I read about the "Warhead" on a website. I, however, am not certain if it's canon. Anyone? Ottens 18:39, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)

The warhead is NOT canon in the strictest sense, because it was never even hinted at in an episode. The only place it was described in detail was in the DS9 Tech Manual. -- Dan Carlson 19:14, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)

The DS9 Technical Manual is often considered "not exactly" canon. Should the information stay, or be removed? Ottens 19:15, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)

If there were a "last resort" warhead on the Defiant, why didn't Sisko use it right before the Defiant blew up at the Second Battle of Chin'toka? 05:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Because the ship was disabled by a Breen energy dampening weapon. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Deck 5?Edit

I just saw "The Way of the Warrior" on today and when the Defiant was being hit by the Vor'cha while attempting to evacuate the Prakesh, Dax said there was a hull breach on Deck 5. This should be addressed somehow --Gvsualan 23:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There have been dialogue references to both deck 5 and deck 6 on the Defiant. The original cutaway, sometims seen in the turbolift, showed the additional decks on the ship, although later artwork and model effects maintain deck 4 is at the bottom of the ship.
Some have theorized that Decks 5 and 6 are "sub decks" around the lower sections of the nacelle booms (the lowest points of the vessel, they extend below the deck 4 shuttlebay floor in the centerline profile) -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Um...I'm pretty sure the deck number is 4, not five. That time Dax said it was proven to be a mistake, wasn't it?--Terran Officer 20:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, by my count I have found 3 separate references to Deck 5 in DS9 Season 4, which seems to be more than a mere coincidence. Indeed, one of the references was a voice command to the turbolift, meaning that the deck is more easily accessed than one might suppose a "sub-deck" would be, if we were to go with that assumption. --Alan del Beccio 23:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There are four references I can find to Deck 5: "Way of the Warrior," "Starship Down," "To the Death," and "Rejoined." I really think that's too many for the article to pretend it doesn't exist. Right now the article claims Dax mentioned it "once," but as I have just noted, that's not true. It needs to be changed. -- 12:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could clarify the "Starship Down" reference, because I cannot confirm that citation. --Alan 13:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ablative Armor/Cloaking DeviceEdit

Is the inclusion of ablative armor accurate for this article? This question comes to mind after it was pointed out by Erika Benteen that, "We've been unable to stop the Defiant. Someone's equipped her with ablative armor and neglected to inform Starfleet Operations." This seems to indicate that it was not standard Defiant-class issue, and seemed to be an add-on, 'exclusively to the USS Defiant. I think that means that blanketing the whole class with this feature is a bit presumptious. The same can be said about the cloaking device. Afterall, this article is about the class as a whole and not a single ship which is not exactly a typical "representative sample" of the class as a whole. --Gvsualan 06:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The inclusion of the ablative armor is absolutely appropriate given the on screen evidence. There will be no attempt to justify the identical hull skin looks of Defiant, Valiant and Sao Paulo as anything other than production convenience, but there are important references in dialogue to consider. While "The Way of the Warrior" references the Defiant's new ablative armor, and Benteeen does indeed make the comment about the armor in "Paradise Lost", we must assume that it was simply upgraded armor. This is necessary because in the season three episode "Past Tense, Part I", Chief O'Brien references how chronoton particles had become lodged in the ship's ablative armor matrix. The idea that this is the same armor being referred to as new in The Way of the Warrior seems unlikely given that it was a good six to eight months after Past Tense. HaganeNoKokoro 00:45, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
In "The Wounded", Picard easily got hold of the command codes for rogue Federation vessel, the USS Phoenix. I bring this up to illustrate how easy it was for a high ranking officer to get a hold of sensitive information about another Federation vessel. If ablative armor hull plating were a standard part of the Defiant-class specfification; the captain of the USS Lakota would have known about it and probably be more prepared for it.("Paradise Lost") The captain of the Lokota made a point of saying that the armor was added without the knowledge of Starfleet Operations(probably against regulations). She had no idea the vessel had been so equiped.
Its clear that at least in 2372 ablative hull armor was not standard.("Paradise Lost") Why would we assume it was an upgrade, the whole point of the word canon is that its an established fact. The captain of the Lokota didn't say "someone forgot to tell Starfleet Operations that the Defiant upgraded its ablative armor.
On the similar appearance of Defiant-class vessels one can not count out the tactical advantage of having extra armor that appears the same as standard armor(the overcoats worn by the president are kevlar-lined, but you can't tell by looking).
The more likely explanation is that the producers of the show used the same model for all Defiant class vessels to keep production cost down.

