USS Enterprise Takes Its Final Voyage 455
westlake writes "The AP is reporting that the world's first nuclear powered aircraft carrier, U.S.S. Enterprise, is to be retired after fifty years of active service — the longest of any warship in U.S. naval history. Its final deployment will take it to the Middle East and last for seven months. The big ship has become notoriously difficult to keep in repair. As an old ship and the only one in its class, breakdowns have become frequent and replacement parts often have to be custom made. Despite its place in naval history and popular culture, Enterprise will meet its end at the scrap yard rather than being preserved at a museum. This is expected to happen in 2015, after the nuclear fuel has been removed."
That's odd (Score:5, Interesting)
Final voyage to the Middle East for an old hard to maintain ship, one wonders if something will befall the ship while there since it is apparently "expendable".
Re:That's odd (Score:4, Insightful)
...ahh, you're one of those who buys into the "Enterprise false flag" conspiracy theories? That Enterprise will be sunk, and that Iran will be blamed as an "excuse" to attack it?
Figured some loons would post on this article, but didn't expect it to be the FIRST post. Bravo.
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Funny)
Wait... there's already a ""Enterprise false flag"" conspiracy theory?
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Funny)
It's a false Enterprise false flag conspiracy theory.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, there's a "post stuff about ""Enterprise false flag" conspiracy theory" on Slashdot conspiracy".
Re:That's odd (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait... there's already a ""Enterprise false flag"" conspiracy theory?
You're talking about the same type of people who really believe the planes that hit the World Trade Center didn't hit the World Trade Center, or if they hit the World Trade Center they didn't have people on them, or if they had people on them they were controlled by robotic pods. And that this was just to somehow cover the REAL method of destruction which was extensive demolition charges in the buildings that no one ever noticed, because flying a plane into a building somehow wouldn't be enough to destroy it so there needed to be a REAL method of destruction that the planes somehow didn't provide. You're talking about the same people who really believe the people trapped above the impact floors weren't trapped, that the photos of them were falsified and took place on a set because the window sizes don't look right - which had nothing to do with the fact any first year photography or film student could tell you that zooming from 1/4 of a mile away will distort perspective.
It's a pathological desire to undermine anything that is believed by anyone. It's not healthy distrust, it's a creepy, nonsensical obsession with being the one, unique snowflake who sees things how they "really are".
Every little bit of information presented to them is disputed due to "inconsistencies" but their basic theories are routinely rewritten over the course of an argument. Their own truth isn't even stable, because they're not stable. Being in opposition to commonly-held beliefs is the only thing that sustains them, and they define themselves and reality solely based on that stance. Nothing else.
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Insightful)
I love their reactions to me presenting them with the following facts about WTC:
1) It was built on a shoestring budget
2) In the 1970s.
3) Using mob-connected contractors
4) By the (at the time bankrupt) City of New York.
5) Using an untested "open floorplan" design, with over 90% of the building hollow.
6) And some of the first recycled steel.
It's a wonder the damn things stood up at all.
But no, it's much easier to believe they were built to outlast the pyramids and a bunch of CIA types planted detcord throughout.
Asbestos Kills (Score:4, Interesting)
The plans called for the steel beams to be wrapped in asbestos.
By the time construction was in prgogree the use of asbestos was banned.
Blow on insulation was used.
Much of the blow on insulation got blowed off, the rest did not have the properties required to portect the structure from a prologed exposure to fire.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention that unprotected steel is probably one of the worst performing mainstream construction materials in a fire. Its thermal expansion will badly warp and buckle members before the heat has had much of a chance to make them go soft yet. Even timber usually does much better.
Of course at 100 storeys, there aren't really any other materials that will work structurally. You just have to use whatever protection you can and hope that you don't get a large prolonged fire fuelled by an awful lot of kerose
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that the Citicorp tower almost fell down all by itself, I'm still going with "I'm amazed it stayed up as long as it did in the first place"...
Re:That's odd (Score:4, Interesting)
A building pre-rigged with explosives would be a deathtrap in a fire, and the explosives have a limited shelf life anyways. Also the holes where demolition charges are planted structurally weaken the building. There's a reason why access to demolition-prepped buildings is carefully controlled.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"It's a pathological desire to undermine anything that is believed by anyone. It's not healthy distrust, it's a creepy, nonsensical obsession with being the one, unique snowflake who sees things how they "really are"."
This also explains religion, where one is exalted by special insight.
Of course both are absurd, with WTC conspiracy theories being far more plausible than Sky Fairies.
Re: (Score:3)
I think at the core of conspiracy theorism is the need for self-importance, to be a member of an elite group that knows the truth. I mean, who would David Icke be if not for the Illuminati?
