The Big E's last hurrah.

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

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

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.

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! 

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.

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

 

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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!!

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".