USS Enterprise CV 6 Yorktown Class (WW2 ship)

chastity1337

artan42 wrote: »

azrael605 wrote: »

Among the ships destroyed at Wolf 359, USS Melbourne, USS Bellerophon, USS Yamaguchi, USS Saratoga, USS Bonestell, USS Ahwahnee, USS Buran, USS Chekov, USS Firebrand, USS Kyushu, USS Liberator, USS Princeton, USS Roosevelt, USS Tolstoy. Among a task force assembled in TNG Descent there were the USS Crazy Horse, USS Agamemnon, USS Gorkon. There has also been a USS Berlin, USS Valley Forge, USS Fearless, USS Bismark. Starfleet (or more correctly Trek writers) have never had a problem naming ships after warships of the past, nor should they have any such problem.

One of my characters has a ship named after one of Ambassador Spock's most famous human ancestors, Mr. Richard Grayson, USS Nightwing, Constellation class (its head canon based on the Star Trek/Legion of Superheroes crossover comic;) ).

Sigh, do you want to make me dig out all the non-warship names?Also, Melbourne is a city, Bellerophon is a hero, Yamaguchi is a place, Saratoga is a place, Bonestell is an artist, etc. What have they got to do with warships?​​

HMAS Melbourne
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Melbourne

USS Saratoga
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Saratoga_(CV-3)

HMS Bellerophon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Bellerophon_(1907)

Would you like to try again, artan?

artan42

Sorry what's your point? You've listed some ships, do you want a well done or do you want to make a point?

You want to say why you think the exploration vessel Bellerophon is named after the warship and not the hero? Or are you trying to say I didn't think there was a warship by that name.

chastity1337

artan42 wrote: »

Sorry what's your point? You've listed some ships, do you want a well done or do you want to make a point?

Or are you trying to say I didn't think there was a warship by that name.

Yes, that exactly.

vetteguy904

azrael605 wrote: »

horridperson wrote: »

I think CVN-65 was included because she was featured in ST:TVH. Along with the other wall ships she has made appearances (however limited) in canon material. While the Yorktown was the name of the feature vessel in Roddenberry's first Trek script in 64' proposal it was rejected. Perhaps as a result it has been alluded to in the naming of other serving Trek ships within the franchise. I don't think the wall of ships is intended as a real world memorial nor the absence of the Yorktown Enterprise intended to slight or disrespect. It just depicts the canon lineage of the starship Enterprise.

As Bergins pointed out the Yorktown class CV6 Enterprise is included in Archer's ready room pictures of previous Enterprises, as well as the display in the recreation room of the refit NCC 1701 in TMP. Thus included in the canon lineage of the starship Enterprise.

it's actually CVN 65. in most of the instances Enterprise is displayed as "Firsts" the sail ship was the first time the Navy was used as projection of power when they engaged the Barbary pirates, CVN 65 because she was the first Nuc ship, Enterprise shuttle as the first re-usable spaceship, in TMP there is a ship that like like a vulcan ship for Enterprise series, then the Constitution class. in "making of star trek' Gene was said to have decide that Enterprise was the first of her kind, and although Constitution class, NCC-1700 was never built . on the plaque it never said Constitution class, it simply says Starship class. while the history of CV6 was indeed impressive, she was never a first not the first carrier nor the first of her class.

vetteguy904

farmallm wrote: »

k20vtec wrote: »

Ehh, there is the Akagi too, you think Pearl Harbor veterans would be offended, too, right? And the Yamato, kinda a SYMBOL of the Japanese during WW2(the name Yamato is a old poetic name of japan). Yet, people are ok. As is the USS. Hood, I must say it wasnt the brightest moment in Royal navy history

I was planing on naming a ship the Akagi, or one of the other Japanese Carriers. As my theme usually named after famous ships of war. To me the Akagi would be perfect for the new Fed Carrier.

I went with Kearsarge, one of the more obscure carrier names

mooncrystalpower

On this topic, I 100% agree with the OP, the CV-6 Enterprise SHOULD have been represented appropriately! (HEYYY, I know my naval ships too, you know :P)

artan42

chastity1337 wrote: »

artan42 wrote: »

Sorry what's your point? You've listed some ships, do you want a well done or do you want to make a point?

Or are you trying to say I didn't think there was a warship by that name.

Yes, that exactly.