We only had the pleasure of seeing two other Defiant-class vessels. The USS Valiant which had neither a cloaking device nor ablative armor, and the USS Sao Paulo renamed USS Defiant. The USS São Paulo was only involved in one battle, the battle for Cardassia, and though i can't say with one hundred percent certainty that there was no mention of ablative armor, I'm sure the vessel wasn't equipped with a cloaking device.

Even if the USS São Paulo had ablative armor its concieveable that it was added by Starfleet (considering they were at war) or Sisko had it added himself like he did the first time. Either way it wasn't mentioned on screen so we can't just insert our own opinion.
As a final note there was absolutely no mention of any other cloaking device equiped Federation vessels. In fact, when Thomas Riker stole the Defiant the representive from the Obsidian order specificaly says that the Romulans lent one cloaking device to the Federation.--Illwill 01:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the point has been missed here that there were references to ablative armor on the Defiant long before the very pointed reference to the "New" ablative armor in Way of the Warrior. Further, the matter of the appearance of different ships was clearly stated as non-evidence, but production convenience. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
I don't even think its that complicated. The captain of the USS Lakota was shocked when she found out the Defiant had ablative armor. She was preparing to detain and possibly destroy it, if ablative armor was standard to the class she would have known about it.--Illwill 01:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Weight Edit

how does the entire class weight the same or doesit varry slightly from ship to ship? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

If you mean by mass, any production design unit is made to be identical to the others, including weight. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Canon Issues Edit

Would somebody please enlighten me where the following are referenced on screen:

  • The vessel's mass. (No such references to my knowledge.)
  • The 'detachable warhead module'. (No such references to my knowledge.)
  • The quantity and location of the vessel's deflector shield generators. (No such references to my knowledge.)
  • The second aft torpedo launcher. (I am aware of one, but don't remember any usage of a second.)

If these things cannot be confirmed, I shall make the necessary corrections shortly. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kv1at3485 (talk • contribs).

The vessels mass is from the DS9 Tech Manual, as is a lot of the information in the article, which has actually plagued it since the first of two or three times it was nominated for featured article. As for the second torpedo launcher, I believe it is seen on the model itself, one port and starboard, similar to the positioning of the phaser/torpedo launchers on the front of the ship. Also, please sign your talk page comments with --~~~~. Thanks, Alan del Beccio 03:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I've created a section in the background for the Tech Manual info. All related info that is contained in the article should be moved there. --Alan del Beccio 03:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for not signing. A bit new to this. If I may suggest: it maybe permissible to rate the ship for "warp 9.5+". The Defiant does attain this speed in "The Sound of Her Voice", although we have no way of knowing if this is the absolute maximum she can achieve. Kv1at3485 04:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, unless we can find something faster. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
To answer the original question about two aft torpedo launchers: I found a reference in "Way of the Warrior", where Dax stated: "Ablative armor has failed. We've got plasma leaks on decks two, three and five, and we've lost our aft torpedo launchers." So there are at least 2. --Alan del Beccio 23:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


With regards to the above discussion, Kv1at3485 and I removed several large chunks of information that appear to have no basis in episode canon. If someone can confirm that they were taken from the DS9 TM, then they can be added to that section of the article. The PNA, otherwise, is to address the sections that were affected.

