Farewell, USS Enterprise (the aircraft carrier) | Hacker News Reader

Farewell, USS Enterprise (the aircraft carrier)

npr.org

30 pointsdctoedt56 comments

That feels so wrong. It is still floating and could be useful.

Destructing it is just destruction for the sake of it.

Why not at least sell it to a friendly country, who could use such power to defend itself from neighbouring enemies?

I'm sure Israel or Japan would welcome the gift - they sure could supply their own planes and weapons.

It's a real shame to destroy so much investment - especially since, as noted in the article, its speed is still competitive.

Or it could be used for seasteading. Who wouldn't want to live on board The Enterprise?

Right, a nuclear-powered 50 years old seasteading frame...

Wasn't that more or less what they did in Snow Crash?

> That feels so wrong. It is still floating and could be useful.

It's also an extremely old ship, maintaining it can't be cheap.

> Why not at least sell it to a friendly country, who could use such power to defend itself from neighbouring enemies?

A carrier is a force projection tool, it's for attacking stuff (or make clear that you can attack stuff), to defend a country an airbase is cheaper, simpler and more versatile.

> I'm sure Israel or Japan would welcome the gift - they sure could supply their own planes and weapons.

And fuel supply and crew and maintenance? For a unique ship? No other country on earth comes close to having an Enterprise-class carrier (let alone Nimitz-class), I'm really not sure they'd have any use for it. Not to mention a carrier on its own is basically dead (or a floating museum), you need a carrier group around it which costs the same as the carrier itself.

Also Japan is definitely out, they are not allowed to get weaponry for any other purpose than defense (Article 9 of the 1947 Constitution), and as noted above an aircraft carriers is anything but a defensive platform.

> It's a real shame to destroy so much investment

You do realize the Enterprise has been in active use for more than 50 years right? It's the very first nuclear-powered carrier in human history, and the one and only ship of its class (so replacement parts have to be custom-built, where there are 10 bigger, better, more modern Nimitz-class carriers)

Japan just built 3 Hyuga class helicopter assault carriers. They're basically smaller carriers equipped with helicopter wings, instead of airplanes. The Hyuga is equipped with anti-submarine warfare helicopters, so it has a defensive mission, but that can change, and they can be used for force projection.

The defense only clause of Japan's constitution is essentially meaningless because of stretches like this.

By keeping the military well behaved, it saves a ton of money.

I was going to say pretty much the same thing. I got to tour the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) when it stopped by Alameda and was moored next to the USS Hornet (CV-12). Since our tour guide was caught up traffic we went over to the Hornet and visited, and talked to them about the challenges of that restoration/preservation as well.

Basically there were three things that stood out, first was that there was a lot of 'toxic waste' in the form of stuff we know now to be carcinogenic used in the construction of these things, and re-fitting them, or restoring them, often involved complex programs of setting up barriers to prevent material from escaping during refit, and then disposing of it. That is slow and expensive work. The Hornet is like 1/3 the displacement of the Enterprise (30,000 tons vs 90,000 tons) so there is a lot more space.

I was reminded of how sad it was to see perfectly functional 2U servers being broken down for scrap, they can't justify the power it costs to keep them running.

That said, I also thought "Ok, here is something the sea steaders could start with. Make this the 'core' of their first floating island and build around it. It solves two very real bootstrap problems, one it has a power plant that generates useful electricity and comes with a helicopter 'airport' built in for rapid transportation. Of course the chance of the US Navy handing over a carrier to civilian hands with an intact nuclear power source is about the same as a me winning the PowerBall lottery.

Just a small correction. The USS Hornet was reclassified for anti submarine warfare from CV-12 to CVS-12

A bootstrap platform for sea steader ?

That's a great idea - it would be put to a good use, and be an interesting experiment in creating a community on an artifical island!

Hell, anything would be better than just destroying it.

You do realize there's a 50 years old nuclear plant inside the Enterprise right?

This is true of course, but the power plant is very very simple. Its a fission powered tea kettle. All the 'complicated' bits, the steam turbines the engines, operate outside the tea-kettle part and have been maintained and kept up to date. I don't know if they have done any long term radiological studies on metal fatigue but there aren't a lot of moving parts to go wrong. No reason to think you couldn't continue to use it for another 100 years. And since it goes about 20 years on a single fill up, you'd probably get 50 years out of a refueling if it basically stayed in one place.

