USS Enterprise CVN-65 Strike Group Deployed — Military Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

USS Enterprise CVN-65 Strike Group Deployed

747400sp From United States, joined Aug 2003, 1888 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1380 times:

Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The USS Enterprise CVN-65 strike group deployed this week. At the age of 45 the USS Enterprise is still going strong. It is good to see this old girl still plowing though the seas. May God be with her and her whole strike group.

12 replies: All unread, jump to last

TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1350 times:

****Stupid Statment Warning****

Wasn’t the whole point of a nuclear vessel so they could be deployed/used indefinitely?

JarheadK5 From United States, joined Nov 2005, 205 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1252 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 1):
Wasn’t the whole point of a nuclear vessel so they could be deployed/used indefinitely?

The tactical value of a nuclear-powered vessel (as I understand it) is their relative independence from fuel tankers. Of course a CVN still has to UNREP periodically for JP-5 and parts/food/mail, but nowhere near as often as a CV. No bunkers for ship's fuel means more bunkers for JP-5 and more space for other stuff.

ANY warship that stays around that long is pretty amazing. These things aren't exactly "babied"...

Cleared to Contact

KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7564 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1232 times:

Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 2):
CVN still has to UNREP periodically for JP-5 and parts/food/mail, but nowhere near as often as a CV. No bunkers for ship's fuel means more bunkers for JP-5 and more space for other stuff.

I believe the USN and USAF use JP-8 now. Both JP-4 and JP-5 have been discontinued.

747400sp From United States, joined Aug 2003, 1888 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1201 times:

KC135TopBoom

The USN still use JP-5.

ContinentalFan From United States, joined Oct 2000, 347 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1183 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 1):
Wasn’t the whole point of a nuclear vessel so they could be deployed/used indefinitely?

Ahem, that is a nuclear "wessel" biggrin

BladeLWS From United States, joined Dec 2005, 293 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1180 times:

They can stay operational so long as its cost effective and the hull doesn't rust out from under you. Wink

Yanqui67 From Puerto Rico, joined Jan 2005, 303 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1157 times:

I did an around the world cruise on her in 1989 with CVW-11.

Jetjack74 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 6587 posts, RR: 55
Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1014 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 1):
Wasn’t the whole point of a nuclear vessel so they could be deployed/used indefinitely?

Yes, should the need ever arise, thanks to the practise of an unrep(Underway Replenishment). However, the Big E's 8 reactors need to be defueled, and refueled every 5-7 years. The Nimitz class carriers can go 10-15 years without a de/refuel. The latter being in extreme cases. When I was on Roosevelt in 90-92, we used to pull pierside in Norfolk with the E either going or coming from the yards It has the record for the most yard periods due to repeated QDR's.

"Shut your pie hole and listen to me when I say that I am finished with the checking of the bags conversation."

L-188 From United States, joined Jul 1999, 28604 posts, RR: 73
Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1009 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 8):
However, the Big E's 8 reactors need to be defueled, and refueled every 5-7 years.

Makes you wonder how much hotter that ship is with the core open that often....actually the 8 cores.

Correct me if I am worng but in addition to the different refuel times, the Enterprise was built with 8 reactors compared with the Nimitz's 2.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.

MigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 965 times:

I am sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but why would a ship need eight reactors?

I can understand two, but I am not a nuclear engineer.

/M

LMP737 From United States, joined May 2002, 3912 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 962 times:

Quoting MigFan (Reply 10):
I am sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but why would a ship need eight reactors?

I can understand two, but I am not a nuclear engineer.

I believe it has to do with the fact that in between the time the Enterprise and Nimitz were launched nuclear reactors became more efficent.

Never take financial advice from co-workers.

Jetjack74 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 6587 posts, RR: 55
Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 957 times:

The 2 enormous reactors on on the Nimitz Class carriers dwarf the the size of the small 8 reactors on the Big E with all of them put together. The Enterprise technology is almost 20 years older than the Nimitz and was an experiment when it was built. The Nimitz was the perfect product of nuclear technology when it was built. Here are 2 sites on each of the ships.
http://www.sizor.com/cvn65/
http://navysite.de/cvn/cvn68.html

"Shut your pie hole and listen to me when I say that I am finished with the checking of the bags conversation."

Top Of Page