Memory Alpha

Talk:K't'inga class

Back to page

42,595pages on
this wiki
Add New Page

On screen namingEdit

When was the term K't'inga ever used in dialogue? I know D7 was mentioned in "Trials and Tribble-ations" but when was that used? The preceding unsigned comment was added by T smitts (talk • contribs).

I was fairly sure it was used in DS9, but I can't find it in any of the scripts, and I do not have access to all of the episodes featuring K't'inga's to verify if it got added to one of those episodes after the version of the script we have access to was published. --Gvsualan 22:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
What about "Great Powerful Conqueror" (at least according to Okrand's Klingon language rendition)? Torlek 04:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

References Edit

I just added two more references. The class was also seen in the background in "Tacking Into the Wind" and on a viewscreen that showed data that Seven of Nine was downloading in "The Voyager Conspiracy". Btw, is there a reason why "The Way of the Warrior" and "Rules of Engagement" are listed separate from the other DS9 references? --Jörg 13:51, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

The appearances are chronological, rather than by series. Tough Little Ship 13:56, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. On that note, "The Voyager Conspiracy" will also have to be moved to the bottom of the list at some point, but rather than making one pointless edit just to make that move, I can just make that edit when I do my next phase in editing on the article later tonight. :) --Alan del Beccio 20:29, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)


I think this article would make a great Featured Article as it spans so many eras of Trek but I hesitate to nominate it until the picture layout issues can be solved. Specifically the large gaps it is creating between paragraphs. Any ideas how to address this? Logan 5 19:41, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about-- the layout of this is based on and in some cases better than the layout of D'deridex-class. I don't see picture induced gaps between there are no uses of {{clear}} in it at all. --Alan del Beccio 20:51, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe it's a browser issue? For instance, on the D'deridex-class page I see several blank lines between the sub-heading for Main Bridge and the start of the text for that section. But that is in IE, when I check it out in Firefox I don't see the same issues. Logan 5 21:06, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that probably explains it, I'm using, according to my 'about' link: "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7". Other than a few minute gaps, which are to be expected, as this page is created with wiki, not Aldus Pagemaker, the word wrap and image placement isn't going to be newspaper/publication article quality. --Alan del Beccio 21:25, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
The gaps that I can see as well can be sorted out, by putting all the script for the pictures just underneath the section heading for each section. That way, for some reason, it always seems to look better. Zsingaya Talk 22:13, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
But it doesn't alway put the picture in*sync with the appropriate paragraph, which is more important that, when it can be accomplished, than having them appear next to any random text. Believe me, I tried quite a few variations before settling on this one, in terms of what was the most aesthetically pleasing layout. --Alan del Beccio 22:23, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I was pretty sure you'd spent ages trying new variations. As far as I can see, the only picture that "messes up" the arrangement of pictures is the one directly below the wiki-sidebar. If you simply get rid of it, and then put the pictures how I suggest, see the sandbox, then it looks slightly better. Zsingaya Talk 22:27, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Your changes in the sandbox look essentially the same. Removing the image you removed, removes a vital image (in my opinion) that compares the size/gives a perspective of the two vessel classes. Besides, it is a lot more relevant to the article than the similarily place File:Romulan warbird damaged and disabled.jpg is to D'deridex class page. Otherwise, I'm really not seeing any issue here; Zsingaya I think you are reading into browser issues as something that really doesnt have anything to do with the article itself. --Alan del Beccio 22:31, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right. I should get Firefox one day. Zsingaya Talk 22:38, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I might just have to dust off my IE to see what ya'll are seeing. In the meantime, I'll be back later. --Alan del Beccio 22:42, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Shran and I just figured it out and it definately is an issue with Internet Explorer, as the page appears "tight" on my Mozilla Firefox, but has that big blank block everyone above is referring to on IE. --Alan del Beccio 10:40, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

