• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

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

So a hole in my theory: NCC-1864 was later given to the USS Reliant in "The Wrath of Khan". I should have known better but I forgot. However, I hold to my illogical logic, and assume that if I were writing that in 1976, I would use the logic I just did...I'd communicate it to you all over a CB radio, but nonetheless. So 4 Constitution class starships a year, for 2267 and 2268. Dividing the year into quarters, that would be one starting January to March, one starting April to June, one starting July to September, and one starting October to December of the year prior to launch.

For all we know, the day after Kirk made that statement, Starfeet opened a half-dozen new shipyards (the USS Defiant was built on Luna as per "In a Mirror, Darkly" and it appears the USS Discovery is launched from an asteroid base somewhere, so they weren't all out of San Francisco), each with an output of 1 starship per Earth year.

I assume many Trek fans would like to agree with you and launch 1,000 Connies into space.
 
Ask Franz Joseph and you'll hear 120 or more Connies. I think that's steep. But if there are 20 or so, that's fine with me. There's no reason to limit our total to twelve ships in all.

--Alex

I think it's not steep at all but quite reasonable. Consider this. Emperor Norton's correlation between Constitution Class ships (Starship Class, whatever...) with real world Yorktown Class carriers is sound but too limiting. Yorktown class carriers were built in one country on one planet. During this time span other countries such as the UK and USSR were also building carriers. If you want a fair comparison, I think you should compare total production of one planet in real life to one planet in Star Trek. Earth could produce X amount of aircraft carriers a year in real life and can, likewise, produce X amount of Constitution Class ships a year.

And that's just Earth. We know there are ship facilities all over the Federation. And it's the 23rd Century where better, larger and more efficient construction technologies probably exist.
 
So 4 Constitution class starships a year
Or Starfleet had enough production capacity that the Enterprise and all of her particular sister ships were built simultaneously.
this has been treated as the absolute canon barrier for how many Constitution class starships were in service
Franz Joseph's 120 ship number works for me given the (debatable) size of the Federation. I figure Starfleet could easily have various types of ships by the tens of thousands.

And so the idea of "sub-classes" is a good one. The Constellation (Doomsday Machine) had a near seven hundred digit different hull number and Kirk was somewhat surprised by the location of the auxiliary control room.

And because the studio model (Enterprise) and the AMT model (Constellation) had proportional/dimensional differences, the two "sub-classes" were not identical.

The Constellation could have been multiple years older than the sub-class of the Enterprise's production run.

Spock is also clearly a Martian and Vulcan is Mars. However, this is not canon because ....
... it was never seen or mentioned on screen.
 
Last edited:
After many years of going along with Greg Jein's "The Case of Jonathan Doe Starship," I turned my thinking upon hearing of Matt Jeffries' explanation of the significance of the Enterprise's registry number--namely that it meant the ship was the first production model of the 17th-design.

This would mean the Constellation was the 17th production model of the 10th design, and the Republic the 71st version of the 13th design! How's that for a lot of starships*!!!!

This seemingly puts me more in the Franz Joseph camp than I ever thought possible. Who knows what apocryphal thing I may embrace next!?!?!?!

(*This is a great example of how trying to make the situation fit the 'facts' simply causes us all to twist ourselves into something resembling the Constellation uniform patch. Whoops, didn't mean to pick at that scab again!).
 
After many years of going along with Greg Jein's "The Case of Jonathan Doe Starship," I turned my thinking upon hearing of Matt Jeffries' explanation of the significance of the Enterprise's registry number--namely that it meant the ship was the first production model of the 17th-design.

This would mean the Constellation was the 17th production model of the 10th design, and the Republic the 71st version of the 13th design! How's that for a lot of starships*!!!!

This seemingly puts me more in the Franz Joseph camp than I ever thought possible. Who knows what apocryphal thing I may embrace next!?!?!?!

(*This is a great example of how trying to make the situation fit the 'facts' simply causes us all to twist ourselves into something resembling the Constellation uniform patch. Whoops, didn't mean to pick at that scab again!).

This could have all been easier if the Constellation were just NCC-1710. One production decision 5 decades ago turned NCCs into anarchy.
 
