The 300(ish) metre klingon bird of prey

[Captain Seafort]

I just can't buy it - it's too absurd. (And why would the Klingons be concerned with esthetic sentimentality?) I mean, we've had other scaling discrepancies without positing the existence of differently-sized identical-looking ships. Of course, I would reiterate that any time they had to drastically upscale a BOP in order to make it look less puny, they really should have just used a K'T'Inga.

In those other cases we've had other evidence that they're meant to be the same ship, whereas in the Klingons' case we've heard nothing of the sort. On the contrary, we have evidence from Rascals and Generations of different classes of BoP, refering to the 300+m version and the 109m version. There's also the fact that BoPs turned up time after time in TNG, always scaling to about the same size - 300-350m. If TNG was the only evidence we had available it would be reasonable for us to assume that that was the standard size of a BoP

It's also worth pointing out that the fact that while the basic hull forms are the same, and the ships appear identical at the resolution we have available, that's not to same one is merely a scale-up of the other. You could say much the same of Napoleonic warships, or WW2 German capital ships - in both cases the appearence of ships of many different sizes were extremely similar.

[Sionnach Glic]

Aye, the important thing is that it happened. It's canon, and there's little we can do about that, since they were described as different classes.

[Lazar]

In those other cases we've had other evidence that they're meant to be the same ship, whereas in the Klingons' case we've heard nothing of the sort. On the contrary, we have evidence from Rascals and Generations of different classes of BoP, refering to the 300+m version and the 109m version.

But in fact, that's not the case: as you can read here, Rascals depicted large BOPs under the name "B'rel". Both the Kennedys and Bernd seem to have rejected the idea that "B'rel=small, K'Vort=big".

There's also the fact that BoPs turned up time after time in TNG, always scaling to about the same size - 300-350m.

Which, in reality, is because it was almost always appearing next to a GCS or a D'Deridex. DS9 seems to have used smaller BOPs pretty consistently - if anything, making them too small at times, like 50 or 60 meters.

It's also worth pointing out that the fact that while the basic hull forms are the same, and the ships appear identical at the resolution we have available, that's not to same one is merely a scale-up of the other.

But doesn't Occam's Razor go against that? I mean, they looked absolutely identical as far as we could see them (with at least one half-decent closeup), and we know that they were just using the same model, scaled differently; and we have no evidence at all of any visible differences. Plus we have the fact that they have not made any solid connection between class names and hull sizes, and the fact that at least five distinguishable hull sizes have been seen on screen.

Again, I would note that the BOP was designed to be a small ship, and the whole thing makes sense as a small ship, and not as a large one: internal warp engines, and movable wings with mounted disruptor cannons. And note that even TSFS and TVH contained significant scaling discrepancies (in the Merhcantman scene, and in the whaling boat scene), and they were depicting one single vessel.

Aye, the important thing is that it happened. It's canon, and there's little we can do about that, since they were described as different classes.

I know, but canon contains blatant contradictions, and blatant absurdities as well, and I don't think we ought to take a super-strict view of this kind of thing. I've accepted the idea of a personal or flexible canon for almost as long as I've been into ST, and I find that the entire problem is solved if I just say to myself that a) sometimes the BOP was scaled wrong, just like DS9 was, and b) sometimes when we saw gigantic BOPs facing a GCS or a D'Deridex, they were really just K'T'Ingas. And again, there is no canon support for the idea that "B'rel=small, K'Vort=big", so we've just been left with a mess of 3-4 class names and 5 absurdly differing sizes to deal with, with no solid correspondences between them.

[Captain Seafort]

But in fact, that's not the case: as you can read here, Rascals depicted large BOPs under the name "B'rel". Both the Kennedys and Bernd seem to have rejected the idea that "B'rel=small, K'Vort=big".

Who said anything about the B'rel and K'vort? The small class (or at least one of them) is the D-12.

Which, in reality, is because it was almost always appearing next to a GCS or a D'Deridex.

So?

DS9 seems to have used smaller BOPs pretty consistently - if anything, making them too small at times, like 50 or 60 meters.

Which is evidence that the Klingons still use the smaller model in the late 24th century as well as the larger ones.

