Carriers in Star Trek

[Lord Revan]

What reasons would the Xindi have for building such big hangars on their warships, if not with at least the possibility of using them for parasite warships?

I can't say, hell I'm not even saying wasn't a carrier, I'm just saying we never saw it explictly used as one, but then we saw only one Narcine in combat (the one carrying the Enterprise) and it was taken out rather quickly by the spheres expanding the anomalies they create.

Are we even use that was a hangar and not a cargo bay?

[Raesene]

If the Defiant is kind of a corvette and should operate in flottilas it would gain considerably from having a tender to extend its endurance.
Such a ship could offer maintenance facilites , a point to resupply and provide the R&R options that the larger cruisers have onboard.

I'm not sure, but isn't there a DS9 episode where Sisko (or was that Martok? ) is basically wagIng trade war by attacking resupply ships? The Defiants could bei used as U-boat analog, operating as mini-wolfpacks.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

It's also worth noting that Riker did actually kill all the attackers, unlike these examples where real world naval commanders were not court martialled for similar instances where their attackers got away with it. Everyone from Riker's ship survived, and everyone on Lursa and B'etor's ship was killed.

Zero casualties on the federation side, total casualties for the House of Duras.

Victory counts for a lot.

Not quite zero. As Picard's log states:

Captain's log, stardate 48650.1. Three Starfleet vessels have arrived in orbit and have begun to beam up the Enterprise survivors. Our casualties were light, but unfortunately the Enterprise herself cannot be salvaged.

Also, from Memory alpha:

A cut scene from the theatrical version of Star Trek Generations established that eighteen crew members were lost in the saucer section crash and that rescue efforts led by Doctor Crusher, following the crash, lasted several days.

In the case of Generations, it was more of a 'mutual kill', since both ships were destroyed.

It's one thing the Duras Sisters' getting the drop on the Enterprise since there was no reasonable way to anticipate them using Geordi's VISOR to obtain the shield freq, the incompetence starts with their response to getting caught with their pants down:

This link explains it best: 2:00

Instead they resort to some technobabble solution involving the cloaking device. The main problem with that is they're cloaked, so how a single slow-moving photon torpedo is supposed going to track the BoP and hit it had it moved is anyone's guess- a photon spread set to proximity detonation would have been both more spectacular and made more sense. Clearly the BoP is just as incompetent, otherwise they'd have fired on the big-E's bridge with their first shot

The daft thing is, they didn't even need to destroy the E-D to make way for the Ent-E: in the previous film no less they decommissioned the Ent-A after it was shot up by the Klingons!

[WATCH-MAN]

It's one thing the Duras Sisters' getting the drop on the Enterprise since there was no reasonable way to anticipate them using Geordi's VISOR to obtain the shield freq, the incompetence starts with their response to getting caught with their pants down:

This link explains it best: 2:00

If I remember correctly - according to the novelization - they changed the shield modulation.

But as Geordi's visor transmitted the new modulation every time they changed it, the weapons frequency was changed by the Klingons too.

While the novel isn't canon and such thing was not shown in the movie, it seems more plausible to assume that such or similar things happened off-screen, than to assume that nobody thought to change the shield modulation - although - as Mr. Plinkett explained - ever since the Borg this has become a common procedure and even Cmdr. Tuvok knew how to do it in Voyager. Especially as Cmdr. Tuvok did it without an order from Janeway or Chakotey. Even if Riker did not thought about changing the shield modulation, one would expect that Worf or Geordi would do it without waiting for an order - the moment they realized that their shields were compromised.

Instead they resort to some technobabble solution involving the cloaking device. The main problem with that is they're cloaked, so how a single slow-moving photon torpedo is supposed going to track the BoP and hit it had it moved is anyone's guess- a photon spread set to proximity detonation would have been both more spectacular and made more sense.

Maybe you should watch the movie again. Worf explained: "As their cloak begins to engage, their shields will drop." Riker conluded: "Well that's two seconds they'll be vulnerable." Between the dropping of their shields and full cloaking, there is time - two seconds. And Riker planed to use these two seconds when he ordered: "Mister Worf, prepare a spread of photon torpedoes. We'll have to hit them the instant they begin to cloak. We're getting one shot at this. Target their primary reactor."

