Topic: USS Enterprise Retires

[EschelonOfJudgemnt]

http://myfox8.com/2012/11/04/uss-enterprise-to-sail-off-to-historys-scrap-heap-after-homecoming/


The U.S. Navy may want to update their website...

http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/enterprise/Documents/Enterprise/public_relations.html

Should you wish to sign the petition to reassign the Enterprise name to CVN 80...

http://ussenterp.epetitions.net/signatures.php?petition_id=1870

[Lieutenant_Q]

So... they're not putting her in a ready-reserve squadron?  That's usually SOP for decommissioning a ship.  I wonder why they're skipping that phase...

[knightstorm]

So... they're not putting her in a ready-reserve squadron?  That's usually SOP for decommissioning a ship.  I wonder why they're skipping that phase...

Possibly the crew requirements would make it difficult to put back into service quickly if needed?  Also, I think its also standard procedure to put the ship on donation hold since its the first ship of its type.

[Kreeargh]

So... they're not putting her in a ready-reserve squadron?  That's usually SOP for decommissioning a ship.  I wonder why they're skipping that phase...

Old nuke powerplant.  If it could be saved the public should prove it could be a powerplant for public good. Dont destroy it save it and use it as a powerplant and save the history.

RIP CVN65      

[EschelonOfJudgemnt]

So... they're not putting her in a ready-reserve squadron?  That's usually SOP for decommissioning a ship.  I wonder why they're skipping that phase...

Old nuke powerplant.  If it could be saved the public should prove it could be a powerplant for public good. Dont destroy it save it and use it as a powerplant and save the history.

RIP CVN65   

As a power station, at least it'd probably weather a tsunami better than the Fukishima plant did...

It is unfortunate that they have to gut the ship just to get at the power plant.  Also, I'm sure that after around 50 years or so of wear and tear and fatigue, and with new concepts being introduced into the current carrier designs, it's probably more cost effective to put the girl to rest.  It does raise the point that someone might want to look at making the current designs more modular, so that the power plant could be more easily replaced when the time comes.  I'd think that by now they would have worked out the CVN design sufficiently.

[knightstorm]

CV-6 was the Enterprise that should have been saved.  It would have been really cool to walk on a carrier with a wooden flight deck.

[Age]

I read that it was going to happen in 2014 not now and it would of been nice to send her back to Oakland Cal.It is one of the most famous Carriers. around as for Star Trek and TopGun.I was hoping some time of visiting it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%28CVN-65%29

I hope there is another plan to have Carrier with the big E on it.

[Lieutenant_Q]

I had sent a message to my congressman shortly after reading the above article.  Asking him to stop, not the decommissioning of the ship, but the dismantlement of it.  The thought was that we could use the Enterprise and her reactors as an auxiliary power source for the regional power grid in the case of an overstressed grid, in addition to maintaining her as a tourist attraction.  I just got a letter back from him today stating that while he appreciates the input, he has no authority (even though he is on the House Oversight Committee) to override the Navy on this decision.

And I do understand the need to completely dismantle the ship to get the reactors out, the Enterprise herself was a test bed for the feasibility of using Nuclear Reactors on a Naval Ship.  I'm sure that the subsequent Nimitz and Ford class carriers would have an easier time getting the reactors out.

Looks like Congress can't save her, someone could still approach the Navy to save her, but they'd have to have a lot of cash in hand to do so.

[knightstorm]

And I do understand the need to completely dismantle the ship to get the reactors out, the Enterprise herself was a test bed for the feasibility of using Nuclear Reactors on a Naval Ship.  I'm sure that the subsequent Nimitz and Ford class carriers would have an easier time getting the reactors out.

Actually, the Enterprise wasn't the first nuclear powered ship in the USN, that honor goes to the Nautilus.  I don't see how the Nimitz and Ford class carriers could really be more modular, but they do have fewer reactors, so I guess its possible to remove them without messing up the ship as much.