  • The primary impulse system consisted of three pairs of redundant fusion reactors, space-time driver coils, and vectored exhaust directors. All three main impulse engines were located on both Decks 2 and 3.
  • The Defiant-class carried a total of four shield generators located throughout the vehicle space frame. The forward-most generator was located along the vehicle centerline within the warhead section. Two additional generators were located further within the hull from the warp nacelles, port and starboard, while the final generator was located on the centerline just above the main impulse engines and forward of the deuterium storage tanks on Deck 1. (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual)
  • ''Defiant-class vessels were constructed of standard tritanium and duranium alloys and composites. The bridge had been submerged within a larger Deck 1 than was envisioned for the pathfinder vehicle, and the entire vessel had been shortened to four decks plus allowances for crawlways and cable trunks. The notched forward hull contains the vehicle's main sensor, navigational deflector, and airlock module. The warp nacelles had been brought inboard to a minimum safe distance for field EM, and all EPS weapon-power conduits had been truncated to provide a nearly zero lag time between activation signal and beam launch.
  • Defiant-class ships achieved warp flight through two warp nacelles, which housed multiple pairs of warp coils.
  • The primary impulse system consists of two smaller engines. Each was situated between a warp nacelle and the central hull.
  • Due to the ship's extreme maneuverability, yard engineers deemed it unnecessary to mount aft-facing cannons on board vessels of this class.
  • A third forward launcher was located at the base of the main deflector dish
  • Six stasis units were located just across the main corridor from the sickbay facility, allowing for patients to be stabilized in the event that their ailment could not be cured aboard the ship.
  • The primary crew-support systems included twenty-two main cabins and ten contingency cabins, each equipped with a minimum of two bunks. These cabins could be outfitted with as many as six bunks, allowing for a potential total crew of 192.

The PNA, otherwise, is to address the sections that were affected. Additionally, is it necessary to list all 86 names of Defiant class vessels from Star Trek: Armada II? --Alan del Beccio 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of what was in the article before seems to have been lifted directly from the book.

The notched forward hull had been equipped with a detachable pod consisting of the vehicle's main sensor and navigational deflector, airlock module, and a last-resort matter-antimatter warhead. (directly from p. 123)

Note that the last bit, with the 'matter-antimatter warhead' seems to be bit overstated here since in the book's "Tactical Systems" section it appears that the 'warhead' is merely composed of 6 little torpedo warheads.

The primary impulse system consisted of three pairs of redundant fusion reactors, space-time driver coils, and vectored exhaust directors. (directly from p. 129)

The book (along with its diagrams) show that the engines and reactors are in the aft section of the ship on Decks 2 and 3. However, onscreen the impulse engines are clearly not where the TM says they and there's no reason to believe that the fusion reactors are arranged as the book says either. I suggest the book be ignored completely in this matter.

There is nothing in the book that suggests the number or location of the ship's deflector shield generators.

Defiant-class vessels were constructed of standard tritanium and duranium alloys and composites. The bridge had been submerged within a larger Deck 1 than was envisioned for the pathfinder vehicle, and the entire vessel had been shortened to four decks plus allowances for crawlways and cable trunks. The notched forward hull contains the vehicle's main sensor, navigational deflector, and airlock module. The warp nacelles had been brought inboard to a minimum safe distance for field EM, and all EPS weapon-power conduits had been truncated to provide a nearly zero lag time between activation signal and beam launch. (almost exactly the same as the text on p. 123, although the reference to the last resort M/AM warhead was left out. Note the reference to the non-canon 'pathfinder vehicle' that the Defiant-class was supposed to have 'evolved' from.)
All protected internal systems that required access to the vessel exterior were equipped with articulated or detachable hull plates, so that most of the familiar structures were hidden from view, including shuttlebay doors, docking ports, lifeboats and impulse vents. (almost taken verbatim from p. 123)

The part of articulating hull plates is true. We see this in "Valiant" when huge hinged parts of the hull flip outward revealing the lifeboats.

