Defiant-A?

[t_smitts]

I've read a couple of place that Ron Moore really wanted to call the new Defiant (aka the former USS Sao Paolo) the Defiant-A, but they didn't want to shoot a whole bunch of new shots for it.

Now I'm personally glad they didn't do that, because always thought the Enterprise lineage was "special" and that the letter suffix was a privilege limited to ships with that name. (I tend to ignore that weird "1305-E" registry they gave the Yamato that was contracted later anyway, and the Relatively, of course, is its own thing). Besides which, remember the new Defiant wasn't actually the second ship with that name, but the third (at least), so an "A" wouldn't be appropriate anyway.

I am sorry they used shots in "What You Leave Behind" that make the old Defiant's registry so painfully obvious. There's absolutely no reason the new ship would have that. If they ever get around to producing Blu-rays (or just some HD version of the show).

 

[Timo]

Well, Starfleet could have been doing propaganda there, as ships of that type appeared relatively rare and would be readily spotted by the opposing side: with a reuse of the old name and registry, they would be going "Didn't we kill that one already? It's Sisko's ship - the man is immortal! We're fighting a god here! Perhaps better than the gods that we're fighting for?" and things of that sort.

I don't see why the -A couldn't be applied on, say, the sixteenth ship of a given name. It's not applied on the name anyway, but on the registry. And it's sort of a coincidence that Kirk's ship was the second by that name when getting the -A; the letter could have been "earned" when Kirk commanded the third USS Valiant in UFP Starfleet service, say, and applied on the fourth.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[t_smitts]

Well, Starfleet could have been doing propaganda there, as ships of that type appeared relatively rare and would be readily spotted by the opposing side: with a reuse of the old name and registry, they would be going "Didn't we kill that one already? It's Sisko's ship - the man is immortal! We're fighting a god here! Perhaps better than the gods that we're fighting for?" and things of that sort.

I don't see why the -A couldn't be applied on, say, the sixteenth ship of a given name. It's not applied on the name anyway, but on the registry. And it's sort of a coincidence that Kirk's ship was the second by that name when getting the -A; the letter could have been "earned" when Kirk commanded the third USS Valiant in UFP Starfleet service, say, and applied on the fourth.

Timo Saloniemi

I think propaganda is a bit of a stretch here.

 

[USS KG5]

And it's sort of a coincidence that Kirk's ship was the second by that name when getting the -A; the letter could have been "earned" when Kirk commanded the third USS Valiant in UFP Starfleet service, say, and applied on the fourth.

Timo Saloniemi

Well in fact, they ret-conned in the Archer Enterprise (OK OK of the "Earth" rather than "Federation" Starfleet) so presumably the whole -A thing was just for Kirk personally, and they kept it going afterwards to draw extra attention to the Enterprise, possibly partly because of Archer's ship..

"Crikey, that s two ships called Enterprise who have literally saved the whole planet, lets make her an honourary flagship and do something special with the registry - that's a lucky name"

If the ENT >> TOS >> TNG fleet size goes from dozens to hundreds to thousands, then increasingly the Enterprise will be less of a big deal, and yet magically ships called Enterprise keep saving the day!

 

[ItIsGreen]

I do think that the Enterprise, or more specifically the 1701-lineage, is a special case in that each ship that has worn the registry has distinguished itself enough to ensure the continuation of that number from ship to ship like the passing of a torch (with the possible exception of the -B, but as we saw all of 15 minutes of her in action we'll give her the benefit of the doubt) - to the point where it's a given in the Trek universe that there will always be a 1701 Enterprise in the fleet (Picard's "plenty more letters in the alphabet" comment in Generations).

Let's not forget about NX-01 though, evidence that there was a previous starship named Enterprise which was not given such an honour, similarly DS9's Defiant was not the first ship with that name seen in Trek, and already had a different registry than the original (and who knows how many others in between?).

Discounting the Yamato's 1305-E registry, which as you say was retconned, I'm pretty sure we have seen both the reuse of starship names without appending a letter - Saratoga springs to mind - and other cases where letters HAVE been appended to a registry, showing again that previous namesakes have proven themselves enough to have the honour of passing their registry down to a successor ship (please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure that more than just the Enterprise and Yamato have been seen with an appended letter on their registries). These ships are probably as (or almost as) famous and celebrated as the Enterprise within the Trek universe, we just don't really get to hear about them.

