I can't remember where I saw this debate, so here it is again.

Basically, the argument goes that once the 1701 got refitted, it should be a new class due to the extensive modifications to the hull design. The argument continues that in modern navies, ships that are as extensively refitted often are designated as new classes of ships.

Here's an image displaying the changes made...



The two overlaid images aren't lined up perfectly, and I apologize for that. I did the best I could.

In any case, though, you can tell the degree of external changes. Most noticeably are the nacelles and the nacelle pylons. But there are also considerable changes to the saucer section, the stardrive section, and the "neck." In other words, just about everything.

What are your thoughts on this?

EDIT: Perhaps I should rephrase the question. The question is not "Is the refit Enterprise still a Constitution-class starship as per Trek lore," but rather, "Should the refit Enterprise still be considered a Constitution-class starship?"

In the Star Trek Encyclopedia, ENT-A is referred to as a Constitution Class (Refit).

I've always considered the Ent-A a Constitution class.

There was a scene in STVI where Scotty was looking at a diagram of the Enterprise, and the heading was Constitution Class.

There's also a scene in TWOK where Kirk and Spock are standing outside the bridge simulator (which is undoubtedly a mock-up of a refitted Connie), where it's referred to as the "Enterprise-class." "Enterprise-class" would make sense if the refitted Connies are a new class of ship and the Enterprise was the first ship to receive the refit.

I always took "Enterprise Class" to refer to the "class" of students training on the "Enterprise" simulator.


The refit I regard as being a Constitution Class starship.

It could mean that it was Enterprise subclass.

Then shouldn't it have said "Enterprise subclass?"

My personal favorite is the 1701-A that was in ST-VI. I loved the interior shots of that ship as it had a better feel to it than ones past. And I liked the layout of the bridge in this one far more than the ones in past films.

Um, it's not really a "favorite" poll...

I have no doubt that the Enterprise was a practically brand new starship. Weather or not it gets called a different class is up for grabs. In the real life US Navy, ships have been so heavily modified that they hardly resemble the original anywhere.

Wishfire, I recognise that first image, is that from Ex-Astris-Scientia? Here's an example from there about US Navy ships being modified so much they do not hardly resemble their "Off the Lot" form, this is the Aircraft carrier USS Midway (CV-41)
[spoiler]
[/spoiler]


Would this be considered a different class, too? By the way, some folks refere to the Flt IIA Arliegh Burke class Destroyers of the US Navy as the "Oscar Austin Class", because it has some substantial differences, dispite being generally the same design.

Hey guy long time
glad to see you.

I know. I was merely expressing my fondness for it is all.

The two images I used for that image are from EAS, yes. I feathered them so they would be transparent over one another, creating the above image. Not the best job, but it was as good as I could do giving my knowledge of the program I used.

As for the image you linked to, EAS doesn't allow hotlinks. I'd suggest saving it to your computer, and then uploading to a site like Photobucket. Then linking to it from there.

In any case, I'm not sure how the U.S. Navy does things as far as vessel classifications go, but if I'm not mistaken, a ship that underwent such extensive modification would indeed be a new class of ship. Or, at least, a sub-class (or variant). I may be wrong on that.

I think that if a ship maintains basic design features, that it should remain known as a specific class. 1701-A still looks like a Constitution Class Ship, albeit with modifications, so why not call it "Constitution Refit"?

The only real answer according to canon is that there were originally 12 Constitution Class ships. The rest is all up to speculation and info from the novels. One novel I read was that the Enterprise-A was the original USS Yorktown which was renamed. Apparently there is also one un-refitted ship in the fleet museum, according to Picard. Another novel I read named that ship but I've forgotten the name. An interesting tidbit in that novel was that the bridge module in the museum ship was the original Enterprise bridge module.

Where, in canon, does this answer come from?

I'm trying to remember the episode. But in one of the TOS episodes, someone compliments Kirk on the Enterprise and he says "There are only 12 like it in the fleet". I'm sure somebody here will come up with the episode where that happened.

Kor got my brain spinning its wheels.
I know that I can hear Kirk say that, but I can't remember which TOS Episode it's from.

The episode you're looking for is "Tomorrow Is Yesterday". I think.

Thats it! Captain Christopher compliments Kirk on the ship and then he says that line!

Bingo! That's it!!!

I hope I can shed some light on this little debacle Anyway, the original Constitution-Class was slated as a light cruiser in the original technical manual, what we consider a dreadnaught being commissioned off the same design as a heavy cruiser.

The designation for the refit was actually referred to by several starfleet engineers as a "Constitution Class Heavy Cruiser" or at most a "refit". The changes aren't that extensive when you compare Wil Decker's Enterprise to Kirk's original...slap on a fresh coat of paint and replace the nacelle struts with something a little less hokey and there you have it...