Since it does repeat, I will post what I did for NCC numbers in my pet theories from when I did TOS roleplaying.

NCC (or Naval Construction Contract) is, along with a starships name, one of the two identifiers of a starship. As such, it is important for any player ship to have one. In some cases, such as if the starship were taken from a book, the NCC will be preexisting and provided already, and as such will be possible to use so long as it is not needed to be altered for whatever reason. In many cases, however, the number will not exist as the ship is totally created by the player. A basic idea for NCC registries is that the higher the number is, the newer the ship. This is partially correct, but there are also other factors that affect it.

If the number has to be made up, there are a few simple factors to note when choosing an Naval Construction Contract number. Simple, at least, compared to the issue of having to make since out of NCC numbers in a very hectic Star Trek canon. For that reason, the following are basic guidelines in the hows and whys of NCC numbers:

NCC numbers often represent the newest ships made.
A ship labelled NCC-1701 will likely be newer and more recently produced than a ship labelled NCC-1001. The higher the NCC number, the newer the NCC number, because that NCC is given a ship lower down in the production roster for construction, and thus more likely to be produced later. There exists the possibility, however, that a ship will be lower on the production roster, but built at the same time as a ship higher on the production roster due to being produced elsewhere at the same time. In such a case, this rule does not hold true.

NCC numbers tend to be in a certain range per starship class.
Constitution class starships tend to range in the 1700s. Miranda class starships tend to range in the 1800s. Etc. This does not mean that a starship from a certain class can go outside this range, especially given NCC can denote a newer ship rather than a ship of a different class.

NCC numbers can be reused.
In later eras of the Star Trek universe, this rule will not apply. Either a ship will have a hyphen and the addition of a letter to show it is the latest in that line (ie, NCC-1701-D) or an NCC will simply not be reused and replaced with a new number (ie, NCC-1672 was the USS Exeter in the TOS era, but NCC-26531 was the USS Exeter in the TNG era of a hundred years thereafter).
In this era, starship numbers will either be reused for the next in that line of starships (meaning the next NCC-1802 will also be NCC-1802), transferred to another new starship of different name and/or class, or survive even if a ship is totally refit to a different class of starship. This fact helps explain why the USS Constellation is NCC-1017 and yet is a Constitution class starship almost a century after that registry would otherwise make sense.

NCC numbers and number ranges are reserved for certain starship projects.
The USS Loknar is NCC-2700 and the USS Larson is NCC-4000, and yet the USS Excelsior, to be newly commissioned in the 2280s, is NCC-2000. How can this be? The explanation arrives in the idea that certain NCC registry numbers and registry ranges are reserved (in at least certain cases) for starship projects and plans before said projects come to fruition. As a result, NCC registries then move around those reserved spots, increasing upward as they go. This also explains how the USS Loknar and USS Larson can be commissioned and active in roughly the same era, given their number and production slots were reserved at the same time, and their construction begun close to one another, though one was lower on the list than the other.
 
When exactly was The USS Kongo ever mentioned? The Farragut may have been removed from service after the Cloud creature incident so that makes twelve or thirteen!
JB
 
Or because of the threat from The Klingons, Romulans and other alien races Starfleet started building more ships by the end of Kirk's five year mission?
JB
 
Actually looked it up, and it seems there are quite a few Starfleet shipyards mentioned in Trek: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Federation_shipyards
Even excluding 24th century or AU ones, that's quite a production base to churn out Constitution-class starships.

I think a lot of these "mentions" are just the dedication plaque and not dialog.

Regardless... you are right. That's a nice amount of shipyards. Of course, not all would be churning out Connies. Gotta pump out other classes too. Scouts, destroyers... Miranda class... Oberths....
 
The thing that needs to be kept in mind is the relation of the Constitution class to Federation/Starfleet production. The Constitution class is the premier, most advanced starship in the fleet in its time. It is a big deal to make one, and it seems to involve a lot to make one. Some facilities may not be equipped for that, and it may be a major focus for a facility building one. That was the intent of the ship in Star Trek. That is why there were only 14 in a government that spanned the galaxy as of season 2. These were important ships. It does not seem so easy to simply pump one out.