When the Sao Paulo arrived at DS9 and Sisko was given dispensation to rename her it should have been either a renaming of the ship ONLY (keeping Sao Paulo's registry), or also being given permission to alter the registry to 74205-A, if Starfleet felt that the previous ship had made enough of an impact to warrant a passing-down of her registry (which I'd argue she had). However as we know, in the real world the ship was renamed so that they did not have to reshoot all of the FX shots involving the Defiant, but they really should have taken more care to not show/obscure the registry.

Of course these days it would probably be a trifling matter to digitally change the registry in post, but nearly 2 decades ago not so much. I personally treat it as one of those things we were supposed to assume was there all along, like Klingon ridges, Tuvok's rank or Spock not showing emotions in public.

 

[t_smitts]

Let's not forget about NX-01 though, evidence that there was a previous starship named Enterprise which was not given such an honour, similarly DS9's Defiant was not the first ship with that name seen in Trek, and already had a different registry than the original (and who knows how many others in between?).

Well, giving the 1701 the same registry as the NX-01 wouldn't have worked, since the registry of pre-Fed Starfleet ships worked a little different.

You had the class (NX) and then the number that that ship was in the series (01 for Enterprise, 02 for Columbia, etc).

(Ironically, I think that's similar to what Matt Jeffries had in mind for the 1701 registry, originally).

Discounting the Yamato's 1305-E registry, which as you say was retconned, I'm pretty sure we have seen both the reuse of starship names without appending a letter - Saratoga springs to mind - and other cases where letters HAVE been appended to a registry, showing again that previous namesakes have proven themselves enough to have the honour of passing their registry down to a successor ship (please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure that more than just the Enterprise and Yamato have been seen with an appended letter on their registries). These ships are probably as (or almost as) famous and celebrated as the Enterprise within the Trek universe, we just don't really get to hear about them.

I don't believe there are any other canon ships with a letter suffix. They were actually pretty careful about that.

When the Sao Paulo arrived at DS9 and Sisko was given dispensation to rename her it should have been either a renaming of the ship ONLY (keeping Sao Paulo's registry), or also being given permission to alter the registry to 74205-A, if Starfleet felt that the previous ship had made enough of an impact to warrant a passing-down of her registry (which I'd argue she had). However as we know, in the real world the ship was renamed so that they did not have to reshoot all of the FX shots involving the Defiant, but they really should have taken more care to not show/obscure the registry.

Of course these days it would probably be a trifling matter to digitally change the registry in post, but nearly 2 decades ago not so much. I personally treat it as one of those things we were supposed to assume was there all along, like Klingon ridges, Tuvok's rank or Spock not showing emotions in public.

Well, they DID explain the Klingon ridges.

And changing the Sao Paolo's name, but not registry, makes far more sense.

 

[RunawayStarShip]

In the novels, I think the new Defiant is given the same registry of NX-74205 because of the cloaking device loan agreement with the Romulans. Loophole!

 

[nx1701g]

Well, Starfleet could have been doing propaganda there, as ships of that type appeared relatively rare and would be readily spotted by the opposing side: with a reuse of the old name and registry, they would be going "Didn't we kill that one already? It's Sisko's ship - the man is immortal! We're fighting a god here! Perhaps better than the gods that we're fighting for?" and things of that sort.

True, the United States Navy did the same thing during World War 2 with several carrier names. They lost one, they rebuilt it.

 

[Timo]

That's slightly different, though - nobody who saw the second Lexington close enough to read her pennant paint could have mistaken her for the first!

In more general terms, real navies don't name the successors of lost ships after the predecessors. During WWII, when lots of replacing was going on, a hole left by a sinking USS X was quickly filled by the next ship in that category, and that ship would have been given a name quite some time ago already, as building of ships takes lots of time. The second Lexington was renamed while under construction, as were some other "casualty replacements", but this Lexington basically stands alone in actually being a ship of the same type as the preceding, late namesake. More typically, successors represented upgrades in category, or switching to completely different operational niches altogether.

Postwar, all namings and renamings of "successors" have been of the "completely different operational niche" type, no HMS Daring or USS Farragut representing the same niche as the predecessor, say.

In Trek-specific terms, there was one timeline where Starfleet never learned the E-C would have done anything memorable. Then there was another where Starfleet did learn she saved the UFP bacon vis-á-vis the Klingon alliance - and in that timeline, there was no E-D until several decades later! But we could in theory argue that every Enterprise had a heroic career and/or a heroic demise, as there's no direct contrary evidence. The question is, does that in any way separate them from all the Intrepids or Valiants or Hoods out there?

