• 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!

Starship Deploy Status review.

The Galaxy class project seems to start just after the loss of the Enterprise-C. So would there be a need for a similar sized explorer type starship during the roughly 15 years before the first Galaxy-class starships become operational. More Ambassador-class as a stop-gap? Nebula-class starting to appear about five years before the Galaxy-class becomes operational?

Actually, if we go by chronological registries and ship types, it appears that after the 2340's and into the 2350's, ship design went from very large capital ships to smaller frigate-type ships. The Challenger, Springfield, Cheyenne, New Orleans and Olympic classes (the ships whose designs we know and with registries of 5XXXX that come after the 4XXXX registries of the Excelsior family of designs) are examples of this. Only by the late 2350's to the 2360's does Starfleet go back to building larger ships such as the Nebula, Niagara, Freedom and Galaxy classes (and the Parliament class from LDS). Perhaps the change to smaller ships in the 2350's had to do with the Cardassian War and other skirmishes against the Tholians, Tzenkethi, Talarians, etc. that the Federation was dealing with at the time. Once that was all over, Starfleet went back to building larger exploratory ships.
 
I guess Excelsior II-class would be the next big step from an Ambassador-class.

So I guess the lineage would go something like this > Connie > Connie Refit > Excelsior > Ambassador > Excelsior II > Niagra or some kind of variant (though I feel this was not a true capital ship due to the galaxy nacelles) > Galaxy > Sovereign/Duderstadt/Ross etc.
 
I guess Excelsior II-class would be the next big step from an Ambassador-class.

So I guess the lineage would go something like this > Connie > Connie Refit > Excelsior > Ambassador > Excelsior II > Niagra or some kind of variant (though I feel this was not a true capital ship due to the galaxy nacelles) > Galaxy > Sovereign/Duderstadt/Ross etc.

I don't believe the Excelsior II was built during the 2340's or whatever when the other Excelsior 'boom' was happening, despite them having 4XXXX registries. I think that was just a quirk of Drexler's, and that those ships were new as of 2401. They don't look anything like ships that were made in that time period, unless they were refits of older Excelsiors, which they clearly aren't.
 
I don't believe the Excelsior II was built during the 2340's or whatever when the other Excelsior 'boom' was happening, despite them having 4XXXX registries. I think that was just a quirk of Drexler's, and that those ships were new as of 2401. They don't look anything like ships that were made in that time period, unless they were refits of older Excelsiors, which they clearly aren't.

Excelsior II definitely seems like a refit of the old Excelsiors to me.

I wouldn't be surprised if SF did an intermediary refit of those old Excelsiors (or at least some of them) in the late 24th century which turned them into the Obena class (because of how a lot of new starships in 2380-ies for example had Sovereign style nacelles - which also ties up to what Carol Freeman said she didn't want the Cerritos to be 'snazzed up')... and then they were turned to the Excelsior II by 2401.

That way the originals (or at least those that were still flying around) never went out of service, they were simply repurposed to become modern starships (as its possible the technology changed so much to the point where hull designs had to undergo changes - but in that case, why not just call them the same class of ships instead of turning them into a new class alltogether?).

PIC S3 did introduce a lot of different classes of ships for no apparent reason which at first glance looked like small changes to their immediate 'mid/late 24th century predecessor classes'. They could have just continued to upgrade the ships by changing their hull desigs which would follow the technology evolution for example, but keep the class of ships the same, but instead, they did classify them as a different class of ships.

So, what happened to the Titan could have happened to the old Excelsiors.
A similar thing was inferred to have happened to the USS Stargazer when Picard called it a refit in S2 compared to the original Stargazer he flew. The old Stargazer was just refitted into the new class of ship we saw and got a new registry (but in this particular instance, it was not named the Stargazer-A... it was just Stargazer).

I still think SF has too many classes of ships though for no apparent reason.

There is also a severe lack of Galaxy class ships in the 25th century it seems, but those look like they may have been refitted into the Ross class (or at least the leftovers from the preexisting fleet may have been turned into that new class).

There is obviously a change that occurred which in-universe necessitated this... I think S2 of Picard mentioned integration of Borg technology, which I think could be explained as a reason for this shift.

So instead of continuing with existing classes of ships from the TNG era, because of introduction of Borg technology, the ships had to be redesigned perhaps - but I still think they could have just kept the classes of ships the same and said they were just upgrades... it would have worked either way.
 
The wonder is if the Excelsior II was built around the 2340s when they retired the original Excelsior that we see is in the Starfleet Museum? We know there was a USS Excelsior in service during the time of TNG and even a little before. So it was probably this Excelsior rather than the original? Or did the original remain in service for a hundred years before being retired and the Excelsior II was built as a new class, but the "II" remains because there are still original Excelsior-class starships still running Admirals around the Alpha and Beta Quadrants?

