How Many TOS Constitution Class Ships *Can* There Be?

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Eh, I wouldn't make too much of that. A flagship is whatever is needed. The US Asiatic Fleet CinC flagship in the inter-war years was always a cruiser. Admiral Spruance as Commander 5th Fleet in WW2 preferred the cruiser Indianapolis to a battleship or carrier. The flagship of CinC US Fleet in WW2 was a converted luxury yacht. Dedicated amphibious force flagships in WW2 were transport-based, which lives on in Mount Whitney and Blue Ridge, built around command/control/communications capability rather than fighting power.

A flagship is a vessel used by the commanding officer of a group of naval ships, characteristically a flag officer entitled by custom to fly a distinguishing flag. The term also properly applies to the ship of whatever commanding officer is in charge of a grouping of ships. A third, more colloquial usage of the term can mean that the ship in question is considered an "exemplar" of the best capabilities and virtues of the force it represents. In Star Trek, the title flagship is typically bestowed on the best equipped, newest, or best known ship in the fleet. Throughout the history of the United Federation of Planets the starships Enterprise were typically considered the Starfleet flagship. ("The Icarus Factor"; Star Trek (2009); et al.)

As for "capital ship," that's a term that was useful for a time but isn't so much later on. If you look at this
ngram you can see that it really takes off in the context of 1920s naval disarmament. It meant battleships, back in the day when they were the ultimate weapon and only a battleship could take out another battleship (a torpedo might put them out of action, but probably not permanently). Because there were still some battle cruisers on the books or potentially so, they were included, too. But after WW2, with intercontinental air forces, atomic bombs and nuclear submarines, not to mention the cost of rebuilding after the war, the structure of the world's navies changed so "capital ship" wasn't really meaningful like it once was.

I completely agree. But let's examine what categories of ships we mainly have in Star Trek. There are frigates, destroyers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships, dreadnoughts. So you see, Star Trek uses WW1 ship terms and in Star Trek we definitely have "pre-WW2 style navies".

 

[Crazy Eddie]

On screen canon saying that the Constellation isn't a capital ship? That there are bigger, badder Federation classes?

USS Kelvin is a design common to the Prime and Kelvin universes, so we have at least one example. We also see a half dozen ships of similar size and design later after the universes split, so in total we have up to 7 starships that could easily have been the unseen "capital ships" of the TOS era.

Off screen showing real life evidence disputing the legal definition of battlecruisers as capital ships?

You have yet to show that the term "capital ship" even EXISTS in Federation terminology, let alone that it would be applicable to battle cruisers, let alone that the term "battle cruiser" is even applicable to Starfleet designs. The Klingons could call it a High Warp Penis Destroyer for all I care; Starfleet calls it something different, so whatever STARFLEET calls it is what we're talking about.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

1) No, the TOS Enterprise was NEVER described as a "flag ship" at any time in its existence and were was the Enterprise-A or -B. There's also nothing to suggest they would be considered "capital ships" either, given that Kirk often describes parts of the Enterprise's mission as "patrol," a mission role that almost explicitly RULES OUT it being a capital ship.

2) "Flagships" are more important than capital ships for reasons that have nothing to do with the ship itself. If we're using standard naval terminology, a "flagship" is whatever ship the Admiral happens to be commanding from. An aircraft carrier, a battleship, a light cruiser, even a destroyer escort can serve as a flagship in battle. The flag ships of the U.S. Navy are, most of the time, lightly armed command and control ships with no offensive capabilities of their own and are valuable only because they have a lot of computers and office space on board. They could convert the USS John C. Stennis into a giant mobile golf course and replace all of its tactical systems with high speed internet connections so the Admiral would never have to miss an appearance on a Sunday talk show, and the ship would still be able to serve as a flagship.

Starfleet defines "Flagship" differently, in that they imply that there's only one such vessel in the entire fleet. That may not be true, and it's possible that "flagship" is the equivalent term of art for what we used to call a "capital ship." Either way, no Enterprise before -D was ever described as such at any time in history.

"Flagship is a term applied to the lead ship in a grouping, the ship which commands the fleet. The title is typically bestowed on the best equipped, newest, or best known ship in the fleet. Throughout the history of the United Federation of Planets the starships
Enterprise were typically considered the Starfleet flagship. (TNG episode: "The Icarus Factor"; TOS movie: Star Trek; et al.)

In the Kelvin timeline, flagship was used as a starship classification; Starfleet's Constitution-class was classified a flagship".

Not really, no. For one thing, Earth Starfleet is an explicitly nonmilitary organization, so calling NX-01 a capital ship is like calling the space shuttle a "dreadnought" just because it's the biggest space ship we've got.