Re: (Score:3)
It's a pathological desire to undermine anything that is believed by anyone. It's not healthy distrust, it's a creepy, nonsensical obsession with being the one, unique snowflake who sees things how they "really are".
Saw a good program on (PBS?) a few years ago about conspiracy theorists, particularly the wingnuttish ones. One thing that is common amongst them is they tend to have a lot of disorder in their own lives - Marital /familial disorder, financial disorder, emotional disorder - Or a combination
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're taking conspiracy theory 'debunking' a little too seriously, and doing it in a rather creep and non-sensical fashion............. While many people have some problems with the way the buildings collapsed I have never heard this stuff.
Um... you haven't spent much time on the internet, have you? Or noticed that it was enough to prompt a Popular Mechanics cover story [popularmechanics.com].
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Informative)
Sadly, these links never go out of style.
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report [popularmechanics.com]
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation [nist.gov]
World Trade Center Disaster Study [nist.gov]
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Insightful)
And sadly, the facts aren't even an issue for them. They define themselves based on their opposition to what's accepted. It's solely a case of being "special" enough to see the "truth", while the rest of us are "sheep".
That's what it's about. They'll create, and continue to create vast conspiracy theories that don't even match the last theory they said was the absolute truth. Their theories clash with their own theories. It's just about being different, and elevating your own worth above that of other people who are seen as dumber than you and need to be saved from themselves.
9/11 isn't even really the issue, it's merely a symptom of their own malignancy.
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Informative)
I guess it's one straw man against the other here. Either all of the wacky conspiracy theories are credible - despite their incompatibilities - or the Official Version of events is gospel truth (at least for the 30 or 40 years that the truth still matters).
But if you're in power and need to bend recent history for some purpose - like starting a war - your best move is to get as many nut-job theories into circulation as you can. That way the real truth gets lost in the circus and yours is the only one left standing.
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Insightful)
And you're doing the exact same thing, attempting to elevate yourself as having a superior intellectual position using the same techniques and ad hominin generalizations while ignoring any contradictory evidence which actually is objective and factual.
The only difference between people like yourself and so called "conspiracy theorists" is the amount of trust or distrust one assigns to certains collections or groups of people such as corporations, governments, and nations.
It all stems from group dynamics and evolutionary psychology and it is ingrained into the human condition. No human can escape it, not you, not me, no one.
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Insightful)
Lemme just ask some retarded questions. I'm terribly stupid, naive, uninformed, ignorant, and whole bunch of other horse shit. Oh yeah, can't forget batshit crazy.
With that out of the way - just how large an aircraft do you think would be required to destroy your home, if it were to crash into your home? Alright - how large a plane would be required to destroy your city hall? Your high school? Come on - THINK about it. Have you ever seen a mere 5-gallon can full of nothing but gasoline vapors explode? It's fucking DESTRUCTIVE, man! It will tear your goddamned HEAD OFF!
Now, imagine the explosive power in an automobile's gas tank - 10, 14, maybe 20 gallons of gasoline. Put that in your house. Ignite. Add a bottle or two of pure oxygen - remember, those high altitude aircraft come equipped with an oxygen source, large enough to supply all the people aboard, just in case.
Have you absorbed that yet? Fine - let's move on. How many gallons of aviation fuel did those jetliners carry? I don't even know - but I know damned well that even almost empty, they held more fuel than your family car - or an 18-wheeler.
Pull our heads out of our asses? No - I suggest you study physics.
Skyscrapers aren't exactly "stationary" to start with. They sway. They bend, They stretch. Just like Romper Room, "Bend, and stretch, reach for the stars!"
Impact one side, at a predetermined elevation, in the process destroying some structural elements, and delivering an explosive charge along with some nice long lasting flammables. You don't NEED to bring the building down. All you need do is to destroy SOME structural members, weaken some more - and wait for the building to bring itself down.
And THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE SAW ON 9/11/01 ! ! ! ! !
Those buildings stood for quite a long while after the impacts. It took TIME for them to finish destroying themselves. But, once those impacts, explosions, and fires were started, it was only a matter of time until they fell.
Pull our heads out of our asses, indeed.
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Informative)
Calm down dude, and explain why WTC7 came down.
I can help you with that.
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation [nist.gov]
World Trade Center Disaster Study [nist.gov]
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report [popularmechanics.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Very very easy: The building was damaged by debris from the collapse of the WTC 1&2 towers, and fires burned for hours on the lower floors without any available fire suppression. The sprinkler system was poorly designed (requiring manual intervention), required electrical power, and were underserved by low water pressure. A few points of failure were taken out by the twin tower collapses, and firefighters had no way of putting out the fires in the building. Three hours before the building collapsed, fir
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Funny)
"Considering how much talk there is of an enterprise false flag operation, if it was ever intended it probably won't happen because of all the talk about it."
