PIC S3 Ships & Tech

[Deks]

Did anyone riot when the B only appeared briefly, the C was in just 1 episode, and the J was hypothetical?

The Ent-b was brand new and had its full service awaiting it.
The Ent-C was... on supposedly last mission but it was also destroyed in the battle of Narendra III.
The ENT-D was destroyed under ridiculous circumstance and quite frankly, the saucer was still salvageable, so SF could have towed it back to nearest shipyard, repaired it and give it another galaxy class secondary hull and put it back into active duty (but hey, if SF didn't want to bother, fine... in this particular instance, I can see this happening).

The ENT-E had a distinguished record apparently but no mention of it being critically damaged, or destroyed.
ENT-F was apparently serving for 20 odd years, and then suffers damage and is completely retired?

Something isn't right here. The ENT-E should have gone on for much longer.

UFP ships are supposedly designed to last 200 years. I don't care how much damage a ship takes, you can use replicators and transporters to refresh its internal superstructure every 10 years or so if need be (what was once old has been harvested and turned into brand new - and voila - but again, this would only be necessary if the ship underwent severe strain during its service record), and the USS Lakota proved you can upgrade 80 year old ships with modern hardware to make it on par with modern powerful ships.

Changing a ship so often is utterly wasteful and doesn't make any sense. Unless they are critically damaged beyond repair (which for a society that has replicators and transporters doesn't mean much) there's no need to change a ship every series.

Voyager was decomissioned because of its historic journey through the DQ... and was turned into a museum. That was a PR move if anything else and good for morale, plus the explanation works if you ask me (but on a level I still think it may have been removed from active service way too soon as its still an able/proven vessel).

Anyway, I don't see any legit reasons for removing the ENT-E from active service and replacing it with the F so soon, and then F being replaced after only 20 odd years.

The writers either forgot about the fact these ships are designed to go on for 200 years, or they just prefer making new Enterprises for new series, and then make nearly identical ships in modern era that are based off a 100 year old design with minuscule adjustments to the exterior and call it another class of ships.

 

[Dukhat]

Changing a ship so often is utterly wasteful and doesn't make any sense. Unless they are critically damaged beyond repair (which for a society that has replicators and transporters doesn't mean much) there's no need to change a ship every series.

I always felt that, starting with the decommissioning of the original Enterprise, that Starfleet's plans were to christen one of their new Excelsior class starships the Enterprise-A. But after the Whale Probe incident, they quickly changed tactics and gave Kirk a Constitution class ship that was scheduled to be decommissioned with that name as a reward, knowing that it would just be temporary until the new ship was built, which would then be named the Ent-B. That would explain why the A was decommissioned so soon. Then they decided that the Enterprise would be the Federation flagship and needed to be changed out every so often to keep up with technological advances in starship design. Because unless it was lost or destroyed, the Enterprise-B should have lasted to the TNG era, since many other Excelsior class ships were still in service by that time. So I'm assuming it was decommissioned to make way for the Enterprise-C, which would have then been decommissioned to make way for the D, if it hadn't been destroyed prematurely. Then the D would have been decommissioned by the 2380's to make way for the E, although things didn't happen that way. The D was destroyed only 8 years in, and a new Enterprise was rushed into service earlier than intended. But by that time Starfleet felt that they always needed an Enterprise in service at any time, so they made the Sovereign class ship an Enterprise even though the name should have been used later. Then it was retired to make way for the F, which is now being retired to make way for the G. So yes, I agree that it's completely wasteful to keep decommissioning and commissioning ships just for the name recognition, but in this case it's a political move.

 

[fireproof78]

The writers either forgot about the fact these ships are designed to go on for 200 years, or they just prefer making new Enterprises for new series, and then make nearly identical ships in modern era that are based off a 100 year old design with minuscule adjustments to the exterior and call it another class of ships.

This is absolutely the case. They want distinct ships for each series and the in universe justification will take secondary consideration to the dramatic considerations. It doesn't matter why the service was short or that it's wasteful. They can build a new one, and they want too, so they will. It's all a name recognition strategy, because the name Enterprise means more than resources because resources are not scarce. So, they just reorganize the ship, send the materials to be broken down and replicate in to new items and have a nice ceremony and life moves on.

