USS Enterprise to be decommissioned

[John Picard]

Thanks for that list, J.T.B. and agreed regarding the sentiment regarding naming the ships to get more funding. My one quibble with such ship naming conventions is the back-and-forth between giving the ships a full person's name (such as John C. Stennis) versus a surname (such as Jefferson or Franklin.) It's not so much that I prefer one way over the other, I just wish they'd pick one.

I don't think that funding sentiment is as prevalent as it once (could have been). Carl Vinson is considered the father of the two ocean Navy and was the first person (United States) to witness a ship bearing his name. Then, there is Arleigh Burke who received the honor of an entire class named after him.

 

[Praetor]

You may be right... but no doubt that original notion is what set the precedent for the current naming scheme, rather than following a Royal Navy pattern, for example.

 

[Captain X]

The Enterprise has 8 nuclear reactors. Basically similiar to those use in early SSNs at that time.

The Nimitz and all later CVNs have only two far more powerful nuclear reactors.

Eight reactors versus two reactors.

A very substantial difference.

I was talking about the actual hull, you know, the whole rest of the ship.

 

[John Picard]

The Enterprise has 8 nuclear reactors. Basically similiar to those use in early SSNs at that time.

The Nimitz and all later CVNs have only two far more powerful nuclear reactors.

Eight reactors versus two reactors.

A very substantial difference.

I was talking about the actual hull, you know, the whole rest of the ship.

And it is an inferior design compared to the Nimitz class. If it weren't there would have been more copies The Nimitz class is laid out in a more efficient manner and is constructed under a principle called "compartmentization". All Navy ships are laid out using this method of construction, which allows for the vessel in question to seal off damaged compartments (below the waterline) that have been compromised and are completely flooded. Even with those compartments flooded, the damage is localized and the ship can still float.

Also note that starting with the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), Kevlar armor was added at the waterline, resulting in an increased draft of 2-feet.

Sorry, but your beloved Enterprise isn't that great of a vessel.

 

[Dayton3]

The Enterprise has 8 nuclear reactors. Basically similiar to those use in early SSNs at that time.

The Nimitz and all later CVNs have only two far more powerful nuclear reactors.

Eight reactors versus two reactors.

A very substantial difference.

I was talking about the actual hull, you know, the whole rest of the ship.

And it is an inferior design compared to the Nimitz class. If it weren't there would have been more copies The Nimitz class is laid out in a more efficient manner and is constructed under a principle called "compartmentization". All Navy ships are laid out using this method of construction, which allows for the vessel in question to seal off damaged compartments (below the waterline) that have been compromised and are completely flooded. Even with those compartments flooded, the damage is localized and the ship can still float.

Also note that starting with the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), Kevlar armor was added at the waterline, resulting in an increased draft of 2-feet.

Sorry, but your beloved Enterprise isn't that great of a vessel.

I disagree.

It has stayed in service for nearly 50 years for a reason.

And the failure to build more had more to do with construction costs of nuclear vessels than design deficiencies.

But naturally, the Nimitz class, designed a decade later with the operational history of nuclear ships to draw from is a better design.

 

[John Picard]

I was talking about the actual hull, you know, the whole rest of the ship.

And it is an inferior design compared to the Nimitz class. If it weren't there would have been more copies The Nimitz class is laid out in a more efficient manner and is constructed under a principle called "compartmentization". All Navy ships are laid out using this method of construction, which allows for the vessel in question to seal off damaged compartments (below the waterline) that have been compromised and are completely flooded. Even with those compartments flooded, the damage is localized and the ship can still float.

Also note that starting with the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), Kevlar armor was added at the waterline, resulting in an increased draft of 2-feet.

Sorry, but your beloved Enterprise isn't that great of a vessel.

I disagree.

It has stayed in service for nearly 50 years for a reason.

And the failure to build more had more to do with construction costs of nuclear vessels than design deficiencies.

But naturally, the Nimitz class, designed a decade later with the operational history of nuclear ships to draw from is a better design.

It stayed in service for 50 years because the Navy phased out the conventional carriers, the last of which were the Kitty Hawk class.

You don't even understand half of what I posted about carriers, so please refrain from commenting. As it stands, you don't even have any Navy, let alone military, experience.

