Talk:Jem'Hadar fighter

Technical Manual
Is the technical manual reference for this starship accurate, it has insufficient mass in my belief when compared with the Defiant class that has a mass of 355,000 metric tons. 2,450 metric tons, you are kidding me? -- 87.81.246.73
 * It would appear so, but then again, that's that source isn't exactly considered canon. --Alan del Beccio 00:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Page Move
For future reference, outside of being called a Jem'Hadar warship, this class was described as a "attack ship" in only 4 episodes, whereas it was described as an "attack ship" in 8 episodes. --Alan del Beccio 05:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * However, it seems inappropriate to group these with other attack fighters, considering that it is many, many times bigger than anything on that list (except for the Hideki class) and with a far larger crew. Perhaps the entry should be rephrased to reflect this. -- Kingfisher 23:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree, it does still fit the definition we use: "a relatively small, maneuverable, and heavily armed starship. "--Alan del Beccio 23:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps the attack fighter article (why is it "attack fighter" rather than just "fighter" btw?) should be amended to reflect that it covers a wide range of ships of varying sizes and capabilities? -- Kingfisher 23:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "small warship" and tried to draw attention away from "attack fighter", which to my knowledge, was a term never really used in Trek. --Alan del Beccio 23:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The closest I can think of is the "Scorpion-class attack flier". The Federation fighter might've been called an "attack fighter" at some point. -- Kingfisher 23:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Federation attack fighters are the only reference to "attack fighter" I can find. One reference being in the script for, which states: "Note: The smaller Federation attack-fighters have assumed their positions at the head of the fleet"; and then a line or two in. Either way, I'm not sure I agree with the inclusion of all the rest listed on that page. --Alan del Beccio 00:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruptors?
I've added the need for a source citation regarding the following assertion: Although a majority of these warships were armed with disruptors[citation needed], several of these vessels also employed phased polaron beam weapons. I don't recall seeing that on the program, but I could be mistaken. Also, it says later in the article that the Technical Manual (not canon, I know) lists them with 3 phased polaron beam weapons as their armament. Anybody know anything about this? 72.213.26.111 22:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Jem'Hadar patrol ship merge
I propose that this be merged with Jem'Hadar fighter. The model used was that of the fighter, and we already know a great many terms have been used for these ships depending on the specific mission ("attack ship" being another). In fact, the very first paragraph of the "Jem'Hadar fighter" article talks about their use as patrol ships. It does not seem to me that we are dealing with different ships, only different missions. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. This should have been a redirect. I've found there are a lot of terms bolded on various articles (indicating alternate names) that don't actually have links (by that alternate name) going to the main article. --Alan 20:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair 'nuff. Redirect away! :) -Rhinecanthus rectangulus 21:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Forum:Were those Jem Hadar ships?


Hey, does anyone know what kind of ships those were in the beginning of  (stardate:49068.5) when Kes and Tom Paris are in the holodeck flight simulator thing? Right when Kes says "evasive manuvers"... I could swear that they look like Jem'Hadar fighters; and I can't for the life of me think of any other ships with purple nacelles and a stinkbug-like hull shape.

If so, wouldn't it be a little too soon for Jem'Hadar hardware to be part of Federation training programs? Considering that on stardate:51462 , the Doctor makes reference to the fact that he has no knowledge of who the Dominion is.

Can anyone help clear this up, is this simply an oversight by the writers, or am I missing something.

Also, is it possible that the writers intentionally put little mistakes in the episodes on purpose, just to see if anyone catches them? For example, in , when Captain Janeway is in the briefing room discussing their route through Kazon space, and someone brings up the idea of holographic decoy ships; Janeway says "work on the Doctor with it B'Elanna", as opposed to "work with the Doctor on it B'Elanna"... Like, was that intentional, to show that everyone makes occasional verbal mistakes- even Captain Janeway, or was it simply an oversight that no one ever caught?

Thanks,

-cds333 21:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "...the Doctor makes reference to the fact that he has no knowledge of who the Dominion is."
 * I'm pretty sure this particular reference was covered with the simple fact that he is a hologram and therefore doesn't know what the organics know because he wasn't activated in the alpha quadrant. They look very much like Jem'Hadar ships and I just assume they are because they're so recognizable. – Morder 22:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Both "The Jem'Hadar" and "The Search I+II" are set several weeks before Voyager is lost in the Delta Quadrant. The starship database certainly had info about the Jem'Hadar ships. There might have been a training program right after the first encounter with the ship or by the time of "Parturition", Tom Paris could have programmed a flight lesson featuring the Jem'Hadar ship. --Jörg 22:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dominion Fighter merge
Shouldn't Dominion Fighter be merged too? Besides, it looks like an abandoned page 176.24.73.162 15:32, April 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the term Dominion Fighter has never been used in Star Trek. --Pseudohuman (talk) 15:07, April 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * If you feel it should be deleted, then add in a delete template and fill out the resulting request/suggestion page. -- sulfur (talk) 15:58, April 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * Since a merge without leaving a redirect is the most likely outcome of a deletion discussion for this, let's just cut out the middle part. - 18:46, April 18, 2013 (UTC)