Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Enterprise - Here we go again...

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Enterprise - Here we go again... Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/23/2013 2:12:11 AM   
TOMLABEL


Posts: 5116
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Alabama - ROLL TIDE!!!!!
Status: offline 		CVN-65 heading for the end. Not under her own power. The island (while rumored that it would be saved and displayed somewhere) has no plans but to be scrapped.

A proud ship who should be honored for her 50+ years of service!!!






Attachment (1)

_____________________________


Art by the Rogue-USMC

WITP Admiral's Edition: Ship & Sub Art/Base Unit Art/Map Icon Art

"If destruction be our lot - it will come from within"...Abraham Lincoln
Post #: 1
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/23/2013 2:12:43 AM   
TOMLABEL


Posts: 5116
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Alabama - ROLL TIDE!!!!!
Status: offline 		a




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


Art by the Rogue-USMC

WITP Admiral's Edition: Ship & Sub Art/Base Unit Art/Map Icon Art

"If destruction be our lot - it will come from within"...Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to TOMLABEL)
Post #: 2
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/23/2013 2:13:09 AM   
TOMLABEL


Posts: 5116
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Alabama - ROLL TIDE!!!!!
Status: offline 		b




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


Art by the Rogue-USMC

WITP Admiral's Edition: Ship & Sub Art/Base Unit Art/Map Icon Art

"If destruction be our lot - it will come from within"...Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to TOMLABEL)
Post #: 3
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/23/2013 3:19:08 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline 		Honored by a country that can't afford to maintain other proud ladies who served so well? All ships are destined for the breakers sooner or later. I know it sounds heartless, but it's the reality of today. She was an awesome machine in her day.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to TOMLABEL)
Post #: 4
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/23/2013 3:45:51 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Totally depressing...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 5
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/23/2013 5:09:03 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Honestly? What an ugly island. I never realized how ugly it was.

It would be nice if the ship was able to be preserved somewhere since she's the first nuclear carrier, but that's so expensive for a ship of that size.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 6
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/23/2013 5:12:51 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		I imagine scrapping her will not be cheap either. You can't just cut up the reactor even after you remove the fuel.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 7
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/23/2013 5:44:42 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

I imagine scrapping her will not be cheap either. You can't just cut up the reactor even after you remove the fuel.


The program works pretty well for subs, with the reactor compartments currently stored in trenches at Hanford (to be buried real soon now.) Several nuke skimmers are still in the pipeline at Bremerton; they are substantially harder to cut up than cylindrical sub hulls. Enterprise is the first nuke carrier to be sent for processing, and will be a bear given the realities of eight reactors and the depth they are buried in the hull. It will be very ticklish to get them out and still keep the rest of the hull from collapsing in on itself. Once out they are exactly like a sub reactor in relative size and radcon challenges. I expect they'll end up in the trenches in Washington with the rest.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 8
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/23/2013 5:48:55 PM   
czert2

 

Posts: 508
Joined: 2/10/2013
Status: offline 		Any idea if it will be named another ship to honor her ?  (and i think at least about 3 CVs which are allready in servise/constuction and they dont desrve names of president they have, since that president did nothing imoprant/good).
Or her hame will be saved for future ncc-1701 ?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 9
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/23/2013 5:54:21 PM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline 		No surprise here. If they could scrap CV6 after its distinguished career, they can scrap anything without remorse. May as well scrap the USS Constitution.

_____________________________


(in reply to TOMLABEL)
Post #: 10
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/23/2013 6:28:18 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: czert2

Any idea if it will be named another ship to honor her ?  (and i think at least about 3 CVs which are allready in servise/constuction and they dont desrve names of president they have, since that president did nothing imoprant/good).
Or her hame will be saved for future ncc-1701 ?


There was a move in Congress last winter to name one of the Ford-class (the third one?) CVNs "Enterprise." Normally naming flows from SecNav's office without Congress getting involved, but if Congress wants a name it usually gets it. We'll be without a Big-E for awhile, decades, but not until Starfleet acts.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to czert2)
Post #: 11
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/23/2013 6:30:29 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

No surprise here. If they could scrap CV6 after its distinguished career, they can scrap anything without remorse. May as well scrap the USS Constitution.


