How is 20 years old for a ship?
- Thread starter TEH BABA
- Start date
Who knows?
I was just reading yesterday about the Alaska class battlecruisers from WWII.
Apparently fine new vessels, but after the war ended, their purpose and role was gone.
So they were scrapped after less than five years of service.
Then you've got the Iowa class which hung around in-and-out of service for decades.
But I'm assuming this post is about the Enterprise being 20 years old, as Adm. Morrow remarked in TSFS. Yes?
I was just reading yesterday about the Alaska class battlecruisers from WWII.
Apparently fine new vessels, but after the war ended, their purpose and role was gone.
So they were scrapped after less than five years of service.
Then you've got the Iowa class which hung around in-and-out of service for decades.
But I'm assuming this post is about the Enterprise being 20 years old, as Adm. Morrow remarked in TSFS. Yes?
Depends on what you've been doing with the ship.
If it's been just back and forth from here to Vulcan or some such for 20 years, versus it's been out on the Neutral Zone being shot at by Klingons and running it's warp drive at eleven for weeks at a time for 20 years.
Very few ships in the US Navy last 50 years, BTW.
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.
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.
It is a standard practice to plan on making larger / more expensive ships last longer. That way you don't need to buy so many of them over the long term due to their availability limited by cpost. So lasting 20+ years became common when navies went to steel hulls. The USS Arizona was past 20 years old when she was destroyed and would have lasted at leat another 10 years due to the navy squeezing as much out of her and other older ships before doing away with them. Just like Bonxinabox said....simple economics.
But the Enterprise in TOS was WAY PAST 20 years old when we saw it. And due to the multi-role abilities built into the TOS Starship class, I seriously doubt that there were noot anything but small service craft in the fleet besides this class due to it being referred to a special ship and often called the queens of the fleet like todays Nimitz CVNs. ( Don't mob me...I am fond of Frans Joseph designs...but I think puritstically in TOS there was little need for so many calsses when this one class seen in TOS was already performing all these different duties / roles.
But the Enterprise in TOS was WAY PAST 20 years old when we saw it. And due to the multi-role abilities built into the TOS Starship class, I seriously doubt that there were noot anything but small service craft in the fleet besides this class due to it being referred to a special ship and often called the queens of the fleet like todays Nimitz CVNs. ( Don't mob me...I am fond of Frans Joseph designs...but I think puritstically in TOS there was little need for so many calsses when this one class seen in TOS was already performing all these different duties / roles.
Last edited:
I'm not even sure we could build such a ship, anymore. I think the technology and the skills to roll steel that thick is lost to us (at least for the moment).
I'll second that with humble regrets. The Iowas were a work of art. I am a BIG battleship fan...the Yamatos especially. Growing up I thought pictures of these pieces of naval architecture were works of beauty...and thought it sacriligious to want to destory them by tossing shells back and forth at them.
The reason the Iowas were hung onto is due to they were fresh builds going int othe war and the navy was bent ( rightfully so ) to get their return on the expenditure for such expensive captial ships. I don't blame them and glad thatthey did. I personally would have liek to have see nthe Montanas built just for the majesty and beauty althought they would not have ben practical in post WW2 carrier offense navys ruling the world.
Here's a old favorite site I've hung arond alot on since the mid 1990s...
www.combinedfleet.com
Lots of neat stuff...
In modern day navies, big capital ships like the Iowas don't really have a purpose. The USS Missouri was the last to be taken from service, after the Golf War. Now she is a museum ship in Pearl Harbour, but she is still on the Navy's list of reserve ships, so she needs to be kept in tip top shape.
I doubt that the Enterprise could have been 20 years old at the time of Morrow's comments in TSFS. She is generally thought to have been launched in around 2245, so that would make her at least 40 years old. Even having been refitted around 15 years previously, I'm assuming that the internal spaceframe is still the same one she launched with in 2245, making that 40 years old. At the time Adm. Morrow commented, the big E had just suffered heavy damage from her encounter with the Reliant, so perhaps it would have been cheaper, and more feasable to take her out of service, rather than put the effort into reparing a ship that would have probably been decommisioned within the next 10 years anyway. So, it probably does have a lot to do with economics, and the age of the ship in the first place.
I doubt that the Enterprise could have been 20 years old at the time of Morrow's comments in TSFS. She is generally thought to have been launched in around 2245, so that would make her at least 40 years old. Even having been refitted around 15 years previously, I'm assuming that the internal spaceframe is still the same one she launched with in 2245, making that 40 years old. At the time Adm. Morrow commented, the big E had just suffered heavy damage from her encounter with the Reliant, so perhaps it would have been cheaper, and more feasable to take her out of service, rather than put the effort into reparing a ship that would have probably been decommisioned within the next 10 years anyway. So, it probably does have a lot to do with economics, and the age of the ship in the first place.
