The Big E's last hurrah.

It's a real shame that there will be no floating museum. The USS Nautilus is also nuclear powered; she is a museum here in Groton.  Granted, there is a permanent RADCON team stationed on board, but if the Navy really had the will, there would be a way.

Bill

nautilus had 1 reactor compared to 8 on the enterprise. only 1 hole thru the pressure hull to remove the nautilus reactor but many decks including flight deck to remove 8 reactors from enterprise.

Captain, I have orders from Starfleet Command. We're to put back to Spacedock immediately...to be decommissioned.

If I were human, I believe my response would be...go to Hell.  If I were human.

About time! That thing's been ready to decom for years, but Rickover (who made the nuclear navy, for those who don't know) promised Congress that the Enterprise would last 50 years. We can't make him look like a liar now, can we?

As for a museum, that would be a nightmare. I have known many people who were on that ship, and you cannot imagine the amount of extra work that would be. We also propsed the idea of replacing the Navy's very outdated nuclear prototype training platforms with the 'prise, but were told even that would be unbelievably expensive.

Maybe when a Nimitz class retires, with its far better design and only two reactors, it can be a museum.

Unitl then, why didn't we save the old Enterprise that survived WW2? Now if there was ever a ship that deserved to be a museum...

It goes without saying that CV-6 should have been saved.  And, you guys are making my point . . . no will, no way.  Each of those reactors have had periodic reactor core changes throughout Enterprise's career.  I know it would be a difficult transition, but it could be done if the Navy wanted to make it happen. Granted, it would take careful planning and effort, and tons of money.

Bill

warshipguy

but it could be done if the Navy wanted to make it happen. Granted, it would take careful planning and effort, and tons of money.

I can hear the Tea Party now,  "You want to increase our taxes to do what?".

It has been said that a boat is a hole in the water into which you throw money.   A ship is a bigger hole which takes more money to fill. 

Well, no matter what, the eight reactors on Enterprise will be removed. That is standard procedure for all decommed nuke ships. But the removal of the Big E's reactors will tear her up beyond recognition. I can see no way that she would ever become a museum unless she is essentially rebuilt, a project that would be obscenely expensive. Say goodbye to the "Prize" after this deployment. I hate to say this, but as a shipyarder that has had to deal with her reactor systems for the last few decades, it will be a bittersweet relief not having to treat the Mobile Chernobyl's woes any longer. 

Even re-fueling was major effort, necessitating cutting through multiple deck levels.  As Subfixer stated, removing all the reactors would essentially gut the ship.    

Although preserving her is a nice thought, just how many museum carriers do we need and who is going to pay for the ongoing maintenance and upkeep?  Even the Intrepid Museum in NYC struggles to find money to maintain it, and some areas of the ship are in horrible condition. 

There has been some discussion about naming one of the new Ford-class ships Enterprise, which I think would be a better way to carry on the heritage of the name.

Mark

Yesterday I also read the article about the Big E's last cruise with a bit of nostalgia. As a RM2 I pulled a 45 day TDY on her in '67 off the coast of 'Nam.  I still have the USS Enterprise ball cap I picked up at the ship's store back then. Its showing its age, as she is, but I still regularly wear it.  I remember getting lost more than once just going from the berthing compartment I'd been assigned to Radio I. While on board, I wrote my mother as to where I was and she responded that there was a guy I'd been in Boy Scouts with also assigned to the Big E. However, she didn't know what division he was in and I discovered that bit of info was critical of locating anyone. I never did see him during my TDY. With around 5500 personnel assigned, the odds of that happening were pretty slim. Years later, after I had been discharged, I ran into the guy in my home town and we talked about our Navy days over a few Coors. He had indeed been on board at the same time as I had. People who have never had the opportunity of being on board a modern carrier have no comprehension as to just how huge they are.  A couple of years back a friend of mine got a chance of going on a family  cruise on the Reagan with his nephew who was assigned there. He called me and wanted to know just how big I thought it was. I told him to picture the flight deck as being about the same size as the parking lot at a good sized WalMart.