But doesn't Occam's Razor go against that? I mean, they looked absolutely identical as far as we could see them (with at least one half-decent closeup), and we know that they were just using the same model, scaled differently; and we have no evidence at all of any visible differences. Plus we have the fact that they have not made any solid connection between class names and hull sizes, and the fact that at least five distinguishable hull sizes have been seen on screen.

Occam's Razor goes for the simplest explanation that fits all the available facts. The various scaling rules (i.e. that mass scales in proportion to volume, and strength in proportion to cross-section) are part of those facts. Therefore they can't be identical designs.

Again, I would note that the BOP was designed to be a small ship, and the whole thing makes sense as a small ship, and not as a large one: internal warp engines, and movable wings with mounted disruptor cannons. And note that even TSFS and TVH contained significant scaling discrepancies (in the Merhcantman scene, and in the whaling ship scene), and they were depicting one single vessel.

The under- and over-sized III and IV scenes can be dismissed, and the scale seen in the majority of scenes used, because we know that's the same ship. The others have no such evidence that they're the same class as the Bounty.

I know, but canon contains blatant contradictions, and blatant absurdities as well

Which we can deal with on a case by case basis.

I've accepted the idea of a personal or flexible canon for almost as long as I've been into ST

The problem with a flexible canon is that it makes analysis impossible, because it's entirely subjective.

a) sometimes the BOP was scaled wrong, just like DS9 was

The TNG BoPs were, on the whole, pretty consistent, length-wise, more so than DS9.

b) sometimes when we saw gigantic BOPs facing a GCS or a D'Deridex, they were really just K'T'Ingas.

Despite the fact that they look nothing like K't'ingas.

And again, there is no canon support for the idea that "B'rel=small, K'Vort=big"

Indeed, there's canon evidence that they're the same design, or at least visually indistinguishable.

[Lazar]

Who said anything about the B'rel and K'vort? The small class (or at least one of them) is the D-12.

Which seems to be based on the fact that the BOP in Generations is assumed to be the same vessel as the sisters' BOP which was depicted as small on DS9, right?

So?

It means that they had a glaringly obvious incentive to make the BOPs look absurdly large, because otherwise they would look tiny. On DS9 where we're generally dealing with smaller ships, all of the Empire's BOPs magically look small again. Here's another consideration: have we ever once seen BOP models of differing sizes contrasted with one another on screen?

Which is evidence that the Klingons still use the smaller model in the late 24th century as well as the larger ones.

And what sort of evidence does the 700 m model provide? Or the 50 m model?

Occam's Razor goes for the simplest explanation that fits all the available facts. The various scaling rules (i.e. that mass scales in proportion to volume, and strength in proportion to cross-section) are part of those facts. Therefore they can't be identical designs.

I was saying visually identical, disregarding the issue of scale. We never saw any indication that the makers of the show ever intended the scaled-up BOPs to look any different, and we know that in reality they were just using the same model. So we can say a) it wasn't really a perfect scale-up; the models really would have looked different if we had looked close enough - constructing a new, imaginary level of detail with no on-screen basis; or we can say b) that they just recklessly messed around with the scaling (as Bernd puts it, "the intention was probably to make the Klingon ships appear more powerful, taking the BoP model as nothing else was available"), so our intellectual absurdity compensator can just scale the BOPs down or turn them into K'T'Ingas. The same way that we can pretend that the Enterprise didn't really fire a phaser beam from the torpedo launcher in Darmok, or that TFF or Threshold didn't really happen.

The under- and over-sized III and IV scenes can be dismissed, and the scale seen in the majority of scenes used, because we know that's the same ship. The others have no such evidence that they're the same class as the Bounty.

Only the fact that they used the identical model - isn't that usually a good clue that it's the same kind of ship? -, and the fact that they didn't just use 2 sizes consistently, they used at least 5 of them quite recklessly.

Despite the fact that they look nothing like K't'ingas.

That doesn't matter. I'm saying that they probably just used BOP models because they had nothing else available, and common sense would dictate that if the Klingons wanted to use an old reliable cruiser design in the 200-300m range, they would have just used K'T'Ingas, rather than a ridiculous scale-up of a small scout / interceptor vessel. Can you imagine how absurd it would be to pretend that a certain Federation ship had been scaled up to 2 or 3 times its original length, with none of the surface details changed?

