To be honest, I think the new Enterprise in Star Trek IV should have had a different number on it.
I see no reason for adding an -A after the designation. I mean we've had two ships named Enterprise in real life...
The first is CV-6, which was an aircraft carrier that served with virtually unrivaled distinction in WW2, and was scrapped in 1958
The second is CVAN-65 (Redesignated CVN-65 in the 1970's) which was the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier which entered service in the early 1960's.
Totally different designations and yet the same name.
CuttingEdge100
BTW: I think the Excelsior should have been re-designated Enterprise, while retaining the -2000 hull number...
I see no reason for adding an -A after the designation. I mean we've had two ships named Enterprise in real life...
The first is CV-6, which was an aircraft carrier that served with virtually unrivaled distinction in WW2, and was scrapped in 1958
The second is CVAN-65 (Redesignated CVN-65 in the 1970's) which was the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier which entered service in the early 1960's.
Totally different designations and yet the same name.
CuttingEdge100
BTW: I think the Excelsior should have been re-designated Enterprise, while retaining the -2000 hull number...