Narendra IIIEdit

I've removed the reference to this class being at the Battle of Narendra III, since all Captain Garrett said was "four warbirds". Since the Valdore is also classified as a "warbird", I would speculate that there was an earlier warbird in service back in 2344, and that the D'Deridex was a newer class designed and constructed since then (just as the Galaxy-class was a newer class designed and constructed since then). -- Famartin 06:12, Aug 24, 2004 (CEST)

Warp sixEdit

Is the warp six detectability problem canon ? Alex Peckover 18:24, Jun 2, 2004 (CEST)

yes, it is, it was in the episode "the die is cast" (ds9) --KetracelWhiteJunkie 03:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Do we accept information on as canon? I thought they would have checked it. If it's not accepted, then feel free to remove it. --Fox Mulder 18:33, 2 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Just had a thought, I think this comes from "The Die is Cast". The Changeling posing as Colonel Lovok was concerned that they could be detected by the Jem'Hadar if they travelled faster than warp six. Alex Peckover 19:09, Jun 2, 2004 (CEST)

yup, even garek has to get a quip in and ask if they were having engine trouble! --KetracelWhiteJunkie 03:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek: Starship Spotter specificationsEdit

This is as good a place to discuss this as any. What is going on with the specifications of various spacecraft on this site ? None of this is backed up with sources, so I have to ask where it's coming from. I do not believe that fan websites are canon. Alex Peckover 20:08, Jun 11, 2004 (CEST)

No references? I specifically took the time to add the full reference for Star Trek: Starship Spotter! That's where this is all coming from... -- Dan Carlson 20:48, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST)
And this book is canon how ? :-) Alex Peckover 20:59, Jun 11, 2004 (CEST)
The part in "Tin Man", regarding the Warbird exceeding its maximum engine output by 30% in order to effectively shadow the Enterprise-D (which is traveling at maximum warp) seems to contradict the given maximum speed of warp 9 taken from the above given source. --Gvsualan 00:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Two notes on the ship's specs. I'm new to Memory Alpha so I'm not sure were to put 'em :-\
I don't recall any reference to Warbirds using plasma torpedoes in "Images in the Sand." It's probable but dancing over the line of fact into speculation-land IMHO. All we know for sure's that there were plasma torps at the Romulan base ON DURNA.
I _do_ think it's safe to say the Warbird outguns a Galaxy -- at least, the first flight/circa-TNG (GCSs seem to have been upgraded later). The Warbird's alpha strike in "Tin Man" reduced the E-D's shields to 30%. That only lasted a few seconds ... could another Galaxy have reduced Enterprise's shields that much in a similar timeframe? (Very unlikely. Compare this to the performance of the "mystery ship," one which could "easily match [the Enterprise's] armament," from "Unification.")
--Sean R.


Shouldn't the part about the Valdore replacing the D'deridex be labeled as speculation? This was never established anywhere, nor was a design flaw with the D'deridex. The Valdore might not even be a recent ship design, just one that has never been seen before. If anything, the Valdore type warbirds could be new, but not necessarily cutting edge or as powerful as the D'deridex. -- SmokeDetector47 04:02, 24 Aug 2004 (CEST)

It makes sense that the Valdore class is a newer ship, since undoubtedly many D'Deridex class ships were destroyed in the Dominion War. It also makes sense that the Romulans would send their strongest, newest ships against the Scimitar, considering the Reman ship's power. However, unless I'm mistaken, yes it is conjecture and should be labelled as such. -- Famartin 03:02, Aug 24, 2004 (CEST)

That's another thing I'm not clear on... did the Romulans send those ships, or was it just Donatra's personal ship and another vessel loyal to her? She must've came all the way from Romulus, and based on what we've seen in DS9, that area is crawling with ships. It's a little hard to believe that they could only scrounge up two. -- SmokeDetector47 05:58, 24 Aug 2004 (CEST)

