Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

USS Enterprise Takes Its Final Voyage

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the looking-for-nuclear-wessels dept.

The Military 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That's odd (5, Interesting)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318933)

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 (4, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318949)

...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 (5, Funny)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318975)

Wait... there's already a ""Enterprise false flag"" conspiracy theory?

Re:That's odd (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319001)

Remember the Maine!

Re:That's odd (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319037)

Story is wrong: (5, Informative)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319207)

...to be retired after fifty years of active service — the longest of any warship in U.S. naval history.

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: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319251)

The story doesn't actually assert that it has the longest length of service. The only time that claim is made is in a direct quote from an Admiral.

Re:Story is wrong: (5, Interesting)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319343)

I was a junior Navy officer for some time, in a NATO-member Navy. One of the few things I learned quite thoroughly in that time was: "Never trust what an admiral says. Never. Ever. Find your own facts".

Re:That's odd (4, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319065)

It's a false Enterprise false flag conspiracy theory.

Re:That's odd (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319449)

So if it happens its just an Enterprise false flag then? remember we've already had feds admit to running a false flag with fast & furious, and considering you have a trifecta of the MIC, the neocons, and AIPAC all pushing for a war with Iran a "remember the Maine" moment must seem pretty inviting right about now. After all they don't have to sink it, just have a nice cheap speedboat attack. Considering the size of the big E an attack like what happened to the Cole probably wouldn't even slow its top speed.

Re:That's odd (2)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319099)

Well, there's a "post stuff about ""Enterprise false flag" conspiracy theory" on Slashdot conspiracy".

Re:That's odd (4, Insightful)

Y-Crate (540566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319107)

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 (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319199)

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. 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.

Re:That's odd (4, Funny)

ScuzzMonkey (208981) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319379)

"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 (1, Insightful)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319203)

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".

What you've written is the nonsensical psychobabble trying to support the morbid obsession of trusting the people who'd proven time and again that they are constantly scheming to keep getting richer. FYI "coming up with <<conspiracy theories>>" is one of the tasks at the CIA (see WMDs in Iraq, Naiyrah testimony, etc, etc.) and for an outsider, the awareness of being lied to by the gubermint is no more thrilling than the possibility that there really is "terrorism."

Re:That's odd (-1)

RKBA (622932) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319205)

If you would pull your head out of your ass and actually look at some of the scientific evidence instead of simply being a good little robot and blindly believing all the lies the government tells you, you might actually discover the truth.

Re:That's odd (4, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319325)

Re:That's odd (5, Insightful)

Y-Crate (540566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319371)

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 (1)

segedunum (883035) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319247)

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.....

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.

Re:That's odd (2)

Y-Crate (540566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319289)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319403)

Is that a conspiracy conspiracy conspiracy? Watch out, folks! Segedunum doesn't know about it so it must be a conspiracy to create conspiracies about the obvious, and very much real, conspiracies.*

*All of which he knows of.

Re:That's odd (4, Insightful)

grumling (94709) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319255)

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.

Re:That's odd (2, Interesting)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319313)

"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:That's odd (0)

BudAaron (1231468) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319345)

I'm actually 84 and an ex Navy Electronics Technician who served on a few of these carriers when they were steam driven LOL. I really hate it when "experts" like yourself imply that a gentleman like me (with an IQ of 146 FWIW) is somehow stupid to at least question various findings by "high govenment officials" and others. Let me present this scenario - the steel in those building was being painted just before 9/11. Nano thermites can be applied as paint. No one would EVER suspect. My son and I actually visited the World Trade Center when it was still standing. I've thought back about this experience and find it incredibally hard to believe that a little (relatively) passenger plane could bring one of these buildings down without outside help.Do a little investigating on your own. You might find reason to questions the "expert findings" in this case.,

Re:That's odd (3, Interesting)

Y-Crate (540566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319399)

"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 (0)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319353)

Mod parent up into the sky. I am out of mod points at the moment, alas, for I sure would. Finally a voice of sanity.

