Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Navy’s Next Ford-Class Aircraft Carrier to be Named Enterprise
U. S. Department of Defense ^ | December 1, 2012 | Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense - Public Affairs

Posted on 07/10/2013 4:49:13 PM PDT by re_tail20

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced today via video message at the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) inactivation ceremony that the third Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier will be named Enterprise.

Mabus selected this name to honor USS Enterprise (CVN 65), the Navy’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which was inactivated today in Norfolk, Va. Commissioned in 1961, CVN 65 served for more than five decades. It participated in the blockade of the Cuban Missile Crisis, launched strike operations in Vietnam, and conducted combat missions in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

“The USS Enterprise was the first of its kind, and for 51 years its name has been synonymous with boldness, readiness and an adventurous spirit,” said Mabus. “Rarely has our fleet been without a ship bearing the name. I chose to maintain this tradition not solely because of the legacy it invokes, but because the remarkable work of the name Enterprise is not done.”

The future USS Enterprise, designated CVN 80, will be the ninth ship to bear the name.

USS Enterprise and subsequent Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers will provide improved warfighting capability, quality of life improvements for Sailors and reduced life cycle costs.

The Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier will be 1,092 feet in length and have a beam of 134 feet. The flight deck will be 256 feet wide, and the ship will be able to operate at speeds in excess of 34 knots. Enterprise will be built by Huntington Ingalls Industries-Newport News Shipbuilding in Newport News, Va.


TOPICS: Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: navyenterprise

1 posted on 07/10/2013 4:49:14 PM PDT by re_tail20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

Doesn’t that mess up the Star Trek universe’s chronology of Enterprises?


2 posted on 07/10/2013 4:50:21 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

It does mess it up.

Still, it’s always good to have a U.S.S. Enterprise patrolling the seas.


3 posted on 07/10/2013 4:51:14 PM PDT by re_tail20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

34 knots. Of course.


4 posted on 07/10/2013 4:51:22 PM PDT by AppyPappy (Obama: What did I not know and when did I not know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Nah, just a different timeline, it’s all good.


5 posted on 07/10/2013 4:51:37 PM PDT by Mastador1 (I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

GOOD - it’s about time — I’m glad to see that name back on the Navy’s registry!


6 posted on 07/10/2013 4:53:17 PM PDT by BCW (Book - http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mastador1

Clinton split the timelines in the 90s and reality went out the window. We ended up in the Bizzaro one. But fear not. In the real reality the Enterprise is still patrolling the seas as God intended ;)


7 posted on 07/10/2013 4:55:22 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

“Still, it’s always good to have a U.S.S. Enterprise patrolling the seas.”

Same with Wasp or Hornet. I always liked those names.


8 posted on 07/10/2013 4:55:43 PM PDT by Owl558 (Those who remember George Santayana are doomed to repeat him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mastador1

Alternate universe, lol...


9 posted on 07/10/2013 4:56:09 PM PDT by neodad (USS Vincennes (CG-49) Freedom's Fortress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DManA

They will do a re-edit like they did in Star Wars - and knock out the one guy that played Anakin (Sebastian Shaw) with the newer Anakin (Hayden Christensen)...


10 posted on 07/10/2013 4:56:47 PM PDT by BCW (Book - http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

11 posted on 07/10/2013 4:59:17 PM PDT by arderkrag (An Unreconstructed Georgian, STANDING WITH RAND.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20; zot

about time they quit naming the aircraft carriers for presidents, especially live ones like the peanut picker. Saratoga & Lexington ought to be next on the list. then Yorktown, Hornet, Ranger, and Langley


12 posted on 07/10/2013 5:00:28 PM PDT by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

All three will have been built at NNSB&DD.


13 posted on 07/10/2013 5:00:46 PM PDT by lwd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCW
Its good to break the trend of naming capital ships after people.

Never liked the practice - something un-American about it.

14 posted on 07/10/2013 5:02:15 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20
BRAVO ZULU USN!!!
15 posted on 07/10/2013 5:05:57 PM PDT by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

We need some new names for these ships. We’re running out of presidents.

Maybe we need to go with a sports theme or sumthin’.. The ‘Air Jordan’ aircraft carrier,, the Yankees Stealth Clippers


16 posted on 07/10/2013 5:06:02 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi --)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

17 posted on 07/10/2013 5:07:12 PM PDT by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

If we ever can travel between stars I wonder if the first vessel will be called Enterprise. Whoever figures it out will definitely be a nerd.


18 posted on 07/10/2013 5:07:51 PM PDT by FreedomStar3028
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

This makes me very happy. Good news.


19 posted on 07/10/2013 5:11:10 PM PDT by jboot (It can happen here because it IS happening here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Doesn’t that mess up the Star Trek universe’s chronology of Enterprises?

If we didn't confound the timelines like this, the alternate universe with the bearded Spock couldn't exist.

20 posted on 07/10/2013 5:11:29 PM PDT by RansomOttawa (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"Maybe we need to go with a sports theme or sumthin’.. The ‘Air Jordan’ aircraft carrier,, the Yankees Stealth Clippers"

Maybe we can sell the naming rights...

