Antonov Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 End of an era: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/uss-enterprise-sailing-home-final-voyage#overlay-context=article/nhl-labor-talks-resume-after-more-2-weeks Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HOLMES Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) BLIMEY! Going strong since 1962.she must be tired and in need a well earned and deserved rest. Interesting article about her. Edited November 5, 2012 by HOLMES Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rightwinger26 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) I did an at-sea period for CQ's last December, she is undoubtedly tired Edited November 5, 2012 by rightwinger26 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ScotVA36 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 My father was a "Plank Owner" on her, sadly she out lived him. Deployed on 5 carriers in my career but never her,been aboard her though. Scott Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IrishGreek Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I was a contractor of ComNavAirLant back in the early 90s. Got to board her a few times. Was a thrill. She is an institution in the US Navy, the ship, the name, the people. Hopefully the USN will name another carrier Enterprise soon. Thank you Enterprise and her crews for all your service. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Hopefully the USN will name another carrier Enterprise soon. Nope, only useless politicians get CVN's named after them these days. Sad to see her go but it sounds like it was long over due. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jimz66 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Nope, only useless politicians get CVN's named after them these days. Sad to see her go but it sounds like it was long over due. Thats a despicable comment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Pete Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Oh wow, it only took five posts to get the thread go political, well done! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
VA-115EFR Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Being an east coast ship, why send her all the way to the west coast to be scrapped? Sad she has to be dismantled. She's the one that needs to be saved! Just my opinion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EX_Birdgunner Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 To paraphrase Star Trek, "There will always be an Enterprise!" I am pretty sure the USN will name another one. Rumours are that CVN-81 will be another Enterprise. What I am hoping is that CVN-65 does not follow the same fate as CV-6 and is made a museum ship. Being the first nuclear carrier and her long operational history deserves it to say the least. Denis Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IrishGreek Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 To paraphrase Star Trek, "There will always be an Enterprise!" I am pretty sure the USN will name another one. Rumours are that CVN-81 will be another Enterprise. What I am hoping is that CVN-65 does not follow the same fate as CV-6 and is made a museum ship. Being the first nuclear carrier and her long operational history deserves it to say the least. Denis Yea, would be nice, but I have read elsewhere a little while back that the work required to remove the reactors is so involved that saving her would be extremely expensive. Not sure it is even really feasible. BTW, I am NOT an expert, just repeating what I have heard before. John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Pete Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 The reason why it will be scrapped is because it is built around its reactors. They can't be removed without tearing the ship up. Oddly enough, preservation wasn't considered when they designed it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Les / Creative Edge Photo Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) The reason why it will be scrapped is because it is built around its reactors. They can't be removed without tearing the ship up. Oddly enough, preservation wasn't considered when they designed it. I'm no nuclear reactor expert but why do the reactors need to be removed. With proper course and time for reactor cool down could they not just remove the fuel rods. Once done they could block off any areas that could remain an issue and then keep the rest of the ship open as a floating museum. I mean if they cut the ship up they still have to safely cool down the reactors and remove fuel rods anyways so would not carving her up be possibly even more tricky than just sealing off any areas that could prove an issue and still use her as a floating museum? This all said and again I'm not nuclear expert but IMO the level of ignorance towards the use of nuclear power by the general society including many said to be experts (NOT!) is pathetic and sickening. Edited November 5, 2012 by Les / Creative Edge Photo Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Thats a despicable comment. Why? I happen to think that carriers should be named after something or someone other than politicians (the vast majority of whom, I have no use for). I guess I'm just old-school and would rather see the next CVN be named Enterprise or after one of the famous WW2 carriers or at absolute minimum, for an admiral who took a ship into harms way. If you feel otherwise, that's fine. Go petition your local politician to have the next carrier named after your favorite politician. I could care less. Relax Pete. You obviously missed the point of my post. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I'm no nuclear reactor expert but why do the reactors need to be removed. With proper course and time for reactor cool down could they not just remove the fuel rods. Once done they could block off any areas that could remain an issue and then keep the rest of the ship open as a floating museum. I mean if they cut the ship up they still have to safely cool down the reactors and remove fuel rods anyways so would not carving her up be possibly even more tricky than just sealing off any areas that could prove an issue and still use her as a floating museum? This all said and again I'm not nuclear expert but IMO the level of ignorance towards the use of nuclear power by the general society including many said to be experts (NOT!) is pathetic and sickening. Low level radiation doesn't go away. Way too costly and complex of an issue trying to decontaminate and remove any rad waste. You can't leave it in place and as was pointed out above, it's just too involved to remove everything. The stuff stays hot for decades and even if you sealed off the areas, what happens if there is an accident 20 years down the road and the ship sinks at pier side? It's much easier to pull the reactor out of subs, which why the Nautilus and (I believe) some other SSN's are preserved. Not sure we'll ever see a CVN as a museum piece, which is sad. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tdogg Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Sad to see her go, especially considering I've only seen her in pics. would be nice to see her saved as a museum but I can understand why she won't. As for the politics thing(speaking as an outsider) I do agree that carriers could and should be named after military figures not presidents but that has become more of a tradition lately so I'd venture and say that won't change anytime soon though another Enterprise should be launched...it's a tradition too. On a side note I'd love to see another Canadian carrier but we all know that won't ever happen!! RIP Enterprise!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jinxter13 Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 I agree with others who think there should always be a carrier/capital ship with the name of Enterprise in the US fleet. To end or lose that legacy would be a travesty of disastrous proportions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ruud Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 She served well and long. Here's hoping that there will be a USS Enterprise in the near future (and a few more of the classic USN names too). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.