This is not logical. This is emotional. Trying to make it logical will just break the brain.

 

[Deks]

I always felt that, starting with the decommissioning of the original Enterprise, that Starfleet's plans were to christen one of their new Excelsior class starships the Enterprise-A. But after the Whale Probe incident, they quickly changed tactics and gave Kirk a Constitution class ship that was scheduled to be decommissioned with that name as a reward, knowing that it would just be temporary until the new ship was built, which would then be named the Ent-B. That would explain why the A was decommissioned so soon. Then they decided that the Enterprise would be the Federation flagship and needed to be changed out every so often to keep up with technological advances in starship design. Because unless it was lost or destroyed, the Enterprise-B should have lasted to the TNG era, since many other Excelsior class ships were still in service by that time. So I'm assuming it was decommissioned to make way for the Enterprise-C, which would have then been decommissioned to make way for the D, if it hadn't been destroyed prematurely. Then the D would have been decommissioned by the 2380's to make way for the E, although things didn't happen that way. The D was destroyed only 8 years in, and a new Enterprise was rushed into service earlier than intended. But by that time Starfleet felt that they always needed an Enterprise in service at any time, so they made the Sovereign class ship an Enterprise even though the name should have been used later. Then it was retired to make way for the F, which is now being retired to make way for the G. So yes, I agree that it's completely wasteful to keep decommissioning and commissioning ships just for the name recognition, but in this case it's a political move.

The ENT-D wasn't technically fully destroyed.
The saucer survived the crash on Veridian III and kept the crew alive during the crash.
Only the stardrive section exploded.

SF could have retrived the saucer, used replicators and transporters to break down too damaged bits into base materials or energy and remake them into new components and built a new stardrive section and recomissioned the ship into active service.

I mean, if they had to hollow out the internals of the saucer, there's a massive amounts of raw material in damaged form that could serve as building blocks for replicators to reconstruct it relatively minor addition of new matter.

Had the ship exploded in entirety, then I'd agree with you... but the saucer (even though it was banged up) could have been salvaged, repaired and brought back to life. The ship would have been out of active service for a month or so before its brought back up to working speed.

But as we know, when the FC movie was made, they wanted a more 'cinematic' model of a starship (whatever that means - I think the ENT-D worked well in a movie).

I guess one could argue that because no real scarcity exists in UFP and the level of technology they have, SF can afford to decomission ships left and right - they might do a bit more difficult on the personnell side of things so those they like to keep around for as long as possible.

Now, with every new Star Trek series, its almost become a rule that you can't really have any old ships appearing anymore (despite the fact we KNOW they can be upgraded almost in perpetuity and kept in service for hundreds of years).
If a ship was destroyed in the line of duty or decomissioned because I did something historic and was turned into say a museum piece (like VOY), that's fine... but decomissioning ships after 15 or 20 years of service?
That's shortening the lifespan of a ship by about 10 times compared to what it SHOULD be able to do.

Also, wouldn't it be easier that if they wanted a new Enterprise for every series in the same century to just switch starships without decomissioning them?

I mean, if SF (or even the producers or writers)doesn't want the ENT-E to be the Sovereign class anymore, keep the older ship, repaint the insignia/registry and reprogram the computers to a different identification, and switch the ENT-E insignia and registry to new class of ships that's been recently comissioned.

There. Problem solved (the older sovereign class can continue serving in the fleet as differently named starship, while the ENT name is switched to a newly comissioned one).

Heck, they could have easily kep the Sovereign class for that matter and give it some minor changes externally to signify its gotten upgrades - or just mention that all its internal systems were upgraded and it was still one of the most powerful and advanced ships in the fleet - despite sporting a 30 odd year old frame).

The Sao Paolo was renamed to USS Defiant after all (even though it was the same class of ships).

The original Constitution class got a massive internal/external refit which made it almost like a completely new ship in TMP... but it never changed insignias/registries (or class).

 

[Dukhat]

The ENT-D wasn't technically fully destroyed.
The saucer survived the crash on Veridian III and kept the crew alive during the crash.
Only the stardrive section exploded.

