Constitution Class Retirement

[Timo]

I'm no expert, but reading the bios for CV-6 it seems to me that CVN-65 and the upcoming CVN-80 are very much intended as the successors in every way to CV-6. However, as I'm not an expert, I'd be interested in hearing why you believe they aren't?

When CV-6 went out of service in 1946, the ship to fill the gap was the next of the larger Essex class carriers in line, technically the Valley Forge (CV-45). The more or less contemporary but more capable Midway carriers did not fill that gap, but met a different need. The next ship named Enterprise was not yet even a glimmer in the eyes of her would-be designers at that time and age - she entered service more than a decade later!

Similarly, when CVN-65 was retired, the carrier to take her place was Gerald Ford, CVN-78; one could also argue that her role had already been taken by George H.W. Bush, running up to operational status when CVN-65 was winding down. The next ship named Enterprise, CVN-80, does not even exist yet, and will not address the gap left by the retiring of CVN-65, but another gap entirely (real or perceived, arguably the approaching retirement of Nimitz or Dwight D. Eisenhower but alternatively a desire to at least temporarily increase overall carrier capacity).

Names are irrelevant to the issue of "succession". It's not as if USN would have been missing a ship had CVN-65 been named MacArthur or Roosevelt...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Timo]

The fact that the Ent-B's name is the Enterprise, that it shares the same registry with an updated suffix, and the fact that the Ent-A was decommissioned a year before, pretty much makes the Ent-B the Ent-A's successor in every way. I'm not sure why anyone would even be arguing to the contrary.

So if USN today retired the Gerald Ford and launched a littoral combat ship named Gerald Ford a year later, with the same registry number, the LCS would be a successor to the CVN?

Of course, in the Trek case we see a reversal, with the name going from a midget to a giant. But there's no apparent continuity in design or role between the two ships, merely the "coincidence" (blatant PR stunt) of naming. It's just that it's a bit difficult to discern "roles" in the ill-defined Starfleet based on the scant data we get from the few movies and episodes. But Starfleet still bothers to assign designations to ships, separating cruisers from frigates and transports from supply ships. That we fail to hear the official designation of the E-B is lamentable, but the burden of proof would be on claiming that it, too, is the heavy cruiser familiar from the E-A (or, more accurately, the lookalike E-nil).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ithekro]

USS Enterprise (CV-6) was decommissioned in 1946, but its fate wasn't clear until 1958, which was also the year they named the first nuclear carrier USS Enterprise. There were several attempts to keep the ship as a museum, but when those finally failed, she was sold for scrap, but her name was transferred to the next new carrier design (CVN-65).

When the nuclear USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was deactivated, it was announced that the next carrier that needed naming would be the next USS Enterprise. CVN-78 (USS Gerald R. Ford) was already under construction, and the CVN-79 had the year before already been named USS John F. Kennedy (the second carrier to bare that name). This left the CVN-80 to be named USS Enterprise. However, it is still possible that this ship will not be built. The construction time is already probably being extended to delivery in 2027, they are having technological problems with the Gerald R. Ford-class like with the F-35 fighters, Zumwalt-class destroyer, and some other new high tech ships. This delay will likely force the Navy to reduce the number of carriers down even farther than they have now (There are presently 10 carriers in service, with Gerald R. Ford being delayed in commissioning until maybe 2017). The fleet will likely keep eleven carrier for part of the time the newer carrier are being built, but at some point it will slip to ten, and the last Gerald R. Ford-class ship might even be replacing the Gerald R. Ford itself with the fleet reduced to nine carriers as unless they can cut construction time with better knowledge of the ship's systems, it will be over fifty years between the Gerald R. Ford entering service and the tenth ship of the class (theoretically the CVN-87) entering service somewhere around 2070, with modern super carriers seeming to be able to stick around for a 50 years service life.

It is difficult for the Navy to cover all of the areas of responsibility it has with ten or even eleven carriers as their is almost always at least one undergoing a refit of some kind, one being refueled, or training new crew between deployments. So generally eight or nine that are deployed or on station. For the entire planet.

The new USS Enterprise is suppose to replace USS Nimitz (CVN-68) in the fleet.

 

[TheSubCommander]

So there is the possibility that the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) remained in service after being renamed to free the name for the new Excelsior-class starship. I don't know if her hull number would be changed, though it might go back to whatever it was suppose to be prior to being redesignated NCC-1701-A.

