robjkay

McCoy and Kirk's exchange about McCoy's "performance" indicates that the vets were not being trained. Besides, if they were being trained, why would McCoy be there? He's not a bridge officer.

Good question, of which I really do not have an answer for. McCoy is like the third main character so he has to be in every place possible.

No, we don't know any such thing. The fact that there's a simulator for an Enterprise Class starship says that there is.

The only thing we know is that it is a Mark IV simulator tha is named Enterprise Class Starship! Being there was no such class of starship seen and has never been referred to, means there is no such class.

Well, then, the wiki article disagrees with itself. But that's what happens when anyone can go and change the articles.

Well its no big thing!

I'm talking about post #64. But that's just another example of you back-tracking.

Fine I made a mistake on post #64, but post #67 supersedes!

We are not talking about people, we are talking about things! Why would we need a social security card for a simulator that a group of people decided to name? Nobody is saying its official, but its done to boost morale, like a group of people training on a simulator!

Except there's no evidence that that's what was done.

Giving a nickname to a simulator to boost morale... :P :o

Well its extremely possible and it makes sense!

No, it means the same mistake was made twice, since a different designation were given first not only in the movies, but also in TOS. Which is also canon.

Constitution-class refit

Here is what Startrek.com has to say about the Constitution refit! I guess thats wrong to, you better call them up and have them correct there mistake! :P

Other than other class designations having already been given first. <_<

Are you referring to the Starship class?

1. It's a shame you don't know your numbers.

 

2. Even if the majority thinks something, that doesn't automatically mean they're right.

Well when I listen to or read material that comes from Paramount, when there the one who are stating the the 1701 & 1701-A are indeed the same class of ships. You bet it means its right! :)

The vets weren't being trained. The vets were there to help train the cadets.

It was never stated in the movie that the vets were only there to help the cadets! From what we saw in the movie it was a combination of vets and cadets training.

And Starship class... and Enterprise class...

And we all know there is no such thing or no fleet of ships called Enterprise Class!

Since when is "reading comprehension" and "telepathy" the same thing?

It would seem that your having problems with both! One would think that when a person has 3503 posting. He would know what canon means, being you don't. You must have a "reading comprehension" problem.

Actually, it says 7,500 in active duty. That number does not include reserve craft, experimental craft, and unmanned craft which still get piloted remotely. Or retired craft, for that matter. (Just because a plane is retired doesn't mean the Air Force suddenly loses ownership.)

US Airforce from Wiki.

It says; The USAF is the largest and most technologically advanced air forces in the world, with about 6013 manned aircraft in service (4,282 USAF; 1,321 Air National Guard; and 410 Air Force Reserve).

Besides 7,500 is still not tens or hundreds of thousands of aircraft of which you stated before.

At one point I said "I doubt every single ship has it's own simulator." To which you responded "in the Air Force there is a simulator for each aircraft." Saying "each aircraft" means "each and every individual aircraft," not "every type of aircraft."

 

If you meant something different, you should've clarified, because, you know, I can't read your mind. <_<

I said at post #67; For each class of aircrafts, there are simulators for that aircraft of which are used to train the pilots.

If someone gave you the nick-name "Scooter," would that appear on your driver's license? Or your social security card? No, it wouldn't, because it's not your name, and it's not official. For the same reason, craft and simulators would never get official plates for their unofficial nick-names.

We are not talking about people, we are talking about things! Why would we need a social security card for a simulator that a group of people decided to name? Nobody is saying its official, but its done to boost morale, like a group of people training on a simulator!

Funny, because earlier you said "Being that the Constitution class label does not appear in The Original Series..."

HELLO.... Post #29

Again I said; 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.

Which you still haven't proven to be anything other than an error.

Of which so far you have not shown anything thats says it is an error! This is because there is nothing canon that says it is a error.

It would seem your the only one who thinks this. To bad!

Not everyone. After the simulation ended, Spock stood up and said "Cadets, to the briefing room." I doubt he would say that to the vets.

It was a combination of cadets and veterans of which both were training on the simulator!

Maybe you should re-read your own comments. What, are you copying and pasting without paying attention to what is actually said?

 

Though I will admit I made a mistake... the Midway was being compared to the Forrestal, rather than the Forrestal being used as an example.

