USS Enterprise (CVN-65) 50 years old today

[foghorn67]

Enterprise isn't Nimitz class.
Different Hull, different reactors, different everything.
there is a 100 ft difference in length as well.
Basic knowledge. I knew this when I was 10.

 

[foghorn67]

I'm fairly sure the Big E is the only one with 4 separate independent nuclear reactors.

8. Nimitz has 2.

 

[ElFenix]

i wonder if that makes it the oldest thing in the inventory that is still in fighting shape? the B-52H is the only model left flying and those were produced starting in FY61. not sure when the US FY is, but that could put the oldest ones at 50 years old if the FY starts early. KC-135 production started in 1954, and many of those may have been re-engined into R types, so they could be older than 50 years.

:hmm:

 

[duragezic]

Why did the government / military waste our $662 Million for only 2-4 more years of service ? ? Certainly, if the decom date is firm, the ship could have been kept going for a lot less money.

It does seem very high but I've always heard these things take a lot of money on maintenance, much more than a conventional design. Still does seem high for like 2 years of service. I think that's part of the reason why some are pushing for the basically helicopter carrier type that could launch a STOVL like the F-35B because the initial cost and upkeep of the nuclear supercarriers is so large.

 

[FM2n]

LOL, I clicked on this thread because I thought it was about Star Trek.

 

[Train]

LOL, I clicked on this thread because I thought it was about Star Trek.

That's why I threw the CVN-65 in the subject line

 

[Train]

It does seem very high but I've always heard these things take a lot of money on maintenance, much more than a conventional design. Still does seem high for like 2 years of service. I think that's part of the reason why some are pushing for the basically helicopter carrier type that could launch a STOVL like the F-35B because the initial cost and upkeep of the nuclear supercarriers is so large.

I'd guess that by 2020 there will be no need for 11 super carriers, the Navy should be able to convert to STOVL/Osprey/Helos for most carrier groups.

 

[Bushwicktrini]

I'd guess that by 2020 there will be no need for 11 super carriers, the Navy should be able to convert to STOVL/Osprey/Helos for most carrier groups.

Three words. Projected Air Superiority.

Unless those STOVL'S can stand toe to toe with the Mig's ( and F-16's we sold) of the world we will always need super carriers. Nothing says I'm about to kick your ass like a carrier esp since battleships are not even thought about in defense planning sessions.

 

[Kirby]

I took a tour of her when she was docked at Pensacola. That shit was incredible, especially at 12 or 13 years old.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Wonder if the transporters still work.

 

[0roo0roo]

Three words. Projected Air Superiority.

Unless those STOVL'S can stand toe to toe with the Mig's ( and F-16's we sold) of the world we will always need super carriers. Nothing says I'm about to kick your ass like a carrier esp since battleships are not even thought about in defense planning sessions.

yea the brits lost a whole lotta lives in falklands cuz all they had were two mini carriers, and they almost didn't have that.
their current replacement carriers..only 2 again are under budget risk.
and now they've found oil near the falklands as well lol

 

[Kanalua]

Yup and she was 1 of a kind within the Nimitz class as well.
But her replacement is due in 2013 and will be the first of the Truman class of Super Carriers. I dont see her staying in service past that date as her replacment ship is nearly done.

I grew up watching her come and go from NAS Alameda in the Bay Area.

been on board her serveral times at Fleet Weeks.

Hopefully she wont be the last to carry that historic name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford_class_aircraft_carrier

There are expected to be ten ships of this class.[13] To date, three have been announced:
* Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), (2015) — Scheduled to replace Enterprise (CVN-65).
* CVN-79, unnamed (2018) — Scheduled to replace Nimitz (CVN-68).
* CVN-80, unnamed (2021) — Scheduled to replace Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69).

 

[lupi]

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=200&ct=4

Technically, the enterprise is an 'Enterprise Class' carrier because her design is distinctively different from the Nimitz.

Unless you want to argue with the navy's website smartass.

lol

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Yup and she was 1 of a kind within the Nimitz class as well.

WRONG

Wonder what they'll do with the Enterprise when it is decommissioned.

CORRECT

Its a freaking vehicle, dont refer to it as "her"

 

[Rubycon]

WRONG



CORRECT

Its a freaking vehicle, dont refer to it as "her"

http://www.warsailors.com/freefleet/shippoem.html

 

[amdhunter]

That's not the Enterprise. This is the Enterprise.

 

[Eli]

http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/09/0924nuclear-aircraft-carrier-enterprise-launched/

One giant floating peice of American awesomeness.

Was surpised to see that despite a $662 mil refurbishing in 2010, it's scheduled to be decommisioned in 2013. Though I predictit somehow it will get extended a few years.

Whoa. Seriously? Doesn't that strike anybody as a complete and utter waste of 0.6 billion dollars? lol..

It seems like it would have been better to put that money into whatever is going to replace it in 2013.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Whoa. Seriously? Doesn't that strike anybody as a complete and utter waste of 0.6 billion dollars? lol..