The Federation had been in many wars and conflicts, that requires new designs, new weapons new ships to be constructed. If there were no conflict and all was peaceful, ships would stay constant and rearely change. Even in our history during the great wars WWI and WWII there were alot of protypes made or thought of by all sides that fell through. Its always a goal to have the biggest and badest ship and/or weapon thus updates need to be made to old ships, and sometimes its just eaiser to re design a better ship than make modifications to an old one.
I am of the opinion that he Enterprise was around 40 years old as seen in TOS. But having been a while since I've read "Making of Star Trek"...I chose to error on the side of caution so as to not sound "too" preposterous. It's nice to see someone taking me to task that agrees with me on this.
More often than not....a fresh build is easier and cheaper than a overhaul. CLean starts are usually preferable due to less hassle.
Thanks....
More often than not....a fresh build is easier and cheaper than a overhaul. CLean starts are usually preferable due to less hassle.
Thanks....
It still doesn't make much sense to retire a ship after only a decade or two.
I would sooner say that upgrading star-ships is easier instead of constructing a completely new design.
Any new designs that would essentially come out would be every decade or two unless major conflicts arise in the meantime prompting a necessity towards new designs.
Late TNG was a transitional phase really and the only ships that were new per designs are the Sovereign, Akira, Defiant, Saber and Steamrunner.
SF had a lot of ships that were leftovers from 80 years ago.
They also kept them around because they were upgradable.
Think of it like this ... if a star-ship can last 100 years (hull duration) ... then it's safe to think that SF anticipated such a lifespan even if the ship undergoes various attacks or spatial anomalies.
Also keep in mind a ship's lifespan can easily be extended if the hull is replaced with a new one every 100 years or more regularly due to various circumstances.
But it's also quite interesting to note a possibility that ships from Kirks' era wouldn't be suitable for upgrading if they pass the 100 year mark due to design limitations.
I can see SF keeping old ships in their fleet with continuous upgrades for a century, but would have to replace them after that period (at least that would go for 23rd century designs).
Of course, in an alternate timeline, we saw the Enterprise-J and other SF ships from the 24th century (like the Prometheus) fighting the Sphere builders.
So it's possible that ships of the late 24th century would be more upgradeable and lasting because of their newer designs at the time of construction.
The Klingons kept some of their basic ship designs for well over 200 years.
But they also achieved space flight about 1000 years prior to humans, and as a result have more experience in ship construction.
Humans initially picked up a lot of their tricks from the Vulcans and other races that were in space before them which brought them up to speed about a century and a half after the Federation was formed.
I can easily see numerous designs from the late 24th century going strong even after a century of use.
200 years tops perhaps ... beyond that, it would be unnecessary.
I would sooner say that upgrading star-ships is easier instead of constructing a completely new design.
Any new designs that would essentially come out would be every decade or two unless major conflicts arise in the meantime prompting a necessity towards new designs.
Late TNG was a transitional phase really and the only ships that were new per designs are the Sovereign, Akira, Defiant, Saber and Steamrunner.
SF had a lot of ships that were leftovers from 80 years ago.
They also kept them around because they were upgradable.
Think of it like this ... if a star-ship can last 100 years (hull duration) ... then it's safe to think that SF anticipated such a lifespan even if the ship undergoes various attacks or spatial anomalies.
Also keep in mind a ship's lifespan can easily be extended if the hull is replaced with a new one every 100 years or more regularly due to various circumstances.
But it's also quite interesting to note a possibility that ships from Kirks' era wouldn't be suitable for upgrading if they pass the 100 year mark due to design limitations.
I can see SF keeping old ships in their fleet with continuous upgrades for a century, but would have to replace them after that period (at least that would go for 23rd century designs).
Of course, in an alternate timeline, we saw the Enterprise-J and other SF ships from the 24th century (like the Prometheus) fighting the Sphere builders.
So it's possible that ships of the late 24th century would be more upgradeable and lasting because of their newer designs at the time of construction.
The Klingons kept some of their basic ship designs for well over 200 years.
But they also achieved space flight about 1000 years prior to humans, and as a result have more experience in ship construction.
Humans initially picked up a lot of their tricks from the Vulcans and other races that were in space before them which brought them up to speed about a century and a half after the Federation was formed.