Well go back and try read my actual words.​​

johnnymo1

From what I remember the Yorktown was the name Roddenberry had originally selected for the ship on TOS. He later changed it to be the Enterprise. I also remember in a book, might have been a tec. manual that the hull of the enterprise A was originally the Yorktown and was renamed for Kirk after he saved the earth....again in ST4.

eldarion79

It was changed to Enterprise due to CV-6 being more celebrated. That was the TNG Tech Manual and the USS Enterprise Owner's Manual, but in Mr Spock's Guide to the Enterprise and the more recent The Autobiography of James T. Kirk, it was the USS Ti-Ho that was renamed.

angrytarg

reyan01 wrote: »

No good relying on the books for that sort of information. Even if they were canon, they contradict themselves. Some books/manuals say that the Enterprise-A was formerly the Yorktown, some say it was the Ti-Ho. Some books claim that the refit Enterprise (1701) was an 'Enterprise class' starship, others maintain that it was still a Constituion class.
This is probably one of the reasons that books are non-canon.

Indeed. The only books that have canonical value of any kind, in my personal opinion, are the TNG, DS9 and VOY (unpublished) technical manuals, the latter can be found as a draft online. What makes those books stand out is that they are the refurbished "writer's guide" and are based on the documents the writers were supposed to read to understand how things are supposed to work, meaning the technical manuals have technically been there before the epsiodes were written and shot. The writers weren't required to read them, but it was their intented use. So I personally take the TM information, unless contradicted by on-screen evidence, at canon value although I always will refer to it as TM info so people who don't want to accept them can ignore it.

All the other books, licensed or not, written by people involved or not, are post-production and might contradict each other. Still, the information can be used in a discussion on the basis of "I like this approach". I find some of the info on the ships coming from the Starship collection magazine series very interesting since they feature interviews with Probert, Okuda & co. For instance, Probert said the Galaxy class' saucer was intented to be detachable and land and take off planets at will - but due to the approaching deadlines, the model never received the landing gear. Still, I find that this makes so much sense that I like to incorporate it into headcanon ​​

fraghul2000

I'm still surprized that they went ahead and put ships with a Royal Navy Heritage into Star Trek's Enterprise lineage. Why is one of the 18th century HMS Enterprizes included in the lineage, but not any of the other vessels, and why are the American rigged ships left out? Why aren't there any references to the French ship that started the whole naming scheme?

Wouldn't the current HMS Enterprise (an oceanographic survey vessel) make a much more fitting predecessor of our favorite spaceship, than any aircraft carrier?

angrytarg

reyan01 wrote: »

Agreed. It's a pity that some publications are non-canon. For example, I've seen it written several times, in various publications, that the Nova class is capable of routine landing on, and take off from, a planet's surface. And given the size of the class, and the fact that the larger Intrepid class can do it, it doesn't make any sense for the Nova class to not be able to do so.

It's off topic, so I'll be brief, but given the Nova's classification in VOY as being for planetary research, landing gear makes absolutely sense and I'd assume it's there ​​

gulberat

@fraghul2000 Are you sure that--as with the shuttle Enterprise--that the exploration ship you're referring to wasn't named Enterprise because of the show? If so, then as with the space shuttle Enterprise, it's not as strong of an example as those from before Star Trek was ever a thing due to the "undue" influence on its naming.

artan42

fraghul2000 wrote: »

I'm still surprized that they went ahead and put ships with a Royal Navy Heritage into Star Trek's Enterprise lineage. Why is one of the 18th century HMS Enterprizes included in the lineage, but not any of the other vessels, and why are the American rigged ships left out? Why aren't there any references to the French ship that started the whole naming scheme?

Because that particular ship was in Insurrection, the various other French, English, and American Enterprizes/Enterprises weren't.

Also the l'Enterprise is the first HMS Enterprise.

fraghul2000 wrote: »

Wouldn't the current HMS Enterprise (an oceanographic survey vessel) make a much more fitting predecessor of our favorite spaceship, than any aircraft carrier?

Yes, yes it would. That, the shuttle and the VSS Enterprise deserve a place on the wall more than the CV-6 or the CVN-65

I named my Odyssey Echo after the current Enterprise's class and her sister ship.

gulberat wrote: »

@fraghul2000 Are you sure that--as with the shuttle Enterprise--that the exploration ship you're referring to wasn't named Enterprise because of the show? If so, then as with the space shuttle Enterprise, it's not as strong of an example as those from before Star Trek was ever a thing due to the "undue" influence on its naming.

I could't be bothered to reply to the people above who made this argument but obviously in the ST universe something else made them decide to name the shuttle Enterprise and the starships where named after these vessels not the other way around.