Re:That's odd (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319451)

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:That's odd (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318993)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319005)

I'm no conspiritorist but if you think someone might try to sink one of your aircraft carriers, it makes sense to put the one with the least value in that theater of operations.

Re:That's odd (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319071)

Two words (well one is an anagram, or something like that): HMS Hood.

Re:That's odd (4, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319121)

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:That's odd (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319263)

If you look at the current aircraft carrier deployment [globalsecurity.org] , you'll notice that 'hanging around the middle east' is a very popular activity among aircraft carriers, with 'maintenance' the runner up.

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:That's odd (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319429)

The USS Maine [wikipedia.org] wasn't available?

Re:That's odd (0, Offtopic)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319069)

Figured some loons would post on this article, but didn't expect it to be the FIRST post. Bravo.

Yeah, because it's so 100% certainly impossible that it is already drafted [wikipedia.org] and would happen... [wikipedia.org] again [wikipedia.org] .

The actual loons are those like you - living in permanent denial in fucking spite of all evidence.

Re:That's odd (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319105)

Shut up, idiot. We *try* to have intelligent conversation here, but some jackass has to go off-topic and post shit.

This isn't a article about the threat of what could happen, what did happen, or what might. It's an article about the decommissioning of a ship, nothing more. Stay on topic, or get out.

Re:That's odd (-1, Flamebait)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319149)

Shut up, idiot.

You will not be telling me what to do OR what not to do, coward.

Re:That's odd (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319177)

DIAF. Preferably along with any progeny you may have created, so your stupidity cannot be passed to future generations of humanity.

Re:That's odd (-1, Offtopic)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319223)

Come and tell that to my face, no-balls.

Re:That's odd (0)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319389)

Watch out everyone! We have a badass over here!

Re:That's odd (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319367)

It's worth noting that the King David Hotel bombing (third link) was a straightforward attack on British command and intelligence, not a false flag operation. Not much to separate it from the many other bombings that have happened since, aside from its relatively high effectiveness. And the first link is to something that didn't happen.

Re:That's odd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319195)

daveschroeder, do you believe that the US government is honest and righteous? Because only someone with a quasi-religious affiliation for a very large organisation would mock someone for simply contemplating the potential for it to abuse its power.

Looked at another way, let's say you were living in Berlin on 28 February 1933. You take your morning stroll and something smells funny. "Dude!" you exclaim, echoing the future of American culture, "The Nazis could totally garner sufficient sympathy to pass an Enabling Act now."

"LOON!" shouts a smart black-shirted gentleman from across the street.

Re:That's odd (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319361)

False flag attacks, in general, are most certainly not conspiracy theory.

Re:That's odd (1)

Kjuib (584451) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318961)

When one Enterprise falls.. they just rebuild it and and a new letter to the end. This one will be 'B', I think.

Re:That's odd (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319043)

Nope, the US Navy doesn't do that, otherwise THIS Enterprise would be H, or at least, F.

Not that this is "falling" so much as being removed since upkeep is getting excessive.

Re:That's odd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319091)

I'm sure Lt-cmdr Data will come up with a solution 43 minutes into the crisis.

Re:That's odd (1)

grumling (94709) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319275)

Involving using the main deflector dish to generate a tachyon field, of course.

Re:That's odd (2, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319179)

Given that aircraft carriers are there to carry aircraft which(along with crew) are Very. Much. Not. Cheap. I'd be inclined to check the allocation of those two things for the cruise. If normal, there's a bloody fortune in men and hardware loaded in the thing, even if it is an obsolete tub. If it mysteriously ends up being composed of all the EOL aircraft and enlisted na'er-do-wells, you might want to bring a life jacket...

That said, though, given the rather low standard of evidence required for questionably sensible invasions of dusty countries, the notion that 'They' would need to false-flag an entire aircraft carrier seems a bit curious. It would also be a slightly curious choice because aircraft carriers are the absolute finest in highly-visible nationalist force projection, and losing one would be terrible PR.