The Forrestal was never brought up or used in any posting.

That still doesn't change the fact that we're talking about the 1701, since it's the only ship that we know what it looked like before and after.

And what your point? Yes we know that the 1701 before its refit and after its refit that it was still called the Constitution Class.

I'm talking about the fact that the Air Force has tens or hundreds of thousands of aircraft, and that number is made up of various different types. That should be rather obvious.

Again I cannot read your mind, besides I highly doubt the US Air Force has tens or hundreds of thousands of aircraft!

Wikipedia says the US Air Force has about 6013 manned aircraft in service!

That just backs up my claim that there's not one simulator per individual craft.

Nobody said there was a simulator per individual craft!

Nicknames don't count. <_<

I beg to differ! Again it shows that things are named or can be named!

"Constitution-class" originally came from an on-screen schematic in TOS. Which means that both in TOS and in TUC, the class designation comes after a different designation is already given, which lends even more weight to the idea that the designation is wrong.

I know, because I brought up the on-screen schematic of which was for the 1701!

Also with the blueprint that Scotty had also show the name Constitution Class carried over to the 1701-A.

Another thing WishfireOmega, it would seem you have things backwards!!! The Constitution-class starships (1701), was also known as Starship class starships. Being that the Constitution class label does not appear in The Original Series; the Enterprise's dedication plaque indicates it is a "Starship Class" vessel.

Anyway I suggest YOU re-learn your Star Trek, being you clearly do not know what is going on! :VBGal2:

No they don't. They have tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of various types of aircraft. They do not have tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of simulators.

What are you talking about???

Yes there are thousands of aircrafts in the AirForce, but not tens, hundreds or thousands of types of aircrafts... LoL

I am not going to count the number of different types of active aircrafts there are in the US Air Force. But its around two dozen or so different types/classes of aircrafts. Not thousands....

For each class of aircrafts, there are simulators for that aircraft of which are used to train the pilots. How many simulators there are I do not know, but there are at least a 50 for each craft or less. Why I say that is because you have to consider training areas, airbases in the states & in other countries.

Um... sure...

Yes..

The USS Missouri was called the "Mighty Mo". USS Wisconsin as the "THE ULTIMATE WARSHIP". I call my Silverado "Baby".

Just shows like I said that simulators, planes, cars even ships can be named something!!! <_<

Usually, when referring to a specific class of students, the proper markings would be "Class of (insert year here)."

 

If they really were trying to train a new class to be the crew of a specific ship, they'd need much larger simulators, since not everyone in that class would be on the bridge, and some of those who are would need to leave the bridge from time to time. Such a simulator could only be used to train students in making command decisions and to train helmsman, connsmen (or whatever they're called), and communications officers, since they're the least likely to need to leave the bridge for any reason.

For cadets sure, but the people in the simulator at the time of ST 2 were veterans! Also they would not need a simulator to train the whole crew because they were clearly just training the bridge crew for command decissions. No simulator is perfect, therefore there would not be one to leave the bridge. They would more then likely save that for a real ship on a training mission.

Back-tracking won't help you.

Nope, the only examples so far that have been used is the USS Midway, Albany, a Mustang and a simulator. Unless I missed something, then it would be my fault. But I do not recall a Forrestal.

So it's canon that the 1701-A was erroneously called a Constitution-class starship. That's nice. Too bad for you we're not talking about the 1701-A...

LoL, erroneously!!! <_<

Well, there is only one 1701-A. To bad you cannot change it, but thats what it is called!

There are a lot of ships. I doubt every single ship has it's own simulator. It makes more sense that each ship class gets a simulator or two. And even then it's likely that multiple classes of students will be needing to use the simulators simutaneously, so when you see "(insert name here) class" on a simulator door, it's a reference to the ship class, not a specific ship.

You do not know that!

Just like in the Air Force there is a simulator for each aircraft.

Since when do simulators get names? <_<

If you were in the military, one would know that simulators, planes, cars and everything else gets a name!

And what happened with them still fits in with what I say, and since what I say also says that you're wrong, no, it doesn't back you up.[/color]

Really....

Again it would seem you still catching up or just trying to make your own rules or something!!!

Do you know what canon is WishfireOmega??? I suggest you look it up, being it pretty much ends your argument!

Again pictures you seem to ignore from Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, which are canon!!!