I'm guessing that Donatra's mission to help Picard was not authorised. It probably wouldn't have been as the effective commander of the Romulan military was the same guy she was on her way to kill. I would guess that Donatra took her own ship and recruited another commander to help her, probably a friend or something. Alex Peckover 08:47, Aug 24, 2004 (CEST)
As conjecture, it should be labeled as such, but also removed from the body of the article. Even if it makes sense, we aren't allowed to pass off speculation and hearsay as fact here. (Besides, I don't even consider any of the non-canon theories presented in this discussion as especially interesting. Why should there be a reason for the Romulans to have more than one type starship??!) -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 06:48, 24 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Replace "Romulans" with "Federation," "Klingons," or "Borg," and you tell me. :) -- SmokeDetector47 06:58, 24 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Starfleet has loads of different classes of ship, it's highly unrealistic to suggest that the Romulans only ever use Warbirds, or that they would dump a fleet of perfectly good ships as soon as a better design came along. Starfleet still uses Excelsior and Miranda-class ships in the 24th century, after all. Alex Peckover 08:47, Aug 24, 2004 (CEST)
The Valdore class is a newer ship yes: but it is also much smaller, and probably faster: the equivalant of a Battlecruiser perhaps: and rather than the vanguard of the fleet it is operated as a faster unit. All conjecture of course, but I seriously doubt that even for a ship that is flawed as the D'deridex but is built in such large numbers it would be replaced so soon. Reece.
The Romulans found out during the Dominion War that there D'deridex was not powerfull eneagh for war. Because most of there ships were destroid. Therefore I think thats why they should have refitted or replaced them. Also the D'deridex looked strong but actualy a D'deridex can easely be destroid by a Valdore according to some fan sites. (looking at the manouverebility and there amount of weapons) Mark H (from star Trek Dark Armada)
No canon source says the D'Deridex-class Warbird wasn't well-suited for warfare. No canon source says most of them were "destroid [sic]." And fan sites can speculate all they like; there's nothing to indicate the Valdore-type can easily destroy a D'Deridex. The vast size disparity between the two (yes, accounting for the B-type's empty space) suggests the contrary is closer to the truth.  ::::--Sean R. from Babtech On The Net

Interior Design Edit

I personally like that there are pictures of the rooms in particular classes of ships, i.e.: on Intrepid-class they show stuff like an intrepid class sickbay, etc. Should similar things be done here? I know in "Face of the Enemy" we got some good views of rare rooms, like the Captain's private dinging room, and the cargo bay. -AJHalliwell 06:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

D'deridex class capabilities Edit

According to the article, "Warbirds are roughly twice as long as a Federation Galaxy-class starship, with an advantage in fire power, but a lower maximum speed and less combat maneuverability." I'm curious as to the canon source for these statements or whether they are assumptions or observations. Although it seems somewhat probable that the Galaxy-class relies on shields, maneuverability, and it's 360-degree phaser arc, I cannot recall any canonical relative quantification of firepower or maneuverability for these vessels. Yes, the ST:TNG Technical manual gives some numbers (20 GW vs about 210 MW?), but is that considered canon? Also, could not a more sustained rate of fire, superior range, or more destructive effects of phasers per unit energy, etc. make up for this deficit? -- QbicCreation

I'd agree with this assesment.. either cite these statements or remove them from the article. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


I removed the follow:

The hull of the D'deridex class has been observed to take heavy damage. For example, in 2371, Jem'Hadar fighers were able to destroy Keldon-class ships with relative ease, but it took a while longer for the Warbirds to fall prey. The physical ability to take heavy damage allows the Warbird to survive for extended periods of time if shields fail. (DS9: "The Die is Cast")

This is more of an observation than a fact. During the first battle of chin'toka the Warbirds were destroyed with relative ease by the orbital platforms, as were numerous other classes, but iirc, one of the first ships destroyed was a warbird. Also, we don't know the condition of the Koranak during the opening scenes of the last act. I think there is too much assumption in the above (removed) reference to be able to keep it in the article as a stated fact. --Alan del Beccio 11:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Weapon "Blind Spot" Edit

