Say Goodbye to the USS Enterprise... Forever
- Thread starter Rhykker
- Start date
How about "Legendary aircraft carrier USS Enterprise to be scrapped". Or something to that effect.Clowndoe said:
A pity it won't be converted into a museum like many other carriers. But if its an issue with the reactors, I can see why. Still, I salute that ship and everyone who was on its crew for their service.
US carriers are scrapped in country to preserve their design from being picked apart and studied, hence why Saratoga was recently sold for scrap for the price of $1.Baresark said:
How is the title misleading when it states exactly the article is about? The only issue here is hook to lure people in, but it's still on the ball.
Compare it to a NASA article posted on here a few months back where the title was a rock found on Mars that moved on its own only for the article then sheepishly explain that the rover bumped into it and it took its crew a few minutes to figure that out.
Who in their right mind would think that the Starship Enterprise was being retired?Avaholic03 said:
That seems like quite the stretch.Akisa said:
I'd also note the example of Superman is the last time I've seen the promotion that someone would be killed off forever, and that was 22 years ago. Part of that was the backlash behind it.
Zachary Amaranth said:
How is it a stretch? This publicity stunt has gone on forever. Last one I seen was the death of Starbuck in BSG, but she came back. Another one I head about was dead of Captain America (he came back).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Captain_America
And if you can show me some evidence that they marketed that Captain America would be gone "forever," you might have something. To the contrary, they almost immediately brought out a non-Steve Rogers Captain America, rumoured almost from the very point of the comic.Akisa said:
Like I said, The Death of Superman was the last time I can name where there was a parallel to what would reasonably apply here: that a property would be permanently removed.
The more reasonable assessment would be to the real-world Enterprise.
Akisa said:
Well technically Starbuck didn't come back as you find out later.
-
As far as the article here goes, I don't much care for this to be honest. I don't think we should be decommissioning Aircraft carriers, especially with so many nations getting their hands on them, until the replacements are actually ready to go. I keep hearing things about how they want to decommission the Nimitz (I think that's the one) as well. The thing is with Carriers that any Carrier is pretty effective given that there are so few of them out there still, and even our older ones are more effective than some of the "newer" ones being put out there. I can understand why we don't want to keep paying for older ships in service, and want to cycle them out to replace them with newer ones, but to me it seems foolish, especially with current tensions, and expanding foreign navies, to be cutting ourselves short at this moment of any time it could be done. Basically when the new carrier rolls out, then it's okay to decommission an old one. That's my thoughts. If things were a lot more stable globally my thoughts would be different.
A lot of it is Money. For some reason *CoughIraqAfganistanCough* we're kind of up to our asses in debt and the DoD being asked to bear a bit of cost cutting. Cutting a carrier(and not one that's at the end of it's lifespan) has been talked about a lot lately.Therumancer said:
If Sequestration continues, then it's likely going to happen regardless. There won't be any choice. Blame congress for not doing their job and passing a budget like they're supposed to. Or the tea party for being obsessed with cutting the government budget.
Frankly, I'm glad they retired the Enterprise finally. I've heard from a lot of people who served on the ship that she had a ton of maintenance issues, both from being that old and from being a prototype(there's a reason she's the only ship of the Enterprise class). By the end of her life, she was breaking and having to go back into the yards a bit more then the average carrier(which means another carrier has to go cover her assignment. Too bad if that happens to be you).
I served on the USS Reagan most of the time but I did get all of my ABH training on the Enterprise, because the damn thing spend more time on the pound than out at sea which made it perfect for NUBs to learn the ins and out of repairing a ship and it was an old stinky to boot, about time it got put out of its misery.
just hope whatever they build with it's scrap can go faster than the Enterprise, I bet there's a high probability most of it will go into the construction of the Enterprise-II
just hope whatever they build with it's scrap can go faster than the Enterprise, I bet there's a high probability most of it will go into the construction of the Enterprise-II
My father served on the USS Enterprise back in the 1970s, as an E-5 performing maintenance on the F-14 Tomcats of VF-1, the "Wolfpack". He was immensely surprised to hear that she was being scrapped; I'm actually a bit emotionally distraught by it as well since I might not exist were it not for this carrier - that's a story unto itself for another time.
They are going to cut out the reactors, scrap those, bury the fission materials out in the desert somewhere, and from what I heard they are going to take the cutter's torch to the rest of her. A sad way to go, but not every ship in the world can become a museum. A similar fate probably waits for any other nuclear ships that are decommissioned.
They are going to cut out the reactors, scrap those, bury the fission materials out in the desert somewhere, and from what I heard they are going to take the cutter's torch to the rest of her. A sad way to go, but not every ship in the world can become a museum. A similar fate probably waits for any other nuclear ships that are decommissioned.