# Petition for new USS Enterprise



## diddyriddick (Aug 1, 2009)

Don't know if ya'll have seen this, but thought you might like to.

A Petition to name the next United States Navy nuclear powered aircraft carrier the USS ENTERPRISE


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 1, 2009)

From wiki:

"The USS Enterprise, the oldest active combat vessel in the Navy as of 2009, had been scheduled to be decommissioned as late as 2014. On April 6, 2009 Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, stated that he would be seeking a congressional dispensation to speed up the process. Under this new timetable, the ship would complete one final deployment before being decommissioned in late 2012 or early 2013. This would temporarily reduce the U.S. Navy to having only ten active aircraft carriers through the launch of the USS Gerald R. Ford in 2015. The Navy's reasoning for the earlier decommission date is due to the cost of operating eight nuclear reactors, which consumes a significantly larger amount of funds compared to the two-reactor Nimitz class. The process of taking the ship out of active service is expected to take some time due to the ship's eight nuclear reactors. The Enterprise will be the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier ever to be decommissioned by the United States Navy. [17] If the waiver is approved by Congress, Enterprise would retire after over 50 years of continuous service."


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 1, 2009)

Probably will see a new Enterprise carrier in the future, as the next new class will return to old names instead for Presidents. So, here's to hoping for a new USS Yorktown CVN-? 8)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 1, 2009)

I cannot wait until they do that. It's one thing to name Carriers after incredible presidents like Washington Lincoln, it's another to name them after non-incredible presidents like Ford and Bush. If you have to name them after a person, why not after somebody that actually fought on the front lines. I always that "Crazy Horse" would be a great name for a carrier.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 1, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I cannot wait until they do that. It's one thing to name Carriers after incredible presidents like Washington Lincoln, it's another to name them after non-incredible presidents like Ford and Bush. If you have to name them after a person, why not after somebody that actually fought on the front lines. I always that "Crazy Horse" would be a great name for a carrier.



And naming them after politicians who were basically nobodies .... like the Stinson or Stennis.

Maybe Bush deserves to have a carrier named after him because he was a naval aviator who did fight in some of the epic battles of that war.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Aug 1, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> And naming them after politicians who were basically nobodies .... like the Stinson or Stennis.
> 
> Maybe Bush deserves to have a carrier named after him because he was a naval aviator who did fight in some of the epic battles of that war.



Gerald Ford served in the navy during WW II also.
Gerald Ford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some pretty important battles on his career list too.


Wheels


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 1, 2009)

wheelsup_cavu said:


> Gerald Ford served in the navy during WW II also.
> Gerald Ford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Some pretty important battles on his career list too.
> 
> ...



But he wasnt a naval aviator like Bush was.

Not to say President Ford wasn't a hero by his own actions.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Aug 1, 2009)

Be cool for a new Enterprise. Wonder if they'll name any carriers Pershing, or Patton?


----------



## beaupower32 (Aug 4, 2009)

How about the USS Douglas MacArthur. I think that would be a great name. But I like the Enterprise, Lexington, and Yorktown as well.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 4, 2009)

My preference would be to name carriers after famous battles.

I'm with Lucky.....

USS Yorktown

TO


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 4, 2009)

I've got a soft spot for the Yorktown too! Ranger as well since my father served on the Ranger during Vietnam.


----------



## diddyriddick (Aug 4, 2009)

I vote we name one the USS Diddyriddick!

No?


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 4, 2009)

It would definitely be a name that sticks with you.


----------



## DBII (Aug 4, 2009)

ooonnnooo,can a USS Nixion be far behind? He was a navy guy. I vote for Yorktown. 

DBII


----------



## comiso90 (Aug 4, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> From wiki:
> 
> "The USS Enterprise, the oldest active combat vessel in the Navy as of 2009, had been scheduled to be decommissioned as late as 2014. On April 6, 2009 Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, stated that he would be seeking a congressional dispensation to speed up the process. Under this new timetable, the ship would complete one final deployment before being decommissioned in late 2012 or early 2013. This would temporarily reduce the U.S. Navy to having only ten active aircraft carriers through the launch of the USS Gerald R. Ford in 2015. The Navy's reasoning for the earlier decommission date is due to the cost of operating eight nuclear reactors, which consumes a significantly larger amount of funds compared to the two-reactor Nimitz class. The process of taking the ship out of active service is expected to take some time due to the ship's eight nuclear reactors. The Enterprise will be the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier ever to be decommissioned by the United States Navy. [17] If the waiver is approved by Congress, Enterprise would retire after over 50 years of continuous service."