Re:That's odd (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319309)

The systems and aircraft which will NOT be scrapped with the hull are far from expendable. Loss of face would also be a factor.

Re:That's odd (2)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319317)

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 (4, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319329)

If the entire crew is wearing red shirts, I'd worry.

Re:That's odd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319393)

So Koan, in the fall can we all group together and laugh at your crazy ass?

Why not just add a couple warp nacelles? (1)

fdrebin (846000) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318935)

Not that it would make maintenance any cheaper...

Re:Why not just add a couple warp nacelles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319407)

Or retrofit a couple of hot new Thorium reactors and see how well they perform in the wild.

Not to take anything away from the Big E... (5, Interesting)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318937)

...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... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39318969)

They did say the longest in "active service", not by commissioned date.

Re:Not to take anything away from the Big E... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319029)

Technically the USS Constitution is in the active fleet, never having been decommissioned and stuck-off.

Re:Not to take anything away from the Big E... (2)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319041)

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.... ;)

RTFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39318985)

Enterprise is not being noted as the oldest warship afloat, but the oldest *nuclear* warship afloat

Re:RTFS (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319063)

No, the summary says:

"[...] 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."

The phrase "the longest of any warship in U.S. naval history" is referential to "is to be retired after fifty years of active service", not anything to do with the nuclear aspect.

Re:RTFS (1)

Durrik (80651) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319153)

I had to reread the sentence in the summary, probably because I was just reading up on the Enterprise recently. But the first time I read the entry I thought it meant the longest of any warship, as in the length of the hull. According to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world's_longest_ships [wikipedia.org] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercarrier [wikipedia.org] (look at the first picture's caption) the USS Enterprise is still the longest warship in US history (and anyone else's).

So who knows maybe that's what they meant by the longest of any warship after putting in the —

Re:Not to take anything away from the Big E... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319015)

Isn't the Constitution a myth that got replaced by corporate money?

Wow. Captcha is 'bribery'

Re:Not to take anything away from the Big E... (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319035)

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... (4, Informative)

navyjeff (900138) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319213)

The USS Constitution wasn't continuously in service. There were several breaks, including a few years between the Barbary Wars and the War of 1812.

Ref. 1 [navy.mil]
Ref. 2 [wikipedia.org]

Causality Failure... (2, Funny)

Salgak1 (20136) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318951)

But how will Kirk and the crew save the Whales and get back to the 23rd Century without that "nuclear wessel"? (evil grin)

Re:Causality Failure... (5, Funny)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318995)

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... (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319401)

Well, if you're so smart, when did Khan Noonien Singh show up?

Re:Causality Failure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319059)

But that timeline no longer exists, so maybe the probe won't cause such trouble in this timeline.

Safety First! (4, Funny)

Rotworm (649729) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318955)

The big ship has become notoriously difficult to keep in repair.

For instance, the holodeck safety protocols continually go offline.

Re:Safety First! (4, Funny)

owlnation (858981) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319003)

When did the holodeck ever work as planned? I assume its software was designed by the great, great, great, great, great grandson of the guy who thought IE6 was a good idea.

Seriously, no-one thought of sandboxing the holodeck? Even after the first 10 times the ship got pwned by it?

Re:Safety First! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319433)

The holodeck - the last invention of mankind. Not to mention that productivity on the ship would probably be higher if they handed out crack cocaine with every meal.

Why not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39318959)

drop the reactor off at Fukushima or Chernobyl?

Good show Big E. (4, Funny)

phrackwulf (589741) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318967)

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.

Re:Good show Big E. (1)

grumling (94709) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319303)

How about the Off-World colonies? I hear you can get your own Nexus 5.

