Origin of the D5

[Johanobesus]

I got into a little debate about this, so I thought I'd see what other folks think. There are two explanation for the D5. SFB makes the D5 a late contemporary of the D7, a new ship built counter Federation war ships. In SFC it is both the Klingon destroyer and NCA.

Outside of SFB/SFC the D5 has been stated to be a predecessor to the D7, just as the Constitution is a predecessor to the Galaxy. In fandom the D stands for drell, which is a flying predator native to Qo'nos, and the ships are called such because they resemble the beast. While it stretches credulity that the same basic configuration should be retained for several centuries and seven or eight designs, it could be that the D1 vaguely resembled the drell and the name was retained even after the ships lost any such resemblance. Alternatively the word Drell might have nothing to do with any animal, but is exclusively used to designate battlecruisers, either generically or specifically for this lineage.

To me the second story makes more sense. The most straightforward interpretation of the designation D7 is that it is the seventh design in the D series of ships. It just seems more logical that the D6 was built after the D5 than before.

Now Atra pointed out that in the real world the it doesn't always work that way, most notably with aircraft. A very obvious example would be the B1, introduced some fifty years after the B17. While this is a good point, I still feel that the second explanation seems more reasonable. Unless D7 is a Starfleet designation, a chronological ordination just feels simpler and more realistic.


For what it's worth, as of Enterprise the second story is cannon, though the D5 looks very different than the D7.

[zerosnark]

With all due respect to Steve Cole and his merry men. . . .I always thought they were a bit daft with many aspects of nomenclature and whatnot. The need to fill fleets with "Light Cruisers", "Heavy Cruisers", "Destroyers" and "Frigates" makes little sense given the weapons of TOS and TAS.

Although the implication of the FJ tech manual and TOS implied a strong WWII orientation to warships. . . .the game designers should have showed a bit more imagination. Even by 1966, WWII was 20 years past, and it was becoming clear that the ship classes of the future would not resemble those of the past. (I am talking roles here.. . .not just ships)

By 1975, even the US Navy recognized this and did a wholesale redesignation of its main fighting ships. Today, the US Navy basically has only "Cruisers", "Destroyers" and "Frigates". And even the distinction between "Cruiser" and "Destroyer" today boils down to the rank of the commanding officer.

The idea of a D5 coming AFTER the D7 is simply retarded. I guess they would have not liked to have a D8 being weaker than a D7. And they were already defining "E", "C","F" and "G" ships. Equally retarded was the C5 and C7 designations.

We simply won't discuss the C6.

[Klingon Fanatic]

zerosnark said:

With all due respect to Steve Cole and his merry men. . . .I always thought they were a bit daft with many aspects of nomenclature and whatnot. The need to fill fleets with "Light Cruisers", "Heavy Cruisers", "Destroyers" and "Frigates" makes little sense given the weapons of TOS and TAS.

Although the implication of the FJ tech manual and TOS implied a strong WWII orientation to warships. . . .the game designers should have showed a bit more imagination. Even by 1966, WWII was 20 years past, and it was becoming clear that the ship classes of the future would not resemble those of the past. (I am talking roles here.. . .not just ships)

By 1975, even the US Navy recognized this and did a wholesale redesignation of its main fighting ships. Today, the US Navy basically has only "Cruisers", "Destroyers" and "Frigates". And even the distinction between "Cruiser" and "Destroyer" today boils down to the rank of the commanding officer.

The idea of a D5 coming AFTER the D7 is simply retarded. I guess they would have not liked to have a D8 being weaker than a D7. And they were already defining "E", "C","F" and "G" ships. Equally retarded was the C5 and C7 designations.

We simply won't discuss the C6.

FASA Trek was just as bad... LOL Frigates being actually cruisers in that game. Ships with identical parts/systems/weapons should be given specs that are nearly identical IMHO. The FASA D-10 a Four years war relic? Please...grumble...

I'm all for rewriting the book on Trek combat simulators from the point of veiw what if SFB/FASA Trek were made today instead of over twenty years ago.

[zerosnark]

Now THAT could be interesting.

And I agree. . .FASA certainly did not understand the difference between "frigate" and "cruiser".

As an (non) interesting aside. . .prior to the age of iron, warships basically fell into two groups; SOLs (ships of the line) and Frigates. Ships were also categorized as "rates". First and Second rates were the SOL's. Ships like the U.S.S. Constitution were (IIRC) fourth rates.

Now, in SFB terms, the *weapons suite* of all fed warships are basically 4 photons and 6-10 P1's. Except for the small ones (Frigate and POL). Also, in terms of "Starships", we can postulate three types of: Pure Warship (Locknar / Saladin), Pure Explorer (Coventry), and Hybrid (Constitution).