Let's not forget about NX-01 though, evidence that there was a previous starship named Enterprise which was not given such an honour, similarly DS9's Defiant was not the first ship with that name seen in Trek, and already had a different registry than the original
Basically, NX-01 would be to UFP Starfleet's sequence of Enterprises pretty much what the Royal Navy HMS Enterprise of 1774 was to the United States sequence of USS Enterprises - a foreign, potentially even enemy vessel unrelated to the sequence for serving a separate master of different ideologies.

Kirk's Enterprise being the first in UFP Starfleet service after almost a century of Enterprise-free history might indicate the organization did venerate Archer's ship and did not wish to step on big toes (hey, some barely legible onscreen text paints Archer as the UFP President in the early years of the UFP Starfleet!). Or then early UFP Starfleet held Archer's ship in such a disdain that the name carried a stain. Either way, there's a clean break in history between Archer and Kirk, while there's none between Sisko and the previous CO of a ship named Defiant as far as we know.

please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure that more than just the Enterprise and Yamato have been seen with an appended letter on their registries
Hmm. Even the obscure background computer displays carefully avoid such registries. Unless one counts C-57-D, an oft-appearing reference to the Forbidden Planet ship. But that one never appears in the form of NCC-57-D, FWIW.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Timo]

...Hmm, "Edit" function doesn't seem to work right now, and all the quote boxes above have disappeared. Sorry about the confusion.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[t_smitts]

Yeah, Timo, I was going to quote your post, but it seems some technical glitch won't let me.

In terms of the Enterprise lineage, presumably all Enterprise cannot have an equal legacy. Although she helped save the Khitomer conference, was the history of the "A" all that memorable, compared to her immediate predecessor? We have no way of knowing the same for the "B" either. (Certainly not compared to, say, the "D", which would probably be considered the most distinguished with that name since Kirk's first).

Ultimately, it may not be that important how much the individual successors measured up. Both Archer's ship and Kirk's first ship sufficiently cemented that name.

As for why they waited nearly a century between the NX-01 and the 1701, that's a bit of a puzzle. There's certainly nothing to suggest the earlier ship would be held in disdain. (Quite the reverse, in fact). It's possible that holding off could've been the equivalent of a sports team retiring a player's number, but I'm not sure navies typically work that way.

And no, there wasn't much break between the two later Defiants, but the 1701-A was apparently commissioned within 3 months of the 1701's loss. The "A" was decommissioned and the "B" commissioned later that same year. The "E" was launched about a year after the loss of the "D".

With the exception of the "A", in all of those cases (including the Defiant), it's been suggested, either in fandom or by producers, that the new ship was intended to be named something else, but hastily renamed after the loss of the first ship (In the case of the "A", that ship was presumably retired to make way for the "B", which was presumably under construction or nearing completion at the time of Star Trek VI.)

So I can't really explain such a long gap (though, it's worth noting there was a gap of nearly two decades between the loss of the "C" and the commissioning of the "D", instead of simply commissioning or renaming another ship of the same class, like they did with the "A").

 

[tharpdevenport]

Doing a quick search of Federation ships via a wikipedia list and discounting fan productions, books, Enterprises, and the JJverse, I see the following ships with a letter suffix added to the registry:

USS London
NCC-2012-C

Participates in the Battle for Deep Space 9 ("Sacrifice of Angels").

Previously mentioned:
USS Yamato
NCC-1305-E

USS Saratoga
NCC-31911-A

Re-launched in a book, but seen on screen in "Wrongs Darker Than Death or Night" (I don't know if the registry number is seen).

USS Bozemnan
NCC-1941-A

In the battle with the Bord cube in First Contact, though the number and ship may have been an addition from a Trek book.

And if the "Starfleet: Academy" game is canon...

USS Ranger
NX-31472-B

 

[Timo]

All of the above ships would seem to come exclusively from books, games and the like, even if they are associated with a "real" Star Trek event depicted in an episode or a movie... And generally they aren't even associated that way, neither in the book nor in the episode!

To rant in bit more detail: there certainly was no USS Saratoga in "Wrongs Darker" that would have been relaunched in a book. There simply was an unseen USS Saratoga whose registry number remains unknown. Except if we choose to believe in the book - but the point would be that we don't believe in such things.

The final Saratoga of televised DS9 was its own thing, created without any thought to possible books or other such sources. The television writers wanted her to be the designated "party ship", a vessel with a reputation of bringing along some good time whenever she docks, but that never went farther than the teaser of "Wrongs Darker". They did not want her to be the ship from Friedman's book.

