USS Enterprise to retire
- Thread starter A beaker full of death
- Start date
I hate the practice of naming anything after anyone who’s still alive. Unless the living person made a really big donation or discovered a new disease.
And in that vein..
http://www.jeffhead.com/cvn80-bige/
Sign the petition here..
http://www.petitiononline.com/CVN80ENT/petition.html
http://www.jeffhead.com/cvn80-bige/
Sign the petition here..
http://www.petitiononline.com/CVN80ENT/petition.html
Since the Gerald Ford class of carrier is a new class. They can use an entirely different naming scheme for them.
This is what I remember from Ford being President:
1. Wasn't elected either Vice-President or President
2. Pardoned Nixon. ( I liked Nixon but it was a bad idea)
3. Was known for falling and stumbling
4. Was known for hitting spectators with balls while playing golf. He hit a spectator in the head while playing at a nearby course. Knocked the guy out.
5. Didn't do anything noteworthy except get shot at by crazy women.
This is what I remember from Ford being President:
1. Wasn't elected either Vice-President or President
2. Pardoned Nixon. ( I liked Nixon but it was a bad idea)
3. Was known for falling and stumbling
4. Was known for hitting spectators with balls while playing golf. He hit a spectator in the head while playing at a nearby course. Knocked the guy out.
5. Didn't do anything noteworthy except get shot at by crazy women.
I'm inclined to think that the Congress committee or subcomittee that oversees such things know the significance or public recognition of the Enterprise name. I believe they will give it to a big carrier.
Ironically, Ford was one of our most athletic presidents. Played center for Michigan, was recruited by Packers and Lions, but went Navy instead.
Historians believe he pardoned Nixon from good motives, though cynical citizens (rightfully so) smelled a rat. Ford was a normal guy in the WH after Nixon's "imperial" presidency.
EDIT: I just read: 15 billion, 15 thousands of millions of dollars, for a big huge machinery of war. Yes, I believe military to be necessary. But wow.
Historians believe he pardoned Nixon from good motives, though cynical citizens (rightfully so) smelled a rat. Ford was a normal guy in the WH after Nixon's "imperial" presidency.
EDIT: I just read: 15 billion, 15 thousands of millions of dollars, for a big huge machinery of war. Yes, I believe military to be necessary. But wow.
All those types of names (Bunker Hill, Bonhomme Richard, Wasp, Essex, Kearsarge) are going to ships which aren't CVNs. Oh well.
I wouldn't bet on it. The last traditional CV name to be re-used was for Enterprise herself, over 50 years ago, and the last name from a traditional carrier name source was America (that is assuming she was named for the Continental ship-of-the-line, which I am not sure about), almost as long ago. Currently there are 6 Republican CVN names to 4 Democrat (I'll put Washington and Nimitz down as non-partisan) so if I had to wager I'd put money on another D. like FDR or Woodrow Wilson or someone safe like Jefferson or Adams.
"Enterprise" might be the name to get politics out of the carrier naming business, but I don't think enough voters care about it to make a difference. That's why I think it more likely the name will continue in a vessel that's less in the public eye, just as the proud names SchwEnt mentioned above have. I'd be happy to be wrong, though.
Justin
I would, just not on the next one or two.
A few chance incidents of apparent clumsiness gave Ford an unjustified reputation for being a klutz. It made good material for Saturday Night Live's writers, though.
Had Nixon faced criminal proceedings after his resignation, what would have been the outcome? Months more of residual baggage from the Watergate affair, and Tricky Dick would have served a couple of years in a minimum-security facility. Maybe.
From a pure, ivory-tower ethical point of view, maybe Ford's pardon of Nixon was the wrong thing to do. But, in the overall scheme of things, it was probably best for the country.
And now, back to our regularly scheduled topic in progress . . .
The more dangerous message of Enterprise being retired early may be that this will begin a significant reduction in Navy carrier battlegroups. Since the Army has recently announced a 30 percent reduction in brigade strength. I could see the the other branches following suit in announcing force reductions due to budget cuts. We currently have eleven carrier battlegroups. Ten Nimitz-class carriers along with Enterprise. During the Reagan era we had 14 I believe along with two training carriers. I would bet Obama and his liberal friends want that cut to eight.
Just imagine all of those RIFed sailors, airmen, soldiers, and marines dumped into the economy. A total 25 to 30 percent reduction in our military. At a time when the world is increasingly unstable.
Just imagine all of those RIFed sailors, airmen, soldiers, and marines dumped into the economy. A total 25 to 30 percent reduction in our military. At a time when the world is increasingly unstable.
"Retired early"? I thought it was "retired late"?
In any case, 14 carrier battle groups meant something like seven operationally available ones, which was huge overkill for what they were actually used for. At most three could have operated against a Middle East target without crowding the waters, and sending more than one against a one-off Third World target sounds dubious.
