Talk:USS Enterprise (CVN-65)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Misc

History - Deployment in the Bay of Bengal during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 / Bangladesh Liberation War seems to be missing. The article on Bangladesh Liberation War refers to the Enterprise having arrived on station in the Bay of Bengal on December 11, 1971. Does anybody have any details regarding this? Or can confirm the incident? ~ Vivek (list307 at gmail dot com)

---

Has the Navy annouced what will become of the Enterprise after she's decomissioned?

---

The radio call sign for this ship is Starbase, is it not? -Joseph 21:42, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)

Enterprise's callsign is Climax. E2a2j (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The reference to the evacuation of US Citizens from S Vietnam in 1975 includes a reference to the "Viet Cong" shelling the airport. The Viet Cong were effectively destroyed as a fighting force during the Tet Offensive in 1968. After that the war proceeded with the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) supported by the USSR as the Communist combatant force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.33 (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Movie appearance...

Should the appearance in Star Trek IV be mentioned? Just as a little trivia thing, nothing more.--DooMDrat 02:06, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, although the part of the Enterprise was actually played by USS Ranger CV-61. The Enterprise was out to sea during filming. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092007/trivia

—wwoods 09:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Added the info to the article--DooMDrat 10:14, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Why

is this article written entirely in bullet form? No other ship article that I have seen is written in this style. TomStar81 19:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to reread DEBT OF HONOR

In the novel DEBT OF HONOR, Big E took some shots in the tail by the Japanese to disable her, and she was towed back to Pearl Harbor, but she did NOT spend the rest of the book there. Someone (cannot remember who, it might have been Robbie Jackson) came up with a plan to bet her back into action. They did not replace the drive train of the damaged screws, they just removed them and sealed the holes and relaunched the Enterprise. She was a lot slower, and couldn't conduct flight operations, but COULD get out there and carry troops and firepower of other kinds. Plus helicopters, etc.

Jackie Walker jwalker91@hot.rr.com 24.162.155.76 04:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Your are right, some one does need to reread Debt of Honor, because the carrier repaired as such was John C. Stennis. She took shots in her ass as well, but Captain Sanchez had the idea to run her on two screws. Robbie Jackson then concieved the idea to send her out covertly to deal with the JASDF forces near the Marinas Islands. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Game Usage

Graphic Simulations, the creator of the F/A-18 Hornet series of games, uses the Enterprise as the carrier for all carrier based operations in the games.

I fixed a typo you made. You put "i" in lieu of "in". 173.65.239.63 (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

SCANFAR system

I removed the radar / EW system removal statement from 1974 based on the following items: Following her ninth WESTPAC deployment in 1978, Enterprise sailed to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in January 1979 for a 30-month comprehensive overhaul.[1] Image:USS Enterprise (CVN 65) underway.jpg (Dated 1978) shows the Phased array radar and EW cluster still installed indicating that the system wasn't removed until after that photo date. -Dual Freq 22:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Longest navel vessel in the world?

As far as I am aware, the longest maritime vesel is a ~500m long cargo ship. I think this is the longest military vessel, but not maritime. Am I getting confused? Darkcraft 12:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not so sure she's longest military vessel, either; late CVNs are longer, no?

On another note, can somebody add a note on her tonnage? Is that standard, full load, normal, or what? It looks like full load to me... Trekphiler 08:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No the Enterprise is 1,123 feet long compared to the Nimitz-class which is 1,092 feet. The Nimitz-class is shorter by a good 31 feet. Even when the Enterprise was originally 1,101 feet before her massive overhaul refit in the early 90's she was STILL longer than the Nimitz-class. Though you are correct about the long cargo ship. They are the longest ships in the world BUT the Enterprise is the longest naval vessel and warship in the world. Neovu79 (Talk) 01:27, 27 January 2007 (EST)

Edits

No, she is longer than Nimitz class carriers even though they are greater tonnage. She's the longest military vessel, but previous comment was correct about some cargo ships being longer. Also I didn't see a way to edit the right column (general characteristics) but one of her nicknames is Quarter Mile Island, not Three-Quarter Mile Island. (because she's almost 1/4 of a mile long)

inconsistency

this link [2] claims that

When Pakistan's defeat seemed certain, Nixon sent the USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal from the Gulf of Tonkin. Enterprise arrived on station on 11 December 1971. Originally, the deployment of Enterprise was claimed to be for evacuating US citizens and personnel from the area.

