Why a Defiant Class?

[Lighthammer]

Based on all canon literature...

Well there's your problem. Ain't no such thing.

If it wasn't said in front of a camera, it's fan fiction.

Wow --- just wow.

You sir, need to check up on reality.

When something says "OFFICIAL" and it's produced by the very same people who WROTE THE SHOW, you can't dismiss it out of hand.

I tred a little more lightly on all the relaunch series that are sanctioned and considered canon because its a little harder to process that out for a large number of people, but to sit back and try to call things like Star Trek The Magizine "Fan Fiction" ... I'm sorry, you just have problems.

But you know what --- lets put that aside for a second: I threw down a very reasonable, very well thought argument that you haven't even TRIED to tackle point for point. Let's start there.

 

[Jono]

^ There's a difference between "canon" and "official", not that I'm saying it's fan fiction. Canon is what appears on screen while official/licensed works, games, novels, comics are considered as non-canon.

Sisko only really commanded a fleet once and that was for Operation Return. All the others there were senior officers present, usually Martok and for the final battle Ross was there as well and Sisko seemed to be just in command of a component of the fleet. You can look at Operation Return as a special case given Sisko's knowledge of DS9 as to why he was in command and leading the fleet from his assigned starship. In fact given that the operation had some grand plan regarding the attack on DS9 that never occurred maybe the Defiant had a special role in that and Sisko wanted/needed to be on her bridge for that.

On Martok, he never had any problems with commanding a fleet from a BoP (assuming that in these battles he was actually on the Rotarran, I can't remember how often it was actually specifically named in the major battles). Sure, by today's naval vessels capabilities Sisko been on the smaller escort Defiant instead of the larger Galaxy seems a bit odd, but it could be that by that 24th century starships from escorts to battleships have sufficient C&C capabilities that are not true in the real world.

 

[Photon]

Between The Search and the battle w/the Breen. The Defiant was undefeated. She kicked ass.

 

[Timo]

Why is he commanding the fleet from a Defiant class ship?

Since commanding a fleet from a Defiant class ship is clearly not going to be easily explained away, I think it worthwhile to challenge the other half of that question...

Sisko was asked to plan the operation to retake the wormhole (and, if possible, DS9 as well). Not necessarily an unrealistic job for a Captain who is already pretty deep in the loop. And then, at reaching the Bajoran system, he was given the honor of saying "Go!".

But did he actually command the fleet beyond that point? After the battle was joined, he gave all sorts of orders and asked all sorts of questions, but those would be valid things for the commander of an individual starship to do, too.

Sisko gives orders to attack fighters - but several other starships might command their own formations of attack fighters as well. Sisko worries about other ships being "too tight", but then fails to give orders to those ships, and instead again starts giving orders to attack fighters, at which point jamming prevents communications.

When we next see Sisko, he isn't talking to anybody - but is operating in concert with two Mirandas, suggesting the comms jamming has been defeated. Then those "wingmen" are lost, and Sisko immerses himself in a single-ship fight, not giving any thought to the fleet beyond this point.

We can almost claim that he never had command of the fleet to begin with - that he only had a pre-formulated plan of harassing the Cardassians with fightercraft, and the authority to say symbolic "Go!" on that plan, at which point the Admirals in their Galaxy class ships would start managing the battle.

Almost. There's one reference to Sisko giving orders to "destroyer units" even after the plan has already been pushed past the no-return mark, and a guy in a humble escort should at most have the power to humbly ask for help from destroyers...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Knight Templar]

^Nicely reasoned and stated.

And when Starfleet and the Klingons invade Cardassian space the first time and find the planet defended by those defense platforms, it is very clearly Martok in command. He gives the orders to Sisko in that case.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Cos its a TV show. Thats why the hero ship, a tiny ship, leads the huge fleets, why a captain leads when a fleet admiral should etc etc

 

[MacLeod]

You would expect the person commanding a fleet that is engaged in a battle. Not to be commanding a ship themselves. That would be left to another officer.

That way they are able to concentrate on the overall battle rather commanding their ship.

For all we know the Defiant Classes sensors are more specialised for combat duty. Just as Oberth and Nova Class ships might have sensors more specialised for scientifc missions.