Namespace (2)

Grindalf (1089511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39318983)

According to my understanding of naval vessel namespace conventions, gleaned entirely from Jean-Luc Picard's office's decorative models, the name U.S.S. Enterprise will now be re-designated to another slightly more powerful machine with better computers. Hmmm ...

incorrect - USCG CGC Taney (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319033)

launched 1936, decommissioned 1986

tax payers got some bang for the buck from the Coast Guard - that is until Carter, Clinton and Obama...

Gulf to Gulf (4, Interesting)

some old guy (674482) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319039)

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:Gulf to Gulf (2, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319347)

"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".
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.

Maybe letting homosexuals serve openly will chase off some of the religionists. It should improve Sub Sailor recruiting! (I kid! I kid!)

Re:Gulf to Gulf (2)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319405)

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.

Big E (2)

UGAVI (1083821) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319053)

I thought the Enterprise went down in the Mutara Sector and was replaced by the Enterprise-A.

Re:Big E (1)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319383)

No. That was in 2961 CE. You are referring to the old infra-galactic cruiser named "Enterprise". TFA is on about the hocuspocus-core-powered battleship of the same name, commissioned by the Human Inter-Star Council in 3028 and now, finally, after half a century of service, sent to Olympus Mons back in Sol System to be scrapyarded.

A little trivia (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319055)

Did you guys know that the Enterprise is the United States' only nuclear wessel?

Oh noes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319085)

Captain Picard will be quite pissed. ._.

It has to be scrapped (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319119)

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:It has to be scrapped (2)

NEDHead (1651195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319231)

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:It has to be scrapped (2)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319359)

They'd greatly weaken the hull just where you wouldn't want a torpedo hit.

Thank you... (1, Interesting)

JasoninKS (1783390) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319125)

Thank you "Big E" for your service. You've served your men and your country well.

Efforts towards the next Enterprise (4, Interesting)

oracleguy01 (1381327) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319129)

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 (4, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319135)

Aren't most parts for US Navy vessels custom made regardless? I don't recall seeing a section at WalMart for warship parts.

Re:Custom made parts (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319201)

For a newer ship, the Navy is likely to have spares in storage for repairs. With a ship the age of the Enterprise, those spares are likely depleted and the parts have to be custom made.

Re:Custom made parts (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319423)

It's always cheaper to build something even just two or three times.

You get to re-use the jigs from the first item, and you get to use the people who just built the first item. And of course you've got the R&D to make the blueprints and specs from the first one.

Renovation Suggestion (4, Funny)

NEDHead (1651195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319163)

Can't they just add a third nacelle and give it to some Admiral to use?

Re:Renovation Suggestion (3, Funny)

ehintz (10572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319197)

Better yet, sell it to a fiber optic dude by the name of L. Bob Rife...

MODERATORS!!! A moderation emergency!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319243)

Mod parent up! The first funny thing I have read in years!!

warship vs warpship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319167)

Everytime I go to the museams submarines and destroyers avaliable for tour have all been gutted. No working electronics, comms, ordinance or much of anything of interesting left save the shell of an impressivly massive rusty heap of steel.

Paradoxically if it floats the older it is the more interesting it is to see as less has been removed for display.

You might as well build a replica of the Enterprise and make believe data locked out all controls with one of his infamous fractal encryption algorithms. The kids will love playing in the Jefferies tube.

inb4 armageddon presses Enterprise into service (1)

Jmanamj (1077749) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319171)

Why does the volatile nuclear situation in the Middle East and the retirement of an honored old carrier make me think of Battlestar Galactica?

We're to put in for decommissioning... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39319271)

If I were human, I believe my response would be "go to hell."

Re:We're to put in for decommissioning... (1)

mrbester (200927) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319339)

If you were human...

Overhaul (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319285)

Keep the same frame, but just replace stuff with better stuff more commonly available. New ship at half the price. That's assuming the old frame is any good.

It was a beater in the 90's. (5, Interesting)

dcherryholmes (1322535) | more than 2 years ago | (#39319287)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?