3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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.