• 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!

What ships SHOULD they have used in the Dominion War?

Most of the California class have hull numbers in the 72xxx-75xxx range with some newer ships, but also two much older seeming ships in the 12xxx range. To me this suggests an increase in support ship construction following Wolf 359 and the lead-in to the Dominion War using the older California-class as a faster to construct vessel over the newer Parliament-class even though both of the ships we know of that class have 70xxx hull numbers and seem more contemporary to the Galaxy-class. The California-class seems more like an Ambassador-class based design.
 
Most of the California class have hull numbers in the 72xxx-75xxx range with some newer ships, but also two much older seeming ships in the 12xxx range. To me this suggests an increase in support ship construction following Wolf 359 and the lead-in to the Dominion War using the older California-class as a faster to construct vessel over the newer Parliament-class even though both of the ships we know of that class have 70xxx hull numbers and seem more contemporary to the Galaxy-class. The California-class seems more like an Ambassador-class based design.

Actually, one of those 12XXX ships was brand-new. The Solvang NCC-12101 replaced the Rubidoux NCC-12109. Besides the fact that the replacement ship has a lower number, it should not have had a registry of 12101 if it was built in 2380. LDS screwed the pooch on that one.

As for the California, Parliament and Saberrunner classes taking part in the Dominion war: Sure, they all should have been in service at that time. The fact that we didn’t see them (besides the real-world reason that they didn’t exist during DS9) implies that either there weren’t that many of them, or that they were part of some other fleet. I assume the former, since I don’t think fleets were grouped by ship class but rather what they had available to fight with. And considering there were only about 25 California class ships built, as opposed to probably hundreds of Excelsiors and Mirandas, I can see them not being used much in the war.
 
I could see the California class performing support roles, such as supply, repairs, medical support and search and recovery operations.
 
Most of the California class have hull numbers in the 72xxx-75xxx range with some newer ships, but also two much older seeming ships in the 12xxx range. To me this suggests an increase in support ship construction following Wolf 359 and the lead-in to the Dominion War using the older California-class as a faster to construct vessel over the newer Parliament-class even though both of the ships we know of that class have 70xxx hull numbers and seem more contemporary to the Galaxy-class. The California-class seems more like an Ambassador-class based design.
Could also be Admiral Quinn’s noting in “Conspiracy” how the Federation was straining a bit to accommodate all its new members. Not everything has to lead back to 359.

Or it could neither and they’re just new ships replacing a fleet of aging support ships. Maybe someone should do an Excelsior era California configuration.

Also, @Dukhat I’m wondering if the lower registry numbers are for existing “replacement” ships. The Stargazer was basically an entirely new ship in PIC. Did it have a new registry number or its old one?
 
Last edited:
Could also be Admiral Quinn’s noting in “Conspiracy” how the Federation was straining a bit to accommodate all its new members. Not everything has to lead back to 359.

Or it could neither and they’re just new ships replacing a fleet of aging support ships. Maybe someone should do an Excelsior era California configuration.

Also, @Dukhat I’m wondering if the lower registry numbers are for existing “replacement” ships. The Stargazer was basically an entirely new ship in PIC. Did it have a new registry number or its old one?

The old Stargazer was NCC-2893. The new Stargazer was NCC-82893.

No other newer ship in the TNG era ever had a registry of 1XXXX, even ones with the same name as their TOS counterparts.
 
Was Solvang NCC-12101 a brand-new ship of just the ship the captain got as a replacement for the ship she lost the previous season?
 
Which is a much better way of establishing a lineage than the same registration with a suffix.

So the "Enterprise-D" would have been NCC-71701, the "Enterprise-F" might have been NCC-81701 et al.
Nah. If it keeps having issues is its registry going to be 192893 while everyone else is around 80147? I don’t get the problem with the suffix. It’s just another alphanumeric no different from adding one to the beginning. Or giving an entirely new number.
 
