Was Enterprise the 1st Constitution to have a refit?
- Thread starter DeepSpaceYorks
- Start date
A few notes here:
It's not entirely clear what system Starfleet most closely resembles. The US Navy names their classes after the first ship authorized by Congress. Most of Europe, goes by first ship to comission. The British Navy, generally, follows European norms, but occasionally names classes after a theme (Tribal class destroyers are all named after native peoples, R class battlecruisers all had names starting with "r"). Russia uses project names which may or may not have any relation to what the individual ships are named. It is not possible the conclude starfleet follows any single one of these systems, or that they have been consistent over its entire existence.
But that's general rules. As always, within each system there are exceptions. Here's a few:
The Permit class submarine is named for the second ship of the class, because the first of class USS Thresher was lost at sea with all hands.
The Colorado class battleship was often referred to as the Maryland class (particularly by other navies). Colorado was authorized several months before Maryland, but Maryland was laid down and launched some 2 years before Colorado.
The Galveston class cruisers, among several post war designs, were significantly modified to accommodate guided missiles and equipment associated thereof. They were all launched as Cleveland class light cruisers, but renamed upon completion of refit after Galveston, the first ship authorized for modification. It was not proper to refer to a Galveston as a Cleveland due to the marked change of role from gun ship to air defense escort.
The Essex class had a pretty large variation. They were constructed to two different standards (usually referred to as short hull and long hull, though the latter subclass was also known as Ticonderoga class). Most were converted to angled deck carriers, but there was no new class name given to these ships. All of the ships officially went by Essex.
The Los Angeles class submarine consists of 3 subclasses. The first, generally referred to as "688" after first of class USS Los Angeles' pennant number (SSN-688) includes the first 31 boats. The second, which added vertically launched Tomahawk missile tubes is usually called "688 VLS", but occasionally the Providence class after the first of 8 boats built to this standard. The final configuration was a marked upgrade of many systems and is officially called "688i" for "improved", but is also commonly called the San Juan class. However, they're also all officially Los Angeles class boats. You would not confuse anyone by calling USS Springfield a San Juan class, though Providence is a bit more obscure.
What this tells us, based on the " Enterprise Class" simulator in ST2, is that Enterprise was the first ship upgraded to the new standard. There is no other precedent for that kind of reference, unless you assume Starfleet follows a precedent distinct from any navy today.
There are multiple reasons why the type could also be called a "Constitution" as well. "Enterprise" may have been an unofficial subclass, rarely referred to as such. The subclass name may have been retired when the decision was made to upgrade all existing Constitutions to the standard, as with Essex. They may have even changed naming conventions between movies.
Given how fandom and canon treat this, my personal opinion leans towards "Enterprise class" as being an unofficial name. Which means it's fine to refer to it as such. You're just using a shorthand, if not official, term for something specific. "Constitution Refit class" falls in the same category. The class would never be called that officially (unless there was a "USS Constitution Refit"). It's Constitution class, Enterprise subclass, or a refit Constitution.
It's not entirely clear what system Starfleet most closely resembles. The US Navy names their classes after the first ship authorized by Congress. Most of Europe, goes by first ship to comission. The British Navy, generally, follows European norms, but occasionally names classes after a theme (Tribal class destroyers are all named after native peoples, R class battlecruisers all had names starting with "r"). Russia uses project names which may or may not have any relation to what the individual ships are named. It is not possible the conclude starfleet follows any single one of these systems, or that they have been consistent over its entire existence.
But that's general rules. As always, within each system there are exceptions. Here's a few:
The Permit class submarine is named for the second ship of the class, because the first of class USS Thresher was lost at sea with all hands.
The Colorado class battleship was often referred to as the Maryland class (particularly by other navies). Colorado was authorized several months before Maryland, but Maryland was laid down and launched some 2 years before Colorado.
The Galveston class cruisers, among several post war designs, were significantly modified to accommodate guided missiles and equipment associated thereof. They were all launched as Cleveland class light cruisers, but renamed upon completion of refit after Galveston, the first ship authorized for modification. It was not proper to refer to a Galveston as a Cleveland due to the marked change of role from gun ship to air defense escort.
The Essex class had a pretty large variation. They were constructed to two different standards (usually referred to as short hull and long hull, though the latter subclass was also known as Ticonderoga class). Most were converted to angled deck carriers, but there was no new class name given to these ships. All of the ships officially went by Essex.
