Navy: Next carrier built will be named Enterprise

[Anthony Svihlik]

During the Inactivation Ceremony for the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) earlier today, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus announced that CVN-80 will be named Enterprise:

Navy: Next carrier built will be named Enterprise

Anthony

[muddyboots]

When and what will that one be, I wonder?

[Anthony Svihlik]

When and what will that one be, I wonder?

USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) and USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) are under construction and are scheduled to be delivered in 2015 and 2020, respectively. Following the five-year building program for the Navy Aircraft Carrier program, USS Enterprise (CVN-80) would be delivered in 2025.

Anthony

[Noha307]

During the Inactivation Ceremony for the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) earlier today, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus announced that CVN-80 will be named Enterprise

YES!!!

Good job navy, halfway there:
1. Name another aircraft carrier Enterprise. DONE!
2. Preserve some major part of CVN-65. In progress...

(BTW, shouldn't this thread go in the "Military Matters" section of WIX?)

[Garth]

YES!!!

Good job navy, halfway there:
1. Name another aircraft carrier Enterprise. DONE!
2. Preserve some major part of CVN-65. In progress...

(BTW, shouldn't this thread go in the "Military Matters" section of WIX?)

1. I'm skeptical. CVN-80 hasn't even been ordered yet, and there's plenty of time to change her name. Anyone else recall that CVN-75 was originally named "USS United States", but had it's name changed to "Harry S Truman" after the mid-1990s Republican Congress ordered CVN-76 to be named "Ronald Reagan"?

2. My understanding is that there are bits of CV-6 incorporated into CVN-65. Including portholes (anywhere from 3 to 8 depending on the stories of the three in the CO's in-port cabin and the five in the alternate conning station in the bow). These definitely need to be preserved and if possible incorporated into CVN-80 (assuming that she bears the name.

Additionally, it would be cool if they saved CVN-65's nameplate and either used it on CVN-80, or put it on display somewhere (CV-6's nameplate graces a baseball field in New Jersey). One of CVN-65's anchors should make its way to the Washington DC Navy Yard for display next to the CV-6 one there. And perhaps her bell can go up to USNA for display next to CV-6s as well.

The Holy Grail is going to be her island. Theoretically this can be removed by the big superlift-capable crane at Newport News during defueling and sent somewhere before the hulk is towed around South America and up to Bremerton for final scrapping - maybe near NMNA in Pensacola?

[Travisd80elcam]

Just a little FYI about the recycling program for nuclear powered subs and carriers. Normally the stuff will sit where ever they have space, subs tend to go to Washington state and carriers are stacked up there too as well. It's going to take YEARS just to decommission her. I repeat Years. I am a QA inspector for the other big shipyard in Va(department of the navy owned and operated). The stories I've heard form engineers and former crew whom are working shore duty in my department. The coast to DE-fuel her alone are astronomical. The hope of her island being saved from what i gather from at work will most likely not happen. Once she is DE-fueled and towed to where ever she will be taken. It will sit for years to come. And I am sure that parts from her will be saved for the next one. I know that the Newport News has the Brass and Bronze barrel covers from the Heavy cruiser that bore her name and I have seen this on many sub's that share the name of ww2 era battle ships and heavy cruisers. Again this is my opinion and the knowledge I have come a crossed.

P.s. if the Island was to be chopped off and putt on to a Mobil truck of some kind, Virginia roads couldn't support it. Again just speculation on my part there.

[whistlingdeath77]

wish they carried the " RANGER" name still

[old iron]

wish they carried the " RANGER" name still

or "WASP" or "HORNET."

(why are we naming carriers after presidents (or members of Congress) who are often still alive? It is apparent that our politicains have no sense for naval traditions)

[Garth]

or "WASP" or "HORNET."

(why are we naming carriers after presidents (or members of Congress) who are often still alive? It is apparent that our politicains have no sense for naval traditions)

Wasp is currently being used on LHD-1

When I went to the Hornet (CV-12) Museum in Alameda several years ago the tour guide said that Navy considered the Hornet naming legacy to be carried by the F/A-18.

As to naming ships after living politicians and naval traditions, George Washington and John Adams had ships named after them while they were still living (in the 1790s), as did John Hancock (Revolutionary War era). I don't really have a problem naming ships after people of significance who are still alive, so long as they're officially retired from duty (Arleigh Burke) or public service (Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush).

[skymstr02]

The Holy Grail is going to be her island. Theoretically this can be removed by the big superlift-capable crane at Newport News during defueling and sent somewhere before the hulk is towed around South America and up to Bremerton for final scrapping - maybe near NMNA in Pensacola?

Thats not the original island when the ship was first constructed. The current island was outfitted during an overhaul in 1990, so there is no real historic value to that item to justify the cost involved.
Plus, NMNA already has an island preserved inside the museum,

[Russ Matthews]

Plus, NMNA already has an island preserved inside the museum.

Actually, the island on the museum floor is only a recreation of the one on USS Cabot (CVL-28) during WWII.

The heavily modified structure from the original ship was removed to the Texas Air Museum in Rio Hondo back in 2000 .. and then scrapped years later after the museum closed its doors.

You can read the whole sad story in an earlier WIX thread ...

http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11905

Or witness the end of the island in a YouTube video here (not for the faint of heart) ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlJIzmoTDJM

[Garth]

Thats not the original island when the ship was first constructed. The current island was outfitted during an overhaul in 1990, so there is no real historic value to that item to justify the cost involved.
Plus, NMNA already has an island preserved inside the museum,

Actually it is the original island. It was just reconfigured (during her 1980 overhaul) removing the billboard arrays and beehive. Over they years the island acquired various bumps and blisters for ECM, SeaSparrow targeting arrays and satellite communications equipment, but it's still the same island.