> Basically there were three things that stood out, first was that there was a lot of 'toxic waste' in the form of stuff we know now to be carcinogenic used in the construction of these things

And the Enterprise's got the even bigger issue of the nuclear plant inside it, there are very few non-military refit for which a nuke would be of any interest, and taking out the plant essentially destroys the ship either way.

> No other country on earth comes close to having an Enterprise-class carrier (let alone Nimitz-class)

What about France? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles...

The CDG has under half the tonnage of the Enterprise. For reference, the Navy's WASP-class LHD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp_class_amphibious_assault_s...) has the same displacement and similar length.

Russia's Admiral Kuznetsov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admira...) is a bit closer, although it's a slightly different kind of ship (and until refitting it's a barely floating rust bucket).

Russia sold their part-damaged aircraft carrier for a reported $2.3bn to India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Admiral...

Not to mention china's new liaoning carrier, which is a relatively recent product of the Soviet Union.

It's too expensive to maintain at its current age and generation of technology. Sadly, once they take out the reactor there will be very little left. It follows the previous big E to the scrapyards, but lots of stuff is going to be salvaged just like its predecessor.

Hopefully, the US will get off this kick of naming ships for politicians and move back to the classic names.

We're building supercarriers faster than we're getting new presidents. Either we go back to cool names or we'll read about airstrikes conducted by the USS Chester A. Arthur.

You don't play around with old nuclear reactors. This thing needs to be decommissioned responsibly.

Israel and Japan don't need aircraft carriers. And you can't just supply your own planes and weapons--you need planes that are specially designed to land on a carrier with a tailhook, ordinary planes won't work.

Hopefully they bring back the name for the 3rd Gerald Ford class carrier (CVN-80). It's scheduled for service in 2025 so presumably they'll name it in the next 5-7 years.

They announced today that CVN-80 will be the next USS Enterprise.

A comparison of carriers in various fleets; the sizes, numbers, and countries:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm

scroll down for the image.

My father served on the Enterprise in the 60's as part of the around the world tour. At that time the island was completely different as well as the air wing complement. We have this giant photo in our house of the old square island and an A-5 vigilante taking off. It's amazing to consider the the Enterprise has been reworked and refitted so many times over a long career.

Honestly, I'd repurpose it for use in coastal disaster relief. The reactors and desalination facilities could provide emergency power and water, and if it were set up to carry helicopters instead of airplanes it could serve as a base of rescue operations.

The Navy has maybe half a dozen ships that are specialized for that role already.

At the inactivation ceremony a couple hours ago, the Secretary of the Navy announced (via video) that the next nuclear carrier after the Gerald R. Ford will be named Enterprise. Cheers went up.

(I was a nuclear-engineering officer on this Enterprise.)

I must say i don't understand why so many people here are so sad that a weapon is destroyed. In my book that's fucking great! I'm even somewhat disgusted.

But when i read the title i was sad as well... until i came across "The aircraft carrier".

I agree entirely with the idea of rejoicing at a weapon destroyed.

However, something like this represents world history, as well as personal history. Life is more complex and nuanced than "weapons bad," because we live in that world as it is.

I served on the Enterprise in the late seventies, and while I can't say I'm sad, I'm definitely experiencing a nostalgic episode. (I never went to sea on the Enterprise, overhaul in the shipyard only, so I can't tell you anything more interesting than how to lay tile on a metal deck or how to use a needle gun to strip paint.)

That would explain it for you, but i doubt all those commenters are your ex colleagues ;) I'm aware that life is complex. But comments like "hey, let's give it to Israel they can re-arm it and have a nice weapon there" make me sick, sorry.

You don't have to have been somewhere to have nostalgia for it and its associations.

Edit: I agree, better not to give it to anyone.

Ah well, they should put it in a museum i guess, not scraping it.

edit: Or make a museum out of it, with the size of the ship :P edit2: I see, and according to another link, the ship basically will be destroyed by removing the reactor, so there is no way around it...

Or you can look at it as a weapon that protected free people.

No, weapons kill free people. Please look at how many innocent people die in your so called war for your own freedom. And then look where the Enterprise was deployed. Vietnam.. Iraq... yes.. the ship protected your home from the other side of the planet... how?

The US carrier fleet ensured that the US and its allies would have total naval and air supremacy throughout the Cold War. This is one of the reasons that various potential enemies never even considered attacking us.

A weapon doesn't have to be used in anger in order to protect. It need only be ready.