The Los Angeles class submarine consists of 3 subclasses. The first, generally referred to as "688" after first of class USS Los Angeles' pennant number (SSN-688) includes the first 31 boats. The second, which added vertically launched Tomahawk missile tubes is usually called "688 VLS", but occasionally the Providence class after the first of 8 boats built to this standard. The final configuration was a marked upgrade of many systems and is officially called "688i" for "improved", but is also commonly called the San Juan class. However, they're also all officially Los Angeles class boats. You would not confuse anyone by calling USS Springfield a San Juan class, though Providence is a bit more obscure.
What this tells us, based on the " Enterprise Class" simulator in ST2, is that Enterprise was the first ship upgraded to the new standard. There is no other precedent for that kind of reference, unless you assume Starfleet follows a precedent distinct from any navy today.
There are multiple reasons why the type could also be called a "Constitution" as well. "Enterprise" may have been an unofficial subclass, rarely referred to as such. The subclass name may have been retired when the decision was made to upgrade all existing Constitutions to the standard, as with Essex. They may have even changed naming conventions between movies.
Given how fandom and canon treat this, my personal opinion leans towards "Enterprise class" as being an unofficial name. Which means it's fine to refer to it as such. You're just using a shorthand, if not official, term for something specific. "Constitution Refit class" falls in the same category. The class would never be called that officially (unless there was a "USS Constitution Refit"). It's Constitution class, Enterprise subclass, or a refit Constitution.
Last edited:
So that gives us a "no later than" date for the Monster Maroons, no?
I wonder what post V'Ger incident prompted that switch.
Did this thread imply that the TMP refit 1701 ship was an "Enterprise" class, but the TFF 1701A ship was actually just a Constitution Refit?
Bridge designs seem to be modular and easy to change, and the Refit was in use for close to 20 years; i'm sure a few bridge configurations wouldn't be that odd.
Last edited:
You can probably have two ships that look identical on the outside, but with noticeably different bridge modules and a few other interior compartments due to upgrades occurring at different times for each ship.
One thing that should be noted is that the Reliant and Enterprise have very similar bridge modules.
As for the ship's class naming, take the Essex-class carriers. There were 24 ships completed between 1942 and 1950. All were called Essex-class but some were long hulled and some short hulled. These, as mentioned earlier in the thread, had unofficial name of the Ticonderoga-class by Jane's Fighting Ships.
However by the time all these ships had been retired in 1992 (most by 1975), they could be classed into six subclasses based on modifications and function they had by the time of their decommissioning.
As you can see there are two single ship subclasses. Intrepid, because she had been modified as an attack carrier, but later modified again as a anti-submarine carrier on top of her older modifications, and then modified again to handle attack carrier duties. It could in theory do both jobs.
Lexington because she was fitted as a training carrier and was the last one in service 20 years after the majority of the others were retired.
The Franklin-class is the basic, mostly unrebuilt ships. No hurricane bow and the like. Antietam did have the prototype angled flight deck, but not the full on restructuring to make it effective for jet aircraft after the 1950s. Franklin and Bunker Hill were used for other purposes after their extensive damage near the end of World War II by the Japanese and never returned to the fleet as aircraft carriers. These were also the ships that retired much earlier than the rest.
The Hancock's were the Attack Carriers that continued to operate what they could until the 1960s and 1970s. Hancock and Oriskany were the last two active as warships of the Essex-class, retiring in 1976, replace by USS Nimitz.
The Yorktown-class were the Anti-submarine warfare carriers and operated aircraft for that purpose with only a flight of fighters for defense (A-4s by the end).
The Boxer-class was the early Assault ships that were soon supplemented and replaced by the Iwo Jima-class LPH in the 1960s.
Four still exist as museum ships.
As for the ship's class naming, take the Essex-class carriers. There were 24 ships completed between 1942 and 1950. All were called Essex-class but some were long hulled and some short hulled. These, as mentioned earlier in the thread, had unofficial name of the Ticonderoga-class by Jane's Fighting Ships.
However by the time all these ships had been retired in 1992 (most by 1975), they could be classed into six subclasses based on modifications and function they had by the time of their decommissioning.
- CVS-10 Yorktown class (SCB-27A): Essex, Yorktown, Hornet, Randolph, Wasp, Bennington, Kearsarge, Lake Champlain
- CVS-11 Intrepid class (SCB-27C + SCB-144): Intrepid
- CVA-19 Hancock class (SCB-27C): Ticonderoga, Hancock, Bon Homme Richard, Oriskany, Shangri-La
- AVT-8 Franklin class (unreconstructed ships): Franklin, Bunker Hill, Leyte, Antietam, Tarawa, Philippine Sea
- AVT-16 Lexington class (training carrier): Lexington
- LPH-4 Boxer class (helicopter assault conversions): Boxer, Princeton, Valley Forge
As you can see there are two single ship subclasses. Intrepid, because she had been modified as an attack carrier, but later modified again as a anti-submarine carrier on top of her older modifications, and then modified again to handle attack carrier duties. It could in theory do both jobs.
