Was the Ambassador Class phased out?

[Richard Baker]

It could be that the Ambassador Class just did not perform as well as expected in the field. The Miranda Class to me seemed to be like the Jeep - a good basic platform which was easy to build and maintain and could be adapted to a number of uses. We have seen different external equipment changes and the bridges have been upgraded to current tech when we saw them. The Excelsior is probably another good reliable design which has been upgraded over time- I think the Enterprise/Lakota variant was an upgrade to the physical exterior that fit a more specialized purpose. The Enterprise was supposed to be a top of the line ship so it had extra impulse engines (I really wish though they had kept them as shuttle bays as shown on the sets Master Systems Display) and revised secondary hull/warp nacelles. The Lokota was also intended to be a top of the line ship under the control of Admiral Leyton so having the extra bells and whistles is fitting.
I remember there have been a number of aircraft designs which seemed great on paper and in simulations, but when actually built and flown turned out to be disappointing. They were OK and could be tweaked, but they were not as good as hoped so were not built in large numbers. I think the Ambassador Class is similar- it was intended to be the next big thing, to replace the Excelsior Class, but simply did not work out as well in the field so the Excelsiors stayed in abundance filling those roles.

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

Real combat assets are refit all the time... In the 1980s the Iowa class battleships were repurposed as Tomohawk missile platforms in addition to shore bombardment duties, which were ultimately used a couple times before they retired the class (The Iowas carried 32 Tomohawks and 16 Harpoons, and were replaced by smaller Arleigh Burke destroyers carrying over 100 missiles of various types).

In the 1990s they added a bomb-dropping capacity to the F-14 combat, which was previously ONLY a fighter-interceptor. They recently did the same with the F-22, which expended weapons in combat for the first time last year mostly on account of no one the USAF was fighting having any real, you know, fighter planes.

As a parallel to the Excelsior and Ambassador, I think that the Excelsior started as the next Big Thing and premiere flagship of Starfleet, but ultimately turned out to be the best design for an all-around workhorse starship. Meanwhile, the Ambassador class was developed and built to be the next big long range explorer who were out there doing just that, and thus not being often seen. It's all about what they were designed for.

Bigger isn't always better, to be sure. Boeing is cranking out their big 777 design as their international workhorse, and is effectively replacing the old 747 which is barely being produced anymore. Airbus has their huge A380 design but is now experiencing difficulty finding new customers for an expensive plane with a very narrow mission profile in terms of distance it flies and number of passengers they have to have in the seats to be profitable. Meanwhile, both companies are churning out B737 and A320 planes like there's no tomorrow, to fill the need for planes to fly smaller numbers of people shorter distances, but several times a day.

If the Ambassador class was phased out, it was because it was superceded by the Galaxy class IMO, inasmuch as the Forrestal class of aircraft carrier will be replaced by the Nimitz class in its mission profile, or how the Iowa was replaced another ship (or ships) to do the same thing. At the same time, the Excelsior plods along like the humble Boeing 737 or Airbus A320 (though the Excelsior may have started out as a Queen of the skies), being built in large numbers for different missions requiring the capacity it can fill.

Mark

 

[Go-Captain]

The Excelsior and Miranda classes could be likened to the B-52 or F-16, or both. The former has had multiple major life extending upgrades to the old, still flying air frames, while the latter is still in production and has numerous major block upgrades to production.

 

[CharlieZardoz]

I'll throw in my two cents in with this one. My opinion is that the Ambassador was a perfectly functional ship and served well as an experimental new design at a time when the Excelsior was the primary space frame starfleet was producing in droves. The fact that many Ambassador's still exist by the 2370's is a testament that they were a successful design and there is nothing which disputes the possibility that additional waves of Ambassadors could have been produced in the 44,000-59,000 registry bracket since we've seen ships like the Niagara and Excelsior classes built in waves. The only reason we see none of them on screen is that the Enterprise C model broke but that doesn't mean there weren't a lot of them. Maybe it's best to take the space fight scenes from Sacrifice of Angels etc. as merely a representation of ship classes since the animators were limited in what space frames they had available at the time. We know that Olympic, New Orleans, Renaissance and Ambassador classes among others fought in the war since they were spoken of via okudagrams and the encyclopedia. The only info we have is that there were obviously less of them in the war than Excelsior's and Miranda's but there could still be dozens if not hundreds. I would speculate that it is quite possible that the Ambassador class was so experimental that at the time the use of the design was limited so Starfleet instead went back to building massive amounts of Excelsior's until the design was perfected. And once it was they would/may have been upgraded to look like the model did as the Yamaguchi/Zhukov and if a new wave of them weren't built in the 44,000-59,000 range it could be that they were succeeded by the conjectural designs like the Renaissance class which we never see but we can speculate looked like Probert's Ambassador design. The line would then continue with ships like New Orleans, Nebula and eventually culminate in the Galaxy design.