SF could have retrived the saucer, used replicators and transporters to break down too damaged bits into base materials or energy and remake them into new components and built a new stardrive section and recomissioned the ship into active service.

I think it was just easier to give the name to a new ship just coming off the assembly line, especially a ship like the Sovereign class.

 

[Macintosh]

The ENT-D wasn't technically fully destroyed.
The saucer survived the crash on Veridian III and kept the crew alive during the crash.
Only the stardrive section exploded.

SF could have retrived the saucer, used replicators and transporters to break down too damaged bits into base materials or energy and remake them into new components and built a new stardrive section and recomissioned the ship into active service.

The original idea was that the saucer would have been absolutely destroyed in the crash (the pre-production notes say "cracked in half"), much like the 1701 in Star Trek Beyond, but this was beyond the practical effects of the time. Behind-the-scenes information for Picard season two states that the Enterprise-D's saucer was in fact salvaged by Starfleet and is now a museum.

Surely it would be easier (and significantly more energy efficient) for Starfleet to just build a new ship from scratch than go to all the trouble of dismantling the Enterprise-D's saucer at a molecular level just to build a completely new ship out of it... besides, this allowed the saucer to live on as a monument. Remember, a Galaxy-class saucer has a larger volume than any other class of Federation starship that we've seen, except the Nebula-class obviously. It's even got a larger volume than a whole Ambassador or Sovereign.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The new old rifle

It has red lights on the side and a shotgun-like pump action function

Pump-action shotphaser is staight out of Star Trek: Elite Force 2.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

The Ent-b was brand new and had its full service awaiting it.
The Ent-C was... on supposedly last mission but it was also destroyed in the battle of Narendra III.
The ENT-D was destroyed under ridiculous circumstance and quite frankly, the saucer was still salvageable, so SF could have towed it back to nearest shipyard, repaired it and give it another galaxy class secondary hull and put it back into active duty (but hey, if SF didn't want to bother, fine... in this particular instance, I can see this happening).

The ENT-E had a distinguished record apparently but no mention of it being critically damaged, or destroyed.
ENT-F was apparently serving for 20 odd years, and then suffers damage and is completely retired?

Something isn't right here. The ENT-E should have gone on for much longer.

UFP ships are supposedly designed to last 200 years. I don't care how much damage a ship takes, you can use replicators and transporters to refresh its internal superstructure every 10 years or so if need be (what was once old has been harvested and turned into brand new - and voila - but again, this would only be necessary if the ship underwent severe strain during its service record), and the USS Lakota proved you can upgrade 80 year old ships with modern hardware to make it on par with modern powerful ships.

Changing a ship so often is utterly wasteful and doesn't make any sense. Unless they are critically damaged beyond repair (which for a society that has replicators and transporters doesn't mean much) there's no need to change a ship every series.

Anyway, I don't see any legit reasons for removing the ENT-E from active service and replacing it with the F so soon, and then F being replaced after only 20 odd years.

StarFleet Upper Brass has a "Shiny New Ship" syndrome where they see the new & shiny and want it; because they can afford it, they get it.

Just look at how US Military Aircraft's were constantly being upgraded up to the Century series.

Before the numbering system reset and everything slowed down as technology started maturing and stabilizing along with complexity & cost being a driving factor and reuse.

The 24th century might've been that era for StarFleet where they are iterating through alot of designs before they reach a more stable century / era and fixate on long term designs.

Voyager was decomissioned because of its historic journey through the DQ... and was turned into a museum. That was a PR move if anything else and good for morale, plus the explanation works if you ask me (but on a level I still think it may have been removed from active service way too soon as its still an able/proven vessel).

Voyager becoming a museum piece was fine, that makes logical sense because it told a incredible journey about a crew who got stuck in a highly unlikely situation, overcame insurmountable odds, and came back for the better, improving all of the UFP / StarFleet.
The list of technological & knowledge improvements that Voyager brought back must've been ridiculous.

That's a legendary tale that's worth preserving for generations.

The museum ship legacy is worth it! They can always make more new/improved Intrepid class ships.

The writers either forgot about the fact these ships are designed to go on for 200 years, or they just prefer making new Enterprises for new series, and then make nearly identical ships in modern era that are based off a 100 year old design with minuscule adjustments to the exterior and call it another class of ships.

