Shipbuilding time

[Patrick Degan]

OK I was looking through the Ships of the Starfleet vol 1/revised 2290-91.It lists the construction time of the Constitution class Starship Enterprise.

16 July 2218 laid down -----05 Jan 2221 commisioned.


Enterprise D

2350-laid down------------2363 commisioned


Why did it take the TNG shipyard 13 years to build and commision the Ent D ?

I think that refers to the timeframe for the whole Galaxy-class development project rather than the construction for one ship. By season two of TNG, there were at least three Galaxys in service; that would average out to about 4.33 years per ship in the building. According to "Booby Trap", the Enterprise was under construction in the Utopia Planetia orbital yard in 2262; she looked about 40-50% completed in the holodeck recreation and the ship was commissioned into service the next year.

[TheDarkling]

I'd like to see the direct quote, because your description doesn't mean they haven't begun building her. For all we knew she could have been called the USS Bob Dole and was renamed the Ent-E during the build (as the US Navy did after the Lexington and Yorktown were lost). We know that Starfleet has even less scruples about renaming ships.

O'BRIEN
Look, I know how much you miss the
Enterprise, but I'm sure they'll
be building a new one soon.

In both the cases you mention from the USN it took less than two months (1 for the Lexington and 2 for Yorktown) for the ship to be renamed, in the Enterprise’s case after 4 months there was still no decision to rename nor did the thought even occur to Worf or O'Brien.

Where do you get the idea that Starfleet is less than scrupulous about renaming ships, to the best of my knowledge there are only two (one assumed, one not) examples of that being done, one because the Captain and crew of the namesake had just saved the planet Earth from destruction I think that makes it something of an exception and the Defiant’s (or the Sao Paulo’s to be more accurate) renaming which seems to have been a special favour granted by Ross to Sisko.

The Enterprise-B gives no indication of being a renamed ship (commissioned 2 years after the Enterprise A's scheduled decommission).

We have an almost 20 year gap between the destruction of Enterprise C and the commission of the Enterprise D, so again no renaming there.

With all of that in mind I am forced to wonder why it would be likely the ship had been renamed, when we have only one (possible) instance of such in the Enterprise line, two (possible) instances of it in all of Starfleet history (unless I am missing one), in the instances when ships were renamed it seems to have been done quickly (but not in this instance) and when the Chief or Worf had no suspicions that a ship could/would be renamed over 4 months after the event.

Such a construction time seems to fit with the construction time of the Mirror Defiant and doesn't contradict with anything else in canon so there is no reason to assume the Enterprise E was renamed and no evidence to support such a stance.

[Typhonis 1]

According to the Non Cannon book Star Trek The Next Generation tech manual The Galaxy class project was approved in 2343 in 2344 they started the design work

[Darth Wong]

To suggest Starfleet went from building ships over a decades time to doing it a year or so requires a lot more proof than saying "see new ships."

I think it is best to just ignore the build time suggested in the Tech manual, the mirror Defiant build time in DS9 is rather short (especially given the lack of experience of proper ship building facilities)

And precisely how short is "rather short"?

and going by O’Brien’s statements in DS9 we have a build time for the Ent-E of under a year.

I love the way O'Brien's speculative quote of "I'm sure they'll be building a new one soon" becomes proof of "under a year to build a Sovereign-class starship, from start to finish"

And where do you get the idea that it's "less than scrupulous" to rename a starship? What the fuck do starship names have to do with ethics? Are you on drugs? You seriously expect to take your collection of assumptions as proof that they built the E-E in less than a year as a response to the destruction of the E-D? The design cycle alone must have taken many years; do you know how long it takes to design a radically different design of automobile (never mind a new fighter plane) in real life? To suggest that anything about the E-E was initiated in response to the destruction of the E-D is utterly absurd.

[TheDarkling]

And precisely how short is "rather short"?

The time taken from the rebels capturing Terok Nor and for the Emperor to get word, gather a fleet (of less than 10 ships) and head over.
A month seems like a fair outside estimate.

I love the way O'Brien's speculative quote of "I'm sure they'll be building a new one soon" becomes proof of "under a year to build a Sovereign-class starship, from start to finish"

His speculation isn't the issue, the issue is that Enterprise E was not yet under construction, whether he was right and they started building one soon or whether they started building one in six months the build time is still a year or less.

And where do you get the idea that it's "less than scrupulous" to rename a starship? What the fuck do starship names have to do with ethics? Are you on drugs?

Stormbringer said:
We know that Starfleet has even less scruples about renaming ships.

That is what I was responding to, I also didn't accuse Stormbringer of being on drugs since I found it rather simple to understand his meaning, funny that.

You seriously expect to take your collection of assumptions as proof that they built the E-E in less than a year as a response to the destruction of the E-D?

What assumptions?
We have only to assume that O'Brien (and Worf) knows what he is talking about in that the Enterprise E has yet to begin construction.

It is the opposite viewpoint to mine which assumes the ship was renamed with no evidence to support that conclusion.

The design cycle alone must have taken many years; do you know how long it takes to design a radically different design of automobile (never mind a new fighter plane) in real life?

And this would have what to do with the build time?

To suggest that anything about the E-E was initiated in response to the destruction of the E-D is utterly absurd.

That is a rather stupid statement; at the very least the Enterprise D's destruction initiated a change in the ships name, if that was what happened.

Why do you assume the Sovereign class must have been designed after the Enterprise D was destroyed?
We have no in service date for the Sovereign NX so to imagine that design must have commenced after the Enterprise D's demise just because the construction may have is rather odd and seems like a desperate attempt to try and come up with a reason why the construction must have begun prior to the Enterprise D's demise.

[Darth Wong]

And precisely how short is "rather short"?

The time taken from the rebels capturing Terok Nor and for the Emperor to get word, gather a fleet (of less than 10 ships) and head over.
A month seems like a fair outside estimate.

So you're figuring they had no logistics support whatsoever until they captured Terek Nor? How did they capture Terek Nor without getting their asses kicked, then?

I love the way O'Brien's speculative quote of "I'm sure they'll be building a new one soon" becomes proof of "under a year to build a Sovereign-class starship, from start to finish"

His speculation isn't the issue, the issue is that Enterprise E was not yet under construction,

I love the way you don't realize that this is also speculation.

And where do you get the idea that it's "less than scrupulous" to rename a starship? What the fuck do starship names have to do with ethics? Are you on drugs?

Stormbringer said:
We know that Starfleet has even less scruples about renaming ships.

That is what I was responding to, I also didn't accuse Stormbringer of being on drugs since I found it rather simple to understand his meaning, funny that.

Then he chose his words poorly, and you seized upon that opportunity rather than discussing the issue honestly. Starship renaming has nothing to do with ethics and you know it, so there is no reason to imagine that they would have any particular compunctions about doing it, particuarly when they've already messed up their naming/numbering scheme by allowing "A", "B", etc. versions of existing registry numbers. Do you also figure they built the E-A from scratch as a rapid-response to Kirk saving the planet in ST4?

You seriously expect to take your collection of assumptions as proof that they built the E-E in less than a year as a response to the destruction of the E-D?

What assumptions?
We have only to assume that O'Brien (and Worf) knows what he is talking about in that the Enterprise E has yet to begin construction.

I love the way you act as though there are no assumptions and then proceed to immediately make one. What is it with you and overly specific interpretations of speculative dialogue?

It is the opposite viewpoint to mine which assumes the ship was renamed with no evidence to support that conclusion.

Nice "burden of proof" fallacy, dumb-shit. You're claiming the existence of a manufacturing capability based purely on speculative dialogue interpretation and assumptions, and pretending that the burden of proof is on those who would claim that such capability does not exist.

The design cycle alone must have taken many years; do you know how long it takes to design a radically different design of automobile (never mind a new fighter plane) in real life?

And this would have what to do with the build time?

The fact that they normally schedule the construction after the design reaches a certain point, perhaps? Or did you figure they would design it and then just leave the blueprints laying around, waiting for the Enterprise to be destroyed?

The project must have been underway for years, dumb-ass. It would be an incredible coincidence for the very first ship of this newly designed class to just happen to start construction just after the E-D was destroyed. Are you honestly so ignorant of major construction and design projects that you don't realize there's a connection between design and construction in terms of scheduling?

To suggest that anything about the E-E was initiated in response to the destruction of the E-D is utterly absurd.

That is a rather stupid statement; at the very least the Enterprise D's destruction initiated a change in the ships name, if that was what happened.

Nice nitpickery, dumb-fuck. I obviously meant anything to do with its design or construction.

Why do you assume the Sovereign class must have been designed after the Enterprise D was destroyed?

What the fuck are you talking about? I'm the one saying it was in design for years before that point, moron. You're the imbecile saying that a whole new starship class was initiated in response to the E-D being destroyed, or (alternatively) that a new ship class was already underway for years and through an incredible coincidence, they just happened to start construction on the first one just after the E-D was destroyed. Either argument is moronic.

We have no in service date for the Sovereign NX so to imagine that design must have commenced after the Enterprise D's demise just because the construction may have is rather odd and seems like a desperate attempt to try and come up with a reason why the construction must have begun prior to the Enterprise D's demise.

You are obviously too fucking stupid to read what I wrote, since I have been saying the exact opposite; that it takes years to design anything substantial, and that it is a consequence of your bullshit theory that the E-E program design/construction timing was somehow related to the destruction of the E-D.

[DaveJB]

The E-E was launched about halfway through DS9 Season 4, IIRC ("The Making of ST:FC" has the exact date, I'll see if I can rummage it up). To assume that they started building the E-E right after the E-D was destroyed would imply that the Feddies had somehow increased their starship build speeds by 3-4 times in less than a decade.

[TheDarkling]

So you're figuring they had no logistics support whatsoever until they captured Terek Nor? How did they capture Terek Nor without getting their asses kicked, then?

I made the same point when this was mentioned over on space battles a year or so ago but the problem is that they didn't seem to have any really ability to build a ship until they captured the station (and one assumes were able to exert influence over Bajor as well).

We never see them with a ship that would be capable of towing the Defiant (they couldn't switch it on themselves so it couldn’t have gotten to the station under its own power), the bad lands isn't somewhere you would want to build a ship (given the storms etc), Smiley makes it clear they have virtually no ships for their cause (they have plenty of captains but few ships is his comment I believe), they are a guerrilla force so a permanent installation in space isn't a good idea and so on.

We either end up with a few hundred people (if that) building a Defiant in the badlands without being detected for a year while defending themselves and launching attacks on their enemies, building said ship without access to advanced production technologies or resources, towing their ship by unknown means to the station (which doesn't make sense, if they had other facilities why take the vessel out of hiding until it is complete) or they were able to assemble the ship with resources from the station and (possibly) Bajor in a month.

I don't really like either option (although for different reasons than ship build time) but the second seems to fail the logic test less.

I love the way you don't realize that this is also speculation.

How is it speculation, I would imagine Worf of O'Brien would know if another Enterprise was under construction, unless it was renamed which is something of a separate issue (which is dealt with below).

Then he chose his words poorly, and you seized upon that opportunity rather than discussing the issue honestly.

How so?

To me it seems it is you who seized upon one particular word instead of the main point, that we have no reason to suspect the ship was renamed to be the Enterprise E and I explained why I disagreed with Stormbringers assessment (cloaked in colourful language which I at least was able to take as such) that Starfleet was given to renaming ships on a whim.
I went on at some length about that and never mention the ethical dimension (which as you correctly point out doesn’t exist) once, beyond a direct use of Stormbringers terminology.
If you do think I brought ethics into it then please point out where I did so, I suspect that you didn't read what I had written (beyond not reading what I was responding to and thus failing to understand the context).

Starship renaming has nothing to do with ethics and you know it, so there is no reason to imagine that they would have any particular compunctions about doing it, particuarly when they've already messed up their naming/numbering scheme by allowing "A", "B", etc. versions of existing registry numbers. Do you also figure they built the E-A from scratch as a rapid-response to Kirk saving the planet in ST4?

They had about 4 or 5 months from the original Enterprises decommission to when the (still unfinished) ship was given to Kirk, considering Kirk spent the first part of that time flying back to Earth, the second planning an illicit rescue mission and the last 3 months of it in exile on Vulcan I think it is quite possible he was out of the loop and unaware (if he was, I always suspected he knew what was coming even if his crew didn't).

With that said I also pointed out that they could easily have renamed a ship without it meaning Starfleet is prone to doing so (twice in 2 centuries hardly constitutes a pattern especially when both had circumstances involved), this is a ground I have already covered, please do me the courtesy of reading what you were responding to.

I love the way you act as though there are no assumptions and then proceed to immediately make one. What is it with you and overly specific interpretations of speculative dialogue?

Two characters who would be expected to know the situation (along with possibly Sisko) state what the situation is.

I believe a better question is why you dispute this out of hand with no reason other than an aim to dispute the build time of the Enterprise E, attempting to reconcile evidence with your conclusion which itself is unfounded is not the way to go about things.

So again I ask to make sure I get an answer.

Why do you automatically assume Worf and O'Brien do not know (or purposefully lie for no reason) what they are talking about?

Nice "burden of proof" fallacy, dumb-shit. You're claiming the existence of a manufacturing capability based purely on speculative dialogue interpretation and assumptions, and pretending that the burden of proof is on those who would claim that such capability does not exist.

I am basing it on the evidence at hand; you are saying I can't prove it with 100% certainty.

This I concede is true (snip here and insert uncouth crowing), everybody could be a fool or could be lying however the most likely conclusion is that they are correct and without good evidence to the contrary this is the most likely conclusion, a desire to have a different conclusion does not constitute a reason to discard the correct conclusion.

The fact that they normally schedule the construction after the design reaches a certain point, perhaps? Or did you figure they would design it and then just leave the blueprints laying around, waiting for the Enterprise to be destroyed?

And it isn't possible they were already building Sovereign classes and decided to build one and name it Enterprise?

Is it also possible that the Enterprise was destroyed as they were about to enter the production run (or a few months before hand as the case may be)?

There is no reason (except that desire for another conclusion which seems to keep cropping up) to assume that the design work must have commenced after the Enterprise D was destroyed.
You yourself have concluded this is unlikely, what you now have to accept is that is does not prove my conclusion wrong only your assumption that the design work for the Enterprise E must have commenced after the Enterprise D's destruction if the construction did so.

The project must have been underway for years, dumb-ass. It would be an incredible coincidence for the very first ship of this newly designed class to just happen to start construction just after the E-D was destroyed.

We have no reason to believe the Enterprise E was the second Sovereign class to be built and your dislike for the possibility of a coincidence is not a valid reason to discount two characters statements.

Are you honestly so ignorant of major construction and design projects that you don't realize there's a connection between design and construction in terms of scheduling?

We have no idea how big the construction run of the Sovereign was, where the Enterprise E lays within it or how close the production run followed the initial prototype being built.

We have at least one example of Starfleet cancelling a project after the initial prototype failed to live up to expectations so NX models are likely to be tested thoroughly before NCC models are created, just cross out “Sovereign Class – 003” and put Enterprise in its place before construction began.

Nice nitpickery, dumb-fuck. I obviously meant anything to do with its design or construction.

Perhaps then you should stop throwing around terms like absurd when you yourself are playing fast and loose with terms and I would be more forgiving.

What the fuck are you talking about? I'm the one saying it was in design for years before that point, moron. You're the imbecile saying that a whole new starship class was initiated in response to the E-D being destroyed,

I say no such thing so you can set that aside (as I have already pointed out yet you seem to have yet again overlooked something in my posts).

or (alternatively) that a new ship class was already underway for years and through an incredible coincidence, they just happened to start construction on the first one just after the E-D was destroyed.

I make no claims about the construction of the Sovereign NX so again you can drop that.
What I claim (please read carefully to avoid further misunderstandings) is that the Enterprise E commenced construction after O’Brien’s statement and was thus constructed in about 1 year.

That is it, I claim nothing about the design time, I don't claim anything about the Sovereign NX, I don't claim to know the Enterprise was at # in the production run of the Sovereign class.

I claim that O’Brien was correct and at some point after his statement the keel for a Sovereign class ship named Enterprise E was laid and about one year later construction finished.

Either argument is moronic.

I made neither argument although you absolute belief that certain events cannot possibly happen in a similar timeframe (of 4-5 months) to each other is somewhat amusing.

You are obviously too fucking stupid to read what I wrote, since I have been saying the exact opposite; that it takes years to design anything substantial, and that it is a consequence of your bullshit theory that the E-E program design/construction timing was somehow related to the destruction of the E-D.

I made no such claim at all, so I believe it is your reading comprehension that is somewhat dubious.

To reiterate once again so that you have a greater chance of seeing it,

I do not think the Sovereign class was designed as a consequence of the Enterprise D's destruction.
I do not think that the Federation decided to produce these ships because of the Enterprise D's destruction.

I do think that based upon the evidence at hand that at some point after O'Brien's statement the keel of a Sovereign class ship named the Enterprise E was laid down.

[TheDarkling]

The E-E was launched about halfway through DS9 Season 4, IIRC ("The Making of ST:FC" has the exact date, I'll see if I can rummage it up). To assume that they started building the E-E right after the E-D was destroyed would imply that the Feddies had somehow increased their starship build speeds by 3-4 times in less than a decade.

We have quote from Geordi that puts the Enterprise E's launch at the end of season four/beginning of Season 5.

I am interested in where you got a build time for starship building times a decade earlier, could you please share the information or what led you to that conclusion (I don't get irate when the evidence is only suggestive, although I weigh it accordingly).

[DaveJB]

We have quote from Geordi that puts the Enterprise E's launch at the end of season four/beginning of Season 5.

I found the book I was talking about; the dedication plaque gives the launch date as Stardate 49827.5 (I think that's what it is, though it might be a 6 instead of an 8).

I am interested in where you got a build time for starship building times a decade earlier, could you please share the information or what led you to that conclusion (I don't get irate when the evidence is only suggestive, although I weigh it accordingly).

Well, there's two possible figures... the averaged time between builds and project time (4.3 years) and an extrapolated estimate from Booby Trap (about 2 years). (These were done by Patrick Degan at the top of the page)

Since there was 9-10 months between WoTW and the date the plaque gives, having building on it not started at the time of WoTW would lead to a 5.8x build speed increase over the first figure, and a 2.7x build speed over the second. I know building speeds have increased over the last decade or so, but I doubt that they've increased by a factor of two and a half (to say nothing of a factor of nearly six)!

Mind you, the TM isn't canon, so the 5.8x figure is doubtful, but the 2.7x figure seems like a bit of a stretch, IMO.

[TheDarkling]

I found the book I was talking about; the dedication plaque gives the launch date as Stardate 49827.5 (I think that's what it is, though it might be a 6 instead of an .

That would about fit with Geordi's statement although I'm not sure if we can take dedications plaques as evidence (what with them all having the same names plastered all over them).

Mind you, the TM isn't canon, so the 5.8x figure is doubtful, but the 2.7x figure seems like a bit of a stretch, IMO.

A Galaxy class ship is a bigger ship than a sovereign though so the difference isn't that big, the hull volume of a GCS is approx double (from the estimates I have seen although I stand ready to be corrected) that of a SCS as a rough example.

So that difference, in concert with better production techniques and perhaps a greaterdesire to rush the ship (the Galaxy was less stable than when the Enterprise D was constructed) puts the figures in the same sort of area.

[TheDarkling]

I just watched booby trap and I am not sure that was the Enterprise we saw outside the window, the Computer said the Dilithiumn chamber had only been designed 2 months or so before that scene, if so then the original Galaxy would have still been under construction at that time which means the ship we see outside the window is most likely the Galaxy herself (which would make sense given that Geordi went back to the original prototype engine schematics which would be of the Galaxy’s engines I would imagine).

With that in mind I think a shorter build time for a Galaxy class ship begins to look probable and that further reinforces the build times or the Sovereign class and the Defiant.

[Stormbringer]

Mike, TheDarkling,

I used the terms scruples in my post because of the long tradition that the name given to a ship is not to be changed. It's generally considered a slap in the face of the ship because the name is considered the embodiment of all a ships history. There is some ethics to such things even if it's only one of simple tradition.

It's almost totally unheard of for a ship to have her name in real life for that reason. Yet we have Starfleet renaming ships even onesin commision and active service, something all but unthinkable to most navies of today. So the idea that the Enterprise-E has to have been laid down after the remark, as opposed to renaming an unlaunched hull, rests on a precarious assumption.

[TheDarkling]

I used the terms scruples in my post because of the long tradition that the name given to a ship is not to be changed. It's generally considered a slap in the face of the ship because the name is considered the embodiment of all a ships history. There is some ethics to such things even if it's only one of simple tradition.

I'm not sure I would draw a correlation between ethics and tradition but I understood what you were driving at.

As an a example I think the people of Brazil should be offended, the Sao Paulo has on its dedication plaque "dedicated to the people of Brazil" then a couple of months later it gets renamed Defiant.

It's almost totally unheard of for a ship to have her name in real life for that reason. Yet we have Starfleet renaming ships even onesin commision and active service, something all but unthinkable to most navies of today.

They renamed one ship in active service (that we are aware of) which seemed to be a personal favour for which they required special dispensation from the Chief of Starfleet Operations.

So the idea that the Enterprise-E has to have been laid down after the remark, as opposed to renaming an unlaunched hull, rests on a precarious assumption.

Yet we have no reason to assume it was renamed, given no evidence pointing to that conclusion why should we believe it to be correct.

A year construction time fits with the mirror Defiant construction time, the “Booby trap” evidence for a GCS build time, the Obsidian order fleet build time (Keldon class ships assembled in 6 months or less) and Shelby’s statement (although that depends upon how you interpret that statement).

The evidence we have all seems to point in this general direction so why go out of our way to assume the ship was renamed?

[Stormbringer]

I'm not sure I would draw a correlation between ethics and tradition but I understood what you were driving at.

I'll spell it out really simply, to rename a ship that's seen active duty is a blatant fucking slap in the face. It amounts to taking away the ship and crews identity. This is not a trivial action.

As an a example I think the people of Brazil should be offended, the Sao Paulo has on its dedication plaque "dedicated to the people of Brazil" then a couple of months later it gets renamed Defiant.

At the very, very least.

They renamed one ship in active service (that we are aware of) which seemed to be a personal favour for which they required special dispensation from the Chief of Starfleet Operations.

Actually, they've done it a number of times. There is the Yorktown/Enterprise-A as well as the Sao Paulo. And no doubt more besides.

Yet we have no reason to assume it was renamed, given no evidence pointing to that conclusion why should we believe it to be correct.

No, I didn't assume they renamed a new active ship. I think the simply had the hull of a Soveriegn laid down and either finally named it or renamed it Enterprise.

Which incidentally fits well enough with the build times of Federation ships during the Dominion War and for them to recover from Wolf 359.

A year construction time fits with the mirror Defiant construction time, the “Booby trap” evidence for a GCS build time, the Obsidian order fleet build time (Keldon class ships assembled in 6 months or less) and Shelby’s statement (although that depends upon how you interpret that statement).

1) First of all the Defiant is a far, far smaller vessel than a capital ship like a Galaxy or a Soveriegn. So it's a false analogy to say that a Defiant-esque ship can be a reliable benchmark for a Galaxy.

The fact is the Defiant is about the scale of a destroyer (a frigate might actually be a better fit but I'll give you that much) compared to a battleship. If (and I stress if) it was built a one year period, we can rate her as roughly equivalent to a Fletcher destroyer with a laid down to launch time of about six or seven months. Now we can compare them to a South Dakota with a build time of two to two and half years. By analogy at a Galaxy could reasonably be expected to take at least 4 years, maybe more.

2) That assumes you're totally accurate in your estimation that it only took a year. As has been pointed out, that's not necessarily the case. You're making a lot of unreasonably generous assumptions in your interpertations.

The evidence we have all seems to point in this general direction so why go out of our way to assume the ship was renamed?

Because I don't agree with your overly-generous interpetations of events. The evidence for the extremely short build times rests on the interpetations of only a couple of incidents whereas the case for longer build times fits the general trends of entire seasons as well as with a more conservative interpertation of the same events. Which do you think I'm going to chose?

[TheDarkling]

Actually, they've done it a number of times. There is the Yorktown/Enterprise-A as well as the Sao Paulo. And no doubt more besides.

I have never bought that Yorktown into Enterprise-A idea, Star Trek 5 seems to make it rather clear the ship has only just been built (Or possibly given a major refit) I can't see it being Yorktown which was already in active service.

We have no evidence of them renaming another ship, so like I said one example.

No, I didn't assume they renamed a new active ship. I think the simply had the hull of a Soveriegn laid down and either finally named it or renamed it Enterprise.

Which we have no indication of.

Which incidentally fits well enough with the build times of Federation ships during the Dominion War and for them to recover from Wolf 359.

What would those build times and the evidence for them be?

1) First of all the Defiant is a far, far smaller vessel than a capital ship like a Galaxy or a Soveriegn. So it's a false analogy to say that a Defiant-esque ship can be a reliable benchmark for a Galaxy.

A month for a Defiant certainly indicates a short time for the bigger ships so it is entirely possible to derive a rough estimate from the smaller ship (just as if the Defiant took 5 years to build it would indicate something about the build time of the GCS).

The fact is the Defiant is about the scale of a destroyer (a frigate might actually be a better fit but I'll give you that much) compared to a battleship. If (and I stress if) it was built a one year period, we can rate her as roughly equivalent to a Fletcher destroyer with a laid down to launch time of about six or seven months. Now we can compare them to a South Dakota with a build time of two to two and half years. By analogy at a Galaxy could reasonably be expected to take at least 4 years, maybe more.

The build time of the mirror Defiant looks to be about a month not a year.

2) That assumes you're totally accurate in your estimation that it only took a year. As has been pointed out, that's not necessarily the case. You're making a lot of unreasonably generous assumptions in your interpertations.

It certainly took at maximum a year because the rebels only had the plans for a year, there is no assumption there.
Before they took DS9 they would have no space facilities or infrastructure with which to construct a ship (plus no experience) and only a few dozen to a few hundred people so that even if it did take them a year (which I don’t believe it did) Starfleet would be able to construct one faster.

I am saying it took about a month because every indication is that they started building it at DS9 (when Sisko arrives the hull isn't complete and they finish it within a day) and they hadn't had the station for much longer than a month.

Because I don't agree with your overly-generous interpetations of events. The evidence for the extremely short build times rests on the interpetations of only a couple of incidents whereas the case for longer build times fits the general trends of entire seasons as well as with a more conservative interpertation of the same events. Which do you think I'm going to chose?

What more conservative interpretations? Booby trap clearly gives a GCS build time of 2 years or less.

The mirror Defiant gives a build time of one year max and the evidence points to a one month or so build time.

The Obsidian order fleet again must be less than a year (and since they already have exactly half of the fleet built in 6 months I would say a 6 month build time seems likley).

The Dominion home world is found at about 48213.1 meaning that is the earliest Tain could put his plan into operation.
By 48467.3 the Obsidian order has built (in secret) construction facilities and 5 ships, that is about 3 months time to build a Keldon.

Now we don’t have a stardate for the “Die is Cast” so I will work backwards from the nearest one.
Explorers takes place over 1 month.
Family Business is hard to gauge.
Shakaar is at least 5 weeks and probably more.
Facets gives us stardate 48959.1.

With those rough guides it looks like “The Die is cast” took place 3-4 months after “The Defiant” which boils down to a Keldon construction time in the region of 2-4 months.

The Defiant class project took at maximum 5 years to go from "Let's build a warship" through to a finished constructed prototype which was abandoned and then brought out of month balls.
That figure is more likely to be 3 years or below (since Sisko implies he oversaw construction in “The Defiant”).

The Prometheus project takes about 4 years to go from being opened to a finished prototype (based upon the earliest possible destruction of the already existing Prometheus).

Now sure we could start looking for every inch of wiggle room and make every assumption to try and avoid these times but the question is , why?

The evidence points one way so I have to wonder why we must try and discredit and ignore that evidence in order to come to no conclusion (since I see no other evidence indicating a ship construction time).

The above evidence all points to build times in the range I am suggesting, what examples do you have suggesting longer build times and what build times do you find likely?

[Stormbringer]

e have no evidence of them renaming another ship, so like I said one example.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not so.

Which we have no indication of.

And no proof that the hull that became the Ent-E wasn't begun.

What would those build times and the evidence for them be?

Oh, nothing except the simple evidence of the time it took them to get new ships into action. Both are consistent with multi-year build times.

A month for a Defiant certainly indicates a short time for the bigger ships so it is entirely possible to derive a rough estimate from the smaller ship (just as if the Defiant took 5 years to build it would indicate something about the build time of the GCS).

If you could prove that, yes. All you've said is that it indicates a year long build time. And at this point you're going to have to provide explicit proof.

It certainly took at maximum a year because the rebels only had the plans for a year, there is no assumption there.

I'm not disputing that fact. What I'm saying is I definitely dispute the notion that a small gunship has the same build time as a battleship.

Before they took DS9 they would have no space facilities or infrastructure with which to construct a ship (plus no experience) and only a few dozen to a few hundred people so that even if it did take them a year (which I don’t believe it did) Starfleet would be able to construct one faster.

Of course that's assumption. If they had no means how did they take DS( to begin with. And why if it takes only a month to build a Defiant, why doesn't the Federation have hundreds and hundreds of them shortly after war broke out?

I am saying it took about a month because every indication is that they started building it at DS9 (when Sisko arrives the hull isn't complete and they finish it within a day) and they hadn't had the station for much longer than a month.

Every indication, huh? How about hard proof of this rather than saying there's every indication.

Now sure we could start looking for every inch of wiggle room and make every assumption to try and avoid these times but the question is , why?

Because they aren't nearly as clear cut as you're assuming that's why.

Your claims about the mirror-Defiant are full of an incredible amount of holes. Not the least of which is explaining why is a Defiant takes less than a month it took so long to get them to the front.

The Obsidian Order is building rather small ships and established designs, a year for them isn't unreasonable. Now trying to back date them to a couple months using guesstimate seems fishy with out concrete measurements.

Both the Defiant and Prometheus might well have had multi-year builds. Not unreasonable at all. In fact I seem to be arguing that. Thank you for making the point.

The above evidence all points to build times in the range I am suggesting, what examples do you have suggesting longer build times and what build times do you find likely?

Jee, the fact that if build times were really so short we shouldn't see the Federation pressed for men after wolf 359 or during the opening phase of the Dominion War.

[Typhonis 1]

Was it ever explained how the rebels built the Defiant???I mean it didn`t look like they had a shipyard at Treak Nor.

[TheDarkling]

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not so.

No, the fact that it clashes with canon information and isn't supported in teh canno does though.

And no proof that the hull that became the Ent-E wasn't begun.

Why not assume the Enterprise D started off life as USS Lollipop?
We have no evidence that the ship was renamed so the simplest explanation is it wasn't.

Oh, nothing except the simple evidence of the time it took them to get new ships into action. Both are consistent with multi-year build times.

What new ships and get them into action when?

If you could prove that, yes. All you've said is that it indicates a year long build time. And at this point you're going to have to provide explicit proof.

A year long is the maximum for the rebel Defiant because they only had the plans for a year.

I'm not disputing that fact. What I'm saying is I definitely dispute the notion that a small gunship has the same build time as a battleship.

And I made no such claim, so you have little to dispute there.

Of course that's assumption. If they had no means how did they take DS( to begin with.

After they took deep space nine their fleet amounted to one raider (a two man ship similar to what the Marquis use) "one", I think that indicates they exhausted themselves taking DS9 (probably to get the facilities to build the Defiant).

And why if it takes only a month to build a Defiant, why doesn't the Federation have hundreds and hundreds of them shortly after war broke out?

Manpower and a desire to build bigger ships could be factors, however the exact number of Defiants the Federation has is unknown.

Every indication, huh? How about hard proof of this rather than saying there's every indication.

They have no ships capable of towing the Defiant.
The Defiant is still under construction (its hull isn't completed) when Sisko arrives.
When Smiley tells Sisko the alliance knows about them having taken the station Sisko says " These schematics look complete. If you want to build another Defiant, you don't need my help "not "well you are screwed, it takes a year to build a ship like this".
The rebels never show any ship building capacity other than that at the station.
The Rebels have virtually no ships which doesn’t make much sense if they have shipyards.

Because they aren't nearly as clear cut as you're assuming that's why.

Your claims about the mirror-Defiant are full of an incredible amount of holes. Not the least of which is explaining why is a Defiant takes less than a month it took so long to get them to the front.

We don't see all the battles of the war so we don't really know how many they have, they had enough that at the outbreak of war they had a Defiant class ship taking cadets out on a pleasure cruise.

The Obsidian Order is building rather small ships and established designs, a year for them isn't unreasonable. Now trying to back date them to a couple months using guesstimate seems fishy with out concrete measurements.

I gave concrete numbers, 2-4 months is the timeframe for construction of the ships.
Keldons aren't that small either (350m in length although some scale it larger), they are the most advanced Cardassian ship design and these models had cloaks as well.
If the Cardassian’s can manage that in 2-4 months then a month or so for a Defiant doesn't seem outlandish.

Both the Defiant and Prometheus might well have had multi-year builds. Not unreasonable at all. In fact I seem to be arguing that. Thank you for making the point.

That includes the entire R&D phase of the project, plus design not just the construction and it is the upper limit.

Jee, the fact that if build times were really so short we shouldn't see the Federation pressed for men after wolf 359 or during the opening phase of the Dominion War.

Last I checked Starfleet does not build men so I can't see how a manpower shortage tells us what the ship building speed is.

If you mean ship numbers then that tells us about the Federation fleet size, federation territory size, warp speed and peacetime deployments more than it tells us about ship building ability.

We have no indication that Wolf 359 left the Federation short of ships (Shelby essentially blowing the loss off as nothing important points to the opposite conclusion).

We have you vague feeling of what the build time is versus documented examples; can't you produce anything more concrete?

[TheDarkling]

Was it ever explained how the rebels built the Defiant???I mean it didn`t look like they had a shipyard at Treak Nor.

They had docking scaffold around the Defiant and it was missing hull sections so it was certainly finished as the station, I think it was built there entirely (why attack the station before you are ready to defend it?).

[Darth Wong]

I made the same point when this was mentioned over on space battles a year or so ago but the problem is that they didn't seem to have any really ability to build a ship until they captured the station (and one assumes were able to exert influence over Bajor as well).

Since the station is not a shipbuilding facility, what difference would that make? They obviously had some means of repairing, maintaining, and supplying their ships without using Terek'Nor, simply because they were able to survive long enough to conduct a campaign.

We either end up with a few hundred people (if that) building a Defiant in the badlands without being detected for a year while defending themselves and launching attacks on their enemies, building said ship without access to advanced production technologies or resources, towing their ship by unknown means to the station (which doesn't make sense, if they had other facilities why take the vessel out of hiding until it is complete) or they were able to assemble the ship with resources from the station and (possibly) Bajor in a month.