We have a deficit. I read in today's paper than NIH funding has been slashed to all-time lows under sequestration. I think Enterprise is historic too, but I'd rather have a cure for diabetes or Alzheimers.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 12
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/23/2013 6:38:29 PM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

No surprise here. If they could scrap CV6 after its distinguished career, they can scrap anything without remorse. May as well scrap the USS Constitution.


We have a deficit. I read in today's paper than NIH funding has been slashed to all-time lows under sequestration. I think Enterprise is historic too, but I'd rather have a cure for diabetes or Alzheimers.


FWIW I'm not that worried about CV65 anyway.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 13
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/23/2013 8:45:27 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

I imagine scrapping her will not be cheap either. You can't just cut up the reactor even after you remove the fuel.


The program works pretty well for subs, with the reactor compartments currently stored in trenches at Hanford (to be buried real soon now.) Several nuke skimmers are still in the pipeline at Bremerton; they are substantially harder to cut up than cylindrical sub hulls. Enterprise is the first nuke carrier to be sent for processing, and will be a bear given the realities of eight reactors and the depth they are buried in the hull. It will be very ticklish to get them out and still keep the rest of the hull from collapsing in on itself. Once out they are exactly like a sub reactor in relative size and radcon challenges. I expect they'll end up in the trenches in Washington with the rest.


In other words it will slowly end up in the Columbia River.

Eight reactors...wow. What do the Russians do? Just sink the things n the Arctic?

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 14
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/23/2013 9:46:34 PM   
rjopel

 

Posts: 614
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Charlottesville, VA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: czert2

Any idea if it will be named another ship to honor her ?  (and i think at least about 3 CVs which are allready in servise/constuction and they dont desrve names of president they have, since that president did nothing imoprant/good).
Or her hame will be saved for future ncc-1701 ?


There was a move in Congress last winter to name one of the Ford-class (the third one?) CVNs "Enterprise." Normally naming flows from SecNav's office without Congress getting involved, but if Congress wants a name it usually gets it. We'll be without a Big-E for awhile, decades, but not until Starfleet acts.


During CVN-65's decommissioning ceremony the Secretary of the Navy announced that CVN-80 would be named Enterprise.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 15
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/23/2013 10:44:09 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

I imagine scrapping her will not be cheap either. You can't just cut up the reactor even after you remove the fuel.


The program works pretty well for subs, with the reactor compartments currently stored in trenches at Hanford (to be buried real soon now.) Several nuke skimmers are still in the pipeline at Bremerton; they are substantially harder to cut up than cylindrical sub hulls. Enterprise is the first nuke carrier to be sent for processing, and will be a bear given the realities of eight reactors and the depth they are buried in the hull. It will be very ticklish to get them out and still keep the rest of the hull from collapsing in on itself. Once out they are exactly like a sub reactor in relative size and radcon challenges. I expect they'll end up in the trenches in Washington with the rest.


In other words it will slowly end up in the Columbia River.

Eight reactors...wow. What do the Russians do? Just sink the things n the Arctic?



They're supposed to be lined trenches with a 500-year-plus time before failure. I think failure is defined as pinhole leaks. I have a brand new B-I-L, former Navy nuc officer, who works at Hanford. If I ever meet him I could ask.

Eight was a one-off. I think the Nimitz-class has two, but the truth is classified most likely. The Soviets did lay some old reactors on the surface ice I think, but not over ocean. FWIW we sank the reactors from the very first nuke subs to be decommed in deep water in the Atlantic.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 16
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/23/2013 10:44:56 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rjopel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: czert2

Any idea if it will be named another ship to honor her ?  (and i think at least about 3 CVs which are allready in servise/constuction and they dont desrve names of president they have, since that president did nothing imoprant/good).
Or her hame will be saved for future ncc-1701 ?


There was a move in Congress last winter to name one of the Ford-class (the third one?) CVNs "Enterprise." Normally naming flows from SecNav's office without Congress getting involved, but if Congress wants a name it usually gets it. We'll be without a Big-E for awhile, decades, but not until Starfleet acts.


During CVN-65's decommissioning ceremony the Secretary of the Navy announced that CVN-80 would be named Enterprise.


So, he got the memo.