Defiant-class ships achieved warp flight through two warp nacelles, which housed multiple pairs of warp coils.

Can't find anything about that in the book. Two nacelles are self-evident. The book's diagrams show that each coil's are merely smaller versions of those found on other starships (i.e. each 'coil' is made of two 'arches'.)

The primary impulse system consists of two smaller engines. Each was situated between a warp nacelle and the central hull.

This is directly from on screen observation. See this picture. (It's an EAS picture, so copy and paste the link location.) Note the orangey-red glow coming from beside the warp nacelles.

Due to the ship's extreme maneuverability, yard engineers deemed it unnecessary to mount aft-facing cannons on board vessels of this class.

A logical interpretation, but not in the TM.

A third forward launcher was located at the base of the main deflector dish

We see a probe launched from this location in "Starship Down." Note that this location also fires a phaser in "Rejoined." Take that for what you will.

Ablative armor is a type of protective hull plating developed by Starfleet. Ablative armor was designed to disintegrate at a controlled rate under directed energy blasts, providing an additional layer of defense for starships. (simplified from what's on p. 132 of the TM)
Six stasis units were located just across the main corridor from the sickbay facility, allowing for patients to be stabilized in the event that their ailment could not be cured aboard the ship.

Not in the TM. Perhaps there was some mention in an episode?

The primary crew-support systems included twenty-two main cabins and ten contingency cabins, each equipped with a minimum of two bunks. These cabins could be outfitted with as many as six bunks, allowing for a potential total crew of 192. (simplified version of what's on p. 138 of the TM.)

Kv1at3485 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Battleship Edit

I have added "Battleship" to this article based on File:Defiant class battleship, lcars.jpg. Seems to be as good for justifying calling the Constitution class a "Heavy Cruiser" based on File:Constitution diagram.jpg. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in article? Edit

From the article, I've gotten information that the Defiant-class has no science facilities, as stated in the section "Design and Construction history": It was Starfleet's first dedicated combat vessel, and therefore did not house provision for families or diplomatic missions, nor science labs or recreational facilities. However, from another section: "Medical Facilities" I've gotten information that the class has science facilities. In its limited role as a reconnaissance starship, the Defiant-class was equipped with two dedicated science and medical labs for field testing and investigations. These rooms mirrored their counterparts on larger Federation starships by making use of scaled down devices that could commonly be found on those ships. So, which is it? I don't want to go making the wrong edit.... Ssaint04 10:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it means that the class doesn't have the typical science facilities. We've seen on Galaxy, Intrepid, etc... classes, that they had several types of Science Labs. The article mentions that the extreme few labs that are on the vessels, are very basic, for the most basic (Although by our terms still rather advanced) functions.--Terran Officer 07:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Phaser emittersEdit

The article states that the Defiant class has two usual phaser beam emitters, namely one on the dorsal side - which we all know - and one on the ventral side, behind the shuttle-bay area. To my recollection the latter of these two emitters does not exist. And although many people claim they saw it no one could ever prove it to me, yet. An acquaintance of mine recently watched both "Paradise Lost" and "The Die is Cast", just in order to find the second phaser. However, in neither of these episodes a ventral phaser emitter could be seen in action. Where is the visual evidence? The same acquaintance told me that the second emitter in question could have - misleadingly - been derived from this scene: Defiant battling LakotaAmbassador 17:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Try the episode (can't remember name off the top of my head) where Sisko was tricked into going to the Mirror Universe to fix the Defiant THEY were building. It was built from stolen plans of OUR Defiant, and if it showed ventral standard phasers, then I'd say it's safe to say OUR Defiant has them too.Capt Christopher Donovan 19:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, okay. But if that's the THE ONE AND ONLY episode that shows us the ventral phaser, why isn't it listed as such? :) – Ambassador 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd be a bit weary of assuming that the plans used in the construction of the mirror universe defiant were completely up to date and identical to the regular universe defiant. Perhaps ventral phasers were removed for some reason in our universe, or added in theirs? --AnonyQ 06:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
After Sisko saw the plans he commented: "These schematics look complete." only the information on the structural integrity overhauls was missing. Nothing was said in the episode to indicate the mirror-ship was a variant of the class in any aspect. Nothing indicates phasers were added or removed from any ship of the class at any time. There is therefore no basis to speculate on the matter in an MA-article. --Pseudohuman 06:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Oops, forgot about that. Cheers. --AnonyQ 06:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


