Anyone have any good reason for ship registry changes?

[Darkwing]

This is one of the reasons (besides stagnant thinking) that I wish TNG had stuck to the plan to name the ship ANYTHING other than Enterprise. "These are the adventures of the USS Galaxy" would have been good. Scotty had it right about "no bloody letters".

[Lighthammer]

Forbin wrote:

---

Why is everyone hung up on this flagship nonsense? The only Enterprise ever called a flagship on screen was the D, and since it wasn't commanded by an admiral, even that was just an honorific. The TOS E was "just one of the fleet," and commanded by the most junior captain in the fleet.

Although I cant off the top of my head without a ton of research demonstrate the original Enterprise was a/the Flagship, I'm almost certain that it was stated to be at some point.

Certainly when Spock was Captain of it during Wrath of Khan, the Enterprise was relegated to training duties and we have absolutely no evidence it was the flagship by that point.

Beyond that, we know Captain Picard was often (relatively speaking) given fleet operation control. Heck, as early as season 1, we know Star Fleet would have gladly given him Admiral posting if he were interested in it. I tend to feel like it was writer's flaw not to more strongly advocate on screen his status as a flag officer. Reading between the lines we're usually led to the assumption that Picard is not a Captain, but rather a Fleet Captain. One might be able to infer that Kirk held the same position.

If we follow the novels, we know it wasn't for some time till John Harriman was officially promoted to Fleet Captain. We never hear if Captain Garrett holds or is promoted to that position ever, in any media.

As far as ship names go; I think anyone and everyone would argue who has ever had any kind of infatuation with a ship that the name and its linage is something very important to most. I suppose one could say star ships are like hurricanes, the really special ones you immortalize; the less then special ones, you recycle the names.

That being said, some of the ship names we've seen wildly jump classes have some real linage behind them. Again, pulling from my initial post, the Defiant has some really strong linage as do ships like the Intrepid, the Excelsior, Voyager (now). Looking back on the Defiant from a linage stand point, it probably would have made sense for the Sovereign Class to be named the Defiant class.

[Timo]

Although I cant off the top of my head without a ton of research demonstrate the original Enterprise was a/the Flagship, I'm almost certain that it was stated to be at some point.

Except that it wasn't.

True enough, Kirk had his ship taken over by flag officers a couple of times, thus theoretically making her a flagship. He himself twice commandeered the ship while holding flag rank, once legally, the other time illegally. But no "special status" was ever established for the ship, save for her holding some speed records as of ST3:TSfS.

the Defiant has some really strong linage as do ships like the Intrepid, the Excelsior, Voyager (now).

Huh? TOS had one starship Defiant, of no particular significance, and with an ignominious ending to boot. TOS movies had one Excelsior, a big ship that had all her glory stolen from her by the smaller Enterprise, twice. There was no Voyager before Janeway's hero ship. So what's all this talk about lineages?

In the real world, lineages like this don't really exist. In the USN, a "famous" name like Independence has moved from a small sloop to a ship of the line to an insignificant troop transport, then back up to a light cruiser that was finished as a light aircraft carrier, then to a bigger carrier, but currently is assigned to a modest littoral warfare vessel. HMS Enterprise is a roller coaster ride from obscurity to prominence and back, several times over.

Does Starfleet assign a given name to progressively bigger and better ships? The Enterprise is the one known case, but e.g. the Intrepid would appear to be a contrary case - from the largish and apparently somewhat significant ENT ship to the comparable TOS Constitution to mighty Excelsior but then to the class ship of a smallish type.

Timo Saloniemi

[The Wormhole]

Lighthammer wrote:

---

Although I cant off the top of my head without a ton of research demonstrate the original Enterprise was a/the Flagship, I'm almost certain that it was stated to be at some point.

It has never been stated the original Enterprise was Starfleet's flagship. Canonically speaking, we only know for sure the Enterprise D and E were the flagships. Also, the NX-01 was said to be the flagship of the Terran Empire's Starfleet in the MU.

