Why a Defiant Class?

[Lighthammer]

I've been waiting for a few more reasonable people to pop into this topic and there are a few good responses here.

I was very much considering letting the thread die, but I guess I'm glad I didn't now. /smile

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.

To be clear, I was very much referring to in the strictest sense the relaunch novels and Star Trek online.

I don't have any problem with older works not being considered canon and I honestly don't either. If they fit and there's no contradictions, there's no problem. If they contradict, I'm liable to say "Good story, but not canon" and of course likewise, I'm not going to hold my breath that something in the future won't contradict that stuff either.

But to rehash, my explosion is very much directed at the relaunches and Star Trek Online. Since there was a huge effort to ensure continuity remains consistent between all those sources and the reason behind relaunches is to give people at least SOME outlet for Trek, it almost drives me mad when someone refuses to acknowledge them.

I hope everyone understands that these novels and game were done the way they were so an outlet for Trek EXISTS since no network has been willing to take on the task of producing a new series.

The interesting test will be to see how well these things are honored when we finally get a new series.

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 ridiculous and makes you look a bit silly.

Again, the frustration comes from the fact that we've had such a hard time getting new Trek content on the TV that the relaunch novels and Star Trek Online became very necessary outlets to keep the franchise alive.

The frustration, once again, comes from people (a lot of people) writing these things off for whatever justification they come up with.

Everyone who wants more Trek really needs to understand that if you continue to support the franchise and honor what its doing to keep the spirit alive, the possibly becomes more and more likely that someone will pickup and do a new Trek series. If the support is so great, we might even get really lucky and see companies invest in a really top notch series and give it the budget it deserves. If we're EXTREMELY lucky, some Network will take all these fantastic works and make something truly awesome out of them.

So that being said, please excuse the passion you hear in my posts when someone says something to the effect of "Those relaunch novels are a joke". It incites rage in me because the person saying that doesn't understand this has become a very necessary stepping stone to get a new series on the air.

That being said, am I saying everyone should go pickup the novels or go register a Stark Trek Online account (It is Free to play now!) --- no, I'm certainly not. But I think if many people really took some time to go read up on the happenings of the novels and the online game, you'll find a wealth of Trek stories that are REALLY COOL.

I'll admit first hand, I don't personally find the time in my schedule to pick the new books up --- but I sure as heck read the summaries on them. Likewise for the game.

What I actually love doing is rewatching a series and going "Hmm, I wonder what X is up to in the current story line" and then I'll go over to Memory Beta, read the material on him/her/it and usually spend the next few hours jumping from article to article. Often I'll find out some really cool events happened in X book and go read it.

 

[RoJoHen]

The only reason the relaunches can be considered more official is that we're not very likely to get anything else on TV that has to do with those series. But if someone wants to make a new TNG movie that completely contradicts the relaunch novels, they can...because the novels are not canon, and nobody is under any obligation to pay attention to anything that has happened in them. That's the only point that people are trying to make.

As for why Sisko commanded from the Defiant...why not? It was his ship. He liked it. It's a Starfleet ship, and I'm sure it's more than capable of acting as a command craft. Does it have sensors? Does is have communications? What else does it need, really?

 

[horatio83]

With the Defiant on our side, there will be nothing to stop us!

OK, it refers to another Defiant but also it kinda fits THE Defiant.

 

[Star Wolf]

I find it hard to take the fleet battles in Star Trek seriously because all you see tactics wise are "Battle of Britain swoop and shoot" when you should see both sides trying to maintain formation with their own fleets and concentrate torpedo fire against enemy vessels.

In the Dominion War, it made ZERO sense for the generally larger Starfleet ships to get involved in "space dogfights".

But that is what happens when your producers and FX people have all "seen it in Star Wars".

Of course, even worse than the World War II era tactics is the World War ONE dialogue about the battles.

"The Dominion has cut our lines in two places!".

How in the hell would you have "lines" in a space battle!!!!

They don't even use that terminology in naval battles from decades ago. Much less now.

Don't you see it. Even though Trek Tech says its impossible Star Wars and his sons had space fighters so Defiant was a fighter and Sisko was the CAG leading the Defiant and the Birds of Prey fighters into the fight.

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.

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.

Escort ship was the name given because good guys do not have "destroyers" there being nothing nuetral in the name. In the original Battlestar Galatica what was the name of the evil federation ships? Destroyers. In any case real world destroyers were pressed into duties as escort ships and away from role of the line of battle scouts and expendable torpedo platforms.

