: I still think they should retcon the CRS-class as a patrol ship, fast-attack
: craft, or possibly a light corvette. I made a post about this subject
: last year. Needless to say, given that it's less than a third of the
: length of an SDV-class heavy corvette, the word "cruiser" should
: not appear anywhere in the class' name.

I don't believe cruisers came into their modern definition determined by size until the late 19th century. Prior to then, a cruiser would denote its capabilities rather than its displacement relative to other vessels. In that sense you could have a frigate be a cruiser in role whereas the ships-of-the-line would become the predecessor of cruisers with fuel-powered propulsion and armored or protected hulls.

Light cruiser is a strange term, yeah, but an accurate one nevertheless. Its likely role within Covenant naval doctrine would support the antiquated definition of a cruiser rather than the modern practice observed by the UNSC Navy and even the Covenant themselves with the CCS, RCS, and Reverence classes.

On another note, I think the example provided by the upscaled CSO-class supercarrier may indicate something interesting. I find it unlikely that the Covenant would see fit to maintain a fleet of overwhelmingly large CSO's prior to the beginning of the Great War as the smaller CAS was just as capable. It is likely that CSO was derived from CAS instead of vise versa and I would suggest that CRS and CCS are much the same. Why would you scale down a design that you already see as effective? What works well with a large warship does not translate well to the roles you need to fill for a smaller hull. It would only make sense that CCS was upscaled from CRS, then a much older vessel from a time when it was at the forefront of the Covenant's fledgling interstellar navy, and thus defining cruisers by role and not size.