 

[Saturn0660]

Why is he commanding the fleet from a Defiant class ship?

Since commanding a fleet from a Defiant class ship is clearly not going to be easily explained away, I think it worthwhile to challenge the other half of that question...

Sisko was asked to plan the operation to retake the wormhole (and, if possible, DS9 as well). Not necessarily an unrealistic job for a Captain who is already pretty deep in the loop. And then, at reaching the Bajoran system, he was given the honor of saying "Go!".

But did he actually command the fleet beyond that point? After the battle was joined, he gave all sorts of orders and asked all sorts of questions, but those would be valid things for the commander of an individual starship to do, too.

Sisko gives orders to attack fighters - but several other starships might command their own formations of attack fighters as well. Sisko worries about other ships being "too tight", but then fails to give orders to those ships, and instead again starts giving orders to attack fighters, at which point jamming prevents communications.

When we next see Sisko, he isn't talking to anybody - but is operating in concert with two Mirandas, suggesting the comms jamming has been defeated. Then those "wingmen" are lost, and Sisko immerses himself in a single-ship fight, not giving any thought to the fleet beyond this point.

We can almost claim that he never had command of the fleet to begin with - that he only had a pre-formulated plan of harassing the Cardassians with fightercraft, and the authority to say symbolic "Go!" on that plan, at which point the Admirals in their Galaxy class ships would start managing the battle.

Almost. There's one reference to Sisko giving orders to "destroyer units" even after the plan has already been pushed past the no-return mark, and a guy in a humble escort should at most have the power to humbly ask for help from destroyers...

Timo Saloniemi

I totally agree.. was it ever said on screen that he had total control of the fleet? I always thought he just planned the battle and Ross was in total command. I always thought Sisko had command of his "wing" however many ships that was.

 

[horatio83]

At the end of the day, there's only two reasons in reality this happened IMHO:

#1.) Oversight on the part of Berman & Co.

#2.) Budget not allowing for it.

#3.) Dramatic necessities.

Pretty boring to show Sisko on the Defiant being just an arbitrary captain in the fleet.

 

[-Brett-]

Wow --- just wow.

You sir, need to check up on reality.

.
.
.
I can't tell if you're being deliberately ironic and funny or accidentally ironic and funny.

When something says "OFFICIAL" and it's produced by the very same people who WROTE THE SHOW, you can't dismiss it out of hand.

Sure I can. After all, the writers do.

I tred a little more lightly on all the relaunch series that are sanctioned and considered canon...

No.

But you know what --- lets put that aside for a second: I threw down a very reasonable, very well thought argument that you haven't even TRIED to tackle point for point. Let's start there.

Your argument is based on the idea that tie-in material has some authority over the shows and movies. I've tackled your argument by pointing out that the premise is incorrect.

 

[Ln X]

[
That being said, a lot of their observations in fleet deployments didn't make much sense and really feels like it suffered from lack of research on the part of Berman & Co. Heck, most manoeuvres felt very much like they were tackling them in a 2D playing field and not a 3D playing field.

I got the feeling that the big space battles in the Dominion were something like land battles on Earth (18th/19th century). Two opposing fleets charge together head on or something. But I think it's really hard to say which tactics work best in outer space because there has NEVER been a battle of spaceships in outer space (I'm talking reality here). It's sort of like people in the 19th century trying to work out the rules of air combat. Yeah you can theorize what might work best, but until a battle (or more) has taken place, theories are just theories. I'm all for speculation and discussion about the space battles, but space combat is a world away from naval (or air) combat.

I agree Lighthammer with your 'space battles are stuck in the 2-D realm', but then Star Trek has always assumed the galaxy is less than 10 light years thick, when actually it is about a thousand.

As for what's canon or not. All TV material IS canon, each individual official Star Trek book is canon (not counting relaunch books or prequels); but only if you treat each book's plot like it fits in with TV episodes and not with other book's plots (I mean there's only so much canon history to be infilled so some of the TV episode's plots and Star Trek book's plots are bound to overlap). Relaunch books or prequels are only canon if you want to believe it, and finally fan fic is non-canon.

I think that is the general classification of what's canon and what's not.