[Captain Seafort]

Which seems to be based on the fact that the BOP in Generations is assumed to be the same vessel as a BOP which was depicted as small on DS9, right?

Given that the Duras sisters turned up in one of the early DS9 episodes with a small BoP, it's reasonable to assume that that ship and the ship in Generations were one and the same.

It means that they had a really glaringly obvious incentive to make the BOPs look absurdly large, because otherwise they would look tiny. On DS9 where we're generally dealing with smaller ships, all of the Empire's BOPs magically look small again.

How exactly does this disprove the existence of the large BoP?

And what sort of evidence does the 700 m model provide? Or the 50 m model?

While the giant BoPs may look stupid, their existence isn't in question. Ditto with the smaller ones, although their size is far less of an issue.

I was saying visually identical, disregarding the issue of scale. We never saw any indication that the makers of the show ever intended the scaled-up BOPs to look any different, and we know that in reality they were just using the same model.

The discussion isn't about whether or not using the BoP model was a good idea, it's about whether or not a 300ish m BoP exists in-universe, which it clearly does.

So we can say a) it wasn't really a perfect scale-up; the models really would have looked different if we had looked close enough - constructing a new, imaginary level of detail with no on-screen basis

There's no canon evidence of it, but there's plenty of engineering evidence of it - as has already been pointed out.

b) that they just recklessly messed around with the scaling (as Bernd puts it, "the intention was probably to make the Klingon ships appear more powerful, taking the BoP model as nothing else was available"), so our intellectual absurdity compensator can just scale the BOPs down or turn them into K'T'Ingas.

Why? They're far bigger than the TOS BoPs, but they're clearly identifable as such.

The same way that we can pretend that the Enterprise didn't really fire a phaser beam from the torpedo launcher in Darmok

Or that it had the same type of ring phaser array as DS9 was later equipped with, albeit very rarely used.

TFF or Threshold didn't really happen.

Pretend the former and you're ignoring so of the best scenes of Trek, amid the dross, and the latter seems to have been declared non-canon anyway.

Only the fact that they used the identical model - isn't that usually a good clue that it's the same kind of ship? -, and the fact that they didn't just use 2 sizes consistently, they used at least 5 of them quite recklessly.

Two sizes appeared consistently, with another two, or possibly three, rarely.

Despite the fact that they look nothing like K't'ingas.

That doesn't matter.

If it looks like a BoP, then barring some damn good evidence (i.e. explict statements that there's some type of holographic disguise being used) then it is a BoP. "I don't think they should have scaled it up" doesn't cut it.

I'm saying that they probably just used BOP models because they had nothing else available

Irrelevent in an IU debate.

common sense would dictate that if the Klingons wanted to use an old reliable cruiser design in the 200-300m range, they would have just used K'T'Ingas, rather than a ridiculous scale-up of a small scout / interceptor vessel. Can you imagine how absurd it would be to just pretend that some Federation ship had been scaled up to 2 or 3 times its original length, with none of the surface details changed?

Quite apart from the fact that the Space Vikings are in love with their longships, and therefore probably would scale up the design, I've already given a couple of examples of RL ships of very similar design but varying sizes.

[Lazar]

How exactly does this disprove the existence of the large BoP?

It's just that it goes to their motivation: in the series where the GCS and the D'Deridex are common, all of the Empire's BOPs happen to appear large; in the series where smaller ships are more common, all of the Empire's BOPs happen to appear small. And let me just add, again, that we have never seen multiple BOP sizes contrasted on screen. (And face it, it would look silly if they did that.) So no, it's not so much an argument to IU "facts" as it is an argument to RL common sense.

The discussion isn't about whether or not using the BoP model was a good idea, it's about whether or not a 300ish m BoP exists in-universe, which it clearly does.

My attitude is that if we see examples of the same model of ship from the same race, they are obviously the same kind of ship, and we had better have a damn good reason (like an explicit statement) to think otherwise. Scaling is notoriously unreliable. EDIT: Okay, I guess this might undermine my suggestion about their being K'T'Ingas; but my point is that if the scene demands a big ship, it would be easier and more reasonable to imagine that it's a different, more suitable kind of ship than to imagine a fantastical up-scaling.

