Final deployment of Enterprise (CVN-65)

PRB said:
Last deployment for The Big-E. Hopefully a greatful nation treats her better in retirement than we did her namesake, CV-6...

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=65824
Click to expand...

Amen to that...I thought they would never retire her since she is a nuc CV. Its more than I can say about the 3 CV's I made deployments on...since they were conventionally powered, all met the same fate....out to pasture. However, I will always be mortified to what the Navy did to my first ship a few years back...USS America CV-66. At least she shares a titanic sort of fate and not turned into scrap like CV-6...the only early carrier still afloat at the end of the war...most highly decorated also...
 
I don't see the logic in this action based on this paragraph.

"Enterprise is as ready and capable as she has ever been throughout her 50 years," said Capt. William C. Hamilton, Commanding Officer of Enterprise. "The ship and crew's performance during work-ups demonstrates that the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier has never been more relevant."

The world grows ever more dangerous and we grow weaker, go figure.
 
Word is Enterprise will be sent to Norfork to be decomissioned . Holes will be cut in Her to remove the Nuclear fuel & radioactive reactors (8); that takes 15 months & then she will be towed to Wash. state to be scrapped; same as CV-6. There was a petition to name CVN-79 Enterprise but they named it John F. Kennedy. This will be the first time that the US Navy doesn't have a ship named Enterprise. Doesn"t seem right.
 
I have never understood the Navy's decision regarding CV-6
For a service that seems to appreciate it's tradition and history it just seems so short sighted.
I really wish the Navy would get past this back scratching system of naming carriers and subs.

Names like Constellation or Enterprise just seem to fit for carriers. Names like Wahoo, Tang, or Hammerhead fit equally well for subs.
As it is now names are just a big tribute to behind kissing.
 
joe bob said:
I have never understood the Navy's decision regarding CV-6
For a service that seems to appreciate it's tradition and history it just seems so short sighted.
I really wish the Navy would get past this back scratching system of naming carriers and subs.

Names like Constellation or Enterprise just seem to fit for carriers. Names like Wahoo, Tang, or Hammerhead fit equally well for subs.
As it is now names are just a big tribute to behind kissing.
Click to expand...

That would make a good "class" name; the USS Senator Lardbutt, the latest vessel in the Arse Kiss class.
 
"I really wish the Navy would get past this back scratching system of naming carriers and subs.

Names like Constellation or Enterprise just seem to fit for carriers. Names like Wahoo, Tang, or Hammerhead fit equally well for subs.
As it is now names are just a big tribute to behind kissing."

"That would make a good "class" name; the USS Senator Lardbutt, the latest vessel in the Arse Kiss class"

All so very true..... And all so very sad. Political Correctness Rules!
But remember, it's all part of The Plan

- H52
 
As to fast, I made two deployments on Enterprise, and one on Nimitz, so the following is “anecdotal” at best, but here goes. When the ship flew off the airwing, prior to pulling into home port (San Francisco in the 1980s when I was aboard), she would spend the rest of the day steaming towards home. This run north from the San Diego area was almost always made at high speed, and they always closed the flight deck due to “high winds and heavy seas”. The fact that the high winds, etc., were “self generated” was not immediately appreciated, but the fact that this never once happened on Nimitz was interesting… During these runs on Enterprise, we would sneak out onto the catwalk to watch. The noise, from the wind and the sea, was impressive, and the sense of speed was like nothing I ever saw on Nimitz. Maybe the Big-E captains just liked going fast…
 
Terry said:
I don't see the logic in this action based on this paragraph.

"Enterprise is as ready and capable as she has ever been throughout her 50 years," said Capt. William C. Hamilton, Commanding Officer of Enterprise. "The ship and crew's performance during work-ups demonstrates that the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier has never been more relevant."

The world grows ever more dangerous and we grow weaker, go figure.
Click to expand...

Well, I see the logic. Lessee, the E is one of the oldest still working; means that even though she might be still capable it's costing more each year to keep her that way. In addition, in order to "bring her up to speed" it would/will cost more and more as time goes on. When you start having to retrofit a vessel and make major changes just to "keep up with the Jones's" you'll soon realize that it's better to start over, so to speak. My only "gripe" is that with her de-commissioning we won't have an "Enterprise" any more. And the military does not seem to want to keep history around. If the general public hadn't stepped in we would not have the "Mighty Mo" around. The above paragraph doesn't tell the proper story unless you factor in the "baloney-speak" of the military. In a nutshell they're saying that it takes more money to keep her in paint and ball bearings, et. al. than it's worth but "we gotta keep the public thinking we got major ballz still".

Think about it, not many people keep the family car past the point where it'll cost more to fix it than going out to get a new one. Same principle applies.

So raise a :guinness: for the Enterprise, give her a :medals: and send 'er out ta pasture.
 
I was working at Norfolk Naval Base last week and spent a few minutes admiring CVN-65 from the office.

It's just down from the wharf from some newer vessels that are not so seaworthy.....
 
PRB,
Similar story on how fast she is. Late 90's sitting in the Adriatic and we needed to get over the Persian Gulf as Saddam was acting up again. Stopped flight ops, tightened everything down and we hauled but all night to make it. The ship was rattling the entire time.
 
Victory103 said:
PRB,
Similar story on how fast she is. Late 90's sitting in the Adriatic and we needed to get over the Persian Gulf as Saddam was acting up again. Stopped flight ops, tightened everything down and we hauled but all night to make it. The ship was rattling the entire time.
Click to expand...

I spoke to an engineering guy from the USS Independence (CV-62) in a bar once, and I asked him how fast that ship could go. His answer was very interesting. He said with a full load, and a flight deck full of planes, she could make no more than 30 knots (or so), but, empty, with no planes, she could make 40+. 40? That’s pretty darned fast and I’m not sure I believe it…

One way of finding out exactly how fast the ship is going is to call up SINS data. To align the plane’s inertial navigation system on the ship, you needed the ship’s position and speed, which was broadcast over a certain frequency, tuned in by the plane’s comm System, and linked to the plane’s INS (SINS = Shipboard INS). If you’re sitting in the cockpit doing an INS alignment, you can look at the SINS data on the computer. Alas, every time we were going “really fast”, the SINS transmission was shut down…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top