K't'inga class FA discussionEdit

Self nomination. Right amount of (relevant) pictures alongside a comprehensive and well balanced write up. --Alan del Beccio 22:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not yet decided, but a couple of questions: the article claims that "By 2375, the days of the battle cruiser were winding down, as these warships were described as being too slow and unwieldy compared to many of their more formidable counterparts." It cites DS9: "Once More Unto the Breach", yet the dialogue only says "The battle cruisers are too slow and unwieldy for this kind of mission." Meaning that for other missions they were just fine. So how does this support the broad statement? And why is Star Trek: Starship Spotter (not a permitted Memory Alpha resource) used for dimensions when the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual (a permitted resource) has the information? If clearly erroneous, I would think that the information would be entirely relegated to background since the Spotter can't really be a cite. Also, there is at least one consistent typo ("its'" instead of "its" in at least two instances) that needs correction, and it should be gone over again for any other such things. Aholland 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a simple solutions to me. Seeing you already have all the answers then go ahead and brunt some of the weight yourself and have at it...this is a collaborative effort, afterall. --Alan del Beccio 06:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't want to make broad changes to a nominated article without at least finding out if my suggestions (other than the typos, of course) were way off base. My assumption was that it was nominated because it was thought to be accurate "as is". I'll be happy to give it an edit for the above and anything else I may see in the process - but it won't be this morning!  :) Aholland 12:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I just made a variety of changes to the article. In addition to typos and the stuff from above, there was other information that was inaccurate or not organized in what I felt was the best way. But given that the article is in great flux, should we wait and see what else (if anything) happens on it before putting it up for nomination? I still haven't voted, but am leaning toward no because of the state it was in and the numerous changes that have been introduced (albeit by me) since its nomination. But take a look and see what I'm talking about. Aholland 17:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks great. Very detailed. Jaz talk 20:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Big time. Love this ship. Great article. Ooh-rah. --From Andoria with Love 06:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is in too much flux. I made a large change to it for a variety of reasons on June 3. Since then no fewer than a dozen changes have been made. Some were minor or formatting, but others added or deleted actual article information (e.g., whether or not they could be called "sleeper ships"). I agree that this is shaping up to be a great article, but it needs to settle down a bit before being featured, I believe. Aholland 11:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The only part of the article that is truely in "flux" is the sidebar info. For all I care the damned sidebar can be removed completely for the sake of this seemingly petty reason to oppose a nomination that otherwise completely ignores the body of the pages content, aside from some very minor grammarical errors, is in rather solid shape. Afterall, you can only please some of the people some of the time, those who will never be pleased shouldn't be the ones raining on everyone elses parade...--Alan del Beccio 15:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
There have now been even more changes to the article that have little to do with the sidebar data. 23 in total over a week and a half. The question isn't whether a parade is rained on, but simply if the article is stable. That is one of the criteria for featured status. The article is not yet stable; when the size issue is resolved or moved to background and the other editorial changes settle down such that there aren't nearly daily modifications to the article, then I think it would be a good featured article. I do like it; I do think it well done; but let's wait until it stops changing so much. Aholland 06:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks great. Very clean, very detailed. --Werideatdusk 05:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It seems to have stabilized. The size has been moved to the background, and the sidebar cleaned up. There was some short debate yesterday about phasers (caused by my own over zealousness), but that ended quickly in favor of the contents of the article. --OuroborosCobra 06:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support this should be featured now, the objections have been taken care of. Alan and Aholland do great work together, it's too bad you guys spend so much time trying to get under each others skin. Jaf 16:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Jaf
    • Featured. 5 supports, and 1 potential (unclear) oppose. - AJ Halliwell 18:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Concussive ChargesEdit

The weapons stats for this page were just upgradedto include concussive charges. I never remember hearing about these any time in Star Trek, let alone for the K't'inga. Can someone tell me where these are coming from in canon? --OuroborosCobra 21:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

They are mentioned expressly in dialogue in VOY: "Flashback". Aholland 00:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well then, I am going to go find that rock I have been hiding under. --OuroborosCobra 00:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sidebar statsEdit