I know I just said Sisko was the CAG and he commanded the fighters, but in reality he left his Chief of Staff or perhaps operations officer duties for Admiral Ross he commanded a torpedo boat or the torpedo boat destroyer squadron, they just maneuvered like top gun fighters.

Meanwhile the WWII fleet commander who came up in the smaller gun destroyers and cruisers and who did not fly might stay in a cruiser at the bottom, not a destroyer for the logistical reason listed by the OP. But again we run into modern world SF usage just as good guys don't have "destroyers", such an angry word, they don't have battleships, another angry word just another ever larger class of the neutral sounding cruiser

 

[Jono]

I've been waiting for a few more reasonable people to pop into this topic and there are a few good responses here.

I was very much considering letting the thread die, but I guess I'm glad I didn't now. /smile

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.

To be clear, I was very much referring to in the strictest sense the relaunch novels and Star Trek online.

I don't have any problem with older works not being considered canon and I honestly don't either. If they fit and there's no contradictions, there's no problem. If they contradict, I'm liable to say "Good story, but not canon" and of course likewise, I'm not going to hold my breath that something in the future won't contradict that stuff either.

But to rehash, my explosion is very much directed at the relaunches and Star Trek Online. Since there was a huge effort to ensure continuity remains consistent between all those sources and the reason behind relaunches is to give people at least SOME outlet for Trek, it almost drives me mad when someone refuses to acknowledge them.

I hope everyone understands that these novels and game were done the way they were so an outlet for Trek EXISTS since no network has been willing to take on the task of producing a new series.

The interesting test will be to see how well these things are honored when we finally get a new series.

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 ridiculous and makes you look a bit silly.

Again, the frustration comes from the fact that we've had such a hard time getting new Trek content on the TV that the relaunch novels and Star Trek Online became very necessary outlets to keep the franchise alive.

The frustration, once again, comes from people (a lot of people) writing these things off for whatever justification they come up with.

Everyone who wants more Trek really needs to understand that if you continue to support the franchise and honor what its doing to keep the spirit alive, the possibly becomes more and more likely that someone will pickup and do a new Trek series. If the support is so great, we might even get really lucky and see companies invest in a really top notch series and give it the budget it deserves. If we're EXTREMELY lucky, some Network will take all these fantastic works and make something truly awesome out of them.

So that being said, please excuse the passion you hear in my posts when someone says something to the effect of "Those relaunch novels are a joke". It incites rage in me because the person saying that doesn't understand this has become a very necessary stepping stone to get a new series on the air.

That being said, am I saying everyone should go pickup the novels or go register a Stark Trek Online account (It is Free to play now!) --- no, I'm certainly not. But I think if many people really took some time to go read up on the happenings of the novels and the online game, you'll find a wealth of Trek stories that are REALLY COOL.

I'll admit first hand, I don't personally find the time in my schedule to pick the new books up --- but I sure as heck read the summaries on them. Likewise for the game.

What I actually love doing is rewatching a series and going "Hmm, I wonder what X is up to in the current story line" and then I'll go over to Memory Beta, read the material on him/her/it and usually spend the next few hours jumping from article to article. Often I'll find out some really cool events happened in X book and go read it.

I understand where you're coming from. As a long term fan of the Star Wars EU I've had numerous clashes with people over its worth despite not being canon, or at least not at the top level of canon given how Lucasarts organises things.

However, you're really talking about your personal continuity rather than canon.

 

[DonIago]

Given that "canon" is a technical term, not a matter of opinion or subject to popular vote, it seems silly to declare that anyone is more or less of a Trek fan based on any decisions they may choose to make for themselves regarding canon works.

If you don't care about non-canon works, good for you, just respect that others do.

If you feel the novels should be canon, see "personal continuity".

That people get into arguments about this in any respect other than confusion over what the term actually means frankly boggles my mind. Honestly, does it even make a difference whether or not a work is canon, barring circumstances where one can say "that was only established in a non-canon work"?

 

[Lighthammer]

Given that "canon" is a technical term, not a matter of opinion or subject to popular vote, it seems silly to declare that anyone is more or less of a Trek fan based on any decisions they may choose to make for themselves regarding canon works.

If you don't care about non-canon works, good for you, just respect that others do.

If you feel the novels should be canon, see "personal continuity".

That people get into arguments about this in any respect other than confusion over what the term actually means frankly boggles my mind. Honestly, does it even make a difference whether or not a work is canon, barring circumstances where one can say "that was only established in a non-canon work"?