Also, this is the TOS era. Not the TNG era. There are, at most, around 2,000 starships in the Federation. If you want to bring in the FASA fan favorites, it's at least around 4,000. If you assume NCC numbers are not always reused with an "-A" on the end (whether on ship or off, to explain the Constellation), it is even less. It is a big fish in a smaller pond. Starships matter more in this era, and they are not as much pumped out and they do not seem as easily pumped out. It also does not seem that TOS had the replicator technology of TNG, so they could not just materialize things out of thin air, which may explain it.
 
the Enterprise's registry number--namely that it meant the ship was the first production model of the 17th-design.
Harping on sub-classes, the first Connie (the Constitution) would be what? The first Connie design and the first produced of that design. NCC - 0101.

Constellation, tenth Connie design, seventeenth produced.

Enterprise, seventeenth Connie design, first produced.

NCC = Naval Constitution Class.

Problem there is of course is that NCC is a standard on non-Connie ships.

If there are 120 Connes, with 17 sub-classes, that would be a average of 7 ships per sub-class. Although a sub-class might only have one or two ships in it.
If you assume NCC numbers are not always reused with an "-A" on the end
The following letter might only be use if both the name and the number are reused in combination. If the number is reused with a different name, then no letter.
 
The only thing we know for sure is that there were 13 when Kirk made his statement. For all we know a half-dozen or so could have been destroyed/lost prior to the episode, and another dozen or so could have been under construction or proposed.

Given the size of the Federation it's indeed possible that the total constructed Constitutions could reach the hundred+ mark, but we are talking over a period from prior to The Cage up to the final phasing out of the design with the Excelsior, Constellation, and Miranda Classes, at least thirty years, possibly even longer.

If we look at the Battlestar Galactica remake, the colonies were only in a single solar-system, yet the colonial fleet had over 120 active Battlestars of various types at the time of the attack in the miniseries. So with the resources of the Federation behind Starfleet? No problem.
 
For some reason fans seem to always want there to be hundreds or thousands of starships, but there is nothing in TOS to suggest this. Kirk tells us there are only 12 like Enterprise in the fleet and I have little doubt that is the writers telling us there are only that many starships. The Federation symbolizes the United States, starships symbolize aircraft carriers. 12 or 14 is what there is, so it's a really big deal when one gets destroyed. Having hundreds of starships starts to minimize the importance of Enterprise and each of the starships we meet. There are only so many, they are special.
 
For some reason fans seem to always want there to be hundreds or thousands of starships, but there is nothing in TOS to suggest this. Kirk tells us there are only 12 like Enterprise in the fleet and I have little doubt that is the writers telling us there are only that many starships. The Federation symbolizes the United States, starships symbolize aircraft carriers. 12 or 14 is what there is, so it's a really big deal when one gets destroyed. Having hundreds of starships starts to minimize the importance of Enterprise and each of the starships we meet. There are only so many, they are special.

I agree, which is why I stand by my estimation of around 8 ships.The Federation does not have the impetus of something like a war to churn out dozens and dozens. It would have the impetus of the design working, and of replacing lost ships. Going by the idea that there were over a hundred but only 12 by 2267, that would indicate some massive, terrible event. It is not likely that nearly 100 ships are lost between the 2240s and 2267 without that. And there is no indication of that having occurred.
 
Well, we know of three Connie's lost in TOS - Constellation, Intrepid, and Defiant. Amother was so severely damaged it's entire crew was killed - Excalibur. Then there is the Exeter which was undamaged but all hands lost. Assuming the Excalibur was trashed and the Exeter recovered, that's four lost Connie's during the TOS 5 year mission. That's a major attrition rate for capital ships. A full third of the available fleet during that time. And those are only the losses we know of, and after the design has been in service for 20 years.

30% attrition we know of. Halve that again for a conservative count of attrition we don't know of. In a five year period you can expect to lose 45% of your Connie's. That means to have 13 operational in a five year period you need to build 29. Assume the production was less in the early years and sped up hugely with the resurgent Romulan military threat plus the Klingon cold war heating up and having 100 Connie's built from the begging of the program to the end of the TOS 5 year mission/partway into the movie era until the excelsior enters mass production is not inconceivable.