And they have not only fired one torpedo at the Bird of Prey, but a spread. We know that the Enterprise can fire several torpedoes simultaneously and that these torpedoes can look as if they are only one torpedo until they disperse - as in the dispersal pattern sierra.

If you are trying to hit the primary reactor of your target and as long as you have still a sensor lock on your target, there is no need for the torpedoes to disperse. They would lock as if they were only one torpedo.

Clearly the BoP is just as incompetent, otherwise they'd have fired on the big-E's bridge with their first shot

That isn't incompetence. The Klingons simply wanted to play with their prey - as Chang played with the Enterprise A. That's haughtiness.

The daft thing is, they didn't even need to destroy the E-D to make way for the Ent-E: in the previous film no less they decommissioned the Ent-A after it was shot up by the Klingons!

Maybe you should watch the movie again. At the end of "The Undiscovered Country", Kirk dictated: "Captain's log, U.S.S. Enterprise, stardate 9529.1. This is the final cruise of the Starship Enterprise under my command. This ship and her history will shortly become the care of another crew. To them and their posterity will we commit our future. They will continue the voyages we have begun and journey to all the undiscovered countries, boldly going where no man, where no one, ...has gone before. "

[Simon_Jester]

It's also worth noting that Riker did actually kill all the attackers, unlike these examples where real world naval commanders were not court martialled for similar instances where their attackers got away with it. Everyone from Riker's ship survived, and everyone on Lursa and B'etor's ship was killed.

Zero casualties on the federation side, total casualties for the House of Duras.

Victory counts for a lot.

Not quite zero. As Picard's log states...

Close enough. Eighteen casualties on a Galaxy indicates that the command team did an extremely good job of preserving the lives of the crew and civilians aboard, given that half the ship was destroyed and the other half was a constructive total loss.

Were they ambushed? Yes. Could they theoretically have avoided the ambush and saved the ship? Yes.

But losing, even losing against a nominally weaker opponent, is not proof of military incompetence. Especially not when the enemy has unknown technical intelligence on your ship that allows them to shoot through your main line of defense like it wasn't even there. The standard for incompetence is not "lost when you could have won." It is "committed gross errors in judgment by the standards of typical military officers."

[EnterpriseSovereign]

They state two seconds of vulnerability, but the torpedo took about ten to reach the BoP, and even right up until the moment of impact there clearly was only a single glow. And this was from the aft launcher- has there been any instance of a spread being fired aft? I certainly can't think of any...

For the BoP to continually get the shield modulation, Geordi would have to have been looking at the console the entire time. Not only that, but they'd have to be monitoring the feed in the middle of a battle. Given Geordi was running around engineering at the time, this is doubtful at best.

As for the Ent-A, Following the Khitomer mission, the Enterprise was ordered by Starfleet Command to return to spacedock to be decommissioned. In spite of this, Captain Kirk ordered the ship on course to the "second star to the right, ...and straight on 'til morning.".

[Borgholio]

but the torpedo took about ten to reach the BoP

I always figured it was a creative delay. I'm sure you've seen movies where the timer (either figurative or literal) is counting down and the movie cuts between the POV of several main characters to show what they're doing, and the amount of time on screen between them is far more than what is actually counting down on the timer.

In spite of this, Captain Kirk ordered the ship on course to the "second star to the right, ...and straight on 'til morning."

He was taking the scenic route home. Who is going to tell him no?

[Eternal_Freedom]

More pertinent to the E-A's immediate decommissioning is that the E-B was commissioned that same year (2293); TUC has a stardate given of 9521.6 while the E-B's dedication plaque in Generations gives 9715.5, so it took Starfleet at most eleven months to decommission A and commisdion B.

[biostem]

More pertinent to the E-A's immediate decommissioning is that the E-B was commissioned that same year (2293); TUC has a stardate given of 9521.6 while the E-B's dedication plaque in Generations gives 9715.5, so it took Starfleet at most eleven months to decommission A and commisdion B.

That makes me wonder - we've seen Excelsiors in TNG - I can understand pulling the E-A off of front line duty as it got older, but why not keep it as either a training ship, or as some sort of goodwill/diplomatic envoy vessel, given its significance.

[Elheru Aran]

I want to say it was turned into a museum ship. All that would be Trek EU and not canon, though. I suspect they may have used the extent of the damage it received in the battle with Chang's ship as an excuse to retire it.

