I have written up an conjectural history of the NX Class. It does not get technical and it is more of historian view. This is just the inital step and I will be adding more to it. Suggestions will be appreciated.
The design of the NX Class can be traced nearly three decades before with engineer Henry Archer�s first design. The design has been modernized throughout the three decades. Actual construction of the NX-01 started in 2142 at the San Francisco Orbital Fleet Yards. Zefram Cochrane, on opening the Warp Five Complex, asked if the first ship to break Warp Five, to be named Enterprise. The name of NX-01 was finalized in 2149. The NX Class was the largest ship to be built in Earth orbit to be specifically designed to lead Starfleet into a new age of Explorer-Cruiser combination. The Enterprise was launched in 2151 and its first mission was to return a Klingon back to the Klingon Homeworld. In 2158, Romulan terrorists destroyed the Enterprise tragically, with few survivors, to start the Earth-Romulan War. An Earth fleet under the command of Admiral Maxwell Forrest destroyed a small Romulan space station near Alpha Onarias system in retaliation. The flagship of this fleet was the NX-02, Challenger. At the beginning of the Earth-Romulan War, there was five NX Class starships, Challenger NX-02, Buran NX-03, Hermes NX-04, Intrepid NX-05, and the Pathfinder NX-06. The Challenger was destroyed with all hands at Alpha Centauri in 2159. The Hermes was lost near Rigel II in 2158, and the Pathfinder was destroyed at the Battle of Cheron in 2161. It was from the Intrepid that the peace treaty between Earth and Romulus was made and the creation of the Romulan Neutral Zone was soon afterwards. The Intrepid was the second ship to be admitted into the new Federation Starfleet as NCC-02. The Buran was the fifth ship. The Intrepid and the Buran were both refitted into primarily science/survery vessels. The Buran was lost in 2174 and the Intrepid was decommissioned in 2184. The Intrepid is now located in the Fleet Museum.
[ April 22, 2002, 09:38: Message edited by: CaptAlabin ]
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Very interesting. I like to make up histories like this up on my own, too.
Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
Nice work, but Enterprise has THREE phase cannons (2 foreward, 1 aft) and at least 4 torp launchers (2 foreward, 2 aft). Going strictly by what we see on the model, there may actually be 4 foreward launchers (for a total of 6).
Posted by CaptAlabin (Member # 733) on :
Thanks, I was only going on the two that I saw.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Definately 4 tubes up front... they're even referenced as such in dialogue in "Fortunate Son."
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Again, how do you have an Intrepid class when we already have one as Voyager's class?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
The novelisation has 'Max Forrest' for the Admiral's name, I believe.. not sure if that from the script
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
The script gave us "Maxwell Forrest" and "Daniel Leonard"
Posted by CaptAlabin (Member # 733) on :
Thank you for the Admiral's name. It is changed. There is no reason why there cannot be more than two Intrepid Classes. You would just need to specify which one. I am basing my postulations on the fact that Starfleet rivals the US Navy in basic rank, basic structure with their own respective vessels. Class name only means that the it signifies the lead vessel in that particular class. I chose the name Intrepid because of high status it will hold in the hearts and minds of the Federation people. (Speculation of Course) Plus, this would give a reason why Starfleet decided to crew the future USS Intrepid NCC-1631 with all Vulcans. All in out, history in Star Trek, does not seem to have an specific cause and effect relationship. It was there only to help exemplify an plot. It was not until DS9 that someone's actions actually caused something or problems and they had to deal with it. Voyager had the elusive reset button.
Posted by CaptAlabin (Member # 733) on :
After some thought, I changed it to Buran because I used the Intrepid Class as a immediate predessor to the Constitution Class. I am trying to make sense of the 1600s of the Constitution Class.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Sadly, I have to support Alabin's dual use of "Intrepid-class" because there is now a RW precedent. When USS Virginia commissions in 2004, she'll be the lead boat of the Virginia-class submarines. All well & wonderful, but there's been a prior Virginia-class of nuclear guided missile cruisers. So.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Ah, but there is still time to rename the ship, right?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
But they won't. It's been very explicit--Virginia-class: the next gen of SSN. Virginia, Texas, Hawaii, &....Rhode Island, I think..?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Well, just because the Navy confusingly has two Virginia classes doesn't mean we have to follow them into the abyss! I guess they figure that since one is a sub and another is a surface ship, it's not so bad. Also, the CGN is retired. However, I suggest you not have two Intrepid classes.
Posted by ? ? ? ? ? (Member # 417) on :
Looks like they have deactivated the CGNs bearing the Virginia-Class names, which means the Class name is available.... so there will be no confusion... unless you are talking about old ships without informing someone....
The other is the North Carolina
This is slightly odd, the State names were once reserved for the SSBN force.... but that was well before the Berlin Wall fell.....
Of course, now with the number of Arleigh Burke -Class destroyers, which are better ships than the Virginia-Class CGNs, the only cruisers needed are the Ticonderogas.
The Virginia-Class has been stricken from the records and Disposed of by Recycling.... That's a damn big box to put out to the curb....
[ April 22, 2002, 18:43: Message edited by: ? ? ? ? ? ]
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
The Navy's naming scheme used to make some sense, but it's all screwed up now, probably for the sake of winning support from legislators. State names used to be given only to battleships, but since the Navy hasn't built any new ones since the 1940s, it started giving the names to CGNs in the mid 1970s. Then the Navy started giving state names to Ohio class boomers (launched 1981), which previously had been named after famous statesmen (whose names are now given to aircraft carriers). Now they're giving state names to attack subs, which used to be named after fish, then cities (whose names had been given to cruisers). I guess they give state names to whatever class of ship they most want to get funding, since a congressman or senator is less likely to vote against funding for a ship named for his state.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
The Virginias were very good ships, I was quite sad to see them chopped up for scrape at such a young age. They might not have been AEGIS, but I'd like to see a Tico or Burke keep up with and outrun a CGN like the Virginia. They were useful fast escorts for today's speedy and long-legged carriers, and capable air defense platforms even without being tied into an AEGIS equipped ship.
quote:In 2158, Romulan terrorists destroyed the Enterprise tragically, with few survivors, to start the Earth-Romulan War.
