USS Enterprise to retire

[Timo]

...Yet look at the Littoral Combat Ship protos for a scary example of what might warrant an "important" name today.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[plynch]

Ironically, Ford was one of our most athletic presidents. Played center for Michigan, was recruited by Packers and Lions, but went Navy instead.

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.

Historians believe he pardoned Nixon from good motives, though cynical citizens (rightfully so) smelled a rat.

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 . . .

We're in agreement. I meant citizens were justified to smell rat after Vietnam and Wategate. I would have, except I was eight and too busy watching Star Trek in black and white on Detroit's channel 50 at six pm.

Ford is one of my favorite Presidents. He stood up for a black teammate at Michigan when the coach was going to sit him when Georgia Tech came to play (they wouldn't play a team with a black man on it.) Ford actually quit, but his friend urged hm to play, and they were lifelong friends after it. A very decent man. Plus he's from Michigan, and did guide duty on Mackinac as a scout, which both my sons have done. I digress, eh? Anyway, he's someone we're proud of in the Great Lakes State.

 

[SchwEnt]

Aside from his football and athletic and presidential accomplishments, Ford served well aboard a carrier in WWII. I'd think that had a lot do with his carrier namesake. Somewhat more fitting that at least he served aboard a carrier.

And as we move along deeper into the 21st century, it'd be nice if the next vessel to bear the proud name "Enterprise" be a spacefaring craft rather than yet another carrier.
Not that there's anything wrong with another carrier Enterprise, but I'm just saying.

 

[scotpens]

...Yet look at the Littoral Combat Ship protos for a scary example of what might warrant an "important" name today.

Do you mean ugly-scary or badass-scary? Some of those LCS designs look pretty cool.

 

[Timo]

Mainly "stooping to a new low" scary, I think. It will be quite a while before the Navy will start considering these midgets its capital assets, or even start valuing them over the bluewater destroyers.

Although admittedly the carriers were considered a step down from fleet oilers when they were first introduced - and the first big ones only got "proud" names because they were battle cruiser conversions. The first USN flattop with a true heritage name would appear to be the Yorktown; the name Ranger was mostly assigned to vessels of lesser import before CV-4 got it. Many of the carrier names got "big" thanks to the exploits of the carriers themselves...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[J.T.B.]

Mainly "stooping to a new low" scary, I think. It will be quite a while before the Navy will start considering these midgets its capital assets, or even start valuing them over the bluewater destroyers.

Or maybe just over-schedule, over-budget and under-performing scary.

Although admittedly the carriers were considered a step down from fleet oilers when they were first introduced - and the first big ones only got "proud" names because they were battle cruiser conversions. The first USN flattop with a true heritage name would appear to be the Yorktown; the name Ranger was mostly assigned to vessels of lesser import before CV-4 got it. Many of the carrier names got "big" thanks to the exploits of the carriers themselves...

I guess I'll have to disagree. The early carriers, though experimental, were definitely not considered a step down. Langley's first commodore, Joseph M. Reeves, was considered an up-and-comer who had commanded a battleship in WW1 and would reach the top post of CinC US Fleet. Two of the navy's four five-star admirals were early carrier captains.

As far as names, the namesakes of the early carrier classes may not have been "big" in size or importance, but they had some of the biggest fighting accomplishments the USN had up to that time. Indeed, Yorktown is probably the only one that wouldn't have been well-known in her day.

Lexington under naval founding father John Barry had a rather daring cruise and captured a RN sloop in 1776.

Saratoga was flagship of victorious Como. MacDonough in the Battle of Lake Champlain.

Ranger under Revolutionary War hero John Paul Jones made one of the Continental Navy's first victories over a warship.

Enterprise won the first ship-to-ship battle of the Barbary Campaign.

Hornet had a significant victory over HM sloop Penguin in the War of 1812.

Wasp had some daring exploits in the Revolution, and the next one lost a brave fight in the War of 1812.

Essex had a legendary cruise in the Pacific during the War of 1812.

And so on.



Justin

 

[scotpens]

. . . Although admittedly the carriers were considered a step down from fleet oilers when they were first introduced - and the first big ones only got "proud" names because they were battle cruiser conversions.

Air power at sea? It’s just a fad. Real naval battles are fought with big ships firing big guns at each other!

 

[MANT!]

However those aeroplanes could do a great job of target spotting for the dreadnoughts!

 

[Timo]

I stand corrected on the relative reputation of the early carrier namesakes. Thank you!

It's an interesting development nevertheless that quite a few of these "big" names went to "motor yachts" and "gunboats" at the turn of the century, before reaching the carriers - now that should be considered a step down. (Or was the mere presence of a modern powerplant aboard a source of great prestige, even for small vessels?)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[J.T.B.]

Air power at sea? It’s just a fad. Real naval battles are fought with big ships firing big guns at each other!

There were certainly some who thought that way, but institutional resistance to naval air in the inter-war years has been somewhat exaggerated. As carriers were integrated into the annual fleet exercises in the '30s, all but the most closed-minded admirals realized that the navy couldn't afford to ignore air power. Aviation became a way to "go places" in the navy and was represented at the highest levels. By the time it entered WW2, the USN had the most thoroughly integrated and stable air force of any navy in the world.

I stand corrected on the relative reputation of the early carrier namesakes. Thank you!

Don't mention it.