That's just what they want you to think!
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you're talking about people who know history. It's full of documented false flag events, that's primarily how war is waged to gain public support, because generally most people are against going to war.
I've come to a conclusion about conspiracy theories: They don't matter. They don't matter if they're true, they don't matter if they're false, they don't matter if the aliens abducted you and changed the bits in your brain to make you think they're true or false. They don't matter.
Because it doesn't change anything. You're not going to convince anyone one way or the other. The conspiracy theorists will just make rationalizations and the government is never going to admit to a false flag operation until well after it stops mattering whether it was or not.
The problem is not false flag operations. The problem is that we're all so stupid that we allow ourselves to get manipulated into spending trillions of dollars on bombs and coffins as a result of bullshit propaganda. The War on Terrorism is a stupid failure of an idea. The War in Iraq is a stupid failure of a war. These facts do not depend on how the towers fell. The problem is not false flag operations, it is irrational overreactions to malicious instigators.
The next time some stupid halfwits manage to kill a large number of people in the same place, stop thinking about revenge, and never again say "Something Must Be Done." Just prosecute as many of them as are still alive and then get on with life. Because any other response is letting the terrorists win, whether the terrorists work for the government or not.
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Insightful)
Boy, ain't that the truth.
Even worse, the people who profit from war know exactly which notes to hit to get everyone to stand up and march around and DEMAND WAR. It's as if the run-up to the Iraq War never happened, when you think about Iran. The same people, saying exactly the same thing, about going to war in the same region, for the same reasons. In five years, we'll be hearing, "Well, everyone agreed at the time that Iran's nuclear weapon program had to be stopped, so you can't really blame anyone for deciding to get involved in a costly, unnecessary war".
The amazing thing is how they've got this formula down to an exact science. The same faces on my TV: Michael Ledeen, Paul Wolfowitz. John fucking Bolton. All looking grave and serious. "We have to stop Iran or it's curtains", they say. Somebody writes an op-ed in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal questioning the rush to war and BOOM! "He's not patriotic", they say, "He's anti-American". The next thing you know the guy who wrote the op-ed finds his entire life under attack. Maybe his wife loses her job. He's collateral damage. And still, in five years, they'll say, "Everybody thought for SURE that Iran was building a bomb", and they'll forget all about Joe Op-Ed Writer.
The other night I heard some guy who teaches at the Naval War College. He wrote a book called "Rush to Judgement" about how someday historians will all agree that George W Bush was our greatest president and how absolutely necessary the Iraq War really was. It was on some right-wing talk show that just a little earlier had Victor Davis Hansen, and (guess who!) Michael Ledeen talking about how weak little Israel is totally going to bravely take out Iran's burgeoning nuclear arsenal and how Israel is the only thing standing between the world and total nuclear winter because of Iran's thousands of nuclear weapons, which they will absolutely have next week unless the feckless islamo-fascist in the White House finally wakes up and immediately starts playing Driving Miss Daisy with Bibi Netanyahu playing the role of Miss Daisy. Oh, and then that Kenyan pretender steps aside to let a real man, oh, I don't know...maybe somebody like Mitt Romney, run WWIII because everyone knows a Democrat can't win a war. And Romney is a job creator and a venture capitalist and so he is totally the kind of guy you want leading the troops into battle with his years of military experience as a Mormon missionary in third-world countries like France. In fact, he's just like Patton when you think about it. Sort of a cross between John Galt and Winston Churchill with better hair.
It's nauseating how predictable it all is. And it's terrifying how they can just get away with it again and again. But I guess when you've got major media networks owned by military contractors, it shouldn't be a surprise that the media is so willing to let this predictable scenario play out. But fucking hell, I'm weary of it.
Re:That's odd (Score:4, Interesting)
"Nano-thermites"?
"Little passenger plane"?
You're talking nonsense. It's not even an argument against what I said, it's merely words that have no real connection with reality being written down for the sake of opposing what I said.
Which is at the core of the 9/11 Truther M.O.
Re:That's odd (Score:4, Insightful)
The core of all "truthers" is wrong common sense being elevated above all else.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Umm, even the newest carrier in the fleet is "steam driven." The only difference is how they make the steam. Obviously, they never let you in the engine room.