Thanks.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to rjopel)
Post #: 17
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/23/2013 11:03:47 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline 		When the Congress controls the funding the naming if "requested" will be honored.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 18
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/23/2013 11:08:49 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

When the Congress controls the funding the naming if "requested" will be honored.


Thus the USS Mendel Rivers SSN-686 and USS William H. Bates SSN-680, notable fish species.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 19
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/23/2013 11:32:01 PM   
Knavey

 

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Eight was a one-off. I think the Nimitz-class has two, but the truth is classified most likely. The Soviets did lay some old reactors on the surface ice I think, but not over ocean. FWIW we sank the reactors from the very first nuke subs to be decommed in deep water in the Atlantic.


Nimitz class has 2 A4W reactors. I split atoms in both of them. Going to have to cut some pretty big holes in the ship to get them out.

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 20
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/24/2013 5:12:43 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

When the Congress controls the funding the naming if "requested" will be honored.


Thus the USS Mendel Rivers SSN-686 and USS William H. Bates SSN-680, notable fish species.


Yeah.

I wish we had kept naming our CVs after battles rather than presidents. I rather liked the naming scheme of person = DD, city = cruiser, state = BB, etc.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 21
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/24/2013 1:37:29 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline 		Enterprise was and will be the only ship with eight reactors. All other CVNs have two. Bainbridge (DLGN later CGN 25) had two as did the Long Beach (CGN 9). Enterprise had an 8 reactor scram off Vietnam in the late 60s (1968?) which left her dead in the water for hours... had the North Vietnamese known she was a sitting duck, things could have been very different!

_____________________________


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 22
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/24/2013 2:02:51 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

When the Congress controls the funding the naming if "requested" will be honored.


Thus the USS Mendel Rivers SSN-686 and USS William H. Bates SSN-680, notable fish species.


Yeah.

I wish we had kept naming our CVs after battles rather than presidents. I rather liked the naming scheme of person = DD, city = cruiser, state = BB, etc.


Well president-politicians write cheques... battles and cities don't


_____________________________


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 23
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/24/2013 2:11:13 PM   
Shellshock


Posts: 533
Joined: 12/31/2010
From: U.S.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Yeah.

I wish we had kept naming our CVs after battles rather than presidents. I rather liked the naming scheme of person = DD, city = cruiser, state = BB, etc.


Recent ship naming, from not-yet-dead presidents, to Congresswoman Giffords, to Caesar Chavez, is nothing more than political pandering.

I think it's fair to lay the origins for this sad trend on Adm. Rickover who stopped the naming of submarines after marine life and opted for names of states and cities, and politicians, because, as he said, "Fish don't vote, and fish don't appropriate."

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 24
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/24/2013 9:16:53 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shellshock


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Yeah.

I wish we had kept naming our CVs after battles rather than presidents. I rather liked the naming scheme of person = DD, city = cruiser, state = BB, etc.


Recent ship naming, from not-yet-dead presidents, to Congresswoman Giffords, to Caesar Chavez, is nothing more than political pandering.

I think it's fair to lay the origins for this sad trend on Adm. Rickover who stopped the naming of submarines after marine life and opted for names of states and cities, and politicians, because, as he said, "Fish don't vote, and fish don't appropriate."


True enough. It's unfortunate. I think naming subs after cities (and later, SSBNs after states) is OK, given that we no longer have a large cruiser fleet.

And honestly, I feel naming CVs after Nimitz and such is fine. I guess. Even H. W. Bush, JFK, and Ford, given their naval service. But Reagan? Come on now...he was in the army! LBJ got a DDG... where's the consistency?!


(in reply to Shellshock)
Post #: 25
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/24/2013 9:30:44 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shellshock


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Yeah.

I wish we had kept naming our CVs after battles rather than presidents. I rather liked the naming scheme of person = DD, city = cruiser, state = BB, etc.


Recent ship naming, from not-yet-dead presidents, to Congresswoman Giffords, to Caesar Chavez, is nothing more than political pandering.

I think it's fair to lay the origins for this sad trend on Adm. Rickover who stopped the naming of submarines after marine life and opted for names of states and cities, and politicians, because, as he said, "Fish don't vote, and fish don't appropriate."


True enough. It's unfortunate. I think naming subs after cities (and later, SSBNs after states) is OK, given that we no longer have a large cruiser fleet.

