Talk:Maquis fighter

Two sizes?
I also wonder if a distinction should be made between the type that appeared in "Preemptive Strike" and the Val Jean/Ju'Day-Class seen from "Caretaker" onwards. The cockpit on the model used in "Preemptive Strike" matches Nenebek with the corresponding redressed interior set, likewise, the interior of the Val Jean is clearly a redress of the Runabout set, while the exterior of the Val Jean's cockpit has clearly been made to look bigger. By matching the window sizes to those of the Danube, the structure looks to be slightly wider than a Runabout's nose section. Compared side by side, the Val Jean is clearly as much as, if not more than twice the size of the earlier "Preemptive Strike" version.– 86.146.44.148 03:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We have one article for all different sizes of Klingon bird-of-preys so we should have one for this. scaling inconsistencies tend to fall close to the arena of nitpicking. --Pseudohuman 04:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a scaling inconsistencies exactly, at least not in the same way and the BoP where and identical miniature has been used to portray craft of radically different dimensions. In this case I would say the model was deliberately modified to look like a different, though very similar and somewhat larger craft. A good real world example of this is the apparent similarity between the CH-46 Sea Knight and the CH-47 Chinook. Both are tantem helicopters with similar functions and silhouettes (from the side at least), except the Chinook is almost twice the size of the Sea Knight. Also, if you take a closer look at the Raider as it appears in "Preemptive Strike" and from "Caretaker" onwards there are a few other subtle changes to the engine structure and I think the area behind the cockpit to that would be consistent with a rescaling. Either way, I'd say it's much easier to believe two smaller craft have very similar designs than it is to believe the same for a ship as big as the BoP. So if you accept one then the other must be even more likely.– 86.146.44.148 05:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we do have two pages for D7 and K't'inga so it wouldn't be without precedent to have one page for the less detailed presumably smaller ship, and another for the more detailed presumably larger ship. But still ships of some classes are refitted and detail is added, constitution for example. window sizes on the more detailed version seem to indicate a larger ship, but they are the only reference, and window sizes are overall an unreliable way to determine the size of a ship. --Pseudohuman 06:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much a issue of window sizes as window spacing. If you look at the front view of the Val-Jean you can clearly see a pair of windows that match the two on the redressed runabout set. While at the same time the "original" raider's canopy emulates the Nenebek (and it's subsequent reuses) again to match the interior set. It's not as if there has been a refit like that of the Constitution-Class which has incidentally altered the overall dimensions. In this case the rescaling of the cockpit necessitates that the larger version is at least twice the width, length and height of the original which can only be a new build which happens to be designed along near identical lines, not a modification to a common spaceframe. Getting back to the windows, while I agree that they're not a reliable measure of scale for a large starship, I think it's fair to say that on ships this small, when the exterior details in both cases appear to have been intentionally built to match existing sets of an established scale, that the windows are indeed the ONLY way to establish a scale by the exterior details alone. – 86.146.44.148 10:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there really two sizes?
Just to make sure, are we really even actually 100% sure there are two different sizes of this craft. To me the larger bridge module looks like it could easily have the Danube-cocpit interior inside and still be the same size of craft as the original with the Nenebek-interior. And since when has Star Trek been that "exact" about scaling starship models. --Pseudohuman 20:34, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * I know this is the old discussion again but nothing has been established canonwise one way or the other in: Speak and writing on screen...Confirm MA guidelines, the next in line is visual. The fact that the Companion and a Cinefex issue has production people talk about "fighter" for its TNG debut AND that the modelmakers went through the trouble in replacing a cockpit with a bridge combined with the knowledge that the Val Jean had a crew of about 30, leads me at least to the conclusion that Chakotays's vessel must be larger; comparison with the klingon BOP is moot here, in my modest opinion, as the model was physically altered...hence the rekindling of the discussion, which, if I've read it correctly was not resolved yet...Then again, if everybody decide otherwise I will not fight it...If a resolution is hit upon that they are one and the same the text of the studiomodel should be transferred to the article...--Sennim 22:12, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Redux
I am going to reiterate a case for splitting the article into Maquis Raider and a Maquis fighter pages. Part of the reasons are stated above, but I'll will present my case in a point for point case: So, for these above stated reasons I maintain that we have to contend with two classes of ships....Sennim 05:10, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Maquis fighter studio model under construction at Greg Jein, Inc.jpgMaquis fighter in combat.jpgs Fighter: The model was originally designed and build as such for and referred/inferred to as fighter in Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, 3rd ed., p. 298 and Cinefantastique, Vol. 25 #6-26 #1, p. 62. The model has been build as such with a cockpit corresponding with the standard 2-person occupation as was shown in the TNG Episode.