It should be noted that while the original is in the Museum, the Excelsior II does not have a legacy number. It is not NCC-2000-A.
 
Well, the Excelsior NCC-42037 can’t possibly be a refit of the original, as the original is in the Starfleet Museum and it has a different registry number.

As for the other Excelsior II’s? Yeah, maybe they’re refits. I would actually prefer that based on their registries, but I’m not sure why Starfleet would all of a sudden refit some 100 year old ships in the year 2401 when they already have a sizable fleet of new ship classes.

There's also the question of why the Obena class from LDS (in service in 2380) would essentially be a 90% exact copy of a refit Excelsior class with Sovereign nacelles, only scaled up, and be a brand-new class, while the Excelsior II looks far more advanced than the Obena but is just a refit of an older, smaller class?
 
Last edited:
Well, the Excelsior NCC-42037 can’t possibly be a refit of the original, as the original is in the Starfleet Museum and it has a different registry number.

As for the other Excelsior II’s? Yeah, maybe they’re refits. I would actually prefer that based on their registries, but I’m not sure why Starfleet would all of a sudden refit some 100 year old ships in the year 2401 when they already have a sizable fleet of new ship classes.

There's also the question of why the Obena class from LDS (in service in 2380) would essentially be a 90% exact copy of a refit Excelsior class with Sovereign nacelles, only scaled up, and be a brand-new class, while the Excelsior II looks far more advanced than the Obena but is just a refit of an older, smaller class?

SF definitely pulled a weird one here.
They gave the Excelsior and Stargazer new registries in the 25th century but didn't turn them into 'A's' - its like they decided to start from scratch.

But its not without precedent. The Sao Paolo was renamed the Defiant and it didn't get a suffix A either - but that was the same class of ship (with the original meeting an untimely demise).

Still, the ENT-D got a successor as the Sovereign class ENT-E... so there's that.

SF is sure weird with namings and suffixes, and adding a whole bunch of unnecessary classes - but probably because the real world writers either just don't care or they just love to do this intentionally to mess with us (before it was 'oh,we can't have the ENT-D showing up on DS9 as it would be 'confusing to the viewers' - huh?, the ENT-D and E aren't the same class of ships, and there is an established principle behind the naming scheme that a successor ship usually gets a suffix if its legacy is continued - but this was first ignored on DS9 and then later PIC added even more confusing changes).
 
I wonder if the legacy registry numbers are inserted into existing fleet lines that mess up the line. With USS Defiant being the oddity due to the special compensation that gave Sisko the right to just repaint the Sao Paolo out and make it look like the original ship was never lost. (Should actually be the Defiant-A unless it kept Sao Paolo's hull number).

With Enterprise I think it started as a quick replacement was rushed to Kirk while what became the Ent-B was already ordered. However whatever decision happened in the Federation Council, whatever hull number the -B was supposed to have was changed to NCC-1701-B instead. The -C is pretty much unknown, but the Ent-D might have been inserted into the Galaxy-class line early on.

Titan-A/Enterprise-G got this done to it twice.
It is possible this happened to the Voyager-A and B.
The Discovery-A is the original ship rebuilt as the original would have been listed as lost or destroyed for many centuries.
Not telling about other ships with a legacy number, as we don't know of many histories of such ships.
 
USS Defiant: NCC-1964 to NX-74205 to NX-74205.

USS Stargazer: NCC-1578 to NCC-2893 to NCC-82893.

USS Excelsior: NCC-2000 to NCC-27445 to NCC-42037.

USS Titan: NCC-1777 to NCC-80102 to NCC-80102-A.

USS Discovery: NCC-1031 to NCC-63748 to NCC-1031-A.

USS Voyager: NCC-74656 to NCC-74656-A to NCC-74656-B.

Clearly there is no consensus about when a ship gets a letter suffix.
 
And of course the (fake) USS Dauntless, NX-01-A. Either the first Federation Starfleet prototype starship was given that name or Voyager's crew just don't remember the old Earth starship Enterprise NX-01.
 
IIRC The Stargazer in PIC2 was because they wanted to follow the unwritten rule from the TNG/DS9 era that only the Enterprise gets a letter according to Dave Blass.

But then Terry or someone else threw that out the window in Season 3 with the Titan.
 
Last edited:
USS Defiant: NCC-1964 to NX-74205 to NX-74205.

USS Stargazer: NCC-1578 to NCC-2893 to NCC-82893.

USS Excelsior: NCC-2000 to NCC-27445 to NCC-42037.

USS Titan: NCC-1777 to NCC-80102 to NCC-80102-A.

USS Discovery: NCC-1031 to NCC-63748 to NCC-1031-A.

USS Voyager: NCC-74656 to NCC-74656-A to NCC-74656-B.

Clearly there is no consensus about when a ship gets a letter suffix.

Hmm - remind me where the Discovery NCC-63748 appeared...?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top