So -> Maybe these are all "starships" in Starfleet Parlance. Maybe they sometimes refer to the Hybrids as "heavy cruiser Starships" and the warships are "Destroyer Starships" The explorers are simply "Starships". The term "command cruiser" and "light cruiser would be moot. The Command cruiser would simply be a "Heavy Cruiser Starship" and the Old Provence class would be either a "Destroyer Starship". Call all of Starfleets smaller ships "frigates".

There would be third class, called priority transports. This would be Tugs and Scouts (remember. . .Scouts have a VIP transport role. . .)

Klingons would be a different story. They have a FLEET. I would picture this fleet built on battlecruisers as a basic component. That would be the D6 and D7's. The Klingon fleet is not like the Federation fleet. Their admirals would not fly a simple battlecruiser. Too hard to intimidate a pesky young captain if your ship has similar firepower. They have Flagships (don't call them battleships. . . all klingon ships are battleships. . .these are BATTLESHIPS).

Wait. . maybe Klingons use the "rate system". C8/C9/B1's would be first rates. D6/D7's second rates. F5's would be fourth rates. (eventually, the D5 would be a third rate). Assigned secondary duties. I would venture to say that the Klingon fleet would NOT bother with E4's or any of the smaller crap. Be real!

[Johanobesus]

zerosnark said:

Now, in SFB terms, the *weapons suite* of all fed warships are basically 4 photons and 6-10 P1's. Except for the small ones (Frigate and POL). Also, in terms of "Starships", we can postulate three types of: Pure Warship (Locknar / Saladin), Pure Explorer (Coventry), and Hybrid (Constitution).

So -> Maybe these are all "starships" in Starfleet Parlance. Maybe they sometimes refer to the Hybrids as "heavy cruiser Starships" and the warships are "Destroyer Starships" The explorers are simply "Starships". The term "command cruiser" and "light cruiser would be moot. The Command cruiser would simply be a "Heavy Cruiser Starship" and the Old Provence class would be either a "Destroyer Starship". Call all of Starfleets smaller ships "frigates".

There would be third class, called priority transports. This would be Tugs and Scouts (remember. . .Scouts have a VIP transport role. . .)

Klingons would be a different story. They have a FLEET. I would picture this fleet built on battlecruisers as a basic component. That would be the D6 and D7's. The Klingon fleet is not like the Federation fleet. Their admirals would not fly a simple battlecruiser. Too hard to intimidate a pesky young captain if your ship has similar firepower. They have Flagships (don't call them battleships. . . all klingon ships are battleships. . .these are BATTLESHIPS).

Wait. . maybe Klingons use the "rate system". C8/C9/B1's would be first rates. D6/D7's second rates. F5's would be fourth rates. (eventually, the D5 would be a third rate). Assigned secondary duties. I would venture to say that the Klingon fleet would NOT bother with E4's or any of the smaller crap. Be real!

That's basically what I came up with. The Federation used the term frigate to designate small combat vessels used for police and escort duties, destroyer for medium sized combat vessels, and cruiser for largish multi-role ships. Maybe, just maybe, they might eventually build large combat vessels and call them dreadnoughts or battleships.

The Klingons would have escort/scouts, battlecruisers, and flagships. In my system the C series are command ships based on battlecruisers, with the C1 being introduced after the D3, so the C5 would be the flagship for the D7, the C6 for the K'tinga, etc. Instead of a C7 it should be D8. I have had difficulty figuring out where the puny little ships would fit in this. They might be in-system police vessels, but nothing that would be seen on the front lines. I wish SFC had a more sophisticated system.

[Atrahasis]

The predecessor to the D5 in SFB is the LD5 which I think began service roundabot 2220's or so and it was a light cruiser.

The reason why the D-5 or LD-5 doesn't need to be a predessor to the D-7 is because the D-5 is a light cruiser design chain whereas the D-4 and D-7 were the Heavier Cruiser chains.

People may be pleasantly surprised to know that the SFB date for the D-4 is only 10 years or so off of 2250, which is close enough in my opinion to substitute the Ent-era D-4 model as the SFB LD-4, which is why I started meshing one last week.

[Kana]

zerosnark said:

With all due respect to Steve Cole and his merry men. . . .I always thought they were a bit daft with many aspects of nomenclature and whatnot. The need to fill fleets with "Light Cruisers", "Heavy Cruisers", "Destroyers" and "Frigates" makes little sense given the weapons of TOS and TAS.