Please remind me. Was the space shuttle armed with phase cannons? Was the space shuttle armed with plasma cannons? Was the space shuttle armed with pulsed phase cannons? Was the space shuttle armed with torpedo tube launchers? Was the space shuttle armed with spatial torpedoes? Was the space shuttle armed with photonic torpedoes?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Please remind me. Was the space shuttle armed with phase cannons?

No. And neither was Enterprise until "Silent Enemy." In fact Enterprise was a completely unarmed vessel until 48 hours before it left space dock, and considering its weapons didn't actually WORK until a week and a half later, even that's being generous.

And yet mounting a machine-gun and a missile launcher in the space shuttle's cargo bay still wouldn't make it a "dreadnought." Hell, the Soviets ACTUALLY DID THAT on a couple of the Salyut flights but doing so never converted their space stations or Soyuz capsules into "battle cruisers."

Walk it back to the naval analogy: the largest warship in the Israeli Navy is the Saar 5 class corvette. Israel does not define them as "battle cruisers" or "dreadnoughts" just because they're the biggest ships they have. They're corvettes, and that's what they call them. They also operate a certain number of diesel-electric submarines that are comparatively large relative to some of their other line combatants; they don't redefine these as "submersible battlecruisers" just because they're pretty big. For that matter, they don't really even define any of them as "capital ships" in concrete terms; the term of art, as with most navies in the real world, is a difference between "surface combatants" or "warships" and "support vessels" or in some cases "ancillary vessels." Again, the entire concept of "capital ship" isn't one you're actually going to find widely used in modern military science and is something of an anachronism (much like the terms "ship of the line" and "order of battle" have been mostly superseded).

Beyond that, there's still no canon reference that I can find to any ship prior to the Enterprise-D ever being referred to as a "flag ship." The Kelinverse Enterprise was described as a flagship, implying there was more than one. If the definitions are equivalent in both universes and there's no reason to assume they're not, then "flagship" could be Starfleet's term for what other scifi franchises call "capital ships."

 

[Ithekro]

Still waiting for something to show I'm wrong.


On screen canon saying that the Constellation isn't a capital ship? That there are bigger, badder Federation classes?

Off screen showing real life evidence disputing the legal definition of battlecruisers as capital ships?

Been a couple days now. Still waiting.

No? Nothing more? Just one word memes?

OK then. Happy Holidays.

One: It is Constitution-class. We have on screen evidence from Federation sources that it is a heavy cruiser, but usually we only hear it referred to as a Starship.

Two: In TOS we don't have any other information about other starships at all. In TMP era we get USS Reliant and her like which is said to not only be able to outrun but also outgun USS Enterprise, then we have USS Excelsior which is newer, larger, and supposedly faster. We have what is potentially USS Discovery in a background shot in Spacedock, but we know little about. The only ship we see that is actually smaller and less functional is USS Grissom, which is a science/scout ship, and it is larger than the Washington Treaty tonnage limits for battleships. We aren't sure if it was armed.

Three: The legal definition you provided is absolutely worthless in the 23rd century Starfleet where all the ships weight more than the Washington Treaty battleship limit and don't have any projectile weapons that could be defined by their diameter across the barrel to fit in with said treaty. We cannot gauge if any vessel in Starfleet is a "capital ship" based on a definition from an early 20th century naval arms limitation treaty for a type of ship that no longer exists in any navy even in the 21st century.

 

[MarsWeeps]

In TMP era we get USS Reliant and her like which is said to not only be able to outrun but also outgun USS Enterprise

I'm pretty sure that's only because the Enterprise was heavily damaged when Kirk "got caught with his pants down."

 

[Ithekro]

I'm pretty sure that's only because the Enterprise was heavily damaged when Kirk "got caught with his pants down."

Even so there is not all that much difference between them when they are fully functional as Starships. At least not in terms associated with treaties from the 1920s and 1930s.

 

[MarsWeeps]

Even so there is not all that much difference between them when they are fully functional as Starships. At least not in terms associated with treaties from the 1920s and 1930s.

I'm not really sure what treaties from the 1920's and 1930's have to do with a sci-fi series that takes place in the 23rd century. I think this thread has gone way off topic.

 

[Emperor Norton]

I'm not really sure what treaties from the 1920's and 1930's have to do with a sci-fi series that takes place in the 23rd century. I think this thread has gone way off topic.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

No. And neither was Enterprise until "Silent Enemy." In fact Enterprise was a completely unarmed vessel until 48 hours before it left space dock, and considering its weapons didn't actually WORK until a week and a half later, even that's being generous.