Nice theory but it conflicts with my head canon, where the Enterprise-A is decommissioned, repaired, and turned into a museum ship.

USN precedent not withstanding, I think it is unlikely Starfleet would have removed from service, repaired, and then renamed\rechristened the Enterprise-A. I take decommissioning to mean the ship itself is removed from service. This goes double if the Enterprise-A were an earlier ship (IE Tiho, Yorktown), and not a newly-constructed ship. This is not to say that there weren't other Constitution class vessels still out there in service for a long time, but I like to think that the Enterprise-A was an older ship and Starfleet looked at the cost VS benefit to being repaired and upgraded for further service (IE we don't know how structurally sound the saucer was...it could have required a complete replacement for all we know). In my head canon, that was the case: the saucer was repaired well enough to be kept as a museum ship, but the Enterprise-A was too badly damaged for revamping to bring it up to "modern" (relative to 2293) standards, as in needing increased warp engine output, increased power output for shields and weapons. There is only so far a ship can be upgraded, before it reaches the limits of cost VS benefit. In fact, when a ship is too obsolete, it actually is a net loss, or even a danger, to the rest of the fleet.

So, the USN parallel I see here is something like the Iowa class battleships, with around the same usability life as the Enterprise and Enterprise-A (assuming E-A is a renamed ship). Iowas were built in the 1940s during WW2, then were refit in the 1980s, and retired in the 1990s.

 

[Timo]

I take decommissioning to mean the ship itself is removed from service.

Until recently, ships would be decommissioned for the duration of a major repair or refit, then recommissioned for action again. It used to be no big deal.

We might well argue Starfleet does the same thing, as we see dedication plaques indicating commissioning dates that are surprisingly recent for a ship of a seemingly old design and low registry (the Tsiolkovsky launches this practice). Also, dedication plaques sometimes feature other signs of having been updated - that of the Franklin in the newest movie reflects a change of operating authority, say.

What the decommissioning in ST6 was all about remains uncertain. Why does Kirk think "this ship" will go on doing great things under a new crew if he is aware of an immediate and permanent decommissioning? He seems to be postponing said decommissioning by taking a rebellious course towards Neverland, but his belief in continuing adventures still hinges on there being a new "crew" - supposedly not just a band of pirates on the run from Starfleet authorities.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ithekro]

Lets take another USN ship form the 1900s as another example. USS New York (ARC-2) was an another armored cruiser built, this time in the 1890s. She was decommissioned a number of times. Usually whenever they needed to modernize her or being placed in reserve when there was nothing happening. She was renamed to USS Saratoga in 1911 to release the name New York for a new battleship (BB-34). She was renamed again, this time to USS Rochester (later renumbered CA-2), in 1917 to free up the name Saratoga for a new battlecruiser (which eventually became the aircraft carrier, CV-3). She was decommissioned in 1933 in Subic Bay, but remained there for years, being removed from the Naval List in 1938. She was still there in 1941 and scuttled to prevent capture by the Japanese.

Ships are not always upgraded when refit. Sometimes they are downgraded so they can do other roles. The hull still works and the engines still work, but he ship is no longer front line. There are plenty of other things it can do. The above USS New York, when built, was the fastest armored cruiser in the world and the most heavily armed cruiser in the US Navy. She was a flagship during the Spanish-American War. Flagship of the Pacific Squadron during the Russo-Japanese War, spent most of her time as USS Saratoga in The Far East. Did convoy duty in World War One. Spend much of her time as USS Rochester doing gunboat diplomacy or as flagship of a destroyer squadron.

USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) could easily have had a similar path, and still ended up as a museum ship after many more adventure under any number of names or hull numbers. Possibly being restored as the Enterprise after they bring her home for museum service following her being in service for 40 or 50 years from whenever she was originally launched as whatever name she had before becoming USS Enterprise. Or even retaining whatever her last name was and most people forgetting she even was the Enterprise for seven or so years under Captain Kirk.

(The aircraft carrier, USS Hornet (CV-12) still has her original name on some of her construction members, and certainly her keel...USS Kearsarge).

 

[TheSubCommander]

Of course those are valid theories, and nothing onscreen necessarily disproves them.