Beyond that, we know Captain Picard was often (relatively speaking) given fleet operation control. Heck, as early as season 1, we know Star Fleet would have gladly given him Admiral posting if he were interested in it. I tend to feel like it was writer's flaw not to more strongly advocate on screen his status as a flag officer. Reading between the lines we're usually led to the assumption that Picard is not a Captain, but rather a Fleet Captain. One might be able to infer that Kirk held the same position.

No, Picard is a Captain, as indicated by the four pips he wears on his collar.

If we follow the novels, we know it wasn't for some time till John Harriman was officially promoted to Fleet Captain. We never hear if Captain Garrett holds or is promoted to that position ever, in any media.

Harriman was never a Fleet Captain. According to Memory Beta (a Star Trek wiki which incorporates non-canonical material) he was a Captain at the point he retired in 2311. He apparentally returned to Starfleet at some point and by 2371 was an Admiral.

[Timo]

Where do we learn that the E-E would hold flagship status?

As for Fleet Captains, we don't know much about this rank, or even whether it really exists. For all we know, its one and only canonical mention, in "The Menagerie pt I", merely establishes Pike as holding the exact same rank as Kirk, that is, (Star)fleet Captain (as opposed to generic captain such as Harry Mudd, or captain of a lesser rank such as Commander Ramart of the Antares or Lieutenant Commander Dax of the Defiant). Certainly no "fleet command" roles have ever been associated with this rank - its only known holder was famed for teaching cadets, nothing else.

Timo Saloniemi

[The Wormhole]

Hmm, I suppose you might be right about the Enterprise E. I just assume it is the flagship since with the D gone there would have to be a new flagship. Logically, the next Enterprise would be it.

[Timo]

with the D gone there would have to be a new flagship.

Why wait for the E-E to be completed? There would be plenty of already existing ships to assume that role immediately. And no tradition of ships named Enterprise holding the status!

If anything, some other Galaxy class ship would be the natural successor, as that sort of hardware is known to be capable of the task. The Sovereign class would not have demonstrated the capability yet. (And may indeed lack it altogether for all we know.)

Timo Saloniemi

[Darkwing]

Timo,
The real world lineage is in the keeping of the name. Some names get recycled for a while, then fade; some endure. But you're right that the Trek idea of passing those names to better ships isn't real world practice.
As for the flagship thing, that's fanon and writer confusion about what a flagship is. Yes, the D is referred to as such, in the meaning of Starfleet's prime showboat, but it doesn't mean it's an admiral's command ship. Essentially, Pike seems to have commanded a Galaxy Exploration cruiser, Kirk commanded an Independent Duty cruiser (meaning he was available to any command of Starfleet, but patrolled wherever he pleased on his own initiative until such a command called on his services), and Picard did the same with a bigger, showier ship where "explorer" replaced "cruiser" as the designation. So fans and writers tend to assume that at least the 1701-A had that status, and that it must be passed on to any ship named Enterprise-any bloody letter.
My first exposure to wikipedia was reading the article on the USN carrier, and some idiot had edited it to say that after the ship's heroics in WWII, the US Navy had made a regulation declaring that there would always be an Enterprise, and that it would be the flagship of the navy!
On the Fleet Captain issue, I personally like it. One possible justification is that, like Commodore, it no longer refers to an actual rank, but rather to a position. So a Fleet Captain might be what we call a Tycom today (Type Commander). A Tycom doesn't command a ship. They manage all ships of a class. They make the decisions on what changes may be made, when yard periods are needed, what maintenance is required, what materials may be used, etc. If a captain wants a new door in a given location, and the old door replaced with a bulkhead, the Tycom has to approve it, or he's not allowed to make the change. So a captain who gets a Tycom billet is referred to as a Fleet Captain, just as a captain in charge of a squadron is a Commodore.
In my own fiction, I do use the rank as an often bypassed intermediary to flag rank - occasionally someone is made a fleet captain to improve their seniority over their fellows, more often they get it as a sign that they're too much of a cowboy to ever be allowed to make flag rank. Otherwise, the majority of captains either retire or become admirals without ever stopping off as fleet captains. But that's just my take on it.

