Starfleet Size

For polite and reasoned discussion of Star Wars and/or Star Trek.
Picard578
Padawan
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:51 am

Re: Starfleet Size

Post by Picard578 » Sat Apr 06, 2019 6:37 pm

Thing is, Federation starships are much more massive *and* more complex than modern naval vessels (antimatter reactor, remember). So having only few starships per planet actually makes sense.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1972
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Starfleet Size

Post by 2046 » Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:39 am

Indeed, we were so nuts for ships in WW2 that some were made of concrete, and the Allies were pondering ships made of a reinforced ice called pykrete.

http://concreteships.org/ships/ww2/

That said, 7000 WW2 ships is a bit of a stretch. We topped out at around 850 surface warships, 100 carriers, and 230 subs, or 1180ish mainline combat vessels. The 7000 number includes 2500 amphibious vessels (e.g. D-Day style landers), and as many patrol vessels (e.g. PT boats) and auxiliary ships, none of which would be starships in either the TOS or most other relevant senses. Within ten months there were about 225 surface warships, 25 carriers, and 85 subs, or 335 mainline warships of a fleet with 1200 total ships.

That said, runabouts *are* starships in the TNG era, based on Sisko's greeting in "Vortex", and the line from TOS wasn't "twelve starships in the fleet" but "twelve like her", referencing the Enterprise specifically.

Moral of the story being that your mileage may vary, but 7000 starships in the TOS era is crazy high. Unlike WW2, which saw a years-long buildup toward a war economy and allowed for years of construction, the Discovery Klingon War came as a total surprise and scarcely lasted long enough to allow for a production ramp-up of full-size starships.

Maybe whatzername was counting runabouts, too.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5797
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Starfleet Size

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat Apr 13, 2019 10:22 pm

The general idea is that a thousands of ships large fleet is not out of the realm of possibility and trying to apply too much of our modern ship-building capabilities to a major space-faring power that controls possibly hundreds of thousands of cubic light years, even in the TOS-era timeframe with the entire industrial capabilities of entire planets and who knows how many thousands of colonies and protectorates to draw from.

And how many planets are in the Federation at this time? How many members are added every year? The Star Trek 2009 website suggested that in the Kelvin Timeline there were 75 planets in 2258 and 750 or so colonies.
-Mike

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1972
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Starfleet Size

Post by 2046 » Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:42 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 10:22 pm
The general idea is that a thousands of ships large fleet is not out of the realm of possibility


It is, at least per prior Trek rules of realism. Shelby's "we'll have the fleet back up in a year" would've been like the average 'middle-class' American saying they'd work hard all year to make an extra fifty bucks.

And how many planets are in the Federation at this time? How many members are added every year? The Star Trek 2009 website suggested that in the Kelvin Timeline there were 75 planets in 2258 and 750 or so colonies.
-Mike
That’s not outside the realm of possibility, albeit different than Kirk's TOS figure of humanity being on a thousand planets and spreading. It's a decent combo of Picard's 150 and Kirk's line, though.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5797
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Starfleet Size

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sun Apr 14, 2019 7:48 am

Actually Shelby said it a bit differently:

PICARD + RIKER: Come.
SHELBY: Request permission to disembark, sir.
PICARD: Permission granted. They've picked a fine officer for the task force, Commander.
SHELBY: We'll have the fleet back up in less than a year. I imagine you'll get your choice of any Starfleet command, sir.
RIKER: Everyone is so concerned about my next job. With all due respect, Commander, sir, my career plans are my own business, and no one else's. But it's nice to know I'll have a few options.
SHELBY: I hope I have the fortune of serving with you again, sir. Captain.

How much less than a year to build some 40 starships? And 40 ships a year over the history of the Federation, which could also be still operating older such as the old J-class starships ("Menagerie, Part I") certainly indicates a thousands strong fleet.
-Mike

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1972
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Starfleet Size

Post by 2046 » Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:03 am

Huh . . . the .mp3 in my head was wrong. Either way, though, the point remains. The thesis that the DiscoFleet built thousands of ships for the war despite no lead-in to allow them to tool up for shipbuilding and despite the war not lasting terribly long makes little sense, both internally to Discovery and in regards to later shipbuilding. The Borg . . . the Cardassians . . . even the Klingon hostilities . . . basically the fleet could've been near-zero before DS9 then hit tens of thousands by the end, per such an argument.