It seems to me that a federation starship as large as an Akira class could fit into the middle area of the D'deridex. has anyone ever observed a countermeasure to this flaw? – 7th Tactical 06:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, an Akira-class would be lucky to enter the center area of a D'deridex class, I believe only something up to the size of a Defiant-class can fit in it. Personally, I don't recall seeing any countermeasures to remove that blind spot, but there may be a disruptor or two in the area that we haven't seen. - Enzo Aquarius 02:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, we've never actually seen the Warbird attacked in that fashion in an episode, so it's impossible to know if there are countermeasures to the tactic. Seems a bit risky to have any weapons pointing at the ship, so maybe they'd have fixed arcs that only pointed out the holes. The only time we saw anything like this was in the (non-canon) Star Trek Armada intro where a Defiant class ship flew through the hole, firing pulse cannons and torpedoes behind it, and blew the ship up from the inside. It was from a game, but I reckon it was quite faithful to what would actually happen.--Pearse 13:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I remember from one of the later retake battles in DS9 (near a moon or a planet), where someone fires a phaser beam through the shell hole of a D'deridex. -Mardus 12:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not really what we're talking about. This section is about sending a ship through the shell and blowing it up from the inside, and just so you know, the phaser through the shell was in the first battle of Chintoka, and the phaser was fired by a weapon platform, through the D'deridex, and hitting a different ship. – 7th Tactical 06:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In S2E11 of TNG-Contagion, didn't the warbird fire a beam weapon from the top inside middle underbelly to destroy the iconian probe? That might prove there is no blind spot since there are weapons mounted inside the "open part" of the ship. I agree though, it is possible these weapons are at fixed arcs only pointed out of the open spaces.-User:Seether
On the same note, one might be forced to ask how practical it is in a battle situation to fly into a Warbirds inner hull. Sounds a bit like tricky flying to me, not to mention there has to be weapon mounts watching those openings (I would assume) - 03:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Open Window EffectEdit

This bg statement about the "Open Window Effect" has been uncited for some time:

In non-canon sources it has been noticed that occasionally something called the Open Window Effect occurs. It happens when the vessel's parameters change too quickly for the cloaking device to compensate. The disturbance shows up as atmosphere that appears and disappears.

It seems somewhat inappropriate to continue maintaining said content in a "featured article" while at the same time essentially stating "this article needs attention". --Alan 17:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Plasma torpedoesEdit

There is an image here of Warbirds firing torpedoes from "The Die is Cast". The caption says that they are firing plasma torpedoes. There is no evidence of this. It has been established that Warbirds carry both plasma and photon torpedoes. We have never seen green plasma torpedoes. There is nothing in the dialog or script that says they are firing plasma torpedoes (in fact, the script just says that the fleet fires phaser). I don't think we can say that they are either plasma or photon torpedoes. I am therefore changing the caption to just say that it is firing torpedoes, without stating the type. --OuroborosCobra 00:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole plasma torpedo thing can be attributed to their appearance in "Balance of Terror" and the reference of their continued use in "Image in the Sand", which might lead one to extrapolate said connection. Otherwise, the writers seemed to be fairly careful about describing the armaments as simple "torpedoes" (as in the case of the Jem'Hadar, as well) versus a definitive type. --Alan 20:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


Just wanted to explain why I added phasers to the weapons on the sidebar. In the TNG episode "Contagion", Riker asks Taris if she has phaser capability, and if she does, to use it to destroy a probe. --OuroborosCobra 00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if that's necessary, I think you are being too literal. While I haven't seen the episode in question recently, I remember thinking at the time that it likely was Riker asking if they had directed energy weapons capability online but brevity had him say "phasers" because that is what directed weapons were on his ship; the Romulan would have understood his meaning and not quibbled while they were pressed for time. Use this test: if these people had made this exchange in real life, and it was wrong, would they have still understood it and gone about the same action? In this case I'd say yes, so it's minor and inconsequential Human error on the part of Riker, because I'm assuming he is neither computer nor android.--JCoyote 16:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually responded to that over a month ago in the forums:

'My opinion on Riker's statement on phasers is thus: Riker needed to have the Iconian probe destroyed. His own weapons were not functional. He was not asking if Romulan Warbirds had phasers, as that did not matter, he simply needed to know if they had working weapons. Since he did not ask "do you have weapons capability?" but instead asked "phaser capability", I therefore believe he already knew the Romulans had phasers, and was asking if they were working. He had no reason to need to know if they were armed with phasers or something else, he just needed a weapon that would destroy that probe.'

