USS Enterprise Inactivated; New USS Enterprise to Come

[Gorgo]

For those who might be curious:

http://blogs.defensenews.com/intercepts/2012/12/carrier-enterprise-cvn-65-leaves-the-fleet-but-the-name-lives-on/

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Nice to see such an honoured name kept in the USN.

 

[Gorgo]

Agreed.  If there's any name that deserves to live on in the American Navy, it's Enterprise.

I'm still wondering when they'll get around to christen another U.S.S. Arizona though; there were calls to make one of the Ford-class ships the next Arizona.

Maybe one of the Virginia-class subs . . .?

 

[Pat in Halifax]

Isn't the Arizona technically still in commission though?

 

[jollyjacktar]

Isn't the Arizona technically still in commission though?

Not according to the USS Arizona Memorial website.  http://www.pearlharborinhawaii.com/ussarizonamemorial.html

Of all the vessels lining Battleship Row on the day of the attack, the USS Arizona was the most badly damaged. The battleship was officially removed from the Naval Vessel Register on December 1, 1942, and was never returned to service, despite common belief that it is even now in commission.

 

[Gorgo]

Isn't the Arizona technically still in commission though?

No.  According to the Naval Vessel Register, the ship was declared "in ordinary" (temporarily out of service) on 29 December 1941 and stricken off the Naval Vessel Register (officially decommissioned) on 1 December 1942 when it was concluded there was just no hope of salvaging her.

See here:  http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/BB39.htm

In effect, Arizona is legally seen as having sunk at sea . . . which is the truth of the matter even if the wreck is still quite visible in the eastern loch of Pearl Harbour off Ford Island.

The tradition of flying a flag off what's left of her mainmast started in 1950, when then-CINCPAC, Adm Arthur W. Radford, gave the order for the Stars and Stripes to fly off the ship even if officially, she was no longer in commission.  In essence, it's no different than any ship that's been preserved as a museum vessel like U.S.S. Alabama at Mobile or U.S.S. Little Rock at Buffalo.

 

[Pat in Halifax]

I suppose (I wrote without fully thinking) isn't it as a memorial accorded a unique title. For example, we would never commission an RCN vessel HMCS SACKVILLE as Canada's Naval War Memorial already holds that name. Is Arizona not in the same 'clique'?
As for Enterprise, I have been watching this on another forum for a couple years. There had been formerly a petition that even non-US residents were encouraged to sign. This other forum appears to have an 'older' more international clientele and there was much joy when the announcement was made. The only question now, will the USN run out of money before CVN 80 can be built?

 

[Gorgo]

I suppose (I wrote without fully thinking) isn't it as a memorial accorded a unique title. For example, we would never commission an RCN vessel HMCS SACKVILLE as Canada's Naval War Memorial already holds that name. Is Arizona not in the same 'clique'?
As for Enterprise, I have been watching this on another forum for a couple years. There had been formerly a petition that even non-US residents were encouraged to sign. This other forum appears to have an 'older' more international clientele and there was much joy when the announcement was made. The only question now, will the USN run out of money before CVN 80 can be built?

Good point.  Carriers aren't the cheapest things in the world to build and run.

 

[Journeyman]

Carriers aren't the cheapest things in the world to build and run.

Yes, but they provide a very significant capability to support your foreign policy....especially if forward-basing aircraft near conflict zones is becoming increasingly problematic. Even without utilizing the strike capability, simply shifting a Carrier Battle Group from Point A to Point B sends messages.

Regardless of the economy, I think on-going CVN construction is a pretty safe bet.