I can easily see numerous designs from the late 24th century going strong even after a century of use.
200 years tops perhaps ... beyond that, it would be unnecessary.
It used to not be that way. We've gotten rather spoiled in the past century having ships last a lifetime. This is good. In the age of wooden ships you couldn't get a fraction of that time out of a ship before the hull became rotten. Ships lasting 20 plus year and still surviving SOUNDLY in structure is only a recent phonomenom. And even then technolgy still threatens to render them obsolete before they have a chance to live that long. Battleships are a good example of that.
But, SF ships in Trek are designed to accommodate upgrades.
Any real threat in making a design obsolete rather soon by technology is not really relevant here since they can subtly alter it over time during it's major upgrades.
The Enterprise-E for example could have gotten an addition in decks for example upping the number from 24 to 29.
It's actually rather simple.
They can easily detach the lower section of the secondary hull in major connection points between decks and add the extra decks, then build the extra hull plates and frames for those 5 decks.
The original Enterprise was a major overhaul (which also accommodated larger internal space) and it's upgrade lasted 18 months.
But that was in the 23rd century.
Adding few measly decks to existing hull structure should be far more simplistic and faster.
But, you have to realize that the majority of the older ships still in service (i.e. Miranda's and Excelsiors) were newer builds, as in while the design itself might be old, the ship itself was built recently. The registry numbers of most of the Miranda's and Excelsiors we saw during the Dominion war put their construction in the first half of the 24th century, around the 2330's. So, by the time of TNG/DS9, they would be around 50 years old. If a ship is damaged, sure, you could replace the hull plating, as you would damaged shingles on a roof. But, if the spaceframe of the ship is damaged, or just plain worn out from the stresses of warp speed, combat, and normal space encounters, like anomolies, it would be a lot harder to just replace it. You would have to strip the ship to the bone, and replace, or repair it, and if that is extensive enough, then you might as well build a new ship, since you're practically rebuilding your current ship.
If a ship can be repaired and kept in reasonably good shape for it's age, than there is really no reason to pull it from total service, because if not on the frontlines, it can still perform tasks in the rear. However, if you have the ability to build another newer ship in it's place, you should replace it when you have the chance, because you do not know if you will have that chance in the future. Just because you can keep a ship running for 80+ years, doesn't mean you should.
We witnessed ships being rebuilt in a relatively short timeframe when late TNG era is concerned, so for at least ships that haven't suffered critical amount of structural damage to it's spaceframe, they could be rebuilt quickly enough, while also strengthening the said spaceframe and rebuilding hull plates out of newest material available used in new designs.
But yes, I agree with the statement if you can build a new design in a place of the old one, then it should be done while slowly phasing out the older design (at least from production, as I would see little to no reason pulling existing ships of the old design out of service entirely unless their usefullness came to an end entirely).
The thing is that Admiral Morrows comment was supposed to represent approximately the "real-world" (i.e. time between "The Cage" and "STIII"), rather than "Trek world".
Enterprise had undertaken an extensive refit to keep her cutting edge only a few years before, only to be tossed out, even though she appears that she could have been repaired.
But, then we see the Enterprise-A, an almost identical design, but she was within a few years ordered back to Earth to be decomissions. However, although this means that at this time the Constitution class was being left behind by the Miranda and experimental Excelsior classes, at least one remained in service at Wolf 359.
Enterprise had undertaken an extensive refit to keep her cutting edge only a few years before, only to be tossed out, even though she appears that she could have been repaired.
But, then we see the Enterprise-A, an almost identical design, but she was within a few years ordered back to Earth to be decomissions. However, although this means that at this time the Constitution class was being left behind by the Miranda and experimental Excelsior classes, at least one remained in service at Wolf 359.
The Connie at Wolf 359 could have been a training vessel, based from one of the nearby starbases, or earth it self.
As for the Enterprise A being decommisioned so early, my guess would be because the Enterprise had always been the flagship of starfleet, representing the best crew, and newest technology. With the success of the Excelsior, Starfleet may have wanted to transfer the Enterprise name over to a brand new ship ( the enterprise B). Perhaps, that was the plan all along, but Starfleet was counting on the original Enterprise to be around in the meantime. When she was destroyed, besides wanting to honor Kirk and company for their actions with the whale probe, they might have just wanted to have another Enterprise out there representing the Federation untill the next generation of Enterprise could be built. The Enterprise A might not have been a new-build starship anyway. She could have been an older Connie, slated for decommisioning within the coming years. I think Roddenbery said it was originally the Yorktown, which was heavily damaged by the whale probe, and needed to be repaired/overhauled. Perhaps the crew was severely depleated by the encounter, whether by death or injury, and she was rechristened as the Enterprise, and given to a new crew. I think the Yorktown was one of the original Constitutions, and would therfore be around the age of the original Enbterprise, and probably slated for decomissioning by the end of the century anyway.