[R. Star]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Huh? In all Star Trek, there have been four Saratogas:

-A ship mentioned as the previous assignment of one of Trip's engineers in Enterprise.
-The Miranda class ship seen in the opening of Trek IV.
-The other Miranda class ship Sisko served on in the opening scene of Emissary.
-A ship of unknown design mentioned in TNG's sixth season and DS9's sixth season.

There has never been a Nebula class Saratoga.

I always thought the Saratoga in STIV and Sisko's were the same ship. Why would they be cranking out new Miranda's in the 24th century? I always just had the impression they were freaking mass produced so much in the 23rd century that they were refitted to lesser roles in the 24th century rather than just retiring a huge number of ships all at once and leaving a void. Transport ships, science vessels and such things though the Dominion war required them putting every hull they could in action.

As for the one from DS9 that was mentioned in You are Cordially Invited, I assumed it was Nebula class too being one of the DS9 clips that episode showed a Nebula docked at the station and members of it's crew were at Dax's party.

[Timo]

I always thought the Saratoga in STIV and Sisko's were the same ship. Why would they be cranking out new Miranda's in the 24th century?

No real dispute here. But newbuilds would explain why a supposedly hard-working fighting ship (rather than a sedately moving science vessel) hasn't worn down from use in the intervening century, even though age and fatigue supposedly claimed two comparable ships from under Jim Kirk.

The damage was already done with the introduction of the "modern" USS Brattain in TNG, basically. Or to some degree with the reuse of the Excelsior model in the pilot episode, establishing the continuing use of actual, original Kirk-era fighting ships in Picard's days (which at that point might have been intended to be half a century later still, as per Data's "class of '78" remark). Or, in other words, the lamentable tradition of recycling models from the older movies when making the 24th century TV show. "Emissary" was just keeping up the practice by painting new registry numbers on Sisko's ship - but admittedly could have used the ship with the ST4 registry number just as well.

(...A number in some dispute even today, incidentally. Official sources have quoted something like three incorrect numbers for that ship already, instead of the supposedly visually verified NCC-1887.)

As for the one from DS9 that was mentioned in You are Cordially Invited, I assumed it was Nebula class too being one of the DS9 clips that episode showed a Nebula docked at the station and members of it's crew were at Dax's party.

The party ship was said in dialogue to be the Sutherland.

In the teaser to "Wrongs Darker than Death or Night", Worf and Dax seem to be saying that the (unseen) Saratoga that was to dock with the station would be another harbinger of wild parties. It seems that the writers got their notes about the designated "party ship" confused... This ship is necessarily a "third" Starfleet Saratoga, as neither of the Miranda class vessels can be assumed to have survived.

The TNG episode "Aquiel" supposedly involves this "third" ship as well. She is not mentioned in dialogue, so the reference apparently merely comes from one of non-narrated diary entries of the titular character. This may not count as "for real", for various reasons.

Timo Saloniemi

[R. Star]

Timo wrote:

---

No real dispute here. But newbuilds would explain why a supposedly hard-working fighting ship (rather than a sedately moving science vessel) hasn't worn down from use in the intervening century, even though age and fatigue supposedly claimed two comparable ships from under Jim Kirk.

The damage was already done with the introduction of the "modern" USS Brattain in TNG, basically. Or to some degree with the reuse of the Excelsior model in the pilot episode, establishing the continuing use of actual, original Kirk-era fighting ships in Picard's days (which at that point might have been intended to be half a century later still, as per Data's "class of '78" remark). Or, in other words, the lamentable tradition of recycling models from the older movies when making the 24th century TV show. "Emissary" was just keeping up the practice by painting new registry numbers on Sisko's ship - but admittedly could have used the ship with the ST4 registry number just as well.