It seems like it would have been better to put that money into whatever is going to replace it in 2013.

i always upgrade and maximize stuff just before i throw it out.

 

[Analog]

 

[marvdmartian]

Its a freaking vehicle, dont refer to it as "her"

Ships are commonly referred to as feminine. That's a tradition that's been around for centuries. If it's not too much trouble for you, we'd like to continue that one.

Why did the government / military waste our $662 Million for only 2-4 more years of service ? ? Certainly, if the decom date is firm, the ship could have been kept going for a lot less money.

If you'll read the other quote in this thread, Enterprise wasn't originally scheduled to be decommissioned until 2015, which could have been easily extended if the shipyard didn't have the Gerry Ford ready in time (nothing abnormal about that!!). Also, chances are very good that they had the refit scheduled 4-5 years out (yes, they do that), and had already signed a contract with the shipyard to do it. Problem with contracts is that they typically have a stipulation that if the government cancels it, for any reason, they still owe the contractor a percentage of the value of the contract (since the contractor had to expend money to be ready to perform the work, it recoups those expenses). It's not abnormal for the penalty to be upward of 50% of the value of the contract. I saw 2 warehouses built for the navy in Guam, even though they were practically shutting down the supply center there (it became a satellite command of Hawaii's supply center), because the government would rather have 2 warehouses it may or may not use, than spend 1/2 as much money and have nothing. Savvy?

I'm fairly sure the Big E is the only one with 4 separate independent nuclear reactors.

4 independent steam plants, but 2 reactors per steam plant. One of a kind design, the reactors are almost twice the output as the submarine reactors that were being built at that time. Each steam plant can operate with one or both reactors running, although the navy typically tries to go to sea with at least 6 operational reactors, and all 8 are definitely preferred!
Little history lesson: it's said that Admiral Hyman Rickover, to prove that the dual reactor design would work in a surface ship, had the USS Triton (SSRN-586) designed with a 2-reactor/2-steam plant propulsion system. Up until then, Congress had been reluctant to take a chance on building a nuclear powered carrier, due to the complexity required for the engineering plant. As he usually did, Rickover proved them wrong, and received funding to build the Big E.
Also, the original concept was (allegedly) to build the JFK and the America as nuclear powered vessels too, but due to the enormous expenditure on the Big E, they were instead built as conventional powered vessels. The JFK, CV-66, was the last conventionally powered carrier built for the navy.

It would be very expensive to have Enterprise as a museum carrier. I suspect she will be mothballed and then have her reactors removed. She will then be probably sunk during exercises so the Navy can gather information on how the design holds up to battle damage and how effective the anti-ship weapons area.

Actually, I foresee removal of the entire primary coolant system, including the steam generators, as well as the auxiliary systems that were in contact with reactor coolant at any time. For sure, it will be a VERY lengthy job!! However, all that can be removed without cutting the ship apart, and it's entirely possible that she could become a museum, though they'd have to probably pour a bunch of concrete into the bottom of the ship, to make up for all the weight lost.
So far as using her as a target ship, that really wouldn't glean much information. Along with her reactor plants, her hull design was pretty original too. Enterprise has 3 armored decks (flight deck, main [hangar] deck, and 2nd deck), whereas I believe the Nimitz class carriers only have 2. It's entirely possible that the torpedo trap voids in the side of the hull are different as well. Plus, I'm sure the navy is going to be VERY careful in where the hull ends up, as the environmental nuts out there would have a field day with the navy "polluting the ocean with nuclear waste".


Oh, and in case anyone's wondering, I know a bit about the Big E because I served 4-1/2 years on board her, in the early to mid 80's. Reactor Mechanic in #3 plant for most of that time, I did 3 deployments during that time. Also, the nuclear prototype that I trained at was the S3G reactor prototype plant (West Milton, NY), which, coincidentally, was the same reactor that was used on the USS Triton submarine (see above). Ironic, eh?

 

[*kjm]

It's a great ship... don't forget all our people on the ship and on the ground rely on her technology. The cost of the refurbishing in 2010 was money well spent. We have to remember how many soldiers this ship watching over both ground, air, and water!

I worked on some of the refurb and I can say it is a great ship and the crew is one of the best!

 

[Vic Vega]

Big E is a one off. There was supposed to be an entire fleet of them I believe but only one was ever completed. Somehow I don't see her being retired in three years after spending half a billion dollars on her this year.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

i wonder if that makes it the oldest thing in the inventory that is still in fighting shape? the B-52H is the only model left flying and those were produced starting in FY61. not sure when the US FY is, but that could put the oldest ones at 50 years old if the FY starts early. KC-135 production started in 1954, and many of those may have been re-engined into R types, so they could be older than 50 years.

:hmm:

You're forgetting the DC-3.

 

[Jadow]

Wait, so our cock sucking government spent 660 million for THREE years!

Couldn't they have fucking made do?

What a waste.

 

[Dominato3r]

The best thing is watching the jets get catapulted off! I wish Canada had one of these

HBD Big E.