As for TNG shipbuilding numbers, I've gone over those before. As I'm sure you're aware, you can't simply extrapolate shipbuilding backwards through time for a growing Federation. The TOS/TMP-era shipbuilding rate per NCCs seems to be around twenty ships per year, so one would only have a fleet of 2000 if almost every ship survived 110 years. It's far more likely that the TOS Starfleet was 500-1000 ships.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5797
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Starfleet Size

Post by Mike DiCenso » Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:10 am

Actually, given how little we knew about anything related to starships and construction, even in the TNG-era, we had little in the way of data points to extrapolate on to begin with. Now we have a hard number for ships and in a very specific frame of time and under very particular circumstances (post war). We knew that numbers were at least sometimes not chronological and now we know with more certainty that they aren't and might even get reused without a second thought.

Oh, we had hints of things and people got caught up in their head canons (yes, I'm looking at you!), some for very nefarious purposes, such as our esteemed opposition that tried to use Shelby's statement to mean that there was only about forty some odd starships in all of Starfleet in the 2360s or Kirk's comment to Captain Christopher that there were only about 12 ships in all of Starfleet, no matter how ridiculous that was, especially with new information from TNG-era Trek about that time frame or from ENT, etc.. So now we have a concrete number. It might be nice to know more specifics about that number, but there it is. We can maybe guess that many of those ships, like the Enterprise herself, were out on the fringes exploring the unknown or are minor ships doing survey follow-ups, etc. But that's the numbers. And it's not like the people who wrote that line necessarily took something from you, they may well have looked up the numbers based on U.S. WW2 ships numbers and then added a few thousand more for good measure (a third of the fleet lost).
-Mike

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1972
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Starfleet Size

Post by 2046 » Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:50 pm

The ship-count-from-my-site was a joke, Mike, as I presume your juxtaposition of my point with intentional misunderstandings of Shelby and Kirk was. As for WW2, why go back to using the inflated 7000 figure after saying one shouldn't apply the real-world shipbuilding that got us the ~1180 mainline combat vessels of the WW2 fleet?

Of course, to my mind, the very basic realities of shipbuilding don't change much whether your needs are wood, steel, or tritanium. The specifics vary, yes, but not the basics. Thomas Paine's calculations on potential colonial shipbuilding as being constrained by suitable raw material and parts (wood, textile, cannon), shipyard logistics, and labor can be readily shifted to more modern raw material amd parts (adequate steel, powerplants and fuel, electronics, missiles), shipyard logistics, and shipyard personnel today. The World War II era realities of needing time to ramp up production are just as valid in the original Star Trek universe as they should be to any other.

Given the lack of time to ramp up production pre-war and the suggested losses, 7000 ships should be taken as probably close to or below the pre-war ship count, unless they can just make fleets at the press of a button (at which point, to echo Sternbach and Okuda, they wouldn't *need* to). That figure is far too high for the TOS era, for the reasons already mentioned.

Even if they simply borrowed several thousand ships from mothballs, alien fleets, et cetera, we'd expect these to be rapidly drawn down. Indeed, given the rapid reduction of forces by 70% after the conclusion of hostilities, which is also a near-universal post-war reality, your argument would seem to suggest 7000 starships should be a low-end figure.

More specifically, there's no evidence for widescale achronologic registries outside of technological testbed vessels like the Excelsior, or super-secret ninja testbeds with exterior achronologic registries not matching the interior chronologic ones like the Prometheus. Both of those were NX registries, I would note.

There is no evidence for registry re-use or overlap of digits between NCC and alternates like NAR.