Presumably with the 'Technology Marches On' effect, it might be considered not advanced enough to interface properly with current Federation tech after a while, especially if after a certain length of time in service, they don't bother upgrading it. That's kind of flimsy considering we see Excelsiors and Mirandas running around in TNG/DS9, but it's *something*.

The most pragmatic explanation is that the Federation has enough ships in that role already. They don't need full starships for trucking ambassadors around. Spock's high-speed Vulcan hot-rod that he caught the Enterprise with in TMP could well be one example of such, an high-speed diplomatic courier vehicle for face-to-face meetings or hand-carrying sensitive information/materials. Runabouts, shuttles, smaller craft like Data's scout-ship and similar makes of vessel would function perfectly well for such missions, and not be a waste of personnel and fuel.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

What's notable about the Enterprise-A is that as a refitted Constitution-class, was it built in its refitted configuration to start with? Or was it in service as an original Connie and like its predecessor was refitted? If it's the former then the ship was only in service for seven years before being replaced by the Excelsior-class, which means that either way they'd reached the limit on the Connie's design and/or service life.

Interestingly, the Enterprise-D had a similarly short history, having only been around eight years from launch to destruction.

I want to say it was turned into a museum ship. All that would be Trek EU and not canon, though. I suspect they may have used the extent of the damage it received in the battle with Chang's ship as an excuse to retire it.

"For five hundred years, every ship that has borne the name of the Enterprise has become a legend. This one is no different."
– Vice Admiral Nakamura, 2365 ("The Measure Of A Man")

Making it a museum ship would make the most sense, given that in-universe it's as legendary as out of it. I find it hard to imagine that Starfleet would simply scrap it out of hand, even if they'd already lined up its replacement.

[WATCH-MAN]

They state two seconds of vulnerability, but the torpedo took about ten to reach the BoP, ...

As Borgholio surmised: A creative delay.

The torpedo was shown tree times each time for less than a second (3:38, 3:43, 3:46). Between each time, they showed the Duras sisters for several seconds.

... and even right up until the moment of impact there clearly was only a single glow.

As there is only one single glow until simultaneously fired torpedoes disperse.

How many glows are you seeing at 00:04, 00:05 and 00:06?

The first two seconds - 00:04 and 00:05 - it's only a single glow. Then the torpedoes disperse and only then one sees that there were more than only one torpedo fired.

What would have happened if the torpedoes didn't disperse - e.g. to hit the primary reactor of a Bird of Prey.

And this was from the aft launcher- has there been any instance of a spread being fired aft? I certainly can't think of any...

The movie "Star Trek Generations" is one instance.

Riker ordered Worf to fire a spread of photon torpedoes and we have nothing that indicates let alone proves - that this isn't impossible or hadn't happened.

For the BoP to continually get the shield modulation, Geordi would have to have been looking at the console the entire time.

No. Only when changing the the shield modulation. And that's enough.

Not only that, but they'd have to be monitoring the feed in the middle of a battle.

And why is that supposed to be a problem?

Given Geordi was running around engineering at the time, this is doubtful at best.

What has Geordi's running around engineering to do with the ability of the Klingons to monitor the feed?

As for the Ent-A, Following the Khitomer mission, the Enterprise was ordered by Starfleet Command to return to spacedock to be decommissioned. In spite of this, Captain Kirk ordered the ship on course to the "second star to the right, ...and straight on 'til morning."

We have two contrary statements.

Uhura who said that they have orders from Starfleet Command, that they are to put back into Spacedock immediately, ...to be decommissioned.

And Captain Kirk, who said that this ship will become the care of another crew and that this crew will continue the voyages and journey to all the undiscovered countries, boldly going where no man, where no one, ...has gone before.

And at the beginning of the film, Kirk stated that this crew was due to stand down in three months? They have done their bit for King and Country.

Insofar I always interpreted this as that not the ship was to be decommissioned but the crew. This impression was also caused as in the German translation in which they used the word "auszumustern".

[WATCH-MAN]

More pertinent to the E-A's immediate decommissioning is that the E-B was commissioned that same year (2293); TUC has a stardate given of 9521.6 while the E-B's dedication plaque in Generations gives 9715.5, so it took Starfleet at most eleven months to decommission A and commisdion B.

As far as I know, in the movie Generations it wasn't mentioned when the Enterprise B was commissioned and a dedication plaque wasn't shown.