A crew of 800 and larger than a Constitution by 60 meters?! I'd like to see some sort of proof to support this. It has long been established these vessels are shorter than listed here by far more established texts than the source provided here. --Alan del Beccio 12:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The information comes directly from the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual. The D-7 is roughly a Constitution size based on The Making of Star Trek, but I know of no other permitted resource other than the Tech Manual that gives a size for the K't'inga. Is there a more established text that is also a Memory Alpha permitted resource that provides conflicting data? Aholland 13:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
We need to fix either the stats or the article. The article says a K't'inga was 3/4 the length of a refit Constitution. I personnally would go with how it looks on screen before the DS9 TM. I think anything seen on screen trumps the TM's. --OuroborosCobra 15:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I went through some books I could find that have data on the K't'inga. I know that some of them are not canon or are not considered a permitted resource, but I'll list them here anyway to get a general overview what has been stated before.
  • FASA: Klingon Ship Recognition Manual
    • lenght: 216 m
    • width: 152 m
    • height: 55 m
    • weight: 100,300 mt
    • Crew: 352
    • Troops: 220
  • Decipher: Star Trek RPG starships
    • length: 350 m
    • width: 252 m
    • height: 55 m
    • Crew: 347
  • DS9 Technical Manual
    • lenght: 349.54 m
    • width: 251.76 m
    • height: 98.41 m
    • Crew 800 plus flight crew and troops
  • Starship Spotter
    • lenght: 214.3 m
    • width: 152.4 m
    • height: 57.3 m
    • weight: 120.000 mt
    • Crew: 385
  • Star Trek Fact Files
    • lenght: 214 m
    • width: 152 m
    • height: 57 m
    • Crew: 385
  • Star Trek Encyclopedia 1994 edition
    • no information about size, but the size comparison chart on the page with the Klingon ships ("Klingon spacecraft to approximate scale") shows that the K't'inga is slightly shorter than the D-7 and both ships roughly half the size of the Vor'cha.
  • Star Trek Encyclopedia 1997 edition
    • no information about size, but the size comparison chart on the page with the Klingon ships ("Klingon spacecraft, approximate scale") shows that the K't'inga is slightly shorter than the D-7 and both ships roughly half the size of the Vor'cha.
    • BUT the ship comparison chart at the end of the book ("Ships of the Galaxy - Ships shown to approximate scale") the K't'inga now is slightly LONGER than the D-7 and the Vor'cha is only one third of the K't'inga length longer than the 2 battlecruisers. --Jörg 15:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Given that we do not have a good, clean comparison photo for size purposes, I'm not sure we can completely discount the numbers from the DS9-TM. I would have no problem moving ALL the size data to the background section and discussing the various potential sources for it, but we shouldn't just replace the TM-specified number with an unverified guess derived from various non-specific sources. Aholland 15:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I will go through my Star Trek VI DVD tonight, try to find a better comparison shot. That will be our best bet for comparing the K't'inga to a refit Constitution. --OuroborosCobra 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
We do have the size comparison between the D-7 and the Constitution class from "The Enterprise Incident"
We know from the Star Trek Encyclopedia (a permitted resource) that the K't'inga is either a little shorter or a little longer than the D-7 which leaves us with the conclusion that the K't'inga is also shorter than the Constitution class (original and refit). The combination of facts seen on screen and in 3 editions of a permitted resource leaves us with the conclusion, that 349 m is too long. Adding the real life information that has been observed, namely that several ship sizes in the DS9 Tech Manual were calculated wrong (I remember reading something about a meter/feet mix-up) we should be able to come to a reasonable compromise. --Jörg 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The blueprints published in 1979 by Kimble and Probert (the ship's designer) list to the decimal exactly the same stats that the Starship Spotter did use -- Ⓚⓞⓑⓘ 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I say we go with Jörg's on screen evidence. It would seem to support all major written sources except for the DS9 TM. I tend to not like the DS9 TM. If we believed everything in there, then almost every ship in the galaxy would have an observed top speed of warp 9.6, no matter what race made it and when it was designed. I don't like the crew compliment much either. I can believe a higher compliment than the Constitution class, after all, Klingon ships are not known for their comfort, but twice the crew seems to high for me. --OuroborosCobra 17:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
If the Starship Spotter states the same thing Probert's blueprints state, shouldn't we go with that? --From Andoria with Love 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that neither the Probert blueprints nor the Starship Spotter are permitted resources on Memory Alpha. Below is a relative size profile I did up to show what the DS9 Tech Manual (which is a permitted resource) would have for the size relationships. It isn't wildly off when compared to a Constitution class, but as you can see it doesn't track at all with the Encyclopedia. Which itself is inconsistent regarding the relative size of the D-7 versus K't'inga. So why not move the whole thing to background since whichever number is selected there are valid arguments that it is wrong? Aholland 19:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Wait, the ship's designer isn't a permitted resource? Something's definitely wrong there... --From Andoria with Love 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
(I find that wrong as well.) Furthermore I found an article at EAS that implies neither the chart in the Encyclopedia nor the stats in the DS9TM are reliable, because even the ships of which we know quite definite sizes have a different scale factor on the comparative chart. The D7's size varies as such from 284.2 to 327.9 metres, and the K't'inga from 302.9 to 349.5 metres depending on which ship you take as a reference. -- Ⓚⓞⓑⓘ 20:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that the publication that lists the dimensions is not a permitted resource. The work was created by and credited to David A. Kimble, not Probert. He and Roddenberry lent their signatures to the draft, but we just plain don't know how carefully they reviewed or approved anything. Remember, the blueprints called the ship the "Drell-4" and not the "K't'inga" (despite Roddenberry's contemporaneous use of the latter name in his novel), so I'm not sure we should trust them too far. But basically, because they were not created by the production staff at the time of the production they are not permitted resources. But my question remains: why not simply capture all this stuff in background and avoid speculation in the body of the article since there is nothing authoritative on the size? Aholland 20:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Alllrighty then. As for the latter suggestion, if there's a valid resource stating the ship's stats (i.e. the DS9 Tech Manual), then I see no problem with using it in the table. --From Andoria with Love 21:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
However, given the controversy over the size of the darn thing, I'm wondering whether we should say nothing about its size in the article and discuss the matter entirely in background. Thoughts?
Unlike the Oberth-class, there hasn't been any significant variability in the size of the ship to suggest there is any on screen controversy. As for the size the most appropriate thing to do is use the size referenced by Probert, he designed the ship afterall. Seems to me that would be taking it straight from the horses mouth. As for the scaling used in the DS9 TM, those are all messed up and should be taken with a grain of salt (ie, Akira class specs anyone?). --Alan del Beccio 02:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am curious, why not use stats similar to the ones shown in that picture from "The Enterprise Incident"? It would seem to make sense to me to use that. I know it was for a D-7, but by all accounts the K't'inga is close in size to the D-7, and that image was shown on-screen. That would seem to me to trump written sources like the DS9 TM (which I happen to dislike anyways). --OuroborosCobra 02:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a D-7, and not a K't'inga. Having never seen the two side by side, we really have no clue as to their relative sizes. It would be akin to saying that the Enterprise-A and Enterprise-D should be about the same size since they have similar configurations. So I don't think that basing it on "The Enterprise Incident" is going to work. Unfortunately. As to a Probert referenced size, we can't use the blueprints as they were produced by someone else, and Roddenberry and Probert let slide at least the name of the ship's class. Is there some other source for a Probert-version of size? Aholland 03:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it is more like comparing the NCC-1701 to the NCC-1701-A. The latter is a refit of the formers original design. The K't'inga is an upgrade to the basic D-7. --OuroborosCobra 03:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The K't'inga is a different ship from the D-7, even though they share design configurations. In that it is like Enterprise-A and D. It is speculation, not established fact, that it is an upgrade similar to a Constitution refit. I will again ask: there some other source for a Probert-version of size? And why not move all size discussion to a summary under background since it is unclear at best what should be listed? Aholland 11:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. To say that the ship's designer isn't a permitted resource is wrong. To quote a line from one of the Batman movies "This town needs an enema."-- 05:48, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
It is a permitted resource just a non-canon resource and only qualifies for a background note. Designers and writers have several ideas as to how things should be in the show and only what makes it on TV or in the Movies is what qualifies for valid information. — Morder (talk) 05:59, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Phasers Edit