 

[Timo]

Naah. Only aired events are canon - in the sense that the writers would be expected to give a rat's ass about continuity as presented in them. Books are optional reading for an aspiring writer, but if a writer chooses to use a factoid he gleaned from a book, he apparently has to hide it in the deep background and hope that nobody notices.

The books one would expect to carry the greatest weight in the creation of aired Star Trek, the "official" ones that aren't stories but rather are "reference books" about the fictional universe (tech manuals, chronologies, encyclopedias, starmaps) are regularly completely ignored and contradicted by the writers of aired Trek. The novelists sometimes go to great lengths to be consistent with other written word, but that's their own little corner - the aired material doesn't respect the non-aired. And that already dictates the rules, because aired Trek necessarily sits at the very top of the hierarchy - it's what Star Trek is all about, and what Star Trek could not do without.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kirby]

Because it's a tough little ship.

 

[Lighthammer]

I can't tell if you're being deliberately ironic and funny or accidentally ironic and funny.

"Purist" who say "If it didn't appear on TV, it's not canon" really annoy the crap out of me. When the author of a series tells you "This is how it happened" there is always that person in the crowd who wants to say "That's not what happened on the screen".

Well you know what? If and official work from the person who WROTE the series contradicts something, it means a particularly writer of the episode may have failed to fact check. IT HAPPENS A LOT.

Well here's a news flash -- STAR TREK SERIES CONTRACT THEMSELVES too.

I actually get even more annoyed when seemingly everyone wants to sit back and say all these official relaunches don't count towards canon either. They are sanctioned, they are required to work within continuity and you now what? They took this route because Star Trek is having so much hard time getting a new series running.

If you're a true treky/treker, you're going to see their effort, you're going to applaud their effort and try to give it support where and when you can. Not sit back and discriminate against it because it doesn't fit into your nice, neat package of what constitutes "canon" in your book.

I think a lot of people forget that the term "canon" itself doesn't have a clear definition. The closest definition of canon that fits this scenario is:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/canon?s=t

the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art: the neoclassical canon.

By definition, canon doesn't say "Things that appeared on TV" nor does it say "works sanctioned by...". it says "Standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding".

As I said before, I give a little more room to people who refuse to accept the relaunches and Star Trek online as canon because it's a touchier topic (although I often fail to understand why). I give no sympathy to people who refuse to recognize official material authored by Berman, Okuda, etc. because its all material based upon *THEIR* notes and *THEIR* intentions for each series.

 

[Skywalker]

I don't really care about the on-screen/off-screen arguments, but it really annoys me when people call licensed tie-in novels "fan fiction." Those books are written by professionals who are paid for their services. It's an insult to those authors to refer to their work as "fan fiction."

 

[F. King Daniel]

I don't really care about the on-screen/off-screen arguments, but it really annoys me when people call licensed tie-in novels "fan fiction." Those books are written by professionals who are paid for their services. It's an insult to those authors to refer to their work as "fan fiction."

Very much agreed.


"Canon" in Trek isn't permission from some higher power to enjoy something, it's merely a vague guideline for the sequels, prequels and tie-ins to remain consistant with the source material.

 

[The Wormhole]

I'm getting close to the end of my rewatch of DS9 and something keeps sticking in my mind every time I get to this point.

At this point in the war effort, Sisko leads many of the major encounters in the war.

Being the field fleet commander, it keeps sticking in my head: Why is he commanding the fleet from a Defiant class ship?

An escort ship is small, easily destroyed compared to bigger ships, usually lacks enough antennas / channels to properly maintain communication with the rest of the fleet, lacks personnel to help manage all the fleet operations and lacks science equipment to help properly diagnose the conflict to help in making tactical decisions.

The defiant is great for escort missions and short military survey missions. Afterall, that's what's designed for. But, its absolutely NOT a ship designed with the idea to command fleets.

If Admiral Ross wants Sisko commanding the fleet, that's great for him, but shouldn't he have a ship to take into battle that's a little more up to the task of commanding the fleet? He should absolutely have a heavy cruiser assigned to DS9 for that purpose. A Nebula class would have been the minimum sized ship he should have been commanding but one of the upgraded Excelsoirs, Ambassadors or Galaxy class ships is what he really should have been riding into battle with if he was the fleets C&C, or at the very least a wing commander.

