Constitution Class Ships Seem To Be Everywhere

[Neopeius]

The original version of "Errand of Mercy" allowed some leeway, since the Federation fleet facing off with the Klingon one was never shown thus it was easy to imagine it consisting of some sort of hastily organized task force of different types of ships like destroyers, frigates, light cruisers, etc. with maybe one other Constitution at the most. Yet remastered TOS (which I've always been lukewarm about) retro-conned this by showing the fleets consisting of identical Federation and Klingon ships and thus destroyed this theory and making one have to accept the unbelievable premise that Starfleet was able to send at least half the amount of their best starships to Organia on short notice.

I wholeheartedly agree. Let's ignore TOS-R, please.

Also, doesn't the plaque on the bridge say "Starship Class"?

I think Franz Josef hit on a good solution: There were 13/12 ships in the fleet in the first year of Trek, but by the second/third year, more had been built.

Without TOS-R, and leaving aside "The Ultimate Computer", since that was put together specifically to compare apples to M5-enhanced apples:

"The Doomsday Machine" -- we never see the bridge, and the NCC # is waaay off of the Enterprise's -- is it possible the Constellation is actually an older class of ship? "But it looks the same!" Well, I can't tell a Kitty Hawk from the Enterprise or the JFK. So I can imagine the two being different ships. They certainly don't have to be the same class.

(Note: Decker is a 'starship' commander. He might also be a 'Starship' commander. If he were definitely described as the latter, that would be more conclusive that the Connie and the Big E are the same class).

"Obsession" -- the Farragut is explicitly a 'starship' but not necessarily a 'Starship'. Same deal as the Constellation. In any event, Kirk served on it, but the Enterprise never encounters it. As for the Yorktown, no class is assigned it at all. It could be a Columbia class ship, or a Class J freighter... or anything!

"The Omega Glory" -- pretty definitively a ship of the same class as Enterprise. But it's second season so there might be more of that class roaming about.

"The Tholian Web" -- ditto... but it's third season, so it is even more likely that there are more of that class roaming about.

"The Immunity Syndrome" -- it is never stated what class the Intrepid is. Only that it has a crew complement of 400. That's similar to that of the Enterprise, but lots of ships have similar complements (frex the U.S.S. Enterprise and the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk).

Obviously, your Doylian interpretation is the correct one, and it would, indeed, have been nice to see more kinds of ships. That TOS-R wasted the opportunity and went the other way is yet another mark against it.

But from a Watsonian perspective, the Enterprise only conclusively crosses paths with a ship of its type out in the reaches of space twice.

That doesn't seem such a stretch to me.

 

[Admiral2]

"The Doomsday Machine" -- we never see the bridge, and the NCC # is waaay off of the Enterprise's -- is it possible the Constellation is actually an older class of ship? "But it looks the same!" Well, I can't tell a Kitty Hawk from the Enterprise or the JFK.

Really? I can.

The placement of Kitty Hawk's aircraft elevators is different from that of the other two ships, and Enterprise is the one with the block shaped island. Also, Kitty Hawk and Kennedy have smokestacks because they're oil fueled, while Enterprise is, of course, nuclear.

So I can imagine the two being different ships.


They certainly don't have to be the same class.

Actually, similarity usually means the opposite.

Take the Nimitz class. Because of how long it takes to build one of those ships there are bound to be differences, but most of those differences are internal. The hulls are still built based on the same bare bones design. Essentially, Nimitz class carriers look the same because they're built to look the same. Kitty Hawk and Kennedy look different because they're different classes of carriers, and Enterprise looks different because she's unique.

Forget Doyle or Watson. The "Occam's Razor" explanation as to why all those ships look like the starship Enterprise is that they're all the same class as the starship Enterprise.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I thought Constitution class ships were multimission vessels, so they could explore, do diplomatic runs, etc.

To me, the Constitution-class was the long-range multipurpose design at the time, and was often encountered at the farthest reaches of Federation territory and beyond. The closer to the core Federation sectors, though, the more one would likely see other more specific-mission designs, IMO.

 

[Neopeius]

Really? I can.

The placement of Kitty Hawk's aircraft elevators is different from that of the other two ships, and Enterprise is the one with the block shaped island. Also, Kitty Hawk and Kennedy have smokestacks because they're oil fueled, while Enterprise is, of course, nuclear.

A-ha! But if you were really that observant, you would have noticed the subtle differences between the Constellation and the Enterprise -- and they are legion.