I couldn't seem to understand it from the article, but where is there an ops station on the bridge of a Defiant class? --Terran Officer 06:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont know if the stations have been canonically named anywhere. I suppose the four stations to the left and right sides are engineering, security, science and tactical, and the central station in front of the captain is a merged conn & ops station as the interface seems to incorporate both controls as they were on the Enterprise-D-bridge for example and that's what the DS9TM claims. Then again we have the Voyager-bridge with a similar central console that is only the conn station. I'm sure with enough research of the episodes we could find out what the particular stations are actually supposed to be. :) --Pseudohuman 09:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


I am a bit confused here, as the article states that while officially classified as an Escort, in the sidebar it also calls it a Battleship while the article itself calls it a warship. which one is it? I know that there was an 'unofficial' classification, but am not able to recall which one. --Terran Officer 06:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Dialogue from part 1 of "The Search". Sisko: "Officially it's classified as an escort vessel. Unofficially the Defiant's a warship. Nothing more, nothing less." Display graphic from "Drone" labels the ship as a "Defiant class battleship". So it's two official designations and one unofficial. --Pseudohuman 23:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Continuing Phaser Emitters... Edit

I don't recall there being any standard phaser emitters on the Defiant in any episodes, just the phaser cannons. Why does the article say there were? Odd Job 23:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll let the picture do the answering :P --OuroborosCobra talk 23:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the mirror universe version of the Defiant. I'm talking about the regular one. Odd Job 22:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"Paradise Lost" for the regular universe version using standard phasers - see [1]. -- Michael Warren | Talk 22:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
In addition, the mirror universe one was built with the blueprints from the prime universe. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
...and this is an article on the Defiant-class, not an article of any particular single ship, and there has been nothing to indicate any of the ships weapon systems of this class differ from one another in any way. --Pseudohuman 08:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Defiant class, aft phaser

Aft phaser

There was actually a forward and dorsal "standard" phaser as shown in the gallery, as well as an aft phaser that was only briefly visible (as seen in the collage to the right) from Shattered Mirror/Emperors New Cloak. By "brief" I mean you could only see the beginning glow in the frame as the Defiant left the shot (top-half of collage), with the beam hitting the Klingon ship coming from the last place the Defiant was at in the next frame shot (bottom-half of collage), meaning that there were three "standard" phasers in all on the Defiant class. --Alan 01:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Article disappearingEdit

Am I the only one the entire article has disappeared for? (IE 7.0, Windows XP2) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Nope, not the only one. Seems to be happening all over MA today. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Number of forward torpedo launchersEdit

The article claims there are four forward torpedo launchers instead of just two; as far as I can tell, this is based purely on some background lines of Worf saying "check status on torpedoes three and four" as background bridge babble in "For the Uniform." I don't see any reason to make up an additional pair of torpedo launchers based on that.

