I can see the Connie being in service for 40 years with semiregular upgrades. I also could see the E-A be made of a hastily upgraded older Connie perhaps scheduled for decommissioning originally.
I've always held the belief that the E-A is an older Constitution (probably the former Yorktown as Roddenberry had suggested). Since we aren't entirely sure of how long the events of Star Trek IV occurred (what's to say that Kirk's trial didn't last a couple months, long enough to get the Yorktown seen at the beginning of Star Trek IV home and repaired). To the point, the former Yorktown was refitted as a test bed for new computer systems, perhaps for the Excelsior. Starfleet hastily outfitted her and renamed her for Kirk and thus at the beginning of Star Trek V Scotty was having problems with the ship. It might also explain why the ship only lasted briefly. I get the impression that at the beginning of Star Trek VI, E-A was in partial decommission and was brought back for one last mission.
Kirk's final words would suggest that the ship and crew would be decommissioned but then turned over to a new crew. So it is possible that the E-A had a few more missions under a new crew.
Or that Kirk was already aware that a new Enterprise was being built. Besides we know from GEN that the Ent-B was the first Enterrpsie in thirty years not to be commanded by Kirk.
Probably so. However the reporter's question has some issues, "Captain, ...this is the first Starship Enterprise in thirty years without James T. Kirk in command." Kirk wasn't in command of the Enterprise at the beginning of TMP (Decker was) or beginning of TWOK (Spock was). For "thirty years" to work out, GEN would be like 15 or 20 years after TUC, assuming Kirk's last continuous command started in TVH. So, the reporter's timing is way off or they omitted other commanders of the Enterprise.
Wouldn't the "first in 30 years" usually suggest that there has not been a Starship Enterprise in the past 30 years without James T. Kirk in command? Since Kirk's last continuous command started in ST IV it would suggest TVH + 30 years. Apparently the reporter could have used a history lesson (same goes for the screenplay writer). Bob
Or that the ship was recommissioned as the Yorktown or whatever ship it was in the past, and relaunched with a new crew. Or maybe Kirk was just speaking figuratively. If 23rd century reporters are anything like 21st century reporters, then this isn't atypical. Reporters rarely get their facts right initially and like to put their own spin on things. That's probably the case here.
The writer -- er.. -- reporter simply subtracted 1994 (Gen) - 1964 (The Cage) to get 30 years. Or, as an in-universe explanation, maybe Kirk was always technically "in command" of the Enterprise while an Admiral. It was his flagship of choice, although there were other captains? Just an idea.
Or figured that it was a clearer question than one about the ``first active-commissioned Enterprise in an ordinary non-training, non-refitting duty assignment not to be commanded by Kirk in thirty years''. There's a point where precision starts to obstruct comprehension.
Then why not just say, "Captain, ...this is the first Starship Enterprise in fifteen years without James T. Kirk in command." (or ten or whatever.)
Well there is also the fact that whilst Decker might have been in command in the Ent during its refit. As the ship never left spacedock with him in command the reporter might have overlooked him. Same goes for the period when it seemed to be a training vessel, as someone noted above it could have been Kirk's flag vessel. Or perhaps the reporter simply meant that this was the first Enterprise that would be going on a deep space mission without Kirk in command.
On that note, how about just: "Captain: this is the first Enterprise in a GENERATION without James T. Kirk in command." Ooooooooooo...
Going back to the OP... I'm not so sure those Essex class carriers are the best example for comparison. Many did spend long periods in reserve, but there were some particular reasons for this: (1) A wartime building boom far larger than peacetime budgets could support, (2) a period of political/policymaking uncertainty 1946-1950 about what the future of naval aviation would be with respect to the newly independent Air Force, and (3) the rapid pace of developments toward larger and jet-powered aircraft which larger, more specialized carrier decks. If you look at the careers of the peacetime supercarriers and even the larger wartime Midways, you see pretty standard patterns of operation and refit, but little decommission/reserve time. Which is pretty historically consistent for capital ships of major powers in the industrial age. Absent some kind of major war buildup or something like that, which I've not seen evidence of, I would lean toward 1701 and her sisters actively operating pretty consistently through their lifetimes, outside normal refit periods.
They could have had their cake and eat it, too. Just script the battle a little differently. The saucer separates, during the battle, while the battlesection tries to draw the attention of the BoP instead of popping like a balloon like it did. It goes to town on the Klingons and destroys them successfully, though a last stray torpedo hits the saucer and causes it to crashland like we've seen, while the battle section remains heavily damaged in orbit. At the end we see the saucer salvaged and lifted back into orbit and towed by the relief ships. In the new movie we see a spanking new Ent-D refitted extensively like the 1701 to bring the model up to the movie quality and tweaked design elements like hull details, nacelle shape, etc but keep the frame. Interior design would be new as well, maybe a blend of old galaxy class and Sovereign style.
Actually, here's what would have made more sense: Actually give the Duras sisters the huge battlecruiser they were originally supposed to get (instead of the puny BoP just so they could save a couple bucks re-using the destruction of Chang's BoP from the previous film). Make a much better space battle between the two ships, and eventually have the separation so that the stardrive section could ram the battlecruiser (just like in Nemesis). Battlecruiser destroyed, stardrive section a floating hulk in space. Saucer crash, then like you said, gets retrieved by the rescue ships. Next movie, voila, the D is repaired and refitted to look like it did in "All Good Things..." (I liked that version far better than the Sovereign). But no, they wanted a new fucking ship.
I think the issue is less that the Ent-D was sdestroyed but the manner in which it was destroyed. Would it had been better if they used a Vor'cha Class crusier probable.
No for me. The issue was that the Enterprise-D was destroyed. It was a stupid and unecessary "plot device" that was easily fixed, but wasn't.
Not for me either. The fact of the idiotic manner in which it was destroyed was just lousy icing on an already foul-tasting cake. And Picard's rather flippant attitude at the end of the film ("Oh, they'll just build another one") was just god-awful.