Maybe it was just the first generation Connies that were slated to be decomissioned at the time of the Ent-A. There must have been more built to re-fit specifications, which would only be around 20 years old at the time, and would go on to serve along the Excelsior class, untill there were enough Excelsiors around to let the remaining Constitutions be relagated to auxillury duty.
As for the Enterprise A being decommisioned so early, my guess would be because the Enterprise had always been the flagship of starfleet, representing the best crew, and newest technology. With the success of the Excelsior, Starfleet may have wanted to transfer the Enterprise name over to a brand new ship ( the enterprise B). Perhaps, that was the plan all along, but Starfleet was counting on the original Enterprise to be around in the meantime. When she was destroyed, besides wanting to honor Kirk and company for their actions with the whale probe, they might have just wanted to have another Enterprise out there representing the Federation untill the next generation of Enterprise could be built. The Enterprise A might not have been a new-build starship anyway. She could have been an older Connie, slated for decommisioning within the coming years. I think Roddenbery said it was originally the Yorktown, which was heavily damaged by the whale probe, and needed to be repaired/overhauled. Perhaps the crew was severely depleated by the encounter, whether by death or injury, and she was rechristened as the Enterprise, and given to a new crew. I think the Yorktown was one of the original Constitutions, and would therfore be around the age of the original Enbterprise, and probably slated for decomissioning by the end of the century anyway.
Maybe it was just the first generation Connies that were slated to be decomissioned at the time of the Ent-A. There must have been more built to re-fit specifications, which would only be around 20 years old at the time, and would go on to serve along the Excelsior class, untill there were enough Excelsiors around to let the remaining Constitutions be relagated to auxillury duty.
I doubt the early ships were intended to. The fact that they were built was an upgrade to Star FLeet in of itself as a "end all." As time progressed and the shortcomings of the TOS starship class began revealing themselves, they got the TOS from "Cage Refit" and the experimental TMP refit. But the TMP refit obviously was trying to push this obsolescent hull beyone it's limitations in that the technology was too rubust in it's demands that this hull could not meet. It could have been a ruggedness issue. It could have been a technology issue. It could have been a limited space issue to house the technology, or ruggedness issue as standards of ruggedness incresed as ships got bifgger to meet life expectactions for the hull. So the retiring of the last of the class in ST IV was passing the torch to bigger, better, stronger, faster...yada...yada...yada. To boil it down...you can ONLY upgrade a Skipjack so much before it is less effort and cost to build something new fro mthe ground up without all the old baggage and limitations that an old hull brings with it. would we use a Skipjack in today's environment when a Virginia Class more meets the current minimum standards to operate? I seriously doubt with all the improvements of any adversary out there and the expanding multi-role expectations of the mission changing over the past few decades dictate that new be used to offset the deficiencies of the old. And using the old is asking to get people killed or not having the ship to measure up to expectations or not met crew or mission standards. So I expect that if it is true today...it will be true then as well. the Government is willing to spend the money. But it is going to expect to get as much out of the investment as possible. And if a old ship that can be upgraded can't meet the minimum mission requirements or life expectancy to justify the cost.....it's timeto retire it and design somthing and build it to meet those expectations and needs. Or less hassle for the money.
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.
After all, SF did have numerous Mirandas and Excelsiors in the late 24th century.
Most of those were leftovers from 75 years ago as I really doubt they'd be building those designs nearly a century later ... not when there are a bunch of better designs readily available and probably more capable.
So if anything, some of the Mirandas and Excelsiors would be left intact and survive the war.
Those would be repaired/upgraded and sent back into active service really.
You saw what SF did to the Lakota after all ... and that was prior to the Dominion War.
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.
After all, SF did have numerous Mirandas and Excelsiors in the late 24th century.
Most of those were leftovers from 75 years ago as I really doubt they'd be building those designs nearly a century later ... not when there are a bunch of better designs readily available and probably more capable.
So if anything, some of the Mirandas and Excelsiors would be left intact and survive the war.
Those would be repaired/upgraded and sent back into active service really.
You saw what SF did to the Lakota after all ... and that was prior to the Dominion War.
Similar threads
