USS Enterprise to be decommissioned

[Mr. Laser Beam]

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

1) Which Bush will they name one affter?
2) Will Clinton get one named after him?, what will the specialized weapons be on this one?

Ford's ship will be the first of its class.

Link - USS Gerald R. Ford, CVN-78

As for recent presidents, Reagan and Bush (the first one) have Nimitz-class carriers named after them. (USS Ronald Reagan is CVN-76, and USS George H.W. Bush is CVN-77).

Carter, OTOH, has his name on a Seawolf-class submarine - USS Jimmy Carter, SSN-23.

 

[nx1701g]

Carter, OTOH, will have his name on a Seawolf-class submarine - USS Jimmy Carter, SSN-23.

It was also chosen because he had been a submariner.

Off topic: the Jimmy Carter was the only real United States naval vessel to survive Judgment Day in the Terminator franchise. A second (fictional) survivor was the USS Roosevelt (also a submarine).

 

[Docbrown777]

Just to clear some things up, the USS Jimmy Carter, USS Ronald Reagan and USS George H. Bush are not "will be" all three are currently commissioned and in service.

Oh, and I kind of get the feeling there won't be any ships named after Bill Clinton. It would be hard to push through naming a ship for a president that was impeached and W. Bush might not being getting a ship named after him because I don't think history is going to treat him very well. If either one were to get a ship it would not be for another few decades anyways. Their both still too young.

 

[Roger Wilco]

I can't imagine the scrap metal of such a ship being worth more than the historic/tourist value. Ok, the USA have a lot of big, cool ships, but the first nuclear carrier is something special, isn't it? I'm sure lots of harbour cities would be delighted would be delighted to have such an attraction.

When you consider all the money being wasted by the military, scrapping such a ship just because of a couple million dollars seems petty to me, when the same ship could still provide dozens of jobs somewhere else.

 

[Plecostomus]

Where will the nuclear waste go? there will be a lot of it I would think?

They take the pipes, reactor vessel and pumps out and entomb them in a vault until the radioactivity dies down then they cut it up and use the metal. The boilers/steam-generators get the same treatment. We've been recycling nuclear ships for over 20 years now. Nuclear power plants as well.

Unless there has been an accident like TMI the system can be stored for two-three decades then chopped up and disposed of like any other scrap metal. It's the FUEL that stays radioactive "forever."

Actually it depends on the alloy. If it's high in cobalt they can't recycle it as easier as other alloys because cobalt stays activated for a long time.

 

[John Picard]

Where will the nuclear waste go? there will be a lot of it I would think?

They take the pipes, reactor vessel and pumps out and entomb them in a vault until the radioactivity dies down then they cut it up and use the metal. The boilers/steam-generators get the same treatment. We've been recycling nuclear ships for over 20 years now. Nuclear power plants as well.

Unless there has been an accident like TMI the system can be stored for two-three decades then chopped up and disposed of like any other scrap metal. It's the FUEL that stays radioactive "forever."

Actually it depends on the alloy. If it's high in cobalt they can't recycle it as easier as other alloys because cobalt stays activated for a long time.

Hanford, Washington, most likely.

 

[Samurai8472]

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!

Oh yay, the only navy ship to dock at ports and not a single crew member will get laid

 

[Deimos Anomaly]

It'll be a sad day when the Big E is decommed.

She is still the fastest carrier in the US fleet. Sleeker and with more power than the Nimitz class. Balls to the wall she can exceed 40 mph. Which is damn fast for a bristling slab of steel 3 football fields long and 2 football fields wide, forcing itself through the ocean.

 

[John Picard]

It'll be a sad day when the Big E is decommed.

She is still the fastest carrier in the US fleet. Sleeker and with more power than the Nimitz class. Balls to the wall she can exceed 40 mph. Which is damn fast for a bristling slab of steel 3 football fields long and 2 football fields wide, forcing itself through the ocean.

Um, no she isn't. She has speed screws and the Nimitz class has torque screws, meaning that she's quicker off the line, but in the long run the Nimitz class will overtake her. The top speed of the Nimitz class is classified; however, it is my understanding from talking to the nukes I knew that they could hit 50mph. In 1988, when I was aboard the Carl Vinson, we raced the USS Texas and the CO of the Texas chickened out after we hit 35 knots (40.3mph). Also note that the Nimitz class are all going to be refitted with the bulbous bow design first used on the USS Ronald Reagan.

