Talk: Miranda class

Hi 8of5. I have to question your (now corrected) reference to the Miranda-class TMP refit being in the 2280s. The early scripts and the novelisation of Star Trek II have the Reliant being either thought of or referred to (respectively) as "an old bucket" of a ship. Now, by my lights, being at most 5 years old doesn't make a ship an "old bucket". I'm assuming you got that reference from the Starship Spotter book, but if it doesn't specifically state that (you'll have to tell me as I don't have it) we should move that refit date back to the 2270s. My sourcebook (Todd Allan Guenther's "Ships of the Star Fleet") has the Avenger-class (the original fanon designation for the Reliants class) being dry-docked for conversion from 2272 and re-commissioned from 2275. The "Miranda Class Cruiser General Plans" by Michael C. Rupprecht & Alex Rosenzweig have the Miranda herself being commissioned on the 19th December 2283 (as I have on the USS Miranda page), but he had that late date to continue to honour the fanon Avenger class. In my own Star Trek Universe, I have no Avenger class and the Miranda-class ships being converted soon after the Enterprise--which was the first ever ship to get this TMP refit according to Ships of the Star Fleet. Should we have the Miranda class conversions from the mid 2280s as in the Mirand-class plans, or the mid 2270s as per the Ships of the Star Fleet. Or should we wait for confirmation data from a novel to place it in the early 2270s?

I'm afraid I'm currently moving house and the Starship Spotter is hiding in a box, but I shall check once it's unpacked (or as soon as I remember after that at least). As for the other references, how many of those are licensed sources? because if they aren’t then we don’t recognise them as sources. -- 8of5 18:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by licensed. I was thinking that it meant any published Star Trek book/tech manual/comic/game. I'm guessing now there's a stricter standard than that? It has to have the Paramount logo and/or written blessing on it for be considered licenced? Oh, and I hope your move goes well. Good luck finding everything again! :-) --Commander, Starbase23 18:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And yeah that pretty much it, got to be sanctioned by Paramount and branded with their logo. I'm not really all that clued up on what is and isn’t but I believe a lot of the technical works and blueprints are not licensed. -- 8of5 18:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Miranda Registries

Can you tell me where these additional Mirandas with the 3xxxx, 4xxxx and 5xxxx registries came from? I've never heard of them. Admittedly, I am a Star Fleet Battles person, not a FASA or LUG Trekker.

Hi. All the additional registries are from various LUG and Decipher manuals and can be seen at the list at Vessels of Starfleet - Miranda Class. Hope this helps. :-) -- The Doctor, 20:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Saratoga 31911's "Side Phasers"

Ben Sisko's Saratoga is a different configuraton from the normal Miranda class; specifically, it has no "rollbar/weapons bridge" and some additional side-mounted, laterally-oriented equipment. I have found that most fans have this equipment being extra weapons, and have done so with the Soyuz-class Bozeman as well. I, however, find it unlikely in a Federation where they shy away from the terms "warship" and even "destroyer", never mind "battleship", "dreadnought", "strike cruiser" and "battlecruiser". Thus I find it hard to credit that such massive phasers would be mounted on any ship during peacetime, nevermind on a decades' old ship which is--by this point--a mere destroyer escort. Not only that, I find it unlikely that the large equipment on the side of the Saratoga (and in four positions on the Bozeman) can be weapon mounts, because phasers can be easily mounted in quite a small volume as twinned emitters or strips/arrays. Further to that, if you believe the fanon Avenger-class statistics, the rollbar-mounted phasers on a standard Miranda are actually Mega-Phaser "cannons", which are supposed to be far more powerful that the standard hull-mounted phaser bank.

I find it far more likely that the peaceful Federation would have such equipment be along the lines of a submarine's towed sonar array, a large-dimension sensor array that has to be so large to draw in the maximum possible sensiivity from the equipment, and that is what I am proposing we change the caption on the Saratoga's image on this page to reflect. --Commander, Starbase23 21:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said up there ^ my Starship Spotter is currently packed away but I think the article in it states as fact that the rollbar mounted phasers on a standard Miranda are pulse phaser cannons which according to what I already wrote in the article channels energy from the warp plasma feeds.