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Interesting)
On the one hand, I know that there are plenty of evil conspiracies that governments engage in to further their goals. The Nazi's burned the Reichstag to gain popular support. Some factions in the CIA conspired to fake and/or actually commit terrorist attacks on US citizens and blame them on Cuba to start a war with Cuba (the Northwoods documents are real, but they were never green lighted by the President, but the CIA agents behind it still planned it and sought approval to do it and even specifically talked about manufacturing another "remember the Maine" incident). The FBI under Hoover pulled off a huge list of dirty tricks including COINTELPRO... Governements, including the US government, pull off all kinds of dirty tricks. It frankly wouldn't surprise me if there's a few proposals floating around for all kinds of false flag operations they can pull off to justify a war with Iran (it wouldn't even surprise me if sinking a ship such as the Enterprise were in one of those proposals).
Conspiracies are real things. They happen in real life. The events of 9/11, for example, are proven to be a conspiracy... by a group of mostly Saudi terrorists. Whether there was actually any US government participation in it is another story. I think it's quite likely that there was some, but probably not in the grandiose secret hidden demolition charges way most of the conspiracy theorists seem to think. Just like the first World Trade Center Bombing, various intelligence and law enforcement agencies seem to have had their eye on the people who did it, but still let them go about their business and possibly even provided some material support here and there. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies do this a lot. They monitor and sometimes infiltrate criminal and terrorist organizations and cultivate "informants" and double-agents. They let small crimes (and sometimes big ones) get by in order to build up for really big takedowns. Consider FBI informants "Whitey" Bulger and Stephen "the rifleman" Flemmi who were getting away with murder and eliminating the competition with FBI protection. Let's face it, sometimes they commit out and out entrapment and manufacture crimes. Some may argue that the ends justify the means and maybe they're right, but they seem pretty hard to justify to me. So, maybe some in the US government actually did give the 9/11 terrorists a pass, or even provide them assistance just to see what they would do or to give them a chance to commit a terrorist act (which they could swoop in and heroically prevent). I'll even concede that I wouldn't put it past some of the kinds of people in these positions to allow a terrorist attack to occur just to have an excuse for a war. That, sadly, does not stretch credibility to the breaking point.
Having said all that, most of the conspiracy theories around this stuff are nuts. For example, your nano thermite paint idea. Why, exactly would that be necessary? How would it even be practical since a layer of thermite paint couldn't produce enough heat to do much more than slightly warm the very thick steel we're talking about? Why would it even be necessary given the damage from the collision and the furnace from the burning jet fuel (and everything else flammable in the building)? Has anyone claiming it's what happened bothered doing any research or experimentation? Most of the really vocal conspiracy theorists seem to be really bad at the physics of the real world and to be terrible at logic. Like the ones who insist that the Pentagon was hit by a missile because the hole in the wall wasn't the same size and shape as the front profile of the plane that hit it and don't understand that: A. a jet plane is a flying, hollow, aluminium can and the Pentagon is a re-enforced concrete fortress and B. it would require the people behind the conspiracy to simultaneously be brilliant enough to pull off the elaborate conspiracy, but stupid enough to use a real plane in three other places, but use a missile in a fourth.
Then there's the moon hoax conspiracy idiots who consiste
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's an old theory.
The idea is that if there are enough bogative theories around a couple of genuaine ones won't be noticed.
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Insightful)
Which parts are lies is hard to determine, but the official story clearly contains lots of lies,
I've never seen one probably false statement in the "official story." I'm a fireman, so we are taught to never say anything to anyone for that exact reason. The "official story" is the one published on paper from the commission, not any verbal statements made by any "official" or anything else like that. So, what's the lie?
Here's an exercise in futility: review the data and evidence surrounding 9/11 in an open and honest way. You will probably reach the conclusion that there was some sort of inside job,
I have. You are wrong. What now?
Re:That's odd (Score:4, Insightful)
Story is wrong: (Score:5, Informative)
The USS Constitution, launched in 1798, retired from active service in 1856, after 58 years of active service. And after that, she was turned into a school ship, then a whole bunch of that kind of service, and she's still afloat today, the official "symbolic flagship" of the US fleet.
Re:Story is wrong: (Score:4, Insightful)
Puh: that's nothing. HMS Victory was launched in 1765, and is still in commission. She's even older than the United States! You guys have some catching up to do.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Story is wrong: (Score:5, Insightful)
No need to focus on the negative old chap. Mind you, China will do the same to the US in a few years if they keep things up. Nobody stays on top forever.
Re:Story is wrong: (Score:5, Informative)
China's Army and Air Force are doing fine, but their Navy is in relatively poor shape. They're good enough to be a threat to anyone invading them, maybe even a threat to the locals, but even the Royal Navy could take them at this point.
