Enterprise Refit = HMS Victorious R38

[apepa]

HMS Victorious on Wikipedia

There's been a lot of talk over the years about how different Enterprise was after the refit, and that it was strange how she was going to be decommissioned not that long after such an extensive refit.

Well, there's a historical precedent:

After the war, her service was broken by periods in reserve and, between 1950-8, the most complete reconstruction of any Royal Navy carrier. This involved the construction of new superstructure above the hangar deck level, a new angled flight deck,[1][page needed] new boilers and the fitting of Type 984 3D AW and AD radar and data links and heavy shipboard computers, able to track 50 targets and assess their priority for interrogation and interception. The reduction of Britain's naval commitment in 1967, the end of the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation, and a fire while under refit, prompted her final withdrawal from service, 3–5 years early, and she was scrapped in 1969.
​

Victorious ended up being so heavily rebuilt that when she relaunched after the refit, she was essentially a new ship, and despite still being called an Illustrious-class ship, had she been originally built this way she surely would have been the lead ship in her own class.

 

[StarCruiser]

Would also match up with USS Midway, USS Coral Sea, some of the Essex class, quite a few battleships, cruisers etc...

Radical refits (or rebuilds) are nothing new at all in real world navies. The HMS Victory (yes, that one) was built in 1765 and had a massive rebuilt shortly before she served at Trafalgar.

The "Sovereign of the Seas" of 1637 underwent several major refits and rebuilds during her long life and bore little resemblance to the original ship when she was burned by accident in 1697.

I never had an issue with the TOS-TMP refit...

 

[apepa]

Would also match up with USS Midway, USS Coral Sea, some of the Essex class, quite a few battleships, cruisers etc...

Radical refits (or rebuilds) are nothing new at all in real world navies. The HMS Victory (yes, that one) was built in 1765 and had a massive rebuilt shortly before she served at Trafalgar.

The "Sovereign of the Seas" of 1637 underwent several major refits and rebuilds during her long life and bore little resemblance to the original ship when she was burned by accident in 1697.

I never had an issue with the TOS-TMP refit...

It's one of those things that comes up from time to time, like the questions about why ships bearing a resemblance to Reliant and Excelsior are still in use during DS9. (Hint: Gerald R. Ford looks a lot like older carriers)

 

[Timo]

Between the World Wars, there were multiple reasons to refit rather than to construct from keel up:

- Arms limitation treaties frowned on the latter but not on the former.
- Technology as regards propulsion had evolved greatly, promoting the gutting of hulls and installing of new interiors; technology as regards armor and armament, much less so, promoting the retaining of the hulls themselves.
- Economic hardship affected the ability to obtain or recycle steel, making it attractive to use hulls as is.
- The first war had resulted in a great surplus of capital ships and to some degree destroyers, while the second posed a great but not immediately or obviously overwhelming need.

Basically every WWI battleship everywhere was refitted to keep up with the times, some more than others. Those with the resources to spare (great powers, upstarts with totalitarian control of resources) went for certain "luxuries" or "excesses" with consequences: commonality was a practical concern in parts and ordnance logistics but indirectly led to aesthetical commonality as well. Thus, brand new Italian battleships could barely be told apart from WWI veterans after both had received the same type of secondary and tertiary armament, modern smokestacks and assorted aerials and empennage.

But this is not quite what we see in Trek. Is half the fleet of seeming late 23rd century designs in the TNG era actually "retro", built in the shape of the old for commonality? After all, we can tell for a fact that the common shape of things does come from the 23rd century and not from the 24th, having been there in the 23rd.

In certain other respects, and at certain other eras,Trek could still be of this "between wars" model. The TMP look and the very TMP refit of the hero ship could come at a time when the Organian Treaty limited newbuilding and when relics predating the recent Klingon War would abound and be needed for the foreseen next one...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[apepa]

But this is not quite what we see in Trek. Is half the fleet of seeming late 23rd century designs in the TNG era actually "retro", built in the shape of the old for commonality? After all, we can tell for a fact that the common shape of things does come from the 23rd century and not from the 24th, having been there in the 23rd.

In certain other respects, and at certain other eras,Trek could still be of this "between wars" model. The TMP look and the very TMP refit of the hero ship could come at a time when the Organian Treaty limited newbuilding and when relics predating the recent Klingon War would abound and be needed for the foreseen next one...

Timo Saloniemi

See above. Gerald R. Ford class. You really must learn to read other people's posts.

 

[Timo]

You mean the Ford is retro?

The Ford isn't affected by any of the other issues discussed - no treaties, no shortages, no needs or surpluses to deal with.

But the Ford isn't built in the shape of any particularly old ships out of a wish to remain common. It is merely the latest in a batch of ships built within a relatively short timeframe. If Starfleet's Mirandas were brand new in ST2:TWoK, this still wouldn't mean the tail end of a "superclass" comparable to the one extending from the Forrestal to the Ford would remain in production in the TNG era, or even the Cardassian War era.