And I think Ship of the Line (though it was a few years ago when I read it) had the Soyuz class have the extra weaponry as it was developed for patrolling nasty Klingon boarders (or something to that effect) but that could be my memory playing tricks. Therefore I don’t find to hard to believe the side mounts on the Saratoga are phaser cannons, maybe they were abit of kit starfleet had laying around in its time of piece that was quickly installed after Q Who? in preparation for later Borg incursions, starfleet was trying to beef its self up in that period even if it didnt get nearly as much done as it would have liked to before Wolf 359.

My Star Trek Fact Files are also packed up but I'd imagine there'll be a labelled schematic of the Saratoga in there which should clear it up. If you want to change it for now I suggest something vague side mounted units or something like that until some source states exactly what they are. -- 8of5 22:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to pile on to the "They're not weapons" argument, if I recall correctly, in the battle sequence from Emissary the Saratoga's phasers emanated from the main hull, not from the supposed "weapons mounts". Some form of specialized sensor gear would be the most likely alternative. In "Ship of the Line", the Soyuz class was designated as a "border cutter", and somewhat contradictorally implied that it was a small ship (when, in fact, with that extra hull section it was closer in size to the Enterprise than the standard Miranda class, and we'd already seen the Reliant go toe-to-toe with the Enterprise). So the "extra weapons" may merely have been meant to imply "heavier gunned for her size, but still small". As mentioned, the book seems a little contradictory on that point. The most likely other speculation on the extra section is (again) sensor equipment, allowing it to act as a picket ship and (perhaps) a mobile substitute for place where permanent sensor/listening posts (like the Epsilon 9 station from TMP) are not practical or too exposed.--Emperorkalan 12:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just as a further point, Ship of the Line was written by Diane Carey who is an actual sailor in her spare time, and she injects the "Age of Sail" flavour into everything she writes for Trek. Taken in context with what she says about the Bozemans role in the book, she probably used the term cutter in the more modern Coastguard meaning--i.e. ships that "are fast, lightly-armed and frequently used in patrol work."--as opposed to the classic sailing ship meaning, which, as you can see from the "real" Wiki article I've linked to, is a rather amorphous term anyway. --Commander, Starbase 23 13:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the Borg already broke the big phasers so they had to resort to the... sensor dome mounted phaser. Umm... Well, just to throw something else into the mix they sort of look abit like little deflector dishes don’t you think? -- 8of5 16:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it likely that the Borg "already broke them". As for the deflector dishes, I agree, which is why I make the case for sensors. Also, the Memory Alpha article on this has the Saratoga add-ons as sensor pods.

Template for this class

How do I create a box that lists all the Miranda-class ships at the bottom of the page like they have for the Constitution class? --02:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Go to Template:Constitution class (or any other starship lsing template), go into edit and copy it. Then in the adress bar replace the the Constitution with Miranda to get to Template:Miranda class (or indeed just click there), then copy the data from the constitution class template and replace all the connie names and the title with the miranda info. -- 8of5 03:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Apocryphal Appearance

Everyone tells of this fabled USS Ranger NCC-1975 as "seen" in Star Trek: New Worlds, apparently from a teaser/trailer for the game back in '99. I spent 2 hours looking for it last night on Google and YouTube, to no avail. I got a teaser movie from '99, I have the trailer from the Klingon Academy installation, and I have the opening movie from New Worlds itself, and I've yet to hear mention of the Ranger. Can someone tell me where this data came from, and where I can find it? --Commander, Starbase 23 13:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

These were called "webisodes", small flash animations used to promote the game. unless someone saved one, the official site is long gone, no one seems to have any record of them. -- Captain MKB 04:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, you can see where the episodes used to be posted at a 2000 archive of Interplay's site -- Captain MKB 05:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of list in favour of box

I don't think replacing the list with the box is in any way useful, the list included registrations and info on which vessels were pre-refit, the box just lists name. It's sacrificing information just to make the page mildly neater. --8of5 11:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Anton/Reliant/Miranda

