Hardly. In the US Navy, the decline of the battleship age means that every battleship that was named after a major city has now been replaced by an attack submarine and every ship that was named after a state was replaced by a ballistic missile boat or yet another attack sub. In the most extreme examples: USS Virginia was a battleship in 1906, a nuclear powered guided missile cruiser in 1976, and an attack submarine in 2004. Likewise, USS California went through the same progression: Battleship, then cruiser, then sub. USS Tarawa is an interesting one: started as an Essex class fleet carrier during World War II but was later replaced by an assault carrier with very little air wing. In the Trek universe, we have the Constitution class Defiant in the 23rd century and then the tiny but gun-heavy escort a century later. Clearly there isn't a huge problem with handing ship names down to lesser vessels, especially if a different naming convention has been given to the front-line vessels of its day (for example: your country decides to name its aircraft carriers after Presidents instead of historical battles). Not necessarily. It could be they initially rechristened a Miranda class (USS Enterprise NCC-21701) and used it as an academy training vessel through the 2350s. The training ship just happened to be retired in the early 60s and Starfleet re-appropriated the name for a galaxy class starship in honor of the crew of the Enterprise-C.