However, there is a probe that appears to be launched from the navigational deflector area in "Rejoined," so if we want to make that a third torpedo launcher (capable of launching probes, as standard torpedo launchers seem to be) I suggest changing the number to three forward torpedo launchers. I'm just a guest, so I'll leave it at a recommendation. 08:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

well, if said "background bridge babble" was thrown out there for all to hear, then that's all it takes to make it canon...that is of course, not to say he wasn't referring to the aft torpedo launchers... --Alan 08:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm also a guest, but I think there are some good points here. Worf referred to torpedoes three and four, not launchers three and four in For the Uniform. He may simply have been referring to the third and forth torpedoes outfitted with trilithium storage pods. As for the launcher in the deflector dish, a probe was also seen launched from there in "Meridian" and a photon torpedo by the mirror ship in "Shattered Mirror". Look for the torpedo she nails a Bird of Prey in the rear with before finishing her off with pulse phasers. 00:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
While I do agree that the "torpedoes three and four" are by no means evidence for launchers, the visuals in "For the Uniform" are somewhat interesting, since it appears that the quantum torpedoes are being fired from the _bottom_ openings of the triangular modules, as opposed to the top openings, where we've seen them exiting since the episode "Defiant". In the canon section, I would say that the ship has "at least two forward quantum torpedo launchers and at least one forward probe launcher". The latter can be seen in the MSD also. – NotOfTheBody 15:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed speculation Edit

The following speculation was removed by NotOfTheBody

The unseen USS Valiant (NCC-75418) listed on a tactical display in Star Trek Nemesis could be a Defiant-class replacement for the previous vessel of that name, in accordance with the practice of commissioning another USS Defiant of the same class. However, it could just as easily be another ship type.--31dot 20:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Length Edit

There seems to be some disagreement on the length being 120m. Rather than have this turn into the edit war it already is, can someone (like Alan, since he just re-added it) present a source? Once again, I'd like to re-iterate that this is the problem with our current sidebars, nothing is cited in them. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the source for the 120 meter length is the Starship Spotter, which is non-canon, and actually says 119.5 meters(Just looked it up) I'm not sure there is a canon source or a source from the producers. --31dot 20:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if that is the source, it doesn't belong in the sidebar for the canon section anymore than the DS9TM stuff. Hell, might belong even less than the TM. Of course, should we have another source, a canon source... --OuroborosCobra talk 20:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it should go if there is no canon source. Perhaps the writers of the SS got their info from a canon source, but in that case that's what we should be looking for.--31dot 21:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
David Stipes scaled the CGI model at 560' – that is the "most official" length. Interestingly that coincides with the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual's 170.68 meters. --Alan 21:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Doug Drexler's diagrams showed the model at 120m then someone decided that the model should be 170 for the DS9:TM. — Morder 21:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So I'm getting the feeling we have no real canon source... --OuroborosCobra talk 21:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There has never been a canon source for the size. ever. here's a quote from doug drexler from his blog.
...The size of the Defiant was a hot potato from day one. Rick Berman wanted a small pocket battleship (a couple times longer than a runabout, with the girth of a regular starship), Gary wanted at least 500′. I could be crazy, but my memory is that Rick Berman then became almost entirely involved with Voyager, and Ira Behr moved up to helmsman. At that point the ship became bigger... but how much? It finally became an issue when we had to do the cutaway. So Mike Okuda asked Ira Behr, and he said he wanted four decks. Ira wanted characters able to run from one location to the next, and not rely on Turbolifts. Gotta go! When I return, I will tell you how I rationalize it enough to come up with a 420′ Defiant with 4 decks - Doug
So yeah - the size should probably be stripped. — Morder 21:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Gary Hutzel conceived the Defiant's length at 560 feet (171m) and used this figure as a baseline through the end of the show, along with some other VFX supervisors such as David Stipes. That's where the DS9TM got its 171m. On the other hand, as you can see, Ira Behr wanted four decks, which is how we got the smaller cross-section. Fans started to measure the cross-section as well as some VFX shots and arrived at a rough 120m measurement, which figured prominently in the 120! 170! length wars. That's why you'll see 120m on a lot of sites, but it's not an exact, official figure (at least if you don't accept Starship Spotter, which really is mostly a fan publication, though licensed). I'd have to ask Alex Rosenzweig, but I'm almost certain that the 119.5m figure came from the unofficial 120m, since I haven't seen it in any other official source.
Therefore, I'm fine with 120m as an approximation (the way Ex Astris says it's an approximation), but it shouldn't be shown without the ~ symbol, because it's not the same as (for example) the truly official 2248-foot length of the Enterprise-E. If you want to leave it out because it's not exact or official, that's fine with me too. The 171m length is the worst option, because then one is giving precedence to maybe a couple of clear effects shots despite dozens and dozens of shots showing the four-deck MSD on the sets (and Doug Drexler also agrees, as you can see), but if you want to include both numbers with a clear explanation, that would be fine as well. – NotOfTheBody 05:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Or just clear up the background note on it and forget the sidebar altogether; on the other hand, official production based lengths should be given a little more prevalence and leeway for use, otherwise we might as well scrap that entire portion of the sidebar template because only a very small percentage of the ships were ever given "canon" lengths, namely the D5, D7, Constitution, Sovereign... --Alan 05:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but we just said this is not an official production-based length. – NotOfTheBody 05:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