And I couldn't find an image from the dedication plaque of the Enterprise B.

I have to ask you to provide evidence that the Enterprise B was commissioned at stardate 9715.5 and that there is a dedication plaque that shows this.

And then please explain why the difference between stardate 9521.6 and stardate 9715.5 is supposed to be eleven months?

[Simon_Jester]

You really need to start reading people's whole posts.

E_F said "at most eleven months" because the Enterprise-B was commissioned in 2293. Meanwhile, the Enterprise-A fought its battle against General Chang's ship likewise in 2293. This has nothing to do with the 'stardates' and everything to do with the published timeline information for Star Trek as a whole.

When a new ship is commissioned, the old ship of that name is retired or renamed. Since literally every other Enterprise hull was built only after the previous one was destroyed or otherwise removed from service, it is reasonable to suppose that the Enterpise-A was decommissioned in 2293 prior to the commissioning of the Enterprise-B.

[Batman]

And yet we have a reporter comment 'this is the first starship Enterprise without James T. Kirk in command in 30 years' so I'd say the time that passed between TUC and GEN is at best...in need of further scrutiny.

[WATCH-MAN]

You really need to start reading people's whole posts.

I can only advice the same thing.

E_F said "at most eleven months" because the Enterprise-B was commissioned in 2293. Meanwhile, the Enterprise-A fought its battle against General Chang's ship likewise in 2293. This has nothing to do with the 'stardates' and everything to do with the published timeline information for Star Trek as a whole.

Eternal_Freedom wrote: "More pertinent to the E-A's immediate decommissioning is that the E-B was commissioned that same year (2293); TUC has a stardate given of 9521.6 while the E-B's dedication plaque in Generations gives 9715.5, so it took Starfleet at most eleven months to decommission A and commisdion B."

In this he mentioned two stardates: The stardates 9521.6 and 9715.5. And then he concludes "that it took Starfleet at most eleven months to decommission A and commisdion B."

And then I asked him to provide evidence

1. that the Enterprise B was commissioned at stardate 9715.5 and
2. that there are eleven months between stardate 9521.6 and stardate 9715.5.

I could have asked as well for evidence that stardates 9521.6 and 9715.5 are both in the year 2293 of the Gregorian calendar or that there are less than 365 Earth-days between both stardates.

Can you provide evidence for such claims?

When a new ship is commissioned, the old ship of that name is retired or renamed. Since literally every other Enterprise hull was built only after the previous one was destroyed or otherwise removed from service, it is reasonable to suppose that the Enterpise-A was decommissioned in 2293 prior to the commissioning of the Enterprise-B.

Only if you can provide evidence that the Enterprise-B was commissioned in 2293 of the Gregorian calendar or that the ship was commissioned at stardate 9715.5 and that this stardate means year 2293 of the Gregorian calendar.

[Lord Revan]

well 30 years post TUC would put generations in the early 2320s, while IIRC the battle of Khitomer was in the 2340s or 2350s (Enterprise-D was launched 2364 IIRC).

[WATCH-MAN]

And yet we have a reporter comment 'this is the first starship Enterprise without James T. Kirk in command in 30 years' so I'd say the time that passed between TUC and GEN is at best...in need of further scrutiny.

Captain Decker was Captain of the Enterprise in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and Spock was Captain of the Enterprise in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" while Admiral Kirk was only on an inspection and took command in both movies only because there was an emergency. As far as I know - we do not know how long he was already Admiral and had not the command of the Enterprise. He got it back only after he was demoted in "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home".

As Khan explained to Captain Terrel in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan", he and his crew were marooned on Ceti Alpha V fifteen years ago - although he may refer to Ceti Alpha V years and not Earth years.

As far as I know, we do not know how old Kirk was, when he marooned Khan and his crew on Ceti Alpha V and - although we know that Kirk had his birthday shortly before the Enterprise started in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" - we don't know which birthday.

If we assume that he took command of the Enterprise when he was round about 30 years old (the TOS epsode "Where No Man Has Gone Before" was filmed 1965; William Shatner was 34 years old then) and he marooned Khan and his crew on Ceti Alpha V five years later and that Khan meant Earth years, Kirk was round about 50 years old when "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" happened. If 30 years passed since then, he would have been round about 90 years old when the Enterprise-B was commissioned.