The problem is, by every definition of the word, the term canon itself is highly subjective and can really only be determined by the persons in charge of the franchise.

There in lies the problem. The relaunch books and Star Trek Online were declared as canon by the franchise owners. That's not for any single person outside the franchise owners to decide and it absolutely not subjective.

I'd really like to see someone in this thread trying to write them off and other material go have an argument over what is and isn't canon with Rod Roddenberry.

I'm sorry, but that takes pretty huge ego for someone to claim they have the right to decide what is and isn't canon and believe they have more authority on the topic then the franchise owners.

If you don't want to include something the franchise owners include as canon, that's your problem, but you don't have a right telling anyone else citing that material they are wrong. It's like trying to have argument with someone who is constantly changing the rules of the engagement. You can't have a discussion that way.

I don't understand how anyone feels like they have the right to tell a franchise owner that they're wrong about something. Sure, they can make mistakes and you can point out inconsisties or problems, but when they say "This is how it is", well that's how it is.

 

[F. King Daniel]

There in lies the problem. The relaunch
books and Star Trek Online were declared
as canon by the franchise owners. That's
not for any single person outside the
franchise owners to decide and it
absolutely not subjective.

I don't know where you get your ideas from, but neither Star Trek Online nor the Typhon Pact-era novels have ever been declared canon by the franchise owners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_canon

 

[DonIago]

While I don't quite agree with KingDaniel's phrasing, I agree with his understanding that neither STO nor the Typhon Pact (or, for that matter, any) of the novels are considered canon.

 

[Jono]

There in lies the problem. The relaunch books and Star Trek Online were declared as canon by the franchise owners. That's not for any single person outside the franchise owners to decide and it absolutely not subjective.

You seem to be confusing remaining consistent with canon with actually being canon, they are not the same thing.

 

[jpch]

Based on onscreen evidence the Defiant seems like a small highly maneuverable vessel with heavy weapons. other then that it has nothing special,its weak defensively speaking since 1 jemhadar bugg ship totally disabled it in a few second in ''one little ship'' while it took 3 of those bugg ships and they couldn't stop a galaxy class...Also Voyager and the Ent-E survived massive amount of damage from devastating ships like the Scimitar or a Borg Tactical cube...the Defiant almost got destroyed vs a cube even with fleet support.
the defiant is fasts,has heavy weapons tho limited to dealing with small ships like Bop/bug fighters etc...when refitted with ablative hull armor and additional systems like cloack/impulse modification/pulse cannon boosted power output (USS DEfiant) its able to take on cruisers like Galor/Keldon and V'orcha...

in My opinion a Galaxy or Intrepid would defeat a Defiant in 1 on 1 combat based on spec alone.

 

[-Brett-]

That's not for any single person outside the franchise owners to decide and it absolutely not subjective.

I'd really like to see someone in this thread trying to write them off and other material go have an argument over what is and isn't canon with Rod Roddenberry.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be implying that Rod Roddenberry owns the Star Trek franchise.

 

[Sci]

For the record, the authors of the Trek novels have always been very clear on this: They are not writing canonical works, and a future canonical installment of Star Trek may contradict their novels at the canonical producers' pleasure.

The Star Trek canon consists of:

• Star Trek (1964; 1966-1969)
• Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
• Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
• Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
• Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
• Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987-1994)
• Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)
• Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
• Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993)
• Star Trek: Generations (1994)
• Star Trek: Voyager (1995-2001)
• Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
• Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)
• Star Trek: Enterprise (2001-2005)
• Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
• Star Trek (2009)

Only these are canon.

"Canon" is not an evaluation of quality. "Canon" is not the same thing as being officially licensed. All "canon" means is that it is the body of work that derivative licensed works, such as novels, are not allowed to contradict. That's it.

It doesn't even mean it doesn't "count" or is less "real." It's all equally fictional after all. All it means is that the writer of a novel has to keep consistent with all of the above aired/filmed material. That's all.

* * *

As for why Sisko commanded from the Defiant -- I for one see no reason to think the Defiant's communications systems are any less capable than any other ship's.

 

[O_Deus]

To rephrase your question, it made no sense for Sisko to be leading any major battles at all. He hadn't even been a captain for that long and his recent experience was mostly on a space station.

The question isn't why Sisko was using the Defiant as his flagship, but why he was given command at all. And the reason is storytelling convenience.

 

[The Wormhole]

To rephrase your question, it made no sense for Sisko to be leading any major battles at all. He hadn't even been a captain for that long and his recent experience was mostly on a space station.