They've got one aircraft carrier. One. Not even a full one. They bought an incomplete and stripped Soviet "carrier-cruiser", and are currently finishing and refurbishing it. It's designed to carry a mere 40 aircraft, mostly helicopters. Compare that to the 90 or so carried on the Enterprise or a Nimitz-class. Now, they somewhat compensate by having quite a few more missiles, including some pretty hefty AA, but they're as outclassed as a PDP11 on the TOP500.
Re:Story is wrong: (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, but when Chinese subs can surface within a US carrier group [washingtontimes.com] without the US knowing about it, the number of planes the Chinese carrier has becomes less of an issue.
Re:Story is wrong: (Score:5, Interesting)
What else you are missing is that their space program is part of their military. All of this man flight and their new space station is actually a military base.
Then add to that the fact that they spend more of their GDP on military than does even America and that was 5 years ago. Since that time, the American DOD budget has been steady or dropped, while China's has increased 5-10% EACH year. [cia.gov]
Quite honestly, you should consider a bit of humility.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, China is not to be taken lightly. The above is probably why they are so edgy about our spying on them. USSR never was that edgy. Nor were we. In fact, we WANTED them to know roughly what we had, just not how to do it. USSR was the same way.
China does not want us to know what they are up to. That is the actions of a nation that is planning a surprise attack.
Re:Story is wrong: (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the 21st century. Aircraft carriers are nothing more than floating coffins. Time after time in war game after war game, modern carriers go straight to the bottom - sunk by everything from 2-man crews in speedboats to ballistic missiles.
Aircraft carriers are the fucking Death Star and every man and his dog has an X-Wing and proton torpedoes. Floating coffins.
Re:Story is wrong: (Score:4, Insightful)
The report can probably be taken at face value, but if it would be interesting if the US forces had been tracking the sub all along, but never let on that they knew, so China would be caught "flat footed" in any real conflict.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, I still think of the Illustrious as a carrier. And the Brits do have a carrier in production. What with their significantly longer experience running a major navy, I'm willing to bet that they'll have much fewer problems than China.
Re: (Score:3)
Anything's possible, but I can't see a US carrier group *purposefully* letting subs from a nation we consider a military threat to come within torpedo range of the carrier. From the analysis I read at the time, most military wonks think the US Navy severely underestimated the stealth capabilities of the newest Song class [wikipedia.org] submarine.
Given how much data the Chinese government is purported to have stolen from military subcontractors and hacking intrusions over the years, it seems plausible to me that the Chine
Re: (Score:3)
Puh: that's nothing. HMS Victory was launched in 1765, and is still in commission. She's even older than the United States!
If the UK doesn't reverse course on defense cuts, there may not be much more than HMS Victory left to protect the British Isles, and the only waves Britsh sailors will be familiar with are these [picturesof.net].
Cuts to the Royal Navy [savetheroyalnavy.org]
British defence cuts will help make ADF shipshape [theaustralian.com.au]
Navy chief: Britain cannot keep up its role in Libya air war due to cuts [telegraph.co.uk]
Big British defense cuts weaken Pentagon's top military partner [csmonitor.com]
Defense Cuts Mean UK Would Lose A New Falklands War, Veteran Claims [businessinsider.com]
Re:Story is wrong: (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, she's been de-comissioned and re-comissioned several times. So the "continuous" thing has some holes in it. The stretch I quoted was the longest in-service stretch where she was legitimately a member of the fighting force to be reckoned with.
Two members of my family have served aboard her; hence my particular interest.
Re:Story is wrong: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't trust a Czech "Admiral" either.
Re:Story is wrong: (Score:5, Funny)
Or an Italian Captain.
Re:Story is wrong: (Score:4, Funny)
I believe most people would agree that Austria and Switzerland have the most trustworthy admirals.
Re:Story is wrong: (Score:5, Informative)
I know better than to whoosh you, but to be a good pedant, you'd need to be technically correct...
Re: (Score:3)
Got it totally wrong... Didn't you ever see episode 19? Off the coast of either Manhattan or Somalia (both hotbeds of Ferengi activity), the Ferengi will take control of the Enterprise until the high tech redneck saves them all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_(Star_Trek:_Enterprise) [wikipedia.org]
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Funny)
...ahh, you're one of those who buys into the "Enterprise false flag" conspiracy theories?
Bah, everyone knows it's the Reliant which is the real false flag.
What's actually going to happen is that Admiral Greenert is going to "borrow" the Enterprise so he can take it to Genesis Island to retrieve the body of Admiral Rickover and reunite it with his katra, which is temporarily stored within the mind of ex-President George W Bush.
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Informative)
It also makes sense to put the best one there, since it would be best equipped to fight back.
