The complete guide to the X-303/BC-303/Prometheus

[Panther]

Reference the episode Enemy Mine:

It's a battle cruiser. When it's in the show, it's canon, unless they change their minds later on. So far they haven't.

So then you agree a the term monkey and ape are interchangable?

Despite, that the writers chose it does not make it correct! If 50 million people agree to something wrong, it is still wrong. TPTB are quite simply wrong. The Prometheus, as it stands now, never has and will never be a Battle Cruiser. It is a Battle Transport plain and simple, or if you want to accept a strictly naval term let's invent "Battle Carrier".

If we choose to accept that remark it could simply be ignorance on the part of Edwards or slang. Examples include calling the USS Wasp, strictly speaking a landing ship or assault ship, a carrier. For slang, calling a battleship a "battlewagon". Edwards is of course USAF, not USN, so I would highly doubt he knows his ship classes. I doubt he'd probably know what a sloop, or cutter were either.

[Jarnin]

So then you agree a the term monkey and ape are interchangable?

No, but those aren't their scientific designations either. Both monkeys and apes are simians however, which is interchangable. That's a bad analogy you have there.

Despite, that the writers chose it does not make it correct! If 50 million people agree to something wrong, it is still wrong. TPTB are quite simply wrong. The Prometheus, as it stands now, never has and will never be a Battle Cruiser. It is a Battle Transport plain and simple, or if you want to accept a strictly naval term let's invent "Battle Carrier".

If we choose to accept that remark it could simply be ignorance on the part of Edwards or slang. Examples include calling the USS Wasp, strictly speaking a landing ship or assault ship, a carrier. For slang, calling a battleship a "battlewagon". Edwards is of course USAF, not USN, so I would highly doubt he knows his ship classes. I doubt he'd probably know what a sloop, or cutter were either.

That's strange. According to this article at Wikipedia, the writer was using modern USN designation:

Naval ship classification is a field that has changed over time, and is not an area of wide international agreement, so this article currently uses the system as currently used by the United States Navy.

Surface Combatant - large, heavily armed, surface ships which are designed primarily to engage enemy forces on the high seas, including various types of battleship, battlecruiser, cruiser, destroyer, and frigate.

I can see why that article would say "not an area of wide international agreement" after reading the last few posts here

[Panther]

No, but those aren't their scientific designations either. Both monkeys and apes are simians however, which is interchangable. That's a bad analogy you have there

I disagree. It is not a bad analogy because each word as a definition associated with it and looking at those definitions we clearly see that there is a small but rather fundamental difference between the two, and thus we can conclude the two terms are not interchangable.

Secondly, no he was not. The USN classification for battlecruisers is CC and is currently retired, as evidenced here, here and here.

While there is no rigorous international agreement on ship types the disagreements mostly lie in details. For example how do you classify, to refer to your source, the Kirov Class missle cruisers when clearly they are larger than your average ones, and look to be different enough to warrant their own classifications. It's the same with the use of frigates.

[alaskannut]

I disagree. It is not a bad analogy because each word as a definition associated with it and looking at those definitions we clearly see that there is a small but rather fundamental difference between the two, and thus we can conclude the two terms are not interchangable.

Secondly, no he was not. The USN classification for battlecruisers is CC and is currently retired, as evidenced here, here and here.

While there is no rigorous international agreement on ship types the disagreements mostly lie in details. For example how do you classify, to refer to your source, the Kirov Class missle cruisers when clearly they are larger than your average ones, and look to be different enough to warrant their own classifications. It's the same with the use of frigates.

No, actually, its CB...CC was only used for the Lexington class ...when the Alaskas were built during WW2, the designation was changed to CB and they were classified as "Large cruisers" because of the british experience at Jutland and with the Hood..if they had been officially classified as battlecruisers, Congress never would have funded them...Also warship designations are EXTREMELY fluid and changeable...witness the whole frigate/cruiser/destroyer-leader thing with the USN during the '50s, '60s and '70s....and ships that really don't seem to fit the classical sense of a particular designation are being designated as such....there are 6000 ton "air defense frigates" and 15000 ton "destroyers" which are bigger than most WW2 heavy cruisers and equipped with 155mm howitzers in the design/construction stage right now...everythings relative as the saying goes.

And btw...you should checkyour first link...its first definition of a battlecruiser is " a cruiser with maximum speed and firepower"...sounds like the Daedalus to me

Also...why are we having this argument...its a fictional ship, in a fictional universe....what does it matter one way or the other???

[Agent_Dark]

Ummm, well not to detract from the debate going on here...

Anyone have an esimate or otherwise at how many people crew the Prometheus?

[alaskannut]

Ummm, well not to detract from the debate going on here...

Anyone have an esimate or otherwise at how many people crew the Prometheus?

Off hand I'd say as many as the number of extras the producers can afford to hire for any particular show
Otherwise...not the foggiest...perhaps in the range of 50-75 without the fighter squadron and its maintenance detachment.

[Anubis69]

Also...why are we having this argument...its a fictional ship, in a fictional universe....what does it matter one way or the other???

i know it's a fictional universe and all, and i agree, it is called a BC given they've said it, but i remember readingin a book that SG-1 employ some air force folk to ensure that their termonology and things in general conform with the air force? surely if they did the mistake would've been noticed, either that or like Chris O'Farrell said above, it's because it sounds cool. and lets face it, BC-303 prometheus does sound macho.