Thanks for explaining some of the relations between these (sub)classes/names, I'm a little concerned there's some reconciliation attempt going on rather than the actual facts though: "The refit Anton vessels were initially referred to as Reliant-class, named after the first vessel refit, but eventually all of the uprated vessels came to be referred to as Miranda-class vessels." I don't have the source that talks about these names (the new info isn't cited btw), but my understanding is that Reliant class was the named given in the RPGs before the name Miranda was coined by the behind-the-scenes people on TNG. However Miranda is now used as the name of the class in all eras, including pre-refits in the Vanguard series, so it's a little misleading to be implying they were once named Reliant-class and then renamed, when really it's that the name Reliant has been pushed into obscurity in licensed works and in-universe it's a case of and/or for the two names, rather than one being used, then later the other. --8of5 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation wise, FASA (Fed Ship Recog. Manual) stated that the Reliant herself was originally Anton-class and was refit to Reliant-class -- however all later sources (ST Encyc., Starship Spotter, etc.) state that Reliant was Miranda-class (and nearly all of them look back at Reliant from a 24th century point-of-view).. This is a bit of a reconciliation, but is well within the cited sources... 23rd century sources say "Anton refit to Reliant" but 24th century sources say "Miranda" for the same ship.

The TOS-style ships being Mirandaclass was from Vanguard, not sure specifically where...

When we have conflicting sources like this, it seems that subclasses could explain why one starship could belong to two different classes at the same time. By stating that the Reliant-class is a subclass of the Miranda-class, it reconciles quite easily. -- Captain MKB 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like the right approach to me; all ships of this class are Miranda class, some pre-refits are referred to as Anton, some post-refits are referred to as Reliant, but all are Miranda. The current wording though more implies that Starfleet decided to rename the Reliant class to Miranda class at some point. --8of5 04:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that could be tweaked -- it is basically just an inference, based on the fact that what was once called one thing was eventually called another, without any corroboration of such a conscious decision.. it seems like a historical perspective (by the 24th century, they are all referred to as Mirandas and Constitution, despite the 23rd century sources that specify that there were a handful of different types of each -- making it seem like the various "sub-types" were part of a larger whole, and therefore did not get remembered by their former names. Oddly, some variants like the Soyuz are remembered more distinctly, indicating that their differences were somewhat 'more significant' that the Constitution/Enterprise, Oberth/Gagarin/Sagan or Reliant/Miranda distinctions -- Captain MKB 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oberth class has all this too? How very bothersum. --8of5 04:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- also the NCC-1701-C was referred to by FASA as Alaska class, indicating this was possibly a subdesign of the Ambassador class. -- Captain MKB 06:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new Miranda class vessel

Due to the fact that Ricardo Montalban passed away a few days ago, I would like to propose - either officially or unofficially - that the following be considered for addition to this site at the least.

Miranda class USS Montalban (NCC-1142009)

I am already in the process of getting a model of the class. When it arrives I plan to create new titling in place of the original vessel neme and number. - 75.7.251.235 23:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll want to take this idea to another site -- our site is only for things that were mentioned in licensed Trek books and such. Sorry. -- Captain MKB 05:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

USS Lantree

I was just watching the TNG episode "Unnatural Selection" and I noticed something about the USS Lantree. The thing I noticed is the lack of a rollbar and in the episode, the Lantree is identified as a "Class 6 Freighter". Considering there is on-screen evidence of the Lantree being a different class, shouldn't a document be created on the "Class 6 Freighter"? Now whilst it's possible the "Class 6" was merely a sub-type of the Miranda-class, it still needs a page as other sub-types like the Soyuz-class. Whilst it may be a small document as the "Class 6 Freighter" and the design of the Miranda-class used once on the show. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2.122.15.172 (talk • contribs) .

I believe the ST Encyclopedia establishes the Lantree is Miranda class, regardless of whether or not we expand upon any sub-type notation ( and being mindful of the fact that 'type' and 'class' are two different words ) -- captainmike 02:31, April 27, 2018 (UTC)