This is already achieved by atomic bombs and the means to get them as far as Moscow or Beijing or wherever your enemy of the month is today.

No need for guns, tanks, aircraft carriers and all that other stuff that is used to _actually kill people_. Especially if you are living one your own continent with no enemy around for thousands of miles. If you didn't get it now: The weapons i talk about kill people. Many innocent. The ship we talk about was actually used in multiple wars to kill. I only hear "defend freedom" and "deterrence" but in reality it's neither of them. Only indoctrinated stuff that people have been told all their life and actually believe..

> Especially if you are living one your own continent with no enemy around for thousands of miles.

How would they get here? Oh, right, the ocean. Better control the ocean, then.

Or the air. Or space. You can even shoot rockets from the other side of the planet. Better invade all countries then! Just to be sure (and safe) :P

Aircraft carriers take out the air threat as well. As for space and rockets, well that was the point of SDI.

That's a bizarre comment. No need for conventional weapons, because you can just nuke people?

Well, that's basically the idea of deterrence, "We have nuclear weapons, don't touch us". But the comment pointed out that the Enterprise didn't protect someone. It was just plainly used to kill. That's what weapons do. They don't "protect". A shield protects. A sword kills. Enterprise = sword. Not shield. Is it so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand, it's just oversimplified. For instance, even in your original analogy, a sword can be used to parry just as much as to thrust, so it protects as well. Likewise, shields can be used to physically push an enemy--this was a common application of shields in formation warfare.

Doesn't change the fact that the ship was used in offensive wars against other countries, ffs. Surely you can't deny that. And that's what this is all about. This "but blabla, sword can parry, blabla"... jesus...

All I'm saying is that it isn't an indictment on the ship's entire existence, and that it served a noble purpose when it wasn't being used in those operations. Don't be petulant.

I grew up in a pacifist family, and still attend a Mennonite church.

But I also have what I think is a realistic view of history and geopolitics. I recognize the Enterprise, and more generally the U.S. carrier fleet, played a significant role in the relative peace we've had in the world since WWII.

Sure, there have been wars since then. But the total loss of lives, and total destruction from those wars, has been relatively minor in comparison to wars of the past. Nations only go to war, and only continue fighting, as long as they think they can gain from it somehow -- land, resources, safety, ideological spread, whatever. Having a carrier group parked off your coast ready to unleash fury tends to cut into those possible gains, and therefore deters nations from entering into hostilities. The value proposition of "negotiating" becomes higher than that of "fighting" in a lot of marginal cases. Strategic weapons (like carriers and nukes) in essence win wars by causing them not to be fought.

From where I stand, that's a win -- not just for "my side", but for humanity as a whole.

A livestream of the inactivation ceremony is here: http://www.livestream.com/usnavy

They're scrapping it?! That's a damn shame.

With respect I disagree.

While I understand entirely why the Enterprise as is was originally commissioned (dick waving with the USSR) the kind of missions the US Navy performs today require more flexibility and less brute force.

Now the Enterprise's speed is, even today, still damn competitive. But to get her ready to sail with her crew complement, supplies, and other logistical issues would likely mean she couldn't be used as part of a fast reactionary force.

She would be wonderful at long drawn out conflicts but how many of those does the US intend to take part in in the next fifty years? Any?

"When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident that the first question that comes to everyone's lips is: 'Where's the nearest carrier?'" - Bill Clinton

From what I understand, the modern concept of carrier operations is to always have a carrier near potential trouble spots, so that you don't haveto get her ready to sail - she's already at sea, close enough to make a difference.

I don't think he was saying it's a shame it's being decommissioned, rather that it was a shame it's being scrapped. But the other poster's link does a good job explaining why it can't be turned into a museum or something after the reactors are removed.

> While I understand entirely why the Enterprise as is was originally commissioned (dick waving with the USSR) the kind of missions the US Navy performs today require more flexibility and less brute force.

Meh. It's not like the Navy is decommissioning the Nimitz-class or scaling back the Gerald Ford class. The Enterprise is at life's end (it was originally planned for scrapping ~2015), and it's a pain as it's the only ship of its class.

They're doing it because by removing the reactors the ship will be essentially destroyed.

More details on the process. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/01/us/enterprise-scrap/index....

Thanks for that link. It didn't occur to me that the reactors would have to be ripped out through the flight deck.

Still, I would have loved to have toured her as a museum ship.

Disengage. :(

Reply on news.ycombinator.com