Military Spacecraft Designations

[tkdguy]

I've been racking my brain trying to come up with a way to classify military spacecraft in my game. I know all about the naval designations: battleship, cruiser, etc. But I'm trying to get away from all that, since the Space Corps is a branch of the Air Force. Here's what I have so far:

 

Fighter: I'm not sure about using this term, since it's used for small one or two-man aircraft. There won't be too many of those in my campaign.

 

Interceptor: Possible; the best thing I've been able to come up with so far. But that seems more appropriate for smaller spacecraft than larger ones.

 

Bomber: This would be a misnomer for the most part, unless the spacecraft bombs a moon or planet -- not too common in my campaign.

 

Assault ship: I could use these for the larger ships, but I'm not sold on it.

 

Patrol ship: Another possiblility for small or medium vessels.

 

Skirmisher: I thought about it, but it just doesn't feel right.

 

Any ideas would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

[L. Marcus]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

One thing you can do is to use the terms vehicle, vessel or craft or some such rather than ship. In my game I use the designation Battle for vessels that are designed to take on other pure war vessels heads on, Escort for smaller craft who perform patrol duties to keep pirates and such down, and Assault for craft that aim at taking planetary surfaces, by landing marines and bombarding installations and enemy formations. Each category is divided further into Heavy, Medium and Light, and if there's a specific roll the vessel is geared toward, like a Heavy Assault (Bombardment) Craft.

 

I don't hold with fighters, as I see those tasks performed by drones and missiles.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

How about 'Corsair' as an alternative to 'Skirmisher'? OK. that is sort of a naval term usually associated with pirates (and Traveller), but seems a reasonable name for a class of fast and lightly armoured attack ships.

 

'Shuttle' for vehicles used for surface-oribit transport operations (well, duh!). Maybe 'Lander' for vehicles that transit surface and orbit wholly via thrust (no aerodynamics to speak of). 'Station' for the obvious (suggest that they are only called "SPACE stations" by greenhorns and outsiders). 'Platform' is used for small stations that are less permanent and/or more specialized.

 

Another possibility is to lift acronyms. We have AWACS now, so future space vessels with specialized sensor arrays get nicknamed something vaguely similar? Ceewacs, maybe.

[The Weapon]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

It would help if we knew how space combat worked in your game.

1) Do nukes play a part?

2) How about energy shields of some type?

3) What factors give a fleet an advantage in detection, firepower, maneuver etc?

4) Can most ships fire all of their weaponry and still maintain top speed or is it a tradeoff like Star Fleet Battles?

5) For instance suppose it required less power to slipstream in the wake of another ship might a large, fast, heavily armored Pointship class develop?

6) If shields are directional might Flankers with a small number of big guns develop to take advantage of any enemy that put all power to forward shields?

7) What if winning is nuking the big ships or blowing up enough of their escorts that they have to leave or be nuked. Bristlers a class of ship designed to cover a retreat with a brief blaze of missile-killing, from their bristling weaponry (which is powered from batteries) might make sense.

8) Do lots of small ships beat one big ship and if so under what circumstances?

9) What is the purpose of a warfleet? How does it win a war? Is escorting invading armies it's key responsibility or do empires win by crippling the opponents trade?

10) How big are civilian ships and is it practical to convert them to warships? A generation ship converted to warfare would be a horrifying sight. Sure it's not exactly speedy and it has a job to turn inside the Oort cloud, but it's damage control section has more people than your entire fleet - in each watch.

11) Are there specialized warships at all?

[Egyptoid]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

.... into Heavy' date=' Medium and Light, and if there's a specific role the vessel is geared toward, like a Heavy Assault (Bombardment) Craft. I don't hold with fighters, as I see those tasks performed by drones and missiles.[/quote']

 

I'm with L-Marcus here. It's about function:

Troop-Landing, Bombardment, Survey, Stealth, Scout, Commando Insertion, Colonizer,

Fuel-Tankage, Resupply, Civilian Cargo, Merchant Marine, Cloaker-Spy.

