What warrants a suffix on a hull number?

[DirectorSloan]

Apologies if this has been asked before. I did a search and didn't find anything. So, of late as I've watched a mixture of new and older Trek, I was wondering, other than perhaps the answer being "No one thought about it" what would warrant a new starship with the same name as an earlier decommissioned/destroyed one getting a suffix (-A, -B, etc) but not others. For instance
Ever since the Enterprise-A came on the scene, every subsequent Enterprise gets the 1701 hull number with the next alphabetical suffix.
In Discovery Season 3, the Discovery is given the -A suffix. Not a new ship but major overhauls including some structural ones.
In TNG there's conflicting references to the USS Yamato's hull number having a -E in one episode and when referenced in other episodes has different hull numbers (maybe not a good example but it was rambling around my head so...). Also, the 23rd century Constitution class Hood had a hull number of 1703 but the 24th century Excelsior class vessel had a 5 digit hull number IIRC.
But in Deep Space 9 while special dispensation was given to rename the Sao Paulo to Defiant , the hull number was other than 74205-A AFAIK.

So is this just a continuity nit pick or has there ever been an explanation on when a suffix is/isn't used?

 

[1001001]

This seems like a good topic for Trek Tech.

 

[Deks]

Things that may warrant suffixes:

1. The ship distinguishing itself enough to warrant a suffix in the first place, followed by:
a) Large enough ship overhauls/refits.
b) Destruction of a ship.

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

c) Potentially in the case of Discovery, a suffix to denote that the ship is PROBABLY not the same ship that travelled to the future in violation of assorted temporal accords.

2. The needs of the plot, i.e. because a writer thought it would be cool.

Mark

 

[mithril]

c) Potentially in the case of Discovery, a suffix to denote that the ship is PROBABLY not the same ship that travelled to the future in violation of assorted temporal accords.

yeah, it is most likely a bit of maskirovka, so that people of the 32nd century don't look at it's 4 digit hull number and figure out that illegal temporal shenanigans have occurred.

and it is important to recognize that the Discovery has been shown as a notable ship in federation history in Prodigy. presumably because of its role in resolving the shooting war with the klingons. it is likely that the exact details of how probably have been edited to remove any details about the use of the spore drive and other exotic technologies aboard (presumably its ability to move so fast between points in the war front was attributed to just a very good warp drive, and its ability to beat the sarcophagus ship's cloak to very good sensors.)

most of the examples we've had so far suggest that the original ship had to have achieved notable things. the Enterprise had a storied history in its TOS and early TMP form, and the Ent-A also did some pretty impressive things. (and beta canon has the Ent-B also doing some pretty major stuff, plus we know the Ent-C did great things.) Voyager getting one makes sense given its historic voyage.
Sisko got permission to change Sao Paulo to Defiant in recognition of the Defiant's actions before and during the dominion war. (though it only was listed as the Defiant-A in beta canon.. mostly because the series ended right as the new ship was delivered)
that the 32nd century fleet has so many legacy registries make some sense given that over a thousand years, there would be a fairly large number of chance for ships to earn accolades.

presumably the new Titan-A was so named because Riker's Titan did some historic stuff.

 

[David cgc]

Sisko got permission to change Sao Paulo to Defiant in recognition of the Defiant's actions before and during the dominion war. (though it only was listed as the Defiant-A in beta canon.. mostly because the series ended right as the new ship was delivered)

I think all official sources stuck with the new Defiant having the same number as the old one, "NX" and all (which was never explained, but was probably for propaganda reasons), though my head-canon is that it was "really" NCC-74205-A after the war and there was no longer any value to pretending the Defiant wasn't shot down at Chin'taka.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I think all official sources stuck with the new Defiant having the same number as the old one, "NX" and all (which was never explained, but was probably for propaganda reasons), though my head-canon is that it was "really" NCC-74205-A after the war and there was no longer any value to pretending the Defiant wasn't shot down at Chin'taka.

Since the Defiant never left the "NX" stage of numbering, the new Defiant got to be NCC-74205 w/o any suffix.

 

[C.E. Evans]

To a large extent, the use of suffixes is to honor the first ship with its hull registry. Technically, every Enterprise since Kirk's is really a continuation of NCC-1701 with the suffixes as a minor form of distinction between them, IMO. Why some ships have suffixes and others don't could be politically-motivated, genuinely merit-based, or even just at the personal whim of a high-ranking admiral.

 

[Sgt_G]

Wow. I never thought about this before. Modern-day navies will reuse ship names, but they always get a new number. There have been eight US Navy ships named "Enterprise", two of which were carriers (CV-6 and CVN-65), with another scheduled (CVN-80). As far as I know, the US Navy has never used a name-suffix, which is why CVN-80 won't be CVN-65A. Interesting point.

 

[Shik]

Being an Enterprise. Nothing else. DSC's usage is utter AU fuckery.

 

[Unicron]

The FASA Trek RPG assumed that the letters were a special honor given to the USS Enterprise and occasionally other vessels, but most newer build incarnations would have a Roman numeral after the name (thus ships like the Excelsior class USS Fearless II).

 

[somebuddyX]

When I was a kid I would have said all successor ships should get letters, because I saw that happen a few times in comics and literature (Stargazer-A, Excalibur-A), but nowadays I'm fine if it's just a quirk of Enterprise (or the random outlier).
Although, as a big fan of the Yamato I thought it would be interesting if NCC-71807 was just another name for NCC-1305-E or something, in that there was also an NCC-1305 and an A, B, C, and D. The E just got given the NCC-71807 number instead. It's not something I really give a crap figuring out to explain in-universe or I could just even ignore the number on the saucer. It's what I've gone with when I put NCC-1305 on a Constitution-class model.