They should call it "Constitution-Class Advanced" just to shut up the critics out there, it can be confusing, but it's starfleet and sometimes the SCE just can't make up their mind

But it's more that a fresh coat of paint and new nacelle pylons. Look at the image in my original post, and you'll see many other differences. The shapes of the engineering section, saucer section, and "neck" have all been altered. Additionally, there's evidence that the internal lay-out of the ship had been altered. In TMP, Decker says that it's "an almost entirely new Enterprise," and goes on to say that Kirk wouldn't be able "to find a tent" as well as if the lay-out remained unchanged. Not to mention that at one point Kirk had to stop a yeoman and ask for directions...

Here are the images I used to make the composite image above...





The sizing is a bit different. In both the above images, I scaled them to the same width as the top image (799 pixels), whereas for the top image I scaled them to as close as I could get them so they'd both be to scale of one another.

It's funny that no other ships went through similar refits. It seems cheaper to just build a whole new one, given the time it woul dtake to strip one down and re-build it. I built the Polar Lights model last week. There were two options: either build it as the refit or as the Enterprise A. I chose the latter. The TOS one is the real Enterprise. It should have been the Enterprise A from the start ie The Motion Picture. Would have made more sense - tag could have been, "New Enterprise, New Mission, Same old Crew..." and NO BL00DY V'Ger rusty old satellite dish upgraded to the size of a galaxy with the intelligence of three billion ipods, kinda non-sense...

No doubt its have its own class of its own-provided she is
have extra this and that technology advanced renovated
in the the 2 version-because its supposed to be the starfleet
flagship! aint it?

The flagship of the fleet doesn't have to be its own class. Look at the Enterprise-D, standard Galaxy class starship.

Should the refit Enterprise still be considered a Constitution-class starship?

Yes because in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Scotty is studing a schematic of the Enterprise which says on top of the schematic Constitution Class Satrship!

Now in TOS, we know that the 1701 is a Constitution Class because in TOS: The Trouble with Tribbles. Scotty is at a computer screen looking at a phaser diagram which say on it Constitution Class.

Anyway it means both the 1701 (Constitution) and the 1701-A (Constitution refit) are both that same ship and is the same class. Also its canon!

Your knowledge of Trek is most impressive! Well done!...

I'm not asking if it's the same class.

Go back to the original post, and read the edit.

Let me clarify...

Should the refit Enterprise still be considered a Constitution-class starship? Yes, because it is stated that the refit Enterprise is a Constitution-class! Its canon, so there is nothing to consider!

Let me clarify.

"Stated" is irrelevant.

In other words, given what we know of ship class naming precendents, did the producers make a mistake in continuing to call it a Constitution-class, even after refit?

The general look of the refit is of a constitution class, so it is (in my opinion) a constitution class.

NX-class and Akira-class have the same general look. Excelsior-class, Ambassador-class, and Galaxy-class all have the same general look. Miranda-class, Soyuz-class, and Nebula-class all have the same general look. But they are all different classes.

It is relevant!

There is nothing that suggests it was a mistake.

Both ships were called and considered a Constitution-class starship, its canon! The only difference is the ship registration which also shows it was a refit of the same class 1701 to 1701-A.

Yes the Excelsior-class, Ambassador-class, and Galaxy-class all have the same general look. But at the same time are nothing alike, one major thing that is different between the three is size and that all 3 ships have been in service at the same time.

The Soyuz-class is based off the Miranda class but being it had a completly different mission for some reason they named it a different class. Officialy it was originally hoped that a new design could be developed for the Soyuz-class USS Bozeman, but practical considerations dictated the reworking of the existing USS Reliant model originally built for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. The Nebula Class is nothing like the Miranda class or Suyuz class, if anything it is more like the Galaxy class.

The Miranda/Soyuz class is the only class that to a point look closely alike but are a two different classes. But this done on purpose and was not a mistake. Just like the Constitution & its refit that it was done on purpose for both to be that same class which canon proves!

No, it's not. Not to this argument.



Actually, there is evidence to suggest that it was a mistake. From my original post...

QUOTE

Basically, the argument goes that once the 1701 got refitted, it should be a new class due to the extensive modifications to the hull design. The argument continues that in modern navies, ships that are as extensively refitted often are designated as new classes of ships.

Emphasis added.

It is Relevent!

What evidence? I have not seen anything that says it was a mistake! Remember what is shown ans stated in the ST series and movies is canon. Which means that the 1701 & 1701A are both of the same class which is Constitution-class starship! Also by visiting other ST web sites also suggest they they agree with my conclusion is!

It does not matter what your trying to emphasis, being it does not matter what modern navies with there ships that are as extensively refitted often are designated as new classes of ships.

Considering that Starfleet is based on modern naval fleets in infrastructure, than it's hard to say that it does not matter, unless you're the kind of person to ignore evidence and arguments simply because they disagree with what you want to think.