 * Maquis raider studio model after modifications.jpg model has been modified, that much has been proven. Wing-struts, elaborated back-spine and modified cock-pit are all evident. We KNOW that the Val Jean had at the very least 21 crew members, quite likely more considering the losses Voyager suffered transferring to the Delta Quadrant and the view offered in the Caretaker's dormitory showed close to or more than 30 Maquis, making the Val Jean a substantially larger vessel than a fighter, as has been tried to convey by altering the model. VOY has been known to do this as has been definitively established with the Kazon fighter. Perceived size-differences have been discounted in regard to for example the Klingon Bird-of-Prey and more recently with the, among others for reasons that no physical differences in the appearance of the studio models could be discerned, and to which I subscribe. That however, can not be used as an excuse in this case as there is ample evidence that the model has been altered in appearance, quite significantly upon close examination.


 * I'm not sure we can use the crew complement as a reference of size, since we didn't see the crew space in "Caretaker". It could have easily been the size of a runabout but used as a troop transport with the personnel not having crew quarters of their own. I still see them as variants of the same ship, just with different bridge modules. --Pseudohuman 12:11, August 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to see more on what references we have to the name of the ship. If the smaller one wasn't called a raider, and we only call it that because the larger one was, then I would support a split. - 23:52, August 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at the pictures, I just see both ships as being of the same size, one with a bit more detail and a cocpit that corresponds to nenebek-size and the other with a 3-4 times larger cockpit that corresponds to a danube-size cockpit compared to the nenebek-cockpit in scale. I would even believe that the one with the nenebek-cockpit could carry 30 troops in the unseen aft section of the ship. All i see is evidence of a refit or a class variant. And very little evidence of two different ship classes. --Pseudohuman 01:05, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's take it up a notch in presenting my closing arguments why I think these are two types. In conclusion, all this combined with the fact that the model was physically altered (cockpit, hullspine and struts) has led me to the belief that the configuration came in two intended sizes on screen, fighter and raider.--Sennim 08:20, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) First off, neither the episode nor its accompanying script offers much to go on other than referrals in the script to the craft as "several smaller MAQUIS SHIPS" (scene 10) and "tiny ship" (scene 32G).
 * 2) The available BGinfo on Preemptive Strike is more outspoken on the subject,
 * 3) *Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, 3rd ed., p. 298, "(...) and Ro's fighter/transport debuting here as built by Gregory Jein-with a cockpit matching the regular "alien shuttle" interior set."
 * 4) *Cinefantastique, Vol. 25 #6-26 #1, p. 62, "Two distinct classes of Maquis fighters appear in the scene, one that Tony Meininger originally created for DEEP SPACE NINE an another that Greg Jein built specifically built for Preemtive Strike. VFX supervisor Joe Bauer's comment on the same page illustrated the intent, "The producers wanted different ships types of ships, so it wouldn't look as if the Maquis were the Blue Angels."
 * 1) Two visuals in the episode reinforce the fighter notion as the vessel appears to be of comparable size with that of the Federation attack fighter.
 * 2) Ro's ship taking up position between the nacelles of the USS Enterprise-D.jpgh visuals are normaly notoriously unreliable for establishing comparative shipsizes, mostly because the usually 3/4 views makes establishing relative positions quite difficult, in this particular case we have a near full profile shot of the raider/fighter with a ship whose size is firmly established. A previous shot established that the ship pulled level alongside the nacelle, making a reasonable approximate comparison possible. From the shot it is discernible that the craft approximates the length of the extension of the nacelle aft of the strut, which we know to be 108 feet or app. 33 meters. (See Galaxy class model for more details).