Or, if you have the resources, put the weakest one closest, with as many other better ones nearby as possible, so you can take the first hit (and thus be "justified", whatever that means) and then immediately fight back hard.
And indeed, that's likely the case. CVN-70 Carl Vinson and CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln are currently in the Gulf as well. And CVN-68 Nimitz is under way to relieve Lincoln - if the timing is right, both will be in the Gulf when the shit hits the fan, meaning four aircraft carriers (nearly 360 aircraft) plus the accompanying ships (four cruisers, eight destroyers, four attack submarines and various supply ships).
Re: (Score:3)
Both the Vinson and the Lincoln just got there in January. It won't take the Enterprise that long to get there, nor the Nimitz (I thought it was on sea trials) so that poses an interesting question. Most deployments are 7 months. By the time these two other carriers get there the two there will have been deployed for four months. So either they are on short deployments or we will have 4 carriers there at once.
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Informative)
Confirmed. The Nimitz is now in home port Everett, Washington after a week or so of sea trials. It may very well be scheduled to relieve the Lincoln eventually, but they haven't left yet. Also, they just got to Everett. They have been at PSNS Bremerton for the last 15 months undergoing maintenance.
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Informative)
Further, given that it was CNV-72, the very much not obsolete yet, Abraham Lincoln that had the dubious honor of passing through the Strait of Hormuz(ie. within range of practically anything not classified as a 'small arm', the Enterprise certainly hasn't been obviously singled out as the sitting duck.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, though, given the rather low standard of evidence required for question
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't have to be destroyed.
this is all it took for Vietnam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Unless Janeway is the captain, in which case the ship will be lost in the bermuda triangle and re-appear somewhere in the antarctic.
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Interesting)
If the entire crew is wearing red shirts, I'd worry.
I was in the ordinance section ("G" section) on Big E. Aviation ops staff... ordinance, flight deck ops, fuel, safety, etc... all wear color coded shirts. The fuel guys wear purple shirts. Safety guys white, flight deck guys blue, plane captains brown, etc. Ordinance wore red shirts. So yeah, I was a redshirt on the Enterprise, and lived to tell about it :P
Re: (Score:3)
I was in the ordinance section
I'm a little dubious about anyone who can't spell what he works on...
Not to take anything away from the Big E... (Score:5, Interesting)
...but the USS Constitution [wikipedia.org] is the "world's oldest commissioned warship afloat" [navy.mil], having been launched 21 October 1797.
As for the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) [navy.mil], some video memories:
USS Enterprise at Sea [youtube.com]
USS Enterprise Flight Operations [youtube.com]
"Fate protects fools, little children, and ships named Enterprise."
Fair winds and following seas.
Re:Not to take anything away from the Big E... (Score:4, Informative)
They did say the longest in "active service", not by commissioned date.
Re: (Score:3)
The constitution was in active service for longer than the Enterprise, but it's no longer in active service. It's been a museum for 100 years.
Very nice ship, if you like tall ships. They don't make them like that any more. A shame that Enterprise won't be turned into a museum as well, but the last thing I really want is another reminder of a movie made by Tom Crazy.... ;)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The constitution was in active service for longer than the Enterprise, but it's no longer in active service. It's been a museum for 100 years.
How much of the an original wooden vessel survives after ten years, thirty years, 100 years is a very interesting question. In the end, you are always looking at a restoration or re-construction.
Wood rots. Hemp rots. Canvas rots.
Rumors had circulated for half a century that the Constellation was not what its promoters claimed it to be, and [Dana] Wegner's report confirmed them. Investigators from the Navy discovered that the supposed Revolutionary War-era frigate in Baltimore Harbor was actually a Civil War era sloop that had been built in Norfolk, Virginia, in 1854. All it shared with the frigate built in Baltimore in the eighteenth century was its name. It resembled a Revolutionary War-era frigate because during early renovations, some of the ship's admirers had "restored" the Constellation to appear to be almost 60 years older than it was; for example, they added a second gun deck and made other alterations. For most of its tenure in Baltimore, the Constellation was living a lie.
[This] distortion of history came at the expense of the Constellation's own very interesting history. It was, for example, the last and largest all sail-powered sloop commissioned by the U.S. Navy, and while it did not engage in a famous sea battle, as did its predecessor, it did work to interdict the slave trade during the mid-1800s.
Archival Authenticity in a Digital Age [clir.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the constitution still has a bunch of surviving bulkhead pieces from the original. Yes Huge chucks have been replaced, but wood left in water and well cared for will last for decades and decades between replacements.
it is the well cared for part that is always causing problems.