 

[Tomalak]

Just to clear some things up, the USS Jimmy Carter, USS Ronald Reagan and USS George H. Bush are not "will be" all three are currently commissioned and in service.

Oh, and I kind of get the feeling there won't be any ships named after Bill Clinton. It would be hard to push through naming a ship for a president that was impeached and W. Bush might not being getting a ship named after him because I don't think history is going to treat him very well. If either one were to get a ship it would not be for another few decades anyways. Their both still too young.

Is there a USS Richard Nixon?

 

[Docbrown777]

Just to clear some things up, the USS Jimmy Carter, USS Ronald Reagan and USS George H. Bush are not "will be" all three are currently commissioned and in service.

Oh, and I kind of get the feeling there won't be any ships named after Bill Clinton. It would be hard to push through naming a ship for a president that was impeached and W. Bush might not being getting a ship named after him because I don't think history is going to treat him very well. If either one were to get a ship it would not be for another few decades anyways. Their both still too young.

Is there a USS Richard Nixon?

Good God no!

 

[Marc]

Just to clear some things up, the USS Jimmy Carter, USS Ronald Reagan and USS George H. Bush are not "will be" all three are currently commissioned and in service.

Oh, and I kind of get the feeling there won't be any ships named after Bill Clinton. It would be hard to push through naming a ship for a president that was impeached and W. Bush might not being getting a ship named after him because I don't think history is going to treat him very well. If either one were to get a ship it would not be for another few decades anyways. Their both still too young.

Is there a USS Richard Nixon?

Good God no!

Wasn't Nixon's billet supply during WWII? They could always name a tanker or replenishment ship after him.

 

[John Picard]

Is there a USS Richard Nixon?

Good God no!

Wasn't Nixon's billet supply during WWII? They could always name a tanker or replenishment ship after him.

Since he resigned from Office, I doubt Mr Nixon will ever get a ship to bear his name.

 

[Tomalak]

USS Calvin Coolidge?

 

[Praetor]

Silent Cal gets a bum rap. Unless there were official sanctions against a President, I fail to see why one should not be a candidate for having the honor of having a ship bear their name.

Where is the USS Enterprise currently?

 

[John Picard]

Silent Cal gets a bum rap. Unless there were official sanctions against a President, I fail to see why one should not be a candidate for having the honor of having a ship bear their name.

Where is the USS Enterprise currently?

http://www.enterprise.navy.mil/

 

[Rii]

The Navy has taken to naming its carriers after Presidents (next up is the Gerald Ford).

A lack of such retarded naming conventions is why the Royal Navy will forever be superior to the US Navy.

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.

Maybe not, but they're still silly names for a ship.

Well, Nimitz is alright, only because they didn't use his full name.

 

[Dayton3]

The Big E isn't that much different from the Nimitz class, so there's nothing especially obsolete and inefficient about her.

QUOTE]

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.

 

[J.T.B.]

Silent Cal gets a bum rap. Unless there were official sanctions against a President, I fail to see why one should not be a candidate for having the honor of having a ship bear their name.

Twenty presidents have been so honored since the "modern" naming conventions were established around 1900:

Washington: SSBN-598, CVN-73
John Adams: SSBN-620 (shared with J.Q. Adams)
Jefferson: SSBN-618
Madison: SSBN-627
Monroe: SSBN-622
John Q. Adams: SSBN-620 (shared with J. Adams)
Jackson: SSBN-619
Polk: SSBN-645
Lincoln: SSBN-602, CVN-72
Grant: SSBN-631
T. Roosevelt: SSBN-600, CVN-71
Wilson: SSBN-624
F.D. Roosevelt: CV-42, DDG-80
Truman: CVN-75
Eisenhower: CVN-69
Kennedy: CV-67
Ford: CVN-78
Carter: SSN-23
Reagan: CVN-76
G.H.W. Bush: CVN-77

Aside from a couple of arguable choices, it's a pretty safe "A-list" of presidents. Nixon's resignation and Clinton's impeachment make it pretty unlikely that they'll make the cut.

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.

Maybe not, but they're still silly names for a ship.

Well, Nimitz is alright, only because they didn't use his full name.

When this subject comes up, the operative quote is usually the one from Admiral Rickover when asked why submarines were being named after members of Congress: "Fish don't vote." In other words, if naming a ship after a politician can get more money for more ships, it's better than having a ship with a cool name. From a pragmatic point of view, it's pretty hard to argue with that.

--Justin

 

[Praetor]

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.