However, as to the Enterprise-A being recommissioned under another name, sure it "could" happen. Yes, there is precedent in the US, as well as other navies. But that doesn't mean it's so for Starfleet, or the Enterprise-A.

First, since it was brought up, Kirk's quote:
"Captain's Log, stardate 9529.1. This is the final cruise of the Starship Enterprise under my command. This ship and her history will shortly become the care of another crew. To them and their posterity will we commit our future. They will continue the voyages we have begun, and journey to all the undiscovered countries, boldly going where no man... where no *one* has gone before."

Sure, he references "this ship," and "care of another crew." I have always taken that as metaphorically, where he is referring to the name "Enterprise," and the other crew is that of the TNG cast. It is especially obvious when you look at the last sentence. But even if Kirk literally meant the Enterprise-A, that crew could just as easily been a reference to the museum crew. And if you want to look at US Navy precedent, maybe the Enterprise-A became something like the USS Constitution: basically a museum ship operated by the Navy, and kept on the books as the oldest warship in service. Especially since the 1701 was destroyed, the Enterprise-A was the last ship commanded by Kirk and with his retirement, I would think there would be a motive to preserve that ship. So even if it were doable, there still would be a motive to just keep it on as a museum.

Second, I just think with the Mirandas, Excelsiors, and even the Oberths, maybe by that time, there were enough ships to just go ahead and retire the Enterprise-A. I mean if you can build a Miranda that does pretty much everything the Constitition could for less effort, or better yet, an excelsior that does even more, and at pretty much the same effort, why bother with refitting a battle damaged near 50 year old ship? Refits can be as extensive as building a ship from scratch. I think an arguement can be made that the Miranda's filled much of the constitution class's role, as the Connies aged. The mirandas may have had a shorter built time, making them easier to mass produce than the connies.

 

[Timo]

The "museum crew" interpretation suffers a bit from Kirk's wish for the new crew to have "voyages"...

It's an interesting thought nevertheless. Would Kirk really have reason to think his ship would be preserved? Would there be Starfleet precedent for placing the ships of great men (and women, BEMs, what have you) in museums? Would Kirk think of himself as "great man"?

Basically, TUC ended the Klingon threat for the time being. Starfleet no doubt could afford to retire the damaged, outdated or overcomplex and expensive ships in its arsenal, then. How many months or years would it take after Khitomer for this to become evident? Would Starfleet ever admit to a chance to downescalate?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Lost_Astronaut]

I like the idea that the E-A was another refit Constitution due for retirement that they saved from the scrap bucket at the last minute. Even though the crew had saved the planet, I still don't think yanking a ship slated for another crew and giving it to someone else would be entirely fair, for one thing. If, however, she's headed for the museum or mothballs, it still is a win for everyone. Also, it's not unreasonable to infer that the Enterprise was not the only Constitution to be slated for retirement in this period, since the Excelsior class appears to be the future of the fleet, so other ships may have shared her fate, had she not been destroyed.

At that point (II/III) in her service she was apparently a training vessel for the Academy. Maybe this is just part of the lifecycle of a starship in the fleet? They see decades of active service, multiple sweeping refits, and then as newer and even more advanced designs emerge, they become training and research vessels, if they survive long enough, until enough people decide they are no longer useful. Maybe bringing the whales back also kept the remaining Constitution ships running for a few more years beyond their "normal" lifetime?

This would also make some sense with what we see of the 1701-A from IV through VI. The ship gets a significant bridge upgrade, but is plagued by shipwide computer glitches, almost as if the new control systems can't quite interface with the old tech under the surface. By VI these problems have been solved, but almost every space is packed with conduits and equipment, like they keep adding new tech to extend the ship's capabilities to current standards. At this stage, once its value as a research and learning tool is overshadowed by its costs in maintenance or performance, it is finally retired.

 

[Dukhat]

So if USN today retired the Gerald Ford and launched a littoral combat ship named Gerald Ford a year later, with the same registry number, the LCS would be a successor to the CVN?

No, because you're confusing reality with the fictional world of Star Trek.

In Star Trek, starships are starships, no matter what class or type they are. They all perform the same functions. Oberths perform science missions as well as Galaxies. Galaxies perform as warships just like Excelsiors and Mirandas. Et cetera, et cetera.