If it is correct, that the Enterprise-B was commissioned in the same year the battle against General Chang's ship took place, it means that Kirk was round about 90 years old then. And he was due to stand down in three months at the beginning of the movie "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country".

This reminds me of the actual debate about raising the Retirement Age.

[WATCH-MAN]

well 30 years post TUC would put generations in the early 2320s, while IIRC the battle of Khitomer was in the 2340s or 2350s (Enterprise-D was launched 2364 IIRC).

To say "this is the first starship Enterprise without James T. Kirk in command in 30 years" does not mean that since the battle of Khitomer have 30 years passed.

It only means that there was no starship with the name Enterprise in the last 30 years that was under the command of someone else.

If the comment of the reporter was correct, if would refute the notion, that - after "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" - another Captain took command of the Enterprise A.

[Lord Revan]

well 30 years post TUC would put generations in the early 2320s, while IIRC the battle of Khitomer was in the 2340s or 2350s (Enterprise-D was launched 2364 IIRC).

To say "this is the first starship Enterprise without James T. Kirk in command in 30 years" does not mean that since the battle of Khitomer have 30 years passed.

It only means that there was no starship with the name Enterprise in the last 30 years that was under the command of someone else.

If the comment of the reporter was correct, if would refute the notion, that - after "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" - another Captain took command of the Enterprise A.

Battle of Khitomer=where Ent-C was lost IIRC and longer the time post TUC for Ent-A is shorter the time for Ent-B is since the date for the loss of Enterprise (NCC-1701-C) is set as is the launch date of Enterprise (NCC-1701-D).

Last know time when James T. Kirk commanded a ship called the Enterprise was TUC in 2290s, now simple math tells as that 2290+30=2320, since Enterprise (NCC-1701-B) was launched in Generations it means Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) cannot be no longer in service this gives us absolute maxium service for Enterprise-B to be 44 years assuming it was launched in 2320 and Enterprise (NCC-1701-C) didn't even last a year before Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) was launched in 2364. As far as I know there's no evidence that battle where Enterprise (NCC-1701-C) was lost was the first mission or practically so so we kind of end up with a chronological problem unless we assume that service for Enterprise (NCC-1701-C) was super short.

[Crazedwraith]

By Battle of Khitomer I assume Watch-Man means the final battle of TUC. E-A vs Chang. (The E-C was lost at the Battle of Narenda III) There wasn't 30 years between the end of TUC and the start of Generations.

To me the 30 years comment means, it's been 30 years since Kirk first took command of the E-Nil in TOS. It implies that no-one else has commanded a ship called Enterprise since then. This is technically untrue given Decker and Spock but even then Kirk was often in command as Admiral.

The E-B was the first ship called Enterprise that was never commanded by Kirk is the point the reporter was making, I think.

[Simon_Jester]

Eternal_Freedom wrote: "More pertinent to the E-A's immediate decommissioning is that the E-B was commissioned that same year (2293); TUC has a stardate given of 9521.6 while the E-B's dedication plaque in Generations gives 9715.5, so it took Starfleet at most eleven months to decommission A and commisdion B."

In this he mentioned two stardates: The stardates 9521.6 and 9715.5. And then he concludes "that it took Starfleet at most eleven months to decommission A and commisdion B.

And then I asked him to provide evidence that the Enterprise B was commissioned at stardate 9715.5 and that there are eleven months between stardate 9521.6 and stardate 9715.5.

He doesn't have to. All he has to do is prove that the commissioning of the Enterprise-B in Generations and the fight against Chang in Undiscovered Country took place within the same year of the Gregorian calendar. Because that is the argument he's making to actually justify his claim.

Google search any timeline of Star Trek events and you will get confirmation that The Undiscovered Country and the prologue events of Generations featuring the Enterprise-B's shakedown cruise both took place in 2293.

There is no reason for us to bother providing links for you at this point, because you are being lazy and repetitive and obtuse, not actually looking for information in good faith. This isn't even hard information to find, if you are willing to look for it and if you don't happen to be functionally illiterate in English.

I could have asked as well for evidence that stardates 9521.6 and 9715.5 are both in the year 2293 of the Gregorian calendar or that there are less than 365 Earth-days between both stardates.

Can you provide evidence for such claims?

Yes. Google any reasonably complete timeline of events in the Star Trek universe. Say, the one on Memory Alpha or Wikipedia.

