I've been perusing the Frankenstein Fleet article at Ex Astris Scientia and they really are a mixed bag. Some of them look like pretty good stand alone classes (not really just cobbled together, but classes in their own right) and others just look bog awful! One of my favourites would be the Constitution minus the drive section, looks like it would make a decent patrol ship or scout.
The Stargazer would fit right in with the Frankenstein fleet, being a remix of Enterprise-A saucer uppers, with pylons laid flat across the back and tons of random greebles from Anime robot kits spammed all over. Maybe that's why I'm so fond of it.
Don't we need to distinguish between "Frankenship", "Kitbash" and "Modular starship" here? That is, isn't the first supposed to be ad hoc, so that basically every Frankenstein ship is a one-off, uniquely cobbled together from available leftovers? (That rules out the Constellation, then.) The second is the outside-Trek-universe studio concept of how one sometimes arrives at starships, but what one arrives at may be classified as a Frankenship or a perfectly regular mass-produced frontline vessel, depending on how the resulting model is used in photography and writing. (The Constellation is a de facto kitbash.) The third is what starships tend to look like even when the source material for bashing them isn't random kits but more like a regular stock of Trek-specific components such as nacelles or saucers. That is, different ships are built out of the same stock components, both by the people making the shows and "by Starfleet", judging by the end result. (The Constellation may be a kitbash, but the nonstandard components from non-Trek sources are in a minority, and common "modules" or stock nacelles, hull parts, impulse decks and so forth are prominent.) The DS9 ships are kitbashes all. When the parts appear to come from different stocks (as when 23rd and 24th bits are combined, or different scales mashed together), then they may be Frankenships. When they come from a single stock, they're likely to merely be modular. But we may further decide that if a DS9 ship is given a poor finish or looks awkward, it's proof for it being a Frankenship. Although this might turn quite a few hero ships into Frankenships, too... Timo Saloniemi
We don't really have any evidence in-universe that any of the Frankenships/kitbashes/whatever are one-offs. Plus, the behind-the-scenes info on their names and classes (i.e. none are named the same as the class) would infer that they aren't even the first off the line.
The model on Picard's desk was an actual kitbash made from model kit parts, even before Jein built a filming model based on it. The only thing they have in common are that they are kitbashes made from commercially available model kits. Other than that, they're not remotely the same. The five primary Wolf 359 ships were originally study models commissioned and built by a professional model maker, whose original intent was to show the producers different configurations of an Enterprise-D-style ship for reference material for future full-scale filming models (unfortunately the only one this ever happened with was the Nebula class.) They were then modified and used later for the graveyard scene, but were not originally built for that. The DS9 kitbashes were just quickly and randomly slapped together by whoever was working on the production staff at the time, with no real rhyme or reason as to scale or function. The two Jein-built ships were made specifically for the scene, but were made from the actual molds from the Ent-D, Ent-C, and Stargazer filming models. Okuda even decided to give them class names to make them official starships, while the prevailing thought behind the DS9 ships were that they were just cobbled together during wartime and aren't true classes (which as I've mentioned before is hogwash.)
So basically Frankenstein status depends on how much the makers were paid? It's not as if most of Miarecki's work was accepted as "part of Starfleet" in itself, not before Okuda's team "Trekkified" the vessels with appropriate add-ons. The end results may compare unfavorably with the "real", that is, non-kitbash (but more like mold-bash) ships added by Jein in the quality of finish - that is, they are tiny glossy lumps of plastic rather than giant purpose-built professional shooting models. But in the end, that has little to do with the quality of the designs themselves, and Miarecki's ships (at least after Okudaizing) are beautiful additions to Starfleet, at least on par with Jein's. Similarly, the DS9 kitbashes can be judged on their design merits while disregarding the odd paint jobs. Although it might have been fun to have some of those ships sharply in focus, so that we could argue they have their hulls hastily patched. And then argue whether this is because Frankenstein, or because of the Jem'Hadar recently making holes in regular veteran ships... But accepting backstage means accepting the Frankenstein idea in the first place (it's our only real reason for doing so) - and ditching backstage means we can choose to believe in "weird one-offs" or "perfectly regular mass-produced designs" equally well. Timo Saloniemi
Other than the Yeager and Elkins types, the rest of the Frankenstein Fleet looks like they could be legitimate ship designs in their own right and not something cobbled together for the war. They were designed and built in the 23rd century utilising the successful designs and aspects from the likes of the Excelsior-Class just like the saucer shared by the Galaxy- and Nebula-Class and the nacelles of the Galaxy- and Freedom-Class (there's no point in reinventing the wheel).
