7 ms·

Farewell, USS Enterprise (the aircraft carrier)

30 points by dctoedt 14y ago

zrail 14y ago
They're scrapping it?! That's a damn shame.
- UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
  With respect I disagree. While I understand entirely why the Enterprise as is was originally commissioned (dick waving with the USSR) the kind of missions the US Navy performs today require more flexibility and less brute force. Now the Enterprise's speed is, even today, still damn competitive. But to get her ready to sail with her crew complement, supplies, and other logistical issues would likely mean she couldn't be used as part of a fast reactionary force. She would be wonderful at long drawn out conflicts but how many of those does the US intend to take part in in the next fifty years? Any?
  - trothamel 14y ago
    "When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident that the first question that comes to everyone's lips is: 'Where's the nearest carrier?'" - Bill Clinton From what I understand, the modern concept of carrier operations is to always have a carrier near potential trouble spots, so that you don't haveto get her ready to sail - she's already at sea, close enough to make a difference.
  - Ogre 14y ago
    I don't think he was saying it's a shame it's being decommissioned, rather that it was a shame it's being scrapped. But the other poster's link does a good job explaining why it can't be turned into a museum or something after the reactors are removed.
  - masklinn 14y ago
    > While I understand entirely why the Enterprise as is was originally commissioned (dick waving with the USSR) the kind of missions the US Navy performs today require more flexibility and less brute force. Meh. It's not like the Navy is decommissioning the Nimitz-class or scaling back the Gerald Ford class. The Enterprise is at life's end (it was originally planned for scrapping ~2015), and it's a pain as it's the only ship of its class.
- mmariani 14y ago
  They're doing it because by removing the reactors the ship will be essentially destroyed. More details on the process. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/01/us/enterprise-scrap/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/01/us/enterprise-scrap/index....
  - zrail 14y ago
    Thanks for that link. It didn't occur to me that the reactors would have to be ripped out through the flight deck. Still, I would have loved to have toured her as a museum ship.
kmfrk 14y ago
Disengage. :(
guylhem 14y ago
That feels so wrong. It is still floating and could be useful. Destructing it is just destruction for the sake of it. Why not at least sell it to a friendly country, who could use such power to defend itself from neighbouring enemies? I'm sure Israel or Japan would welcome the gift - they sure could supply their own planes and weapons. It's a real shame to destroy so much investment - especially since, as noted in the article, its speed is still competitive.
- kylec 14y ago
  Or it could be used for seasteading. Who wouldn't want to live on board The Enterprise?
  - masklinn 14y ago
    Right, a nuclear-powered 50 years old seasteading frame...
  - bergie 14y ago
    Wasn't that more or less what they did in Snow Crash?
- masklinn 14y ago
  > That feels so wrong. It is still floating and could be useful. It's also an extremely old ship, maintaining it can't be cheap. > Why not at least sell it to a friendly country, who could use such power to defend itself from neighbouring enemies? A carrier is a force projection tool, it's for attacking stuff (or make clear that you can attack stuff), to defend a country an airbase is cheaper, simpler and more versatile. > I'm sure Israel or Japan would welcome the gift - they sure could supply their own planes and weapons. And fuel supply and crew and maintenance? For a unique ship? No other country on earth comes close to having an Enterprise-class carrier (let alone Nimitz-class), I'm really not sure they'd have any use for it. Not to mention a carrier on its own is basically dead (or a floating museum), you need a carrier group around it which costs the same as the carrier itself. Also Japan is definitely out, they are not allowed to get weaponry for any other purpose than defense (Article 9 of the 1947 Constitution), and as noted above an aircraft carriers is anything but a defensive platform. > It's a real shame to destroy so much investment You do realize the Enterprise has been in active use for more than 50 years right? It's the very first nuclear-powered carrier in human history, and the one and only ship of its class (so replacement parts have to be custom-built, where there are 10 bigger, better, more modern Nimitz-class carriers)
showerst 14y ago
Hopefully they bring back the name for the 3rd Gerald Ford class carrier (CVN-80). It's scheduled for service in 2025 so presumably they'll name it in the next 5-7 years.
- trothamel 14y ago
  They announced today that CVN-80 will be the next USS Enterprise.
trothamel 14y ago
A livestream of the inactivation ceremony is here: http://www.livestream.com/usnavy http://www.livestream.com/usnavy
buster 14y ago
I must say i don't understand why so many people here are so sad that a weapon is destroyed. In my book that's fucking great! I'm even somewhat disgusted. But when i read the title i was sad as well... until i came across "The aircraft carrier".
- antidoh 14y ago
  I agree entirely with the idea of rejoicing at a weapon destroyed. However, something like this represents world history, as well as personal history. Life is more complex and nuanced than "weapons bad," because we live in that world as it is. I served on the Enterprise in the late seventies, and while I can't say I'm sad, I'm definitely experiencing a nostalgic episode. (I never went to sea on the Enterprise, overhaul in the shipyard only, so I can't tell you anything more interesting than how to lay tile on a metal deck or how to use a needle gun to strip paint.)
  - buster 14y ago
    That would explain it for you, but i doubt all those commenters are your ex colleagues ;) I'm aware that life is complex. But comments like "hey, let's give it to Israel they can re-arm it and have a nice weapon there" make me sick, sorry.
    - antidoh 14y ago
      You don't have to have been somewhere to have nostalgia for it and its associations. Edit: I agree, better not to give it to anyone.
      - buster 14y ago
        Ah well, they should put it in a museum i guess, not scraping it. edit: Or make a museum out of it, with the size of the ship :P edit2: I see, and according to another link, the ship basically will be destroyed by removing the reactor, so there is no way around it...
- Roybatty 14y ago
Hoff 14y ago
A comparison of carriers in various fleets; the sizes, numbers, and countries: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm scroll down for the image.
Millennium 14y ago
Honestly, I'd repurpose it for use in coastal disaster relief. The reactors and desalination facilities could provide emergency power and water, and if it were set up to carry helicopters instead of airplanes it could serve as a base of rescue operations.
- philwelch 14y ago
  The Navy has maybe half a dozen ships that are specialized for that role already.
harshaw 14y ago
My father served on the Enterprise in the 60's as part of the around the world tour. At that time the island was completely different as well as the air wing complement. We have this giant photo in our house of the old square island and an A-5 vigilante taking off. It's amazing to consider the the Enterprise has been reworked and refitted so many times over a long career.
dctoedt 14y ago
At the inactivation ceremony a couple hours ago, the Secretary of the Navy announced (via video) that the next nuclear carrier after the Gerald R. Ford will be named Enterprise. Cheers went up. (I was a nuclear-engineering officer on this Enterprise.)

