USS Enterprise to be decommissioned

[Mallory]

It's going to be a sad day for me when it happens. The USS Enterprise has been around almost as long as I have.

 

[J.T.B.]

If I write in it will be to make sure the USN always has a ship named after the Big E, or The Grey Ghost, as the Japanese called her.

The "Gray Ghost" was Hornet, CV-12.

Correction: The US Navy is naming the carriers for people who played a significant role in the Navy. Carl Vinson, Chester Nimitz, and John C. Stennis were never US Presidents.

What significant role did Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman have in the navy, besides being commander-in-chief? Truman favored big navy budget cuts in the late '40s and supported the cancellation of the next-generation carrier, USS United States. Ford, for that matter, didn't have much to do with the navy, other than serving as a lieutenant on a carrier. Whatever it used to mean, USN carrier naming has turned into mostly a matter of politics. Traditional carrier names have been going to amphibious assault ships, which is where "Enterprise" might end up. And nothing would be wrong with that, IMO.

Don't forget the HMS Quail, the HMS Porpoise, HMS Orange Tree, HMS Sappho etc. It's not all impressive. ;-)

HMS Pansy, HMS Cockchafer, HMS Fairy, HMS Frolic, HMS Daisy... USS Manlove, USS Flasher, USS Bang... You have to take the good with the bad.

--Justin

 

[Surefire]

I think it was a shame the WW II Enterprise didn't get saved, and make it a historical museum ship. It was arguably the most decorated carier in WW II.

The battleship Missouri is now a museum, why did they have to scrap the WW II Big E?

 

[Plecostomus]

The reactors are more or less shot... They ran them at full power for years and the severe duty cycle has taken its toll. Thermal stress, metal fatigue from vibration and neutron embrittlement have rendered them more or less "unsafe" to operate at full power now.

50 years is a damn good run for a nuclear reactor, Enterprise has eight. Our local nuclear plant is 40 years old and got an extension after much study and inspection.... the duty cycle for a nuclear plant is far far less severe than for an air-craft carrier.

It's just not cost effective to cut them out and replace them at this point.

 

[SeerSGB]

The reactors are the biggest impediment I see to her becoming a museum ship. Though, I'm sure just mothballing then scrapping her-- even for a reef-- it going to cause its own share of problems.

 

[J.T.B.]

I think it was a shame the WW II Enterprise didn't get saved, and make it a historical museum ship. It was arguably the most decorated carier in WW II.

Agreed.

The battleship Missouri is now a museum, why did they have to scrap the WW II Big E?

Short answer: There were a lot of new carriers, but not a lot of fast battleships. Post-war budgets didn't allow the navy to keep an old carrier, and no one had the money to turn it into a museum ship at the time.

It is unfortunate that no pre-WW2 carriers were preserved (Saratoga CV-3 was sunk in the Bikini Baker test and little Ranger was scrapped) but that's life.

--Justin

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Before that, though, they totally have to take the CVN-65 to the Genesis Planet.

FTW! That's sig worthy!

 

[Captain X]

How do you figure that the Navy is reducing its capabilities?

Because they've retired a number of aircraft and foisted their missions on the "Super" Hornet, mainly. Retiring carriers isn't exactly making the Navy stronger either.

The "Gray Ghost" was Hornet, CV-12.

Hmm, that isn't what Enterprise 360 said. According to them they gave the Big E the name because they thought they'd sunk her and she turned up a few weeks later. Wikipedia seems to agree with me too.

What significant role did Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman have in the navy, besides being commander-in-chief?

I don't know about specifically the Navy, but Ike lead the Allies to victory in Europe during WWII, and Truman ended WWII by dropping a couple atomic bombs on Japan.

I think it was a shame the WW II Enterprise didn't get saved, and make it a historical museum ship. It was arguably the most decorated carier in WW II.

The battleship Missouri is now a museum, why did they have to scrap the WW II Big E?

There actually was a push to make it a museum ship, and the Navy even held out for a bit to see if anyone else would buy her, but no one could afford it.

 

[J.T.B.]

The "Gray Ghost" was Hornet, CV-12.

Hmm, that isn't what Enterprise 360 said. According to them they gave the Big E the name because they thought they'd sunk her and she turned up a few weeks later. Wikipedia seems to agree with me too.

Well they seem to agree with me, too:
List of warships by nickname.

See also http://www.amazon.com/GREY-GHOST-Aircraft-Carrier-Hornet/dp/096262375X

What significant role did Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman have in the navy, besides being commander-in-chief?

I don't know about specifically the Navy, but Ike lead the Allies to victory in Europe during WWII, and Truman ended WWII by dropping a couple atomic bombs on Japan.

Sure, but the earlier post said carriers were named for people "who played a significant role in the navy."

--Justin

 

[Docbrown777]

The reactors are the biggest impediment I see to her becoming a museum ship. Though, I'm sure just mothballing then scrapping her-- even for a reef-- it going to cause its own share of problems.

Whenever any nuclear ship is scrapped the first thing they do is remove the reactors. They don't just let them sit there. I know for submarines they just slice out that section and then weld the boat back together.

Anyways, I'd be all for Star Trek fans pooling our money together and buying it. Then turning the entire thing into a city of nerds. Maybe we could even dock it in San Francisco!

 

[Captain X]

Well they seem to agree with me, too:
List of warships by nickname.