Pasting the registry of some ship mentioned in a book onto this independent creation doesn't make it a viable answer to the OP inquiry "please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure that more than just the Enterprise and Yamato have been seen with an appended letter on their registries", not if "seen" means "seen in Star Trek the onscreen phenomenon".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[tharpdevenport]

Technically, we don't need a book or on-screen reference in the episode to know it had been relaunched -- the Saratoga was Sisko's ship, destroyed (blown to bits) by the Borg in Wolf 359 -- it goes without saying.

Doing a quicker search, it appears it was only referenced as docked, but not seen. I have no idea if it's identified in the script.

 

[Timo]

Technically, we don't need a book or on-screen reference in the episode to know it had been relaunched -- the Saratoga was Sisko's ship, destroyed (blown to bits) by the Borg in Wolf 359 -- it goes without saying.

But conversely, there could have been three Saratogas in between, at the rate the Dominion was popping these things. Neither the book universe or the onscreen universe nor the two put together provides actual evidence in support of the ship with the -A being the ship that visits DS9.

Of course, it provides no opposing evidence, either. So we're free to think that every ship that ever visited DS9 had a letter-suffixed registry. Hell, for all we know, the models used for shooting those ships did have letter suffixes, as the registries never were legible. And backstage photos show that the oft-seen transport actually did have USS Nash NCC-2010-5, showing that suffixes were going strong in the 2370.

Doing a quicker search, it appears it was only referenced as docked, but not seen. I have no idea if it's identified in the script.

Identified how? Scripts never describe the class of a vessel. They never give a registry, either, as those never are plot points. Actual dialogue may contain references, such as in "Contagion" where we get both class (they say the Yamato is a sister ship to the hero one) and registry (they spell out 1305-E for us letter by letter), but not script directions.

"Wrongs Darker" has the heroes define that the ship is named Saratoga. The script readable at TrekCore says nothing further. No visuals show any starships docked to the station, other than the Defiant - at any point of the episode. So we never learn what "The Saratoga put in this morning" might mean.

Docked briefly, then left? Then why is the party still a future possibility?

Dropped subspace anchor a few kilometers off the station? Then is she the Excelsior class vessel glimpsed at one point, or the Intrepid-based kitbash glimpsed later, or neither?

Registered an intent to dock at a future timepoint? A funny way to put it.

In any case, the episode does not really feature any USS Saratoga by any design or registry. It barely mentions one as existing.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[ItIsGreen]

Doing a quick search of Federation ships via a wikipedia list and discounting fan productions, books, Enterprises, and the JJverse, I see the following ships with a letter suffix added to the registry:

USS London
NCC-2012-C

Participates in the Battle for Deep Space 9 ("Sacrifice of Angels").

I'd be interested to know where the name and registry for that ship came from, as that seems to me to be a reference to the London 2012 Olympics - either that or it's a fairly big coincidence!

Incidentally while googling the USS London I happened across this fan image on deviantart - I wonder if she made it back from her maiden voyage?

Pasting the registry of some ship mentioned in a book onto this independent creation doesn't make it a viable answer to the OP inquiry "please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure that more than just the Enterprise and Yamato have been seen with an appended letter on their registries"
Timo Saloniemi

Well I consider myself soundly corrected - for some reason I had convinced myself that there must have been other ships with a suffix. I still think that it makes sense that there would be, but it seems that in canon only the Enterprise has been given that particular honour.

I personally treat it as one of those things we were supposed to assume was there all along, like Klingon ridges, Tuvok's rank or Spock not showing emotions in public.

Well, they DID explain the Klingon ridges.

And changing the Sao Paolo's name, but not registry, makes far more sense.

Ugh, not as far as I'm concerned they didn't.

And yeah I think I'm going to stick with that the name could change but the registry should stay the same.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

For me it was always Defiant-A.

 

[t_smitts]

For me it was always Defiant-A.

So, it goes Defiant, Defiant, Defiant-A?

 

[Paradise City]

I wouldn't give it that honour really. Defiant hadn't the longevity, varied service nor independence to warrant that distinction being basically the support vehicle for the station. It would've struck me as contrived if they had done it. Getting the Sao Paolo renamed is just the right touch and more a gesture of respect for the benefit of the ex-Defiant crew than anything else.

 

[kkt]

Starfleet just didn't feel the need to be totally consistent with what had been done a century before.