And even between the Forrestal and the Ford, there has been visible evolution. It's intriguing that none is evident between a Miranda and a Miranda. Is all.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[apepa]

You mean the Ford is retro?

The Ford isn't affected by any of the other issues discussed - no treaties, no shortages, no needs or surpluses to deal with.

But the Ford isn't built in the shape of any particularly old ships out of a wish to remain common. It is merely the latest in a batch of ships built within a relatively short timeframe. If Starfleet's Mirandas were brand new in ST2:TWoK, this still wouldn't mean the tail end of a "superclass" comparable to the one extending from the Forrestal to the Ford would remain in production in the TNG era, or even the Cardassian War era.

And even between the Forrestal and the Ford, there has been visible evolution. It's intriguing that none is evident between a Miranda and a Miranda. Is all.

Timo Saloniemi

The treaty and shortage issues are entirely a product of your own imagination. The extensive reconstruction of Victorious and her American counterparts was a result of the rapid development of technology and happened in the 1950s when no such restrictions existed.

There has been visual evolution between the Forrestal and the Ford, yes. But there's still not that much that distinguishes the two, and moreover the Ford-class is an evolution of the Nimitz class, which aside from being an evolutionary (as opposed to revolutionary) design itself is expected to have a nearly 90 year lifespan if you consider that Nimitz was commissioned in 1975 and HW is expected to be in service until about 2060 . Or on the other side of things, you might consider the modern Boeing 737, which aside from the nacelles looks the same as the aircraft that was designed in the 1960s, but has been extensively changed internally to keep up with the times.

There is no reason to believe that every ship resembling Reliant is part of a "Miranda-class", much less that all these ships are somehow outdated.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

I've always assumed that the Miranda- and Excelsior-Classes proved themselves to be highly effective in their roles to warrant them being retained in service, with new batches periodically being constructed, as well as regular overhauls and upgrades when required.

The Miranda-Class is introduced as essentially a survey and support ship, though her compact hull and impressive range of armament also make her highly effective in combat, and she has been shown to be very versatile serving as a cruiser in combat to a cargo ship.

The Excelsior-Class essentially replaced the Constitution-Class and looks a far more robust and sturdy ship. She's a versatile design that seems as capable as other larger 'capital ships', whilst her most recent upgrade (the Lakota) gives her considerable firepower, enough to take on purpose-built warship.

 

[apepa]

I've always assumed that the Miranda- and Excelsior-Classes proved themselves to be highly effective in their roles to warrant them being retained in service, with new batches periodically being constructed, as well as regular overhauls and upgrades when required.

The Miranda-Class is introduced as essentially a survey and support ship, though her compact hull and impressive range of armament also make her highly effective in combat, and she has been shown to be very versatile serving as a cruiser in combat to a cargo ship.

But my point was that with the sort of modification and modernisation that the design underwent would warrant a new class name for new builds, even if their outward appearance changed little over time. There are plenty of historical examples of ships being laid down as one class and becoming another during construction as improved designs and technology are introduced.

There's also (as in real life) something to be said for the reliability benefit of making incremental improvements to an existing frame, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel every 10 years.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

There's no evidence to say that it wasn't known as the Constitution-Class Enterprise-Variant.

Also for all we know the people behind the redesign and refit of the ship were from Andor, who may frequently put ships through severe upgrades but still remain defined as their original class. Try not to look at things in Trek in such a human-centric way.

 

[J.T.B.]

The treaty and shortage issues are entirely a product of your own imagination. The extensive reconstruction of Victorious and her American counterparts was a result of the rapid development of technology and happened in the 1950s when no such restrictions existed.

The Illustrious class were designed under treaty tonnage limits in the late '30s, unlike the Essexes and Midways, so Victorious naturally had farther to go to enter the jet carrier age. Her short life after refit basically boils down to the UK being unable to afford three fixed-wing carriers, so they kept the newest two, Ark Royal and Hermes.

The change from 15,000 pound piston bombers to 40,000 pound jet fighters was revolutionary, so it's understandable that ships designed pre- would take considerable modification to function well post-revolution. I don't really know what in the OS/TMP period would be revolutionary on a comparable scale.

 

[StarCruiser]

Propulsion...

The TMP ships were supposedly equipped with the latest M/AM reactors and "Linear" warp drives. Radical new propulsion systems would almost certainly require a serious redesign of the ships that use them.

I, personally, don't consider the Miranda Class to be a refitted TOS type but, the novel version of ST2 gave her a nickname "The old bucket".

Yes, the refit madness of the 1920's and 1930's was due to the Washington and London Naval treaties and in some cases, the need to economize on procurement.