(the result of the Constellation being an AMT model, not any of the Enterprise models )

Actually, similarity usually means the opposite.

Take the Nimitz class. Because of how long it takes to build one of those ships there are bound to differences, but most of those differences are internal. The hulls are still built based on the same bare bones design. Essentially, Nimitz class carriers look the same because they're built to look the same.

That has interesting ramifications -- perhaps there are unrefitted Starships roaming with Pike-style interiors.

Kitty Hawk and Kennedy look different because they're different classes of carriers, and Enterprise looks different because she's unique.

Isn't the JFK her own class, too?

Forget Doyle or Watson. The "Occam's Razor" explanation as to why all those ships look like the starship Enterprise is that they're all the same class as the starship Enterprise.

Sure. My point is there's plausible deniability. This is, after all, just a thought exercise.

 

[fireproof78]

Forget Doyle or Watson. The "Occam's Razor" explanation as to why all those ships look like the starship Enterprise is that they're all the same class as the starship Enterprise.

Looks like a duck?

 

[Admiral2]

A-ha! But if you were really that observant, you would have noticed the subtle differences between the Constellation and the Enterprise -- and they are legion.

Right, because Constellation is the same class as Kennedy, and again, Enterprise is unique.

That has interesting ramifications -- perhaps there are unrefitted Starships roaming with Pike-style interiors.

According to Matt Jefferies, Enterprise's hull number denotes her as the first production model of the class. If that's true, then the only ship to possibly have an old style bridge by the start of TOS would be the prototype, Constitution herself, since Enterprise's refit bridge likely conforms to bridges in follow on ships of the class.

Isn't the JFK her own class, too?

No, she's the last ship of a small class, and that gives me a chance to correct a mistake. I often mistake Kitty Hawk for USS Forrestal, and I did it again in my last post.

So you were right that Kitty Hawk and Kennedy look similar, because Kitty Hawk, Constellation and Kennedy are all Kitty Hawk class carriers.

Sure. My point is there's plausible deniability. This is, after all, just a thought exercise.

Plausible deniability only works if your alternative notion is, indeed, plausible. It is implausible that two ships that look identical on the outside could be completely different classes. That's not how ship classes work.

 

[BK613]

Right, because Constellation is the same class as Kennedy, and again, Enterprise is unique.

I think what was meant was Constellation as represented by the AMT model and Enterprise as represented by the filming model.

 

[Maurice]

I think what was meant was Constellation as represented by the AMT model and Enterprise as represented by the filming model.

Well, except at the Enterprise herself is represented by three different models, including an AMT kit outside the window of Lurry’s K7 office. So in that episode she’s literally identical to the Constellation in some shots. The 11” model was itself revised twice was revised, so the ship itself is often inconsistent from shot to shot.

it may not be on-screen canon but the BTS documents make plain these ships shown on screen were intended to be “Starships” same as the Enterprise.

 

[Timo]

Maybe instead of exploration-optimized, it would be frontier-optimized, with exploration being one of many duties out on the fringes...

The British Empire had a lot of that: it built a vast cruiser navy even though cruisers were basically useless in fighting the competing European powers, and it built light tanks and armored cars that were only good against natives with sharpened avocados, and fighter aircraft that were best used for liaison and for symbolic strafing of said natives. Meeting "colonial" hardware out in the colonies would have been inevitable, while meeting it closer to home was rather unthinkable. Until it did happen, and the Empire had to go fight the Nazis in tanks that were armed with pistols...

It would've been odd because the Enterprise and its like were state of the art and this vessel was the bar of extended space exploration; so as cool it could've been it would've been counter productive to what these vessels were.

Both TOS itself (even if mostly in unvoiced backstory) and later Trek referring to TOS seem to establish the opposite: in the days of Kirk, and already in those of Pike, a Constitution was a has-been, a veteran design from way back, and apparently only persisting thanks to truly incessant refitting. This refitting apparently not extending to the warp engines, which (outside of a few support types from TAS) were the only ones in the whole Fleet that still looked Archer-era...

All the more credit to Kirk, and Pike, for achieving what they did, then.

These Starship Class vessels did everything during Kirk's prime

...Although this doesn't mean other ships wouldn't have been doing their thing simultaneously. Only it wasn't "everything". (Or if it was, it was "everything close to home" or somesuch, as opposed to Kirk's "everything where the camera went".)

I love that ship.

#Metoo. And having her look and feel out of place in TOS and perhaps also SNW makes her all the more special and endearing.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[J.T.B.]