(...A number in some dispute even today, incidentally. Official sources have quoted something like three incorrect numbers for that ship already, instead of the supposedly visually verified NCC-1887.)

The party ship was said in dialogue to be the Sutherland.

In the teaser to "Wrongs Darker than Death or Night", Worf and Dax seem to be saying that the (unseen) Saratoga that was to dock with the station would be another harbinger of wild parties. It seems that the writers got their notes about the designated "party ship" confused... This ship is necessarily a "third" Starfleet Saratoga, as neither of the Miranda class vessels can be assumed to have survived.

The TNG episode "Aquiel" supposedly involves this "third" ship as well. She is not mentioned in dialogue, so the reference apparently merely comes from one of non-narrated diary entries of the titular character. This may not count as "for real", for various reasons.

Timo Saloniemi

Well in the case of Kirk's ships, both came back with heavy battle damage. I just assumed Starfleet figured it would be cheaper to build a new ship than to spend resources repairing the old ones. It's one thing to keep a perfectly functional older ship in service, but it's another to spend vast resources repairing it when it suffers heavy damage. This would explain why so many older model ships are still around in the TNG era. I mean heck, the USS Missouri from World War 2 was active in the gulf war, albeit with a refit, so it's possible the Federation could keep their older models around, especially during their soft era of good feelings. Even LaForge said that flying box with warp nacelles, the Jenolen would've been in service today if not for that crash.

I stand corrected on the Sutherland. It's been awhile since I watched DS9 and guess I confused the Sutherland party with the party ship Saratoga in my head. But hey if the writers confused the issue, why can't I too? Thanks.

Either way, yeah... the registry numbers never were too consistent.

[Timo]

Well in the case of Kirk's ships, both came back with heavy battle damage.

It's not as if the ST4 Saratoga especially enjoyed her meeting with the Whale Probe, either...

Then again, we don't know everything about the relative ages of the ship designs or individual ships involved. Perhaps none of the Mirandas were refits of 2240s-vintage starships, but brand new things from the 2280s instead, despite sporting registry numbers in a range we already witnessed in the 2260s in that "Court Martial" wall chart?

Timo Saloniemi

[The Wormhole]

Darkwing wrote:

---

My first exposure to wikipedia was reading the article on the USN carrier, and some idiot had edited it to say that after the ship's heroics in WWII, the US Navy had made a regulation declaring that there would always be an Enterprise, and that it would be the flagship of the navy!

Back when CVN-65's decommisioning was announced, there was an online petition for the next carrier to be named Enterprise with some people who signed it referring to CVN-65 as the Navy's flagship.

Also of note, the Canadian Coast Guard actually does have a flagship. Read about it here. And there's even a press release about a new flagship here. Although I'm told that since the Canadian Coast Guard is a civilian agency, its use of the term flagship is different than the military one.

Hmm, did I just add fodder to the "is Starfleet military?" debate?

[Sector 7]

EliyahuQeoni wrote:

---

Its odd that Enterprise's registry has been reused so often. The US Navy has a lineage of Enterprises and they're CV-6, CVN-65, and (the future) CVN-80 NOT CV-6, CV-6-A, CV-6-B.

S-T-O-P-!-!-! Are you trying to self-destruct the damn ship?!

[TorontoTrekker]

Timo wrote:

---

Except that it wasn't.

True enough, Kirk had his ship taken over by flag officers a couple of times, thus theoretically making her a flagship. He himself twice commandeered the ship while holding flag rank, once legally, the other time illegally. But no "special status" was ever established for the ship, save for her holding some speed records as of ST3:TSfS.

Would Starfleet have sent any ship other than the flagship to escort the Klingon Chancellor in TUC, though?