Then with large scale replicator technology ship building would have increased again , ultimately generating the huge fleets we see in DS9.
 
Last edited:
In the episode "Tomorrow is Yesterday" Kirk mentions "only twelve like it". Traditionally, this has been treated as the absolute canon barrier for how many Constitution class starships were in service when Kirk made that statement in 2267. If we assume a similar time frame to the episode air date, this statement would have been made in January 2267. That means twelve ships total, or twelve other than the Enterprise resulting in thirteen ships. The definitive production list starting in Season 2 (after said episode) were fourteen ships:
  • Enterprise
  • Exeter
  • Excalibur
  • Lexington
  • Yorktown
  • Potemkin
  • Republic
  • Hood
  • Constitution
  • Kongo
  • Constellation
  • Farragut
  • Valiant
  • Intrepid
That indicates either one of two possibilities: one or two more ships were constructed following that episode, or this can be assumed to be all Constitution class vessels originally constructed, at least one of which had been lost as of 2267. Several of these vessels would be lost on screen following Kirk's statement. Given on screen information from the film era (I'm not sure about later series), we know that more Constitution class ships were constructed following the statement.

My question therefore is how many Constitution class ships could we logically argue could have existed during the TOS era, following that statement in 2267? The TOS era for the purposes of this discussion could end in 2270, or it could be pushed as far as 2273 when the Motion Picture is assumed to have taken place. I believe it was mentioned that the Enterprise was one of the first ships refit, so it could be inferred that ships launched between 2267 to 2268 would end their five year missions around 2272 to 2273, which is in the timetable for their own refit. I do not believe on screen information is sufficient to mention launch dates, so it makes it difficult to know how long it would take to construct and launch a vessel of the class.
I think it bears mentioning that before the 14 ships, there were two other lists that were proposed. D.C. Fontana's proposal from August 1967 included 21 ships. Of that, the following ships were not on the final list:
  • Essex
  • El Dorado
  • Excelsior
  • Saratoga
  • Hornet
  • Wasp
  • Bonhomme Richard
  • Monitor or Merrimac
  • Tori ("bird" [note: in Japanese])
  • Lafayette
  • Ari ("lion" [note: in Hebrew])
  • Krieger ("warrior" [note: in German])

Bob Justman's proposal had just 11 ships, which is keeping in line with the "Tomorrow is Yesterday" statement. Heck, it is even more conservative, as there were only 10 other Constitution class starships other than the Enterprise. Of that, the ships not on the final list are some of the ones found in Fontana's list: Essex, Hornet, Wasp and Lafayette. It is also worth mentioning that there are names on the final list which are in neither earlier proposal. All in all, neither list really has diddly to do with the canon since they were not placed into the canon. However, they are an interesting resource to mine for ideas and concepts. It seems if there were four more Constitution ships to be had if they were writing it, they would be named Essex, Hornet, Wasp and Lafayette. And it does go to the idea that they, like us, had this list but thought "Well we could add this too. And this would be cool. And how 'bout this".



I admire Franz Joseph for the other starship classes besides the Constitution class. But I wholly disagree with the idea of subclasses and the multitude of all too many starships in a class. It is a fun area of fandom and a fun canon in it's own right, but it does not work as Star Trek canon. But I agree that 20 may be an alright number.

Don't forget the USS Defiant (NCC-1764). Clearly a TOS Constitution/Starship-class ship.
 
The other thing we need to factor in is that the Federation, despite facing at least two major hostile Empires on it's borders (not including other players such as the Gorns and the Tholians etc), are able to take five Constitution Class starships out of the line just to participate in wargames to test out the M5 computer. Roughly half their entire remaining force after the losses of the Constellation and Intrepid (assuming Exeter could be decontaminated and put back into service).

The Starbase 11 chart makes things even more murky as from various sources it's claimed these NCC numbers only represent Constitutions but that means they have ten out of the line for maintenance or repairs, though of course there's nothing to prevent any of these charts representing actual new construction.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top