 

Some author, I think Herbert, also drew a big line in his ship designations, and that was:

can the vessel enter a gravity well and land on a planet, or is it active in orbital only.

[RexMundi]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

I go classic Navy. Patrol. Frigates. Destroyers. Cruisers. Battleships. Carriers. Then Sub Equivalents. Fleet Structures like you see in the Honor Harrington stuff from David Weber.

 

~Rex

[matrix3]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

I go classic Navy. Patrol. Frigates. Destroyers. Cruisers. Battleships. Carriers. Then Sub Equivalents. Fleet Structures like you see in the Honor Harrington stuff from David Weber.

 

~Rex

 

The last time I did a military space campaign, some years back, I had ships and duties split between Navy and Air Force. It was mostly Navy, with orbital platforms, space stations, cruisers and other Navy equivalents, but I also had an "AI War" so there were no autonomous vehicles and the remote links for remote piloted vehicles were vulnerable to hacking from the AI forces, so there were actual human pilots in the fighters.

[Clonus]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

You haven't given enough information about the campaign assumptions. This leaves me to wildly toss out thoughts.

 

Drone: Designation for any unmanned vessel.

Queen or Hive: Manned command vessel for drones.

Scout: The smallest, most expendable manned class of vessel intended to explore unknown space and gather intelligence (does not apply in campaigns that do not have interstellar travel because there is no unknown space)

Escort: A small vessel primarily armed with anti-missile weaponry intended to accompany larger ships and protect them from missile bombardment.

Raider: A medium sized vessel capable of operating without resupply, designed to attacked lightly defended targets.

Attacker: A small vessel intended to eliminate enemy escorts and catapults.

Catapult: A large vessel armed with a mass driver. Primarily intended to attack planets, space stations, and slow moving vessels.

Battlestation: The largest class of vessel at least until something even bigger comes along, it started out as just space stations with weaponry, but eventually got engines.

Gigante: What comes after battlestation. "Dreadnought" equivalent.

 

Or you could go with designations that are all from chess:

 

Pawn=Drone

Rook=Heavily armoured heavy ship

Knight=Medium sized vessel that frequently operates solo.

Bishop=Fleet Escort

King=Command ship/Drone tender

Queen=Heavy ship with the heaviest offensive armament.

[Sundog]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

I go classic Navy. Patrol. Frigates. Destroyers. Cruisers. Battleships. Carriers. Then Sub Equivalents. Fleet Structures like you see in the Honor Harrington stuff from David Weber.

 

~Rex

 

I use much the same, but I try to avoid the term "Destroyer". The origin of the term ("Torpedo-Boat Destroyer") makes it less useful, to me, since there would be no space equivalent to a Torpedo-Boat. I usually have the term "Corvette" for warships smaller than a Frigate.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

I think size and purpose are the two variables here. Single piloted craft, two piloted craft, multiple crew(up to, say, 10), heavily crewed(20-200?), superheavy crewed(200-2000), ultraheavy (2000+ crew) might be simpler than working out the exact size breakpoints. Attack, interception, reconnaisance/scouting, escort, exploration, science, command, bombardment/siege, assault, landing, transport(troops), transport(cargo), hospital, fuel, etc. would be purpose designations.

[Cancer]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

Frankly, I expect that ships would be classed by engine/power plant and hull capacity, and maybe by human occupation capacity. Engine type and thrust rating tells you how much mass a ship can move between orbits in what kind of time, as well as fuel load capacity and endurance between refueling. Hull capacity tells you how much they can haul in terms of volume. (If you're under your mass limit, yes, you can strap stuff on the outside, but that will be exposed to the space environment and to long-range 'scoping.) I think the mass and volume requirements for various kinds of armaments go far enough for you to tell what the combat capability of a given vessel is going to be. Life support for people (and maintaining safe environment space for people) is likely to be big, heavy, energy-intensive and costly, so sustainable onboard person-count is likely to be another specification that's built into a ship from its origin.