 

[DEWLine]

Looking back, we can rationalise the error as Riker speaking his opinion about how the Yamato lineage was being disrespected.

 

[publiusr]

Ent-D is nice, but I might have gone with NCC-11701.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Ent-D is nice, but I might have gone with NCC-11701.

NCC-11701 would be more like the "real" code for the Enterprise-C. Based on the surrounding numbers NCC-71701 would've been a better candidate.

 

[matthunter]

Being an Enterprise. Nothing else. DSC's usage is utter AU fuckery.

Pity the Yamato disagreed years prior to DSC, isn't it?

Nice little argument you had there. Shame something already happened to it.

 

[ATimson]

I think all official sources stuck with the new Defiant having the same number as the old one, "NX" and all (which was never explained, but was probably for propaganda reasons), though my head-canon is that it was "really" NCC-74205-A after the war and there was no longer any value to pretending the Defiant wasn't shot down at Chin'taka.

I forget whether this actually made its way into one of the post-series DS9 novels or it just came from the editor directly, but his rationalization for keeping the NX-74205 registry was that it allowed a loophole in the agreement with the Romulans. By doing so, the Federation had legal cover to install a cloaking device on the new ship.

 

[Deks]

Since the Defiant never left the "NX" stage of numbering, the new Defiant got to be NCC-74205 w/o any suffix.

I suppose that's doable - aka, the NCC designation denominates that SF approved the ship for mass production (as we saw, they had several Defiant class ships in some fleet shots - plus two made an appearance in VOY 'Message in a bottle' when they were chasing the USS Prometheus with an Akira class), and as such the main thing that needed changing was the NX bit to NCC.
The A suffix may have come later following a large enough refit cycle (say after 50 odd years), or if they replaced it with a new class of ships (if SF decided to retire the Defiant after 20 odd years).

SF keeping ships in service for 20 odd years seems wasteful considering they are designed to last at least 10x longer (and they could last pretty much indefinitely with every major upgrade cycle if SF simply 'refreshed' the ship's superstructure every decade or few - that is if it was deemed warranted - would depend on how much 'stress' the ship went through really during her time).

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I suppose that's doable - aka, the NCC designation denominates that SF approved the ship for mass production (as we saw, they had several Defiant class ships in some fleet shots - plus two made an appearance in VOY 'Message in a bottle' when they were chasing the USS Prometheus with an Akira class), and as such the main thing that needed changing was the NX bit to NCC.
The A suffix may have come later following a large enough refit cycle (say after 50 odd years), or if they replaced it with a new class of ships (if SF decided to retire the Defiant after 20 odd years).

SF keeping ships in service for 20 odd years seems wasteful considering they are designed to last at least 10x longer (and they could last pretty much indefinitely with every major upgrade cycle if SF simply 'refreshed' the ship's superstructure every decade or few - that is if it was deemed warranted - would depend on how much 'stress' the ship went through really during her time).

I think the Ship Engineers get the "Shiny New Ship" Syndrome and forget about the old ones.
It's a real problem with IRL hardware, anybody who loves Computing Hardware sees the "Latest/Greatest/Shiny/New" thing and forgets about older hardware.

I'm sure there's a similar issue with vessels, shuttles, aircrafts, & StarShips.

 

[Deks]

I think the Ship Engineers get the "Shiny New Ship" Syndrome and forget about the old ones.
It's a real problem with IRL hardware, anybody who loves Computing Hardware sees the "Latest/Greatest/Shiny/New" thing and forgets about older hardware.

I'm sure there's a similar issue with vessels, shuttles, aircrafts, & StarShips.

It just seems wasteful for the Federation given how environmentally conscious they are and the level of modularity on their ships.
Heck, they could easily REDESIGN an existing class of ship every 2 to 5 decades too (aka, part of a major refit cycle) and there you go, a brand new ship (despite the fact its the same ship from 50 or even 200 years ago is essentially brand new - the old one was just harvested for its raw materials so that new technology can keep getting integrated).

SF could still introduce new classess of ships as such over time if they wished - or older designs could/would be adapted to evolving mission parameters.
The existing Sovereign class for example might not look anything like it did originally after the first 50 years for example. And if we take into account that changes will only accelerate over time... then design changes would become more apparent after the first 50 years... but then even more would have changed 25 years after that... and so on... until basically every 3 to 7 years, 'standard maintenance' would effectively change the design iteration somewhat.

I'm all for brand new stuff, but if a starship like the Enterprise-E for example surives for the first 20 years... then why not just keep it in service... give it a major overhaul (pdate the design - if its needed) and continue using it?
After the first 50 years, the ship would have changed anyway.

Now, I can see SF eventually retiring certain classes of ships if they don't deem them necessary anymore (such as say classes specifically designed to do short range mission type stuff or planetary surveys - or just upgrade the class of ships so they can do a lot more - the Rhode Island was an upgraded Nova class vessel whose abilities included (in the original future from which admiral Janeway from 'Endgame' came) deep space tactical operations to boot and exploration.

Heck, 1500 ships of a given class could easily give SF more than enough to play with with design options until they reach about 2.8 million ships (which would be roughly 1.86 thousand distinct classes).

SF could limit itself to 5-10 classes of ships per century for example if necessary (but under extenuating circumstances, and if there's no other option, they could opt for making more if the times require it).