Re:Not to take anything away from the Big E... (Score:4, Funny)
Isn't the Constitution a myth that got replaced by corporate money?
Wow. Captcha is 'bribery'
Re: (Score:3)
However, the USS Constitution hasn't really been a "war"ship since before the Civil War. It's mainly been a training or museum ship. The last time it was used as an active-duty combat vessel (as far as I can tell) was 1855, which would give it a 58-year combat life.
Which still beats the Enterprise's 51-year service, I guess. Point conceded.
Re:Not to take anything away from the Big E... (Score:5, Informative)
Ref. 1 [navy.mil]
Ref. 2 [wikipedia.org]
Causality Failure... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Causality Failure... (Score:5, Funny)
But how will Kirk and the crew save the Whales and get back to the 23rd Century without that "nuclear wessel"? (evil grin)
They went back in time to 1986, so retiring the ship now won't affect the whale recovery. Geeze, what are they teaching kids in school today? Apparently not Starfleet future history.
Re:Causality Failure... (Score:4, Funny)
Safety First! (Score:5, Funny)
For instance, the holodeck safety protocols continually go offline.
Re:Safety First! (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, no-one thought of sandboxing the holodeck? Even after the first 10 times the ship got pwned by it?
Re:Safety First! (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, no-one thought of sandboxing the holodeck? Even after the first 10 times the ship got pwned by it?
In the 1980s, it seemed totally unbelievable that every passing alien ship could drive-by root their holodeck.
The sad thing is, the older I get and the more I experience real Internet security, the more depressingly probable that scenario seems.
Re: (Score:3)
In the 1980s, it seemed totally unbelievable that every passing alien ship could drive-by root their holodeck.
The sad thing is, the older I get and the more I experience real Internet security, the more depressingly probable that scenario seems.
Very true. People worry today about polymorphic viruses, but wait till they have to deal with holographic viruses.
Is the program ever complete?
Good show Big E. (Score:5, Funny)
That's a lot of hard work and a huge number of sailors who have sheltered and lived in a small floating city. There's a new world coming though. Submersible carriers protecting the Atlantic Confederated States will be something to see once the Chinese realize they need somewhere to put all those new citizens looking for an exciting new life and a daily wage.
Gulf to Gulf (Score:4, Interesting)
The "Big E"'s first combat deployment was in the Gulf of Tonkin, on Yankee Station. As a veteran of TF77 (The Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club) I find it appropriate that her last cruise will another Gulf...the Persian. Too bad there's nothing to compare to Subic Bay in the Mideast for R n' R.
Bravo Zulu, CVN-65
Re: (Score:3)
The military has now also gone "corporate" (and been infested with Bible Thumpers) such that the old "work hard, fight hard, play hard" attitudes are muted.
The "bible thumpers" have been serving in the US military since before there was a US. Show them some respect.
Re:Gulf to Gulf (Score:5, Interesting)
I served 1981-2007 and saw the changes first hand. The military will stay full with or without religious fanatics.
I owe no religion respect. I respect willingness to fight, but the military climate before it began to fill with Evangelicals was much more to my liking.
Re:Gulf to Gulf (Score:5, Insightful)
"Too bad there's nothing to compare to Subic Bay in the Mideast for R n' R."
We once defended people who liked to party and fuck. Now our opponents AND clients are religious fanatics who BOTH hate "freedom".
I've been to Subic several times. In my younger stupid days, I once drank so much at the Tennessee Club in Olangapo City, that I had alcohol poisoning for three days afterwards.
I also wised up and got out of the regular sailor party haunts and actually saw some of the rest of the PI. And far from being a country where people like to "party and fuck", it's one of the most deeply Catholic countries in the world. Outside of Olangapo, the rest of the PI looked at the areas surrounding the Naval (and Air Force) bases as a kind of Filipino Sodom and Gomorra, a stain on the country and an embarrassment. We weren't all that popular once you got outside those gates. Filipinos were truly grateful for our chasing off the Japanese and rebuilding infrastructure after WWII, but were resentful for our continued presence. And yes, they thought... probably not illogically... that we were a bad influence on their kids. We were essentially kicked out just a few years after my time of service.
I think you'll find that overseas US bases are no different from overseas bases of the British Empire or the Roman Legions. Young horny troops with money to spend will always attract party people, prostitutes, and vice operations eager to take their money. Pretty sure there were Jewish hookers servicing those Roman soldiers in Judea back in the time of Jesus. It surely didn't make Judea a land where people liked to "party and fuck". So I think you're looking at the world in a rather skewed lens.