 

I would not expect different named "classes" of warship to be present from the outset, because I wouldn't expect "standing fleets" of dedicated purpose-built warships to exist this early in space history, with the exception of weapons systems with peculiar requirements. If you have a battle to fight, then you load whatever ships you have on hand with whatever weapons systems can go in their hulls, UNLESS ships are really cheap to build (or, perhaps, easily converted between functions or otherwise cheaply and quickly recyclable) and/or weapons systems are completely incompatible with the peacetime function of a ship.

[RexMundi]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

I use much the same' date=' but I try to avoid the term "Destroyer". The origin of the term ("Torpedo-Boat Destroyer") makes it less useful, to me, since there would be no space equivalent to a Torpedo-Boat. I usually have the term "Corvette" for warships smaller than a Frigate.[/quote']

 

Yeah but I'm an old SFB guy, so FF, FFE, DD, DDE, DDL, C, CC, CC+, BCH, DN, DNG, BB, CV, SSCS, etc etc etc .....is very natural to me nowadays, heh.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

Battleships are defined by their useful payload. Various naval architects prefer to do different things with that payload, so while we have First Rates, Second Rates, Third Rates down to Sixth Rates and so on, armchair theorists argue about whether this souped-up big boy is really up to fighting it out with a real First Rate with a larger-than-normal sensor array.

Not all ships are designed for battle, though. Others may have guns, but they sacrifice firepower for range and sensor ability, because their task is to "cruise" for information: "Cruisers."

Being able to land on a planet with an atmosphere is a consideable advantage in itself, although obviously it sacrifices payload in other ways. Anyone who has been on one of these long, narrow, streamlined ships and seen the weapons, troops or supplies arranged up and down its long galley knows why they're called "galleys." The bigger, better-armed ones, have internal bays, hence multiple (lots) of galleys: "galliots."

Some units don't have engines, because they are meant to be carried somewhere to control a given volume of space. Or, rather, because it is space, and they are spaceships, they are hooked up on a tow line: "barges."

Some units are small and short-ranged, just like utility boats, only armed: "gunboats."

Others carry gunboats to operating areas: "carriers."

(Sorry, couldn't think of a Quatorzan name for a carrier!)

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

Well, there are some interesting suggestions here. But it occurs to me that different nation/cultures use different systems of ship types, even if they use the same words. The modern USN goes by size, Cruiser>Destroyer>Frigate>Patrol. But the Royal Navy uses mission, with Frigates being anti-submarine, destroyers being anti-air, and cruisers being multi-mission. Some British frigates are the same size as American cruisers! I tend to fall back to USN World War 2 designations, going from Patrol Torpedo (PT), Patrol Frigate (PF), Destroyer Escort (DE), Destroyer (DD), Destroyer Leader (DL), Light Cruiser (CL), Heavy Cruiser (CA), Command Cruiser (CC), Large Cruiser (CB), Battleship (BB), with special types seperate: Submarine (SS), Fleet Aircraft Carrier (CV), Light Aircraft Carrier (CVL), Escort Aircraft Carrier (CVE), Large Aircraft Carrier (CVB), Oiler (AO), Ammunition Ship (AE), Hospital Ship (AH), Fleet (ocean going) Tug (ATF), Troop Transport (AP), Cargo Ship (AK), Landing Ship Dock (LSD), Landing Ship Tank (LST), Fast Troop Transport (APD), Destroyer Mine Sweeper(DMS), Destroyer Tender (AD), Submarine Tender (AS), Repair Ship (AR)... these are all ocean going ships, and doesn't include many of the specialty boats for amphibious warfare. And I've left some out.

 

Going back... different cultures, different types. German has some neat words for different warships: PanzerKruiser (Armored Cruiser), PanzerSchiffe (Armored Ship), SchlattSchiffe (Battleship... or at least that's what they used for ships I would call a battleship), Zerstrorer (Destroyer), SchnellBoot (Fast Torpedo Boat).

