X-304?

[TrustNo1]

You offend everyone

[alaskannut]

You offend everyone

Doesn't he though?

[Lord §okar]

"And the hits just keep on comin'."

[general ben]

You offend everyone

i think lord sokar makes these post a lot more fun he is passionate, i think that is the word, about how he thinks the numbering system is, its just too bad he is wrong .

[Lord §okar]

So, any of you think you're up to the task of proving it?

[general ben]

So, any of you think you're up to the task of proving it?

i already said my peace and just hope that at some point in this season they prove one of us right by coming out and saying the BC-303's are in full production now. or in your case the BC-304s.

[Lord §okar]

But you just declared that I'm wrong.

With what we know now I'm right, that, of course, doesn't mean that the writers won't go and mess it up later.

[alaskannut]

So, any of you think you're up to the task of proving it?

You first.

[Lord §okar]

I made the last on topic post here, it's your turn, that's how it works.

EDIT: Here, I'll repost:

There are three subclasses of Los Angeles class submarine, all of them are Los Angeles-x class.

Daedalus is not a subclass/variation of 303 since subclasses are part of the same class as the parent with a Roman numeral designating which order subclass they belong to. It is a new class completely, as is denoted by it's new class name [a contention assisted by its patently distinct design].

Regardless of what *******ized (evidently the "b" word is disallowed) Air Force nomenclature system was employed with the 303 it is irrelevant, they're reverted to full naval for the Daedalus and it is a Daedalus class ship, nothing to do with 303.

I don't even think it's 304 anymore because that would mean a departure from the naval scheme, but it is not 303.

[general ben]

I made the last on topic post here, it's your turn, that's how it works.

EDIT: Here, I'll repost:

Regardless of what *******ized (evidently the "b" word is disallowed) Air Force nomenclature system was employed with the 303 it is irrelevant, they're reverted to full naval for the Daedalus and it is a Daedalus class ship, nothing to do with 303.

I don't even think it's 304 anymore because that would mean a departure from the naval scheme, but it is not 303.

that could be true that they reverted to naval numbering and just number them for now 1-whatever we get to. which makes sense cause they are never called the BC-303 not even the prommie except for like one epsiode where they said it was a BC-303.

[Hatcheter]

I'm coming to this discussion late, I know, and I've only read as far back as page 4, but I do think I have an insightful, nay, paradigm-shifting observation.

What if the Deadalus isn't an X-303. What if it's a Y-303?

Or, it's a Flight II model, which is a US Navy term for when a class is significantly redesigned, yet still retains the class name.


On a side note, the USS Los Angeles was brought up, specifically the 688 on it's sail. That number is there because it was the 688th submarine in the US Navy. That kind of numbering is irrelevant of class, the numbers keep rising for every new ship of the general type. (With the screwy exception of the three ships in the Seawolf class. The Virgina Class is catching up again at 774.)

In which case, with or without an X-, Y-, F-, BC-, -303, -304, -TBD-, or -WTF- designation, the Deadalus is using the naval numbering scheme, with it's 02 denoting it as the Earth's second battlecruiser (Which would properly be CC, according to wikipedia.)

[TrustNo1]

Or maybe you all miss the point and they are naming SPACE CRAFT!!! They can invent a whole new system for that

[alaskannut]

Or maybe you all miss the point and they are naming SPACE CRAFT!!! They can invent a whole new system for that

Amen

[alaskannut]

(Which would properly be CC, according to wikipedia.)

Actually, as per the Alaska class built during WW2,the proper designation is CB...but let's not turn this thread into that kind of an argument....its been done to death

[Hatcheter]

Actually, as per the Alaska class built during WW2,the proper designation is CB...but let's not turn this thread into that kind of an argument....its been done to death

You know, I think we had that discussion once before, come to think of it.

And, seriously, could it drag this thread down any more?