 

[Dukhat]

I would speculate that it is quite possible that the Ambassador class was so experimental that at the time the use of the design was limited so Starfleet instead went back to building massive amounts of Excelsior's until the design was perfected.

Actually, my theory is that registries are not chronological but are "batches." Therefore, the 3XXXX to 4XXXX batches (including the majority of the Mirandas and Excelsiors we saw in DS9) were actually produced before the 2XXXX Ambassadors. One of these days I have to find and repost my spreadsheet about this...

...it could be that they were succeeded by the conjectural designs like the Renaissance class which we never see but we can speculate looked like Probert's Ambassador design.

Which also reinforces the pet theory as to why we never saw any Ambassadors during the Dominion war. If we assume that ships like the Ambassador and the conjectural Probert Renaissance (relatively large, multipurpose vessels presumably built for long-duration deep space missions, akin to the Galaxy class that would come later), then they were most likely too far away to offer any real assistance. The Enterprise-C was probably meant to be an explorer just like the rest of the Ambassadors.

 

[SicOne]

I would speculate that it is quite possible that the Ambassador class was so experimental that at the time the use of the design was limited so Starfleet instead went back to building massive amounts of Excelsior's until the design was perfected.

Actually, my theory is that registries are not chronological but are "batches." Therefore, the 3XXXX to 4XXXX batches (including the majority of the Mirandas and Excelsiors we saw in DS9) were actually produced before the 2XXXX Ambassadors. One of these days I have to find and repost my spreadsheet about this...
.

Yes, please!

 

[CharlieZardoz]

Actually, my theory is that registries are not chronological but are "batches." Therefore, the 3XXXX to 4XXXX batches (including the majority of the Mirandas and Excelsiors we saw in DS9) were actually produced before the 2XXXX Ambassadors. One of these days I have to find and repost my spreadsheet about this...

It would definitely make more sense rather than Starfleet using older spaceframes for simply convenience of design, the idea that ships started using band phasers then went back to the old turret model never sat well with me. I'm re-reading your batch notes now and I agree with it though to be honest some of it I find confusing more because I think a lot of the supposed launch dates mentioned in TNG seem to cause some confusion like Brattain launched in 2345 which wasn't meant to be a Miranda (or more specifically the reliant model). Also ships like Crazy Horse and Melbourne whose registries if we take as fact cause some issues (though i'm happy to believe they are wrong). I can accept a Melbourne at 52043 but not 62043. You also mention the Renaissance being older than the Ambassador which is an interesting theory. The spreadsheet would be helpful.

 

[JES]

Yeah, the ASDB went that route when designing the Renaissance class, which ended up being a smaller, earlier predecessor.

 

[Dukhat]

You also mention the Renaissance being older than the Ambassador which is an interesting theory. The spreadsheet would be helpful.

Yeah, the ASDB went that route when designing the Renaissance class, which ended up being a smaller, earlier predecessor.

Well, understand that I'm just going by three factors here:

1. The Renaissance class Aries was supposedly a deep space research vessel, implying that it was quite large like the Ambassador and Galaxy classes;

2. The last Renaissance class ship was launched in 2337 while the Miranda class Brattain NCC-21166 was launched in 2345. The Hokkaido's registry is unknown but is probably 452XX based on the other known registries of the class, so clearly there's a huge discrepancy here if registries are supposed to be chronological; and

3. The fact that the Hokkaido was used as a testbed for the newer ASRV lifeboats used on the Galaxy class might be an indication that the Renaissance class was an 'intermediary' step between the Ambassador and the Galaxy, which the Probert Ambassador design clearly looks like.


Anyway, I've found some of my files. Enjoy!

Ship Construction Estimate spreadsheet: https://app.box.com/s/qfo49qlp5ezk8oif8ltu

Chronological Timeline of Starship Registries: https://app.box.com/s/fff3tw52094siaipu743

Batch Number Timeline of Starship Registries: https://app.box.com/s/ok0nbvxmse2wte4bbr5d

 

[SicOne]

Dukhat, I just skimmed through it quickly but I like what I see. Thanks for sharing these spreadsheets!

 

[CharlieZardoz]

Wish there was some evidence to what class the USS Archer was. It's in that transitional patch of numbers and what class it belong to feels like a missing link and could explain a few things. That said looking at the list it makes much more sense now. While it's hard for my brain to wrap around the notion that 30000 Miranda's came before 20000 Miranda's and that the Renaissance class lay in between the first and second wave of Ambassadors, seeing it presented in the spreadsheet knowing the launch dates of these ships actually has a rationale now. Thank you for the work you put into this it's put some head scratching to rest

Oh and no Uss Ravin?