 

It really comes down to 'what is this ship designed to do, and what would this culture call it?'. Is the ship designed to destroy other ships in a mass fleet action? "Battleship" covers it. Is it designed for more peaceful 'show the flag, scare pirates, support the fleet action'? Cruiser. Is it designed to protect other ships from the enemy? Destroyer. Does it carry a number of small craft? Carrier. Plenty of speed and firepower, but weak defenses? Battlecruiser.

[Clonus]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

I use much the same' date=' but I try to avoid the term "Destroyer". The origin of the term ("Torpedo-Boat Destroyer") makes it less useful, to me, since there would be no space equivalent to a Torpedo-Boat. I usually have the term "Corvette" for warships smaller than a Frigate.[/quote']

 

No space equivalent to a Torpedo-Boat? Bah. The most likely kind of armed spacecraft would be a small and highly expendable missile platform with paper-thin hulls.

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

I use much the same' date=' but I try to avoid the term "Destroyer". The origin of the term ("Torpedo-Boat Destroyer") makes it less useful, to me, since there would be no space equivalent to a Torpedo-Boat. I usually have the term "Corvette" for warships smaller than a Frigate.[/quote']

 

ReReading this, it occurs to me (as things often do)

You should also avoid the term "Battleship", since the term's origin refers to the "Line of Battle", which would be pointless in space.

"Cruiser" refers to the independent duty, long range patrol mission, and originally wasn't a type of ship.

 

Which makes me think of the older designations:

"ship of the line", refering to the big ships intended for fleet actions. Became Battleships.

"Frigate", large independent patrol vessels. Became Cruisers.

"Sloop", smaller ships for message duties and short range patrols. Became Destroyers and Frigates.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

Generally,following the naval analogy anything above a corvette in size was a deepwater vessel and likely considered a "major surface combatant". Anything below that was for coastal patrols and supported attack runs--motor torpedo boats, motor gun boats, fast attack craft, missile boats and corvettes. These could range anywhere from 30 to 3,000 tons, and were typically fast-moving, light-armored vessels carrying a few pieces of ordnance for some punch. Considering that size range, seems like fighter craft would blend seamlessly in at the bottom end, and then ships of the line(or craft of the line) would come in at the upper end.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

For fighters, yeah drones and such sure but you might have some small manned craft depending on the nature of ship weapons and such. While I believe dogfighting in space to be more than a little unrealistic, the concept is fun and an everpresent trope of Sci-Fi.

 

Fighters would be most likely divided up into Space Superiority, Interceptor, Scout, Bomber. With typical F- or B- designations if evolving from American stylings. And yeah, the Air Force / Naval dichotomy should be visible - as Space stuff is currently Air Force controlled for the most part, but we all think "Space Navy" when we think of lumbering fleets full of Star BattleCruisers and whatnot.

 

Ships? Depends on a lot of things. In a setting with pinpoint-accurate particle weapons, no stealth, and no shields - near-future realistic - you won't have classes of ships. You'll have remote controlled drones, guns with engines on them, countermeasures rather than armor, and ships designed to be as disposable as possible. If you go with some schtick, then you can pick the classes you want.

 

In my setting, the biggest ships are Cruisers with maybe a few BattleCruisers built for show and blockades. Cruisers get up to maybe 400 to 500 meters long at max, and are generally the long tubes with engines on the back. So I have designations for Corvette, Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, and Battlecruiser. "Fighters" are almost unheard of but there are a few, mostly used on Space Stations for local system law enforcement rather than for military needs. Weapons in use are generally deadly accurate, so armor and countermeasures win the day over speed or evasion, given that computer controlled Mass Drivers, guided missiles, and Particle beams with ranges nearing several light-seconds are incredibly difficult to dodge.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

The OP asked for non-naval ideas, so I'm going to attempt to get this thread back on that track.

 

The Air Force today designates its aircraft by mission...you have fighters for air superiority, bombers to attack ground targets, fighter-bombers for close air support, cargo planes for transport, tankers for refueling, etc. Expanding their sphere of influence into space will bring about some new missions that aircraft can't perform, so some new designations would have to be made.

 

For space superiority, your smaller craft could still be called fighters...nothing too radical there. Larger craft could possibly also be called fighters, but seems a little weird to modern sensibilities. Maybe just call the whole class "space superiority craft" and break it down by size group...light space supe, medium space supe, heavy space supe, etc. Or maybe by crew size...1-2 = fighter, 3-10 = gunship, 11-50 = assault craft or something...

 

Your logistics craft wouldn't change...cargo craft, tanker craft, etc.

 

Less heavily armed, just as fast, but better equipped for long-term missions could be patrol craft. These couldn't be too small...they need enough crew members to account for shift changes and need more storage for food, etc.

 

Heavily armed, slow, long-term craft could be called sentries...these are the ones that sit at strategic points as guards or besiege planets.

 

Craft that carry large amounts of bombs could still be bombers; those that lay space mines could logically be called minelayers even though that's traditionally a naval vessel. Ships built around a huge weapon (spinal mounts) might be called mobile artillery or mobile weapons. Or all three of these could be combined into a larger classification like munitions craft or something.

 

Craft that land troops on planets could be called assault craft or just landers.

 

Just a few ideas...

[dmjalund]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

ReReading this, it occurs to me (as things often do)

You should also avoid the term "Battleship"

 

you could always use the term BattleStar

[Yansuf]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

The OP asked for non-naval ideas' date=' so I'm going to attempt to get this thread back on that track. [/quote']

 

GR8 idea!

 

The terms fighter and interceptor still work for small combat craft. Large ones whose primary purpose is to carry smaller ones can still be called carriers or motherships.

For large warcraft designed to fight other spacecraft, the term "waller" for 'wall of battle' vessel might be used, if the tactics lead to using a wall of battle. A more general term "space superiority vessel" might be used.

Craft could be designated by primary weapons type, such as "missile vessel/craft/ship" or "beam vessel/craft/ship". The terms small, medium and large could be used with this, or light, medium and heavy.

 

For vessels designed for patrol duty, patrol craft/vessel/ship works; patrol plane is a standard (naval) aircraft type.

 

Vessels whose primary function is attacking more of less fixed targets, such as planets, moons, space stations, etc. could be called bombers but more probably the term "attack craft/vessel/ship" would be used; again with discriptor such as small (or light) and large (or heavy).

 

Space stations designed primarily for combat might be called "weapons platforms" or "orbital weapons platforms".

 

Transports, Tankers, Recon, etc. are aircraft types, so "recon vessel" could be used where naval terminology would use scout.

[Clonus]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

 

Transports, Tankers, Recon, etc. are aircraft types, so "recon vessel" could be used where naval terminology would use scout.

 

Naval terminology doesn't use "scout". That's actually army terminology.

[The Weapon]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

Historically based spaceship class names, may not fit your history. Size is expressed as a multiple of the original combat designed ship (a runner, the New Light

 

Name: Runner

Designation: RN

Size : .75 - 1.5

History:

Scout ships start mysteriously disappearing, hostile action is suspected but since none have survived an attack cannot be confirmed. Faster scout ships with heavier shields and anti-missile weaponry are developed in hopes one will survive an attack and report back. Two do and are their information on their attackers causes the development of Counter-Hostility Ships or "Counters".

Role: Individually scouting and exploration, in fleets sensor and electronic counter-measures and counter-counter-measures. Firepower to weak to even reliable shoot down other runners but good enough to provide some defense against missiles for itself and nearby ships.