There's no canon evidence of it, but there's plenty of engineering evidence of it - as has already been pointed out.

They could have zoomed in as close as you like, and it would have looked identical, because they were using the same model. The engineering evidence tells me that a massive identical-looking scale-up (which is exactly what they used) is unworkable.

Why? They're far bigger than the TOS BoPs, but they're clearly identifable as such.

Based only on scaling, which is notoriously unreliable. I mean, why be so dogmatic in adhering to their scaling in this instance, when we can so easily reject other instances of absurd scaling? (And I suppose the answer will be that this involves different ships, rather than the same ship. To which I will respond that they did use different scalings for the Bounty, to which you will respond that that doesn't count because it was the same ship. Ad nauseam.)

Or that it had the same type of ring phaser array as DS9 was later equipped with, albeit very rarely used.

I think it's much more easily attributable to an SFX error than to a pointless phaser emitter that was never used at any other time.

Pretend the former and you're ignoring so of the best scenes of Trek, amid the dross, and the latter seems to have been declared non-canon anyway.

Well, we can just imagine that they went on the camping trip without the whole "dude on the planet at the center of the galaxy" thing.

If it looks like a BoP, then barring some damn good evidence (i.e. explict statements that there's some type of holographic disguise being used) then it is a BoP. "I don't think they should have scaled it up" doesn't cut it.

I was just trying to be constructive by suggesting something that actually made sense. In any case, you want explicit statements saying it's a K'T'Inga, and I want explicit statements saying that the BOP has gotten bigger.

Quite apart from the fact that the Space Vikings are in love with their longships, and therefore probably would scale up the design, I've already given a couple of examples of RL ships of very similar design but varying sizes.

But an externally identical design? When they already had a cruiser design of similar size that would have made so much more sense? Once again, I'll submit that the BOP, with its internal warp engines and movable wings, makes absolutely no sense as a large vessel. When have we ever seen internal warp engines on something that big, and what would be the point of them?

[Captain Seafort]

It's just that it goes to their motivation...So no, it's not so much an argument to IU "facts" as it is an argument to RL common sense.

If you want to argue about whether or not using the BoP rather than the K't'inga model was a good idea from a production standpoint, fair enough - although there would still be scaling issues as the K't'inga was scaled to about 200 m long, rather than the B'rel's 300+m. However, they did use the BoP model, therefore, in-universe, the Klingons built a 300+m long BoP.

My attitude is that if we see examples of the same model of ship from the same race, they are obviously the same kind of ship, and we had better have a damn good reason (like an explicit statement) to think otherwise. Scaling is notoriously unreliable.

From an OOU perspective you're welcome to complain about production descisions. IU, however, what we see is what we get - there is a class of BoP that is over 300m long.

They could have zoomed in as close as you like, and it would have looked identical, because they were using the same model.

That's true. However, they didn't, so we don't know whether a close inspection of the B'rel would reveal it to be identical in every respect to the scount model BoP, which gives us some leeway to assume that there are subtle differences as a result of the scale-up.

Based only on scaling, which is notoriously unreliable. I mean, why be so dogmatic in adhering to their scaling in this instance, when we can so easily reject other instances of absurd scaling? (And I suppose the answer will be that this involves different ships, rather than the same ship. To which I will respond that they did use different scalings for the Bounty, to which you will respond that that doesn't count because it was the same ship. Ad nauseam.)

You're right - I would object on those grounds, because complaining about a specific ship randomly changing size is a completely different kettle of fish to different ships of similar appearence appearing to be different sizes.

I think it's much more easily attributable to an SFX error than to a pointless phaser emitter that was never used at any other time.

OOU, of course it's an effects error, a pretty stupid one given the degree to which the purpose of the E-D's external features had been pinned down even before the series began. IU, what we see is what we get.

Well, we can just imagine that they went on the camping trip without the whole "dude on the planet at the center of the galaxy" thing.

I prefer to pass it off as the entire thing, from Uhura landing a shuttle in the middle of the forest onwards, to be a particularly wierd dream of Kirk's brought on my his near death experience earlier in the day. Remember - life is but a dream.

