I've removed "Caretaker" from the list of appearances of this type of ship, because Chakotay's ship was actually NOT a Peregrine-class, contrary to popular belief. It was a different type of ship. -- Dan Carlson 19:56, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Agreed, the raider used by chakotay (and eddington) was obviously much larger than that, and a different look (though a design lineage is obvious). The confusion is so widespread that it may be worth to add to the main article something like : The peregrine Type is often confused in Fandom with the Maquis raider, a much larger ship also used by the maquis. --rami

Max warp and mass Edit

An anon recently added that this class' max warp is 8.6 and mass is 29 tons. Is there a source for this? --From Andoria with Love 13:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Where you get this knowledge about warp speed of this craft? - anon, 15:25 (6th March 2006).
This is a good point... is the info from an on-screen reference or from the internet somewhere? Zsingaya Talk 16:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there hasn't been any proof for supplied for this, so I'm removing it. --From Andoria with Love 20:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

removed info Edit

They [Starfleet] also constructed a similar vessel scaled up several times the same way The K'vort-class Bird of prey was develloped from the B'rel-class. This larger version is often confused with the Perigine-Class.

The following was added to the main part of the article. Whenever someone finds out what the "similar vessel" is, this should be modified and re-added as background info. --From Andoria with Love 22:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is speculation and should certainly be removed, but I think the author was referring to the Federation attack fighters seen in Sacrifice of Angels and other DS9 battles, which appeared visually identicle to the Peregrine class, but much bigger than the runabout sized ships seen under Maquis control. Jaz talk 04:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
My personal guess is that this "larger" ship is the Maquis raider. Lots of people confuse them and some people are under the false impression that the only difference is the size. --OuroborosCobra 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Does this article still need the PNA? If so, can we make it more clear what is needed to fix it? --OuroborosCobra 01:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "peregrine" class is the wrong term to refer to this craft, the peregrine was never shown onscreen. The pictures show a ship that was never referred to as "peregrine" and also is different from the other Maquis raider. -- Captain M.K.B. 22:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand the first part, although I am curious why everyone and their uncle has linked this ship to "Peregrine class", but I do not understand you statement about the Maquis raider. Of course they are different ships, but they were both seen used by the Maquis, so why does the existence of that ship make this article innacurate? There is even a note in the article about the fact that they are two distinctly seperate classes. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What I was trying to say: There are three distinct, separate classes and now each has its own article: Peregrine class, Federation attack fighter, and Maquis raider. Sorry you didnt understand what i was trying to say, now its been fixed and the PNA is removed. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Tactica Systems removed text Edit

I removed the following text:

Two attack fighters divided the weapons purchased from the Pygorians and had the combined mounted arsenal of two hundred photon torpedoes, twelve pulse cannons, six ship-mounted high-energy disruptors and three particle accelerators.

There is nothing in the episode to suggest that ALL those weapons were stuffed into just those two ships. For one thing, a ship that size couldn't HOLD 100 photon casings, let alone launch them.Capt Christopher Donovan 10:25, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

STO Edit

Should there be mention made on this page of the "Peregrine-Class Fighters" available in Star Trek: Online that follow this design? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

No, since a follow-on to this design is not the design this article is about. 31dot (talk) 21:11, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
I added a reference note to the apocryphal namelink since before there was a more speculative note on the matter. --Pseudohuman (talk) 00:41, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.