21 posted on 07/10/2013 5:15:11 PM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

I’m glad to hear that the name Enterprise will not be missing from the U.S.Navy’s Roster of Operational CVN’s for long.

I’m not even a navy veteran and that makes me thrilled.


22 posted on 07/10/2013 5:15:29 PM PDT by puppypusher (The World is going to the dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Carriers used to be named after famous battles. The unseemly habit of naming them after presidents, admirals and SECNAVs started with the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt and has continued with a few notable interruptions ever since.

It is high time for them to dust off Lexington, Saratoga and Yorktown again.

23 posted on 07/10/2013 5:18:17 PM PDT by jboot (It can happen here because it IS happening here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Chode

Chode...thanks for that ping!

I know it is silly. I know people might not understand. But for some reason, this is important to me.


24 posted on 07/10/2013 5:18:53 PM PDT by rlmorel (Silence: The New Hate Speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20
This should also honor CV-6, the Big E, which participated in more major actions and collected more battle stars than any other ship in WWII:


25 posted on 07/10/2013 5:21:11 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jboot

Yep. Couldn’t agree more vigorously.

USS Ranger.

USS America

USS Constellation

USS Kitty Hawk

NO MORE POLITICIAN NAMES!


26 posted on 07/10/2013 5:21:12 PM PDT by rlmorel (Silence: The New Hate Speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

Just finished the book “Enterprise”...very well written!


27 posted on 07/10/2013 5:21:59 PM PDT by rlmorel (Silence: The New Hate Speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

28 posted on 07/10/2013 5:27:11 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

Whew!

After “they” named a sub for Jimmah, I am surprised they did not name this carrier for some one like John French Kerry (who served in Vietnam, by the way).


29 posted on 07/10/2013 5:27:21 PM PDT by llevrok (We are in a new Cold War. At home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

30 posted on 07/10/2013 5:29:46 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

I agree with your post # 12.


31 posted on 07/10/2013 5:37:46 PM PDT by zot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel
most welcome... i try to ping you when i see carrier stuff but knew you'd want to see this one, sent the link to one my best buds that was on her too
32 posted on 07/10/2013 5:37:53 PM PDT by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Chode

Gah. It is a struggle. I was just an average sailor, but I am so grateful I did a tour, because I learned so much in that four years. I felt like it completely changed me.

Now, when I look at what a politically correct tub of pus the US Navy has become, it is very difficult for me to reconcile.

I watched that PBS special a few years back, and I tell you, I was sincerely aghast. I just could not believe it.

But I guess I am holding out hope, but...that train has left the station. The damage liberals have done to the USN, they are trying their damndest to wreak that on the Air Force (successfully), Army, and the USMC.


33 posted on 07/10/2013 5:42:28 PM PDT by rlmorel (Silence: The New Hate Speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

May it be as unsinkable as the last two.


34 posted on 07/10/2013 5:43:58 PM PDT by bmwcyle (People who do not study history are destine to believe really ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20; Jeff Head; HalfFull
Finally, the right naming decision.

For carrier buffs, the redesigned island-lift for CVN-78, earlier this year.

35 posted on 07/10/2013 5:47:10 PM PDT by Al B. ("Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." -- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

This is the *eighth* U.S. Navy Ship with that name:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise


36 posted on 07/10/2013 5:49:45 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Doing the same thing and expecting different results is called software engineering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

The “Big E” lives on!


37 posted on 07/10/2013 6:04:58 PM PDT by grobdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

bookmark


38 posted on 07/10/2013 6:14:31 PM PDT by DFG ("Dumb, Dependent, and Democrat is no way to go through life" - Louie Gohmert (R-TX))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

Glad to see the Enterprise-J at the bottom of the image!


39 posted on 07/10/2013 6:19:18 PM PDT by UAConservative (We have just begun to fight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

I was dismayed when the Navy named CVN - 79 the “John F. Kennedy”, as he already had a carrier named after him. But this makes up for it.


40 posted on 07/10/2013 6:38:57 PM PDT by re_tail20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

I think Hornet’s Nest would be more appropriate.


41 posted on 07/10/2013 6:47:30 PM PDT by ronnietherocket3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

We don’t need any more of these big ships. They were great in their day but we need a new paradigm for projecting power.


42 posted on 07/10/2013 6:54:38 PM PDT by HChampagne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

The Enterprise has been with us since the beginning - she needs to stay with us - it’s our history and if we are to remain a country - ships such as her need to be ready - and for the sailors that fought so hard and the pilots that launched from her decks later on...she’s a mainstay in the US Navy....and this is coming from a Army guy!


43 posted on 07/11/2013 5:20:51 AM PDT by BCW (Book - http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
I believe there are a few exceptions:


44 posted on 07/11/2013 9:08:34 AM PDT by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Rodamala
Yes, it is traditional to name destroyers, frigates, etc after MOH winners, etc. But those aren't capital ships.
45 posted on 07/11/2013 9:54:51 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson