Cannon TOS era fleet strength

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-01-26 09:37am

Does anyone have cannon information on Fed fleet numbers in the early TOS era?

I know that the fleet consists of the following types if ships:

Federation: dreadnaught
Connstitution: Heavy Cruiser
* Miranda: destroyer *
Saladin: frigate
Hermes: scout
Ptolomy: armed tug

*according to some trek sites the Miranda was developed alongside the Connie and existed in significant numbers in similar form (tubular nacelles w/ bussard collector, gold dish deflector etc. ) as the pre-refit connies. is this cannon?
Furthermore sites such as DITL list fleet numbers for these ships. I do recall something about fleet numbers in the TOS tech manual, but it belonged to a friend and she now lives in England. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-01-26 09:58am

There are no canon statements in regards to TOS-era fleet strength, and the Federation, Hermes, Saladin, and Ptolemy classes are all non-canon. The only remotely canon statement about the fleet comes from the episode "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" when Kirk comments to Capt. Christopher that there are only twelve starships like the Enterprise in the fleet —and it's clear that Kirk is referring only to ships of the Enterprise's own class.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-01-26 10:07am

Patrick Degan wrote:There are no canon statements in regards to TOS-era fleet strength, and the Federation, Hermes, Saladin, and Ptolemy classes are all non-canon. The only remotely canon statement about the fleet comes from the episode "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" when Kirk comments to Capt. Christopher that there are only twelve starships like the Enterprise in the fleet —and it's clear that Kirk is referring only to ships of the Enterprise's own class.

I know there were some issues between Roddenberry and the author of the TOS-TM. Gene clearly stated that all cannon starships have nacelles in multiples of 2.... and those nacelles must have at least 45% of their body within line of sight of each other. But that is directly contradicted by the clearly visable presence of the Freedom class USS Firebrand at Wolf 359. (not to mention the defiant class) So there seem to be contradictions both ways. My question is this which is higher cannon the Tech Manual or Gene Roddenberry's rants?

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-01-26 10:12am

Col. Crackpot wrote: I know there were some issues between Roddenberry and the author of the TOS-TM. Gene clearly stated that all cannon starships have nacelles in multiples of 2.... and those nacelles must have at least 45% of their body within line of sight of each other. But that is directly contradicted by the clearly visable presence of the Freedom class USS Firebrand at Wolf 359. (not to mention the defiant class) So there seem to be contradictions both ways. My question is this which is higher cannon the Tech Manual or Gene Roddenberry's rants?

I would guess it would depend on when his rant took place.

At least for the Defiant you could argue that technological advancements allowed them to fudge things a little. Since the nacelles are essentially in the correct place but they've been tucked in closer to the main part of the ship and "armored" over.

I think the Steamrunner class is somewhat similar in it's nacelle placement, minus the total enclosure of the nacelles.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-26 11:27am

Hermes, Saladin, and Ptolemy

Didn't one of those, pictures anyway, appear on a computer screen when they were looking through the data banks for historic ships, one time in TNG?

I think it was the Ptolemy but I could be wrong. Any way, if it made an appearence on the computer screen while searching through historical vessels, wouldn't that make it cannon right there?

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-26 11:39am

Col Crackpot wrote:Does anyone have cannon information on Fed fleet numbers in the early TOS era?

I know that the fleet consists of the following types if ships:

Federation: dreadnaught
Connstitution: Heavy Cruiser
* Miranda: destroyer *
Saladin: frigate
Hermes: scout
Ptolomy: armed tug

They Soyuz may or may not predate the Miranda. It was decommisioned way before any of the other TOS type vessels which may indicate its age. Its also possible that it just sucked as a new class and was scraped but.....

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-01-26 11:45am

Knife wrote:
Hermes, Saladin, and Ptolemy
Didn't one of those, pictures anyway, appear on a computer screen when they were looking through the data banks for historic ships, one time in TNG?

I think it was the Ptolemy but I could be wrong. Any way, if it made an appearence on the computer screen while searching through historical vessels, wouldn't that make it cannon right there?

supposedly it happened in ST:II and ST:III. I'm trying to find a screenshot.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-26 12:05pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
supposedly it happened in ST:II and ST:III. I'm trying to find a screenshot.

Yeah, I saw that on EAS but didn't see a screenshot. But I also seem to recall it on TNG because I remember Riker standing by the computer console. *shrug* Faulty memory.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-01-26 12:36pm

You know what, there was another on screen ship at wolf 359 that contradicts roddenberry: The three-nacelle Niagara class. So now we have both cannon sources (the onscreen ships) and an official source (the tech manual) that contradict the nacelles only in pairs statement.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-26 12:49pm

And, of course, the refit Enterprise-D from All Good Things

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-01-26 12:51pm

Howedar wrote:And, of course, the refit Enterprise-D from All Good Things

i thought alternate universe ships were not cannon.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-01-26 01:58pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:*according to some trek sites the Miranda was developed alongside the Connie and existed in significant numbers in similar form (tubular nacelles w/ bussard collector, gold dish deflector etc. ) as the pre-refit connies. is this cannon?

Canon very clearly disagrees with this assesment. Why on earth would the Federation keep the "weaker" ship in service longer then the more powerful and faster Constitution class? The Miranda class was built for a long time after the TOS movie era as evidence by its numbers in the Dominion War. The Miranda is a much newer ship and as such does not belong in TOS era estimates. Furthermore canon indicates the Miranda is roughly equal to the Constitution in both firepower and shielding while having a superior weapons arc. The Miranda doesn't quite fit the role of destroyer. A better ranking would be calling the Miranda a New Light Cruiser while the Excelsior class filled the Heavy Cruiser or Battlecruiser role.