I was just trying to be constructive by suggesting something that actually made sense. In any case, you want explicit statements saying it's a K'T'Inga, and I want explicit statements saying that the BOP has gotten bigger.

I'm not suggesting that scaling up the design the way the Klingons did makes sense - I'm pointing out that that's what evidently happened.

I'm starting to fear that no appeal to common sense can overcome the bulwark of credulous canonical literalism.

If you start considering canon as something that means something different for everyone, then there's no point in having a debate. You're welcome to have your own ideas of which bits of Trek are the best, or what you'd have done differently had you been in charge of producing it, but canon is defined by Paramount as being all live action Star Trek (with the possible exception of Threshold, given Braga's statements on it). Part of that canon, like it or not, is the 300ism metre long B'rel class Klingon Bird of Prey.

[Lazar]

If you want to argue about whether or not using the BoP rather than the K't'inga model was a good idea from a production standpoint, fair enough - although there would still be scaling issues as the K't'inga was scaled to about 200 m long, rather than the B'rel's 300+m. However, they did use the BoP model, therefore, in-universe, the Klingons built a 300+m long BoP.

If you accept the scaling that they use; I'm concerned that their scaling throughout the franchise has been too eratic to be trustworthy.

You're right - I would object on those grounds, because complaining about a specific ship randomly changing size is a completely different kettle of fish to different ships of similar appearence appearing to be different sizes.

But I think it's a related issue: this is a case of different ships of apparently identical appearance appearing to be different sizes. The BOP was scaled eratically in TSFS and TVH; it was scaled eratically in the TNG-DS9 era; and we've never seen two different sizes contrasted on screen. They may have rather consistently used a bigger model (usually around 300m, but sometimes eratic) around bigger starships and a smaller model (usually around 100m, but sometimes eratic) around smaller starships; but I don't find that all too convincing as evidence of two different kinds of ships. It reminds me of how they scaled DS9 differently when a GCS was around.

OOU, of course it's an effects error, a pretty stupid one given the degree to which the purpose of the E-D's external features had been pinned down even before the series began. IU, what we see is what we get.

But we do sometimes have blatantly inexplicable things like the Data contraction issue.

I prefer to pass it off as the entire thing, from Uhura landing a shuttle in the middle of the forest onwards, to be a particularly wierd dream of Kirk's brought on my his near death experience earlier in the day. Remember - life is but a dream.

That does make a remarkable amount of sense.

If you start considering canon as something that means something different for everyone, then there's no point in having a debate.

Well yeah, I did edit that bit out of my post a few minutes ago because it seemed to render the whole issue moot. But for my own purposes, I am more accustomed to a flexible canon.

[Captain Seafort]

If you accept the scaling that they use; I'm concerned that their scaling throughout the franchise has been too eratic to be trustworthy.

Again, this is an IU vs OOU issue - if you want to complain about the decision to portray the TNG BoPs as 300-350m, fair enough. However, that is the size they appeared on screen.

But I think it's a related issue: this is a case of different ships of apparently identical appearance appearing to be different sizes.

OOU it's exactly the same thing - dramaturgic rather than objective scaling. IU they're completely different issues, because different examples of apparantly the same type of ship appearing to be different sizes is simply evidence that they're actually different classes. The same example appearing different sizes (mainly Bounty, DS9 and the Defiant) is a far more difficult issue, and is one of the very few cases where we must ignore some evidence, or dismiss it as a documentary film-maker playing silly-buggers.

But we do sometimes have blatantly inexplicable things like the Data contraction issue.

That's perfectly explicable - we hear Data use contractions, therefore he can use contractions, regardless of what any character claims.

Well yeah, I did edit that bit out of my post a few minutes ago because it seemed to render the whole issue moot. But for my own purposes, I am more accustomed to a flexible canon.

Deciding that some bits of Trek are stupid and either shouldn't have been made or should have been made differently I entirely sympathise with. However, they were made, and they were made as we saw and heard. This latter point cannot in any way be considered negotiable for the purposes of an IU discussion about the capabilities (or design, or size) of a given ship.