Given that Discovery is a new continuity, per Kurtzman's canon-policy-related statements, this "hard number" only applies to the Discovery universe, but even then makes little internal sense.
More broadly, attempting to use its facts to override those of the original Star Trek universe is rather begging the question.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5797
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Starfleet Size

Post by Mike DiCenso » Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:24 am

I'm disappointed in you, Robert. Those are two separate things about what should or shouldn't do in trying to extrapolate about how a super galaxy-spanning political faction does for building 6 km tall space stations or thousands of starships has only tangentially to do with speculation that the writers and producers or consultants just pulled a number from the same source about WW2 ships on Wikipedia. We have a concrete number. You can get creationist about it and ignore it. But this isn't like the Husnoc 400 GW number or anything else where we can come up with a "there's a being involved that can create illusions or alter reality" running about that we know of. Maybe you can try and argue about the Red Angel and all, but in that case, the existence of the Guardian of Forever and Spock having to go back in time to save himself in "Yesteryear" simply means that all of Trek was a constantly changing series of timelines and universes as shown in TNG's "Parallels".

In the end, Starfleet in 2258 has about 7000 ships post-Klingon war. Whatever the make up of that fleet is is unknown to us. Why the USS Constellation has NCC-1017 as a registry while the other Connies have 1700, 1701, 1709, etc is unknown.

Further, nothing anyone has said that this is an alternate timeline or universe ala the Paramount Kelvin Timeline. It's the Prime Timeline. The same one we saw in TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY. Just given a visual and tech update that was long overdue for a tired old look and long outdated notions of the future from the 1960s that, except for some very die-hard old timers and a few middle age fans, it has long run its course.

And there were no facts to really override. Did you really think that there were only 13 starships in all of Starfleet until the 2280 and 90s? Did you really think given what was shown in ENT that could even be the case with all the ship classes and numbers we were shown for the 2150s? Come on. The TOS writers really had little idea, they were just making most of it up as they went along with a writers bible to give some guidance. That's why it's so confusing were TOS was concerned and Roddenberry felt that later Trek overrode it when push came to shove.

So now we have 7000 + ships. Deal with it and move on.
-Mike

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: Starfleet Size

Post by Khas » Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:44 pm

So, I was looking up parts from Star Trek VI, when I noticed this:
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/SD-103

Apparently, the shuttle that Kirk and co. took to board the Enterprise-A had an "NAR" registry. Specifically, NAR-25820, which would certainly imply that ships with NAR registries were in service to Starfleet during the time of Discovery.

It's possible that many of the vessels that were relegated to planetary/solar system defense/patrol had NAR registries, but were still considered part of Starfleet.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1972
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Starfleet Size

Post by 2046 » Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:53 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:24 am
I'm disappointed in you {… } creationist {… , assorted other derision,…} Deal with it {…}


Thanks, Mike. I'm sorry we can't be STD fans together, but I like the Star Trek Original Universe, the old canon that was remarkably consistent and lovingly cared for through 2005. I recognize, given your recent shelling of me in other threads, that any comment about the new Star Trek-branded entertainment product that isn't absolutely glowing triggers you, but you're going to need to get past that peculiar new emotionalism just as I am trying to avoid responding to it in similar measure. The new CBS Canon doesn't make any sense, even internally, and is distinct from the Original Universe. Attempting to combine details of the two is like trying to pretend the Lucas universe and EU were the same thing… it just doesn't work.

We have a concrete number. You can get creationist about it and ignore it.


Actually, if you're going to try to make such a pejorative association, I'd have to retort that *I'm* the evolutionist here, by analogy. You're the one claiming that 6000 years / 7000 ships is applicable from a canon distinct from what we know from the existing evidence.

Like geological layers, fossils, radiocarbon dating, and knowledge of populations, heredity, and DNA don't support 6000 years, I am simply pointing out that registries from TOS and post-TOS shows . . . and even STD itself . . . do not support 7000 ships in the 2250s, and that moreover the sense is that Starfleet ship counts have increased over time along with the Federation's size.

To protest this you have used or need to agree with a messy set of ideas.

1. Registries as meaningful vessel identifiers must be rejected, despite the evidence that they are used on all vessels, numerically advance over time, and are not used on multiple ships simultaneously.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the highest observed registry is, so far as I recall off the top of my head at the moment, NCC-1701, in the Discoverse.

2. You argue that the size of the Federation would necessitate 7000 ships, but that's more an assertion than an argument.

3. You've also suggested that the ship count is a war boost, a ramp-up of shipbuilding, plucking 7000 vessels (actually 1180) from WW2 history as an effort to justify the figure. However, as I have pointed out, your example falls flat because the real-world historical facts that got the US such ship counts in that world war do not apply to the Discovery-verse war.

