How is 20 years old for a ship?

[Major Chord]

I'd think that the ships of Earth Starfleet ( pre-federation) might be built with longevity and modularity in mind. Afterall, when Earth was on it's own, it had much less ship building capability, and therefore what they had had to be built to last. And, since there weren't many varied designs, they probably had to be pretty modular in mission capabilities, to a point, so that they could be periodically upgraded with the newest technology. Then there would come a point in time when they could be upgraded no further, but hopefully, there would already be a design ready to replace it in most respects.

 

[Robert Simmons]

Ah ... but the Miranda and Excelsior class ships are designs that came over a century after the Federation was founded.
I would agree early SF ships like the NX-01 and up until the Constitution class would be pretty limited in terms of long term upgrading ... but designs from a century later?
I think you are discrediting them a bit.

Not at all. This is what I get trying to cram a post in at the last minute before getting out the door from work before they set the alarm for the weekend. You made the point I wanted to go into but did not have time to elaborate.

In the early vessels they over time found their limits and upgraded them as best as possible. But in the early classes as you pointed out that I meant to mention, is that in learning of the shortcomings of the earlier classes they would then greatly "overbuild" the successive designs to accomodate upgrades....to extend longevity....and allow for the hull to become more dynamically flexible and superior as new missions and roles demands are assigned to the class / that particular hull. ( Nimitz as opposed to Essex with the SBC-127A refit to extend their usefullness into the early jet era....or the early Forrestal or improved Forrestals being more expensive due to fuel as as an offhand example of using older way past the benefits they offer as demand increased over time as operation requirements were further no longer being met. They became too small as their size demands asked more of them as their roles were expanded to accomodate the aircraft they were expected to operate and expanding their expected minimum to enforce policy or other roles....) Early class gleaned insight if noticed and heeded ( like in our navy in the past century...such as we are discussing....) notes the role meeting needs and how fast a hull class is made obsolescent due to technology / size / power /weapons needs, and not being able to be accomdated to meet or even at least.....accomodate the needs of the fleet in that role as more time passes by. This is the break point of when a hull no longer is of value as a front line unit, and becomes a liability in delivering deficient role accomodation to continue to operate in a front line role. It may be then when replaced then be transferred, to reserve to where it may serve as training vessel to train cadets for service on newer units that replaced it that now meet mission standards and criteria. ( speed, stealth, combat superiority that an older hull would be deficient in against a newer cutting edge opponent....as some shortcomings of keeping an older surpassed hull on the frontlines inviting disaster...IF a conflict ever broke out. Safety in using a too old hull is also a question to consider given the lives at risk assigned to that vessel. Example in the form of Pike's accident on the failure of a "J" class vessel's containment as a safety issue of using a hull that is too old inviting safety and health violations....). In ST II the Enterprise was being used as a training vessel in this role, and I think this adknowledges this point. And I am glad to see you made my point before time allowed me the freedom to make it. ( I usually make it a practice to check messages right before I head out the door from work. I personally thought I had sufficient time to crank out a thourough post covering all the bases. You two gentlemen covered this as was I was trying to due to time crunch. ) So on this note I'm glad we're in SOLID agreement on this, since this has been covered by at least 3 of us since I last posted, which means I'm not alone in this view. I'm glad. But not for the lack of time to beat you 2 to the punch on that point.

But I will also adknowledge that the Entrprise being our beloved "hero's ship" , it is a unpleasant task to entertain as a topic for some witnessing on this discussion of our beloved icon of Trek in a topic of "sunsetting" a ship we all hold in high regard. So I openly sympathise to those observing this discussion who may wince at us discussing this topic knowing the ramifications of what were are addressing concerning the Enterprise. Not a comfortable subject to the new Trek entuhusiast out there hearing us discuss this analytically in a examining the "nut" of the issue. No we're not cold hearted monsters here oblivious to the discomfort of those who love the ship. I love it too like anyone who has loved TOS Trek since childhood. But Pragmatism must ultimately win out over Romance as far as keeping up with fleet needs to keep the barbarians outside the gates, and to perfom all the tasks and duties required of it. And sometimes new is always better in the long run. Especially later in the lives of navies as they have to fight to justify the expenditure in how it saves money in the long term verses keeping an older more expensive to operate less efficient design to man and keep operating. But ultimately I will always opt PREFERABLY to mothball a ship as opposed to scrap it in a standby reserve role. ( assuming it is not TOO WORN OUT to be safely operated or even able to be operated period...) Cause a old ship can serve other roles, even though it is no longer "frontline worthy." And if you don't scrap it and keep it onhand for later use......then even an ancient hull if rugged and sound can be useful for those odd assignments that come out of the blue if you are short with the other "main ships of the line". ( read personnel transport....read ferrying supplies...read lesser patrol or combat reserve as a rear guard unit...) So there is a inherent beauty to not scrapping old hulls. They represent an expenditure and can be cost saving when you need an extra ship for something every now and then. I.E. Read U.S.S. Hathaway as an offhand example.

