USS Enterprise to retire

[A beaker full of death]

Sad day.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/1...ier-big-e-makes-final-voyage/?test=latestnews

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

They better re-use the name, and fast. I don't even particularly care what kind of ship. There should always be an Enterprise. When was the last time we didn't have one?

 

[Star Wolf]

1947-1961

USS Enterprise wiki

 

[scotpens]

Considering the Big E was in active service for twice as long as its originally intended 25-year service life, it’s had a pretty good run.

 

[drychlick]

sad what would Capt. Kirk think lol

 

[BDJ]

Wanna watch a great show featuring the Enterprise? History Channel's Battle 360 featured the entire WWII missions of the U.S.S Enterprise. It's rather amazing what the Big E went through in WWII. There was even a period of time that America had only one aircraft carrier at sea...Enterprise. The others had been sunk! If you've not seen the show then you should look it up!

 

[Forbin]

It would be a better name for the new class than (guh) Ford.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Isn't it now the practice to name new aircraft carriers after U.S. presidents? Unless there's a special order given (by Congress?), it might be a very long time before there's another U.S.S. Enterprise.

 

[Mister_Atoz]

For the record, the Big-E you are referring to isn't the one mentioned in the post above, the one featured in Battle 360 was decommissioned in 1947 when this new one was launched.

 

[Mysterion]

For the record, the Big-E you are referring to isn't the one mentioned in the post above, the one featured in Battle 360 was decommissioned in 1947 when this new one was launched.

While CV-6 was indeed out of service in1947, CVN-65 did not enter service until 1961.

 

[TrickyDickie]

I was disappointed in the 70s and early 80s when I had two brothers in the navy and one was posted to the Nimitz and the other to the Eisenhower and neither to Enterprise.

I hate the thought that the ship will be destroyed.

 

[J.T.B.]

There was even a period of time that America had only one aircraft carrier at sea...Enterprise. The others had been sunk!

Actually when the Big-E left for overhaul in the spring of '43, Saratoga was left the lone fleet carrier in the Pacific. The Royal Navy loaned HMS Victorious to fill the gap for a few months until Essex and the new Yorktown and Lexington were ready to enter the fight.

Isn't it now the practice to name new aircraft carriers after U.S. presidents? Unless there's a special order given (by Congress?), it might be a very long time before there's another U.S.S. Enterprise.

The practice for the last 30-plus years is to name them after whatever politician both sides in Congress can agree on (and they don't even have to be dead anymore). The last traditional carrier name to come close for a CVN, "Lexington", ultimately lost out to "George H. W. Bush". The push for CVN-78 to be named "America" did not get as far.

The traditional names had been going to LHDs in the '90s, and with "America" going to the new LHA class I think the best odds would be for "Enterprise" to live on there. It would take a big surge of nostalgia for the name to go a new CVN, and I don't put much faith in Congress's historical appreciation. But anything's possible.



Justin

 

[scotpens]

I hate the thought that the ship will be destroyed.

According to the OP’s linked article, removal of the nuclear fuel will entail cutting large holes in the ship’s hull, making restoration as a floating museum or monument cost-prohibitive.

Still, the Enterprise may come back — as 50,000 Toyotas.

 

[Captain Rob]

The part of the story about scrapping her due to it being too expensive to repair after defueling is BS. That ship's fuelrod assemblies have been removed and replaced several times over the years. That's how you refuel a nuclear carrier. Provision for the process is designed into the ship. Ther Big E needs to go on display at Norfolk, VA next to the Battleship Wisconsin or go to Mare Island, CA where the Battleship Iowa is going. Aside from her name, service record and longevity. She's the first nuclear-powered carrier and should be preserved as an engineering landmark.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Isn't it now the practice to name new aircraft carriers after U.S. presidents? Unless there's a special order given (by Congress?), it might be a very long time before there's another U.S.S. Enterprise.

The practice for the last 30-plus years is to name them after whatever politician both sides in Congress can agree on (and they don't even have to be dead anymore). The last traditional carrier name to come close for a CVN, "Lexington", ultimately lost out to "George H. W. Bush". The push for CVN-78 to be named "America" did not get as far.

The traditional names had been going to LHDs in the '90s, and with "America" going to the new LHA class I think the best odds would be for "Enterprise" to live on there. It would take a big surge of nostalgia for the name to go a new CVN, and I don't put much faith in Congress's historical appreciation. But anything's possible.

I'm more optimistic that there will be another carrier with the name U.S.S. Enterprise, but that it won't be anytime remotely soon (maybe within 15-20 years perhaps).

 

[Balrog]

The practice for the last 30-plus years is to name them after whatever politician both sides in Congress can agree on (and they don't even have to be dead anymore). The last traditional carrier name to come close for a CVN, "Lexington", ultimately lost out to "George H. W. Bush". The push for CVN-78 to be named "America" did not get as far.

The traditional names had been going to LHDs in the '90s, and with "America" going to the new LHA class I think the best odds would be for "Enterprise" to live on there. It would take a big surge of nostalgia for the name to go a new CVN, and I don't put much faith in Congress's historical appreciation. But anything's possible.

Justin

Well, if there is any group that could convince Congress to change their minds about the name "Enterprise", it's Star Trek fans.

 

[scotpens]

The part of the story about scrapping her due to it being too expensive to repair after defueling is BS. That ship's fuelrod assemblies have been removed and replaced several times over the years.

I was wondering about that myself. Actually it’s the eight nuclear reactors that must be removed, I assume because of the radiation hazard.

Link

 

[J.T.B.]

The part of the story about scrapping her due to it being too expensive to repair after defueling is BS. That ship's fuelrod assemblies have been removed and replaced several times over the years. That's how you refuel a nuclear carrier. Provision for the process is designed into the ship.

Refueling CVN-65 has always been a lot more expensive than for the Nimitz class. Vertical shafts have to be cut through every deck down to each of the eight reactors and then repaired. Worth the expense if you get another 15 years of carrier service, not so much for a museum ship. It would be nice, yes, but realistically with budgets how they are I don't see it happening.

I'm more optimistic that there will be another carrier with the name U.S.S. Enterprise, but that it won't be anytime remotely soon (maybe within 15-20 years perhaps).

Well LHAs are carriers, just not big fast nuclear supercarriers.



Justin

 

[C.E. Evans]

I'm more optimistic that there will be another carrier with the name U.S.S. Enterprise, but that it won't be anytime remotely soon (maybe within 15-20 years perhaps).

Well LHAs are carriers, just not big fast nuclear supercarriers.

I think you understood that I was talking about a carrier like CVN-65.

 

[J.T.B.]

I think you understood that I was talking about a carrier like CVN-65.

Sorry I should have expanded a little. I only meant that a $3 billion LHA or LHD Enterprise in the near term might be a better goal for the name than holding out for a $15 billion CVN.


Justin