As to TOS era fleets. We only know of one main ship class and that the Constitution class represented a significant chunk of the Federations striking power, or more correctly it represented one of their most succesful cruiser designs and was always seen on the front lines.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-01-26 01:59pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Howedar wrote:And, of course, the refit Enterprise-D from All Good Things
i thought alternate universe ships were not cannon.

Oh good grief. So not everything on screen is canon now?

We have seen very clear evidence of Starfleet ships shifting torwards the concepts used by the Galaxy-X. We have even seen some of the Galaxy-X mods showing up on DS9 era Galaxy class ships.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-01-26 02:51pm

Alyeska wrote:
as to TOS era fleets. We only know of one main ship class and that the Constitution class represented a significant chunk of the Federations striking power, or more correctly it represented one of their most succesful cruiser designs and was always seen on the front lines.

What other starship classes are there? You can't tell me that the entire tng federation is defended only by a dozen or two Constitutions? (most of which are out on exploration duty) Do we completely throw out the tech manual even though Gene Roddenberry's only statements against it (nacelles only in multiples of 2 etc) are made null and void by canon on screen evedence of 1 and 3 nacelle ships at wolf 359?

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-01-26 02:53pm

Alyeska wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:
Howedar wrote:And, of course, the refit Enterprise-D from All Good Things
i thought alternate universe ships were not cannon.
Oh good grief. So not everything on screen is canon now? We have seen very clear evidence of Starfleet ships shifting torwards the concepts used by the Galaxy-X. We have even seen some of the Galaxy-X mods showing up on DS9 era Galaxy class ships.

yes we did see them! there were three nacelle galaxies in Chin'toka! ok cool!

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-26 04:33pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Howedar wrote:And, of course, the refit Enterprise-D from All Good Things
i thought alternate universe ships were not cannon.

It's not an alternate universe. Rather, it is an alternate future branching off from current canon TNG times. Therefore, the laws of warp can't be any different from original TNG.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-01-26 04:47pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote: i thought alternate universe ships were not cannon.
Oh good grief. So not everything on screen is canon now? We have seen very clear evidence of Starfleet ships shifting torwards the concepts used by the Galaxy-X. We have even seen some of the Galaxy-X mods showing up on DS9 era Galaxy class ships.
yes we did see them! there were three nacelle galaxies in Chin'toka! ok cool!

There were no three nacelle Galaxy's at Chin'toka. There was only the Venture, a Galaxy with phaser arrays on its nacelles.

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2004-01-26 05:49pm

Wasn't there a one necelled frying pan galaxy kit bash in the wreckage of Worf 349

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-01-26 05:51pm

anarchistbunny wrote:Wasn't there a one necelled frying pan galaxy kit bash in the wreckage of Worf 349

USS Firebrand, Freedom class

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-01-26 06:29pm

The plain fact is that the writers of TOS didn't give a toss about either the size of the Federation starfleet or how many different classes and types were in the fleet's inventory. Whenever they needed to depict other Federation vessels, they simply either used a smaller model of the Enterprise ("The Doomsday Machine") or double-matted stock footage shots of the Enterprise either with funky effects or reverse-printed on the composite scene ("The Ultimate Computer", "The Omega Glory", "The Tholian Web") and redressed ship sets as required. Since the entire show was about the voyages of the starship Enterprise there was very little reason to really flesh out the details of Starfleet beyond referential dialogue and clever use of stock footage.

As for the starship classes referenced in the Franz Joseph Schnaubelt technical manual, none of those are canon. That book was printed several years after TOS had been cancelled, and while certain concepts may have been reflected in later canon designs in the movies and TNG-era series, the FJS ships don't even enjoy "official" status as far as issues of canonicity are concerned.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-01-26 06:33pm

Actualy the Constellation from "The Doomsday Machine" was a story bought model kit. That is why the numbers were switched around on her and still used two 1s, one 7, and one 0.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-01-26 06:41pm

Alyeska wrote:Actualy the Constellation from "The Doomsday Machine" was a story bought model kit. That is why the numbers were switched around on her and still used two 1s, one 7, and one 0.

Does anyone know why they switched the seven and the zero to get 1017 instead of the obvious 1710? If they'd done that, the whole NCC numbering system would be a lot simpler.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-01-26 06:50pm

RedImperator wrote:
Alyeska wrote:Actualy the Constellation from "The Doomsday Machine" was a story bought model kit. That is why the numbers were switched around on her and still used two 1s, one 7, and one 0.
Does anyone know why they switched the seven and the zero to get 1017 instead of the obvious 1710? If they'd done that, the whole NCC numbering system would be a lot simpler.

My guess is that it was simply done at random. The producers wanted a ship with a distinctively different hull number. It could as easily been NCC 7011 or NCC 7110 or NCC 1107 or NCC 1170. As it was, NCC 1017 was what looked good to modelmaker Greg Jein. Nobody really had a reason to care about "logical" ship-numbering schemes in 1967. The only thing that really counts is that the producers got good service out of that AMT plastic model kit.

buzz_knox · Post by **buzz_knox** » 2004-01-29 03:07pm

As for the starship classes referenced in the Franz Joseph Schnaubelt technical manual, none of those are canon.

Representations of the Ptolemy and Saladin class were displayed on an Enterprise viewscreen during ST:VI I believe. The specific movie escapes me but it was certainly an original cast movie. I believe that would make them canon.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-01-29 03:12pm

Star Trek II, actually.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Cannon TOS era fleet strength

Cannon TOS era fleet strength

Re: Cannon TOS era fleet strength

Re: Cannon TOS era fleet strength