The writers also get "Shiny New Ship" syndrome as well.
And modernized retro is a thing, just look at some modern Muscle Cars and how they're a updated throw-back to a design that was over 50 years ago.

 

[Unicron]

It's one reason I like how Battletech handled the legacy concept, as it's not uncommon for some designs to be continuously manufactured (in a variety of models) for half a millennium or more, and for newer models to incorporate more modern technologies and configurations. The Clans benefitted considerably when they developed omni technology, where major configurations can be swapped out on the same chassis and the overall design has a great flexibility in roles compared to a single-purpose design. It was a natural development of the systems on the SLDF Mercury series battlemech, which wasn't modular but did have systems that could be easily removed or repaired to maintain the overall design.

This isn't to say that the Star League didn't wind up designing or buying units that turned into boondoggles, either because the concept sounded interesting on paper but flawed in practice or because something about the design was just bad. The SLDF brass loved shiny things. The Cameron class battlecruisers went into huge cost overruns before the final design entered fleet service, and some vessels quickly proved to have a dangerous flaw in the power management system that could prevent the weapons from working while maintaining power for other systems. Several Camerons wound up being destroyed by lesser ships they should have been able to match easily.

The Charger series of heavy battlemechs is a good example of the first problem, as they were initially designed to be heavy scouts with only a paltry armament but with much better survivability than lighter scout units would typically have. It was assumed that the pilots would be smart enough to stay away from major actions, but during the Succession Wars many Chargers wound up being used as general purpose mechs, a role for which they were definitely not intended. Later models attempted (with varied success) to improve things by giving the Chargers weaponry more suited to their size, but their flawed legacy has never entirely disappeared. Even with a better arsenal, the Charger isn't necessarily better than other mechs of the same weight class that were always better designed.

It's also not entirely uncommon for some individual mechs or vehicles to have survived for decades or even a century or more, although that's somewhat more rare than the total operational life of the design itself. During wartime mechs have often been preserved as family and military heirlooms and passed down the generations.

 

[fireproof78]

The 24th century might've been that era for StarFleet where they are iterating through alot of designs before they reach a more stable century / era and fixate on long term designs.

Possibly, especially in a rebuild from the Dominon War and all that fall out. Plus Mars attacks.

StarFleet Upper Brass has a "Shiny New Ship" syndrome where they see the new & shiny and want it; because they can afford it, they get it.

The writers also get "Shiny New Ship" syndrome as well.
And modernized retro is a thing, just look at some modern Muscle Cars and how they're a updated throw-back to a design that was over 50 years ago.

Exactly so. Why in the world would they care about efficiency when they can develop it, design it and replicate it as soon as they approve it? It's ridiculous to think their approach to efficiency of resources will mirror our own because they don't have nearly as many limitations as we do. Even more so, when opportunities to develop and implement new technologies provide ample excuses to experiment.

The idea that "efficiency" would matter when they have the ability to use a holodeck, fully visualize the concept and start building the individual components from the developmental stage strikes me as, well, very limited thinking. It also might be that they just flat out don't like a design, and because of the ability to manufacture more easily they are less concerned with waste.

 

[Macintosh]

It's one reason I like how Battletech handled the legacy concept, as it's not uncommon for some designs to be continuously manufactured (in a variety of models) for half a millennium or more, and for newer models to incorporate more modern technologies and configurations.

Is this a good time to mention the Klingon Bird-of-Prey?

I loved the explanation in the Haynes manual that Klingons believe the BoP is literally the perfect warship design, so why bother changing it... just scale it to your preferred size, outfit it with the best tech available, and Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam

 

[Unicron]

For my part, I never had a huge issue with designs like the BOP staying in service a long time, although I also like that many fan and unofficial sources like FASA have given the fleets far more variety than we get to see onscreen as well. Sometimes I've found the RL executive decisions to be rather mind-boggling, like how the DS9 crew was told they couldn't name the Defiant as the Valiant because the studio was beginning work on Star Trek Voyager, and clearly having two lead ships with the same starting letter would be awfully confusing to viewers.