You're assuming they had no access to resources, even though they were able to successfully prosecute a campaign against Terek'Nor and even capture it.

I don't really like either option (although for different reasons than ship build time) but the second seems to fail the logic test less.

Bullshit. They must have had resources prior to capturing Terek'Nor, hence your first term is constructed using deliberately restrictive assumptions.

I love the way you don't realize that this is also speculation.

How is it speculation, I would imagine Worf of O'Brien would know if another Enterprise was under construction, unless it was renamed which is something of a separate issue (which is dealt with below).

Oh for fuck's sake, do you know the difference between someone saying "I'm sure they're gonna do it" and saying "I talked to Admiral Nemcheyev and they're starting construction next month?" Why the fuck do you assume that everyone in Starfleet knows everything that's going on?

Then he chose his words poorly, and you seized upon that opportunity rather than discussing the issue honestly.

How so?

To me it seems it is you who seized upon one particular word instead of the main point, that we have no reason to suspect the ship was renamed to be the Enterprise E and I explained why I disagreed with Stormbringers assessment (cloaked in colourful language which I at least was able to take as such) that Starfleet was given to renaming ships on a whim.

Given the fact that it's happened before, it seems sufficiently self-evident that you have no case. Moreover, to say that it's military tradition rather than ethics doesn't change the equation; they consistently show zero respect for military tradition. The notion of flying into battle with civilians and children onboard is so absurd as to be utterly laughable yet they do that too; why do you think it so shocking that they might change the name of a ship which is under construction?

They had about 4 or 5 months from the original Enterprises decommission to when the (still unfinished) ship was given to Kirk, considering Kirk spent the first part of that time flying back to Earth, the second planning an illicit rescue mission and the last 3 months of it in exile on Vulcan I think it is quite possible he was out of the loop and unaware (if he was, I always suspected he knew what was coming even if his crew didn't).

With that said I also pointed out that they could easily have renamed a ship without it meaning Starfleet is prone to doing so (twice in 2 centuries hardly constitutes a pattern especially when both had circumstances involved), this is a ground I have already covered, please do me the courtesy of reading what you were responding to.

They don't have to be "prone to doing so"; they only have to be capable of doing so. Hence your point (which rests on the assumption that they would absolutely REFUSE to do so) fails.

Two characters who would be expected to know the situation (along with possibly Sisko) state what the situation is.

I believe a better question is why you dispute this out of hand with no reason other than an aim to dispute the build time of the Enterprise E, attempting to reconcile evidence with your conclusion which itself is unfounded is not the way to go about things.

Nice Appeal to Motive fallacy . I've answered the other so-called points already.

So again I ask to make sure I get an answer.

Why do you automatically assume Worf and O'Brien do not know (or purposefully lie for no reason) what they are talking about?

Because when people say "I'm sure" instead of "I know", it means they don't actually know, dumb-fuck. This isn't rocket science; you bear the burden of proof for your claim that they actually had direct knowledge rather than speculation, and you have failed to meet it. And now you're resorting to ridiculous burden of proof fallacies where I must prove that they can NOT be assumed to know everything that goes on in the whole of Starfleet.

This I concede is true (snip here and insert uncouth crowing), everybody could be a fool or could be lying however the most likely conclusion is that they are correct and without good evidence to the contrary this is the most likely conclusion, a desire to have a different conclusion does not constitute a reason to discard the correct conclusion.

I love the way you try to pretend that it's either "they knew" or "they were lying or fools", with no middle ground for "they didn't know, and they were just speculating".

The fact that they normally schedule the construction after the design reaches a certain point, perhaps? Or did you figure they would design it and then just leave the blueprints laying around, waiting for the Enterprise to be destroyed?

And it isn't possible they were already building Sovereign classes and decided to build one and name it Enterprise?

Sure, but as you've conceded, it's also POSSIBLE that they simply renamed one, hence you cannot use the ASSUMPTION that they would NEVER do this as proof that they MUST have built the ship starting after the E-D was destroyed. What part of this logic do you not understand?

There is no reason (except that desire for another conclusion which seems to keep cropping up) to assume that the design work must have commenced after the Enterprise D was destroyed.

You yourself have concluded this is unlikely, what you now have to accept is that is does not prove my conclusion wrong only your assumption that the design work for the Enterprise E must have commenced after the Enterprise D's destruction if the construction did so.

Read what I wrote, moron. I grow tired of your complete misinterpretation of my point. I never assumed that the design work for the E-E must have commenced after the E-D's destruction, you idiot. What I pointed out was that YOUR theory leads to either that conclusion or the amazing coincidence that the first ship was due to begin construction just after the E-D died.

The project must have been underway for years, dumb-ass. It would be an incredible coincidence for the very first ship of this newly designed class to just happen to start construction just after the E-D was destroyed.

We have no reason to believe the Enterprise E was the second Sovereign class to be built and your dislike for the possibility of a coincidence is not a valid reason to discount two characters statements.

I never said it was the second Sovereign-class ship, asshole, and I'm getting sick of you putting words in my mouth. I said it was the first ship, so your theory falls apart. Either the first ship just happened to start construction after the E-D died through incredible coincidence or there was one already under construction, in which case it must have been renamed Enterprise since the E-E ended up being the first Sovereign-class ship built.

And saying that a coincidence is technically possible is no way to prove a point. You have already conceded that a ship renaming is possible, hence you have no case. You have been reduced to saying that it's not GUARANTEED, which is nothing more than desperate rhetorical spluttering on your part since we need only prove that it's POSSIBLE in order to disprove your theory which is based on the assumption that it is IMPOSSIBLE.

Are you honestly so ignorant of major construction and design projects that you don't realize there's a connection between design and construction in terms of scheduling?

We have no idea how big the construction run of the Sovereign was, where the Enterprise E lays within it or how close the production run followed the initial prototype being built.

We have at least one example of Starfleet cancelling a project after the initial prototype failed to live up to expectations so NX models are likely to be tested thoroughly before NCC models are created, just cross out “Sovereign Class – 003” and put Enterprise in its place before construction began.

Nice nitpickery, dumb-fuck. I obviously meant anything to do with its design or construction.

Perhaps then you should stop throwing around terms like absurd when you yourself are playing fast and loose with terms and I would be more forgiving.

So if I don't cross my i's and dot my t's like a lawyer, this somehow validates your massive burden-of-proof fallacies, your assumption that the rebels successfully prosecuted a campaign against Terek'Nor with zero resources, your assumption that the Federation couldn't possibly ever rename a ship under construction, your belief that "I'm sure it's gonna happen" is the same thing as "I know for a fact", and your belief that the Sovereign-class design and construction schedule just coincidentally happened to start the construction phase after the E-D was destroyed, this being more likely than a ship renaming?

What the fuck are you talking about? I'm the one saying it was in design for years before that point, moron. You're the imbecile saying that a whole new starship class was initiated in response to the E-D being destroyed,

I say no such thing so you can set that aside (as I have already pointed out yet you seem to have yet again overlooked something in my posts).