Although the implication of the FJ tech manual and TOS implied a strong WWII orientation to warships. . . .the game designers should have showed a bit more imagination. Even by 1966, WWII was 20 years past, and it was becoming clear that the ship classes of the future would not resemble those of the past. (I am talking roles here.. . .not just ships)

Well considering were Steve Cole got his idea to make SFB, the WWII references, and design philosophy make sense. He used to play a Naval Wargame with the similar boxes/SSD layout, and watched alot of Star Trek when he was in college. He said at that moment it came to him.

[Atrahasis]

johanobesus said:

Outside of SFB/SFC the D5 has been stated to be a predecessor to the D7, just as the Constitution is a predecessor to the Galaxy.

Sorry to have to correct you on this, but nowhere in FASA or any other source I can think of says this. In fact FASA says it's the D-4 Predator that's the D-7's predecessor. The only canon reference in DS9 to the D5 does not give any indication of lineage.

[Johanobesus]

admin said:

Sorry to have to correct you on this, but nowhere in FASA or any other source I can think of says this. In fact FASA says it's the D-4 Predator that's the D-7's predecessor. The only canon reference in DS9 to the D5 does not give any indication of lineage.

You might be surprised how many fans have heard the term but know nothing about gaming. I first encountered the term D5 long before I played any game, and every time I heard abut it, in stories or conversations with other fans, it was assumed to be a predecessor to the D7. The majority of Trek fans know very little about the games.

As I stated, the Klingon battlecruiser in Enterprise was explicitly identified as a D5, so it is cannon. Of course, we all know my attitude towards Enterprise's status, so I can't really use this as a major premise, but it shows that I'm not some lone, uninformed nut.

The predecessor to the D5 in SFB is the LD5 which I think began service roundabot 2220's or so and it was a light cruiser.

The reason why the D-5 or LD-5 doesn't need to be a predessor to the D-7 is because the D-5 is a light cruiser design chain whereas the D-4 and D-7 were the Heavier Cruiser chains.

I think you're too stuck in SFB or FASA's rules. I strongly agree with Zerosnark, the whole frigate – destroyer – light cruiser – heavy cruiser – dreadnought progression doesn't really make sense. Given the role of the Constitution, it might make some sense for Starfleet to make smaller vessels with the same or nearly the same fire power but without the non-military facilities and personnel. For more militant states, however, it doesn't seem very reasonable. One would think that the D7 is already optimized for combat, and so there shouldn't be a strong need to make a smaller ship with comparable power. Never mind the fact that we never see such vessels on screen, only battlecruisers and smaller scout/support ships: in TNG the Vorcha and the Bird of Prey; in Enterprise the Raptor, stated to be a scout, the Bird of Prey, and the D5. I think that the light cruiser designation should be abandoned, at least for the Klingons if not for everyone. They might retain and upgrade older cruisers, especially if faced with war time pressures, and such ships might then fall into Starfleet's category of light cruiser, or Zerosnark's third rate, but they would have originally been battlecruisers. If you really want newly designed light cruisers, wouldn't it make more sense for them to have a different name, either D8 or something completely different? For game play we need something in the shiplist to balance Federation destroyers and light cruisers, but must such ships have the same origins and roles in the back story?

[Atrahasis]

You're forgetting that the cruiser in "Unexpected" was never identified as a D-5. If people had to put their money on a choice, however, they'd probably prefer to call it the D-4, which someone did CG of much later.

As for the predecessor to the D-6/D-7, I've never heard anyone say they thought it was a D-5.

[Johanobesus]

Ah, but the ship in "Judgment" is named. Just to be sure, since my memory is notoriously faulty, I checked Ex Astris Scienta, Memory Alpha, and Wikipedia. They all confirmed my recollection, that the battlecruiser introduced in the second season was explicitly called a D5.

I had never heard anyone describe the D5 as a later ship until I got into SFC, and I've been a fairly loyal fan of the franchise for most of my life. There can be quite a disconnect between different factions of the fandom, and between hard core fans and more casual fans.

[Atrahasis]

I'm aware of what those sites say, and the one from Ex Astris says this about the "Unexpected" cruiser:


Rob Bonchune eventually built a CGI of the said Klingon ship which he labeled as "D4 cruiser". He closely followed the sketch by John Eaves and added typical features of other 22nd century Klingon designs, like the struts between the command and the engineering hull. Although it looks quite different than the vessel we saw in "Unexpected" we may want to imagine it was in the episode.

So definitely NOT a D-5, although the D5 was featured in other episodes.

As for fanon, I still don't know of any source where people say the D-5 is a direct ancestor of the D-6/D-7.

