USS Enterprise to retire

Yeah the RN paid a heavy penalty for being an early innovator. The smaller early carriers were not great, but were deemed "good enough," not justifying replacement in lean times. Small carriers led to small air groups, small air groups led to small aircraft contracts, and that led to less money for R&D. Even when bigger and better carriers came along, the aircraft remained compromised and behind the times.

On the other hand, the "local" threats to the RN did not really have carriers at all, and using aircraft to find and slow the enemy so they could be pounded by the gun line was a valid way to go in the situation. And Taranto showed that the RN would use its air power in novel and daring ways. The Swordfish, what a classic. They should almost qualify as a V/STOL aircraft! I remember seeing Sink the Bismarck on TV when I was a kid and being absolutely thrilled with those brave biplanes.

Another radical innovation (formation of an independent air force) which answered some problems of command and control in WW1 but had unfortunate side effects for the navy. RAF control of FAA flying personnel for 20 years was pretty unfortunate. The USN was lucky that it had an individual, RAdm William Moffett, who was not only forward thinking and innovative, but knew how to work Washington politics to get things done. He insisted not only that the navy keep control of its own air arm, but that aviators not form a separate branch and remain "sailors," line officers who would aspire to command ships and fleets. He began to recruit senior officers from the "black shoe" fleet to enter aviation. The result was that the WW2 US Navy -- arguably the most powerful navy in history -- was run by a naval aviator, something that would have been unthinkable in the British or Japanese navies. Billy Moffett was really more successful than Billy Mitchell, but remains much less well-known.

Oh yes. The RN invented the arrested landing, but the USN ran with it in the '30s. While British and Japanese carriers landed one plane at a time at more "normal" speeds and sent them below to the hangar, the USN had them banging down at high speed in rapid succession, pushed them behind the barrier and left them parked on deck. That gave the US carriers a much better turn-around time for landing, re-arming and re-launching a strike. As bigger jet aircraft came along there was really no other choice than the "controlled crash," but the USN did adopt the British ideas of the angle deck and the optical landing system. The steam catapult also originated in the Royal Navy.



Justin

 

Yes but even the three converted cruisers would have been incredibly useful in the Mediterranean, where the RN eventually basically lost it's battle with the Luftwaffe. Glorious and Courageous were both lost due to stupid cock-ups of the kind British forces made way too much in the war.

Absolutely, it is the gulf of talent that was the problem, when well led the RN also still had to overcome technical weaknesses. Taranto with modern aircraft would have been far more of a decisive victory than it was.

Great movie, one of the best war films, period.

The Swordfish was also a great aircraft, and the last truly great biplane. When face with effective fighter opposition of any kind however they suffered heavy losses.

The commander who sent them under swarms of FW-190s during the channel dash to be slaughtered hopefully lost a lot of sleep over those 18 men.

Also the US Navy came out of WW2 with a pretty good record compared to most allied fighting arms. Apart from a few thrashings in night actions by the Japanese, and Halsey's cock up at Leyte Gulf of course.

The US Navy of WW2 as you say also stands as a staggering example of firepower. I own an old book called "Duel For The Sky" that ocntains an order of battle for the Marianas action, it is staggering.

I'd love to see a fleet like that at sea. Sadly I even missed the last visit by a US Carrier to the Solent!!

 

And the disgraceful torpedo situation through 1943. No matter who, the transition from peace to war almost always has some fairly ugly incidents.

One of my mom's uncles was a Marine who was captured on Guam as the war began and spent almost four years as a POW in Japan. He told me about being taken aboard a US cruiser (don't remember which one) after the surrender. He was talking with some of the crew, and one young officer asked if he wanted to go for a ride. They catapulted off in one of the cruiser's Kingfisher scout planes and did some sightseeing. Uncle Ray said the water was just full of ships, mile after mile to the horizon. Dozens of carriers and battleships, many times that of cruisers, destroyers, amphibious vessels and transports. He said he had never imagined such a sight in his life, and he said he knew then that Japan had never had a chance.

The gentleman is alive and going strong, BTW.


Justin

 

True, sadly Democracies are almost always poorly prepared for war.

Good story, and good news that your relative is still going strong, precious few WW2 veterans left with us now.

 

^ Great story, thanks for sharing Justin

I would like to point out the Nimitz Class Carriers main purpose is to allow the U.S. to project power. Any nation that sees one of these bad boys off it's coast tend to think twice about a provocative action.

The real firepower of the Navy rests with the submarines. The 14 Ohio Class Ballistic Subs carry enough firepower to destroy the world. Only problem with them is they are hidden. It is like the old saying, "what you can't see can really hurt you".

 

The next time a carrier transits the Straits of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf. It should be lead by an Ohio-class sub. On the surface with missile hatches open and lots of media coverage. So if the Iranians continue to want a nuclear weapon we'll be in a position to give them as many as possible.

 

Except that no one really believes the United States will ever use a nuclear weapon except in retaliation.

After all, wars like Korea and Vietnam have proven that we'll willingly take 10,000+ Americans killed per year without even coming close to using "nukes".