The sidebar states that this class is armed with phasers. There is no evidence of this. The only thing I can think of is the orange beams seen firing from the forward photon torpedo launcher in "The Way of the Warrior". It is never stated that these are phasers. In fact, Klingons are always said to use disruptors. Even the color is no evidence. Cardassian Galor-class destroyers have been seen firing orange beams, or white beams, and they are disruptors. Therefore, the argument that disruptors are green and phasers are yellow also does not hold up (just answering that before someone tries it). Given the complete lack of evidence for phasers, I am removing it from the sidebar. --OuroborosCobra 23:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Evidently you haven't researched this article quite as thoroughly as I have, therefore I might suggest you rewatch "The Emissary" for your evidence. There the weapons of the IKS T'Ong were specifically called "phasers", and not only that, but they were also green. --Alan del Beccio 23:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I forgot about that episode. Thank you for bringing it up. This should be mentioned somewhere in the article, then, to explain why it is said they had phasers. This is exactly what I meant when I said there was a problem with not citing sources for stats in the sidebar see Forum:Starship stats), it is very difficult other archivists to confirm where information is coming from, and other articles DO have errors in the sidebars.
I would like to bring up one little problem with this argument (or perhaps that of the D'deridex-class article). Riker once stated that the Romulan Warbird had phasers, and that is stated in the article as background information, and not in the sidebar stats. Shouldn't we be consistant with what we decide to accept and what we decide not to? --OuroborosCobra 23:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

