Constitution Class

On classes not being retired linearly:

It's worth noting that the U.S. Navy still had Midway class carriers (first commissioned in 1945) in service as recently as a few years ago, long after the last Forrestal class carrier (a much newer and more advanced Cold War design) had been retired. I think... And the USS Kitty Hawk just keeps hanging around, despite the fact that all of the other, newer Kitty Hawk class carriers have now been decomissioned...
 
It is scary how many Constitution class starships we see get destroyed over the course of TOS. At the start of TOS, there are only 13 in the fleet, and we're led to believe that they are the mainstay of Starfleet. Then we see Exeter, Excalibur, Defiant, Intrepid, and Constellation lost or destroyed (or, in the case of Exeter, become contaminated by plague and have their entire crew killed except for one insane captain). That's more than a third of the mainstay class of starships destroyed, in PEACETIME.

Still, at least that is over several years, and hence is nothing to the hit that Starfleet took with Daedalus class starships. If you back count from presumed episode dates to ships that are mentioned destroyed, you see that the USS Horizon, USS Archon, USS Essex, and the USS Valiant were all lost the same year. Essex was Daedalus class, and it is presumed the other three are as well. That's four frontline starships lost in peacetime in the same year.

Exploring the galaxy is a dangerous task!
 
Farbourne said:
On classes not being retired linearly:

It's worth noting that the U.S. Navy still had Midway class carriers (first commissioned in 1945) in service as recently as a few years ago, long after the last Forrestal class carrier (a much newer and more advanced Cold War design) had been retired. I think... And the USS Kitty Hawk just keeps hanging around, despite the fact that all of the other, newer Kitty Hawk class carriers have now been decomissioned...
Click to expand...

The old tin can as my buddy calls her. My friend serves on the Kitty Hawk. He's described the ship as, "A rusted piece of crap carrier way behind its times that is more of a party boat/museum then anything. Do you know how long its been since this ship actually participated in ANY fleet maneuvers!? The only reason I still have a job on this ship is because Japan insists on not having a nuclear powered carrier in their harbor, so they get my corroded baby!"
 
The Wikipedia says she participated in a multi-ship deployment less than a year ago and has since returned to the US for retirement.
 
LeHah said:
Sarcasm knows no expiration date.
Click to expand...

Touche... well played.
ELTEE said:
Yup - I remember the minor headlines made when the George Washington took her place.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-09-24-Japan-elections_N.htm
Click to expand...

Wow... didnt hear about that... then again it has been about a year since i'd heard from the guy. I should see where they stationed him now.

Any idea what the Japanese reaction to this was? They were pretty gung ho about not having a nuclear powered carrier thre.
 
Any idea what the Japanese reaction to this was? They were pretty gung ho about not having a nuclear powered carrier thre.
Click to expand...

You quoted the link to the news story about Japan's reaction in your post...
 
Actually, the name "Constitution class" came from the 1973 Technical Manual, because the official dedication plaque couldn't be read on-screen due to size and grainy film of the 60's, and the tech manual listed a NCC-1700 USS Constitution, which, being the "first" of the line, would have passed it's name on to the entire class in naval tradition.

However, with remasters, photographic enhancement, and the actual plaque from the set, the official title "Starship class" overrides the previous "Constitution class". Many trekkers have called that design "Constitution class" for so long (I have all my life) that suddenly switching to "Starship class" is a big leap. To prove my point, the designers of the Defiant set in Enterprise were so used to "Constitution class" they put it on Defiant's dedication plaque.

Furthering the confusion, there may be "non canon" sources that pegged the post-refit (Movie) Enterprise as the "Enterprise class", again, a name carried throughout various parts of lore, even though many still called the movie ship a "constitution class" due to the carryover of design aesthetics. The NCC-1701-As plaque does nothing to clarify the situation, it has no class identifier on it at all.

So, depending on who you're talking to, what they're used to, and which version (TOS or TMP) being addressed, you can get one of 3 "class names" for the same ship.

For sake of "clarity", I'll stick with the "constitution" designation for TOS-era, and "Enterprise" designation for TMP-era, to help differentiate the technology packages (and my own convenience, having used these terms for 20+ years).

Now, the framework/keel that makes up the original Enterprise is 20+ years old, and, considering the refit, frequent stresses Kirk put on it, and all the holes Kahn put in it, that framework probably was more suitable as a museum piece or scrap metal than repairing it (more like rebuilding it again). Hence the decision in ST III to decommission the Enterprise.

However, at the same moment, the "Enterprise class" design was only 5 years old (best guess from TMP - ST III without research), and the Excelsior class was just entering the testing phase, needing at least a year of testing and another year of construction before the next Excelsior class ship hits space. So, the "Enterprise class" would have been in active construction, not "going out the door", which is why Kirk gets one of them, new, as NCC-1701-A instead of waiting 2+ years for the next Excelsior class.