But it is from people involved in the making of the show. That makes it worth talking about in a background note, but not in the canon section. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Not 120m, which is a fan estimate. The only number that comes from the people who were making the show is 560 feet, converted to 170.68m in the DS9TM, but it is also clear that the offical cross-section (also from the people who were making the show) was made with four decks in mind, which works out to _roughly_ 120m in length. Doug Drexler agrees. Therefore, there is no official number for the official cross-section, only an estimate. – NotOfTheBody 18:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, which is why we need to clear up the background note. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read my post. Doug Drexler's diagrams showed the ship as 120m but he was forced to scale when the TM writers wanted 170m. So both numbers come from official sources. — Morder 22:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The point of the discussion is that Doug Drexler's diagrams showed the ship at approximately 120m, which is why the length can't be quoted without the ~ symbol, as if it were an exact number (such as 685m for the Ent-E). But yes, indirectly it does come from an official source. However, since it is only a fan measurement of the official source and not an exact number, there are opinions that it should not be included in the box.
And there is no evidence that the writer of the DS9TM (Rick Sternbach) forced Doug Drexler to scale anything -- he used 171m in the Encyclopedia charts likewise, long before the DS9TM. However, this is irrelevant to the discussion.
Proposal: we won't include the length in the box since it is not an exact figure, only a fan measurement of the official source, but we'll explain the whole thing later in the text, including the 171m. – NotOfTheBody 07:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
No. My point is simply that we have to include both measurements if you're going to include any measurement. — Morder 07:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
You can't include both in the box, since I tried to include the ~ symbol next to 120m, but it was rolled back. Therefore, we can't include 120m, and if we include only 171m, it would be misleading. Thus it is better not to include anything in the box, and have an explanation later in the text. The Defiant isn't the only ship whose size isn't absolutely certain. – NotOfTheBody 10:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
We're talking about a background note now - not the sidebar :) — Morder 11:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

...and we have been for awhile. I tried to emphasize that earlier. Do you understand what we mean when we say "background note," NotOfTheBody? --OuroborosCobra talk 11:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

When I mentioned "include the length in the box", Morder responded with "include both measurements", which I took to mean "in the box", since that's what my original "include" referred to. It is important always to mention where the measurement should be included, and I see no reason for sarcasm. Anyway, since we all seem to agree that 120m does not belong in the sidebar, I think there's no need for further discussion about either that or the background note, which certainly can go into as much detail as necessary and mention all the candidate numbers. – NotOfTheBody 16:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I was not being sarcastic. You've been editing Memory Alpha for less than a month. It is entirely reasonable for newer people to not know all of the ins and outs of our styles here, like our background sections. I was seriously asking, so that we could help you if a misunderstanding on what we meant was the problem. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Transporter Rooms Edit


1) What is the source for the statement that there are two transporter rooms on the Defiant?

2) What is the source for the statement that they are located on decks 1 and 2?