[Atrahasis]

The more interesting question to me is what the Alphabetical designation means. Even if fanon says it means "Drell", and even if we think that's the name of a native creature, that still doen't tell us what it really means as in what is that name doing being associated with a given ship. It could refer to the shape or design, a designer, the shipyard at which it was built, or the class type it is be it cruiser or whatever.

I'd say that the D designation as used by FASA refers to the shape of a ship and also possibly the class type, but in SFB the D designation seems to be much more limited (to sub-class type), because not all of the manta-shaped ships carry the D designation. Now, taking this cue from Paramount-supported fanon, you can somewhat extrapolate and come up with a reason why the D-5 in SFB for example, is a later war-cruiser and not an ancestor of the D-6/7: Because the D designation is only used for special-purpose main fleet cruisers, which is why the D5 classifcation had to be recycled and used by the war cruiser design, after the D7.

[zerosnark]

I personally do not consider anything in Enterprise to be Canon.

But I would like to throw a serious monkey wrench into the conversation: The term "light cruiser" and "heavy cruiser" arose from the 1920 Washington Treaty which placed limits on warship production. This treaty produced the "Battleship Holiday" which turned the Lexington, Saratoga, Akagi and Kaga into Aircraft Carriers and halted battleship production until 1935.

A Heavy cruiser, by definition, was limited to 8" guns. A light cruiser, by definition, was limited to 6" guns. Both types could "grow" to 10,000 tons. This is what made the Deuschtlands (pardon spelling) so special; Germany was bound by *different* treaties, they could build a 10,000 ton ship with 11" guns. The intent was to allow the British to build a PILE of small, 6" gunned cruisers as convoy escorts, while limiting the size (and number) bigger 8" gunned cruisers.

As things turned out, by 1935 everyone started building 10,000 ton light cruisers to sail with their 10,000 ton heavy cruisers. (Because everyone was limited on the number of Heavy Cruisers they could build) .

The "Heavy" cruisers were nominally superior. . except for one crucial fact: A 6" shell could be lifted by a sailor and a 6" gun could be manually loaded. An 8" shell had to be mechanically loaded.

Therefore, a light cruiser, which could mount 12-15 6" guns had a significantly higher rate of fire than a Heavy Cruiser which only mounted 8-10 8" guns. By 1944, the US navy recognized that in a knife fight, you preferentially wanted light cruisers instead of heavy cruisers and started to organise the fleets that way. Battleships (such as the ones at Suraigo Straight) were supported by light cruisers. The Heavy cruisers were used as carrier escorts. The Alaska class "large cruisers" (a cruiser the size of a Battleship. . with 12" guns and Heavy Cruiser armour) were used as Carrier escorts.

Essentially, given the choice of a Fed CA with 6 x P1's; or a Fed CA armed with 9 x P2's. . which would you choose? How does the fact that the P2's fires twice per turn vs once per turn for the P1 influence your decision?

[zerosnark]

Oh. . .and by the way. . . .PRIOR to the London treaty, there were obviously NOT "light" and "Heavy" cruisers.

There were, however, Armoured Cruisers and "light cruisers". Armoured cruisers were *big*. Heavily gunned (up to turrets with 10" guns. . with impressive numbers of secondary of 6"-8" guns). Heavily armoured (to do battle with other armoured cruisers). And slow like a battleship of the day. In the US. . .these ships were given "state names" which reflected the power of these warships, which were really "mini battleships".

The advent of the BattleCruiser; Bigger and faster with bigger guns (but not as well armoured) made Armoured cruisers obsolete. Not many (if any at all) were build after 1906.

Light cruisers had other duties; such as screening the fleet against submarines and (probably more importantly) scouting for the enemy and bringing messages back and forth. Remember. . .both airplanes and radios were very new at this time, and not in wide use in the fleets.

The U.S. built a total of 10 armoured cruisers after the Spanish American War; After 1906, the U.S concentrating on "Dreadnaughts" and "Super Dreadnaughts" -> and never got around to building battlecruisers before the end of WWI.

The U.S build about 10 Omaha class light cruisers after the Spanish American War and prior to 1920. These were intended to be "scouts" for the battle fleet. Lightly armoured, cramped, and armed with 6" guns, and not even finished before the end of WWI, they were obsolete on day one and never used in their intended role as scouts. (Scout functions were taken over by the Airplane and Radio)

So if you look at the U.S. fleet in WWI. . it bascially had just Battleships and Destroyers; along with auxillaries.

The Royal navy had all manners of Battleships, Battle cruisers, armoured Cruisers, light cruisers, and destoyers. . but their navy was basically larger than every other navy combined.

- - - - - -