USS Enterprise carrier taken out of active service

[ironsniper1]

[url="http://www.timesunion.com/news/us/article/USS-Enterprise-carrier-taken-out-of-active-service-4083619.php"]http://www.timesunio...ice-4083619.php[/url]

[quote]
NORFOLK, Va. (AP) — The world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier has been retired from active service in the [url="http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fus&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22U.S.+Navy%22"]U.S. Navy[/url].
The [url="http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fus&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22USS+Enterprise%22"]USS Enterprise[/url] ended its notable 51-year career on Saturday during a ceremony at [url="http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fus&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Naval+Station+Norfolk%22"]Naval Station Norfolk[/url] in Virginia.
Thousands of former crew members, ship builders and their families lined a pier to bid farewell to one of the most decorated ships in the Navy.
The ship served in every major conflict since participating in a blockade during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
With the inactivation, the U.S. fleet is temporarily reduced to 10 aircraft carriers while the USS [url="http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fus&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Gerald+R.+Ford%22"]Gerald R. Ford[/url] is built. It will join the fleet in 2015.
Navy Secretary [url="http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fus&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Ray+Mabus%22"]Ray Mabus[/url] said in a recorded video message during the ceremony that a future aircraft carrier would be named USS Enterprise.[/quote]

[wewoapsiak]

And about time too. Besides everything falling apart, that place had the weirdest power plant set up I've heard of.

[Murgatroy]

My father was stationed on The Big E for several years in my youth.

[gun sane]

I was aboard the Ranger and we swapped places with the Big E at Yankee Station in the Gulf of Tonkin a few times. That is some ship.

[RobertNashville]

I have the privilege of being in CIC when my cruiser served as plane guard for the Enterprise on more than one occasion....she is a great ship with a great heritage; sad to see her time end but of course it has to happen.

As sad as her end is, however, it's not early as sad as what this administration has been and is doing to our Navy...at the rate they are going; if things ever got ugly they would have to start confiscating private yachts, put some 50cal AA guns and some torpedo tubes on them and send them out as destroyers.

[Guest HvyMtl]

This carrier is old. It was supposed to run for 25 years, then be replaced. It has gone twice that. So we are down to 10 carriers, not including our "helicopter" ones, which support harriers. Name a nation with 2 carriers?
Too bad the removal of the nuclear material will cut huge holes in the carrier. I think it would have been grand to make a museum out of her.

2014, we are supposed to be back up to 11. As the new Ford sub-class of Nimitz comes into play.

I do wonder, with the advancement of missle systems, if the carrier concept may be obsolete.

[monkeylizard]

The carrier concept isn't but having them stocked full of manned aircraft may be. Carriers to launch drones/UAVs is where we're going. Each new generation of carrier becomes more automated requiring fewer crew. UAVs can be smaller than manned aircraft, allowing future generations to shrink in size. Instead of 10-15 carriers, I could see us with 5 or so of the traditional ones along with 10-15 or so about the size of the current amphib assault ships.

[Mark@Sea]

UAV's can't do air-to-air for squat.

The missiles vs carrier argument has been around a while. The riskiest threat is a short range high mach sub launched pop up. Until somebody comes up with another way to put manned aircraft on target from halfway around the globe, carriers aren't going anywhere. Force projection is the name of that game, and a Predator with a couple of hellfires isn't going to replace the mk1 eyeball and a full load of ordnance any time soon.

[Guest CCI]

I was there when the big E was christened, I was 7 yrs. old at that time. The connie tower was different at that time, it was kind of a circle at the top. My brother was a photographer for Newport News shipbuilding and dry dock company for years.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Relevant?
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tc7Jo4XmamA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tc7Jo4XmamA[/url]

[monkeylizard]

Mark, I agree. I just meant that we are relying more and more on UAVs. It doesn't make much sense to have a floating city designed to support manned operations be used to supported those unmanned ones. We'll still have carriers, but [i]some[/i] of their mission could be accomplished by smaller ships launching UAVs. Instead of needing 2 carriers in an area, perhaps 1 carrier with 1 UAV carrier could do it, or that same carrier supported by 2 - 5 UAV carriers could cover a much larger area. Instead of having to send one of the big boys to watch over a sem-troublesome spot, we could do it with a UAV mini-carrier. Five regular carriers might be a little low, but perhaps 7 or 8 is reasonable. I wish we could have 20 of them, but money is always a problem. If we can have the force projection we need using more numerous smaller ships, it's something to consider.

[TMF]

[quote name='monkeylizard' timestamp='1354557116' post='854281']Mark, I agree. I just meant that we are relying more and more on UAVs. It doesn't make much sense to have a floating city designed to support manned operations be used to supported those unmanned ones. We'll still have carriers, but [i]some[/i] of their mission could be accomplished by smaller ships launching UAVs. Instead of needing 2 carriers in an area, perhaps 1 carrier with 1 UAV carrier could do it, or that same carrier supported by 2 - 5 UAV carriers could cover a much larger area. Instead of having to send one of the big boys to watch over a sem-troublesome spot, we could do it with a UAV mini-carrier. Five regular carriers might be a little low, but perhaps 7 or 8 is reasonable. I wish we could have 20 of them, but money is always a problem. If we can have the force projection we need using more numerous smaller ships, it's something to consider.[/quote]

Carriers are designed for real war, not low intensity conflict where UAVs are the "go-to" ordinance vehicles. If we are ever involved in a large scale conflict again it will be our carriers that make or break us.