And honestly, I feel naming CVs after Nimitz and such is fine. I guess. Even H. W. Bush, JFK, and Ford, given their naval service. But Reagan? Come on now...he was in the army! LBJ got a DDG... where's the consistency?!


warspite1

Well look on the bright side...at least you still have a navy to use those great names on


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 26
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/24/2013 9:34:23 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

When the Congress controls the funding the naming if "requested" will be honored.


Thus the USS Mendel Rivers SSN-686 and USS William H. Bates SSN-680, notable fish species.


Yeah.

I wish we had kept naming our CVs after battles rather than presidents. I rather liked the naming scheme of person = DD, city = cruiser, state = BB, etc.


We never did have that naming convention for carriers. It was always mixed.

Langley, Enterprise, Wasp, Hornet, Boxer, Bon Homme Richard, Cabot, FDR, Ranger, etc. were none of them battle names.

The use of states is hopelessly corrupted now with BBs, Ohio-class, and now a whole class of SSNs.

For awhile cruisers were famous battles, but for a long time before and since so were large amphibs.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 27
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/24/2013 9:36:08 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shellshock


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Yeah.

I wish we had kept naming our CVs after battles rather than presidents. I rather liked the naming scheme of person = DD, city = cruiser, state = BB, etc.


Recent ship naming, from not-yet-dead presidents, to Congresswoman Giffords, to Caesar Chavez, is nothing more than political pandering.

I think it's fair to lay the origins for this sad trend on Adm. Rickover who stopped the naming of submarines after marine life and opted for names of states and cities, and politicians, because, as he said, "Fish don't vote, and fish don't appropriate."


True enough. It's unfortunate. I think naming subs after cities (and later, SSBNs after states) is OK, given that we no longer have a large cruiser fleet.

And honestly, I feel naming CVs after Nimitz and such is fine. I guess. Even H. W. Bush, JFK, and Ford, given their naval service. But Reagan? Come on now...he was in the army! LBJ got a DDG... where's the consistency?!




And Carter, the only nuclear-trained officer in the bunch, gets a spec ops sub. In that one 3-sub class we have three naming conventions!

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 28
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/24/2013 9:51:35 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline 		One weekend in my youth , I did a local recruiting booth at a mall (my brother in law was a recruiter). An old salt spotted my crackerjacks and bee-lined over to ask me some questions on the state of the current Navy. "Is it true that My old ship's name (USS Leyte) was given to a "tin can"? He asked. "No sir, Leyte Gulf is a Cruiser". This confused him. "Before the war I was on a light cruiser, the Omaha. Is that name in the fleet?" Yes sir, she's a submarine". That really confused him. The he said, "I was also on the Portland. Is that a sub too?' "No sir , she's a LSD". Shaking his head he limped away , saying over and over again, "G-D Navy!".

When I saw the photo's of Enterprise , I asked my spouse (Who was aboard her with the Admiral's staff)..."want to see your old ship?" She said no, shaking her head sadly. Then she pulled out a Photo of Enterprise silhouetted in the sun set. "This how I want to remember her".  




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by AW1Steve -- 6/24/2013 10:12:24 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 29
RE: Enterprise - Here we go again... - 6/24/2013 11:57:44 PM   
Justus2


Posts: 729
Joined: 11/12/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

One weekend in my youth , I did a local recruiting booth at a mall (my brother in law was a recruiter). An old salt spotted my crackerjacks and bee-lined over to ask me some questions on the state of the current Navy. "Is it true that My old ship's name (USS Leyte) was given to a "tin can"? He asked. "No sir, Leyte Gulf is a Cruiser". This confused him. "Before the war I was on a light cruiser, the Omaha. Is that name in the fleet?" Yes sir, she's a submarine". That really confused him. The he said, "I was also on the Portland. Is that a sub too?' "No sir , she's a LSD". Shaking his head he limped away , saying over and over again, "G-D Navy!".

When I saw the photo's of Enterprise , I asked my spouse (Who was aboard her with the Admiral's staff)..."want to see your old ship?" She said no, shaking her head sadly. Then she pulled out a Photo of Enterprise silhouetted in the sun set. "This how I want to remember her".  





Beautiful pic, can't blame her!

_____________________________

Playing/Learning Shadow Empire


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Enterprise - Here we go again... Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.734