USS Enterprise Petition

[Marc]

Re: The Enterprise needs your help...

Both of these petitions are important. The CVN-65 deserves to be a museum ship. She was the first carrier to be nuclear-powered. The first ship on scene in the Middle East following 9/11 (and I'll bet quite a few Terrorists shit themselves when the 'Big E' showed up on the scene) and fought in every major engagement since the Cuban Missile Crisis. She's a legend, just like all of her predecessors.

As much as she deserves preservation, wouldn't the fact she's nuclear powered greatly complicate the process?

I'm sure that many of us would love to tour her reactor compartments but those things are usually restricted access so they'd either have completely seal it once the fissile material is removed - or remove the reactor complete - if that's at all possible.

But in the worst case maybe would get anouther carrier to stand in for the Enterprise

 

[msbae]

Re: The Enterprise needs your help...

Eh, the carriers are overly conservative, keep naming them after Presidents and leave interesting names for interesting ships.

Most presidents don't deserve to have ships named after them. The Carriers are the capital ships. They deserve to have cool names like Enterprise, Hornet, Yorktown, Kitty Hawk, America, Intrepid, et al. I'd like to see one name 'Invicta' as well.

And those that do can always have a destroyer named after them like other notable Naval personnel. I'm not happy about this move to name the most visible ships in the Navy for politicians.

They should have left it alone when they were being named for previous carriers. I do however allow an exception to be made for the Nimitz as he was an important naval commander who also made significant contribution to carrier tactics.

I have no problem with naming a Carrier after a naval hero. Nimitz deserves that honor, as does Spruance (who had cruisers named after him since he was primarily a cruiser captain), Halsey, John Paul Jones, Farragut, et al.

As for politicians getting ships named for them... yeah... I think that's a pretty obvious case of trying to make up for a few 'personal inadequacies.'

Also, I'm serious about naming one Invicta. That is the Latin word for 'undefeated.' Could you ask for a better name for a ship... besides Enterprise?

Both of these petitions are important. The CVN-65 deserves to be a museum ship. She was the first carrier to be nuclear-powered. The first ship on scene in the Middle East following 9/11 (and I'll bet quite a few Terrorists shit themselves when the 'Big E' showed up on the scene) and fought in every major engagement since the Cuban Missile Crisis. She's a legend, just like all of her predecessors.

As much as she deserves preservation, wouldn't the fact she's nuclear powered greatly complicate the process?

I'm sure that many of us would love to tour her reactor compartments but those things are usually restricted access so they'd either have completely seal it once the fissile material is removed - or remove the reactor complete - if that's at all possible.

But in the worst case maybe would get anouther carrier to stand in for the Enterprise

All they'd have to do is remove the fuel and any kind of component that could reactivate the reactors. The design is 50 years old now. I'm sure everyone in the world who wants nuclear technology (including noobs like Iran) can do better than that now. Besides, we teach middle school children how nuclear reactors work. What's the harm in letting them see one on board a museum ship?

 

[J.T.B.]

Re: The Enterprise needs your help...

I have no problem with naming a Carrier after a naval hero. Nimitz deserves that honor, as does Spruance (who had cruisers named after him since he was primarily a cruiser captain), Halsey, John Paul Jones, Farragut, et al.

Spruance had a destroyer named after him and has another one on the ways. He commanded a few destroyers and the battleship Mississippi, but never a cruiser. He did prefer the cruiser Indianapolis for his flagship as Commander 5th Fleet, though. The type of ship an officer commanded has nothing to do with it, anyway. Heavy-hitter carrier admirals King, Halsey, Mitscher and McCain had DL/DLGs named for them, for instance. At the time it was a big honor because "frigates" were the hottest thing going.

--Justin

 

[Cicero]

^ The frigate designation was appropriate within the history of us naval nomenclature; the vessels were more or less the descendants of our early "heavy frigates," which were more or less battlecruisers before the term was created. Altogether, the current Navy scheme is somewhat off.

The Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, for instance, aren't particularly capable in the escort role (the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates are), which role defines the destroyer type. In practice, they are deployed as cruisers, while the Ticonderoga-class cruisers are deployed in a pattern consistent with old battlecruiser deployments.

Physical characteristics also suggest mis-designation. A destroyer, by type, is a lightly armored ship incapable of engaging capital ships except in force (and then only if fortunate), armed primarily with weapons designed to engage submarines and small ships. The Arleigh Burke-class carries very little anti-submarine or small ship-focused armament. Instead, its battery is composed mostly of heavy missiles suited to engaging capital ships, ballistic missiles, or shore targets; specifically, it has ninety heavy missle cells, roughly twice the loadout of the modernized Iowa-class battleships which it and the Ticonderoga-class replaced in the primary fire role. (It does have a five inch deck gun and six torpedo tubes.) Moreover, the ship is well-defended by the Aegis control system and point defense weapons, cost prohibitive for true escort units.

This isn't particularly here or there, but if we're dicussing prestige of ships named, the Arleigh Burke-class, Ticonderoga-class, and our supposed frigates before the "cruiser gap" was corrected should probably be rated higher than their current designations. Some naval experts have classified the former pair as battleships, but I'd suggest that they're heavy cruisers and battlecruisers, respectively.

 

[Docbrown777]

I'll agree with others that I think naming any ship after a politician is a trash idea. The problem has gotten really bad in recent years too because now we a naming ships after people that are still alive. Jimmy Carter, Reagan (was alive at the time), George Bush.

The only way a ship should be named after a politician is if prior to become a politician they served in a military branch and preformed actions that would have gotten them a ship named after them. Example: a marine does something to win the Congressional Medal of Honor and then years later becomes a senator or something.

At a very minimum there should be a rule that a ship can't be named after a politician until at least 50 years (maybe 100 years) after their death. That way we could still get ships named after George Washing, Lincoln, and a few other really important figures.

 

[msbae]

Re: The Enterprise needs your help...

I have no problem with naming a Carrier after a naval hero. Nimitz deserves that honor, as does Spruance (who had cruisers named after him since he was primarily a cruiser captain), Halsey, John Paul Jones, Farragut, et al.

Spruance had a destroyer named after him and has another one on the ways. He commanded a few destroyers and the battleship Mississippi, but never a cruiser. He did prefer the cruiser Indianapolis for his flagship as Commander 5th Fleet, though. The type of ship an officer commanded has nothing to do with it, anyway. Heavy-hitter carrier admirals King, Halsey, Mitscher and McCain had DL/DLGs named for them, for instance. At the time it was a big honor because "frigates" were the hottest thing going.

--Justin

I could have sworn Spruance was a cruiser commander...

 

[J.T.B.]

I could have sworn Spruance was a cruiser commander...

Well, RAdm Spruance was ComCruDiv 5 (CAs Northampton [flag], Pensacola, Salt Lake City, Chester) at the time the US entered WW2, and accompanied VAdm Halsey on a couple of early carrier raids.

--Justin

 

[Deimos Anomaly]

Better than scrapping or sinkexing, make her the first actual USS Enterprise in space.

It should only take about 80 or so shuttle type SRB's (1,270 tons of thrust each) to get her blasted up to 150,000 feet or so. 95% of the atmosphere below her, black sky above her and a curved horizon in view, she'd briefly be a spaceship. Almost.

Course it would be a helluva mess to clean up when she landed. And if she hit land she might actually create a localised eathquake. If water, a minor tsunami.

All joking aside; I signed the petition and hope it accomplishes something. Which it won't, of course. But I did it anyway.