I wonder if they will scrap her? seems like scraping wouldnt be worth it... I think she's too big to keep as a museum and it would be too expensive to prepare her as an artificial reef. Once they remove the reactors, how would they get her to the scrapping location?* maybe they'll just do what they did with the USS America:*

.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_(CV-66)

.
.





.
Murdoc Online USS AMERICA’s grave

Sell her to Israel!

.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 4, 2009)

Comiso, I would think the Enterprise would be mothballed or put into a semi-reserve status for a couple of decades before scrapping is even considered.


----------



## comiso90 (Aug 4, 2009)

Yeah... youre prob right but me thinks they will take the cheapest route and that may mean the same fate as the America.

It like to see them save the whole island though... it's so distinctive.


.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Aug 4, 2009)

The last I heard the USS Forrestal was going to be scuttled too ?
USS Forrestal (CV-59) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wheels


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 5, 2009)

Don't remember exactly how many ships there's supposed to be in the new class, but I think that it was 5.

My suggestions,

1. USS Yorktown
2. USS Coral Sea
3. USS Midway
4. USS Enterprise
5. USS .........


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 5, 2009)

I'd love to see another Hornet myself. Bring back the Carriers we started WW2 with.


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 5, 2009)

Yorktown, Enterprise, Saratoga, Lexington, Hornet......

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 5, 2009)

Read this little tidbit on the USS Forrestal and thought it was a cool bit of info:

Forrestal made history in November 1963 when on the 8th, 21st and 22nd, Lt. James H. Flatley III and his crew members, Lt. Cmdr. "Smokey" Stovall and Aviation Machinist's Mate (Jets) 1st Class Ed Brennan, made 21 full-stop landings and takeoffs in a C-130 Hercules aboard the ship. The tests were conducted 500 miles (900 km) out in the North Atlantic off the coast of Massachusetts. In so doing, Forrestal and the C-130 set a record for the largest and heaviest airplane landing on a Navy aircraft carrier. The Navy was trying to determine whether the big Hercules could serve as a "Super-COD", or "Carrier Onboard Delivery" aircraft. The problem was there was no aircraft which could replenish a carrier in mid-ocean. The Hercules was stable and reliable, and had a long cruising range and high payload.

The tests were more than successful. At 85,000 pounds (38.6 t), the KC-130F came to a complete stop within 267 feet (81 m), and at the maximum load, the plane used only 745 feet (227 m) for take-off. The Navy concluded that with the C-130 Hercules, it would be possible to lift 25,000 pounds (11 t) of cargo 2,500 statute miles (4,000 km) and land it on a carrier. However, the idea was considered too risky for routine COD operations. The aircraft was also too large to fit on the carrier's elevators or in its hangars, severely hampering operations. The C-2 Greyhound program was developed and the first of these planes became operational in 1965. For his effort, the Navy awarded Lt. Flatley the Distinguished Flying Cross. The Hercules used, BuNo 149798, was retired to the National Museum of Naval Aviation at NAS Pensacola, Florida, in May, 2003.


----------



## diddyriddick (Aug 5, 2009)

What to do w/ the current Enterprise? I understand the Indians are in the market for a CV now.


----------



## Condora (Aug 5, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Yorktown, Enterprise, Saratoga, Lexington, Hornet......



I'm partial for Essex.

As for naming a major ship for someone, usually I do not like it.
If the person is loooong dead, maybe, because if he is still remembered, usually it indicates his valour.

A guy still alive, AND still with a lot of influence in the gov'ment... 

There are so many names that can be used, Valley Forge, Ranger, Hornet, Wasp, even not carrier-related, as United States, Congress... For each which is not available- Constitution, Constellation -, there are a few more which may be used.


----------



## tdbob (May 30, 2018)

USS Lexington


----------



## fubar57 (May 30, 2018)

Be careful what you wish for when you let the public decide...Boaty McBoatface wins poll to name polar research vessel


----------