And yet mounting a machine-gun and a missile launcher in the space shuttle's cargo bay still wouldn't make it a "dreadnought." Hell, the Soviets ACTUALLY DID THAT on a couple of the Salyut flights but doing so never converted their space stations or Soyuz capsules into "battle cruisers."

Totally irrelevant. When the Enterprise-B was launched it didn't have have a medical staff, photon torpedoes, or even a tractor beam! What does that prove? Absolutely nothing! Since in the case of the Enterprise NX-01 we've actually seen her in many occasions as a warship taking part in fleets going to battle! She has absolutely nothing in common with the Almaz space stations!

Exhibit A: Earth Fleet

Exhibit B: Alliance Fleet

Walk it back to the naval analogy: the largest warship in the Israeli Navy is the Saar 5 class corvette. Israel does not define them as "battle cruisers" or "dreadnoughts" just because they're the biggest ships they have. They're corvettes, and that's what they call them. They also operate a certain number of diesel-electric submarines that are comparatively large relative to some of their other line combatants; they don't redefine these as "submersible battlecruisers" just because they're pretty big. For that matter, they don't really even define any of them as "capital ships" in concrete terms; the term of art, as with most navies in the real world, is a difference between "surface combatants" or "warships" and "support vessels" or in some cases "ancillary vessels." Again, the entire concept of "capital ship" isn't one you're actually going to find widely used in modern military science and is something of an anachronism (much like the terms "ship of the line" and "order of battle" have been mostly superseded).

In the case of the Israeli Navy, the Sa'ar 5-class corvettes of course are it's capital ships. They are the biggest, better armed and most capable vessels in the surface fleet of the I.N. and their loss will greatly diminish Israel's naval strength.

It is true that in modern times the term capital ship isn't widely used. But we're talking about Star Trek here. As I've already explained Star Trek is stuck in WW1 naval terms. There are still dreadnoughts and battleships and battle cruisers and heavy cruisers. Even capital ship and ship of the line are still relevant terms in Star Trek!

Beyond that, there's still no canon reference that I can find to any ship prior to the Enterprise-D ever being referred to as a "flag ship." The Kelinverse Enterprise was described as a flagship, implying there was more than one. If the definitions are equivalent in both universes and there's no reason to assume they're not, then "flagship" could be Starfleet's term for what other scifi franchises call "capital ships."

There's no need for assumption. We already know what flagship means in Star Trek:

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Flagship

http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Flagship

 

[BillJ]

tl;dr: it doesn't matter what the KLINGONS call it. Starfleet doesn't, so they're wrong.

Sure it matters how the Klingons see a ship that can devastate the surface of a planet. Let's be honest: Federation PR is the reason for their classification conventions, just like the Defiant being classified as an Escort.

Perception is a huge piece of the puzzle. If your enemies see you building ships that they classify as battle cruisers, then they are going to prepare in kind.

 

[Emperor Norton]

I've rather lost track of the discussion.

 

[1001001]

I've rather lost track of the discussion.

Me too.

 

[Emperor Norton]

Me too.

It starts to go wrong midway through page 4.

 

[BillJ]

It starts to go wrong midway through page 4.

That happens when the question has no real answer. People can only argue over "twelve like it" so many times and that is the only canon indicator of the number of Connie's.

 

[Forbin]

The USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) was also referred as the flagship of Starfleet in the Kelvin timeline.

I have no regard for that alternate timeline mess.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

I have no regard for that alternate timeline mess.

That's your prerogative but also your prejudice and detriment and not ours.

 

[J.T.B.]

Also, the registry appears to be NCC-700 but it's hard to tell. Maybe they meant 1700 for the Constitution?

Yep, that's what it was in the Technical Manual but the thin line of the "1" got lost in the copy.

The Constitution-class's job is that of a cruiser.

Exactly, that's what TOS evidence shows us. Capital ships, in the era that term was useful, did not roam around by themselves on diplomatic, emergency transport or colonial policing missions.

Also, just a nit, but you don't need to use the word "the" before "TOS" unless you are trying to say "the the original series."

Yes, you are right but I've probably done it. I think a lot of the time people think of "TOS" as an short alternate name for the show, rather than an abbreviation.

In Star Trek, the title flagship is typically bestowed on the best equipped, newest, or best known ship in the fleet. Throughout the history of the United Federation of Planets the starships Enterprise were typically considered the Starfleet flagship. ("The Icarus Factor"; Star Trek (2009); et al.)

I don't generally try to retrofit later stuff to TOS because I don't think maintaining continuity was enough of a priority to make it worthwhile. But we don't have any evidence that "flagship" was used that way in the OS Starfleet. And even in TNG, it's not specific enough to use as a defining characteristic. Enterprise-D meets up with the Excelsior Cairo, with an admiral aboard. Are they both flagships? Later the Excelsior Gorkon is called a flagship, but is certainly not the newest and probably not the best-equipped.