Lexington because she was fitted as a training carrier and was the last one in service 20 years after the majority of the others were retired.
The Franklin-class is the basic, mostly unrebuilt ships. No hurricane bow and the like. Antietam did have the prototype angled flight deck, but not the full on restructuring to make it effective for jet aircraft after the 1950s. Franklin and Bunker Hill were used for other purposes after their extensive damage near the end of World War II by the Japanese and never returned to the fleet as aircraft carriers. These were also the ships that retired much earlier than the rest.
The Hancock's were the Attack Carriers that continued to operate what they could until the 1960s and 1970s. Hancock and Oriskany were the last two active as warships of the Essex-class, retiring in 1976, replace by USS Nimitz.
The Yorktown-class were the Anti-submarine warfare carriers and operated aircraft for that purpose with only a flight of fighters for defense (A-4s by the end).
The Boxer-class was the early Assault ships that were soon supplemented and replaced by the Iwo Jima-class LPH in the 1960s.
Four still exist as museum ships.
^^^ Aside from the Boxer LPH (which, as a change of mission and type, makes it a wholly separate class**), I don't think I've come across any of those class names in any source I've read. The SCB mods were treated more like modern flights or blocks, which are less of a "class" than simply a status from which a ship could be upgraded to another status (at least in theory).
Not that you're wrong though. You're free to use Yorktown class. It's just obscure. It's also confusing since you have to differentiate it from the prewar Yorktown CV-5 class (of which the famous Enterprise CV-6 was a member).
** = As a general rule, trainingn and test ship conversions aren't usually given their own class name, despite it being a change of mission. Which is why Lexington was still an Essex ship and the test ship Paul F Foster is referred to as the last of the Spruance class)
This tells us 2 things about Trek (assuming it follows USN conventions). 1) The Soyuz class is markedly different in mission and fit from the Miranda class. 2) "Enterprise Class" refers to the TMP refit, not the use of Enterprise as a flying classroom.
Not that you're wrong though. You're free to use Yorktown class. It's just obscure. It's also confusing since you have to differentiate it from the prewar Yorktown CV-5 class (of which the famous Enterprise CV-6 was a member).
** = As a general rule, trainingn and test ship conversions aren't usually given their own class name, despite it being a change of mission. Which is why Lexington was still an Essex ship and the test ship Paul F Foster is referred to as the last of the Spruance class)
This tells us 2 things about Trek (assuming it follows USN conventions). 1) The Soyuz class is markedly different in mission and fit from the Miranda class. 2) "Enterprise Class" refers to the TMP refit, not the use of Enterprise as a flying classroom.
Last edited:
There is no indication of that, and the idea runs counter to how these things work in real life. It is not uncommon for ships in the same class, even the same subclass, to vary internally. Ships, since they take months-to-years to build, commonly include minor improvements in each hull.
Thats why they're called "classes" in the first place. "Class" means "equivalent" not "identical". It's a deliberately looser term. And, as I said previously, it would never be " Constitution Refit Class".
I think I've been around these threads enough to know that there are enough real-life examples of class naming weirdness to back up most theories you can come up with.
On screen we saw the TMP refit was referred to as an Enterprise class. That's the most direct explanation for the sign in Star Trek II. The only reason to argue otherwise is because you don't like Enterprise class and you have to explain away the dreaded on-screen evidence.
On screen we saw the 1701-A referred to as a Constitution class. We know that the internals of the 1701-A are very different from the refit 1701. So they could easily be different classes.
Or not.
Funny thing, I just checked David Kimble's Star Trek: The Motion Picture blueprints. He calls her a Starship II class. Fair enough since we never saw or heard the TOS ship referred to as anything other than a Starship Class.
I think Goldstein and Sternbach called it a Constitution II in the Spaceflight Chronology. I just looked up Drexler and Mandel's Officer's Manual and they only refer to it as the Heavy Cruiser Upgrade Program.
On screen we saw the TMP refit was referred to as an Enterprise class. That's the most direct explanation for the sign in Star Trek II. The only reason to argue otherwise is because you don't like Enterprise class and you have to explain away the dreaded on-screen evidence.
On screen we saw the 1701-A referred to as a Constitution class. We know that the internals of the 1701-A are very different from the refit 1701. So they could easily be different classes.
Or not.
Funny thing, I just checked David Kimble's Star Trek: The Motion Picture blueprints. He calls her a Starship II class. Fair enough since we never saw or heard the TOS ship referred to as anything other than a Starship Class.