The question isn't why Sisko was using the Defiant as his flagship, but why he was given command at all. And the reason is storytelling convenience.

And, prior to the war he was the highest ranking Starfleet officer who had dealt with the Dominion, making him the closest thing to a Dominion expert.

 

[O_Deus]

To rephrase your question, it made no sense for Sisko to be leading any major battles at all. He hadn't even been a captain for that long and his recent experience was mostly on a space station.

The question isn't why Sisko was using the Defiant as his flagship, but why he was given command at all. And the reason is storytelling convenience.

And, prior to the war he was the highest ranking Starfleet officer who had dealt with the Dominion, making him the closest thing to a Dominion expert.

Which would qualify him to advise an admiral in a fleet battle.

The Defiant and Sisko were originally used for guerrilla warfare behind enemy lines. That made sense.

 

[Jono]

The only battle Sisko commanded (or at least where there is no obvious higher ranked officer) was in Operation Return and given Sisko's significance in regards to the target, DS9,and his role in planning Starfleet might have considered it a special case. On the other hand the planned operation was at least a week away from been launched and lacked "half" its forces, so the actual fleet commander might have been someone with the Ninth Fleet (which was a day or two away still when Sisko's fleet launched) and Ross made Sisko the fleet commander, a desperate move for an equally desperate mission.

 

[Knight Templar]

And one might infer that in Operation Return, Captain Sisko was only operating instead of a higher ranking more capable officer who was unavailable.

Remember, when Operation Return was planned both the 9th Fleet and the Klingon fleet were supposed to operate with it.

The 9th Fleet it is inferred was a very large, formidable force so it is more than possible that the Admiral commanding it would've commanded the entire force had he/she/it arrived in time.

 

[funkylovemonkey]

Based on onscreen evidence the Defiant seems like a small highly maneuverable vessel with heavy weapons. other then that it has nothing special,its weak defensively speaking since 1 jemhadar bugg ship totally disabled it in a few second in ''one little ship'' while it took 3 of those bugg ships and they couldn't stop a galaxy class...Also Voyager and the Ent-E survived massive amount of damage from devastating ships like the Scimitar or a Borg Tactical cube...the Defiant almost got destroyed vs a cube even with fleet support.
the defiant is fasts,has heavy weapons tho limited to dealing with small ships like Bop/bug fighters etc...when refitted with ablative hull armor and additional systems like cloack/impulse modification/pulse cannon boosted power output (USS DEfiant) its able to take on cruisers like Galor/Keldon and V'orcha...

in My opinion a Galaxy or Intrepid would defeat a Defiant in 1 on 1 combat based on spec alone.

I have to respectfully disagree, specifically about the Intrepid class.

While it's true that the Defiant was disabled by a single Jem'hadar fighter in "One Little Ship," remember it was explained in the episode that they were in a region of space where they were blind and unprepared. The Jem'hadar ship essentially got the drop on the Defiant while its shields were down and it was in the middle of a complex scientific experiment. That's hardly a good benchmark for what the Defiant could do in a fair fight. It's not even clear the Defiant got off a shot in that episode, and in other episodes the Defiant clearly took on multiple Jem'hadar fighters and defeated them pretty handily.

The Intrepid class on the other hand became more and more overpowered while the Borg became increasingly weak during the course of Voyager. The Borg were once an unstoppable force which were dangerous because even if you threw something new at them, it took them about a minute to figure out what you were doing and counteract it. That capability was pretty much ignored the more they appeared in the show, until they became essentially neutered versions of themselves at the end of Voyager, almost unrecognizable from the terror they were in Best of Both Worlds.

As far as judging the relative power of the Intrepid class, remember Voyager was a ship that fired all 93 of it's... 40 torpedoes. Out of any Star Trek show, I would say that Voyager was the laziest when it came to maintaining technical continuity. And remember that Voyager herself by the end was not really a standard Intrepid class starship anymore; it was established that one of the reasons Voyager was able to survive Borg attacks was because 7 of 9 gave them some sort of technological and tactical advantage.

Originally the Intrepid class was seen as more of a scientific/transport vessel. It was incredibly fast, able to maintain a speed of warp 9.975, but it was not specifically designed for combat. The original intention when the show was created was that Voyager wouldn't be able to rely on brute strength, a concept that was abandoned during the course of the show along with a lot of concepts from the pilot.