 

[CharlieZardoz]

Also regarding Crazy Horse and Melbourne, while I'm ok with the idea that a last batch of Excelsior's came out in the the 50000-52100 range (maybe for courier service), I concur that 62043 (a nebula registry) just doesn't work. That said I don't own the blueray is 62043 clearly visible on the wolf359 hull or could we squint and imagine it as 52043? 6 and 5 are very similar federation number fonts so just curious if hd makes it undisputed. Has there ever been any pics unearthed of the studio model as Melbourne?

 

[Dukhat]

Dukhat, I just skimmed through it quickly but I like what I see. Thanks for sharing these spreadsheets!

Thanks

Oh and no Uss Ravin?

The Raven had a NAR registry, which is not chronologically consistent with NCC registries. The only thing we know about it was that it was operational in 2354.

Also regarding Crazy Horse and Melbourne, while I'm ok with the idea that a last batch of Excelsior's came out in the the 50000-52100 range (maybe for courier service), I concur that 62043 (a nebula registry) just doesn't work. That said I don't own the blueray is 62043 clearly visible on the wolf359 hull or could we squint and imagine it as 52043? 6 and 5 are very similar federation number fonts so just curious if hd makes it undisputed. Has there ever been any pics unearthed of the studio model as Melbourne?

There is no bluray of "Emissary." However, in DVD screencaps the NCC-62043 is visible on the Excelsior saucer. Yes, I wish someone had the foresight to change the registry to either 6204 or 2043, but I'm sure that wasn't high on their list of priorities. I prefer to simply think that it's just one of those registry anomalies that crop up from time to time. As for the Crazy Horse, I can freely ignore the 5XXXX reg since it isn't canon.

 

[CharlieZardoz]

Gotcha, and I always assumed the NAR registries were Starfleet registries converted to civilian service. No idea really do you think the NAR is it's own separate system then? How many were onscreen anyway like 2 or 3?

 

[USS KG5]

Also regarding Crazy Horse and Melbourne, while I'm ok with the idea that a last batch of Excelsior's came out in the the 50000-52100 range (maybe for courier service), I concur that 62043 (a nebula registry) just doesn't work. That said I don't own the blueray is 62043 clearly visible on the wolf359 hull or could we squint and imagine it as 52043? 6 and 5 are very similar federation number fonts so just curious if hd makes it undisputed. Has there ever been any pics unearthed of the studio model as Melbourne?

Or maybe Starfleet sometimes decommission ships, and if they change the name, recommission them with new registries?

Maybe, as the result of some peace treaty at some point, a big batch of Excelsiors were mothballed, or they were mothballed as the Ambassadors came into service, and Starfleet gradually recommissioned them to replace lost or retired ships?

 

[CharlieZardoz]

Well that depends on whether you take the USS Farragut from DS9's Chrysalis episode as an old ship rechristened. The conjectural NCC-2582 discussed in memory beta isn't canon so who knows if the registry was higher but there has never been evidence of this in canon and on that logic Farragut would have a registry of 75,000 which isn't how Trek ship registries work (ship classes usually work within certain number groups). Thing is we only know of two registry anomalies Crazy Horse and Melbourne and we know the reason was due to a change in ship class after the registry was derived. Melbourne was obviously supposed to be a Nebula class and when they decided to change the models no one fact checked the registries in time. The only reason why I might offer 52043 for Melbourne explanation would be because A. the new tech ships begin with the Steamrunner class at 52100ish and there are almost no ship registries mentioned from 46,000 to 51,000 except Biko and Crazy Horse. Also B. Starfleet font 6 and 5 look almost identical and since the ship is being blasted by a phasor in the battle on that exact spot I could speculate Melbourne registry could be reinterpreted as 52043. However if we take Dukat's batch theory as fact then it still causes some problems and may as well assume the registries are erroneous and should simply be disregarded entirely.

 

[Dukhat]

Well that depends on whether you take the USS Farragut from DS9's Chrysalis episode as an old ship rechristened.

I don't. That was just stock footage used randomly and without any regard to the episode's script identifying a ship docked at the station as the Farragut. For all we know the real Farragut had just left or was in orbit of the station but out of view.

 

[CharlieZardoz]

Me neither. It's like they just picked a name without thought of the episode which mentioned her destruction (probably forgot). With all the plausible ship names at their disposal the show really seemed to like reusing certain ones in this case Farragut, also Antares.