Since hardly any of the Frankenfleet actually appeared on screen, the Elkins/Trident/Medusa etc aren't really canon.
Or the Wolf 359 ships, for that matter - they can't be told from crumpled tissue paper at the resolution of TNG-R anyway. How solid is our data on which ships did appear? That is, are we just failing to spot stuff, or are there witness statements for the specifics of how, say, the opening shots of "A Time to Stand" selectively applied some of the silly ships (the ones that are easy to spot) and not the others (among the background blur, perhaps, and in practice unspottable, much like the AWACS Mirandas)? Timo Saloniemi
The fact that Miarecki got "paid" is irrelevant. That wasn't my point. Please don't focus on one statement and blow it out of proportion. The models were built by someone who got "paid" because they were studies for future larger-scale filming models, unlike the DS9 ships that were slapped together just to be destroyed and never seen again. Like the Nebula class, if the other four studies had turned out that way, there wouldn't even be a discussion about them being "part of Starfleet." Okuda contracted Miarecki presumably because Okuda wasn't a professional model maker and probably didn't have the time to build them even if he was. And even once the decision was made to adapt them for BoBW later, Okuda made the decision to label the models with names and registry numbers, give them class designations, and put that information in an official publication, because he felt they were canon. Compare that to the constant denial of class designations for the Curry, Centaur, Yeager, et. al. To me, the word "Frankenstein" connotes just that: A bunch of random parts hastily thrown together without rhyme or reason. The BoBW ships don't qualify in that regard. If the ship was shown on screen, it's canon. Period. It doesn't matter how far away it was or what condition it was in. All seven BoBW kitbashes appear on the screen. The Centaur, Curry, Raging Queen, Yeager and the tug appear on screen. The Jupp, Hutzel and Elkins do not (or at least they have not been identified yet, and I have a keen eye for finding stuff like this).
But I will - as this really seems to be the only distinction for the two situations. The amount of resources dedicated, that is. Wolf 359 got two artists and a bit more time and money than "A Time to Stand" which in turn got more artists. Where do you get this idea? Surely such studies would be conducted on cheap paper, with different intent always behind the purchase of actual pieces of plastic. One of the tiny plastic models was later used as inspiration for an actual photographic model (while neither of the large near-photographic-quality models was). But basically only in the sense of coarsely representing a useful arrangement of Galaxy parts, rather than in any sort of detail or proportion. And the same of course holds for the DS9 ships. It just happens that one of them got used as a canonical in-focus ship as is, which is more than we can say for Miarecki's contribution. But not much more. How so? They randomly combine random parts, too (the more after the Okuda treatment) - just from a narrower selection of kits, principally reflecting a narrower scope of intendeddf illusion where the background wasn't already established for a wide age range of plausible designs (and secondarily reflecting a narrower choice of commercial kits on the shelves). Which sort of leaves open the possibility that all the DS9 ships are canon and we just missed them. It's not as if anybody really remembers which ships were shot for TNG, either, and identification ex post facto is largely wishful thinking, considering the quality of the shots. Flattering yourself isn't exactly an argument in favor of your argument... See above. Timo Saloniemi
No, because this is more about you needing to be a serial contrarian than actually having a meaningful discussion. You already know that they were study models because you (along with myself) were part of the Wolf 359 research team at ex-astris-scientia. You even interviewed Okuda about the models. So I'm not sure why you're playing dumb other than for the reason I stated above. And here's where our discussion ends.
