The Big E's last hurrah.

RedCorvette

subfixer:

There are numerous floating cranes around the world that may very well be capable of such a task.

 

 

Lifting it off isn't the problem.  As I'm sure you know, the new ships are built modularly and the islands are just one of the pieces that are set in place as subassemblies.  It's what do you do with it after you remove it that I see as the issue.  Unless they plan to display it in proximity to the pier, transporting it overland without dismantlng it would be the challenge.

Mark

I wouldn't expect that the superstructure would be placed inland. But transporting it on a barge to another waterfront location after removal wouldn't be out the question. Mast removal would probably be necessary but reinstallation wouldn't be prohibitively difficult. I'm just saying that this would be "do-able".

I second, and third the motion to retain Enterprise's island as an on-land exhibit! In my opinion, it would be right at home with the Midway Museum!

It has been said here Big E's island is more compact than the Nimitz class Not trying to stir anything up, but only Big E's island "footprint" is smaller. The structure itself overall is about 1.5 times the size as far as interior volume goes.

Here's a pic showing Enterprise (on right) with Truman and Washington. The Big E's island is so much higher and wider in profile. That's another thing I love about her. "One of a kind" in every sense of the phrase!!

So, lift it, dismantle it, move it, and reconstruct it.  I'm sure that, when the Smithsonian used the USS Hancock's hangar deck, they didn't lift it and ship it.  If it can be constructed by man, it can be deconstructed and rebuilt.

Bill

subfixer

There are numerous floating cranes around the world that may very well be capable of such a task.

 

Lifting it off isn't the problem.  As I'm sure you know, the new ships are built modularly and the islands are just one of the pieces that are set in place as subassemblies.  It's what do you do with it after you remove it that I see as the issue.  Unless they plan to display it in proximity to the pier, transporting it overland without dismantlng it would be the challenge.

Mark

There are numerous floating cranes around the world that may very well be capable of such a task.

subfixer

archelon:

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.  

 

That is an excellent proposal. There are absolutely no nuclear related systems contained in it and it is compact enough (as compared to other CV islands) to be removed and placed as a memorial. It could be easily maintained. Heck, I'd even volunteer my services to shine the brass on the bridge if they keep it close enough to Norfolk.

Sheer genius, archelon!

Nice sentiment and similar things have been done before, like saving the sail off the George Washington.

But even though the island of the Enterprise is relatively smaller than those on a Nimitz, it would still be the equivalent of moving a 10-story building.  They could certainly take it off with the cranes at Newport News, but I can't imagine moving it very far, at least not in one piece. 

Mark

How about placing the island at the Naval Air Museum at the former Naval Air Station Alameda? The USS Hornet is there and it would fit the tone at an established museum facility.  I know, it is just a pipe dream.

Bill

archelon

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.  

That is an excellent proposal. There are absolutely no nuclear related systems contained in it and it is compact enough (as compared to other CV islands) to be removed and placed as a memorial. It could be easily maintained. Heck, I'd even volunteer my services to shine the brass on the bridge if they keep it close enough to Norfolk.

Sheer genius, archelon!

I remember living on the Alameda Naval Air Station in the mid-1960's, where the USS Hancock (CVA 19), USS Oriskany (CVA 31), USS Midway (CVA-41), USS Coral Sea (CVA 43), USS Ranger (CVA 61) and USS Enterprise (CVAN 65) were homeported, as well as several CVE's or CVL's. My father was stationed on the Hancock.  The only part of her still remaining is the carrier hangar deck display at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.

I used to go to the piers to check details on the real ships to model them onto the carriers I was building.  Revell had their Essex class line of kits as well as the Ranger.  I also bought the old Aurora 1/400 USS Enterprise on the first day the LHS received it (the old Webster Street Hobby Shop).  Those were the days!

Bill

Westpac'er

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

 

bondoman

warshipguy:

 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

 

If I am not mistaken, the names of ships are proposed by the shipyards that build and sell them to the Navy, or by groups with an interest, or by various other means, and are chosen by The Secretary of the Navy. Major ships are pretty uniform in the system of their naming, but even SSBN's are not entirely consistent, and as it goes down the line tonnage wise it gets ambiguous.

Yup... pre WWII it was Destroyers were Naval heroes, Cruisers were cities, Battleships were States, Carriers were famous battles or warships ,and Submarines were fish. After WWII it became far more political... The naming method has changed several times since then.

You got that right! when she was in PacFleet, rumor was she once made an overnight transit between Subic Bay and Hong Kong.  That comes out to somewhere between 35 and 40 knots,  depending on the exact time.

Later, when I was on David R Ray, in her Battle Group in '86 cruise, they wanted to fool the Bears between Guam and the PI.   So we dressed up the Sacramento at night to look like Enterprise while she and us went silent and made a high speed run through for the Bashi Channel and down the west side of Luzon.  Being  a Spruance, we had to run at that speed we could neither confirm nor deny we were capable of doing just to keep up with her, and she still pulled away from us! 

Can I vote for another USS Oregon? It's been eons since she served. Sadly, we couldn't save her thanks indirectly to WW II.

My family was invited to the Enterprise's commissioning ceremonies in Newport News.  My mother's youngest Brother was a MMCM(N) in her commissioning crew and was the top enlisted man in the reactordis\vision.  Hes still going strong at nearly  ninety...  We were unable to attend the commissioning  as we were on Okinawa through  the early '60s.  Sad to see her go as shes still the fastest ship in the fleet...

I flew off of her as  well as a number of others in the bad  ol' '60s

Ray

warshipguy

 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

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.  

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.

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.

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

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

"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.

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!

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...

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

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.

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!

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.

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......

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.