I rest my case.... <_<

"Mark IV" is the classification of the simulator, not Enterprise. And to say that the sign referred to the class of students is to further say that every single class of students going to different ships each has a different simulator rather than all using the same one, or same few. Which is just a waste of resources and space. Which makes no sense.

Yes the "Mark IV" is the classification of the simulator, but the "Enterprise Class" is the name of the simulator!

As for having different simulators for different ships, why not? It would make sense being different ships do different things, different missions, different equipement! Being the simulator is a "Mark IV" which means '4'

means there are three other versions and very well surpass the number, which shows there are other simulators.

Also at the same time of which I pointed out, the simulator name could be changed to where it shows the crew of which are from a certain ship.... IE; the crew from the USS Enterprise are in training in the Mark IV simulator, of which is named after the crew Enterprise Class of which was in respect of it crew. What I mean is that lets say the crew of the USS Yorktown were in the simulator, the simulator could have easily been named "Yorktown class" in its name for its crew!

All that's the equivalent of giving a modern aircraft carrier new screws, a new radar dish, and a new command center. In the end, it's virtually nothing when compared to what happened to the 1701 between the end of TOS and TMP.

But still it took considerably alot of modifications to do this just like the refit 1701-A!

When I said "those two ships" earlier, I was referring to the Midway and the Forrestal. Try to keep up.

 

And what happened with them still fits in with what I say, and since what I say also says that you're wrong, no, it doesn't back you up.

Why don't you stop back tracking and also say what what you mean, not what your thinking... Being I cannot read your mind!!!

Besides, what does the Midway and the Forrestal have to do with anything? There two different ship, maybe you need to keep up!

Again the Midway was at one time one type of class of which was refitted like the 1701-A to where the USS Midway type of class was not chnaged! <_<

You mentioned the USS Albany CA-123 earlier. Albany was originally an Oregon City-class. After her refit, she was reclassified as an Albany-class.

 

So, no. I'm not making things up as I go along. There is real-life precedent which backs me up.

Yes I mentioned the Albany, but what of the USS Midway of which you seem to not mention. So yes your making up rules as you go being it would seem that in real life scenario shows that a class of ship can be refitted and be changed into a new class of ship and at the same time can will remain the same class!

So as you say 'real-life precedent' backs me up also!!! <_<

Some really nice pictures from Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country!

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...[/color]

There is nothing except the simulator that is referred to as the "Enterprise-class"! Also the simulator does NOT have to be named after the class of ship, as far as we know it was named after the most famous ship of this class. But like I said, it was a simulator that was named "Enterprise-class" and not the ship itself which are two different things! What happens behind the scenes, books, concept art and so on is NOT canon! What is stated on-screen is canon of which is the blueprints that Scotty is seen examining are labeled "Constitution class starship", establishing a name for ships of that design. Since the words "Enterprise class" appear on a sign on a door that is marked "mark IV simulator", this might refer to it being the simulator used by the "Enterprise class of cadets" or that the simulator itself is classified as an "Enterprise class simulator".

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

Unless you can prove it's not, there is nothing saying otherwise! <_<

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.

Ah there is alot more then just chairs and consoles that were changed. The nacells, the bridge module, deflector dish are different. Also the crew level changed from 200 under Captain Pike ("The Cage"), it increased to 400 crew members under Captain Kirk.

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.

LoL, now your going to make up rules as you go now. But the fact remains the USS Midway which was a Midway class, had a refit to where is was a completely different ship from what it was in the beginning. One would say being it was a completely different ship it should be a new class of which did not happen. The same thing happened to the Constitution Class of which reeived a refit to where it was almost a completely different ship but stayed the same class.

Besides if we use what you say, then as far as we know the USS Constitution was the first ship to receive this refit. Which would make it simply 'OK' for the carryover of the name of the class! <_<

WASHINGTON - President Bush has ordered the Pentagon to use a Navy missile to attempt to destroy a broken U.S. spy satellite — and thereby minimize the risk to humans from its toxic fuel — by intercepting it just before it re-enters the atmosphere, officials said Thursday.

The effort — the first of its kind — will be undertaken because of the potential that people in the area where the satellite would otherwise crash could be harmed, the officials said.