No, instead you create a situation where there are only one of two alternatives, neither of which you are willing to admit to. Your dishonesty is not my problem.

I make no claims about the construction of the Sovereign NX so again you can drop that. What I claim (please read carefully to avoid further misunderstandings) is that the Enterprise E commenced construction after O’Brien’s statement and was thus constructed in about 1 year.

Based on your assumption that "I'm sure it's gonna happen" is on the same level of factual certainty as "they start construction next month".

That is it, I claim nothing about the design time, I don't claim anything about the Sovereign NX, I don't claim to know the Enterprise was at # in the production run of the Sovereign class.

I claim that O’Brien was correct and at some point after his statement the keel for a Sovereign class ship named Enterprise E was laid and about one year later construction finished.

See above.

Either argument is moronic.

I made neither argument although you absolute belief that certain events cannot possibly happen in a similar timeframe (of 4-5 months) to each other is somewhat amusing.

Given overall timeframes of more than a decade, yes. It's too much of a coincidence, especially when you have already conceded that a less coincidental explanation is completely possible.

You are obviously too fucking stupid to read what I wrote, since I have been saying the exact opposite; that it takes years to design anything substantial, and that it is a consequence of your bullshit theory that the E-E program design/construction timing was somehow related to the destruction of the E-D.

I made no such claim at all, so I believe it is your reading comprehension that is somewhat dubious.

No, you left a theory which REQUIRES two things known to be untrue:

1) The phrase "I'm sure it's gonna happen" is presumed to mean "I know for a fact that they start construction next month". As if you would actually think the two phrases meant the same thing if you heard them in real life.
2) The renaming of a ship under construction is assumed to be impossible. Except that it's happened before.

Given those absurd assumptions, you conclude that it was just naked coincidence that the Sovereign-class just happened to finish a 10+ year design phase as the E-D was destroyed. The only alternative to this coincidence (while still clinging to your bullshit assumptions #1 and #2) is to postulate that it was rapidly designed.

To reiterate once again so that you have a greater chance of seeing it,

I do not think the Sovereign class was designed as a consequence of the Enterprise D's destruction.
I do not think that the Federation decided to produce these ships because of the Enterprise D's destruction.

I do think that based upon the evidence at hand that at some point after O'Brien's statement the keel of a Sovereign class ship named the Enterprise E was laid down.

You still don't understand the distinction between speculation and fact; I can only hope that the ability to differentiate between the two is never a necessary skill in whatever profession you end up practising.

[Crazedwraith]

Because when people say "I'm sure" instead of "I know", it means they don't actually know, dumb-fuck.

Lets see shall we:

O'Brein: I'm sure they'll build a new one soon.

If as you say "I'm sure" means "I don't know" It still doesn't change the fact that The Enterprise E hasn't started constructed. It doesn't matter if O'Brein doesn't know when they're building it because they g=haven't started yet.

[TheDarkling]

Since the station is not a shipbuilding facility, what difference would that make? They obviously had some means of repairing, maintaining, and supplying their ships without using Terek'Nor, simply because they were able to survive long enough to conduct a campaign.

The station has industrial replicators which I imagine are necessary for ship construction.
The station may not be a dedicated ship building facility but it is certainly the closest we ever see the rebels having.

You're assuming they had no access to resources, even though they were able to successfully prosecute a campaign against Terek'Nor and even capture it.

At the cost of all but one of their ships, why not just wait a couple of months more and turn up with the Defiant?

Bullshit. They must have had resources prior to capturing Terek'Nor, hence your first term is constructed using deliberately restrictive assumptions.

We never see them with anything indicating they have the ability to build a ship until they get the station, before that time they are living in caves with no ship building facilities seen.
We also still have the absence of any towing ship for the Defiant, why attack if you don't need the ship building facilities, why tow the unfinished (given the speed with which they finish the hull I can't imagine that there wasn’t much there just a couple of weeks before) Defiant to the station and so on.

They could have taken the entire year to build the Defiant but given the speed with which the Obsidian order built their Keldons and the other problems with them doing the bulk of construction elsewhere I think that they built it at the station.

Given the fact that it's happened before, it seems sufficiently self-evident that you have no case. Moreover, to say that it's military tradition rather than ethics doesn't change the equation; they consistently show zero respect for military tradition. The notion of flying into battle with civilians and children onboard is so absurd as to be utterly laughable yet they do that too; why do you think it so shocking that they might change the name of a ship which is under construction?

I don't find it particularly shocking.
I find it to be something that hasn't happened often and something for which we have no evidence of it happening this time.

They don't have to be "prone to doing so"; they only have to be capable of doing so. Hence your point (which rests on the assumption that they would absolutely REFUSE to do so) fails.

I don't assume they would REFUSE to do so, I simply see no reason to assume they did so without evidence indicating such.

Nice Appeal to Motive fallacy . I've answered the other so-called points already.

Then do enlighten me because I seem to have missed it.

Why are we assuming Starfleet renamed the ship when we have no evidence pointing towards such?

Because when people say "I'm sure" instead of "I know", it means they don't actually know, dumb-fuck.

And he didn't know for certain that they were going to build another Enterprise, that has little bearing on the fact that he should know (and so should Worf and Sisko) if they are currently building one.

This isn't rocket science; you bear the burden of proof for your claim that they actually had direct knowledge rather than speculation, and you have failed to meet it. And now you're resorting to ridiculous burden of proof fallacies where I must prove that they can NOT be assumed to know everything that goes on in the whole of Starfleet.

I never claimed he would know everything that went on in Starfleet and you well know it, I claimed that O'Brien would have a clue if there was currently a ship named Enterprise under construction, given its status as the flagship, a ship which he has a degree of interest in and its position a the cutting edge of the fleet I think it would catch his eye.

The fact that he saw fit to comment (and wasn't corrected by Worf) indicates that he did know one wasn't under construction and Worf is even more likely to know the situation.

I love the way you try to pretend that it's either "they knew" or "they were lying or fools", with no middle ground for "they didn't know, and they were just speculating".

They were speculating that another Enterprise would be built soon, however that is based upon an Enterprise not already being under construction, something I think O'Brien and Worf would know (Worf being connected to the crew of that soon to be ship and the most respected captain in the fleet who I imagine was aware when he would get his next command).
We can assume they haven't got a clue and were talking rubbish but again I see no reason to contrive an explanation where they don't know if a ship is under construction because it is more believable that they would.

Sure, but as you've conceded, it's also POSSIBLE that they simply renamed one, hence you cannot use the ASSUMPTION that they would NEVER do this as proof that they MUST have built the ship starting after the E-D was destroyed. What part of this logic do you not understand?

I understand it fine, my point is that we have no reason to assume they renamed it (and took their sweet time about doing so) when it seems t be something of a rarity to do that.
They could have renamed it sure, but why assume they did when the simplest explanation is that they built the ship after the chiefs statement.

Read what I wrote, moron. I grow tired of your complete misinterpretation of my point.

You and I both.

I never assumed that the design work for the E-E must have commenced after the E-D's destruction, you idiot. What I pointed out was that YOUR theory leads to either that conclusion or the amazing coincidence that the first ship was due to begin construction just after the E-D died.