Not particular fond of the Ent-nil's crew, Alabin? Did the Romulans really destroy the ship, or was it Future Guy's fault? Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
My whole take on the Enterprise was that it was somehow transported into the future (temporal cold war explanation?)(possibly by Picard's time and to be picked up by the E-E after the events in Nemesis). Earth Starfleet declares her missing and presumed destroyed (which might start the war since it was near Rommie territory). With the UFP and the new Starfleet the NX class is transferred over to the new Starfleet. Since Enterprise is gone, the class is redesignated as Dauntless class after the second ship of the NX class, the Dauntless. She is re-registered as NCC-01 as the first Starfleet ship, but not a prototype. Voyager's crew are not surprised at the fake "USS Dauntless NX-01-A" because they know of the first Dauntless and this is simply a new class commemorating (sp?)the first ship, though it's a second class to bear the name (never done before in Starfleet, but not unprecedented considering US Navy Virginia class). Anyway Archer and co. meet Picard and co. and given that Picard doesn't want to alter history, Archer and co. stay in future and try to make the best of it. Starfleet considers placing Enterprise in museum but decides to keep her in service with Archer and co. as crew. She is modernized (though exterior design is kept largely the same), renamed USS Odyssey and re-registered as NCC-76947.
[ April 23, 2002, 01:04: Message edited by: Dat ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
That's, um, a very... deep theory.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Oops, wanted to say something profound here but failed to notice that it was already said, on page two of the thread...
Anyhow, Starfleet isn't big on thematic naming. It's more like the Royal Navy in that it recycles time-honored names regardless of ship class or category. Enterprise is the Ark Royal of Starfleet!
Speaking of deep theories, perhaps the repeated references to USS Bozeman and to Montana in Trek are a way of paying a debt of honor - the USN apparently never had a battleship or a boomer named after that state. Go figure. (At least that explains why all those sub movies are situated on a USS Montana...)
Timo Saloniemi
[ April 23, 2002, 05:39: Message edited by: Timo ]
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Anyhow, Starfleet isn't big on thematic naming. It's more like the Royal Navy in that it recycles time-honored names regardless of ship class or category. Enterprise is the Ark Royal of Starfleet!
Finally; an element of Starfleet that doesn't follow the USNs lead!!!
BTW, who are the USS Carl Vinson and John c. Stennis named after?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Carl Vinson and John C. Stennis, of course
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Carl Vinson & John C. Stennis. Vinson was dead by the time the carrier was named for him, but Stennis was alive, although methinks he's "metabolically different" now.
Interesting side note: CVN-75, the Harry S Truman was originally to have born the name of the originally planned pre-Forrestal supercarrier design, that of United States.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
quote:Interesting side note: CVN-75, the Harry S Truman was originally to have born the name of the originally planned pre-Forrestal supercarrier design, that of United States.
Which is good because it would have been awkward to have a carrier named for the country in the class of carriers named after people. Maybe it can be used for CVN-78 seeing as CVN-77 would still be Nimitz class (though highly leaning toward design elements of the CVN-78 class). Has 77 been named yet? I can see it being named USS George Bush following CVN-76 USS Ronald Reagan.
[ April 23, 2002, 17:31: Message edited by: Dat ]
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
USS Montana is sort of an unlucky name. A USS Montana (BB-51) was under construction but was cancelled before completion in 1922. The name was then assigned to a planned battleship, which was cancelled in 1943 before construction began. There was an armoured cruiser named Montana (ACR-13), that was later renamed USS Missoula (CA-13; which, for you fer'ners, is a town in Montana) to make way for BB-51. So, if they give "Montana" to another ship, it'll probably be cancelled!
The Royal Navy does occassionally use theme names for ships, while still reusing names. For example, Trafalgar-class SSNs all have names starting with the letter T (Turbulent, Tireless, Torbay, Trenchant, Talent, and Triumph) and Swiftsure-class subs all start with the letter S (Sovereign, Superb, Sceptre, Spartan, Splendid).
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
I was once on board the Vinson when it was part of the Pacific fleet and stationed at Naval Air Station Alameda (which has since been decommissioned). It was an authorized "sea cruise" event for the NJROTC program I was in during high school. Vinson didn't set sail, but I did go up the superstructure 2 or 3 levels to one of the bridges, went around the flight and hanger decks and went down 2 or 3 decks below the hanger deck. Too bad it wasn't Enterprise though, but at least it was still a "nuclear wessel" Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Thanks Shik. Very funny CaptainMike.
quote: Which is good because it would have been awkward to have a carrier named for the country in the class of carriers named after people. Maybe it can be used for CVN-78 seeing as CVN-77 would still be Nimitz class (though highly leaning toward design elements of the CVN-78 class). Has 77 been named yet? I can see it being named USS George Bush following CVN-76 USS Ronald Reagan.
Wonder what'll happen when they catch up on themselves...(not to mention the possibility of a USS Bill Clinton, can you imagine the nicknames the crews'll give it? Still, at least it isn't a sub... )
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Did the Romulans really destroy the ship, or was it Future Guy's fault? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)