 

[J.T.B.]

My one quibble with such ship naming conventions is the back-and-forth between giving the ships a full person's name (such as John C. Stennis) versus a surname (such as Jefferson or Franklin.) It's not so much that I prefer one way over the other, I just wish they'd pick one.

I don't know how that's decided, either, but it seems to go back to the very beginning: At the time of the Barbary Campaign, there was a US frigate named Adams and another named John Adams!

I don't think that funding sentiment is as prevalent as it once (could have been). Carl Vinson is considered the father of the two ocean Navy and was the first person (United States) to witness a ship bearing his name.

That's probably right about the funding, but that's how Congressional names became fair game, and once the precedent is set, it's hard to go back. Politics still plays a role, too; CVN-77 was all set to be named Lexington till Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner got behind George H. W. Bush, which had a nice ring to the administration at the time and a probable homeport in Warner's state. As it happened, in the last days of the Bush 43 administration, the homeport was switched to Mayport FL, but Warner has retired now and had a new sub named after him.

Then, there is Arleigh Burke who received the honor of an entire class named after him.

But that's not unusual because naval leaders and heroes are the traditional sources for destroyer names. All the heavy-hitters from WW2 (King, Leahy, Spruance, Halsey, Kinkaid, Mitscher, Lee &c.) got their names on destroyers or DE/frigates, except for Nimitz with the CVN.

--Justin

 

[Colonel Midnight]

Thanks for that list, J.T.B. and agreed regarding the sentiment regarding naming the ships to get more funding. My one quibble with such ship naming conventions is the back-and-forth between giving the ships a full person's name (such as John C. Stennis) versus a surname (such as Jefferson or Franklin.) It's not so much that I prefer one way over the other, I just wish they'd pick one.

Well, FWIW, my service does make a bit of a distinction between the two... For instance, the new Legend class are all to be named after famous legendary Coast Guardsmen (or women), but then it's specified out in a 'Decision Memo' how it's to be displayed on the hull itself.

For instance -- although the ship's full name is CGC Ellsworth P. Bertholf, it's displayed on the stern as merely BERTHOLF.

There was a long email chain just recently that I saw where it was being debated, at the Flag level no less, just where & how the third cutter's name (Dorothy C. Stratton) is to be displayed on the stern (ie. STRATTON)... as the new stern door design change mucks it up a bit.

(By the way, that's 'ON' for Dorothy STRATTON, not Dorothy STRATTEN... who apparently was a rather infamous Playboy centerfold. )

Cheers,
-CM-

 

[Praetor]

My one quibble with such ship naming conventions is the back-and-forth between giving the ships a full person's name (such as John C. Stennis) versus a surname (such as Jefferson or Franklin.) It's not so much that I prefer one way over the other, I just wish they'd pick one.

I don't know how that's decided, either, but it seems to go back to the very beginning: At the time of the Barbary Campaign, there was a US frigate named Adams and another named John Adams!

I didn't know that.

Thanks for that list, J.T.B. and agreed regarding the sentiment regarding naming the ships to get more funding. My one quibble with such ship naming conventions is the back-and-forth between giving the ships a full person's name (such as John C. Stennis) versus a surname (such as Jefferson or Franklin.) It's not so much that I prefer one way over the other, I just wish they'd pick one.

Well, FWIW, my service does make a bit of a distinction between the two... For instance, the new Legend class are all to be named after famous legendary Coast Guardsmen (or women), but then it's specified out in a 'Decision Memo' how it's to be displayed on the hull itself.

For instance -- although the ship's full name is CGC Ellsworth P. Bertholf, it's displayed on the stern as merely BERTHOLF.

There was a long email chain just recently that I saw where it was being debated, at the Flag level no less, just where & how the third cutter's name (Dorothy C. Stratton) is to be displayed on the stern (ie. STRATTON)... as the new stern door design change mucks it up a bit.

(By the way, that's 'ON' for Dorothy STRATTON, not Dorothy STRATTEN... who apparently was a rather infamous Playboy centerfold. )

Cheers,
-CM-

Ah, thanks for that - that makes it all make a bit more sense.