See also http://www.amazon.com/GREY-GHOST-Aircraft-Carrier-Hornet/dp/096262375X

Guess both ships were called that. Wiki article

Nickname:

* The Big E
* Lucky E
* Grey Ghost

Anyways, I'd be all for Star Trek fans pooling our money together and buying it. Then turning the entire thing into a city of nerds. Maybe we could even dock it in San Francisco!

Naval ships are the only long hard objects filled with seamen that San Fransisco doesn't like.

 

[Wally]

Spock: "Go. To. Hell"

 

[Brolan]

Along with manned combat aircraft, carriers may be obsolete soon. I've seen proposals to replace them with large numbers of UCAVs and cruise missiles based on strategic islands.

 

[miraclefan]

Would the next ENTERPRISE be CVN-65-A? (yes i'm being silly)

 

[Marc]

Will there be another? The Navy has taken to naming its carriers after Presidents (next up is the Gerald Ford).

I can't wait to hear what kind of crazy stuff happens on the USS Bill Clinton. Tailhook will be put to SHAME!

Ever read the Axis of Time trilogy by John Birmingham?

there's a George Bush class super carrier called the Hillary Clinton (and it's onboard computer system is called "Bill").

Once her reactor is removed, would there be any great impediment in the Enterprise being preserved? The one struck from the registry, she could be sold for a $1 and turned over to a preservation?

Guess the fate of the Kennedy would be an indication but according to wiki she's been decommissioned but her fate is undecided.

 

[John Picard]

The reactors are more or less shot... They ran them at full power for years and the severe duty cycle has taken its toll. Thermal stress, metal fatigue from vibration and neutron embrittlement have rendered them more or less "unsafe" to operate at full power now.

50 years is a damn good run for a nuclear reactor, Enterprise has eight. Our local nuclear plant is 40 years old and got an extension after much study and inspection.... the duty cycle for a nuclear plant is far far less severe than for an air-craft carrier.

It's just not cost effective to cut them out and replace them at this point.

Are you kidding me? That is completely incorrect. The Enterprise, in a bid for something "fancy" was outfitted with eight reactors designed for destroyers just to prove carriers could be nuclear powered; otherwise, she was to have been a conventional carrier. The Kennedy wasn't a nuke due to budget shortfalls. Once the Nimitz class was designed, it was decided that twin reactors could provide plenty of power, plus they act in a redundant fashion -- i.e. One reactor is always on standby.

Now, by the late-1980's, the Enterprise was down to six (AFIK) reactors. One hadn't been lit off in over 10 years, while another was always hit-and-miss. She was scheduled to undergo SLEP (Ship's Life Extension Program) whereupon a complete refueling would take place. Bear in mind that carriers are typically refueled every 5-7 years even though the reactors can supposedly go 30 years without refueling. So, the Enterprise has been refueled several times.

One final note: Carriers are designed with a lifespan of at least 50 years. With the mission of the Navy changing, plus the one-off design that the Enterprise is, she's too costly. Also, she has speed screws whereas the others have torque screws. Torque screws are the best

How do you figure that the Navy is reducing its capabilities?

Because they've retired a number of aircraft and foisted their missions on the "Super" Hornet, mainly. Retiring carriers isn't exactly making the Navy stronger either.

You need to wake up and realize that the 21st Century is vastly different than the 20th. I would not be surprised if the carrier fleet drops to half by the year 2030. The enemy and fighting tactics have changed. Also note the Wasp class mini carriers. That's where the future has been headed.

 

[Marc]

Are you kidding me? That is completely incorrect. The Enterprise, in a bid for something "fancy" was outfitted with eight reactors designed for destroyers just to prove carriers could be nuclear powered; otherwise, she was to have been a conventional carrier. The Kennedy wasn't a nuke due to budget shortfalls. Once the Nimitz class was designed, it was decided that twin reactors could provide plenty of power, plus they act in a redundant fashion -- i.e. One reactor is always on standby.

So they went for 8 smaller reactors then decided the two much larger ones would do the trick?

I can understand the need for security etc etc but it gets in the way of seeing interesting things - I'd love to see the reactor setup on say a CVN but it's secret shit

There was a nuclear sub built that had to reactors it wouldn't of been about the same time (i.e was there a point where the USN had a bit of fetish for building multiple power sources).

Now, by the late-1980's, the Enterprise was down to six (AFIK) reactors. One hadn't been lit off in over 10 years, while another was always hit-and-miss. She was scheduled to undergo SLEP (Ship's Life Extension Program) whereupon a complete refueling would take place. Bear in mind that carriers are typically refueled every 5-7 years even though the reactors can supposedly go 30 years without refueling. So, the Enterprise has been refueled several times.

Any particular rationale to that? I could understand if was to make sure he reactor was always fueled up if she needed to see combat but if the fuel is only 1/6 the way through it's life.

Then again I guess if they've got the ship in for major overhaul you might as well do the reactor fueling while you're at it.

 

[Praetor]

So... what are the real odds that they'll make it a museum ship? Obviously they'd have to take out the reactors to do so, but I'd still go see it. (And if so, where?)

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

It's gonna be just like what happened to the WWII Enterprise. People most likely will not be able to afford it. That will be a damn shame.

 

[Messianni]

Is there any possibility they may have to dispose of the hull of the Enteprise because of its 50-year exposure to nuclear reactors, even though they were obviously shielded?