The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: graywolf on March 25, 2012, 03:11:02 PM
-
A petition is being circulated via the net to request that the next Aircraft Carrier, CVN-80, be named the U.S.S. Enterprise. In recent history, carriers have been named after politicians and or Presidents. There could be no greater honor for that vessel to be named for the most famous ship in World War II and the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier. So far, according to the petition site, only about 2700 signatures have been collected. Go to: http://ussenterp.epetitions.net/
-
It took a few tries but it finally counted me.
-
Looking for a great read about the Enterprise in WWII? Check out The Big E by Commander Edward P. Stafford U.S.N published by Dell Press (1964) "A first-hand battle-by-battle account of World War II's most famous fighting ship"
-
They can't have 2 ships with the same name so they would have to scrap the current one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%28CVN-65%29
-
Good point Tom.
The Enterprise is on it's last mission and will be retired this December about three years earlier than the original schedule. USS GR Ford was scheduled to replace her. She could sit in mothballs for years while they remove the reactors, turbines and all of the nuclear piping on board. She could sit in Bremerton, WA for awhile before that happens as we'll be down a carrier for the better part of three years due to budget cutbacks. She could be put back into service in pretty short notice if needed.
With this Admin, there may be further cutbacks, including not building CVN-80!
-
I also read somewhere that the removal and disposal of her 8 reactors would hinder her scrapping. The article even suggested that American shipyards/scrapping yards were not set up to handle that operation and that it would take many years. It was hinted that perhaps a Taiwanese company would get the contract. In any event, I would hope that the name Enterprise would not disappear into naval history. Perhaps, public opinion could play a part in securing it a place for a future major combat vessel. What could it hurt to sign the petition?
-
Oh, I signed it before I posted...
-
done
-
My only reservation is the last time the public partitioned a government agency to name something after the Enterprise they got stuck with a lemon.
The "Enterprise" space shuttle was only a low altitude flying/landing test platform and never was space worthy. A real let down.
-
We can always wait 'till the Federation starts naming Star Ships.
-
First... Alf, that was bad (http://therailwire.net/forum/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif)
How many actually got it?
Then if you're only looking at the Entrprise being from WW2 you're not looking deep enough into the history of the US Navy and why THAT Entrprise was named. :
Two ships of the Continental Navy were named Enterprise:
USS Enterprise (1775) armed sloop (18 May 1775 – 7 July 1777), the first American ship to bear the name served on Lake Champlain
Enterprise (1776) schooner (20 December 1776 – February 1777), the second American ship to bear this name served on Chesapeake Bay during the Revolutionary War.
United States NavySix ships of the United States Navy have been named Enterprise:
USS Enterprise (1799) 12-gun schooner / 14-gun brig (17 December 1799 – 9 July 1823), the third ship to bear this name, was built as schooner, and later rerigged as a brig. She fired the first shots in the First Barbary War against the Tripolitanian ship Tripoli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise
Also note that Carriers are no longer named for famous battles or ships, only people with strong Navy ties. The famous ships are now Littoral ships or Amphibs (Independence, Essex, Wasp, and America for example)
Now following the current naming convention, Kennedy or even Nixon (although not likely) would be possible.
Nixon was in fact a Naval Officer in WW2 primarily logistics and Bureau of Aeronautics.
As for the reactors, as long as we don't do what the Russians do, Just dump the rotting hulks in a deep hole and let the reactors decay away.
-
Naval reactors are removed in Bremerton, hauled through Puget sound and south to the Columbia river. From there they are barged up the Columbia to the Hanford DOE site in the high desert of Washington near Richland and stored for eventual burial. It's been that way for years since the .gov can't seem to find a more suitable disposal site. There are 123 reactors there along with who knows what!
Commercial reactors are stored on site where they're removed. We have nowhere to put them which is the biggest problem with nuclear power. Who wants all that high level waste in their backyard! Another failure of the .gov to solve an ever increasing problem!