The game runners of BT have arguably done some silly stuff over the years, particularly getting rid of large naval fleets because they want to keep the traditional emphasis on mechs and ground units. The Great Houses lost the ability to produce warships during the Succession Wars, and almost lost the ability to maintain interstellar travel with civilian jumpships as well. Much of the SLDF navy left during the Exodus, and the Clans (their descendants) don't consider warships to be generally the same tactical value as mechs (partly as a way of keeping game balance intact). It was only after the Clan War ended that the Houses got the tech back to make fleets, and then many of those ships were destroyed during the Jihad and Wars of Reaving plot arcs. Nowadays surviving capital ships are more rare, with most fleet assets being "pocket" warships based on dropship scale with heavier weaponry.

I do understand how important game balance is, but my preference would simply be to keep those units more in the background if players want to use ground forces. It's a bit like D & D killing off loads of dragons just because they're cooler and more powerful than the mundane races.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Is this a good time to mention the Klingon Bird-of-Prey?

Klingons are either "Really Arrogant" or don't understand or care about the technological improvements in weaponry or are stuck on their Dogmatic ways of combat that they have a hard time improving it.

The Klingon "BoP" has some fundamental design flaws.

Having a limited aiming frustum from your two main Disruptor Batteries, which generally requires you to point the bow of your ship at your enemy and do a fly by strafing run is a very limited doctrine and fundamental design flaw.

Yes, your FirePower and Energy Density is "HUGE" relative to the amount of energy spent, but the limitation to your combat doctrine forces the Klingons to fight in a repeated "Hit & Run" style pattern.

It's overly simplistic and 1-Dimensional in tactical thinking. Their entire BoP attack doctrine requires Cloaking to be even remotely effective. Otherwise, if they were visible, it wouldn't be nearly as effective.

There are so many basic improvements to be had with just their basic design:

Spoiler: Basic Klingon BoP primary Armament

The Basic BoP Weapon Cluster mounted on the ends of each Warp Wing has
- 2x Small Barrels linked togther in alternating fire mode to provide rapid fire capability
- 1x Large Heavy Barrel to deliver large hard hitting disruptor bolts, very slow on reload and firing.

Spoiler: Basic Simple Improvements to the Klingon BoP

Without introducing any new tech to the basic Klingon Bird of Prey.
1) Move the Rapid Fire Small Barrels off to their own mounting points on the vessel.
- You can see some Red lines that I place for mounting pylons for Turrets for the small Rapid Fire Barrels, this gives them superior firing arcs and coverage and allows more flexible attack doctrine.
You have these Small Disruptor barrels that provide CIWS like fire power, have them be used constantly for either shooting down incoming projectiles / energy bolts / beams / objects. Or they can be used to harass any enemy target within range.

2) On the end of each wing, have Quadruple Large Barrels per wing.
- 2x Large Barrels facing forward in Vertical Pairs like Over & Under Shotguns.
- 2x Large Barrels facing aftward in Vertical Pairs like Over & Under Shotguns.
When you do a fly-by attack, you can alternate fire repeatedly from your large barrels in a consistent tempo as you fly towards & away from your opponent, hitting them for FAR more heavy hits with the heavy barrels.
If you have the chance, you can use the Small barrels at the same time as the large barrels to pound your target even harder.

All this, w/o introducing any new technology, just logical thinking and improving on what they already had.

 

[NCC-73515]

The original idea was that the saucer would have been absolutely destroyed in the crash (the pre-production notes say "cracked in half"), much like the 1701 in Star Trek Beyond, but this was beyond the practical effects of the time. Behind-the-scenes information for Picard season two states that the Enterprise-D's saucer was in fact salvaged by Starfleet and is now a museum.

Surely it would be easier (and significantly more energy efficient) for Starfleet to just build a new ship from scratch than go to all the trouble of dismantling the Enterprise-D's saucer at a molecular level just to build a completely new ship out of it... besides, this allowed the saucer to live on as a monument. Remember, a Galaxy-class saucer has a larger volume than any other class of Federation starship that we've seen, except the Nebula-class obviously. It's even got a larger volume than a whole Ambassador or Sovereign.

