CVN-80 will be called USS Enterprise

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by quagmire, Dec 2, 2012.

  1. macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #1
    During CVN-65 USS Enterprise deactivation ceremony Saturday, the Sec. of the Navy announced that the third Ford Class carrier CVN-80 will be named Enterprise. She is currently planned to enter service in 2025 to replace the Ike.

    http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15708

    As a person who can't stand the fact CV-6 Enterprise couldn't be saved, I am sure glad her name will still live on as a US Navy aircraft carrier.
     
  2. macrumors 68040

    velocityg4

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Location:
    Georgia
    #2
    Good to hear. I'm tired of the Aircraft carriers and other ships being named after people, it's too politcal. I prefer the naming system of places, things and ideas. Such as the Defiant, Missouri and Hornet.

    Obviously with a name as ingrained in our society as the Enterprise they couldn't let it die. Although they should change it from CVN-80 to NCC-1701.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #3
    Definitely. I hope the naming of the Enterprise starts a shift back to names like Hornet, Lexington, Essex, Saratoga, etc.

    The only person named ship I like is USS Nimitz. The name sounds badass so I don't mind that it is named after a person. But, the others are just ego feeding especially CVN-77 HW since he is still alive......
     
  4. macrumors G5

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #4
    Agreed.


    That is an awesome idea!
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Mountains of N. California
    #5
    My brother was a plank owner (1939) on the first Enterprise carrier. He was killed on it during a battle off the Canal in 1942. I am glad they didn't retire the name of the old Fighting Lady.She has a proud history.
     
  6. macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
  7. macrumors 68000

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #7
    There's plenty of names to attach to CVN numbers, but one of them should always be Enterprise.

    Mind you, I would expect a CVN launched in 2025 to carry mostly drones, which is a very sobering thought on many fronts.
     
  8. thread starter macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #8
    As I said, I can't believe they scrapped CV-6. The most decorated ship in the US Navy, was the only remaining carrier in the Pacific for awhile after the loss of Lexington, Wasp, Yorktown, and Hornet, survived throughout the whole war, etc. But, we scrapped her. It should be Enterprise floating in NYC, not Intrepid. I don't care that CVN-65 will be scrapped. She doesn't hold a candle to the legacy of CV-6. Sure she is the longest serving ship in the US Navy and the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier, but that doesn't justify making her a floating museum.

    But, I am glad that she is going to live on as a capital ship and not given the America treatment. Enterprise should always be a capital ship if not always an aircraft carrier to keep up CV-6's legacy.

    And to the Star Trek nerds, the name USS Enterprise should live on because of its rich legacy in the US Navy, not because you Star Trek nerds demand it so. You already had your way with OV-101. Stay out of the Navy affairs! ;) :p
     
  9. macrumors 68040

    velocityg4

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Location:
    Georgia
    #9
    Yea I do have to agree with that name sounding cool. The British have most of the best names though.

    Victory, Repulse, Vanguard, Vigilant, Revenge, Triumph, Defiance, Arrogant, Invincible, Resolution, Vengeance, Dauntless

    That's just a few of the notable names. Their are too many good names to list.
     
  10. macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #10
    Good riddance. That boat was an anomaly to the carrier fleet and is a maintenance nightmare
     
  11. thread starter macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #11
    What do you mean? How was CV-6 an anomaly to the carrier fleet and a maintenance nightmare? Do you mean CVN-65 since she was her own class and had 8 reactors vs the Nimitz's 2?

    I know the Enterprise class was expensive hence why only Enterprise was built and they went straight to the Nimitz class. But, the only anomaly carrier in the WWII era carrier fleet was CV-7 USS Wasp.
     
  12. macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #12
    Yup, I meant the CVN-65 and seems I misread your post lol
     
  13. macrumors 68040

    velocityg4

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Location:
    Georgia
    #13
    Mania Interview with Gene Roddenberry
    http://www.mania.com/mania-interview-gene-roddenberry_article_111532.html

    Dan Madsen: Why did you name the starship Enterprise? Why not the Yorktown or some other name?

