things are out there.)
I’m surprised you didn’t include the “Dreadnought-class Heavy Cruiser” alongside the “Corvette-class Frigate”.
The corvette class is the equivalent of naming your left hand "righty" and right hand "lefty"
In Star Wars it gets a bit weird due to "cruiser" also referring to long distance hyperspace capable civilian ships. And the Gozanti is a militarized cargo transport.
One of the "mis-classifications" of a fictional starship I'm most fascinated by (for some reason) is that of the Venator-class Star Destroyer. In Star Wars, "Star Destroyer" basically just means battleship. Now, other Star Destroyers, like the Imperial-class and the Victory-class definitely fit the description of a battleship, what with their massive heavy guns, thick armor, and absolutely massive crews. The Venator-class does not fit that description. It only has 8 heavy guns, has massive structural weaknesses, and has a relatively small crew of 2,100 compared to the Imperial-class' 37,000. But what the Venator-class does have is a mammoth amount of starfighters, up to 400+ that can fit in its main hangar (which is why it has that aforementioned structural weakness), along with dozens of LAAT gunships that can tranport up to 2,000 clone troopers, whereas the Imperial-class can only hold 72 starfighters. It also has up to 52 point defense cannons, while the Imperial-class and Victory-class have none. So, it would be a lot more appropriate to classify the Venator-class as an Assault Carrier/Fleet Carrier rather than a Star Destroyer, in my opinion, at least.
The impression I get is that "Star Destroyer" essentially means "large, do-anything capital ship". Named as such because, in theory, a Star Destroyer carries enough armour, weaponry, and troops to conquer a (lightly-defended) star system without assistance from support ships. Both the Venator and Imperial-class fit this definition, being deployed individually or in small groups to project power across the galaxy, but with different specializations.
@@Mitchz95 It doesn't help that there are _Imperial_ variants that remove the ability to deploy troops or fighters in exchange for a more powerful turbolaser armament (and the infrastructure to support it). These are still referred to as 'star destroyers.'
@@Mitchz95 I also really like the idea that Star Destroyer is an organic term in the Starwars Universe and represents a new classification of ship. This is similar to what the HMS Dreadnought did. It is partially public relations but also a good way to differentiate between a paradigm breaking design.
slight gripe: the MC85 is more of a "battlecruiser", which in star wars constitutes ships far larger than traditional cruisers, 2,000-5,000 meters in length, with greatly intensified firepower and protection over their smaller siblings
the MC85 is in a similar range to the CIS's lucrehulk control ships, or empire's allegiance battlecruisers
8:00 The issue I take with this argument is that it's equivalent to saying 'the first time an immperial German soldier saw a British war machine at the Somme, any kind of deception is exposed, so why bother calling them 'tanks' to maintain secrecy up to that point?' Obviously no new warfighting technology will remain secret forever, but there's no need to broadcast to your enemies exactly what it is you're building before you've even finished building it.
I'd describe the "Infinity" as a Space Control Ship. She's vastly larger (in volume) than any of her sister ships, is part battleship and part carrier.