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, 1878 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1369 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 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1339 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, 189 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1241 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, 7454 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1221 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, 1878 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1190 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 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1172 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, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1169 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 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1146 times:

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

Jetjack74 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 6586 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1003 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, 28564 posts, RR: 72
Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 998 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 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 954 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, 3901 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 951 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, 6586 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 946 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