"You're the imbecile saying that a whole new starship class was initiated in response to the E-D being destroyed,"

How did I misrepresent that exactly?

It is no more an amazing coincidence than it is an amazing coincidence that the Enterprise D was destroyed whilst the soon to Enterprise E was being constructed, not much of one at all.

I never said it was the second Sovereign-class ship, asshole, and I'm getting sick of you putting words in my mouth. I said it was the first ship, so your theory falls apart.

Yes I know what you said but i was hoping for you sake you meant the first production model (i.e. the second ship of the class).
There is even less justification to suppose the Enterprise E is the first of the Sovereign class, given that the first ship in a class is named the same as the class and that the plaques say "first ship of her class" which they don't here.

Either the first ship just happened to start construction after the E-D died through incredible coincidence or there was one already under construction, in which case it must have been renamed Enterprise since the E-E ended up being the first Sovereign-class ship built.

I am alleging the ship began construction months after the Enteprise E was destroyed, not much of a coincidence there.

Where is you proof the Enterprise E is the first Sovereign class ship built?

And saying that a coincidence is technically possible is no way to prove a point. You have already conceded that a ship renaming is possible, hence you have no case. You have been reduced to saying that it's not GUARANTEED, which is nothing more than desperate rhetorical spluttering on your part since we need only prove that it's POSSIBLE in order to disprove your theory which is based on the assumption that it is IMPOSSIBLE.

I admitted it is possible the ship was renamed because it is however we have no evidence pointing to that conclusion, it is possible the Enterprise D was first named the USS Loveboat but I'm not about to claim such, nor use that possibility to try and prove something.

So if I don't cross my i's and dot my t's like a lawyer, this somehow validates your massive burden-of-proof fallacies, your assumption that the rebels successfully prosecuted a campaign against Terek'Nor with zero resources, your assumption that the Federation couldn't possibly ever rename a ship under construction, your belief that "I'm sure it's gonna happen" is the same thing as "I know for a fact", and your belief that the Sovereign-class design and construction schedule just coincidentally happened to start the construction phase after the E-D was destroyed, this being more likely than a ship renaming?

Lame.

The rebels is a separate issue to the possible renaming of the Enterprise E that you are just throwing in there to add another factor so we can drop that(and no resources for shipbuilding doesn't translate to no resources in total, they obviously had some raiders for example).
I have already said it possible Starfleet could have renamed the ship, only that I think it unlikely and we have nothing indicating they did, so that one is out.
I have explained O’Brien’s statement doesn't translate to what you want it to, he said he believes they will build a new ship not "I’m sure they will build a new one soon, hell one my be under construction how the hell do I know", he never indicates he isn't sure one is under construction (by not raising it as an issue he seems to affirm the fact that one isn't currently under construction).
I also don't believe that the Enterprise E was the first of her class and I have alleged construction starting months after Generations so that coincidence isn't really there.

Based on your assumption that "I'm sure it's gonna happen" is on the same level of factual certainty as "they start construction next month".

No based upon the fact that not mentioning even the possibility that it is currently under construction is an indication that it isn't currently under construction.

Given overall timeframes of more than a decade, yes. It's too much of a coincidence, especially when you have already conceded that a less coincidental explanation is completely possible.

I'm sure Starfleet has ships starting construction all the time so an event being within 4-5 months of one isn't really a coincidence.

No, you left a theory which REQUIRES two things known to be untrue:

1) The phrase "I'm sure it's gonna happen" is presumed to mean "I know for a fact that they start construction next month". As if you would actually think the two phrases meant the same thing if you heard them in real life.

No Wong, you once again miss the point. I don't look to O’Brien’s statement for information on when construction will start, I look for it for information for a date before which construction had no started, the difference is rather obvious.

O’Brien may have been long and they may never have built a new Enterprise but his speculation on that point is not important, his admission that the ship is not currently under construction is.

This new line on O’Brien’s statement is flawed, I would helpfully suggest you look elsewhere to prove your conclusion.

2) The renaming of a ship under construction is assumed to be impossible. Except that it's happened before.

Again I claim no such thing.
Provide me with proof the ship was renamed and I will accept it, until you d however I see little reason to assume it was.

If I allege the Defiant was originally called the USS Butt Kicker, would you not point out I have no evidence of such and therefore have no reason to believe it to be true?
How is that different that you (even more flawed actually) assertion that the Enterprise E was originally called the USS Sovereign.

Given those absurd assumptions,

Which you created very nicely.

you conclude that it was just naked coincidence that the Sovereign-class just happened to finish a 10+ year design phase as the E-D was destroyed.

Design phases are less than that, the Defiant project took 3-5 years from inception to finished prototype.
The Prometheus took a maximum of 4 years for the same.

Nor do I claim it just ended as the Enterprise D was destroyed, your claims that the Enterprise E was the first Sovereign have no evidence (thus far presented) to support them and as such you should stop using your unbacked assumption as proof.

For all we know the enterprise was party of a production run that had already been ongoing for a couple of years, until you offer some proof of its position in the production run you cannot use its imagined position as evidence.

The only alternative to this coincidence (while still clinging to your bullshit assumptions #1 and #2) is to postulate that it was rapidly designed.

No it isn't, weren't you accusing me of falsely constricting the options available above?
I have already explained the fault in your reasoning and until you offer some evidence its collapses as unworkable in the face of other canon evidence.

You still don't understand the distinction between speculation and fact; I can only hope that the ability to differentiate between the two is never a necessary skill in whatever profession you end up practising.

Cute.

I do indeed understand the difference and as I have said O’Brien’s speculation on a proposed construction date isn't as important as the conclusion he reaches about the Enterprise E currently being under construction (neither he, nor Worf, nor Sisko is aware of the Enterprise E being under construction).

[Darth Wong]

Because when people say "I'm sure" instead of "I know", it means they don't actually know, dumb-fuck.

Lets see shall we:

O'Brein: I'm sure they'll build a new one soon.

A statement of speculation, not fact. Not my fault you don't know the difference.

Iif as you say "I'm sure" means "I don't know" It still doesn't change the fact that The Enterprise E hasn't started constructed. It doesn't matter if O'Brein doesn't know when they're building it because they g=haven't started yet.

Nice circular-logic fallacy; prove that there is no ship under construction at that time which can be renamed Enterprise.

[Crazedwraith]

Because when people say "I'm sure" instead of "I know", it means they don't actually know, dumb-fuck.

Lets see shall we:

O'Brein: I'm sure they'll build a new one soon.

A statement of speculation, not fact. Not my fault you don't know the difference.

Yes, its speculation but for O'Brien to speculate on when they were starting it means it hasn't been started yet. Whats so difficult to comprehend?

If as you say "I'm sure" means "I don't know" It still doesn't change the fact that The Enterprise E hasn't started constructed. It doesn't matter if O'Brein doesn't know when they're building it because they haven't started yet.

Nice circular-logic fallacy; prove that there is no ship under construction at that time which can be renamed Enterprise.

I can't but I don't have to. You have to prove that there was. Seeing we only have one example of re-naming a vessel (the Defiant) and that wasn't on a hulk in the middle of construction.