They had to remove it from Veridian III before IV develops telescopes

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

For me, I figure it boils down to a one-time conversation Terry Matalas possibly had while shaping up season 3 of Picard:

Terry: Hey, I want to set up the introduction of a new Enterprise by the end of the Season, so Paramount can optionally do ST:TNNG when we're all done with Picard.

Writers: Gotcha. We'll write something up about the E-E being decommissioned in the first episode, and give the fans a cameo of the ship. They'll love it.

Producers: And thankfully we have the digital assets for the E-E ported over from Star Trek Online. We can use that.

Terry: Yeah, about that - The STO guys have the Enterprise-F already. I want to set up a shiny new Enterprise if we end up doing TNNG, and I don't want the fans clamoring to have the one from an "official" Star Trek product. Let's put the Enterprise-F in, instead, and acknowledge that it existed before moving on.

Writers: Gotcha. We'll write something up about the E-F being decommissioned in the first episode, and give the fans a cameo of the ship. They'll love it.

Producers: And thankfully we have the digital assets for the E-F ported over from Star Trek Online. We can use that.

Terry: Great! Moving on. More Seven, yes?

[nod nod]

Mark

 

[fireproof78]

They'll love it.

Boy, are they optimistic...

 

[Deks]

The original idea was that the saucer would have been absolutely destroyed in the crash (the pre-production notes say "cracked in half"), much like the 1701 in Star Trek Beyond, but this was beyond the practical effects of the time. Behind-the-scenes information for Picard season two states that the Enterprise-D's saucer was in fact salvaged by Starfleet and is now a museum.

Surely it would be easier (and significantly more energy efficient) for Starfleet to just build a new ship from scratch than go to all the trouble of dismantling the Enterprise-D's saucer at a molecular level just to build a completely new ship out of it... besides, this allowed the saucer to live on as a monument. Remember, a Galaxy-class saucer has a larger volume than any other class of Federation starship that we've seen, except the Nebula-class obviously. It's even got a larger volume than a whole Ambassador or Sovereign.

Had the saucer been completely destroyed it would have been easier to swallow, like this though? Nope.
The Galaxy class was still a modern 24th century design, so if you ask me, removing the ENT-D from active service didn't make much sense with a saucer in the condition it was.

As for whether it would have been easier and more efficient to build a new new from scrarch... depends.
The saucer section is basically raw material... damaged bits are raw material too. Harvesting the most damaged bits and disassembling them to base elements and reconstructing them into new things would have taken LESS resources than building a new ship from scratch because you're actually working with pre-existing matter ... in this scenario you would only need to add a bit more fresh matter (or energy) to repair the overall damage.

With transporters, replicators, tractor beams and computer automation, its almost dead simple to do.

Arguably speaking rebuilding the ENT-D may have taken less overall resources and time than building a Sovereign class from scratch would have.

When you have the ability to materialize things even in sections, its not difficult to imagine the process being done on damaged ships. Take for example crew quarters. If for example 50% of was damaged beyond repair, you'd beam those sections out, turn them into base matter/energy, add the missing amount and rematerialize the fully repaired crew quarters.

With building a new ship from scratch, you need to add more matter or energy for the materialization process.

Then again, the Galaxy class has a bigger internal volume than the Sovereign class, so it may have taken similar amount of energy/matter to rebuild the ENT-D as it was to make the ENT-E.

That's the only reason I could see SF using behind not rebuilding the D... although in fairness, they could have still rebuilt it, changed the insignia and numbers and named it something else and recomissioning it into active service with another crew, while the Enterprise-E could have still been a Sovereign class and the name of the ship and crew transferred to that vessel.

 

[Deks]

StarFleet Upper Brass has a "Shiny New Ship" syndrome where they see the new & shiny and want it; because they can afford it, they get it.

Just look at how US Military Aircraft's were constantly being upgraded up to the Century series.

Before the numbering system reset and everything slowed down as technology started maturing and stabilizing along with complexity & cost being a driving factor and reuse.

The 24th century might've been that era for StarFleet where they are iterating through alot of designs before they reach a more stable century / era and fixate on long term designs.





Voyager becoming a museum piece was fine, that makes logical sense because it told a incredible journey about a crew who got stuck in a highly unlikely situation, overcame insurmountable odds, and came back for the better, improving all of the UFP / StarFleet.
The list of technological & knowledge improvements that Voyager brought back must've been ridiculous.