 

No-one would believe the USA would use them, and I doubt the USN would be daft enough to put an Ohio somewhere it was so vulnerable.

Totally OT so I'll keep it short, but I think a lot of people would support a massive precision attack by US and Israeli forces to prevent Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. It certainly is looking likely this year.

Very few would support the mass-murder of thousands of Iranians by destroying their cities with nuclear weapons.

It also is not necessary, an Israeli strike with limited US logistical and tanker support should do it. Maybe US cruise missile strikes to suppress the defenses as well.

 

Incidentally, wouldn't a deployment-ready Ohio be about as likely to be a cruise missile platform nowadays? Those are more recently overhauled than the boomers, and probably also more readily sent on expeditionary assignments like that.

Timo Saloniemi

 

Doesn't the U.S. have at least a couple of converted Ohio class submarines that carry 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles each?

They can be fired from the Indian Ocean and I doubt anyone could prove for certain it was the U.S. who did so.

308 Tomahawks would be of considerable assistance to the Israeli strike.

 

Four I believe, the oldest four in the class, 14 remain as SSBNs.

The four SSGNs also have two tubes converted to help deploy special forces.

Indian Ocean seems more likely than the Gulf. An old SSGN strikes me as pretty vulnerable to an Iranian diesel sub.

 

But the SSKs are more deadly against noisy and juicy targets, and would have little reason or ability to go hunt for a sub specifically designed to evade hunter-killers. The only hope SSNs had in fighting SSBNs in the Cold War scenario was in tailing them for weeks at an end, all the way from home port; Iran could never wield the sort of ocean-spanning integrated machinery needed to point SSKs to SSBN or SSGN targets, both because it doesn't possess one, and because the USN wouldn't let it anyway.

Carriers are probably the only prey worth exposing an SSK for... Unless there are unescorted supertankers available.

Timo Saloniemi

 

My suggestion regarding a surface-cruising Ohio is to remind the Iranian government about consequences. If they let loose even one nuclear device anywhere in the world. Then we'll let loose a dozen on them. I'm convinced that when (not if) Iran has enough material for one bomb, they'll wait until they have at least two bombs. The second will be used on Israel and the first will be used minutes before on the US Fleet facilities in the Persian Gulf.
On the CNN article about Enterprise retiring. Some idiot suggested that once Enterprise is in the Persian Gulf that it will mysteriously blow up and sink. With Israel and the US (he calls it a Zionist conspiracy) blaming Iran.

 

Back on topic, I fear we won't see another Aircraft Carrier Enterprise in a long time, but I hope that the name could at least be given to a capital ship, not some lowly frigate for example.

 

Maybe we could petition a billionaire to buy the Enterprise. Put her on display. And build a full-scale replica of the TOS Enterprise and park it right next to the carrier. Kind of like the construction scene from the last movie.
Hmmm. Mark Cuban lives a couple of miles from me.

 

The full scale Enterprise is actually kind of a cool idea. The problem would be the structure and of course the sheer size, it would cost almost as much as building an actual space ship.

Also, you would have to ask yourself what you would fill it with - most of the ship would be repeated corridors, crew quarters, and big rooms full of nothing as the technology doesn't exist yet.

Now, an Enterprise theme park constructed so once you are inside it you feel like you are aboard could be fun and practical. Sadly it is unlikely given current demand.

As for CVN-65, removing all her Nuclear material is the problem, apparently they literally have to cut a huge hole in the side to remove her eight reactors to then (presumably) bury them. I suppose they could be sealed off within the ship to allow her to be preserved, but it would make her a massive security and environmental hazard.

 

I read when the proposal to make the CVN-65 a museum ship or a memoral came up that the issue of removing all the nuclear related and adjacent areas would make it effectively impossible. The ship has 8 nuclear reactors (7 working) as opposed to only two on the Nimitz class and has been in operation for half a century.

Virtually the entire middle third of the ship is going to have to be cut out and buried. I did hear serious suggestions that the island though might be saved. Which is more than most ships.

 

Maybe they could hard dock the ship by drydocking it and pouring concrete around the hull. Then they could fill the offending spaces with concrete to seal the radiation hazard in. If they can preserve the world's first nuclear-powered submarine, the USS Nautilus. Which is displayed pierside in the water. Then they could save the first nuclear-powered carrier. If the real reason is the bad economy, then mothball her until times are better.
As for a full-scale Enterprise mockup. I hear that the King of Jordan; huge ST fan; is building a Star Trek theme park somewhere in Jordan. We could have the annual Beale-Lokai marathon. Dress in black and white, start on the bridge and run every inch of corridor. Finish line is the fantail. Using all of those hidden ladders and gangways.

 

I'm not sure what you mean. If the reactors are removed first, sealing the ship in concrete won't save much expense. If the reactors are left in... That would make the former warship a nuclear waste disposal site. Removing the reactors and rebuilding her as a museum would be cheap by comparison.

Nautilus is about one-thirtieth the size of Enterprise and had a single reactor. And the longer the ship is mothballed, the more expensive to restore.



Justin