In addition, we put phasers in the K't'inga article for the same reason it has been done here. I was shot down when I tried to remove it there, so I put it here. We need to apply the same standards. --OuroborosCobra talk Pirates! 16:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, taking into account that the Romulans had recently come back from a 50-year withdrawal from interstellar affairs, I highly doubt that Riker "knew" the Romulans had phasers. I always interpreted this as Riker talking from his own Starfleet point of view: he was talking about directed energy as opposed to a torpedo detonation, therefore - in his world, anyway - phasers. I wouldn't have expected Riker to know everything about the armaments of a Romulan warbird. Also, it was never said that the beam Taris fired was a phaser beam. As mentioned before, it was crunch time during this dialogue and it looks exactly like all Romulan disruptor beams we've ever seen. In fact, we have never heard any on-screen reference to Romulan phasers, only disruptors. Therefore the most simple explanation is that there are no phasers on Romulan ships and I really think that we should remove it from this featured article. I don't see any solid on-screen evidence for it and I think that should take precedence, standards or no standards :). (I will admit that I haven't studied the K'tinga article in much detail yet, looks like I have to re-watch Emissary to form an opinion on that subject.) -- Defstar 23:57, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
also, later in the episode, geordi references romulan disruptors "hey commander, whether it's romulan phasers or our own computer..."The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Set reuse Edit

If you look at little closer at File:D'deridex class bridge, 2371.jpg, then you'll notice that the Enterprise-E set was used. This explains why this bridge was by far the most elaborate. -Mardus 18:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how this would be possible, as Star Trek: First Contact was released more then 18 months after this episode aired and the Ent-E bridge hadn't been built yet. --Jörg 18:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember that Paramount approached Berman with the eighth film idea on 02.1995, after which I think preproduction soon began. While this is conjecture on my part, it does not appear illogical, as set building and scriptwriting could be done relatively separately, as the script could later be adjusted and I don't think the set had to be too different for any adjustments whatsoever. Since Enterprise-D was destroyed, the production team had to create a new set anyway. "The Die is Cast" first aired on 01.05.1995 and they usually had like a week to film a new episode. This may be far-fetched, though. My idea is that while the Enterprise-E set was original, I am convinced that some of the Tal Shiar ship's set elements from "The Die is Cast" were reused for Ent-E, especially the walls. -Mardus 12:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The bridge of the Warbird in TDIC is a redress of the Nebula-class bridge that appeared in at least one episode of TNG prior to that point.Capt Christopher Donovan 23:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Probert-intended counts and placements Edit

To solve a lot of argument problems, I took a schematic of the Warbird and highlighted the pertinent system placements per Probert as cited in the Flare article. [1]

Hope this settles a few things...Capt Christopher Donovan 23:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Currently, a background note in the article is going back and forth between the following two versions. To avoid continuous reverts, could you guys discuss it here?
User:Capt Christopher Donovan:
  • The positions of the disruptor arrays were originally intended to be: one pair on the "head" (one on either "cheek"), one pair on the vertical structure at the aft end of the ship (one on either side), two pair on the aft edges of the port and starboard dorsal and ventral wings (one emitter each location, total of 4), and one pair at the dorsal apex of the ship, just aft of the root of the "neck", for a total of ten emitters.
IP guy:
  • The positions of the disruptor arrays were originally intended to be placed in pairs on each "cheek" of the "head"; the highest center-dorsal point, above the "nape"; at the lowest point of the top aft-caudal section, in the "fin"; one pair each on the aft dorsal and ventral wings; and at the highest point of the bottom aft-caudal section of the "belly" – totaling twelve in all.
And here's what the source says:
  • beam weapons -- the round 'eyes' on either side of the ship's head are weapons (2). There are four other pairs (8=) of these on the ship. Two (2+) of them are on either side of the vertical portion at the back of the ship, and there's one pair each (4+) on the top and bottom of the ship along the trailing edge of the "wings" (near the center). There's also a pair (2=8) in an indented area on the top of the ship just aft of the root of the neck
Cleanse 00:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
2 + 8(2+4+2) adds up to 10, which is true. But, for a grand total, these 10 added to the two others seen in the episode...namely the "nose" (pictured on the page) and top part of the upper "back" (shown in "Contagion"), which Probert obviously didn't intend in his original design, necessarily, but were included by the fx people makes for a total of 12. So 10 is correct in describing what was "originally intended", but is not taking into consideration what was "actually shown", which would add two additional emitters to make 12. --Alan 00:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The "acutally shown" emitters are totally irrelevant to the note in question, which is background as to Probert's originally intended number and placement of emitters.Capt Christopher Donovan 08:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? --User:Gvsualan 11:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, really. The background note is about PROBERT'S number and placement of emitters, and those emitters alone.Capt Christopher Donovan 11:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's funny, because I was just trying to see from the IP's point of view as to where a total (be it grand total) of 12 might be coming from, which is an accurate response to a question only defended by one side. --Alan 20:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)