[m52nickerson]

Again, this is an IU vs OOU issue - if you want to complain about the decision to portray the TNG BoPs as 300-350m, fair enough. However, that is the size they appeared on screen.

Keyword maybe "appeared" that does not mean they were that size.

Perhaps when threads are started the person who starts the thread could state if they want to use a strict SoD or not. That might eliminate some of these arguments.

OOU it's exactly the same thing - dramaturgic rather than objective scaling. IU they're completely different issues, because different examples of apparantly the same type of ship appearing to be different sizes is simply evidence that they're actually different classes. The same example appearing different sizes (mainly Bounty, DS9 and the Defiant) is a far more difficult issue, and is one of the very few cases where we must ignore some evidence, or dismiss it as a documentary film-maker playing silly-buggers.

If you can do that for the Defiant and DS9 why not for the Klingon ships? The only evidence we have is the visuals themselves.

That's perfectly explicable - we hear Data use contractions, therefore he can use contractions, regardless of what any character claims.

It is perfectly explicable if we forget that more then once the fact that Data did not use contractions was used by members of the crew.

Deciding that some bits of Trek are stupid and either shouldn't have been made or should have been made differently I entirely sympathise with. However, they were made, and they were made as we saw and heard. This latter point cannot in any way be considered negotiable for the purposes of an IU discussion about the capabilities (or design, or size) of a given ship.

Why can it not be considered negotiable? There are plenty of things that happen that almost everyone agrees are mistakes, why continue to use them? In real life if a documentary contains footage that is known to be misleading or false we do not continue to use it as fact.

[Mikey]

If you can do that for the Defiant and DS9 why not for the Klingon ships? The only evidence we have is the visuals themselves.

We don't HAVE TO do that for the Klingon ships - since the different appearances are examples of different ships, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that they are different classes, scaled up or down form an original. This both fits with what's seen, and doesn't require us to suspend SoD to claim an OOU explanation.

[m52nickerson]

We don't HAVE TO do that for the Klingon ships - since the different appearances are examples of different ships, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that they are different classes, scaled up or down form an original. This both fits with what's seen, and doesn't require us to suspend SoD to claim an OOU explanation.

I know we don't have to. I still think we have to look at the whole picture. If we see a ship design one time that seems larger then just about every other time we see it does not mean it is a new class, nor does it mean it is not.

Personally I subscribe to the B'rel, K'vort idea of two sizes of BOPs.

[Mikey]

That's fine. I'm never going to stand behind you in your living room and tell you how to watch 'Trek. Personally, I'd rather subscribe to a plausible IU explanation, especially if I don't have to jump through any logical hoops, than watch with the subconscious idea "of just ignore that bit."

[Captain Seafort]

Keyword maybe "appeared" that does not mean they were that size.

Evidence?

Perhaps when threads are started the person who starts the thread could state if they want to use a strict SoD or not.

The OP refered specifically to the classes of BoP, and the strength of the B'rel class given on DITL - that's an IU approach, and therefore falls under SoD.

If you can do that for the Defiant and DS9 why not for the Klingon ships? The only evidence we have is the visuals themselves.

As Mikey said, DS9 and the Defiant are specific examples of a hull form. Since the Feds can't change the size of their ships at random, they must be the same size at all times.

It is perfectly explicable if we forget that more then once the fact that Data did not use contractions was used by members of the crew.

Why would we need to ignore that? It remains canon that it was stated several times that Data can't use contractions. That doesn't mean those characters were correct (especially as we have evidence that they're wrong).

Why can it not be considered negotiable? There are plenty of things that happen that almost everyone agrees are mistakes, why continue to use them? In real life if a documentary contains footage that is known to be misleading or false we do not continue to use it as fact.

If documentary footage contains images that we "know" to be wrong then we have several options:

1) Our knowlege is flawed.

2) We're misinterpreting the footage.

3) There isn't any footage of a given event, so the documentary maker has substituted something else (this has happened several times with footage of HMS Barham sinking being used as generic footage of a ship blowing up).

We do not simply pretend that the footage actually occured in a completely different manner.

Personally I subscribe to the B'rel, K'vort idea of two sizes of BOPs.

To nitpick, the B'rel and K'vort are the same size.