That's a legendary tale that's worth preserving for generations.

The museum ship legacy is worth it! They can always make more new/improved Intrepid class ships.



The writers also get "Shiny New Ship" syndrome as well.
And modernized retro is a thing, just look at some modern Muscle Cars and how they're a updated throw-back to a design that was over 50 years ago.

But when you think about it, there was nothing old about the Galaxy class.
It was still fairly new/modern in terms of design etc. (in universe wise).
Plus, older ships do get external touch ups and design changes without changing their class anyway (when its appropriate), so there would be no real reason to remove the D from active service that quickly.
Had the saucer been 100% destroyed, then yes, but as it is, it could have been just as easily salvaged/rebuilt, renamed, given to another crew, and the ENT name moved as an E to the Sovereign class we saw in the movies still (if SF wanted to have an absolute 'latest and the greatest' for its flagship - but the Galaxy class could have continued in that sense if you ask me).

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

But when you think about it, there was nothing old about the Galaxy class.
It was still fairly new/modern in terms of design etc. (in universe wise).
Plus, older ships do get external touch ups and design changes without changing their class anyway (when its appropriate), so there would be no real reason to remove the D from active service that quickly.
Had the saucer been 100% destroyed, then yes, but as it is, it could have been just as easily salvaged/rebuilt, renamed, given to another crew, and the ENT name moved as an E to the Sovereign class we saw in the movies still (if SF wanted to have an absolute 'latest and the greatest' for its flagship - but the Galaxy class could have continued in that sense if you ask me).

I wouldn't be surprised if it was fixed and given a new name.

The USS Enterprise itself wouldn't stay off-line for long, it would get reborn as the Enterprise-E.

It's not that big of a deal, the Galaxy class formerly known as the USS Enterprise-D would probably be given new NCC ID #'s and name to go with it.

Everybody is happy.

You get what you want, StarFleet upper brass gets what they want, in universe logic is maintained, etc.

 

[Deks]

I wouldn't be surprised if it was fixed and given a new name.

The USS Enterprise itself wouldn't stay off-line for long, it would get reborn as the Enterprise-E.

It's not that big of a deal, the Galaxy class formerly known as the USS Enterprise-D would probably be given new NCC ID #'s and name to go with it.

Everybody is happy.

You get what you want, StarFleet upper brass gets what they want, in universe logic is maintained, etc.

Yeah... but I'd have 0 issues with the ENT-D (Galaxy class) continuing as the flagship. Had it been retired in the early 25th century though (which would at least give it 40 odd years of service), it would have been less problematic as it would be virtually on par with the 1701.

Then again, it seems that SF does retain most other ship classes for a long time in service... it may be that they have this odd policy of retiring the Enterprise ships earlier (I don't have a problem with VOY being decomissioned and turned into a museum due to its journey and the knowledge it brought back in the process - the entire crew instantly became 'legendary' for that - and they managed to obliterate the Borg TW network on the way back).

Speaking of the Enterprise not being off line for long... there WAS a period of 30 odd years when SF hadn't made a new Enterprise (the period after C's destruction and D's commissioning).

And there's also an unknown period between the NX-01 refit and the 1701.
If we were to think the NX-01 continued to operate until close to the start of the 22nd century (after receiving the refit which included a secondary hull), then it would stand to reason the ENT- 1701 (Constitution) was comissioned in the early 23rd century.
So, 40 odd years for the NX-01 and 40 odd years for the 1701.
The Ent-B for all we know could have also served for a similar amount of time.
So that would mean that SF may have planned to continue this trend in replacing the Enterprise ships every 50 odd years...

The C may have been destroyed roughly mid way into its service... whereas the D was (at least half-way) destroyed after just 7 years of service.
That got us the ENT-E which was in service for an oddly short period of time... and then the F which is also retired after 20 years.
Weird.

SF may have decied to shorten the period of time between the comissioning of a new Enterprise. Possibly because of advancing technologies that VOY brought back, integration of Borg tech.
All of these would have found their way into older ship designs too, but its possible SF went with the 'shiny new ship syndrome' as you suggested and didn't want to wait for the tech to proliferate.