For the hypothetical WWIII Atlantic convoy protection scenario, the supposed deploying of a chain of defensive formations would not have benefited much from supercarriers. Their main role would have been self-defense, as they would have been the only targets warranting a massive air strike or a saturation missile attack. I wonder if any carriers would really have been used for the application in actual Armageddon conditions.
I guess a supercarrier is the ideal way to go nevertheless. The bigger, the better - because the floating airbase is never under any realistic threat, and a maximally concentrated deployment gives the best odds of success in the kinds of wars the USN really fights.
Timo Saloniemi
In any case, 14 carrier battle groups meant something like seven operationally available ones, which was huge overkill for what they were actually used for. At most three could have operated against a Middle East target without crowding the waters, and sending more than one against a one-off Third World target sounds dubious.
For the hypothetical WWIII Atlantic convoy protection scenario, the supposed deploying of a chain of defensive formations would not have benefited much from supercarriers. Their main role would have been self-defense, as they would have been the only targets warranting a massive air strike or a saturation missile attack. I wonder if any carriers would really have been used for the application in actual Armageddon conditions.
I guess a supercarrier is the ideal way to go nevertheless. The bigger, the better - because the floating airbase is never under any realistic threat, and a maximally concentrated deployment gives the best odds of success in the kinds of wars the USN really fights.
Timo Saloniemi
Seems pretty unlikely. Their main role if so would have been drawing off Russian subs looking to bag a carrier who otherwise would have been taking shots at troop transports and merchant vessels.
Their real usefulness in a European War would be extremely limited unless opening a "Second Front" with Navy and Marine resources elsewhere was an option. If the war went well enough to see an invasion of Russia (even less likely than a massive conventional war happening in any case) carriers in the Baltic or Red Sea would help the balance of air power or amphibious operations
The carriers have certainly proven a massive asset to the wars the USN has actually fought, where as you say there is no realistic threat.
If a major conflict was fought against an enemy in deep water with effective nuclear submarines (i.e. probably no-one right now) or in coastal waters with Diesel subs (e.g. Iran, China) then the carriers would be under more threat.
I'd actually be interested to see the result of this if things went bad with Iran, as you would see the quiet diesel sub, the carrier's worst enemy, deployed against the USN.
I'd expect to see carnage of Iranian defense installations and naval forces in any case, but could one of those Kilo class subs put a torpedo in a carrier?
Is it possible to squeeze even an LHA through the straits to that little puddle, though?
Plus, the best hope of the USN surviving past the first few days of an all-out war would be for them to shoot down Russian (or putative Chinese or Indian or whatever) surveillance satellites. But that would do no good in confined waters where the location of a battle group would automatically be known even without radar satellites or extensive recce flights.
I agree the one true test of carrier survivability would be Mediterranean or Indian Ocean operations that for some reason had to be conducted close to the shores of a nation possessing operable attack subs and standoff-armed naval bombers. But there would always exist the option of flying from a greater distance at first, until no credible air threat remained, and frustrating the subs with a waiting game where the enemy would lose on every other front...
Building and deploying carriers with the understanding that they may be lost in battle is not a worthwhile enterprise. Building them to be unsinkable is probably futile as well. But just building them for use in easy wars is doing the USN a world of good.
Timo Saloniemi
Interesting question - certainly a quick Google reveals that Battleships in the WW2 era regularly went to and fro, as did the Graf Zeppelin. Would certainly be very dangerous taking a CVN in there!
Indeed - not subtle. Though even the Soviets lacked the resources to attack EVERY carrier group at sea with the kind of mass strike seen in, well, "Red Storm Rising". As in that book it comes down to the Soviet bomber fleet (maybe 200 planes) versus 50 odd fighters and the AAMs on the escort ships. In a large fleet it would likely lead to carnage on both sides. Not nice.
Well this is of course where the US Military really outshines any likely opponent. Should it get really hot by Iran, the carriers would not just have their own escorts to protect them, but local USAF assets, as well as massive strikes on the bases and support networks of Iran with cruise missiles, B-2s and heck maybe even F-22s if they want to risk spending them.
Well agreed - as a floating symbol of US military power they are among the most impressive possible tools.
I told my wife about the next class of carriers being named for Ford. She said "I bet they run into a lot of things."
But horrendously expensive. The fast carrier evolved to win fleet vs fleet battles, but was capable -- and yes impressive -- enough to become the go-to response for many an international crisis. Understandable in the days of Cold War defense budgets, perhaps, but much more questionable now. Even more so as the demise of the long-range carrier bomber forces the flattop to get closer to the action, often into restricted searoom that negates her speed advantages. With the increasing capabilities of diesel/AIP subs and good old fashioned mining, such scenarios are a potential nightmare that raise serious cost/benefit questions. The UAV and the long-range capabilities of surface combatants is leading many strategic thinkers to reevaluate the building of new supercarriers. With the longevity of the CVN of course the carrier strike group will be around for many years to come, but almost certainly in decreasing numbers.
Justin
I would suggest it be a Capital Ship or a new NASA spacecraft. The name is too important for just any ship.
Similar threads