[_Owen_]

I could ask you, why do you watch stargate, it is a fictional universe, why would you spend time watching fiction when you can watch fact? I believe that the answer to this would be that it entertains you or something along those lines, well I guess talking about what BC stands for, or whatever they have moved onto now, is entertaining for them, even if it doesn't even exist.

I personaly like X - 303 Prometheus, although BC-303 isn't bad either.

Owen Macri

[alaskannut]

Chris O'Farrell said above, it's because it sounds cool. and lets face it, BC-303 prometheus does sound macho.

My friend, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head; Which sounds bigger, tougher and cooler?

Battlecruiser (forget the friggin' semantics already)

or

Battle-transport/bomber-transport (Which really just sounds like an Alkesh-type vessel, and at least for me, evokes ridiculous images of a Goa'uld shuttle with missile ports sticking out every-which-way...heavily armed but ridiculous)

My point exactly

That said, another point expanding on the matter of type-classification. Science-fiction writers have to work with subjects that are so far beyond any precedent in our real world it isn't funny. This is especially the case with the starships they create for their story's universe and their type classifications...how do you classify something that carries dozens of people and can travel unimaginable distances at equally unimaginable speeds using technology that if we experienced it in real life would seem like magic? The writers have to take real-life designations and decide what type of ship they feel comfortable applying it too...sometimes the result is very peculiar...witness the Omega class "destroyers" from Babylon 5 and the Star Destroyers from Star Wars...would you rather they just took the Star Trek route and with great originality classified them as....Starships ??

To lambast the writers for their decisions in this regard is arrogant, conceited and ill-concieved...just watch the show and enjoy it for what it is...good, fun, action-filled science fiction that helps you forget the stress of the previous week and relax as the heroes once more sally forth and vanquish the bad guy....or if you can't do that, go write your own show, pitch it to a network, and see how well you do.

That all said, you know guys...this is intended to be a thread for the discussion of the technical aspects of the BC-303's, not a place for insane arguments over its proper designation...if you really want to continue this ....discussion...why don't you create a dedicated thread??

[Orange Crush]

Although, from a more relative standpoint--each navy/military force classifies its vessels based on what the other vessels are called and by tradition. Prometheus & Daedalus are unprecedented as they're the first space/atmospheric ships of their size and kind . . . yet are under the Air Force rather than the Navy, so would be considered aircraft rather than "ships" by the suits.

A retcon I like is that the 303's actually are Battle Cruisers, with the added feature of being able to carry a small number of fighters due to the Goa'uld's heavy use of Alkesh and Death Gliders. A single vessel going toe-to-toe w/ a Hatak could be easily overwhelmed by the fighters, so strategy and Earth's limited resources dictate having a jack-of-all trades ship, where it should really function solely as a Battle Cruiser. I like to think there are designs on the board for a proper Space Carrier, Battleships, and other support craft to build a whole fleet. However, for Earth's present needs, all they can realisitically construct ATM are battle cruisers with a few hangars tacked on for well-roundedness.

-Nick

[Panther]

Type classification is a technical argument.

Secondly, by choosing to classify their space vessels as ships I think it is to be expected that they follow the norm. If they choose to rigorously apply a general term, then that is generally acceptable, as our sciences do so. However, if they choose to use a specific word and apply it ambigously and/or uncorrectly it is the same as breaking the rules of grammar and language. "I talk english proper" is obviously incorrect as opposed to "I speak english properly". It is the same with misuse of nouns.

Secondly, I hardly think a criticism of the lack of research by writers is lambasting them. Yes, I called them morons indirectly, but I hardly think one off-the-cuff name call is evidence of this. I enjoy the show for it's mix of modern military and out-there sci-fi and where the military aspect is not executed properly I lose some of the suspension of disbelief. I will not accept units like "assault sniper teams", because this is BS. Basically, these things annoy me and decrease my enjoyment of the show. If that occurs, then I think I have a right to complain. I don't complain for the sake of it, nor do I enjoy it or "feel big" after doing it. It is simply something I belive must be addressed.

Lastly, by virtue of the fact that they have cargo space and significant hangar facilities means they are not battlecruisers. Surface combatants usually carry no more than 4 aircraft (helos), and they are used for anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, and light utility work. The F-302s are fighters which are far more capable than that and there are 8 of them. If you look at the Prometheus' blueprints you will see the hangar space is not a "tack-on" but a design requirement from the get go. Therefore it is not a battlecruiser. The evidence of it being called a battlecruiser has been off-cuff remarks. There have been no technical briefings of the ship type, so the conclusion leans more towards ignorance of the part of the character.

[Nurgle]

Mebbe the writers had been playing Battlecruiser 3000AD (*shudder*) and thought it was a cool term?

[alaskannut]

And I maintain that the 303's are so far beyond anything we have right now, that any designation the writers choose is apprpriate...frigate, corvette, destroyer, battlecruiser, aircraft carrier....its their baby, they have the right to name it waht they want. They chose battlecruiser and it works for me, so how about we just agree to disagree Panther??

[Panther]

Always.

[alaskannut]

Always.

Laugh it up boy, laugh it up