Enterprise Class Carriers

[OracleMSU]

I was just wondering about something:

As I was browsing the ships of the fleet, I noticed that the USS Enterprise was the only Enterprise class carrier in the fleet. Now, is that out of respect for the "pride of the fleet"? Or is it because the Enterprise class are expensive, and can be matched or outperformed by the Nimitz class? Just curios. Also, EIGHT NUKE REACTORS ON THE ENTERPRISE?!?!?! HOLY SCHMUCK!


-----OracleMSU----------
"Give me ambiguity or give me something else."

 

[Steve Wilkins]

I'm really not sure why there was only one Enterprise class carrier. The Nimitz was commisioned 12 1/2 years after the Enterprise. Now whether it's more capable or not, I don't know. The Enterprise is in fact longer and taller than the Nimitz. Obviously, with any ship, the newer it is the better the electronics suite that is going to be installed on it. But that doesn't always mean that a ship is more capable. As for the 8 nuke reactors on the Enterprise, you are correct. There are 8 small reactors on board. I learned about this in my days when I was a nuke. I thought it was absolutely incredible that they had 8 reactors, but it turns out they are small. I think they had so many for redundancy. Remember, the Enterprise was the first nuclear carrier, so I'm sure they were a little nervous putting just one on board. And if they put two, and one went down, then they would lose a large percentage of their steam. Possibly lose maneurvability and even ability to launch aircraft. With 8, they could lose one and it probably wouldn't matter a whole lot. I hope this helps you out.

 

[Gatordev]

Since you have this new fangled high tech forum, I figured I'd add my two cents. First up, hey Steve, what's up...

The Enterprise was not the only ship that was going to be nuclear initially. The JFK (CVN 67) was initially planned to glow in the dark also. Then they changed that and went with the Nimitz class for nuke carriers.

Anyway, take it for what's it's worth (which is not much probably).

Devin

 

[webmaster]

quote:
Anyway, take it for what's it's worth (which is not much probably).

Devin


Well, you are right about one thing!! jk

Glad to see you on the forum man, now get back to studying!!

Hmm, I was thinking back on the Enterprise, and correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe she has 8 reactors anymore. Didn't the last major refit back in 94-95 or so, replace them with 2 or 4???

On a side note, this made me think of the City of Steel documentary on The Discovery Channel, talking about Newport News Shipbuilding, and all that it takes to build a CVN... well, to get to my point, I was quite floored with the segment where they showed a CVN undergoing sea trials, and steaming BACKWORDS!!! for something like 24 hours, to "shake down the hull"... I am just amazed at what tests engineers will come up with, heck I have even seen the footage of an Arleigh Burke having explosives set off underwater by her.. oh well, just got me thinking (dangerous as that as)


Edited by - John Wickham on 5 May 2000

 

[Gatordev]

Zing! Thnx shipmate. I'll mail you the knife back. jk

On a related note, they used to do the explosion test on the carriers also but stopped. Why you ask? Well, the island of the carrier isn't secured to the flight deck. It just is held in place by sheer weight. I forget which carrier it was, but the test was a bit close and the whole island actually shifted a bit on the deck. Talk about explosive force. Yikes!

Devin

 

[Tripp]

Speaking of steaming backwards...

I was flying w/a friend to Birmingham in a Cessna 172 awhile back. The winds were so bad, if you idled the throttle, you could actually fly backwards ! That was definately an experience.