    Gene Roddenberry: I fought in the Pacific in World War II and I was downed in the area where the Enterprise and others broke the back of the Japanese fleet. It was a proud name. It was to me in those days, but I was a very young man. I guess I still cheer those days.
     
  14. thread starter macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #14
    Yeah, that too. Star Trek Enterprise was named after CV-6.

    And it isn't surprising that he decided to name it after Enterprise and not Yorktown. Not to diss the crew of CV-5 because they saved countless more American lives and carriers due to their incredible damage control skills. After she was hit the first time, damage control was able to quickly put out the fires and patch up the holes making the Japanese think she was CV-6, CV-7, or CV-8. So she took the brunt of the Japanese attacks allowing her sister ships to go unscathed. But, Enterprise is a more deserving since of her score card in the war. 20 service stars, 900+ planes shot down, 70+ ships sunk, etc. That's just impressive and deserving of being honored in TV shows, etc.
     
  15. macrumors 68030

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #15
    Could you please not put Enterprise right after Star Trek? It makes me think of that crappy show starring Scott Bakula.
     
  16. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    #16
    Um... the U.S.S. Constitution holds that title, I think, by close to a couple of centuries.
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    #17
    I think the French might rank up there too: Triomphant;Temeraire, Vigilant, and Terrible, just to list the names of a single class of submarine. Add in Vulcain, Acheron, Pluton, and Styx for their minesweepers.

    Naming vessels after actual people is a common, if sometimes problematical, solution. Few people remember that Edmund Fitzgerald was the much-respected President of an insurance company, rather than just a doomed ore-carrier. And Winston Churchill got into a screaming row with George V when he suggested naming a Royal Navy battleship Cromwell (the King had understandable reservations about so honoring a man who had one his ancestors beheaded...)

    Calling a US Navy fleet carrier Enterprise is likely to offend virtually no-one; and more than probably will delight the legions of Star-Trek fans.
     
  18. thread starter macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #18
    It offends me that Star Trek fans think Enterprise was named after their starship. :mad:

    CVN-65 and CVN-80 is named Enterprise because of the Yorktown Class CV-6 Enterprise. Not because of some TV geeks. And they need to be reminded that the creator named the starship Enterprise was to honor CV-6 as well. They need to be put in there place.....


    Yeah, I did forget about her.
     
  19. macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #19
    Yes, she is still a registered 'ship of the line', and quite impressive.

    But not as impressive as The Victory. :p
     
  20. macrumors 603

    notjustjay

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Location:
    Canada, eh?
    #20
    Pretty sure any Star Trek fan worth their salt would know this already. But maybe that's what sets apart the true die-hards from the rabid fanboys. Feel free to give them a dressing-down.
     
  21. macrumors 68000

    chaosbunny

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Location:
    down to earth, far away from any clouds
    #21
  22. thread starter macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #22
    Nothing is as impressive as seeing one of the Iowa's in person. :D
     
  23. macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #23
    I'm a "old" soldier not a sailor but why was a ship commissioned in '61 retired thats hardly old in ship terms.
     
  24. Peace, Dec 5, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2012

    macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #24
    Being an old salt I can say the U.S. Navy has a method to naming ships.

    Been that way for quit a while too.

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

    There are a couple of exceptions. RE: The Enterprise.

    The Enterprise was one of the Navy's first ships . It was also the first nuclear powered carrier. Thus the tradition.

    As far as scrapping the CV-65 my guess would be it had become too expensive to do upkeep. That and the fact that it probably had 30,000 tons of Asbestos in it and the reactor and other big equipment had seen it's days.

    The United States Navy is very big on tradition.
     
  25. macrumors demi-god

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Virginia Beach
    #25
    I was the first nuclear-powered air craft carrier ... it had eight reactors. Wonder if they had anything to do with it?
     

Share This Page