Bravo Zulu CVN-65!

Well, that's it!  Every Navy ship that I've set foot, except a couple of the Aegis cruisers are either a museum, scrapped, decomm'd, or a fish reef.

USS Hoel DDG13

USS Okinawa LPH3

USS England CG22

USS Midway CV41

USS David R Ray DD971

USS Missouri BB63

She served long and well, in Wars and Peace,  thanks to her many hardworking crews. Many thanks to all who ever sailed on her. Only another carrier can carry on the grand tradition.

stikpusher

She served long and well, in Wars and Peace,  thanks to her many hardworking crews. Many thanks to all who ever sailed on her. Only another carrier can carry on the grand tradition.

Couldn't agree more. I have to say, us taxpayers really got our moneys worth out of this one, despite a few faults, she's been one of the best there is!

Gentlemen,

While people talk about her shortcomings, we must remember that she was the first.  In spite of flaws, she did serve 50 years and was usually among the first sent in to deal with a given crisis. While I understand that there are technical problems associated with removing her reactors and preserving the shell, it is still a shame to me to have yet another Enterprise dismantled.

I do understand the difficulties involved in removing her reactors; I was on the USS Ethan Allen (SSBN/SSN 608) when she was denuked in Bremerton.  I just hate to see historic ships thrown away.

Bill

warshipguy

I do understand the difficulties involved in removing her reactors; I was on the USS Ethan Allen (SSBN/SSN 608) when she was denuked in Bremerton.  I just hate to see historic ships thrown away.

Bill

 The problems involved in denuking include removing every pipe or tank that may have even had the remotest possibility of ever containig a radioactive liquid or having come into contact with a radioactive substance and cannot be positively verified (in an economically feasible way) not to retain this substance any longer. On Enterprise, this would involve a immense amount of verification and the removal of these systems will necessitate a lot of cutting of metal using methods that do not allow the spread of metal bits to spread to the outside of containments. Some of this piping snakes around into the most remote nooks and crannies of the ship and some actually passes through compartments that are regularly inhabited by the crew.

  Another problem is the isolation of the reactor compartments themselves. After defueling the reactors, the reactor compartments are then prepared to be removed as one piece units. This means that the shielded containment compartments have an area cleared of all interference (machinery, piping, electrical systems decking, everything! ) resulting in a complete gap around these very large compartments of about three meters. These reactor compartment contain all of the main components of the reactor including the steam generators, reactor coolant pumps, pressurizer, etc. They are very large and there are eight of them. I would imagine that instead of pulling them up out of the hangar deck and flight deck, that the hull will probably be split open laterally to gain access to them. There will be no way that she would be put back together again after that butchery. This work will take years and gazillions of $$. I've participated in denuking quite a few submarines and cruisers  I'm just glad that I'm retiring before this project starts, I want no part of it.

We sailors tend to be a romantic lot when it comes to our old ships, but it's just  not fun to watch something you put your blood, sweat, toil and tears into being gutted and cut up like a dead carcass.

Westpac'er

We sailors tend to be a romantic lot when it comes to our old ships, but it's just  not fun to watch something you put your blood, sweat, toil and tears into being gutted and cut up like a dead carcass.

 

It really is a sad experience to gut these vessels. At least I never had to participate in cutting them up into scrap metal, just took out the radioactive junk. Cut out their hearts, so to say.

sub revolution

Maybe when a Nimitz class retires, with its far better design and only two reactors, it can be a museum.

Unitl then, why didn't we save the old Enterprise that survived WW2? Now if there was ever a ship that deserved to be a museum...

I agree. It's a shame they didn't save CV-6. It's also a shame  they didn't save BB-38 either, instead of wasting her in the Bikini Able and Baker tests. Pennsylvania fought hard to avenge her sister's death. Only Texas BB-35  remains as the last "old" battleship on display.

Perhaps CVN-80 will be named Enterprise......

kustommodeler1

Perhaps CVN-80 will be named Enterprise......