3) How do we know that the two transporter room designs we've seen on the show actually represent two different rooms on the ship? It could be that both transporter rooms looked one way and were then redesigned to look another way, since I can't imagine set designers supporting two different transporter room designs for no reason.

I'd just like to make sure the article isn't making unnecessary assumptions.

NotOfTheBody 18:38, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the statement that there are two transporter rooms on the Defiant came from; probably it came from an MSD or production materials somewhere. As for them being located on decks 1 and 2, good question. :-) If it wasn't found on an MSD or something, it's probably from the Tech Manual. As for the two transporter room designs: as I explained on the Talk:Transporter room page, it looks like the set was redressed somewhere in mid-Season 4 to make a full-sized transporter room rather than just a tiny space at the end of a corridor. However, since the ship wasn't refitted at any point during the series, it would seem most logical for there to be two separate transporter rooms; why would Chief O'Brien go to all the trouble of doing what would surely be a very intensive refit job just to make the transporter a little bigger, when he's got so many other things to do? Granted, this might be considered bordering on speculation, but in this case the probability of it actually being a redesigned version of the same room in-universe is practically nil. In other similar instances where a room was distinctly different in different episodes and it wasn't stated how many of them there were in dialog, MA precedent seems to be to list them as separate (such as the different types of sickbays in the Enterprise-E). -Mdettweiler 18:56, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay, I think I found where the information came from. According to the Interior design section of the article, the deck layout therein is sourced from the Tech Manual, but is accepted since it's largely consistent with the MSDs seen on screen. That seems to be where the statements about there being two transporter rooms, one on deck 1 and one on deck 2, came from. -Mdettweiler 19:41, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Windows Edit

A thing that always made me wonder is not discussed anywhere. What about the Windows? On the one hand, there are the two rows of lights on the belly of the ship, that look like windows. Any explanation for those anywhere? On the other hand, the interior shots of the mess hall show some square windows - I believe there are windows - but the "shutters" have always been closed. Anyone nows anything about that? --Calhoun1701 19:46, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Mirror Universe Edit

Since the ISS Defiant in the Mirror Universe is a Defiant-class, should we add "Terran Rebellion" to the affiliation column? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mitchz95 (talk • contribs).

No, the Terran Resistance Forces should be added. - Archduk3 08:47, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Location of engineering Edit

the article states, "Main engineering on the Defiant-class was situated on Deck 1 with the lower section on deck 2."

But since only the upper balcony is on deck one and the majority resides on deck two, wouldn't it be more apt to say something like:

"Main engineering on the Defiant-class was situated on Deck 2, with an upper balcony providing access from deck 1."

What do you think?-Cpthunt (talk) 06:42, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

I agree, that makes more sense. - Mitchz95 (talk) 16:07, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

Defiant PathfinderEdit

Was the Pathfinder an idea looked into by Paramount/Viacom prior to going with a compact design like the Defiant we've seen in the show? 03:44, August 30, 2013 (UTC)

Length redux Edit

After this topic had been extensively discussed in 2009, apparently with the outcome that neither length was "official enough" to be presented in the sidebar, one length was added without further comment in 2010, and replaced with the other just now. I've now removed these entries from the sidebar completely. If you think that one or the other should be added back, please present a good reason here, first. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 22:14, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

Spelling error Edit

I fixed two instances of the word phaser which were spelled incorrectly 25 November 2013 - The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Thanks, but it isn't necessary to post minor edits like that here- the edit summary bar would be best. 31dot (talk) 10:27, November 25, 2013 (UTC)

Sub-Class Edit

The sub-classes should be in the links section since they are relevant to the main class.

Syalantillesfel (talk) 04:36, March 30, 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, since the idea of there being variants is an expanded universe concept, it's more proper to just link to the Defiant class over there, and leave it to them to talk about these other, non-canon aspects of the Defiant class. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:14, March 30, 2017 (UTC)