Deputy National Security Adviser James Jeffrey, briefing reporters at the Pentagon, did not say when the attempted intercept would be conducted, but the satellite is expected to hit Earth during the first week of March.

"This is all about trying to reduce the danger to human beings," Jeffrey said.

Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the same briefing that the "window of opportunity" for such a shootdown, presumably to be launched from a Navy ship, will open in the next three or four days and last for seven or eight days. He did not say whether the Pentagon has decided on an exact launch date.

Cartwright said this will be an unprecedented effort; he would not say exactly what are the odds of success.

"This is the first time we've used a tactical missile to engage a spacecraft," Cartwright said.

After extensive study and analysis, U.S. officials came to the conclusion that, "we're better off taking the attempt than not," Cartwright said.

He said a Navy missile known as Standard Missile 3 would be fired in an attempt to intercept the satellite just prior to it re-entering Earth's atmosphere. It would be "next to impossible" to hit the satellite after that because of atmospheric disturbances, Cartwright said.

A second goal, he said, is to directly hit the fuel tank in order to minimize the amount of fuel that returns to Earth.

Software associated with the Standard Missile 3 has been modified to enhance the chances of the missile's sensors recognizing that the satellite is its target; he noted that the missile's designed mission is to shoot down ballistic missiles, not satellites. Other officials said the missile's maximum range, while a classified figure, is not great enough to hit a satellite operating in normal orbits.

"It's a one-time deal," Cartwright said when asked whether the modified Standard Missile 3 should be considered a new U.S. anti-satellite weapon technology.

Cartwright also said that if an initial shootdown attempt fails, a decision will be made whether to take a second shot.

Jeffrey said members of Congress were briefed on the plan earlier Thursday and that diplomatic notifications to other countries would be made before the end of the day.

Shooting down a satellite is particularly sensitive because of the controversy surrounding China's anti-satellite test last year, when Beijing shot down one of its defunct weather satellites, drawing immediate criticism from the U.S. and other countries.

A key concern at that time was the debris created by Chinese satellite's destruction — and that will also be a focus now, as the U.S. determines exactly when and under what circumstances to shoot down its errant satellite.

The military will have to choose a time and a location that will avoid to the greatest degree any damage to other satellites in the sky. Also, there is the possibility that large pieces could remain, and either stay in orbit where they can collide with other satellites or possibly fall to Earth.

It is not known where the satellite will hit. But officials familiar with the situation say about half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft is expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and will scatter debris — some of it potentially hazardous — over several hundred miles. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The satellite is outfitted with thrusters — small engines used to position it in space. They contain the toxic rocket fuel hydrazine, which can cause harm to anyone who contacts it. Officials have said there is about 1,000 pounds of propellent on the satellite.

Known by its military designation US 193, the satellite was launched in December 2006. It lost power and its central computer failed almost immediately afterward, leaving it uncontrollable. It carried a sophisticated and secret imaging sensor.

NBC News contributed to this report by The Associated Press.

thats because after voyager, they kinda wanted to throw everything down the toilet

Yeah, trying to get it to overflow all over the place! <_<

Has a terrible picture of himself.

well he just said why he became a non commissioned officer instead of an commissioned one. i think he said there was another reason why he became a non commissioned officer...but i can't remember

Well in the end in DS9 he had to show up to most of all the big dinners and what nots anyway. Also O'Brien even though he was a non-com officers he still gave out orders to the younger officers, officers looked for his guidence and so forth.

I think O'Brien kind of screwed himself for being so good at what he does, being in the end he was apart of the officer's staff even if he did not like it or not.

It just might be the best thing that happened for Star Trek XI, being it gives them more time to get things right! This way they do not have to rush anything, they can slow down a little bit and like I said get things just right! :spacecraft:

Trials and Tribble-ations was one of the great DS9 episodes joining the old and new together! <_<

<_<

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

That's an entirely different scenario.

 

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. <_<

 

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!

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

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?

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

The Enterprise Refit of 2271.

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.

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. <_<

In the Orion Slave episode I think they mention the Gorn. But in TOS is seems that it is the first time they ran into them.

Its just another mistake, one of many in Enterprise. It simply shows that the writers knew nothing of the other ST series and that they did not want to follow any type of canon protocol! <_<

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! <_<

 

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?

 

It is relevant!

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.