 

[Major Chord]

^ I understood the part that said " I'm glad the three of us agree", but you lost me on the rest. Not the naval nomenclature, but everything else...maybe it's just late...

You sure you're not handing that post in to my English teacher?

 

[Robert Simmons]

Nahh...

Sorry if I get too technically "wordy". I try to be precise in the words to most clearly communicate an idea or point. But I can gum up a sentence when going back and gleaning typos that something else occurs to me and I tos it in sometimes wrecking a sentence which I obviously did here. The problem is not you....jsut my haste in not reviewing more closely the flow of my sentences when I add stuff when cleaning up typos.

Do not adjust your vertical hold.

 

[JuanBolio]

Its not the age, its the mileage - and the Enterprise was one well of a traveler.

 

[Colonel Midnight]

20 years for a ship, in my service, is but a drop in the bucket. Heck, she's still on her "first legs"... (Seriously, we just decommissioned a ship last year that had been built during WWII, actually before the USA entered it, the CGC Storis.)

If you do the math -- that's 64 years and 5 months. Continuous active service too, unlike the USS Constitution which, although still 'in service', is basically a museum ship.

Cheers,
-CM-

 

[Major Chord]

I know some US aircraft carriers that served in WWII, were damaged, repaird, and then later modified to accept jets, that carried on into the 70's and 80's.

See, I think that the service life of a ship is also dependant on what type of duty she is pulling. An interstellar freighter could easily serve for 80 to 100 years, with the proper maintenance, same with rearline ships. Combat vessels, that have seen frontline combat throught most of their lives would probably "wear out" faster, and have a shorter service life.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I've been of the opinion that--prior to the 24th-Century--that it was rare for a Federation starship to be in service for more than 20 years. Back then, 23rd-Century warp drives probably took a toll on ships and they tended to wear out after a couple of decades (which would make Admiral Morrow's comment about the age of the Enterprise in Star Trek III just a generalization and not an exact figure), IMO. Perhaps it was even worse for 22nd-Century ships after the Warp 5 engine was introduced.

But perhaps at some point after the Enterprise-A was decommissioned, a new warp engine came along that reduced the wear and tear that were common with earlier engines and allowed ships to remain in service for considerably longer than 20 years...

 

[Solariabsg25]

I've been of the opinion that--prior to the 24th-Century--that it was rare for a Federation starship to be in service for more than 20 years. Back then, 23rd-Century warp drives probably took a toll on ships and they tended to wear out after a couple of decades (which would make Admiral Morrow's comment about the age of the Enterprise in Star Trek III just a generalization and not an exact figure), IMO. Perhaps it was even worse for 22nd-Century ships after the Warp 5 engine was introduced.

But perhaps at some point after the Enterprise-A was decommissioned, a new warp engine came along that reduced the wear and tear that were common with earlier engines and allowed ships to remain in service for considerably longer than 20 years...

Well, there is certainly something to that. Has anyone noticed that since the Constitution Class, most Federation ships have the nacelles much closer to the hull? The Miranda, Oberth, Excelsior, Ambassador, Constellation, Nebula, Galaxy and the rest all show that trait. It could be that structurally, the pylons could not handle the stresses of the newer Warp Drives introduced, and bringing the nacelles closer to the hull was simply impossible for the Connies, requiring such an extensive modification to the internal structure that it was simply more viable to produce a newer design than modify an existing ship.

This would mean that the Enterprise and other Connies would be relegated to the position of the pre-Warp five vessels of the ENTERPRISE era - simply left behind by an expanding frontier.

Imagine you produced a top-of-the range turbo-propped airliner, but a couple of years later, jet airliners were invented. Your prop airplane would have a service life of maybe 50 years, but who would want to use them if it takes twice as long to get to the destination?

 

[Major Chord]

Well, there is certainly something to that. Has anyone noticed that since the Constitution Class, most Federation ships have the nacelles much closer to the hull? The Miranda, Oberth, Excelsior, Ambassador, Constellation, Nebula, Galaxy and the rest all show that trait. It could be that structurally, the pylons could not handle the stresses of the newer Warp Drives introduced, and bringing the nacelles closer to the hull was simply impossible for the Connies, requiring such an extensive modification to the internal structure that it was simply more viable to produce a newer design than modify an existing ship.

This would mean that the Enterprise and other Connies would be relegated to the position of the pre-Warp five vessels of the ENTERPRISE era - simply left behind by an expanding frontier.

Imagine you produced a top-of-the range turbo-propped airliner, but a couple of years later, jet airliners were invented. Your prop airplane would have a service life of maybe 50 years, but who would want to use them if it takes twice as long to get to the destination?