 * 3) Kazon fighters bearing down on the USS Voyager and Val Jean.jpg it so happens a similarly usable comparison shot is also afforded in Caretaker, this time a dorsal shot of the Val Jean and Voyager next to each other. A previous shot establishes that the two are near level pulling up together side by side toward the Caretaker, so in my reasoning the size comparison is valid. From it, it can be discerned that the Raider is app.20% the length of Voyager which given its established length of 343 meter translates into about 68 meter. [Edit 10 August: Coincidently I found production confirmation today that this was indeed VFX supervisor David Stipes' intent, "And the the Maquis ship is one-fifth the size of Voyager, and that (model) is nearly two feet long. So I needed to be in North Hollywood to shoot it!" (Star Trek: Communicator, Issue 105, p.59)]
 * I fully agree with Sennim's extensive analysis, we should have two articles. --Jörg 12:05, August 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't question the validity of the analysis here, but I think we should remember that in "Preemptive Strike" all the Maquis ships are scaled to be of the same size, where as in DS9 the Bajoran sub-impulse raider and the Bajoran impulse ship for example are intended to be of much different sizes. I got the impression that they simply scaled all the ships to be of similar size for aesthetic purposes in that case. So making these kinds of conclusions i think is dubious at best. --Pseudohuman 15:41, August 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree with Pseudohuman here, in part. The analysis is very detailed, but dubious due to the history of scaling issues in Trek productions. As I see it the point of difference is the modification of the model, and if the term raider wasn't used with the "cockpit" version, they should be considered different ships, with the size analysis in their respective background sections. - 16:49, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was exactly my point, if it was only a matter of scaling, Pseudohuman has a solid point, and I would not have bothered to bring up the point, as in the majority of scaling-issues the VFX departments did not bother to alter the models in question. But here it is the combination of scaling with the obvious effort of the VFX folks of physically altering the studio model (only months after it was initially constructed and used in TNG) that has led me to bring up the matter. The combo analysis/modification I've done here was in order to show intent of the production staff. There were precedents were intent was reinforced with modification in the cases of the physicals studio models of the Apollo class and Kazon fighter. And if the script of the TNG episode is a true representation of the episode (or vice-versa) then no, the term "Raider" has not been used there. - Sennim 11:18, August 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * The term raider isn't used, the ship is just called a ship in the ep, though they are using it to mount a raid of the Enterprise in "Preemptive Strike", so we would be going a bit out of our way not to call it a raider. If we split I would suggest "Maquis raider (2370)" and "Maquis raider (2371)" as the article names. --Pseudohuman 00:36, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Would work for me, though the term "attack" is equivalently applicable (both terms, where applicable to the craft, being used in the script, albeit "attack" (3x) more than "raid"(1x)), translating into something like "Maquis attack fighter". If a split is agreed upon, my personal gut-feeling is to have it with some sort of "fighter" designation in it as that is what the VFX people referred it to. But in case of a split I'll go with whatever sits best with the majority of our community...--Sennim 15:42, August 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Lacking a name we should use what the production team used. Descriptive titles should be avoided if we have another. - 15:59, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Then as far as you and I are concerned "Maquis Fighter" would fill the bill...Sennim 16:48, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I might as well give up. I made my arguments that to me they look like variants of the same ship type, one with a little more detail to hold up to the close-up shots called for by "Caretaker". Similar as with lets say the tune up of Kronos-1 from the basic k't'inga, refits of the constitution class, excelsior class, nova class, variants of the miranda class, etc. Lets call one a fighter even though it is used in the episode as a raider because production team calls it a fighter/transport ship, and lets call the other one a raider even thought the production team calls it ju'day class. i suppose all this makes sense somehow...but i've been a lone voice of disagreement before, so go ahead with the fighter/raider split as it appears no-one else is agreeing with me here. :P --Pseudohuman 17:29, August 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the page should be called Federation Raider or Starfleet Raider because they're the organizations that created them, the maquis just stole them
 * That's not an option, since we're trying not to just make up a name, but use the names that were either used on screen or by the people who made them. - 17:20, August 17, 2011 (UTC)