With that fact (Enterprise class variant of connie/starship class being in "late" production), and the fact that all 3 classes (Enterprise, Miranda & Excelsior) came out around the same time, it would not be a stretch to see them in TNG time, especially since it's proven that Miranda and Excelsior designs made it all the way to TNG.
 
JulinEurthyr said:
Actually, the name "Constitution class" came from the 1973 Technical Manual, because the official dedication plaque couldn't be read on-screen due to size and grainy film of the 60's, and the tech manual listed a NCC-1700 USS Constitution, which, being the "first" of the line, would have passed it's name on to the entire class in naval tradition.

However, with remasters, photographic enhancement, and the actual plaque from the set, the official title "Starship class" overrides the previous "Constitution class". Many trekkers have called that design "Constitution class" for so long (I have all my life) that suddenly switching to "Starship class" is a big leap. To prove my point, the designers of the Defiant set in Enterprise were so used to "Constitution class" they put it on Defiant's dedication plaque.

Furthering the confusion, there may be "non canon" sources that pegged the post-refit (Movie) Enterprise as the "Enterprise class", again, a name carried throughout various parts of lore, even though many still called the movie ship a "constitution class" due to the carryover of design aesthetics. The NCC-1701-As plaque does nothing to clarify the situation, it has no class identifier on it at all.

So, depending on who you're talking to, what they're used to, and which version (TOS or TMP) being addressed, you can get one of 3 "class names" for the same ship.

For sake of "clarity", I'll stick with the "constitution" designation for TOS-era, and "Enterprise" designation for TMP-era, to help differentiate the technology packages (and my own convenience, having used these terms for 20+ years).

Now, the framework/keel that makes up the original Enterprise is 20+ years old, and, considering the refit, frequent stresses Kirk put on it, and all the holes Kahn put in it, that framework probably was more suitable as a museum piece or scrap metal than repairing it (more like rebuilding it again). Hence the decision in ST III to decommission the Enterprise.

However, at the same moment, the "Enterprise class" design was only 5 years old (best guess from TMP - ST III without research), and the Excelsior class was just entering the testing phase, needing at least a year of testing and another year of construction before the next Excelsior class ship hits space. So, the "Enterprise class" would have been in active construction, not "going out the door", which is why Kirk gets one of them, new, as NCC-1701-A instead of waiting 2+ years for the next Excelsior class.

With that fact (Enterprise class variant of connie/starship class being in "late" production), and the fact that all 3 classes (Enterprise, Miranda & Excelsior) came out around the same time, it would not be a stretch to see them in TNG time, especially since it's proven that Miranda and Excelsior designs made it all the way to TNG.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but there is an Episode of TNG that states the enterprise was Constitution class... I don't think we really can go back now... :(

And I must say, I admire your knowledge of the history surrounding the universe, plus your explanation. Kudos!
 
frostytheplebe said:
That may be true, but there is an Episode of TNG that states the enterprise was Constitution class... I don't think we really can go back now... :(
Click to expand...

He also points out in the same paragraph that Enterprise (the show) also specifies the class, so I don't really see how anything is overriden
 
Just some short stuff here...

Looking in the original ST Technical Manual, they refer to the class as the Constitution Class, though there is also in the same lines, "Class I Heavy Cruiser". As ship name and naval tradition dictate, however, Constitution Class would be the class name, as stated before.

I have to say that I favor the refit as being the Enterprise class, as it was printed that way in a few places. Starting in 1987, Pocket Books' "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise", they referred to the refit even then as the Enterprise class. The TNG "Officer's Manual" also had the same referral, saying that the refit made Enterprise different enough that it warranted her own class.

Scott's Guide also refers to the 1701-A as an already completed ship, Ti-Ho, NCC-1798. "Ti-Ho was re-christened Enterprise and her hull registry was changed to NCC-1701-A".

Just more useless info. :)
 
I had a model set (obviously non-canon) that had the 1701, 1701-A and 1701-D all on a pedestal together and the little data sticker that went on a plack for each one said Enterprise Class for the A
 
privfan said:
I had a model set (obviously non-canon) that had the 1701, 1701-A and 1701-D all on a pedestal together and the little data sticker that went on a plack for each one said Enterprise Class for the A
Click to expand...

I've seen that... then again supposedly originally the Sovereign class was ALSO supposed to be enterprise class. Talk about messed up.
 
IT's worth noting again that, aside from age, that the reason why the original Enterprise was being retired was mainally batt'e damage; The ship was, after all, rather badly damaged in STII against Khan, and the ship actually looks worse in STIII (watch both Wrath of Khan and Search For Spock back to back, and note how the Enterprise in the latter movie has damage on the nacelles that wasn't in the former; it's not really important, but it's a nifty sight nonetheless) That, and the fact that it's probably too expensive to repair a 40+year old ship is probably why she got the axe in STIII.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top