30 points by dctoedt 14y ago

zrail 14y ago

They're scrapping it?! That's a damn shame.

UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
With respect I disagree. While I understand entirely why the Enterprise as is was originally commissioned (dick waving with the USSR) the kind of missions the US Navy performs today require more flexibility and less brute force. Now the Enterprise's speed is, even today, still damn competitive. But to get her ready to sail with her crew complement, supplies, and other logistical issues would likely mean she couldn't be used as part of a fast reactionary force. She would be wonderful at long drawn out conflicts but how many of those does the US intend to take part in in the next fifty years? Any?
- trothamel 14y ago
  "When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident that the first question that comes to everyone's lips is: 'Where's the nearest carrier?'" - Bill Clinton From what I understand, the modern concept of carrier operations is to always have a carrier near potential trouble spots, so that you don't haveto get her ready to sail - she's already at sea, close enough to make a difference.
- Ogre 14y ago
  I don't think he was saying it's a shame it's being decommissioned, rather that it was a shame it's being scrapped. But the other poster's link does a good job explaining why it can't be turned into a museum or something after the reactors are removed.
- masklinn 14y ago
  > While I understand entirely why the Enterprise as is was originally commissioned (dick waving with the USSR) the kind of missions the US Navy performs today require more flexibility and less brute force. Meh. It's not like the Navy is decommissioning the Nimitz-class or scaling back the Gerald Ford class. The Enterprise is at life's end (it was originally planned for scrapping ~2015), and it's a pain as it's the only ship of its class.
mmariani 14y ago
They're doing it because by removing the reactors the ship will be essentially destroyed. More details on the process. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/01/us/enterprise-scrap/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/01/us/enterprise-scrap/index....
- zrail 14y ago
  Thanks for that link. It didn't occur to me that the reactors would have to be ripped out through the flight deck. Still, I would have loved to have toured her as a museum ship.

kmfrk 14y ago

Disengage. :(

guylhem 14y ago

That feels so wrong. It is still floating and could be useful. Destructing it is just destruction for the sake of it. Why not at least sell it to a friendly country, who could use such power to defend itself from neighbouring enemies? I'm sure Israel or Japan would welcome the gift - they sure could supply their own planes and weapons. It's a real shame to destroy so much investment - especially since, as noted in the article, its speed is still competitive.