As to the Enterprise being inferior - the ship was the first real supercarrier, and the first nuclear carrier, was it not? Therefore, it was a prototype, and any deficiencies when compared to later vessels of the same type would be a reflection of the new innovations of the latter ships (derived no doubt from the trailblazing of the Enterprise and other ships) rather than an indication that corners were cut when the Enterprise was built. I tend to agree that the fact that it's been in service for fifty years seems to indicate that it's not an Edsel - it's just a prototype, and therefore, somewhat 'unrefined.'

 

[Dayton3]

And it is an inferior design compared to the Nimitz class. If it weren't there would have been more copies The Nimitz class is laid out in a more efficient manner and is constructed under a principle called "compartmentization". All Navy ships are laid out using this method of construction, which allows for the vessel in question to seal off damaged compartments (below the waterline) that have been compromised and are completely flooded. Even with those compartments flooded, the damage is localized and the ship can still float.

Also note that starting with the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), Kevlar armor was added at the waterline, resulting in an increased draft of 2-feet.

Sorry, but your beloved Enterprise isn't that great of a vessel.

I disagree.

It has stayed in service for nearly 50 years for a reason.

And the failure to build more had more to do with construction costs of nuclear vessels than design deficiencies.

But naturally, the Nimitz class, designed a decade later with the operational history of nuclear ships to draw from is a better design.

It stayed in service for 50 years because the Navy phased out the conventional carriers, the last of which were the Kitty Hawk class.

You don't even understand half of what I posted about carriers, so please refrain from commenting. As it stands, you don't even have any Navy, let alone military, experience.

I don't have any proof that you have Navy or military experience either.

Or even if you served on a carrier, that your position was of any signficance allowing you to give an expert opinion on carrier design.

You could've been a cook for 10 years for all we know here.

As for my expertise. All I've done is read the writings of various experts who have naval experience (which I can easily confirm).

 

[Plecostomus]

Actually as an interested third party here is my opinion on the Enterprise vs The Rest Of The Fleet:

The Big E introduced a number of experimental hull design concepts, and proved them out one way or another. Yes, she is damn fast... one of the fastest non-hydrofoil ships we have but she is not the fastest anymore. Used to be.

Here's what happened: At full power there is unacceptable vibration in the reactor systems. One reactor is down 90% of the time because the vibration actually cracked one of the hot-leg coolant lines, they repaired the piping but downrated the reactor to "standby/emergency use only." Cracked as in broke a couple welds, released some very hot water, and damn near had a full-scale LOCA.

They tried during the refuelings and overhauls to install various vibration abatement methods but the inherent problem remains due to the flow pattern in the system. It's a product of an incomplete understanding of flow patterns in nuclear systems... couldn't be helped because at the time the reactors were designed we just didn't know.

The big fear is as the ship ages metal fatuge is going to cause further incidents, and it can only lead to a serious nuclear accident.

Our navy is very proud of it's nuclear safety record, and they don't want this potential blemish on the record so they want to take the Big E out of service as soon as possible to prevent an accident that is sure to occur as the ship ages.

 

[Santaman]

The big E has a cruiser style hull and not the fat ass variety like the Nimitz thats one of the reasons she's so fast.

As for the rest, before gas turbine propulsion no other ship besides nuclear vessels could heat up their boilers fast enough to allow a much faster acceleration so when most of the fleet was on steam power the nuclear carriers and cruisers/frigates appeared to be hugely fast just because they always had a head start however gas turbines have negated that advantage completly.

 

[John Picard]

The big E has a cruiser style hull and not the fat ass variety like the Nimitz thats one of the reasons she's so fast.

As for the rest, before gas turbine propulsion no other ship besides nuclear vessels could heat up their boilers fast enough to allow a much faster acceleration so when most of the fleet was on steam power the nuclear carriers and cruisers/frigates appeared to be hugely fast just because they always had a head start however gas turbines have negated that advantage completly.