[monkeylizard]

That's true, but when looking at budget numbers and having to come up with a way to handle the style of wars we fight today, it's conceivable that the Navy will opt for a force mixture of carriers and mini-carriers. We [i]might[/i] have open massive war sometime, but we [i]do[/i] have the smaller theater stuff going on now and in the near future. Full on carriers are sometimes an inefficient method for doing that. Would we be better served to have smaller ships with fewer crew running flight operations for UAVs? Another advantage of a carrier + UAV carrier is that the carrier can continue to have its full complement of manned, heavily armed aircraft without having to cede valuable space for the UAVs.

Ideally we'd have a full setup of both, but budgets will dictate otherwise. We'll either lose carriers to UAV carriers, or we'll never develop UAV carriers, instead having carriers perform both roles. I don't know how the $s work out either way. No idea how much it would cost to develop and build a UAV specific carrier vs. another Ford class ship, or the operating costs for either over X years. It just seems that smaller ships with smaller crews would be cheaper, but not if that's supplemental to carriers instead of replacing them. Edited December 5, 2012 by monkeylizard

[TMF]

[quote name='monkeylizard' timestamp='1354730651' post='855289']That's true, but when looking at budget numbers and having to come up with a way to handle the style of wars we fight today, it's conceivable that the Navy will opt for a force mixture of carriers and mini-carriers. We [i]might[/i] have open massive war sometime, but we [i]do[/i] have the smaller theater stuff going on now and in the near future. Full on carriers are sometimes an inefficient method for doing that. Would we be better served to have smaller ships with fewer crew running flight operations for UAVs? Another advantage of a carrier + UAV carrier is that the carrier can continue to have its full complement of manned, heavily armed aircraft without having to cede valuable space for the UAVs.

Ideally we'd have a full setup of both, but budgets will dictate otherwise. We'll either lose carriers to UAV carriers, or we'll never develop UAV carriers, instead having carriers perform both roles. I don't know how the $s work out either way. No idea how much it would cost to develop and build a UAV specific carrier vs. another Ford class ship, or the operating costs for either over X years. It just seems that smaller ships with smaller crews would be cheaper, but not if that's supplemental to carriers instead of replacing them.[/quote]

That all makes sense. I really don't know what the right answer is. That is up to the egg head strategists at the Pentagon and the Generals who weigh whether or not the budget for a capability is worth fighting for. In better economic times we wouldn't be forced to choose.

On another note, the second part of your post sets the plot for the latest Call of Duty game.... set on the USS Obama.

[Guest bkelm18]

[quote name='wewoapsiak' timestamp='1354399159' post='853496']
And about time too. Besides everything falling apart, that place had the weirdest power plant set up I've heard of.
[/quote]

According to Navy Nuclear lore, Adm. Rickover intentionally designed it as complicated as he could in the hopes Congress wouldn't approve it. He believed nuclear propulsion should be exclusive to the subs. At least that's what everyone said when I went through nuke school.

[Mark@Sea]

Here is the problem with fewer carriers, and I've experienced this myself. Some places you just have to have a birdfarm. However, for that carrier doing donuts in the gulf of whatever, you've got 2 more. 1 that just got relieved and is heading (hopefully) for home and some much needed crew leave, and one that is on workups, covering a flareup, supporting training, or in a yard period.

My last carrier cruise was extended on both ends. We were supposed to do a couple months of workups out of a yard period, and have 4 months in home port prior to deployment. Instead, we went from doing workups to 3 days in port to load supplies, and then left port again for a little local excitement in Haiti. After a month doing donuts, we went directly to a 3 month stretch to cover for another conventional carrier that had a major engineering casualty and couldn't serve as the practice carrier for the aviator newbs in Pensacola. We concluded that little exercise with 3 days in home port - again, loading supplies and in fact most of the crew were unable to leave the ship - and departed directly for our med cruise. Just in time for Bosnian aerial diplomacy efforts, as a result of which we had 1 port call the first four months of the cruise. We were extended a month on station to continue the 'Clinton Diplomacy',

We transited directly from there to the Persian Gulf to cover for another carrier that had to depart a couple months early. Guess who got extended again to cover the gap? The ship actually used MWR funds at one point to rent a barge for a day so we could bring it alongside, go down, and have a couple of beers. Fun day, and the highlight of the cruise. Shoot, it was the highlight of the year.

I'd truly love to see a way for UAV's to replace manned aircraft. I really, really would. The tech just isn't there yet. Edited December 8, 2012 by Mark@Sea