[Czar Mohab]

And I do understand the need to completely dismantle the ship to get the reactors out, the Enterprise herself was a test bed for the feasibility of using Nuclear Reactors on a Naval Ship.  I'm sure that the subsequent Nimitz and Ford class carriers would have an easier time getting the reactors out.

Actually, the Enterprise wasn't the first nuclear powered ship in the USN, that honor goes to the Nautilus.  I don't see how the Nimitz and Ford class carriers could really be more modular, but they do have fewer reactors, so I guess its possible to remove them without messing up the ship as much.

You're both correct. With the success of Nautilus Navy brass wanted to see what might happen with a nuclear surface ship. Nautilus paved the way for awesome vessels like (and in no particular order) Triton, Seawolf, Seawolf (yes, there were two nuke powered boats), Los Angeles, Pittsburg, Ohio, Michigan, Jimmy Carter, Parche, Thresher, Scorpion, Virginia, NR-1 and Enterprise.

Enterprise paved the way for overly expensive and generally design failure vessels  - there were several nuclear cruisers, destroyers and frigates... Not so much any more - and a handful of expensive and moderately successful targets (sorry - its the submariner in me) vessels. Enterprise was the 6 Million Dollar Man of carriers, everything else was shorter, slower, weaker, etc.

USS ENTERPRISE - the Navy's eighth ship to bear the name - was the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. During her more than 50 years of service she has set many records and milestones including steaming with a speed of more than 40 knots during her sea trials after construction. Later, she became the first nuclear carrier to transit the Suez Canal and the first carrier to operate the F-14 fighter aircraft. Additionally, the ENTERPRISE is still the longest warship ever put to sea

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about nuclear powered anything. However, I do agree with them-who-said-it-first: Keep it underwater.

[EschelonOfJudgemnt]

My thoughts on making the CVN design more 'modular' is along the lines of designing it so that the deck sections immediately above the reactor rooms are removable, essentially allowing you to unbolt them and lift them out, clearing the way to lift the reactors out after the upper decks are removed.  This would be a cleaner approach than simply cutting your way down (or sideways or up) to the reactor rooms.  Of course, after 50 years of low level radiation saturating the walls surrounding the reactors, the residual radiation might have climbed to a point where they are noticeably radioactive themselves.  If this were the case, you might not want crew working in these areas, and have the residual radiation climb even higher from low level exposure to the new reactors as well.

I did not know that the Enterprise was the longest ship ever built.  Thanks for that cool little factoid guys!

As for someone purchasing her for a museum or whatever, that'd be cool, but I'd guess the sections near the reactor rooms would be blocked off, so as to not expose visitors to the residual radiation in those areas.  Perhaps also the same for certain weapons storage lockers, depending on how 'leaky' those special munitions were...

I remember visiting the retired U.S.S. Hornet in Alameda, CA.  Most of the ship was blocked off to visitors.
www.uss-hornet.org

[Age]

I don't think it is the longest ship ever built and don't forget about the Longbeach CGN9 as it goes as far back as the Enterprise.

I guess you did your best Lt Q it would be nice to see it but I guess that is out of the picture although it is the best Carrier in the fleet.

[Lieutenant_Q]

At her decommissioning ceremony, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus announced that CVN-80 will be the ninth ship to bear the name Enterprise.

http://www.navy.mil/viewVideo.asp?id=17852

[Czar Mohab]

"Should she go one year longer, I would tell you there's every likelyhood, based on where we are in bringing lasers to sea, she'd be using laser technology; she'd be employing lasers. By crikey, the Enterprise would be shooting photon torpedoes. That's possible. You never know, its possible." - CNO describing possible future modifications to CVN-65 at Enterprise's inactivation ceremony, 01 Dec 12.

http://www.navy.mil/viewVideo.asp?id=17855
59ish minutes in is the photon torpedo speech.

[Age]

At her decommissioning ceremony, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus announced that CVN-80 will be the ninth ship to bear the name Enterprise.

http://www.navy.mil/viewVideo.asp?id=17852

That is if they can afford to make a new nuke carrier if the congress/senate and the White House want the deficit to come down.