No, she's the last ship of a small class, and that gives me a chance to correct a mistake. I often mistake Kitty Hawk for USS Forrestal, and I did it again in my last post.

So you were right that Kitty Hawk and Kennedy look similar, because Kitty Hawk, Constellation and Kennedy are all Kitty Hawk class carriers.

Officially, the Navy considered JFK different enough from the Kitty Hawks to be its own class.

https://www.nvr.navy.mil/SHIPDETAILS/SHIPSDETAIL_CV_67.HTML

The angled funnels of course were a convenient dead-giveaway for CV-67.

 

[BK613]

Well, except at the Enterprise herself is represented by three different models

Five actually. The "11-footer," the "three-footer," the AMT model, the pendant model from "Catspaw" and the pendant model in "plastic" from the same. Only the 11-footer and pendant model appear as the Enterprise in "The Doomsday Machine" episode proper.

Which misses the point of my post, which was to point out that the contrast being offered by another poster was about the models and not aircraft carriers.

 

[Neopeius]

Officially, the Navy considered JFK different enough from the Kitty Hawks to be its own class.

https://www.nvr.navy.mil/SHIPDETAILS/SHIPSDETAIL_CV_67.HTML

The angled funnels of course were a convenient dead-giveaway for CV-67.

There ya go. The Constellation could plausibly be a similar, but not identical, class to the Enterprise. Which would explain the wildly different NCC # and the subtle differences in look.

On the other hand, if we take it as read that Excalibur is the same class as the Enterprise, Constellation footage is reused in "The Doomsday Machine" to represent the Excalibur, which points to them being the same class.

Which would bring the total of Enterprise class ships that the Big E runs across to three. Still, not too bad.

 

[Admiral2]

Officially, the Navy considered JFK different enough from the Kitty Hawks to be its own class.

https://www.nvr.navy.mil/SHIPDETAILS/SHIPSDETAIL_CV_67.HTML

The angled funnels of course were a convenient dead-giveaway for CV-67.

Fair enough, but Jane's Fighting Ships considered it similar enough to still call it a Kitty Hawk class ship.

 

[Neopeius]

Fair enough, but Jane's Fighting Ships considered it similar enough to still call it a Kitty Hawk class ship.

That's true! As a matter of fact, I had just cracked my Jane's from 1980-81 a few minutes ago to check.

 

[Admiral2]

That's true! As a matter of fact, I had just cracked my Jane's from 1980-81 a few minutes ago to check.

So really, all I'm saying is that subtle differences in the construction of each unit doesn't automically make one ship a different class, because time of construction and emerging technology can produce subtle differences throughout the production run of a single class.

If there are only subtle differences between the look of the starship Enterprise and the starship Constellation, then it's reasonable for one to assume that they are from the same class, as in the case of Jane's and Kennedy. The US Navy says different, but the US Navy has access to more information about Kennedy's construction than Jane's does, and for its purposes Jane's usually takes a "looks like a duck" approach to providing information.

So Kennedy looks like a Kitty Hawk, and starships Enterprise and Constellation both look like Constitutions, so it's perfectly reasonable for an observer to assume class membership before uniqueness, especially in relation to a TV show.

 

[Ronald Held]

Depending on the level of refitting, Constitution class ships look slight different? Maybe Matt Decker was opposed to many refits?

 

[BK613]

That's true! As a matter of fact, I had just cracked my Jane's from 1980-81 a few minutes ago to check.

Does Jane's have any annotation or footnote that would indicate the possibility of a different class or is the JFK listed as Kitty Hawk class without comment? I have a great deal of respect for Jane's but they are a civilian publication.

 

[Admiral2]

Does Jane's have any annotation or footnote that would indicate the possibility of a different class or is the JFK listed as Kitty Hawk class without comment? I have a great deal of respect for Jane's but they are a civilian publication.

Right. It's a civilian publication that's used as an intelligence source by world leaders and navies around the world, and has been since the nineteenth century, which is why it deserves respect. Let's not diminish it too much...

 

[J.T.B.]

Does Jane's have any annotation or footnote that would indicate the possibility of a different class or is the JFK listed as Kitty Hawk class without comment? I have a great deal of respect for Jane's but they are a civilian publication.

They twigged it pretty early on, this is from 1972:

 

[Maurice]

I do not count the pendants in “Catspaw” because they are not intended to represent the actual Enterprise, they are voodoo dolls, But, yes, the one not in the Lucite block that is used in “the Doomsday Machine” I missed.