Perhaps the new engine design could stem from the Excelsior project. Even though the "transwarp" aspect failed, there could still be other design improvements that could be implemented in other shipe designs, that decrease the wear and tear on the ship from warp speeds.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Ship lifespans really have a lot to do with economics. If its cheaper/about to same to build a new ship then to retrofit/maintain an existing ship. Go for the new ship, especially while the purse is open.

I think that might be why the Iowa's stayed in service for so long was because the Navy new they would never get the budget approved to build a battleship of her scale again. I also think that's why they are kept in such good shape.

The other reason is that we have forgotten how to forge gun barrells that large.

 

[regemet]

In terms of real ships the Iowa class were 60yrs when they server in the gulf

 

[Timo]

We should remember that the Constitutions were probably among the smallest things afloat at the time Morrow made his comment. The new wave was the Excelsiors, and the last representatives of the older technology were already carrying twice the hardware to keep up (the four-nacelled, twin-impulse-decked, thick-saucered Constellation class).

It wouldn't make all that much sense to keep on refining a ship design that was too small to be credible as a frontline vessel. Better spend all that effort on improving the Excelsiors and other large vessels instead. There'd be more room for upgrades there, too.

Apart from that, the TMP refit of NCC-1701 might have been a dismal failure, and the different refit of the E-A might only have improved slightly on that. It probably wasn't for no reason that Starfleet decided the NCC-1701 wasn't good enough for frontline duty any more by the time of ST2:TWoK.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Santaman]

Hmm as for the age of 20 years, maybe the guy meant 20 years after her refit.
Add about 20-30 more pre-refit and you are in the right ballpark I guess.

As for why they didn't show Connies in TNG and so, too high profile, everyone would assume the TMP design would be the Enterprise.
As for in universe, big space, not too many ships around, just a weird coincidence, the Ent D etc were just on the wrong side of the galaxy.

As for the "A" being decommisioned so soon, I always assumed it was a prototype and those don't share the same parts as the standard version of the design which makes it plausible to decomission her.

 

[Elder Knight]

Admiral Morrow was an ass.

 

[Timo]

How so? He told Kirk that the ship had to go, which probably was true - she was already on her last legs, apparently, as she was relegated to that training role. He also told Kirk that the quarantine around the Genesis planet was inviolable for any reason, especially obscure personal ones. Sensible enough as well. He even tried to be polite about it to Kirk and Scotty both times around, although he probably did make all the Vulcans within earshot boil with green-hot anger when mentioning their "religious mumbo-jumbo".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Santaman]

On her last legs? I don't believe that for a minute, its not like they lacked resources and besides that its the 23th century and I assume that everything can be repaired there so thoroughly that you'll never be able to see the difference between a new and a refurbished part.

 

[USS KG5]

On her last legs? I don't believe that for a minute

Why not? She had already been relegated to training duty, and then had the living crap shot out of them - quite possibly not really an economic prospect to repair if, as you say...

its not like they lacked resources

Then they might as well build a spiffy new ship as repair an old crock?

besides that its the 23th century and I assume that everything can be repaired there so thoroughly that you'll never be able to see the difference between a new and a refurbished part.

Not necssarily - it is likely these starships have very complicated structures, incredibly advanced internal systems, and of course a very complex FTL propulsion system.

It is possible that Starfleet routinely scraps or at least mothballs heavily damaged ships and builds new ones. It is possible that the Enterprise was so badly damaged that Scotty's 2 week refit would take more resources than a new build, or take resources (like warp coils or a new reactor) that are meant for new ships.

 

[Deks]

The Constitution class overall was in service for what ... 50 years before TMP?

I'd say the Enterprise (original/refitted) was old enough to justify retirement, or simply putting ot on a different duty assignment than before.
But the 1701-A was practically a new ship to our knowledge, so essentially speaking it was a relatively young ship.
Perhaps the Constitutions were simply reaching their limit to keep up with the 24th century designs and as such were more appropriate for fleet backup when it came to skirmishes.
I have no doubt their weaponry and shields would be on par with other 24th century designs, but their retrofits wouldn't necessarily be able to increase their warp capability too much (apart from bringing them above average) due to older hull designs possibly presenting an issue (at least until they develop technology that wouldn't factor in design when it came to warp speeds and possibly other areas).

The 23rd century designs would certainly be less capable of surviving 200 years into the future in comparison to say Galaxy, Intrepid, Sovereign, and Prometheus (all of which are mid/late 24th century designs).

 

[USS KG5]

But the 1701-A was practically a new ship to our knowledge, so essentially speaking it was a relatively young ship.

Possibly however a young ship that could be decommissioned and an Excelsior take its place - it is possible that the Ent-A and other constitutions were mothballed rather than sent on general patrol duties as part of the peace treaty.

The Feds could then build newer ships that are faster and more capable while staying within their treaty restrictions.