 

Name: Counter-Hostile Ship or "Counter"

Designation: CH

Size : 3 - 5

History: When the first runners returned from attacks by the Andromedans these ships were developed to win a battle against a single Andromedan ship 90% of the time or more. Since information was based on only a few actual encounters (and those were the ones runners survived) this was only achieved against the smaller class of Andromedan ships. These are the first ships by humans designed to actually win a fight rather than simply return from it.

Role: There are three main sub-designations Interceptor (-I) for anti-missile ships, Missile (-M) for missile ships and General (-G or no additional designation) for ships with mixed weaponry. Interceptor counters are used escorts for larger ships, missile counters are used in groups to destroy large ships and

general counters are used in anti-piracy work, merchant escort duty where large raiders are not expected and anywhere sending a larger ship would be a waste.

 

Name: Superior Threat Ship or Threatship

Designation: ST

Size : 6-10

History: While counters were being designed and constructed some believed that there were bigger threats than Runners had revealed. Selection bias in the form of Runner only surviving encounters with the smaller Andromedan would hide the presence of bigger warships. Plans to counter what was called the "Superior Threat" were made including designs about twice the size of a counter. When more than expected of the counters didn't return strategists sent 5 counters into an area that seemed to be a center of Andromedan force. They found both larger numbers and larger sizes of Andromedan ships than expected. They only survived because the Andromedans were expecting an attack from another direction and largely ignored them. At the time the Andromedans attacking with only a fraction of their fleet was puzzling. The production of Threatships was approved less than a day later.

Role: Flagships for minor fleets such as defend unimportant rim planets or empires that can't afford bigger ships. Forward screen for bigger ships providing much of fleet firepower while keeping CH-Ms from larger ships. Subdesignations Fast (-F) often used for raiding enemy commerce and installations, Observation (-O) used to find enemy scoutships before they locate your main fleet (or find out that it isn't where you want them to think it is). No larger ship is found without escorts except in very unusual circumstances.

 

Name: Main Battle Vessel

Designation: MB

Size : 15-30

History: During the first Andromedan war sizes of ships were continually increasing as it become more obvious that the enemy had more than people thought. When the threatships were found to be unable to survive a single salvo from the larger Andromedan ships MB were designed so that they could use their damage control capacity instead of just dying against Andromedan "Pineapple" class ships.

Role: The main projector of firepower in the battle formation.

 

Name: Bulk Conversion Ship or "Bulker"

Designation: BC

Size : 50-150

History: Originally this class of ship was made up of megatransports converted when things looked really desperate. The sheer size of the guns and shields however made it possible both to engage Andromedan ships outside their range and to survive missile attacks with shields up.

Role: Destroy targets from outside their range and add to firepower of the battle line.

[Sundog]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

No space equivalent to a Torpedo-Boat? Bah. The most likely kind of armed spacecraft would be a small and highly expendable missile platform with paper-thin hulls.

 

At first, sure. But the advent of any ship that could take a hit or mount any sort of serious point defence would end their usefulness - speed is no defence in space. Real warships would eat them like popcorn.

[tkdguy]

Re: Military Spacecraft Designations

 

Thanks for all the suggestions. I guess I should give a little more explanation about my campaign and how I see space combat working.

 

My campaign is a near-future setting with the major nations expanding throughout the solar system. Different factors lead to the first war in space.

 

I see combat working this way:

1. Sensors detect and get a lock on enemy spacecraft. Electronic countermeasures are used at this time.

2. Spacecraft try to outmaneuver each other.

3. Missiles are launched at long range. Point defenses (autocannons and smaller missiles) are used to destroy approaching warheads.

4. Spacecraft move into gun range, still trying to outmaneuver one another.

5. Railguns and coilguns are fired. Hope your vessel's armorcan withstand the barrage.

 

Surviving spacecraft may regroup or continue to punch through enemy lines.

 

Supply vessels and transports are common, so attacking enemy convoys and protecting your own are common missions. Keep in mind space travel is faster than that available today, but it's still relatively slow, taking months or even years to get to the outer planets. So the major regions would have military space stations, which would be prime targets, of course.