Nope. Back to more Presidents names.

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

I know she has to be retired but it's still a shame. I think we should all write our government to have them name the next carrier Enterprise.

Sorry, I meant to say more about CV-6 than I did... If there was ever a "turn-key" museum, CV-6 was it. A brief drydock period to repaint the hull below waterline, and a general overall cleaning and painting of the ship inside and out, and CV-6 would have been ready to go!

Medicman71

 

kustommodeler1:

 

Perhaps CVN-80 will be named Enterprise......

 

 

Nope. Back to more Presidents names.

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

I know she has to be retired but it's still a shame. I think we should all write our government to have them name the next carrier Enterprise.

Yep, if they do have to have politicians' names on our capital ships, at least keep them with president's names. CVN-79 stood a fair chance at being named "Barry Goldwater"! Glad that didn't happen.

Medicman71

kustommodeler1:

Perhaps CVN-80 will be named Enterprise......

 

Nope. Back to more Presidents names.

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

I know she has to be retired but it's still a shame. I think we should all write our government to have them name the next carrier Enterprise.

CVN-80 is replacing Ike, but has not been officially named yet.  The publicity over CVN-65's last deployment will probably help the cause to name her the next Enterprise.

Mark

subfixer- who knows? I might end up working on that awful project!

And yes, I think the current method of naming ships SUCKS! We should go back to the WW2 system...'cept we don't have battleships anymore...

Some thoughts:

1. I should have said all but 1of my ships, we still have Midway in San Diego.   That ship kicked ass every time they called her for something.   Though I never served on her, spent a few days for AAW conferences, briefings or waiting for a cod flight to someplace. 

2. Being a museum is great, but it takes lots of money, work and imagination, especially for a carrier or a battleship.  The Midway's crew does a great job with with overnight on board visits, flight simulators, gift ships, parties, reunions, etc.  Gradually restoring things, but some spaces like CIC, will likely never be open due to hazmat problems.

3. Getting the Navy to carry on a heritage by naming a second ship is a major lobbying effort, we've been trying for years to get a 3rd  England.  Editorially, and with the present bunch in control - forget it!

"Getting the Navy to carry on a heritage by naming a second ship is a major lobbying effort, we've been trying for years to get a 3rd  England.  Editorially, and with the present bunch in control - forget it!"

Perhaps with a more military friendly administration.

Here is a link to an online petition to name CVN-80 as Enterprise: http://ussenterp.epetitions.net/signatures.php?petition_id=1870

Gentlemen,

My first ship was turned into razor blades . . . USS Howard Gilmore (AS 16).  My second, USS Ethan Allen (SSBN/SSN 608) was first castrated (MCC was offloaded and the 16 missile tubes filed with concrete, then she was cut in half and the tubes removed) and then denuked as Subfixer described. They eventually scuttled her somewhere in the Pacific.  Luckily for me, my third, USS Michigan (SSBN 727) was converted into SSGN 727 and still serves.  My fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh, USS Pasadena (SSN 752), USS Albuquerque (SSN 706), USS Dallas (SSN 700), USS Maine (SSBN 741) all still serve.

I do remember when aircraft carriers were named after important battles in American history, with the occasional carrier being named after a president or military leader.  Now, the carriers are named not only after presidents but for congressmen as well.  And, I hear that one of the new Zumwalt Class DD's will be named after Gabrielle Gifford, though I don't know why. She may have suffered through an assassination attempt, but . . .

There used to be a rhyme and reason for naming the warships of the USN. And, yes, I just sent my petition in!

Bill

That seems weird naming a ship after a woman. And no way am I putting her down, but there have been more influentual past women in history.

subfixer

Here is a link to an online petition to name CVN-80 as Enterprise: http://ussenterp.epetitions.net/signatures.php?petition_id=1870

Signed it.

Agree that it would be a fiscal, technical and maintenance nightmare to turn the entire ship into a museum, but how about taking that ISLAND and placing it in a memorial park?  Even though the "beehive" is gone, it's still unique to the Enterprise.