(Indeed, given that, the Discovery count can only be on par or less than the original figure, given Admiral Corny's bit about all the losses they suffered while Discovery was away.)

Et cetera.

Those are two separate things about what should or shouldn't do in trying to extrapolate about how a super galaxy-spanning political faction does for building 6 km tall space stations or thousands of starships has only tangentially to do with speculation that the writers and producers or consultants just pulled a number from the same source about WW2 ships on Wikipedia.


I'm not clear on what you're trying to say with the above, but I would remind you that the WW2 bit is yours, a concept meant to bolster the 7000 ships of the Discoverse by example. I have and will continue to point out its lack of applicability.
Why the USS Constellation has NCC-1017 as a registry while the other Connies have 1700, 1701, 1709, etc is unknown.


She was old, Mike.
Further, nothing anyone has said that this is an alternate timeline or universe ala the Paramount Kelvin Timeline. It's the Prime Timeline. The same one we saw in TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY.


No, it isn't. The historical facts are objectively different. The appearance is different. And, we know that the canon policy has been changed. Per Kurtzman, all the novels are canon. Even if you can synthesize decades of novels into the previously almost novel-free canon, the universe you have thus constructed is inescapably different than the old one. It's like beaming Tuvok and Neelix into one lifeform . . . Tuvix isn't Tuvok.

Even if you would ignore the CBS policy shift, the visual and historical differences (a la "Yesterday's Enterprise", and lampooned when they showed "The Cage" as if from a comic book) plus the tale of a lady who changed history hundreds of times should be sufficient to make you stop and think that, even if they didn't explicitly pull a JJ, it's still a JJ.

In other words, what Kurtzman and the other CBS folks call Prime is not the Original Universe. The Picard show, for instance, is supposedly going to be set after the destruction of Romulus, a JJ-verse "Prime" fact.

Just given a visual and tech update that was long overdue for a tired old look and long outdated notions of the future from the 1960s that, except for some very die-hard old timers and a few middle age fans, it has long run its course.


The iPhonization of Trek is not timeless, either.

Did you really think that there were only 13 starships in all of Starfleet until the 2280 and 90s?


I'm not pretending you're an idiot, Mike. The question to ask yourself is why you're so triggered that you feel you must pretend I'm one via 'questions' like that.

So now we have 7000 + ships. Deal with it and move on.
-Mike
The Discoverse has 7000 ships. That's fine. It has lots of senseless things that are contrary to the Original Universe . . . instantaneous shroom drives with 50,000 light-year range a hundred years before Voyager, the Discoprise that carries 200 credible fightercraft (also, credible small fightercraft), long-skulled Clawngons with badly-retconned hair who could use their magic time crystals to just bring Kahless forward upon his departure rather than something silly and temporally one-dimensional like cloning his DNA from a relic, an AI more dangerous and advanced than the M-5 which, even when destroyed, is still sufficiently damaging to the faculties of the characters to cause them to continue their plan to run 950 years into the future despite no longer needing to, kitchen-built time travel suits in the 2230s, dishonest and genocidal Vulcans . . . the list goes on and on.

It's no different than the old SW EU days, except that the EU's writers could count past seven without starting over.

Good luck.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1972
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Starfleet Size

Post by 2046 » Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:25 am

Khas wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:44 pm
So, I was looking up parts from Star Trek VI, when I noticed this:
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/SD-103

Apparently, the shuttle that Kirk and co. took to board the Enterprise-A had an "NAR" registry. Specifically, NAR-25820, which would certainly imply that ships with NAR registries were in service to Starfleet during the time of Discovery.

It's possible that many of the vessels that were relegated to planetary/solar system defense/patrol had NAR registries, but were still considered part of Starfleet.
I wouldn't put too much stock in NAR numbers on things from the 2290s. After all, the Enterprise-B launched from a spacedock marked as NAR-30974.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/NAR-30974

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: Starfleet Size

Post by Khas » Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:25 pm

I would like to point out that Control - Section 31's AI - was originally introduced in the novels, and then brought into TV canon by Discovery... albeit it lasted far longer in the novels, only being stopped by, IIRC, Dr. Bashir.