K'tinga disruptors in DS9 Way of the WarriorEdit

Ktingas attack ds9

Red beams?

How come in Way of The Warrior, the Klingon Cruisers attacking DS9 have red tinted weapons fire? Never seen anything like it. Normally it's green. - <unsigned>

Klingon disruptor rifle, Honor among thieves

Hi, I'm a Klingon disruptor, and I fired orange

IKS T&#039;Ong firing phasers

K't'inga class firing phasers. That's right, green phasers

It is most likely a disruptor, although I do not remember it being called such. Other Klingon disruptors have fired orange, such as the disruptor rifle seen in "Honor Among Thieves". It is also possible that it is a phaser, as orange beams are often phasers. In "The Emissary" in TNG, K't'inga-class ships are said to be armed with phasers, and we see one fire phasers, although they are green, not orange, and they are not from the front torpedo tube. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Could also be the form of disruptor used, the charge, the emitter, etc. There are many variables which can change the color of the disruptor ;) - Enzo Aquarius 03:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The ships shown in the first and last image are like 90 years apart in age of origin. While it is certain that the T'Ong was equipped with ca. 2290 era armaments, there is no reason to assume that by the 2370s the K't'inga's had been since upgraded to have any foreseeable chance against technology of that era. --Alan del Beccio 05:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the pics representing the ship in question firing phasers and disruptors are incorrect, and that they labels are applied to the wrong pics. I have edited this myself a couple of times, but someone insists on reverting it back to the incorrect labeling. If Memory-Alpha is to be taken seriously, then the revert should not be allowed. Thanks }splashallison{
"If Memory-Alpha is to be taken seriously, then the revert should not be allowed." What is that supposed to mean? I could retort with something about IP contributors and seemingly random edits too, but nevertheless... as cited in the article: "Some were even outfitted with phasers." (TNG: "The Emissary") The image from that episode is cited as: "Firing phasers". How is that incorrect labeling? --Alan 17:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I realize this is a somewhat old discussion, but nonetheless it may be of importance to note that phasers and disruptors have come in all sorts of colors. For example, the Federation hand phasers used in the first four TOS movies all fire red beams, while the newer ones used in 5 and 6 fire blue beams. Likewise, Klingon disruptors throughout the years have been seen firing red pulses (move #5 Bird of Prey), green pulses (TNG era Bird of Prey), and red beams (TNG era K't'inga). Romulan disruptors have likewise been seen firing both green and blue beams. As such, it would make perfect sense that different models of phasers and disruptors will fire different color beams/pulses--hence the red disruptors in "The Way of the Warrior". Hope this clears things up a bit for anyone who's confused. :-) -Mdettweiler 07:08, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