I think Goldstein and Sternbach called it a Constitution II in the Spaceflight Chronology. I just looked up Drexler and Mandel's Officer's Manual and they only refer to it as the Heavy Cruiser Upgrade Program.
One thing to consider..is that sometimes a ship IRL can get an extremely dramatic rebuild but still be the same class...example from WW2...
USS West Virginia 1945:
USS Colorado 1945
Same class of ship (Colorado class) but very different refits.
I think Enterprise was *always* a Constitution class, however the refit was initially an "Enterprise sub-class" much like the Ticonderoga long hulls were Essex Class Carriers of the Ticonderoga type.
Eventually all Constitutions were refit or new-built to the Enterprise, so the entire class was Constitution Class..but Enterprise set the mold.
USS West Virginia 1945:
USS Colorado 1945
Same class of ship (Colorado class) but very different refits.
I think Enterprise was *always* a Constitution class, however the refit was initially an "Enterprise sub-class" much like the Ticonderoga long hulls were Essex Class Carriers of the Ticonderoga type.
Eventually all Constitutions were refit or new-built to the Enterprise, so the entire class was Constitution Class..but Enterprise set the mold.
There are a huge number of theories on the class designation:
One of course is it is the Enterprise-class due to being the first to be this radically reconstructed from her baseline class.
Another is that the simulator is for the class assigned to Enterprise, as oppose to say the class assigned to Republic. Be it that the bridge module of the Republic is different to Enterprise, or they just wanted to be clear that the Enterprise's student's class would be using the simulator that day, and the next day it would be remarked as Republic or Eagle or Reliant, or whatever.
Another case can be made that the class is still the "Starship-class" using the old British styling and the ships are named after famous starships from the early days of Earth's Starfleet. The first ship in that class could have been anything and the subclasses could go on for ages for all we know.
She could be a Constitution-class from the start and to the end, just with unofficial names to subclasses to keep them organized when needed for training or assigning duties based on their capabilities.
We still have little information about just were the NCC-1701-A came from, as it could be a new ship, and fresh refit, a hack job stopped midway and then rebuilt as best they could so that Kirk would have a ship. She could have been the Yorktown having limped home to be repaired. It seems her engines were fine when Kirk got it, but everything else was a nightmare for Scotty.
The Essex-class ships seem to be listed under the hull number of their subclass type in the Naval Vessel Register. For example: USS Oriskany (CV-34) is listed as part of the CV-19 class (which is USS Hancock). Where USS Essex herself (CVS-9) is listed as part of the CVS-10 class (USS Yorktown). I don't know why this is, but it is.
EDIT: One fun thing from Star Trek : Beyond was the probably intentional use of old semi-canon materials. Where instead of the NCC-1701-A being the former USS Yorktown, she is built at Starbase Yorktown.
One of course is it is the Enterprise-class due to being the first to be this radically reconstructed from her baseline class.
Another is that the simulator is for the class assigned to Enterprise, as oppose to say the class assigned to Republic. Be it that the bridge module of the Republic is different to Enterprise, or they just wanted to be clear that the Enterprise's student's class would be using the simulator that day, and the next day it would be remarked as Republic or Eagle or Reliant, or whatever.
Another case can be made that the class is still the "Starship-class" using the old British styling and the ships are named after famous starships from the early days of Earth's Starfleet. The first ship in that class could have been anything and the subclasses could go on for ages for all we know.
She could be a Constitution-class from the start and to the end, just with unofficial names to subclasses to keep them organized when needed for training or assigning duties based on their capabilities.
We still have little information about just were the NCC-1701-A came from, as it could be a new ship, and fresh refit, a hack job stopped midway and then rebuilt as best they could so that Kirk would have a ship. She could have been the Yorktown having limped home to be repaired. It seems her engines were fine when Kirk got it, but everything else was a nightmare for Scotty.
The Essex-class ships seem to be listed under the hull number of their subclass type in the Naval Vessel Register. For example: USS Oriskany (CV-34) is listed as part of the CV-19 class (which is USS Hancock). Where USS Essex herself (CVS-9) is listed as part of the CVS-10 class (USS Yorktown). I don't know why this is, but it is.
EDIT: One fun thing from Star Trek : Beyond was the probably intentional use of old semi-canon materials. Where instead of the NCC-1701-A being the former USS Yorktown, she is built at Starbase Yorktown.