In the case of the Constitution and Excelsior classes (and specifically the Ent-A and Ent-B), the only negligible difference between the two ships is that one is larger and faster than the other. But they both do the same thing. So in this instance, one is the complete successor of the other.

 

[Ithekro]

The precedents for renaming what became the NCC-1701-A to USS Enterprise depend on what she was prior to the Whale Song incident. If she was USS Yorktown, an older ship, Starfleet could have used the chance to reuse the name on a new Excelsior-class vessel (possibly the ship Tuvok's parents served on). If it was the USS Ti-Ho, a new ship, they renamed her Enterprise after a recently lost vessel.

The retirement of the original USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) could have had something to do with the idea that they wanted to reuse the name on a new Excelsior-class vessel, which they eventually did. Kirk's action get the name withheld from the Excelsior-class ship for a time, not only because they grant him a new ship with that name, but also because of USS Excelsior's failure to capture USS Enterprise, delaying the class's commissioning.

 

[Dukhat]

The precedents for renaming what became the NCC-1701-A to USS Enterprise depend on what she was prior to the Whale Song incident. If she was USS Yorktown, an older ship, Starfleet could have used the chance to reuse the name on a new Excelsior-class vessel (possibly the ship Tuvok's parents served on). If it was the USS Ti-Ho, a new ship, they renamed her Enterprise after a recently lost vessel.

The retirement of the original USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) could have had something to do with the idea that they wanted to reuse the name on a new Excelsior-class vessel, which they eventually did. Kirk's action get the name withheld from the Excelsior-class ship for a time, not only because they grant him a new ship with that name, but also because of USS Excelsior's failure to capture USS Enterprise, delaying the class's commissioning.

Yeah, my theory has always been that Starfleet was planning to make the second Excelsior class ship the new Enterprise as far back as STIII, hence why the original ship was to be decommissioned. (In this case, the Excelsior class would have been the Enterprise-A.) However, due to unforseen circumstances, plans were changed, Kirk was given an older ship renamed the Ent-A as a tribute just temporarily until the new ship was completed (which would explain the Ent-A's short lifespan), and then it would either be decommissioned fully or renamed back to whatever it was originally, and the new ship would be the Ent-B.

Unfortunately, we will never know the truth.

 

[Timo]

In Star Trek, starships are starships, no matter what class or type they are. They all perform the same functions. Oberths perform science missions as well as Galaxies. Galaxies perform as warships just like Excelsiors and Mirandas. Et cetera, et cetera.

But Oberths don't fight the way Galaxies do, say. It's just that Galaxies do everything, and apparently so did the Constitutions. But they are exceptions as far as we can tell, and we need to learn whether the E-B was such an exception as well. Alas, we can't.

An Oberth cannot succeed a Galaxy functionally. Can an Excelsior-plus succeed a Constitution? That depends less on whether both are aces-of-all-trades and more on whether there's a better match available. CV-6 wasn't succeeded by the big and beautiful USS Midway but by the humbler contemporary USS Valley Forge - the Midway introduced an all-new category of warships (despite looking like just another carrier to the layman), while the Valley Forge continued the role of the Yorktown class of which CV-6 had been part.

At the time the Excelsior and the Excelsior-with-cheeks are launched, Starfleet is also launching another new ship type - the Constellation. The latter is a closer match to the Constitution refit than the former two in terms of size, looks and specific pieces of onboard tech. Is USS Magellan perhaps the true successor of the E-A?

...my theory has always been that Starfleet was planning to make the second Excelsior class ship the new Enterprise

Where is this sort of thinking coming from? Real navies don't build names. They build ships, and then give them names, often by the dartboard-and-dice method. We have no good evidence that Starfleet would be any different.

There might be special circumstances where a ship with a certain name might be politically welcome or unwelcome - say, in wartime losing a USS Earth might be deemed risky for the fighting spirit, while launching a USS Bloody Vengeance in the middle of peace negotations might send the wrong message. But there'd be little need to build a ship in order to apply a name. There are always ships being built, and there's always the option of renaming as well.

Why would Starfleet want a new Enterprise? If the name is symbolically important, then the combination of the name and the "real" ship carrying that name should be a winner, and any newbuild "fake" with the name plastered on a step down.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

But Oberths don't fight the way Galaxies do, say. It's just that Galaxies do everything, and apparently so did the Constitutions. But they are exceptions as far as we can tell, and we need to learn whether the E-B was such an exception as well. Alas, we can't.