I completely agree. But let's examine what categories of ships we mainly have in Star Trek. There are frigates, destroyers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships, dreadnoughts. So you see, Star Trek uses WW1 ship terms and in Star Trek we definitely have "pre-WW2 style navies".

Well, "heavy cruiser" is a treaty-era term. In terms of cruisers in WW1 there were armored cruisers, basically scaled-down battleships that could take punishment in peripheral action around the battle fleet or serve as a mini-battle fleet in a secondary theater, and light cruisers which had little or no side armor but were fast enough to scout for the fleet and evade most bigger ships, plus be affordable and numerous enough to take on the traditional commerce war roles. The treaty-era light and heavy cruisers were both descended from the WW1 "light cruisers." And "frigate" had died out by WW1, to be revived in WW2.

Which is to say, yes, we can pick and choose historical role and function definitions, but they have been too fluid over time to be used to extrapolate Starfleet roles and functions definitions with much precision.

 

[1001001]

That happens when the question has no real answer. People can only argue over "twelve like it" so many times and that is the only canon indicator of the number of Connie's.

Right you are.

Spoiler: Correct Number of CC Ships

Zero.

It's all make believe.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Totally irrelevant. When the Enterprise-B was launched it didn't have have a medical staff, photon torpedoes, or even a tractor beam! What does that prove?

Why would that PROVE anything? No one ever called the Enterprise-B a dreadnought either. No one ever even suggested it was a flag/capital ship. Adding or lacking these components would not make it so, which was my entire point to begin with.

Since in the case of the Enterprise NX-01 we've actually seen her in many occasions as a warship taking part in fleets going to battle

Which changes... what, exactly? Sending a bunch of destroyers to fight a battleship squadron does not magically turn destroyers into capital ships. Just like an armed Soyuz or an Almaz doesn't magically become a "battle cruiser" just because you strapped a gun to the cargo bay.

The point here is that classifications are meaningful in the context of the ship's design and the intent of whoever built it in the first place. You can build a ship with the intent of filling the role traditionally known as "capital ships" and give it whatever designation makes sense in your fleet organizational scheme; in Starfleet, these tend to be -- but are not always -- referred to as "flag ships" because they are the cutting edge, top-of-the-line exemplars for the fleet. It isn't totally clear what that designation is actually based on (why is Enterprise called "the flagship" and Yamato isn't?).

In the case of the Israeli Navy, the Sa'ar 5-class corvettes of course are it's capital ships.

No, they're still just corvettes. The Israeli Navy is essentially a navy that lacks true capital ships in any meaningful sense. There are MANY naval forces that fit this description; in modern terminology these are usually called "brown water" or "littoral/coastal navies." A navy that can operate larger, cruiser-sized or aircraft carrier-sized vessels with the range and strategic capability to operate far from their home country, is known as a "blue water" navy. But I'll again remind you that the distinction between "capital ships" and all other vessels has become less and less clear since the end of the battleship age, since the advent of the aircraft carrier made big guns obsolete and the guided missile made even aircraft carriers less important. A warship no longer NEEDS to be large to pose a deadly threat to other vessels, so the definition of "capital ship" is as much an anachronism as "dreadnought."

It is true that in modern times the term capital ship isn't widely used. But we're talking about Star Trek here...

Where the term is not used AT ALL.

I mean, it's already an anachronism by TODAY'S standards, and this when talking about actual naval vessels. Starships aren't naval vessels, and some of the people using those navy-like terms are coming from planets that DON'T EVEN HAVE OCEANS. There's obviously a bit of nostalgia and/or romanticism in the English translations of those words, but the words themselves don't have broader meaning beyond the categories they describe.

And in many other scifi franchises, we have situations where "destroyers" are actually LARGER ships than cruisers, with the latter being built with an emphasis on speed and mobility (e.g. "going for a cruise") and the former being the big-gun, missile heavy slugger of the fleet (e.g. "We will destroy you!"). Star Trek canon never makes it totally clear what any of those terms actually refer to; the only time, AFAIK, anyone ever refers to a "frigate" is Picard referring to USS Renegade, which could be anything from an Oberth to a Nebula class for all we know.

As I've already explained Star Trek is stuck in WW1 naval terms.

You DO know that most of the races of the galaxy don't speak English and didn't fight in WW1, right?

There's no need for assumption. We already know what flagship means in Star Trek

We really don't. We know what ships were CALLED flagships, but it has never been explained WHY they were called this. It is, in any case, a curious usage of the term since the Enterprise has very rarely commanded a fleet or carried an Admiral into battle.

So all we really HAVE are assumptions.