Last edited:
I thought the E-A being built at Starbase Yorktown was a wink-wink towards the semi-canon story that 1701-A Prime was the Yorktown. It's also similar to how the USN in WW2 renamed ships under construction to reflect losses (IE the Essex class carriers Hornet, Wasp, Lexington and Yorktown were all already laid down when their namesakes were lost) since Commodore Paris stated that the E-A was "still under construction" when the Enterprise was destroyed.
My own head-canon is that the E-A is finally an "Enterprise Class" since the impression we get in the movie is that she's the first on her kind, and was designed as an improved Constitution Class with design improvements based on the experiences the Enterprise faced in Into Darkness.
My own head-canon is that the E-A is finally an "Enterprise Class" since the impression we get in the movie is that she's the first on her kind, and was designed as an improved Constitution Class with design improvements based on the experiences the Enterprise faced in Into Darkness.
Yeah, like I said, technically correct but damn obscure. Though, another thing that should be pointed out is that these things are never 100% consistent. USS Jimmy Carter is officially a Seawolf Class despite being some 30% bigger and having a markedly different mission.
JJ loves his member berries.
While looking for the above size chart, I found one of just about every monitor and battleship the US Navy ever laid down. It's really good and thought I'd share.
Last edited:
Excelsior was being "fitted out" not "refitted". The difference being that Excelsior was a brand new ship fresh out of the yard being prepared for service for the first time. A refit is when you alter a ship that has already been in service. New vs used, basically.
As for Enterprise being the first refit to the movie configuration, it is likely based on Decker telling Kirk they would be no one qualified for the new design after Sonak died. Though Spock was considered qualified as soon as he stepped on board, though that might either be due to his long standing reputation, or that he more or less designed the changes to the science stations before he left Starfleet.
Enterprise being a totally new reconstruction of an older Constitution-class starship makes an amount of sense given the troubles they were having with not only the engines, but other systems (not as extensive as the Enterprise in Star Trek V, but still problems).
There are also precedents for such massive structural changes in refits. The Kongo-class battlecruisers from Japan were built starting just before World War One as a British design. There had major refits done during the 1920s due to the "battleship holiday" imposed by the Washington Treaty. However in the 1930s, the Kongos were rebuilt with new engines and boilers. To accommodate not only the new equipment, but also the need to modify the hull form of the ship so she could take her newfound speeds, the ships were lengthened by five or so meters, had more armor added to them and are reclassified as fast battleships. She is wider as well by five meters. Their speed increased by over 2 knots from when they were commissioned. Her range was extended by several thousands of nautical miles. They have thicker deck and barbette armor by World War Two. At war's end, the last of them, Haruna, has radar and several added AA gun batteries. Plus the added floatplanes and catapult for spotting.
Find a picture of Haruna in 1916 and then put in next to her in the 1940s and while it is not impossible to tell it is the same ship, she looks a lot different that she was when she was commissioned.
Enterprise being a totally new reconstruction of an older Constitution-class starship makes an amount of sense given the troubles they were having with not only the engines, but other systems (not as extensive as the Enterprise in Star Trek V, but still problems).
There are also precedents for such massive structural changes in refits. The Kongo-class battlecruisers from Japan were built starting just before World War One as a British design. There had major refits done during the 1920s due to the "battleship holiday" imposed by the Washington Treaty. However in the 1930s, the Kongos were rebuilt with new engines and boilers. To accommodate not only the new equipment, but also the need to modify the hull form of the ship so she could take her newfound speeds, the ships were lengthened by five or so meters, had more armor added to them and are reclassified as fast battleships. She is wider as well by five meters. Their speed increased by over 2 knots from when they were commissioned. Her range was extended by several thousands of nautical miles. They have thicker deck and barbette armor by World War Two. At war's end, the last of them, Haruna, has radar and several added AA gun batteries. Plus the added floatplanes and catapult for spotting.
Find a picture of Haruna in 1916 and then put in next to her in the 1940s and while it is not impossible to tell it is the same ship, she looks a lot different that she was when she was commissioned.
Is that the Montana class BB on the bottom? ^Yeah, like I said, technically correct but damn obscure. Though, another thing that should be pointed out is that these things are never 100% consistent. USS Jimmy Carter is officially a Seawolf Class despite being some 30% bigger and having a markedly different mission.
JJ loves his member berries.
While looking for the above size chart, I found one of just about every monitor and battleship the US Navy ever laid down. It's really good and thought I'd share.
There's another potential reason, actually: considering NCC-1701-refit a (sub)class warranting its own designation hinges on accepting that internal differences suffice for warranting such - but we have multiple onscreen examples of major internal differences not warranting such!
Rationalizing that an "Enterprise class" does not exist would then be a general attempt at maintaining continuity, and not related to poor NCC-1701-refit specifically at all.
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