An Oberth cannot succeed a Galaxy functionally. Can an Excelsior-plus succeed a Constitution? That depends less on whether both are aces-of-all-trades and more on whether there's a better match available. CV-6 wasn't succeeded by the big and beautiful USS Midway but by the humbler contemporary USS Valley Forge - the Midway introduced an all-new category of warships (despite looking like just another carrier to the layman), while the Valley Forge continued the role of the Yorktown class of which CV-6 had been part.

At the time the Excelsior and the Excelsior-with-cheeks are launched, Starfleet is also launching another new ship type - the Constellation. The latter is a closer match to the Constitution refit than the former two in terms of size, looks and specific pieces of onboard tech. Is USS Magellan perhaps the true successor of the E-A?

All of which is irrelevant. As I said, based on what we see in the Trek universe, any class of ship can perform any function. We saw an Oberth used as a warship in the Wolf 359 scene in DS9's "Emissary." We also see it as a cargo ship (U.S.S. Biko). It doesn't make much sense considering the Oberth was usually given science duties, but it just goes to show that a ship's class or type means nothing in Starfleet.

Where is this sort of thinking coming from? Real navies don't build names. They build ships, and then give them names, often by the dartboard-and-dice method. We have no good evidence that Starfleet would be any different.

Again, I'll point out that you keep confusing Starfleet with the real Navy. It is nothing of the sort. My theory is based on the fact that Morrow was decommissioning the Enterprise because, in his words, "we feel her day is over." Considering Starfleet's penchant for renaming new ships with names of older ships, it stands to reason that at some point a new Excelsior class was going to get that name, sooner rather than later, based on the NCC-1701's hasty decommission.

 

[Solariabsg25]

There may possibly be an in-universe reason for the Constitutions to be phased out. Perhaps the Miranda class, which certainly seemed to be just as capable, were easier to mass-produce. There were only 13 Connies at the time of TOS (even less taking into account losses, but then new construction may have brought the number up again), and we see roughly that number of Miranda Class in a single battle scene in DS9. The Excelsior was just introduced, and it appeared that about this time the Constellations were also coming off the slipways.

As others have said, it's extremely unlikely that the -A was decommissioned immediately after Star Trek VI, unless the structural damage from the Khitomer battle was far more extensive than it appeared, so indeed she may have served for years afterwards under a new captain and crew. The Generations quote from the reporter indicates this may not have been the case, but it's not like reporters haven't exaggerated statements for their headlines.

Starfleet has never been very consistent when it comes to the Enterprise legacy. She's such a legend that within a year or so they've replaced the D with the E, yet there is a 20-year gap between the C and the D.

 

[Timo]

You still haven't offered any reason for us to think Starfleet would be different from all the real navies here. Starfleet believes in separating cruisers from frigates. Starfleet builds different ships when it could mass-produce a single type. Starfleet heroes make note of different ships having different survival odds in scenarios (often to the dramatic end of showing how the heroes are underdogs, or at least no better off than those who just failed). Against that background, "Starfleet doesn't differentiate" is baseless speculation.

I frequently keep confusing Kirk with a human being. When that backfires, the writers have failed in their task. With the specifics of fictional organizations, it's not quite that severe, but the same logic applies.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

You still haven't offered any reason for us to think Starfleet would be different from all the real navies here.

Yes, I have. You're simply refusing to listen. So I'm done.

 

[Timo]

I'm actually curious here. You say class or type means nothing to Starfleet - meaning you disbelieve in the specific points I made, about Starfleet very much caring. Why?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Lance]

There is no way to be certain that the wreckage is from a Constitution-class starship, unfortunately.

It is a very distinctive shape. And one that is not shared by any other ship that we're aware of within canon.

I do take your point, though.

 

[tharpdevenport]

Correct me if wrong, but the Excelsior class ship wasn't built to take over at all when we first encountered it; it had the experimental registry prefix of "NX" instead of NCC. I took it to mean it was a test ship for a potential class of ships with transwarp drives. Only after the failure un-seen failure of the experimental drive, did it seem the ship was possibly brought into production. I say possibly, because the Excelsior was the only one we saw, maybe meaning that when the test failed, they decided nto to abandon the actual ship and re-classify it for standard duty. It wasn't until TNG time that we found another ships of that class.