USS Enterprise sailing off to history’s scrap heap

[frigidmagi]

CNN

The USS Enterprise is the nation's oldest active duty warship, the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and a history-making symbol of America's naval might for half a century.

But it's now headed for the scrap heap.

Virtually all the weapons and ammunition has been off loaded. By the end of the week, it'll make its final return to its home port of Norfolk, Virginia. On Dec. 1, "The Big E" will be become officially inactive.

But one doesn't just take an aircraft carrier with eight nuclear reactors in its hold and park it somewhere. The Navy will spend three years and tens of millions of dollars removing the ship's radioactive fuel and reactors before cutting it into scrap.


Also: On the front lines of history: USS Enterprise on its last deployment

Mike Maus, a spokesperson for Naval Air Force Atlantic, said the process starts just up the James River.

"Following the inactivation period, it will be towed over to Newport News - to Huntington Ingalls Newport News Shipbuilding - where it will be defueled. They'll remove all the fuel from it."

The fuel will be shipped to Idaho for temporary storage, Maus said. "Sometime at a later date, it will be disposed of."

While in Newport News, some of the Enterprise's equipment will be removed then the next phase begins.

Watch: Sen. John McCain talks about serving on the Enterprise during the Cuban Missile Crisis

The carrier, minus planes, ammunition and a propulsion system, heads to Puget Sound, the long way.

"It will be towed around (Cape) Horn to Puget Sound, Washington," Maus said.

The Enterprise, like America's other nuclear carriers, is too big to fit through the Panama Canal, so it must round the southern-most point of South America to get to Washington State.

"It'll be a very lengthy tow," he said.

Once it reaches the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, the long and difficult task of removing the eight reactors from the Enterprise's hold begins.

"In order to remove the reactors, it takes a lot of cutting and hacking on the ship to do that," Maus said. "They do cut through the flight deck and they may very well be cutting through the hull of the ship itself."

Once the reactors are removed, CVN-65 will be formally decommissioned.

According to a Navy Environmental Impact Statement, the reactors will be put on barges, floated up the Columbia River to the site of the former Hanford nuclear production complex where they will be buried in a huge trench near reactors from smaller decommissioned naval warships.


Hanford nuclear site trench (US Navy Photo)
But unlike the USS Intrepid in New York City or the USS Midway in San Diego, the Enterprise is not destined to become a floating museum.

Removing the reactors essentially destroys the ship.

"Once the reactors are removed, to put the ship back in any shape to where it still resembles a ship the cost would be over the moon," said Maus.

So the ship, all 90,000 tons of it will be cut up and the metal sold for scrap.

But that doesn't mean the name Enterprise will fade from U.S. Navy history. There have been seven other warships to bear that name and there is already a petition to name a yet-to-be-built carrier the ninth USS Enterprise.

Sad day. Damn sad day.

[B4UTRUST]

If I'm able to get to one of the nearby ports it's viewable from, I'll see if I can possibly take some pictures.

[LadyTevar]

And the Big E takes her last voyage. I wonder what they will do with the superstructure. A new reef?

[Dark Silver]

She has done her name proud.

Hopefully they will name another fine ship in her memory.

[frigidmagi]

We don't name ships like that anymore, now we name them after politicians.

[General Havoc]

We don't name ships like that anymore, now we name them after politicians.

According to the Navy office, they have decided that policy is no longer popular and are considering going back to traditional names.

[Josh]

So long to the Mobile Chernobyl. From what I've heard it was definitely time to retire the old girl, she was showing her age.

Thank god they're going back to the venerable ship naming scheme instead of the John C. Who the Fuck Is This style. Though it would be kinda historically appropriate to name a frigate Enterprise since the pre-USN original was a sloop and the first USN ship was a schooner that got upgunned to a brig.

But the history means it's gotta go to a cap ship.

[Josh]

Hunh. So originally Star Trek was supposed to be the bold adventures of the USS Yorktown, but because the Enterprise was such a big deal in '64 Roddenberry decided to change the name.

[Batman]

Just as long as some 230 years from now, the name goes to a Constitution class heavy cruiser.