"K't'inga" name Edit

Marc Okrand's Klingon language doesn't have a letter "k", so should we assume that "K't'inga" is a semi-Anglicization of the ship's real Klingon name? Would it be something like "qtInga"? --Lazar Taxon 06:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

[...] But if it's how it was spelled in the production notes and whatnot that's what we go with. — Morder 06:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
"qtInga" wouldn't be an allowed spelling, as the "q" would not be allowed to touch the "t" in that position. According to Okrand, in is qItI'nga'. --wa' DaHoHchugh chotwI' SoH, wa''uy' DaHoHchugh charghwI' SoH, Hoch DaHoHchugh Qun SoH. 10:10, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Original Research Edit

  • Examination of the K't'inga model itself appears to indicate that there are also disruptor emitters located on either side of the bulbous "head" on the forward section of the ship. These have not been confirmed in usage, though.

Removed. — Morder (talk) 01:31, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Kobayashi Maru? Edit

Since Kirk took the test as a cadet (before ST:TMP), wouldn't it actually be a D7 Cruiser in the test; not a K't'inga?

Kirk didn't take it as a cadet in 2285. The version we saw in the actual test was the K't'inga. Maybe they upgrade the test over time. After all, I doubt Kirk was on the bridge of a refit Constitution Class when he was cadet taking the test. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:29, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Romulan Version? Edit

I remember hearing somewhere that there was a romulan version of the K't'inga, but there is no reference of it on this page (at least i havent seen it), did it ever exist or is it a non-canon concept? XNERZHULx 18:33, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

It's from the novels, at least. "My Enemy, My Ally" comes to mind. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:01, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Split Edit

The studio model section has enough info to be it's own page. - Archduk3 02:21, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support, also the section is relatively so large as to overshadow the "in-universe" POV of the article--Sennim 13:13, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

K'tinga is not necessarily a match for Excelsior Edit

Regarding this statement for preservation purposes::

"The K't'inga-class cruiser was one of the most advanced and versatile warships in the Klingon Imperial Fleet, more than capable of facing the Excelsior in a one vs one situation. (VOY: "Flashback""

There is no evidence that the K'tinga was a match for an Exclesior class in the movie era. In that scene Kang's ship merely catches the Excelsior in the nebula while other Klingon ships are enroute. It is more likely that Sulu simply did not want to risk starting a battle that would end in bloodshed. It was not until three Klingon cruisers catch up that the Exclesior starts to have a real problem. Furthermore, the Excelsior is one of Starfleet's newest and most advanced ships, whereas the K'tinga (as we know it) is a design that is at least about 20 years old at the time.

 The Ktinga as a match for the exclesior is speculation without any real basis, and should be edited or removed.

-- 01:38, January 23, 2012 (UTC)Gugeyewalker

First, if you intend to use a particular username, please register it. Otherwise, simply sign with your IP address. Relating to this topic, the comment did not state that it was a "match" for an Excelsior class, it stated that it was "more than capable" of facing one. Two different things. --31dot 03:48, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Escorting the Excelsior out of Klingon space, no matter how powerful the K'tinga is, does not mean that it is capable of 'facing the K'tinga in battle'. If you want this to have weight I propose that a less vague statement is the implication is that it faces the Excelsior in battle, and anyone who has not seen that episode recently might think that was the implication (just as I re-watched the episode just to verify this). One K'tinga never takes on the Excelsior. The implication of the statement is inaccurate. With a statement like this 'any ship' is capable of 'facing' any other in one-one situation. --Gug 01:36, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

The statement did not say the claim was based on an actual battle. It was based on capabilities. There doesn't need to be an actual battle in order to know a ship can stand off against another.--31dot 02:09, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

I propose something like this: "The K't'inga-class cruiser was one of the most advanced and versatile warships in the Klingon Imperial Fleet, capable of threatening the Excelsior in a stand-off situation and overwhelming the Excelsior in small numbers." I can't remember how many ships were involved in that battle, but i think there were three. The actual number can be referenced as well if you like. --Gug 02:41, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

That's good as a compromise, I guess. I don't think the exact number is necessary.--31dot 02:44, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.