The US Navy did some projects between the wars - the most radical being taking the hulls of the cancelled battlecruisers Lexington and Ranger and rebuilding them into the carriers Lexington and Saratoga (yes, Ranger's hull became Saratoga).

Italy had both treaty limits to deal with, and a serious budget problem (seems to be the same today). They scrapped one old Dreadnought - the Dante Alighieri but, later radically rebuilt the 4 others still left since the new Littorio Class battleships were taking longer than planned.

Japan, like the US, rebuilt two cancelled ships as carriers - Kaga and Akagi, one from a battleship and the other a battlecruiser. Otherwise, moderate refits were carried out on most battleships and battlecruisers.

The Royal Navy had serious budget problems after WW1. They ended up scraping a lot of ships build before that war as they were now quite obsolete. Even the famous HMS Dreadnought herself met the scrapper's torch way too soon. Some ships were built and many received moderate refits to keep them useful but, at the start of WW2, the Royal Navy still had a lot of outdated ships of dubious value. Some fought on, and did fairly well, others were lost quickly.

Germany, didn't have much left of it's fleet of WW1. Most major ships had been scuttled at Scapa Flow right after the war and they were not allowed to build anything larger than a cruiser before the 1930's rearmament started by Hitler. A few very elderly pre-dreadnoughts were refitted but, were still very weak and slow. This is part of the reason Hitler depended on the U-Boats to fight the naval war.

The French Navy did some modest refits and built a few modern ships in the 1930's but, as usual, they were just trying to match the Italians - though the Dunkerque's were built to counter the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.

Once WW2 was over, and jet aircraft were becoming practical, everything changed. Some nations simply could not afford a large, modern navy and focused on smaller ships and conventional submarines, others were -temporarily- restricted from building a serious fleet (Germany and Japan) and the big navies had to rethink the whole concept of a navy in the nuclear era.

Wait, is this a dissertation? No..? Never mind...

 

[J.T.B.]

The TMP ships were supposedly equipped with the latest M/AM reactors and "Linear" warp drives. Radical new propulsion systems would almost certainly require a serious redesign of the ships that use them.

Maybe. From what was seen in the movies, though, the refit propulsion didn't seem that revolutionary. Not like they talked about transwarp in ST3.

The US Navy did some projects between the wars - the most radical being taking the hulls of the cancelled battlecruisers Lexington and Ranger and rebuilding them into the carriers Lexington and Saratoga (yes, Ranger's hull became Saratoga).

Lexington had a name change but Saratoga didn't.

CC-1 Constitution, Quincy MA, renamed Lexington, completed as CV-2
CC-2 Constellation, Newport News VA, canceled
CC-3 Saratoga, Camden NJ, completed as CV-3
CC-4 Lexington, Newport News VA, renamed Ranger, canceled
CC-5 Ranger, Philadelphia, renamed Constitution, canceled
CC-6 United States, Philadelphia, canceled

Numbers 1 and 3 were selected for the carrier conversion because they had the most work completed, about 34 and 35% respectively, compared to 23% for Constellation.

 

[apepa]

The Illustrious class were designed under treaty tonnage limits in the late '30s, unlike the Essexes and Midways, so Victorious naturally had farther to go to enter the jet carrier age. Her short life after refit basically boils down to the UK being unable to afford three fixed-wing carriers, so they kept the newest two, Ark Royal and Hermes.

The change from 15,000 pound piston bombers to 40,000 pound jet fighters was revolutionary, so it's understandable that ships designed pre- would take considerable modification to function well post-revolution. I don't really know what in the OS/TMP period would be revolutionary on a comparable scale.

I'd posit that the increased tensions with the Romulans and the Klingons during TOS might have encouraged the sort of rapid technological leaps we saw at the beginning of the Cold War.

This reasoning would also explain why the basic Reliant/Grissom/Excelsior pattern hulls were only starting to be replaced by totally new designs in the 2370s. The Borg and the renewed Romulan threat depicted in TNG could have encouraged higher defence spending and encouraged more innovation. Nothing encourages innovation the way war does.

 

[apepa]

Also for all we know the people behind the redesign and refit of the ship were from Andor, who may frequently put ships through severe upgrades but still remain defined as their original class. Try not to look at things in Trek in such a human-centric way.

Maybe, but Starfleet has always been portrayed as a largely human (more particularly western, and even more specifically American) organisation. Most of the ships depicted have historical human names, most of the officers and men are human, the rank structure is based on 20th century Navies, its headquarters are located on Earth, and it's certainly a historically human organisation that slowly became the Federation's primary military/exploratory service.

In other words, a ship largely built by humans in Earth orbit, and refit by humans in Earth orbit is going to be classified according to the traditions of those humans. The only thing Andorian about it is the colour of the new deflector dish.