Like I said, the Enterprise has speed screws and the Nimitz class has torque screws. The best way I can equate this is the V8 engine versus the straight-6. A V8 is faster off the line, but in the long run, it will be overtaken by the straight-6. If you don't believe me, then do some checking and you'll see how Jaguar, Mercedes, and others ruled the race tracks up to the mid-60's with their straight-6 engines, until Chevrolet whined that it was unfair their V8's were constantly being put to shame and had the straight-6 engines banned. The straight-6 produced torque, which always wins in the long run.

Also, the Nimitz class (pre USS Ronald Regan ships) are going to be retrofitted with the bulbous bow design, which adds stability in rough weather and makes the ship more efficient, and faster, in cutting through the water.

In 1989, the San Francisco Bay area was hit by an earthquake while we were on cruise (Carl Vinson). Three days later, we made our port visit to Korea, which was for two full days. The original schedule called for us to meander to Hawaii, stop for a couple of days, continue to San Diego, offload the Airwing for two days, and then head back to Alameda. The CO ordered the ship full steam to San Diego from Korea, a trip that took us three days. When the tide came in, we docked and offloaded the Airwing in a record six hours and were able to leave San Diego before the tide let out in the afternoon. The order was again given for full steam (approx 16:00 local time) and we raced up the coast of California to the Bay area, which we reach by 12:30am. We sat outside of the Bay awaiting the morning tide at 7:30am so we could dock.

Sorry, but the Nimitz aren't slow by any means.

 

[Santaman]

I didn't say they were slow, I only mentioned that they don't have a cruiser style hull and are therefore a little more chubby

 

[John Picard]

I didn't say they were slow, I only mentioned that they don't have a cruiser style hull and are therefore a little more chubby

If you want to see chubby, check out the Iowa class. We had a rendezvous with the USS Missouri one morning and I must say, for a boiler fired ship, she was f-a-s-t!

Here is some interesting carrier history:

USS Forrestal (CV 59)

FORRESTAL would spend seven months in the yards being repaired, she was re-built from the hanger up and forward to aircraft elevator number four, this accounts for about 1/5 the ships length and 5 decks. On April 8, 1968 FORRESTAL was once again ready to take her place in the fleet, she was never to return to Vietnam.

With over a dozen major detonations from 1,000 and 500 lb bombs and numerous missile, fuel tank, and aircraft explosions no ship has ever survived the pounding FORRESTAL underwent that day, before or since. She and her crew proved the toughness and dangers associated with the operation of super-carriers, this is one of her greatest legacies. The USS FORRESTAL would go on to serve the United States for another 26 years during the height of the Cold War and see it through to its demise. She and her crew were always ready to go into battle again, the call never came, she served in war for 4 1/2 days but served to ensure peace for over 13,860. FORRESTAL had truly served her purpose as 'First in Defense'.

USS America (CV 66)

USS AMERICA was the third KITTY HAWK - class aircraft carrier and the third ship in the Navy to bear the name. Decommissioned on August 9, 1996, the USS AMERICA spend the following years at the Naval Inactive Ships Facility in Philadelphia. On April 19, 2005, the carrier left Philadelphia under tow on its final mission. The AMERICA was towed off the east coast where the ship was finally disposed of during a classified SinkEx.

USS AMERICA never really went through the Navy's Carrier Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) and therefore, the ship was in bad shape during its last years of service. In the early 1990s the AMERICA even had one of her flight deck elevators fall with an S-3B aircraft and several blueshirts on it. Additionally, the carrier suffered steam and fuel leaks and - also in the early 1990s, returning home from deployment - the carrier cut through a Hurricane destroying large parts of the flight deck catwalks.

 

[the_wildcard]

The big E has a cruiser style hull and not the fat ass variety like the Nimitz thats one of the reasons she's so fast.

As for the rest, before gas turbine propulsion no other ship besides nuclear vessels could heat up their boilers fast enough to allow a much faster acceleration so when most of the fleet was on steam power the nuclear carriers and cruisers/frigates appeared to be hugely fast just because they always had a head start however gas turbines have negated that advantage completly.

Like I said, the Enterprise has speed screws and the Nimitz class has torque screws. The best way I can equate this is the V8 engine versus the straight-6. A V8 is faster off the line, but in the long run, it will be overtaken by the straight-6. If you don't believe me, then do some checking and you'll see how Jaguar, Mercedes, and others ruled the race tracks up to the mid-60's with their straight-6 engines, until Chevrolet whined that it was unfair their V8's were constantly being put to shame and had the straight-6 engines banned. The straight-6 produced torque, which always wins in the long run.