When a new ship is commissioned, the old ship of that name is retired or renamed. Since literally every other Enterprise hull was built only after the previous one was destroyed or otherwise removed from service, it is reasonable to suppose that the Enterpise-A was decommissioned in 2293 prior to the commissioning of the Enterprise-B.

Only if you can provide evidence that the Enterprise-B was commissioned in 2293 of the Gregorian calendar or that the ship was commissioned at stardate 9715.5 and that this stardate means year 2293 of the Gregorian calendar.

Are you a chatbot? That's the third time you've used almost exactly the same phrasing. It's not like your request wasn't clear the first time. The problem is that you are too stupid to recognize when others are making factual claims like "three plus four is seven" and mindlessly spam demands for 'evidence' as a way of dragging out the discussion unnecessarily.

And yet we have a reporter comment 'this is the first starship Enterprise without James T. Kirk in command in 30 years' so I'd say the time that passed between TUC and GEN is at best...in need of further scrutiny.

Captain Decker was Captain of the Enterprise in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and Spock was Captain of the Enterprise in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" while Admiral Kirk was only on an inspection and took command in both movies only because there was an emergency. As far as I know - we do not know how long he was already Admiral and had not the command of the Enterprise. He got it back only after he was demoted in "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home..."

If it is correct, that the Enterprise-B was commissioned in the same year the battle against General Chang's ship took place, it means that Kirk was round about 90 years old then. And he was due to stand down in three months at the beginning of the movie "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country"...

Alternatively, the reporter was just plain incorrect, which happens quite easily and quite often.

Use Occam's Razor for a change!

Which is more likely, a random thirty year time-skip between movies where the cast only ages three or four years between films? One in which the Enterprise command team all stay in charge of the same positions on the ship and do not leave...

...Or a reporter just plain being wrong about the idea that no Enterprise has ever been commanded by anyone but Kirk?

Or for that matter, a reporter who knows everything but is speaking imprecisely, and simply means "this is the first starship Enterprise to enter active service, in thirty years, which has never at any time been commanded by Kirk" or some such?

[WATCH-MAN]

Battle of Khitomer=where Ent-C was lost IIRC

Maybe you should watch Star Trek before participating in debates about it.

and longer the time post TUC for Ent-A is shorter the time for Ent-B is since the date for the loss of Enterprise (NCC-1701-C) is set as is the launch date of Enterprise (NCC-1701-D).

Please provide evidence that "the date for the loss of Enterprise (NCC-1701-C) is set as is the launch date of Enterprise (NCC-1701-D)."

In the TNG episode "Yesterday's Enterprise", the Enterprise-C was presumed destroyed more than twenty years previous. The TNG episode "Yesterday's Enterprise" was in the third season of TNG. In "Star Trek Generations", Data begins to laugh about a joke, that Geordi told Riker during the Farpoint mission (The clown can stay ... but the Ferengi in the gorilla suit has to go.) and Geordi responses that this was seven years ago. As the Enterprise D was nearly new when Picard took command after the Final systems completion and shakedown, we can conclude that Enterprise-D was a little bit about seven years old in "Star Trek Generations" - after 7 seasons - and that the Enterprise-D from the TNG episode "Yesterday's Enterprise" wasn't much older than that. That leaves round about 14 years between the destruction of the Enterprise-C and the commissioning of the Enterprise-D.

Last know time when James T. Kirk commanded a ship called the Enterprise was TUC in 2290s,

Please provide evidence for your 2290. I can remember that this year was ever mentioned in the movie.

now simple math tells as that 2290+30=2320, since Enterprise (NCC-1701-B) was launched in Generations it means Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) cannot be no longer in service this gives us absolute maxium service for Enterprise-B to be 44 years assuming it was launched in 2320 and Enterprise (NCC-1701-C) didn't even last a year before Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) was launched in 2364. As far as I know there's no evidence that battle where Enterprise (NCC-1701-C) was lost was the first mission or practically so so we kind of end up with a chronological problem unless we assume that service for Enterprise (NCC-1701-C) was super short.

Yes, we end op with a chronological problem if you do not know enough about Star Trek but are attempting to participate in debates about it, but are confusing the events all the time.

[WATCH-MAN]

All he has to do is prove that the commissioning of the Enterprise-B in Generations and the fight against Chang in Undiscovered Country took place within the same year of the Gregorian calendar. Because that is the argument he's making to actually justify his claim.