I've always considered the refit Connie a new class of starship. Not only is it larger, but most of the ships systems were totally new or re-designed. McCoy didn't recognize sickbay, and Kirk was totally lost on a ship he should have known like the back of his hand.

Nothing about the ST:TMP Enterprise except for the general shape of the ship was familiar. Everything else was completely new and different.

What was it that Decker said in TMP?

"Admiral, this is an almost totally new Enterprise. You don't know her a tenth as well as I do."

Oh, and then Kirk had to ask directions to the nearest turboshaft...

I was just trying to remember the exact line. I was going to add it to my post. Lol.
Your right, though. Decker pretty much said the ship was totally new.

It's obvious that a major redesign had occurred simply by looking at the pic in my original post. The saucer section was entirely remade. The neck was modified. The nacelle pylons connect at entirely different location, which means that the original power conduits going from the warp core to the nacelles had to torn out and new ones installed. Not to mention the Engineering section itself... the original warp core traveled back into the Primary Hull, following it's shape. The new core bisected the Primary Hull. This means extreme internal modifications above and below the original Engineering, as well as behind it.

In the end, they may as well have built an entirely new ship.

There is a huge difference between todays navies when compaired to SF a fictional organazation of which there is close to a 300 year difference between the two. Yes there are simularities between the two but at the same time there are many difference.

But being you have brought up the subject of modern navies, here is a great example from ex-astris which shows that navel ships do get major refits to were there completly look different in the end. Lets look at the aircraft carrier USS Midway CV-41 (ex-CVA-41, ex-CVB-41) was commissioned in 1945 and went through a number of refits until she was retired in 1992. Among other modifications, the layout of the flight deck was radically changed and its area increased from the original to the final appearance of the ship. The later flight decks and many other parts of the ship arguably looked much more like those of the Forrestal CV-59 and the following super-carriers than like those of the Essex class, the vessels serving in WWII from which the Midway class was derived. The gradual refit of the Midway is not exactly the same that happened with the Starship Enterprise, but the final result is pretty much equivalent. Maybe the Enterprise just had overall longer overhaul cycles, and all the recent achievements were slated to be incorporated at once when the ship was literally taken apart around 2269.

Another example of a vessel that was visually modified even more extensively and in one step is the USS Albany CA-123 that was converted from a heavy cruiser to a guided-missile cruiser from 1958 to 1962.

Also take a look at automobiles like the Ford Mustang, which its first model came out in 1964 which is still in production now in 2008. From the first production model of which is completely different to its modern version of today but both are referred to as a Ford Mustang

Again what evidence? It would seem your the one who ignoring the evidence, being there have been evidence showing that the 1701 is a Constitution Starship and that the 1701-A is a refit of a Constitution Starship. Which the only thing you have to say about it was that it was a mistake without any evidence to show how it was a mistake! So far the only thing your showing is an opinion, speculation which does not prove anything. It would seem that your the one who is the kind of person to ignore evidence and arguments simply because they disagree with what you want to think. Again I have proven my case with information that is canon you so far have done no such thing.

Here is a great article from Ex-Astris Scientia about The Enterprise Refit.

The Enterprise Refit of 2271.

Yes, we already know this. We also know that when these ships get such extensive modifications/refits, they get redesignated as new classes, usually named after the first ship to recieve the modifications/refit.



That's an entirely different scenario.



Yes, pointing to that which is in dispute as evidence against the dispute really proves something...

Besides, the refit 1701 was identified as an Enterprise-class in TWOK. Which not only contradicts the evidence which you erroneously believe proves your case, but is also completely in line with modern naval reclassification practices.

But they were not considered a new class after there refit! The USS Midway after numerous changes to it was completely different from the original design, but was the name of the class never changed!

No it was not! In TWOK the Enterprise class was a designation given to the Mark IV bridge simulator used at Starfleet Training Command at Starfleet Academy in 2285. So it does not contradict my evidence being a bridge simulator is a completely thing when compaired to a starship!




Someone trying to dispute something without proving anything is NOT proof or evidence.


I suppose you also think that the pilot 1701 when compaired to the 1701 series version is another different class?

Those two particular ships remained in the same class for two reasons: They were both the lead ships in their classes, which means that their names and classes were the same. And they were both the first ships to get their refits, which means they were still the lead ships in their classes.



Simulator classes are named after the craft classes they simulate.

Besides, if the "Enterprise-class" referred only to the simulator, why is it that just about everything Trek that came out between TWOK and TUC (and even during production of TUC) referred to the Enterprise as an Enteprise-class starship? This includes not only books like "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" and novels, but also scripts, concept art, movie boards, and prop labels for TSFS, TVH, TFF, and TUC. I don't recall any other simulators...



Like saying that "Enterprise class" can only mean the class of the simulator?




Why would I think that? If you replace the chairs and the consoles, it's still the same class of ship. Now, if you change the saucer section, the neck, the stardrive section, the nacelle pylons, and the nacelles, as well as everything inside them, then it's a different class.