HMS Enterprise H88 was sponsored by Lady Sally Forbes. As she sponsored the ship she chose its name, I can't, however, find out any information on why she chose the name Enterprise.​​

eldarion79

Given that the USS Enterprise from the mid to late 19th Century mirrored the Trek one in terms of length and mission-profile, it should be on the list. Some of the missions from the 19th Century Enterprise, included hydrographic survey, flag-showing missions, anti-slavery patrols, and as an Academy trainer.

gulberat

I'm not saying to completely ignore those ships--we at least have evidence for the shuttle's existence in the Trek universe, so at least one of them was there, even though I think that was a bit continuity-breaking for the writers/set-makers to have included it. (Then again I think I may be more careful in that area sometimes than the showrunners! )

However, I admit I would give little weight to the second example (the 21st-century exploration ship) given that not only is the cause of its naming "suspect" but we also have not seen it in the Trek timeline. Of course, I fully realize that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but I do weight such data as a lot less significant.

ltminns

It's a damn shame she got busted up really bad at the end of the War and was broken up. The only one from start to end in a constant fighting role. Would have made a great Museum Ship.

The US TV series Battle 360° was all about the Enterprise in WWII.

The Enterprise Car Rental Company was named after that ship.

The Star Trek idiot fans that got that first Shuttle named after the Enterprise did it a grave injustice. That Shuttle would NEVER fly.

I too was taken aback by the fact that 'The Big E' was not on the wall of the Starbase.

eldarion79

Actually, the USS Enterprise, USS Saratoga and the USS Ranger survived the war from Start to Finish.

ltminns

Saratoga never really got into extended fights like the Enterprise as Saratoga was constantly getting itself put out of action. Ranger was in the sort of sleepy Atlantic Campaign (relatively). Both ended up doing Training/Qualification work until they were struck.

You are right and I should have qualified my statement.

tiekosora

warmaker001b wrote: »

artan42 wrote: »

Stafleet has Japanese crewmembers. Would that be a good idea? Also the Enola TRIBBLE ended the war in the pacific. Good idea to name a ship after that?

I would figure that the super-enlightened Federation citizens on Earth would not about a war that occurred hundreds of years prior. Hell, Starfleet personnel can't even remember how Starfleet uniforms worked from a few decades prior.

You already have the USS Enterprise that has existed on several different ship classes.

There's also canon used:
USS Intrepid, which had a WWII use namesake that saw very heavy action in the war (especially considering Star Trek was a U.S. made show of the 60's).

USS Lexington - U.S. Revolutionary War source. Think about the British in the crews of Starfleet! Not to mention there were 2 USS Lexingtons in WWII, the first being sunk early in the war and a later Essex-class that saw heavy action against Japan.

USS Yamato? What would the old nationalities that fought Japan in WWII think?

Would anyone have cared in the timeframe of TOS onwards? Hell, do the humans on Earth even think of themselves in the dividing lines of nationalities, races from an old Earth that nearly destroyed itself to even bother to care?

The USS Lexington CV-16, AKA the Blue Ghost. Now a museum in my hometown of Corpus Christi.

talonxv

eldarion79 wrote: »

Actually, the USS Enterprise, USS Saratoga and the USS Ranger survived the war from Start to Finish.

Ranger served as a shuttle ship in the Atlantic, Saratoga had been laid up undergoing a MASSIVE refit, that lasted till early 43.

The Big E was the ONLY carrier on duty in the pacific when Pearl Harbor kicked off to survive the war. Lexington, Hornet, Yorktown were the others, and all were sunk in the first 2 years of the war.

eldarion79

Give the Ranger some credit, at the beginning of the US Entry in the war, the Ranger was the largest American carrier in the Atlantic and it served as the task force flagship that lead the American attack on Casablanca during Operation Torch. As for the Saratoga, the ship was in the Pacific based out of San Diego and a torpedo put the ship into drydock that from Jan 42 to April 42, when the ship re-entered service, the Saratoga was the flagship of the Solomons Campaign in Aug 1942.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

artan42

I assume you feel suitably clever now?

I made two arguments:
1: The CV-6 does not deserve a place on the wall of Enteprise ships solely due to a war record. The only two warships selected were the 1700's HMS Enteprise and the CVN-65 because they appeared on the show not because of and see over their service.
2: I think it's more likely the Starfleet vessel USS Saratoga (to pick one example) was named after the place and not the warship, I also think the same for the Declaration Class Enteprise was named after the shuttle and not the warship or that it's simply named after the concept of undertaking enteprise.