It would have made more sense for the Defiant to always remain close to the station. Heck, it would have made more sense to see the Defiant more actively orbiting the station along with that Yeager class we usually see rather then constantly docked when it wasn't on mission. I mean lets face it, DS9 only ever seemed to have one other (including the Defiant) support vessel from Star Fleet on patrol around DS9. I can certainly forgive not having heavy cruisers there, but it always felt like there should have been 3-5 Akira, Norway or Streamrunner type ships there at all times. Heck taking that a step further, it would have made more sense with Sisko ridding one of those in fleet command situations over a Defiant class (not that that really would have made a lot of sense EITHER).

The Defiant was clearly the ship Sisko wanted to be on while going into battle, so that's where he chose to command the fleet. There is real world precedent for this. In WWII admirals didn't always make aircraft carriers their flagships. An admiral who worked his way up on a destroyer or frigate would likely feel more confortable on those type of ships, and so he could make that his flagship if he liked.

 

[Jono]

"Purist" who say "If it didn't appear on TV, it's not canon" really annoy the crap out of me. When the author of a series tells you "This is how it happened" there is always that person in the crowd who wants to say "That's not what happened on the screen".

Well you know what? If and official work from the person who WROTE the series contradicts something, it means a particularly writer of the episode may have failed to fact check. IT HAPPENS A LOT.

Writers and the production team are often going to give their opinions or background on their thinking, but if it doesn't appear on screen there is nothing to stop someone coming along doing something different (it might be better or worse, who knows?) and it is not a contradiction or a failure of fact checking if someone choose to interrupt something in a new way.

For example someone working on DS9 said the Tzenkethi were lizard people, but the novels have them as gel-ly people. There is nothing wrong with this because the Tzenkethi were never shown in canon so the author could create what they were without any problem with contradicting canon. That said any future show or film doesn't have to abide by what the novels have done and can offer their own take on it.

I actually get even more annoyed when seemingly everyone wants to sit back and say all these official relaunches don't count towards canon either. They are sanctioned, they are required to work within continuity and you now what? They took this route because Star Trek is having so much hard time getting a new series running.

While they keep to canon they can often contradict each other. The problem is which of those is "canon"? The relaunches have gone to great pains to be consistent but before that there wasn't a policy of consistency not to mention that the games and comics often do their own things as well and they are licensed as well.

If you're a true treky/treker, you're going to see their effort, you're going to applaud their effort and try to give it support where and when you can. Not sit back and discriminate against it because it doesn't fit into your nice, neat package of what constitutes "canon" in your book.

Just because someone can accept that the shows and films are canon and the other licensed material is not doesn't make that person less of a "true Treky/treker". Nor does it mean they won't enjoy it or value the work done outside of the big/small screen. To claim so is a tad ridiculous.

I think a lot of people forget that the term "canon" itself doesn't have a clear definition. The closest definition of canon that fits this scenario is:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/canon?s=t

the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art: the neoclassical canon.

By definition, canon doesn't say "Things that appeared on TV" nor does it say "works sanctioned by...". it says "Standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding".

As I said before, I give a little more room to people who refuse to accept the relaunches and Star Trek online as canon because it's a touchier topic (although I often fail to understand why).

So they are both canon despite the fact that they contradict each other hugely? I'm sure the authors here have specifically said that the Pocket Books relaunches and STO are not in the same universe and they have no plans on reconciling the two franchises.

If you want to have all the novels, games + TV shows and films in your personal canon that's fine, but it isn't what Star Trek canon is and while it is a bit more flexible than "just TV shows and films", it isn't by much, definitely not as much as you're espousing.

 

[F. King Daniel]

So they are both canon despite the fact that they contradict each other hugely? I'm sure the authors here have specifically said that the Pocket Books relaunches and STO are not in the same universe and they have no plans on reconciling the two
franchises.

They're both consitant with the canon of Trek, even though they themselves are incompatible. Neither are canon, though.

The Star Trek Online novel "The Needs of the Many" says they're alternate timelines, akin to TOS and the current movies.
Although that was more of an easter egg dropped in by the author than anything else.

 

[Jono]

^ Didn't realise they did a STO novel. Interesting that they specifically mentioned it was in an alternate universe from the relaunch verse. Or maybe it isn't...