And may she rest in peace (not to mention pieces). She's certainly done her duty and then some.

[Josh]

Just as long as some 230 years from now, the name goes to a Constitution class heavy cruiser.

And may she rest in peace (not to mention pieces). She's certainly done her duty and then some.

Hell, in 230 years I'll just be happy to have a Constitution class.

You know that Enterprise will undoubtedly get recycled by the space program the same as the Navy, though. So it's all good. This time though we need to stick the handle on a vehicle that actually goes places.

[Stofsk]

We don't name ships like that anymore, now we name them after politicians.

According to the Navy office, they have decided that policy is no longer popular and are considering going back to traditional names.

Thank fuck for that.

Speaking as a non-American outsider-looking-in, naming warships with a stupendously huge arsenal after civilian holders of office just makes me cringe. It's like... it's like those 50-something dudes who have a midlife crisis so they go buy a red-coloured sportscar. Except on a national level.

[Batman]

I honestly don't see why naming warships after presidents is any worse than naming them after cities or states, really. And those civilian holders of office also happen to have been the Commanders in Chief of the entire US military you know.

[General Havoc]

History-tested Presidents is one thing. I don't mind the USS George Washington or Theodore Roosevelt. But the USS Gerald Ford? Come on, people...

[Stofsk]

I honestly don't see why naming warships after presidents is any worse than naming them after cities or states, really.

Honestly? It's as frigid says, they're politicians. At least with a city or state you can go 'that's a place filled with millions of people, that's worth something'.

And those civilian holders of office also happen to have been the Commanders in Chief of the entire US military you know.

Chhhhrrrrrriiiiiissssst. Tell me something I don't know.

[Josh]

History-tested Presidents is one thing. I don't mind the USS George Washington or Theodore Roosevelt. But the USS Gerald Ford? Come on, people...

Well in fairness Ford was a very annoying junior officer on some carrier during WWII. He had the physical fitness gig and ran around challenging people to do jumping jacks then nearly got washed overboard during the big typhoon that Halsey sailed his fleet into.

But the thing about it is that it's blatant ass-kissing on the Navy's part for appropriations. Are the Republicans going to fight harder to fund the Ronald Reagan? You betcha.

Royal Navy still has the best naming scheme, hands down.

[Batman]

Kay. There's completely pointless but pretty blue LEDs around the rim of the casing and the membranes of my PC speakers.
What? You asked me to tell you something you don't know.
And I'm sorry-Texas.
Besides, why is a lot of people living in one place more worthy than POTUS? Chances are both them made a mess of it as often as not.
And if you want to restrict it to history-tested presidents the Navy is going to be even shorter on carriers than it already is...

[Josh]

That's why we should totally pick up the Royal Navy naming scheme.

With a fleet led by the USS Insoluble, USS Indubitable, and the grand flagship USS Incontinent, none shall oppose us.

[General Havoc]

I'm an American Nationalist, but even I can't argue that the Royal Navy's naming scheme is anything but head and shoulders above ours (and most people's). Every time I see a report of NATO naval exercises involving the USS C. C. Balloo and HMS Battleaxe, I die a little inside. And yes, those are both real ships.

[Batman]

At least your submarines have names. Besides, the US Navy names ammunition ships after vulcanos (or used to at any rate).

[General Havoc]

At least your submarines have names. Besides, the US Navy names ammunition ships after vulcanos (or used to at any rate).

Granted, but in fairness to Germany, they built a truly insane number of submarines during the war. More than three thousand, if my memory serves. Even the Royal Navy would have trouble coming up with individual names for all of those. Besides, subs for a long time were considered boats, not ships (the distinction being that a boat can be taken out of the water in one piece, while a ship requires a drydock), and only ships were considered to be worthy of naming.

[Batman]

I'll take your word for it. And technically, a drydocked ship is taken ot of the water in one piece.

[General Havoc]

I'll take your word for it. And technically, a drydocked ship is taken ot of the water in one piece.

I believe the distinction is that in a drydock, the water is taken away from the ship.

[Batman]

That'd be the part where I used the term 'technically'

[General Havoc]

Yes, well, I felt like being pedantic today