As for genocidal and dishonest Vulcans.... um.... did you just forget "Enterprise"? That series had a whole arc showing the Vulcan High Command to be a bunch of dishonest, corrupt, warmongers? And even after they were removed, their influence would still be felt, as Vulcans live a LOT longer than humans, and they'd still have sympathizers. And even in the 24th century, Vulcans are still noted as being arrogant blowhards by many.

As for continuity, give me a break. TOS couldn't even keep track of what century it was a lot of the time, what with "The Squire of Gothos" suggesting that it took place in the 27th century, before they all settled on the 23rd. Or the "Turboshaft" scene in Star Trek V, where the Enterprise-A somehow has 78 decks? TOS was a continuity nightmare.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1972
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Starfleet Size

Post by 2046 » Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:01 pm

Control being from the TNG-era novels doesn't help. That only adds to the novels-as-canon bit from Kurtzman, though, so thanks.

Yes, I completely forgot about Enterprise, because obviously my Discovery opinions are based on the darn dain bramage. I don't even watch The Star Tracks, you nerds. Sarek and Spock should not be our examples of Vulcan scoundrels, nor should logic terrorism even be a thing.

Trek continuity having some minor imperfections over its fifty year run is hardly carte blanche to make new work that ignores it wholesale. That you'd even reference early haziness on finer points of world-building after all the work that came after as an excuse for the sorts of universe-breaking things Discovery's writers have done is remarkable, to say the least.

Darth Spock
Bridge Officer
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: A Beta Quadrant far far away

Re: Starfleet Size

Post by Darth Spock » Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:06 pm

Mike DiCenso wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:24 am
Further, nothing anyone has said that this is an alternate timeline or universe ala the Paramount Kelvin Timeline. It's the Prime Timeline. The same one we saw in TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY.
So far, my general stance on these matters has basically been "it may suck, but that doesn't mean it isn't canon," but I thought I heard something about the show runners themselves making noise about DISCO departing from the "real" timeline? Admittedly I haven't been paying much attention, maybe that was only in reference to the Discovery itself after disappearing into the void, or the future or whatever. Perhaps I got my information garbled.
That said, from what I've seen DISCO hasn't committed any canon violations that haven't already been done before, particularly in ENT. The main differences seem to be that these continuity gaps seem bigger and more flippant than before, though I'd say past transgressions were a bit more than "minor imperfections" too. Beyond that, the show itself doesn't seem as well liked in general, leaving the old vanguard of 'Trek fans less likely to turn a blind eye or put the effort into finding solutions to shoe horn things into a tidy "canon" package.

Running with the current information though, the line about "7000 active ships in Starfleet, all reliant on the chain of command" doesn't strike me as being that problematic, all things considered. The registry numbers indicating fleet size for TOS era did seem a bit too low (especially with the downward trend in FTL speeds as the franchise wore on), there's also the sudden jump in NCC numbers that appeared to spike around the turn of the twenty-third century. No gradual increase in production, and no continued growth after, just a sudden spike in the average number of NCC numbers per year, that tends to strike me as being more indicative of an organizational change than an industrial one. 2046's site touches on that idea here as well: LINK.

We also see the relative fleet densities seem to change surprisingly little between Archer's time and Picard's, indicating that the Federation's fleet growth is only barely keeping pace with its territorial expansion. Consider ENT S:4E:13 "United" where a fleet of 128 was assembled in just three days time, when drawing from future Federation members, including what was apparently a disappointingly few 23 vessels from the Vulcans, while an unknown number of human vessels were weeks distant. Compare to a similar detection fleet roughly two centuries later in TNG S:5E:1 "Redemption pt. 2" where established Federation forces, while stated to be stretched thin in the region, still only put together a meager 23 vessels in roughly a day for a similar operation.
Also consider TNG S:4E:1 "BoBW" where Starfleet assembled roughly 40 ships to intercept the Borg in about six days time, with Klingon ships on their way, though apparently not arriving in time. Roughly seven years later, another Federation fleet of apparently comparable, though probably greater size engaged another Borg cube in ST:9 "First Contact" within roughly a day, remember this was amid growing tensions with the Dominion as well however.
Then Discovery premiers with the impromptu Battle of the Binary Stars which sees about one and two dozen Federation and Klingons ships respectively, gather within a span of what, several hours to perhaps a day was it? I also notice that the actual NCC registries are still staying under the 1700 mark, while maintaining distinctly human designs in the fleet composition.