Nah. If it keeps having issues is its registry going to be 192893 while everyone else is around 80147?

Huh? What you are implying is that they built 11 Stargazers in the same span of time that they built only one of every other ship. That doesn’t make any sense.
 
Was Solvang NCC-12101 a brand-new ship of just the ship the captain got as a replacement for the ship she lost the previous season?
It was brand-new. In the episode it appears, the captain wanted to keep the ship as pristine as possible, forcing the bridge crew to remove their shoes so they wouldn't stain the carpet.
 
Huh? What you are implying is that they built 11 Stargazers in the same span of time that they built only one of every other ship. That doesn’t make any sense.
How many Enterprises have there been in the past twenty years? There could very well be yet another if Legacy isn’t greenlit but something else is. Well, it’s not just them out there. You’d have a fleet of ships thousands or ten of thousands of numbers apart for really no good reason. Why isn’t the Stargazer 22893 or 2-2893 or 2893-A like the Enterprise or Voyager? I think it’s 82893 only because they were actually approaching that number and reserved it for the refit / rebuild / whatever you want to call it. They didn’t just take its existing number then say hey, what are we us to these days 80,000 ships, yeah let’s add an 8 to it.
 
If we extrapolate what each Enterprise’s registry number would be based on their construction dates and what we know about other ships of their class, we would have:

Enterprise-A: NCC-2001 (2286)
Enterprise-B: NCC-3000 (2293)
Enterprise-C: NCC-15000 (2330?)
Enterprise-D: NCC-71000 (2363)
Enterprise-E: NCC-75000 (2372)
Enterprise-F: NCC-95000 (2380-90?)

This is of course assuming that registries are chronological. So I get your point about not just adding a chronological number in front of the original ship’s registry, but I think that has more to do with when the ship was built and how long they lasted rather than how many ships there were. In the case of Picard’s Stargazer, she was clearly built during the 2290’s and lasted until 2364. So there wasn’t another Stargazer for over a century.
 
Enterprise-A: NCC-2001 (2286)

Makes sense.

Enterprise-B: NCC-3000 (2293)

I'd go with NCC-2701, 3001 or 3701 personally.

Enterprise-C: NCC-15000 (2330?)

NCC-11701, 21701 or 61701, depending on timings.

Enterprise-D: NCC-71000 (2363)

NCC-71701

Enterprise-E: NCC-75000 (2372)

NCC-75701.

Enterprise-F: NCC-95000 (2380-90?)

NCC-81701.
 
What about the renaming and altered hull numbers for the -A and -G?

NCC-1701-A could be NCC-2001.

Typically an Excelsior-class of various different names in licensed media, but was also a Meteor-class (basically an upside-down Connie) in Ship of the Line 2011).

For preference, NCC-1701-G would be NCC-91701 which would put it in the range with the Reliant and Sutherland-class designs ported over from Star Trek Online, but there are no standard Constitution III-class registries to compare it to so...
 
I'd go with NCC-2701, 3001 or 3701 personally.

Keep in mind that I only used rounded numbers as a placeholder. The Enterprise-B could easily have been NCC-3458 or so. I used numbers past 2999 because several non-refit Excelsiors were shown in early TNG with 2XXX numbers, and I wanted the refit to be higher because it was more advanced. Not to mention that known TMP-era classes such as the Constitution, Constellation and Sydney all had mostly lower numbers than 3000 (except for the Miranda and Oberth classes, but that's another story...)

NCC-11701, 21701 or 61701, depending on timings.

I chose 1XXXX because the Enterprise-C configuration looked less advanced than the 2XXXX Yamaguchi/Excalibur/Zhukov variant.

NCC-81701.

The only other known Odyssey registry is the USS Hikaru Sulu NCC-92420. So the Enterprise could have been 92701.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind that I only used rounded numbers as a placeholder. The Enterprise-B could easily have been NCC-3458 or so. I used numbers past 2999 because several non-refit Excelsiors were shown in early TNG with 2XXX numbers, and I wanted the refit to be higher because it was more advanced.

