It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Out with the old and In with the new USS Enterprise

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:42 AM
For all you big ship aficionados a bit of news

The USS Enterprise is out of commission and there is officially no Enterprise roaming the seven seas.


At the decommissioning ceremony Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced there will indeed be a new Enterprise...
'So I’m happy to announce the next nuclear aircraft carrier – CVN-80 will be named the USS Enterprise.”

What he did not say is we'll have to wait until 2023 before we see this CVN-80 AKA USS enterprise. When was Zefram Cochrane supposed to have launched his Enterprise?

Below is a design spec for the CVN-78 the CVN-80 should be pretty close.

Advanced design work on the next-generation carrier is underway at Northrop Grumman Newport News. Key changes from previous carriers include: a sortie rate increased by 25% thanks to an enhanced flight deck layout, with improved weapons movement and “pit stops” to fuel and arm aircraft, a redesigned and relocated island, three (instead of four) faster and more powerful elevators, Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS, instead of steam catapults) and an Advanced Aircraft Recovery System (AARS); a new nuclear power plant; a new combat system; allowance for future technologies and reduced manning.

General Characteristics
(As of December 2005)
Displacement: approximately 100,000 long tons (approximately 101,600 metric tons) full load
Dimensions: 1,092′ x 134′ (flight deck, 256′) / 332.8 x 40.8 (flight deck, 78) meters
Power plant: 2 nuclear reactors; 4 shafts
Speed: 30+ knots
Armament: Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile; Rolling Airframe Missile; CIWS
Aircraft: 75+
Crew: 4,660 (ship, air wing and staff)

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:49 AM
The Enterprise is dead.
Long live the Enterprise!

This is great news.

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 12:27 PM
I love it ! The Enterprise (the name) has a long and proud history and seems like an old friend . I was sad when it left and I'm heartened to see that it's on it's way back .

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 01:29 PM
Its good to hear that CVN-80 may be called Enterprise, when and if she is built. The name has a long history in the US Navy dating back to 1775. But who knows how the political winds may shift or what the politicians will do between now and the time she's supposed to be built. Maybe there will never be a CVN-80 or maybe it will be named something else. Like the U.S.S. Barack Hussein Obama Bin Laden. Remember if it weren't for politics and politicians CV-6 would be where Intrepid is now.

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 08:37 PM
reply to post by MajorMayhem

Cochrane's first warp drive ship, "the Phoenix" will make it's first warp speed flight on April 5, 2063. Hopefully some of us will be there to see this.


posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 08:42 PM
"Fate protects fools, little children, and ships named Enterprise." - William T. Riker
~Star Trek

S&F friend!

edit on 12/13/2012 by mcx1942 because: edit

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:09 PM
Ex CVN-65 crew member 93-95...this thread warms me. Not much else to say other than thank you for posting it OP, S&F.

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:55 PM
The old one was ok, but was definitely showing its age even a decade ago... Lots of WWII tech in regards to below-deck hardware and jokes about paint holding the rust together. You could even say its retirement was overdue. Been there, done that. But damn, it could haul when needed. The ability to churn and turn for something that was the biggest and baddest was still an amazing feat. It's going to be hard to replace that.

As for the new one, if it keeps the prototype (remember 'prise wasn't Nimitz class - it's one of a kind) reputation of it's predecessor - it might be the first of the "electric" carriers. Mechanical drive shafts, steam catapults, and maybe even the arresting gear would be replaced with electromotive counterparts. (Of course primary power would still be from a nuke plant.) If they work as intended, the plant needs less power to operate them as it will be much less lossy than steam based systems, should have lower maintenance requirements, better crew comfort (no hot steam pipes going everywhere), and there will be a lot more room made available for stores elsewhere on the ship. I think that would be pretty remarkable if that's what they do.

top topics


log in