My first argument is my opinion on the OPs question there is no rebuttal to this point unless you can give some other rational as to why the specified two warships were chosen.
My second point can only be rebuffed if you point to a canon example of sombody saying something like ' My ships is the latest in a long line of warships to share this name'.
Now there are two resonable counterargumens to my second point (and just listing ships isn't one) and the most obious is the fact they share names so it's still named after the warships inderictly. This isn't true. The current HMS Enteprise is named after the last HMS Enteprise not the CV6 for instance, I doubt many people would make that argument so it seems resonable to me that the Starship Enterprise is named after the shuttle despite sharing a name with the CV6. Again this has a rebuttal and that is the presence of two warships in the wall. Now my only answer here is that the 1700s Enterprise was a Hornbloweresc style age of sail explorer and Kirk set foot on the second one.
As no other ships in ST are mentioned to have a legacy (even the Defiant, who's TOS predecessor was in the show) it's impossible to draw any conclusion with a sample size of one.

As for 'drinking the kool aid'. Nope the stagnant utopia of TOS and TNG bored me and I see Gene as nothing more than the conduit that allowed for DS9 to come to be.

Want to try again or continue to use sarcasm in the place of an argument?

whamhammer1

@artan42:

You really have to remember the time and place where Star Trek was created. In the early/mid sixties, just about everyone who was in entertainment either was a WWII veteran, aided in he war effort, or was a child in WWII and follwed the war closely. There is no coincidence that many of the ship shared names as WWII warships, it was engrained in thier culture. Sure some names are named after explorers and scientists as well, no one denies that but to deny the relevance of warships on the naming of Federation ships is folly in its own right. Starfleet has a diverse and robust role and the diversity of ship naming is also robust. The names also connected the viewers with familiar names that they could link to draw lineage to more present day times.

The vast majority of the Constitution class ships have names that had a role to play in WWII. Yorktown, Saratoga, and Lexington got thier name on the map because of the Revolutionary War battles that were fought there, the names were even more popular because of thier efforts in WWII. Exeter, and Essex, if memory served as WWII British warship, as was the Hood. Hornet launched the Doolittle raid, Wasp was a WWII carrier. Intrepid and Defiant have long been names in the Royal Navy (Intrepid was also a US carrier).
Both the Constituation and Constellation, wooden sail vessels were also active US Navy vessels during WWII in the US home fleets.

Potemkin? A Russian WWI general. I think we all know where the name Ptolemy came from. Kongo was a Japanesse warship as well.

As far as a Star Trek "legacy" of the ships, the show was Enterprise-centric, so there wasnt much of an effort to create those other ships legacy so much, other than newer ships with those names.

I really do believe that you are working too hars,and stubbornly, to make the naming of ships fit your idea of the world of Star Trek and not the one that it was created in, and for.

artan42

@whamhammer1 all of that is behind the scenes stuff. I'm trying to rationalise it from an in universe perspective. The NCC will stand for something in universe and it won't be the registration number of sombodys dads plane. The USS Hood will mean something in universe and won't be named after the ship a writer served on.
I'm not really bothered about behind the scenes stuff.

gulberat

To me, though, it's a bit of an Occam's Razor scenario, even looking for the in-universe explanation. The most obvious explanation for having a large number of starships whose names oh-so-coincidentally line up with warships ([i]in addition to other ships named other ways[/i]) is that they are in fact named after said warships. Starfleet does have other types of ship names, and no one here is trying to deny that...but it does seem to be stretching it to suggest that everyone in Starfleet (especially in the 23rd century where a lot of these names begin their spaceborne lineage) is going to get the vapors at a ship possibly being named for a warship, though some of the more PC captains of the 24th century are undoubtedly of such sensitive constitution. (The Sisko, in contrast, would likely laugh in the face of such hand-wringing.)

But anyway, the gymnastics needed to rationalize another explanation in lieu of the obvious one just doesn't pass the Occam's Razor test, for me, when there is another explanation that is readily apparent and would fit with Starfleet and United Earth's earlier culture when those traditions were being laid down.

Me personally, the class of starship does figure into it. The most obviously belligerent ship names go to my escorts (in the vein of Defiant, which is both historical and really hard to take as anything but a middle finger to any who would dare cross you), whereas I have different themes for other ship classes. There is a time and a place for every reasonable type of ship name, in my own ship-naming philosophy.

ltminns

I use names from Forbidden Planet and some ancient Greek ones.

By the way wasn't the Odyssey involved in the Trojan War and would have been considered a Warship that got waylaid going back home?

ltminns

USS Farragut from TOS & TNG (the TNG one being a Nebula) named after a famous US Civil War Admiral.

And on and on. Given the sheer number of Star Fleet vessels we have seen in the Movies and TV shows and certainly in-game the fact that they wouldn't name some of them after old US, British, or whatever historical Warships, battles, leaders, etc. defies credulity.

gulberat

Yeah, I don't think Odysseus' exploration was intentional.