Is it?

That it was effectively the "second prototype" (though not necessarily the second hull) seems obvious, and it's certainly at the older end of the Excelsior build timeline.

IIRC they used the same bridge set for the E-A & Excelsior in Undiscovered Country and for the E-B in Generations?

I chose 1XXXX because the Enterprise-C configuration looked less advanced than the 2XXXX Yamaguchi/Excalibur/Zhukov variant.

In that case, I'd go with NCC-11701

The only other known Odyssey registry is the USS Hikaru Sulu NCC-92420. So the Enterprise could have been 92701.

NCC-91701, for the E-F.

NCC-92701 would be the E-G, unless it kept the Titan-A's registry, which I would peg as NCC-90102 under this system.
 
Is it?

That it was effectively the "second prototype" (though not necessarily the second hull) seems obvious, and it's certainly at the older end of the Excelsior build timeline.

IIRC they used the same bridge set for the E-A & Excelsior in Undiscovered Country and for the E-B in Generations?
The set is modified, but basically the same.

There's no evidence that the Enterprise-B was the second Excelsior off the line, or even the first of that sub-type.

There's a USS Challenger NCC-2032 on a graphic in TUC and GEN, and in the latter the silhouette of the Ent-B is used, suggesting the Challenger came first. The GEN graphic also shows an unnamed NCC-2004 as the same type of ship.

The slight wrinkle is that the TUC graphic appears on the Bozeman, which suggests Excelsiors were active in 2278. All things considered, it would have been much better if that ship had come from 2287 instead!

But that does leave open the possibility that the Ent-B type is actually the *original* Excelsior-class (or even Ingram-class?), which was then modified into the NX-2000 configuration for the transwarp experiments (discard the bulky impulse and secondary hull protrusions for more efficient high-warp flight), and then refined again as the NCC-2000 type which became the standard 24th century Excelsior.

And for some bonus compete speculation, perhaps the Ent-B was actually one of the last of those original hulls? The Ent-B on the wall in TNG was a standard Excelsior configuration, so maybe she later got those refinements too?

The Lakota could have been a mothballed ship that was reactivated and recommissioned some time in the 24th century, possibly during the Cardassians or Tsenkethi wars? The registry number would roughly line up.

For even more fun, Leyton might have had some personal connection, handpicking his old ride (after the Okinawa?) for the upgrade programme, using the additional impulse reactors to power the new weapons.
 
Last edited:
But that does leave open the possibility that the Ent-B type is actually the *original* Excelsior-class (or even Ingram-class?), which was then modified into the NX-2000 configuration for the transwarp experiments (discard the bulky impulse and secondary hull protrusions for more efficient high-warp flight), and then refined again as the NCC-2000 type which became the standard 24th century Excelsior.

I'd phrase it more like the Excelsior and Ingram/Challenger designs were both concepts for the Transwarp Project with the Excelsior-class being the design that was chosen for that project.
There's no evidence that the Enterprise-B was the second Excelsior off the line, or even the first of that sub-type.

There's a USS Challenger NCC-2032 on a graphic in TUC and GEN, and in the latter the silhouette of the Ent-B is used, suggesting the Challenger came first. The GEN graphic also shows an unnamed NCC-2004 as the same type of ship.

It's possible that the Challenger/Ingram variant had a limited production while they were fixing/converting the Excelsior (we know that happened with at least a couple of other variants), but the Excelsior became the favored option in the medium term, possibly due to positive rep from being Sulu's ship, combined with the Challenger/Ingram variant being the "ship that killed Jim Kirk".

The slight wrinkle is that the TUC graphic appears on the Bozeman, which suggests Excelsiors were active in 2278. All things considered, it would have been much better if that ship had come from 2287 instead!

Probably, but in the grand scheme of things that's small potatoes in terms of Star Trek nits.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top