[Noha307]

Thats not the original island when the ship was first constructed. The current island was outfitted during an overhaul in 1990, so there is no real historic value to that item to justify the cost involved.

Actually it is the original island. It was just reconfigured (during her 1980 overhaul) removing the billboard arrays and beehive. Over they years the island acquired various bumps and blisters for ECM, SeaSparrow targeting arrays and satellite communications equipment, but it's still the same island.

Garth is right. I see no reason the navy would remove the island only to replace it with one that is exactly the same. Fun fact: The reason the island has the strange shape it does is because it was designed to accommodate the "billboard radars" mentioned above.

1. I'm skeptical. CVN-80 hasn't even been ordered yet, and there's plenty of time to change her name. Anyone else recall that CVN-75 was originally named "USS United States", but had it's name changed to "Harry S Truman" after the mid-1990s Republican Congress ordered CVN-76 to be named "Ronald Reagan"?

I haven't heard that before, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's true. However, there might have been something else at play in the decision to make that name change. History tells us that no one likes it when a ship carries the name of its country. It's too much of a propaganda coup for the enemy if it gets sunk, not to mention if you're superstitious. The Germans did it with the pocket-battleship Deutschland during WWII, it became the Lutzow.

I know there are many instances in the past when ships' names have been changed, however, I doubt that they'll change CVN-80's name.

2. My understanding is that there are bits of CV-6 incorporated into CVN-65. Including portholes (anywhere from 3 to 8 depending on the stories of the three in the CO's in-port cabin and the five in the alternate conning station in the bow). These definitely need to be preserved and if possible incorporated into CVN-80 (assuming that she bears the name.

Photo: http://navylive.dodlive.mil/files/2012/06/portholes_Enterprise.jpg

I known about those portholes and was wondering what was going to happen to them. If they're not preserved, well...
There's a fact about the portholes that I never understood. The NMNA has a porthole from CV-6 as well. However, they claim that it is "the only porthole to survive the scrapping of the Enterprise in 1959". Have they never heard of the ones installed in CVN-65? I find that hard to believe.

(why are we naming carriers after presidents (or members of Congress) who are often still alive? It is apparent that our politicains have no sense for naval traditions)

Ugh. Don't get me started. The name of LCS-10 is the worst idea I have ever heard.

I have a peeve about bad nomenclature and designations. SSN-21, F-35, Hyman G. Rickover, Henry M. Jackson, John Warner - all are out of sequence or naming scheme. (I know that CVN-80's name is now breaking the theme as well, but that's one exception I can make.) I have to go lie down now...

[maradamx3]

Just a little FYI about the recycling program for nuclear powered subs and carriers. Normally the stuff will sit where ever they have space, subs tend to go to Washington state and carriers are stacked up there too as well. It's going to take YEARS just to decommission her. I repeat Years. I am a QA inspector for the other big shipyard in Va(department of the navy owned and operated). The stories I've heard form engineers and former crew whom are working shore duty in my department. The coast to DE-fuel her alone are astronomical. The hope of her island being saved from what i gather from at work will most likely not happen. Once she is DE-fueled and towed to where ever she will be taken. It will sit for years to come. And I am sure that parts from her will be saved for the next one. I know that the Newport News has the Brass and Bronze barrel covers from the Heavy cruiser that bore her name and I have seen this on many sub's that share the name of ww2 era battle ships and heavy cruisers. Again this is my opinion and the knowledge I have come a crossed.

P.s. if the Island was to be chopped off and putt on to a Mobil truck of some kind, Virginia roads couldn't support it. Again just speculation on my part there.

So, will there never be a nuclear carrier museum ship? The article I read about Enterprise said that in order to de-fuel her, large holes would have to be made in the hull to remove the reactors and fuel, rendering her unfit for museum purposes. These "holes" could not be patched? Is there residual contamination? What would render the ship unfit to be a museum? Just asking? Thanks!
Tommy

[maradamx3]

Just a little FYI about the recycling program for nuclear powered subs and carriers. Normally the stuff will sit where ever they have space, subs tend to go to Washington state and carriers are stacked up there too as well. It's going to take YEARS just to decommission her. I repeat Years. I am a QA inspector for the other big shipyard in Va(department of the navy owned and operated). The stories I've heard form engineers and former crew whom are working shore duty in my department. The coast to DE-fuel her alone are astronomical. The hope of her island being saved from what i gather from at work will most likely not happen. Once she is DE-fueled and towed to where ever she will be taken. It will sit for years to come. And I am sure that parts from her will be saved for the next one. I know that the Newport News has the Brass and Bronze barrel covers from the Heavy cruiser that bore her name and I have seen this on many sub's that share the name of ww2 era battle ships and heavy cruisers. Again this is my opinion and the knowledge I have come a crossed.

P.s. if the Island was to be chopped off and putt on to a Mobil truck of some kind, Virginia roads couldn't support it. Again just speculation on my part there.

So, will there never be a nuclear carrier museum ship? The article I read about Enterprise said that in order to de-fuel her, large holes would have to be made in the hull to remove the reactors and fuel, rendering her unfit for museum purposes. These "holes" could not be patched? Is there residual contamination? What would render the ship unfit to be a museum? Just asking? Thanks!
Tommy

Anyone? Bueller? There have to be some ex squids or museum peeps out there that would know about turning warships into museums, right?