It has to be scrapped (Score:5, Informative)
Sadly, it has to be scrapped. Removing the reactors requires cutting out decks from the flight deck down to all eight nuclear reactor compartments. The hull gets towed to Bremerton, WA for disposal. The reactors, less fuel, go to a trench in Hanford, Washington. [brookings.edu]
Re: (Score:3)
I always thought that I knew that the Enterprise had hatches below each reactor so they could be dumped in the event of a bad problem ("eject warp core", just to save other posters the time). Perhaps I am wrong - wouldn't be the first time...
Re: (Score:3)
They'd greatly weaken the hull just where you wouldn't want a torpedo hit.
Here's where the reactors go (Score:3)
That's just for refueling access. For decommissioning, the entire reactor compartment has to come out. For a submarine, that's the whole hull section containing the reactor. A lid is welded on each end, and the old reactor compartments are then neatly lined up in a big open space at 46.566488,-119.517712. [google.com] When the space is full, a berm will be built around it and filled in.
Efforts towards the next Enterprise (Score:5, Interesting)
There currently are petitions to name the next unnamed planned Ford-class carrier (CVN-80) Enterprise. I personally hope CVN-80 will be named Enterprise.
See: http://ussenterp.epetitions.net/signatures.php?petition_id=1870 [epetitions.net] and http://www.petitiononline.com/CVN80ENT/petition.html [petitiononline.com]
Custom made parts (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Custom made parts (Score:5, Informative)
Aren't most parts for US Navy vessels custom made regardless? I don't recall seeing a section at WalMart for warship parts.
Most modern US warships of a class are constructed with modern modular techniques, with tooling at the ready to reproduce standard, common parts. The Nimitz class... like all of our other modern warship classes... was basically built in modular parts in an indoor factory, and then put together piece by piece at the yards. You can look up pics of modern carrier construction where they're using cranes to lift factory made sections into the ship, where they're welded and secured into the vessel. The Enterprise... a unique design... was built the old fashioned way, completely (and uniquely) built in the drydock itself from the keel up. So when a major part on a Nimitz needs replacing, they simply tell Newport News Shipbuilding, where machinists simply make one quickly and economically from an existing productions template. The Enterprise's parts have to very much be custom made.
Renovation Suggestion (Score:5, Funny)
Can't they just add a third nacelle and give it to some Admiral to use?
Re:Renovation Suggestion (Score:4, Funny)
Better yet, sell it to a fiber optic dude by the name of L. Bob Rife...
It was a beater in the 90's. (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember finishing Nuke School in the early nineties, and one of my buddies went surface and got assigned to the Enterprise. It was kind of a good deal for him since he went straight to the shipyard instead of going out to see on a non-hoopty vessel. But we stayed in touch for a while after our assignments and I remember him telling me "dude, I will *never* go out to sea on this thing, I'll jump ship first." Obviously a bit of hyperbole involved, but the ship was showing its age even back then.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The condition of old ships can wax and wane based on the quality of the leadership and money invested. I was on Kitty Hawk during her last few years, and I had heard stories about how bad of condition she was in, however after repeated SRAs (Ship Repair Availability) in Japan, and a lot of investment repairing old systems, she was in much better shape in the end than her sister ships (Connie, America, JFK) and was the last decommissioned despite being the oldest. To be fair, Connie had a great rep and I ne
Re:It was a beater in the 90's. (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember finishing Nuke School in the early nineties, and one of my buddies went surface and got assigned to the Enterprise. It was kind of a good deal for him since he went straight to the shipyard instead of going out to see on a non-hoopty vessel. But we stayed in touch for a while after our assignments and I remember him telling me "dude, I will *never* go out to sea on this thing, I'll jump ship first." Obviously a bit of hyperbole involved, but the ship was showing its age even back then.
Back in the late 80's, we had constant reactor safety drills on Big E. She's got eight old and unique reactors which even then required a lot more TLC than the two more modern reactors on the Nimitz class. I almost got to hearing those drills on the 1MC in my sleep they happened so often. "Emergency in number 3 MMR", etc. They were always drills, of course, but man... they happened a lot.
carriers are people too (Score:5, Interesting)
As much as a ship like the Enterprise is important to the Navy (and it's hard to find one which is more important to the modern Navy), what is truly amazing about modern carriers are the way the people on them work together.
If you ever have a chance to cruise on a carrier, go for it. Watching launch and recovery of planes is amazing, particularly at night. People die if someone makes a small mistake, stands in the wrong place, leaves a tool or spare nut lying around, or sets the pressure on an arresting cable just a little off. So they don't do anything wrong. Several hundred people working together flawlessly is really something to see.
Re:Nuclear Powered Surface Ships of the World (Score:4, Funny)
Chekov says "VOOOOSH"