Parallel registries to NCC like the NC, NAR and VS makes sense, especially looking at the similarities of Spock's long range shuttle seen in TMP, registry # VS-5047-61192259584-5, compared to the role filled by runabouts in the twenty-fourth century which were assigned NCC numbers. Something else that sticks in my mind is a line from DS9 S:5E:10 Rapture: "Bajor's admission is only the beginning. Now comes the hard part. Federation council members have to be chosen, the Bajoran militia has to be absorbed into Starfleet." While the idea of alien fleet absorption has come up, I don't think it has been given as much consideration as it deserves. Given the number of obvious parallels between UFoP and the modern UN, I'm sure Starfleet also has something like a STANAG system in place, and presumably many newer member worlds would opt to simply follow preexisting Federation technology going forward than try to build their own, unless they wanted to maintain private assets for some reason. Which brings us back to the formation of the Federation in 2161. The humans were lagging quite a ways behind their neighbors, but gaining quickly. Right after the Federation's formation, I wouldn't be surprised if they were fielding one or two thousand ships between these major groups, though human built NCC registered vessels undoubtedly made up the smallest portion. It probably would take time for human influence to significantly exceed that of the larger, more established neighbors. The general longevity of 'Trek vessel lifespans would likely be another factor for many years.

Throughout the rest of the franchise however, NCC registered Federation vessels appear to be of distinctly Terran design and are predominantly crewed by humans. Many larger sovereign members would likely be more inclined maintain their own assets, the Andorians in particular struck me as being highly unlikely to delegate fleet management to UFoP in San Francisco, and stop building and maintaining their own ships, though as Federation members, those assets would still require some connection to the Starfleet.
The Vulcans are known to maintain their own ships all the way through the twenty-fourth century, including the Apollo class which even appear to have something like the ENT era warp rings. But we also see cases like USS Intrepid from TOS S:2:S19 "The Immunity Syndrome," and the USS T'Kumbra from DS9 S:7E:04 "Take Me Out to the Holosuite" where typical, NCC registered Federation vessels were crewed entirely by Vulcans. I wonder if this represents the Vulcan government contracting human shipbuilders to fill potential obligations to the UFoP Starfleet. Meanwhile, private human vessels obviously exist, but by TNG in particular, Earth doesn't appear to have an established "fleet" of its own outside of Starfleet, which again appears to be comprised primarily of conspicuously human designs.

If a significant number of smaller member worlds relied increasingly on human shipyards, and especially if a large faction such as the Vulcans opted to use Terran designs and shipyards to fill their obligations to the Federation fleet toward the end of the twenty-second century, this, along with the inclusion of smaller, formerly separate vessels like runabouts being included in the same registry could contribute to a sudden swell of NCC numbers without requiring such a sudden, unusual jump in ship production coming out of nowhere.
Also, considering the context of Control's statement in the DISCO episode, it seems that it was referencing the size of the bureaucracy involved for it to infiltrate and manipulate towards its ultimate goals, rather than indicating the size of fleet it could field militarily. This would leave plenty of room for including registries outside of NCC, and could even include alien vessels operating under Federation jurisdiction. I don't really see this tidbit of information as particularly problematic.
Also, regarding the fleet sizes estimated at st-v-sw.net circa the Dominion War, while those numbers are undoubtedly sound, the context there is more likely referencing the number of combat ready star ships operating at the Dominion front. I believe you've said before 2046, that you did at times use more conservative estimates for Star Trek in anticipation of detractors claiming inflation on your part. In this case, I'm sure Federation wouldn't have simply dropped patrols and supply runs for regions away from the conflict, meaning that estimate could well be a bit lean. There's limits of course, I doubt the number would double or anything, but I still wouldn't be surprised if the Federation as a whole possessed a few thousand more ships than the 8-10,000 estimate you had for the Dominion War. All in all, this particular piece of information doesn't strike me as necessarily being horribly inconsistent, whether DISCO is "real" Star Trek canon or not.

Post Reply