We're questioning his wording.
Does Enterpise-A's short tenure make sense?
- Thread starter tim0122
- Start date
We're questioning his wording.
As a kid, my family would ALWAYS confuse the two. When I'd point out their error, I'd always get the same response; it's all the same thing.
... stick to the tree tops to earn extra lives.
I knew a guy who used to enjoy winding me up by saying "Star Trek is the Canadian name and Star Wars is the American name. Like Beasties and Beast Wars."
Ahh.... now you've done it. You've got me all nostalgic for Beasties. I'm gonna go cry over Dinobots noble sacrifice.
Waspinator always made me laugh.
Look, the Xindi Primates don't appreciate that kind of talk.
For me it was always Magatron and his constant use of......
I still catch myself elongating my own yeses.
I don't really think that is a good analogy - The Yorktown class had been designed in the early-30s following the lessons learned with the converted carriers Lexington and Saratoga while the Iowa's were late-30s designs following the lessons learned from the North Carolina and South Dakota class which the preceded the Iowa's.
Enterprise had also seen continuous service since the outbreak of the war in the Pacific, at times being the only operation carrier in the Pacific and she had the battle scars to prove it. The Enterprise was tired and worn out.
Whereas the Iowa's entered the war in mid to late-44 and saw limited combat, providing anti-aircraft support to the carrier task forces.
A better analogy would be the Essex class carriers in terms of design and construction vs the Iowa class. Both lead ships of the class had their keels laid down shortly before the attack on Pearl Harbor and both reached the Pacific at roughly the same time.
Even them, the two most damaged ships in the Essex class, the Franklin and Bunker Hill were repaired but were deemed surplus to the US Navy's requirements because the war in the Pacific ended before the ships could be returned to service and they entered the reserve/mothball fleet before being scrapped.
Even the Iowa class entered the reserve/mothball fleet shortly after the war concluded and only the New Jersey was brought out of mothballs for Vietnam before all four were reactivated during the Reagan administration.
What about the British carrier HMS Victorious?
World War II configuration
Post World War II moderization
I would say that post refit the Victorious is a 'new ship'.
World War II configuration
Post World War II moderization
I would say that post refit the Victorious is a 'new ship'.
Or the Italian battleship Conte di Cavour
World War I configuration
Post World War I moderization
Again, that's a completely 'new ship'.
World War I configuration
Post World War I moderization
Again, that's a completely 'new ship'.
She kept the same name. The ship number remained the same; the only change in her pennant number occurred because the prefix letter was added for all ships.
The Excelsior-class was probably just starting to run off the production line, which essentially does everything the Constitution-class does but much better. There just wasn't any need to waste resources and crew on the Constitution-class.
On top of that the Enterprise took a serious beating, leaving Starfleet with a choice between using resources on an outdated-class or decommissioning it and transferring a capable crew to an Excelsior-class
As for the age of the ship, I can't see Starfleet wasting resources on a new Constitution-class with the Excelsior-class just round the corner. So it's likely a refit.
On top of that the Enterprise took a serious beating, leaving Starfleet with a choice between using resources on an outdated-class or decommissioning it and transferring a capable crew to an Excelsior-class
As for the age of the ship, I can't see Starfleet wasting resources on a new Constitution-class with the Excelsior-class just round the corner. So it's likely a refit.
To you and I, the Victorious is the same ship; however, if I were to show those pictures to a person on the street and ask them if it is the same ship, my guess is the answer would be 'No'. Visually, they look completely different.
My point was, you cited an example where they refit the ship and kept the same name. That's unlike the proposed scenario where the Enterprise-A was a refit, but they had changed the name.
Anyway, none of this is "evidence." The only evidence is Scotty calling the ship new, with no qualifiers. Everything else is fanwank or headcanon, and it's not even the interesting kind of either. It's simply boring and tedious.
I have spoken. I'm out.
I find the various theories on the origin of the ship interesting. No one is beholden to any theory. Just fun subject to shot the shit about.
Beats the hell out of another round of, “but CBS says!!!”
The Constitution-class is hardly new in the 2280s, they date from the 2240s. Even allowing for the 2270ish refit they're showing their age by 2285, especially compared to the Excelsior. Even assuming the Enterprise-A was the brand-spanking-iest new-iest ship going and still reeked of wet paint at the end of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, she's a new build of an old design, replacing an almost identical but still 40-year-old ship. If the rapid ageing of a design is grounds for early retirement, well, the Enterprise-A is a prime candidate.
Enterprise CV-6 was restored to full operational capacity in drydock between June and September 1945, including modifications to make it possible for her to pass through the Panama Canal. But if you want to go down the "battle scar" path as an explanation for early retirement, the -A had just received "quite a wallop", including having a hole blown clean through her saucer... and Starfleet seemingly already considered such battle damage as grounds for retiring a Constitution-class without refit some eight years earlier.
One that was 40 years old, compared to the 7 years the ‘A’ was in service.
Similar threads