Also, the Nimitz class (pre USS Ronald Regan ships) are going to be retrofitted with the bulbous bow design, which adds stability in rough weather and makes the ship more efficient, and faster, in cutting through the water.

In 1989, the San Francisco Bay area was hit by an earthquake while we were on cruise (Carl Vinson). Three days later, we made our port visit to Korea, which was for two full days. The original schedule called for us to meander to Hawaii, stop for a couple of days, continue to San Diego, offload the Airwing for two days, and then head back to Alameda. The CO ordered the ship full steam to San Diego from Korea, a trip that took us three days. When the tide came in, we docked and offloaded the Airwing in a record six hours and were able to leave San Diego before the tide let out in the afternoon. The order was again given for full steam (approx 16:00 local time) and we raced up the coast of California to the Bay area, which we reach by 12:30am. We sat outside of the Bay awaiting the morning tide at 7:30am so we could dock.

Sorry, but the Nimitz aren't slow by any means.

Wow, that's impressive. 3 days from Korea to San Diego. That's pretty fast by sea travel. Then 8 hrs from San diego up to SF.

 

[Bloodwhiner]

South Korea to San Diego is roughly 6,000 miles, so lets say the three days was exactly 72 hours - that means the carrier made 72 knots or 83 mph... I'm having a hard time accepting that. If we add another 24 hours, the speed average becomes 54 knots or 62mph.

Likewise, San Diego to San Francisco is roughly 500 miles - taking 8.5 hrs is an average of 51 knots or 58mph

Since the latter two averages are close and other references put the Nimitz class top speed in the 50 knot range, that is likely.

AND that is damn fast. About twice as fast as most recreational speed boats used for skiing (which are lightweight fiberglass and 20 feet in length)

 

[John Picard]

South Korea to San Diego is roughly 6,000 miles, so lets say the three days was exactly 72 hours - that means the carrier made 72 knots or 83 mph... I'm having a hard time accepting that. If we add another 24 hours, the speed average becomes 54 knots or 62mph.

Likewise, San Diego to San Francisco is roughly 500 miles - taking 8.5 hrs is an average of 51 knots or 58mph

Since the latter two averages are close and other references put the Nimitz class top speed in the 50 knot range, that is likely.

AND that is damn fast. About twice as fast as most recreational speed boats used for skiing (which are lightweight fiberglass and 20 feet in length)

When sailing, I never counted the first day, because the first few hours are always spent either untying from the pier or raising the anchor, and then the harbor is left at a leisurely pace due to traffic. So by the time you're actually steaming, it's almost 10am. Overall time was more like 4 days, because I do remember we were traveling damned fast. The same thing when we left San Diego and steamed to San Francisco. The ship was full out open and the decks were rumbling like no tomorrow.

Also, we used to practice a maneuver called "High speed rudder turns" usually during the hours of midnight to four. That involved increasing the ship's speed in excess of 25knots and then turning hard right, pause, and followed by a hard left (no, you don't turn port or starboard). It's amazing how that behemoth wouldn't list more than 15º. I believe we did hit a 20º list when performing the same maneuver while steaming through a typhoon.

 

[Dayton3]

What do they do with the aircraft when traveling in an emergency at such high speeds?

I always heard that was too fast for flight operations (or to even have people working on an exposed deck).

Do they fly off the aircraft or simply chain all of the ones on the flight deck down?

 

[John Picard]

What do they do with the aircraft when traveling in an emergency at such high speeds?

I always heard that was too fast for flight operations (or to even have people working on an exposed deck).

Do they fly off the aircraft or simply chain all of the ones on the flight deck down?

All aircraft are securely chained and the flight deck is secured to all traffic. I always (kinda) felt sorry for the flight crews, because the aircraft are chained to the bow of the ship to provide ballast when steaming through a typhoon. The planes get drenched in saltwater, and once through the typhoon they have to spend the next few days washing the planes down with fresh water.



Here is a picture of the USS Nimitz executing a high speed turn.