kylec 14y ago
Or it could be used for seasteading. Who wouldn't want to live on board The Enterprise?
- masklinn 14y ago
  Right, a nuclear-powered 50 years old seasteading frame...
- bergie 14y ago
  Wasn't that more or less what they did in Snow Crash?
masklinn 14y ago
> That feels so wrong. It is still floating and could be useful. It's also an extremely old ship, maintaining it can't be cheap. > Why not at least sell it to a friendly country, who could use such power to defend itself from neighbouring enemies? A carrier is a force projection tool, it's for attacking stuff (or make clear that you can attack stuff), to defend a country an airbase is cheaper, simpler and more versatile. > I'm sure Israel or Japan would welcome the gift - they sure could supply their own planes and weapons. And fuel supply and crew and maintenance? For a unique ship? No other country on earth comes close to having an Enterprise-class carrier (let alone Nimitz-class), I'm really not sure they'd have any use for it. Not to mention a carrier on its own is basically dead (or a floating museum), you need a carrier group around it which costs the same as the carrier itself. Also Japan is definitely out, they are not allowed to get weaponry for any other purpose than defense (Article 9 of the 1947 Constitution), and as noted above an aircraft carriers is anything but a defensive platform. > It's a real shame to destroy so much investment You do realize the Enterprise has been in active use for more than 50 years right? It's the very first nuclear-powered carrier in human history, and the one and only ship of its class (so replacement parts have to be custom-built, where there are 10 bigger, better, more modern Nimitz-class carriers)

showerst 14y ago

Hopefully they bring back the name for the 3rd Gerald Ford class carrier (CVN-80). It's scheduled for service in 2025 so presumably they'll name it in the next 5-7 years.

trothamel 14y ago
They announced today that CVN-80 will be the next USS Enterprise.

trothamel 14y ago

A livestream of the inactivation ceremony is here: http://www.livestream.com/usnavy http://www.livestream.com/usnavy

buster 14y ago

I must say i don't understand why so many people here are so sad that a weapon is destroyed. In my book that's fucking great! I'm even somewhat disgusted. But when i read the title i was sad as well... until i came across "The aircraft carrier".

antidoh 14y ago
I agree entirely with the idea of rejoicing at a weapon destroyed. However, something like this represents world history, as well as personal history. Life is more complex and nuanced than "weapons bad," because we live in that world as it is. I served on the Enterprise in the late seventies, and while I can't say I'm sad, I'm definitely experiencing a nostalgic episode. (I never went to sea on the Enterprise, overhaul in the shipyard only, so I can't tell you anything more interesting than how to lay tile on a metal deck or how to use a needle gun to strip paint.)
- buster 14y ago
  That would explain it for you, but i doubt all those commenters are your ex colleagues ;) I'm aware that life is complex. But comments like "hey, let's give it to Israel they can re-arm it and have a nice weapon there" make me sick, sorry.
  - antidoh 14y ago
    You don't have to have been somewhere to have nostalgia for it and its associations. Edit: I agree, better not to give it to anyone.
    - buster 14y ago
      Ah well, they should put it in a museum i guess, not scraping it. edit: Or make a museum out of it, with the size of the ship :P edit2: I see, and according to another link, the ship basically will be destroyed by removing the reactor, so there is no way around it...
Roybatty 14y ago

Hoff 14y ago

A comparison of carriers in various fleets; the sizes, numbers, and countries: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm scroll down for the image.

Millennium 14y ago

Honestly, I'd repurpose it for use in coastal disaster relief. The reactors and desalination facilities could provide emergency power and water, and if it were set up to carry helicopters instead of airplanes it could serve as a base of rescue operations.

philwelch 14y ago
The Navy has maybe half a dozen ships that are specialized for that role already.

harshaw 14y ago

My father served on the Enterprise in the 60's as part of the around the world tour. At that time the island was completely different as well as the air wing complement. We have this giant photo in our house of the old square island and an A-5 vigilante taking off. It's amazing to consider the the Enterprise has been reworked and refitted so many times over a long career.

dctoedt 14y ago

At the inactivation ceremony a couple hours ago, the Secretary of the Navy announced (via video) that the next nuclear carrier after the Gerald R. Ford will be named Enterprise. Cheers went up. (I was a nuclear-engineering officer on this Enterprise.)