The Defiant on the other hand was designed for combat. It was so powerful that in early shakedown cruises it tried to tear itself apart. Specifically it had problem with it's warp engines, which even when most of the bugs were worked out had a lower maximum warp, less then the Intrepid class (the Technical Manual seems to disagree what's said on screen... it as stated in the show that the Defiant had a maximum cruise of 8.7 and in Sound of Her Voice they were able to raise that to warp 9.75 for twelve hours by taking power from defensive systems, whereas the Technical Manual says the maximum warp is a way too high 9.82 for twelve hours).

However it did have advantages over other ships. Compared to larger ships such as the Galaxy class, the Defiant had far less surface area in relation to volume even adjusting for size which gives it a narrow profile and makes it less of a target. The Defiant is more structurally vigorous then more elaborate designs with a simple skeleton with no obvious structural weak points. And the smaller surface area also allows the ship to be completely covered in ablative armor, which apparently is prohibitive to use on larger star ships. So the Defiant is able to maintain an arsenal comparable to larger vessels while also being smaller, tougher, and more difficult to hit.

Really I think it's the economics of the battlefield. Sure a Galaxy class starship might be able to take oot one Defiant class starship, but it would struggle if there were three. And depending on the economic cost (which in the Star Trek universe comes down to energy, time and manpower since there are not scarcity of resources), if the Defiant is significantly cheaper to produce (meaning you have to expend less energy, it takes less time and it requires fewer people to build it) then it makes more sense to make four small Defiant class starships compared to one Galaxy class starship. Just taking in manpower to run the ship, the Defiant only had 5% of a full Galaxy class compliment. The Defiant had a crew of 45, a Galaxy class had over a 1000 (albeit including families, but we don't know how many of those 1000 were civilians). During a war when the mission of Starfleet becomes extremely narrow, producing a lot of Defiant class starships makes more sense then investing in larger multipurpose ships like the Galaxy or Sovereign classes.

That doesn't mean the Defiant by itself isn't powerful, and I think in a head to head with an Intrepid class the Defiant would come out on top simply because the Defiant is better specialized for combat. And then the Intrepid class would run away and the Defiant wouldn't be able to catch her.

In the course of it's career, the Defiant took on several larger class vessels and came out on top. It defeated multiple Galor and Kelvin class cruisers. In Way of the Warrior it took on two Birds of Prey and a Vorcha class and survived despite having to lower it's shields to evacuate the Dutapa Council. And in the alternate reality a Defiant made with scrap metal and whatever was on hand took out several Birds of Prey and a full Negvar class cruiser by getting in so close the Negvar had a difficult time getting a clear shot.

As far as the OP, I think the Defiant is a satisfactory (although perhaps not ideal) ship to have Sisko's flag when commanding larger engagements. While the Defiant might not be able to get really fine resolution from it's sensor array compared to a Galaxy class, for purposes of keeping track of ship movements and analyzing enemy ships I'm sure it is adequate. In some instances it might be better, because it could be designed to analyze other ships for weaknesses and keep track of ship movements. Specialization allows you to do one thing really while, while a Galaxy's sensors are going to be expected to analyze geologic anomalies and catalog alien life forms and examine the structure of a star.

The problem is also mitigated by a diffuse command structure. Depending on the size of the battle there would be one Admiral on the command level while below him at the tactical level ships would be divided into wings and then individual starships. Each level of command would have specific responsibilities and would be to a certain extent autonomous, with individual Captains able to make decisions for his ship while Commanders of a Wing make adjustments to his wing. If things go right, the Admiral in charge of everything will have to do very little unless the battle plan needs to be adjusted or falls apart completely. In most battles, Sisko was Commander of a Wing, except, as noted by others, in the battle to retake Deep Space Nine. In the Battle of Cardassia, Sisko fell even further on the totem pole as the fleets expanded, with Ross, Martok and the Romulan commander in the Command role.

Of course ultimately it was a more mundane matter of real world logistics. The DS9 sets were huge, with the Promenade being one of the largest single sets built for television to that point. Adding another ship required more space and since it was added in the third season, they had to work around what they had. Making the sets incredibly small helped with that problem. The Defiant engineering section was built several years after the Defiant was added to the show because of that reason.

 

[Sci]

The Defiant engineering section was built several years after the Defiant was added to the show because of that reason.

No. The Defiant (and her bridge) first appeared in 3x01, "The Search, Part I." The Defiant's main engineering room first appeared in 3x26, "The Adversary." "The Adversary" first aired only 9 months after "The Search, Part I."