Principally it's about elitism, and apparentlty finding something superior about the TNG work over the DS9 stuff merely because the latter ships don't please your eye. Nothing revealed there establishes the ships would have been ordered for a reason other than creating the likes of the Wolf 359 debris field. Okuda called them study models and said they were intended to flesh out the selection of Galaxy-like ships. But what he meant with "study model" in those statements was simply the opposite of "photographic model", that is, the opposite of a model that would actually be rigged for lighting. Exactly when and to what purpose Miarecki was contracted to build the little ships remains vague even at this date. Timo Saloniemi
If that's true I'd have to discount most of TNG, I don't find the Galaxy-Class very pleasing to my eye. Starship's don't have to be pretty to be a class all of their own, not every ship is going to have the spotlight on them, they have a function to serve that's all. The likes of the Centaur-Type comes across as a sturdy frigate or patrol cutter, brimming with around a dozen phaser banks and four torpedo launchers, whilst her small profile makes her a harder target to hit, so she is clearly a ship that can handle herself in a fight. The Curry- and Raging Queen-Types look as though they are a redesign of the same class (such as the numerous types of Miranda-Class we've seen on screen) and could fulfill the role of a carrier, taking numerous squadrons of Starfleet fighters into battle, which would make them useful for combat as well as for colony support ships, with lots of cargo space as well as a powerful tactical force that would negate having to send several starships for perimeter defense when one would do the job. The Jupp-Type could've been a scout that took the place of the Saladin/Hermes-Classes in the late 23rd century, or a border cutter, or some other support role that has quietly been in service out of the public eye but still doing a valuable job for Starfleet. The Elkins-Type could be the Nebula to the Intrepid's Galaxy, utilising some aspects of one class in the design of another, so whilst the Intrepid-Class is intended for long-range exploratory missions the Elkins-Type is more of a science vessel, since her twin secondary hulls would allow for a lot of space for labs and other research facilities, or maybe she was designed as a search-and-rescue or hospital ship. The Yeager is a little hard to justify as a separate class, seeing as how the two parts are so radically different, though there is one theory that the ship was a test for the Intrepid-Class hull, slapped onto an available body for warp field stress tests (granted not hugely convincing, but seeing as how we only saw one, then it might be unique in the fleet), though clearly it shouldn't be underestimated seeing as how it was frequently the sole ship assigned to support and defend DS9 (aside from the Defiant).
I actually like most of the DS9 kitbash designs. The Centaur is probably my favorite, with the Curry and the unused U.S.S. Bradford coming in a close second. I've built replicas of all these models myself (although I had to build the Curry a second time once better pictures of it emerged that showed parts like the Ent-A shuttlecraft and the Reliant impulse engines). I'm almost done with the new Curry, then my next project will be the Raging Queen. I was going to build the Yeager and the Elkins too (I even found the correct F-14 model kit!), but I doubt those will ever see the light of day since they're quite large and I really don't have the room to display such large ships. Oh, and BTW, here's a quote from Micheal Okuda that he posted to Rick Sternbach's Facebook page when he revealed the old photos of the BoBW ships for Eaglemoss, to show that I know what I'm talking about:
The Yeager type may be the only actual Frankenstein ship that we saw on screen. These ships seem to have been slapped together, and in this they would resemble the monitors of old Earth navies. So I think that the Yeagers were used as monitors, for guard duty. Others-such as the Centaur type-are more readily explained as older ships that were taken out of mothballs. Perhaps dating from a time when Mirandas and Excelsiors were both in production, and Enterprise Refit components were still available.
I'd have to agree. Other than scale issues, there's really nothing inherently different between the Excelsior and the Curry; they are just two ships of the same "family" with different configurations for mostly the same components. It's no different than the Constitution/Miranda or Galaxy/Nebula. And since all the components we see on the Curry, Raging Queen, Centaur, Hutzel, Jupp and Bradford (minus Intrepid nacelle pylons, which are barely noticeable as such anyway) are contemporary, it's easy to conjecture that they were all built around the same time as the Excelsiors and Mirandas. The Yeager, however, is a different story. It is literally a brand-new Intrepid saucer mated to 95% of the hull of an upscaled ship easily 50 years its senior. There's really no logical reason for this to be so (or why the newer Elkins has anachronistic Miranda nacelles). I suppose your idea of a monitor could be valid (hence why we see one constantly flying around Deep Space Nine), but I would think that based on what we saw in DS9, there would be an overabundance of old Mirandas that could perform that function better
It was pointed out [YouTube, Trekyards, Ep 29-Ares Class (Part 2)] that in Prelude to Axanar, the ships with twin secondary hulls were carriers.
That ship was a copy-paste of the USS Newton from Star Trek (2009) with slightly different nacelles. What John Eaves or whoever originally designed it had intended has never been stated officially.