Exactly.

Google search any timeline of Star Trek events and you will get confirmation that The Undiscovered Country and the prologue events of Generations featuring the Enterprise-B's shakedown cruise both took place in 2293.

Google isn't Star Trek canon.

Only because someone claimed it somewhere along the way and this claim was repeated again and again doesn't make it true.

Even if the producers thought that "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" is supposed to have happened in the year 2293 and have mentioned it somewhere and that this was repeated again and again - it is not canon.

I want to see canonical evidence.

There is no reason for us to bother providing links for you at this point, because you are being lazy and repetitive and obtuse, not actually looking for information in good faith. This isn't even hard information to find, if you are willing to look for it and if you don't happen to be functionally illiterate in English.

I wouldn't accept any links - as they could merely repeat what someone has made up a long time ago.

I want to see canonical evidence.

Did they say anywhere in the movies or in the episodes that the battle of Khitomer or the commissioning of the Enterprise B happened in 2293?

Is there anything said in the movies or the episodes that let us conclude this?

Yes. Google any reasonably complete timeline of events in the Star Trek universe. Say, the one on Memory Alpha or Wikipedia.

I do not accept Google, Memory Alpha or Wikipedia.

I want to see canonical evidence.

Google, Memory Alpha or Wikipedia are useful as a place-to-go to find informations about Star Trek. But they are no evidence in them-self. If Google, Memory Alpha or Wikipedia references to a movie or an episode and in this movie or episode it was said what Google, Memory Alpha or Wikipedia claims, than the movie or the episode is evidence. That's why there are usually footnotes. They are there that everyone can check if what they claim is correct. Only an idiot would repeat a claim made on Memory Alpha or Wikipedia without checking the references.

Are you a chatbot? That's the third time you've used almost exactly the same phrasing. It's not like your request wasn't clear the first time. The problem is that you are too stupid to recognize when others are making factual claims like "three plus four is seven" and mindlessly spam demands for 'evidence' as a way of dragging out the discussion unnecessarily.

Ah - that the Battle of Khitomer happened in the year 2293 is now a factual claim like "three plus four is seven".

Alternatively, the reporter was just plain incorrect, which happens quite easily and quite often.

I believe that too.

The difference between you and me is that I do not simply claim such things - maybe only because I do not like certain evidences.

I try to explain why it is plausible that the reporter was just plain incorrect by showing the consequences, if he were correct. The consequences would have been that Kirk was round about 90 years old when the Enterprise-B was commissioned.

(Although in this case I think that the consequences would be possible in a time in which people can get 137 years old and still be an Admiral in Starfleet, checking over medical layout on the Enterprise-D (McCoy in the TNG episode "Encounter at Farpoint"). If that is possible, it is possible for Kirk to have been 90 years old when the Enterprise-B was commissioned. And it gets implausible to assume that he would retire when he is only sixty years old when he still has an expectancy of life of more than sixty years.)

Use Occam's Razor for a change!

After you start to use your brain. I know: It is difficult. But you should try it.

Which is more likely, a random thirty year time-skip between movies where the cast only ages three or four years between films?

I haven't claimed neither the one nor the other.

My opinion simply is that there is an indetermined time between the Battle of Khitomer and the commissioning of the Enterprise-B.

I do not know if it is one year, three years, five years or ten years.

What I know is that Kirk was retired already when the Enterprise-B was commissioned and that enough time has passed since then for a reporter to ask him what he has been doing since he retired and that his retirment lasted long enough for Scotty to presume that he finds it a little lonely.

[WATCH-MAN]

To me the 30 years comment means, it's been 30 years since Kirk first took command of the E-Nil in TOS. It implies that no-one else has commanded a ship called Enterprise since then. This is technically untrue given Decker and Spock but even then Kirk was often in command as Admiral.

The E-B was the first ship called Enterprise that was never commanded by Kirk is the point the reporter was making, I think.

That's possible.

But we should consider that the humans of the 24th century have an higher expectancy of life.

At the TNG episode "Encounter at Farpoint", MyCoy was a 137 years old Admiral, checking over medical layout on the Enterprise-D. He has not retired yet.

Is it probably that - with such an expectancy of life - Kirk would already retire at an age of 60 - assuming of course that he took command of the E-Nil in TOS when he was 30?