It's an interesting development nevertheless that quite a few of these "big" names went to "motor yachts" and "gunboats" at the turn of the century, before reaching the carriers - now that should be considered a step down. (Or was the mere presence of a modern powerplant aboard a source of great prestige, even for small vessels?)

I think it was more a result of implementing a regulated name system (states, rivers, cities) for major warships in the 1800s. The old names, proud though they were, were just sort of odds and ends that didn't fit the scheme.



Justin

 

[newtontomato539]

I remember watching The Voyage Home.

I later found out the Enterprise was on a mission at the time.

Doesn't change the tug on my heart when I see that scene.

 

[Captain Rob]

You can always watch "Top Gun".

 

[USS KG5]

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.

Indeed - I suspect that the US could fulfil most of its international commitments with fewer than 11 Carrier groups, and as the older Nimitz class ships come up for retirement, replacing two old carriers with one new one might be an option.

Also, smaller cheaper carriers could be considered. The issue would be the minimum necessary size to launch and recover the F-18 and F-35 (I suspect shorter than the current carriers) and the size of air wing needed.

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.

I suspect if things get hot with Iran the Iranians will make exactly this calculation, put a couple of fish in a carrier or catch it in a minefield and create a disproportionate effect on US military assets in the area.

 

[USS KG5]

There were certainly some who thought that way, but institutional resistance to naval air in the inter-war years has been somewhat exaggerated. As carriers were integrated into the annual fleet exercises in the '30s, all but the most closed-minded admirals realized that the navy couldn't afford to ignore air power. Aviation became a way to "go places" in the navy and was represented at the highest levels. By the time it entered WW2, the USN had the most thoroughly integrated and stable air force of any navy in the world.

Highly ironically as the inventors of the carrier, it seems the British attitude to Naval aviation was the most backward. Where the USN and Japan started WW2 with aircraft designs that would still be in service in large numbers at the end, the RN had, to put it mildly, a load of crap. The honourable exception of course being the Fairey Swordfish. I can't help but conclude though had Bismarck faced the air group of a USN carrier that the battleship engagement that sunk her would have been unnecessary.

The way the RN spent its carriers at the start of WW2 was also shocking, putting them at the centre of "hunting groups" and in the line of fire of clever and effective U-boat commanders. This cost HMS Courageous. Then HMS Glorious was lost off Norway when her Captain decided for spurious reasons to leave the large slow fleet she was with.

In hindisight of course, if when the RAF was formed it had taken only part of the RNAS and most of the RFC, while maintaining a strong Fleet Air Arm, then things could have been different. Sadly though it seems unlikely that the Navy would have foreseen aircraft like the Fulmar having to engage such formidable fighters as the Bf-109.

 

[Captain Rob]

"Also, smaller cheaper carriers could be considered. The issue would be the minimum necessary size to launch and recover the F-18 and F-35 (I suspect shorter than the current carriers) and the size of air wing needed"

As any aircraft video of jets landing on a carrier will show. The Enterprise and her Nimitz-class sisters are really big ships but damned teeny tiny airports. Watch the miniseries "Carrier". It's on Netflix. A filmcrew went on deployment onboard Nimitz to the Persian Gulf. It's amazing how something as huge as Nimitz can seem so cramped and small.
We do have helicopter carriers that will handle the F-35C VSTOL in the future. and that's what the Royal Navy is going for with it's new Queen Elizabeth carriers under construction.

 

[USS KG5]

We do have helicopter carriers that will handle the F-35C VSTOL in the future. and that's what the Royal Navy is going for with it's new Queen Elizabeth carriers under construction.

I believe the VSTOL version is the F-35B with the fan, the F-35C being the carrier version with catapult fittings and bigger wings. Originally this was the version the RN was going to get, but now our government in it's infinite wisdom has decided to go for the F-35C and cats and traps on the single QE carrier to enter service. Except having found out this could cost 700 million pounds, they are also re-thinking this.

Of course, as we all know, if it had been possible to completely cancel the new RN carriers, they would have been cancelled!

We do have other priorities here in the UK, but it is sad to see the military slashed quite so bad.

 

[Knight Templar]

U.S. carriers have been operating reduced sized airwings for years.

 

[scotpens]

. . . Watch the miniseries "Carrier". It's on Netflix. A filmcrew went on deployment onboard Nimitz to the Persian Gulf. It's amazing how something as huge as Nimitz can seem so cramped and small.

It all depends whether you’re standing on the flight deck or trying to land on it! Don’t carrier pilots say that every landing is essentially a controlled crash?

 

[Knight Templar]

. . . Watch the miniseries "Carrier". It's on Netflix. A filmcrew went on deployment onboard Nimitz to the Persian Gulf. It's amazing how something as huge as Nimitz can seem so cramped and small.

It all depends whether you’re standing on the flight deck or trying to land on it! Don’t carrier pilots say that every landing is essentially a controlled crash?

Very true given that carrier landings are all no flare (no leveling off prior to main gear touchdown).

 

[Captain Rob]

I remember back in high school in 1982 I took aviation studies. We had a Navy recruiter come in and show us films (really films) of carrier aircraft operations including drop tests of F-14 aircraft to demonstrate their toughness. It bounced like a pogo stick. He used the phrase "controlled crash" as well. After the guy left everyone asked when the Air Force guy was coming.
I had a cousin of a cousin (never met him) that served on Enterprise back in the 60's. My cousin got from him, a very nice framed large photo of the Enterprise circa early 60's. That picture currently hangs right above my computer monitor.