while the current page for USS Enterprise denies it ever went to bay of bengal. current page says enterprise to be in vietnam around 14th dec 1971. somebody, please either add here that it was in bay of bengal in dec `71 or delete its reference on indo-pak war page. nids 20:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

is nobody interested, or am i allowed to remove discrepancies from the current enterprise page.nids 11:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Update of the number of aircraft onboard the Enterprise

I had the luck to go onboard the enterprise last week. First of all, the F-14s where decommissioned from the Enterprise in 2001, and replaced by F/A-18 Super Hornets. Second, there are no Sea Kings on board the Enterprise. The captain told me that the Enterprise carries a total of 66 aircrafts. From the pics I took, I was able to count 8 F/A-18s in the hanger (I am sure 7 are hornets, and the 8th seems also to be a hornet) and 54 aircraft on the flight deck (35 F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets, 6 S-3B Vikings, 4 E-2C Hawkeye all of which are group-III/NP2000 identified by the 8-blate scimitar props, 4 EA-6B Prowlers, and 5 SH-60 Seahawks). In total, I was able to count 62 aircraft on board the Enterprise. Either way, this is considerably less than the 85 noted on the wikipedia page.

If anyone is interested in confirming my count, you can find the entire photo gallery at http://www.iraqigeek.com/?p=47

Its is entirely possible that your numbers are correct because they are current, but note that 85, depending on its placement in the article, may be in reference to the number of planes she could carry when originally commissioned. This is a guess on my part, nothing more. I will see if I can find info on that number at a later date. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The current wing size is determined by budget, not by what the ship can carry. During the cold war, air wings were much closer to the nominal 85 listed in the article. Iceberg3k 19:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm no expert here, but from what I saw, I would say it can easily carry 100+ aircrafts. However, having something like 80 aircraft would probably mean that launching aircrafts would be limited to catapults number 3 and 4 only (as most of the flight deck as well as the hanger deck would have to be occupied by "grounded" aircrafts). Keeping in mind that each catapult needs 105 seconds to cycle,this would probably cripple the carrier's effectiveness in combat situations.

The F/14s were not decommissioned from the Enterprise until 2004, i personally served on the enterprise flight deck when the last F/14 fly off in 2004. what was the date of your visit to the enterprise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.196.213 (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Google Maps

On maps.google.com the vessel is visible. Is it worth it to mention this fact in the article? - DeSinT 10:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is no longer at those coordinates. 173.65.239.63 (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup Laundry tag

The article (as of 16 June 2007) uses bulleted lists of events extensively, which is why it was tagged with {{cleanup-laundry}}, and why I restored the tag. The ship's history should be rewritten as prose to make it more encyclopedic and consitent with other ship articles. There are also items such as "September 4 to September 26, 1971: Oriskany was in operations on Yankee Station", which do not belong in this article. (Note that the tag does not require an explaination be added to the discussion page, merely directs discusson of the issue here.)--J Clear 19:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Film of the fire aboard

I just added a link to a YouTube film and to the apparent source. I do not know if this is the way you are used to use this type of source. As far as copyright is concerned, although the original film is undoubtfully a government work (thus PD), the proposed clip is clearly an extract of a derived work on which, as I understand it, militaryvideo.com retains copyright. But the clip is also clearly used as a publicity mean for that website, so wathever the position WP has on the use of Youtube extracts, this looks OK. Bradipus 11:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparison Image

Click image for list of items included

Greetings, I created the comparison image to the left, and I originally added it to this page in Feb 2007, only to have it removed because apparently it is "ridiculous".. Can I please have some opinions/comments? Apparently including arguably the most well known sci-fi spaceship makes the entire thing "ridiculous"? - Fosnez 14:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

New version uploaded - opinions? Fosnez 12:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Enterprise possibly seen on crysis?

In the video game crysis, during the last level, you play the game in a aircraft carrier that has a nuclear powerplant within it. Perhaps this is a referance to the vessel USS enterprise?--71.116.36.80 (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

minor edit on flag

this sea bird is fighting during time of war, so I changed the US flag to the US naval jack

unclear caption?

In the caption of the photo of Enterprise with the De Gaulle, it says "The world's first nuclear-powered carrier steams starboard of what was then the newest, the French Charles De Gaulle May 16, 2001". Does the part "steams starboard" convey anything meaningful to most Wiki readers? Those few who do know something about port & starboard associate them with left & right, but in the photo the ships are above each other. Wouldn't something like this be clearer to most readers: "The world's oldest nuclear-powered carrier Enterprise (top) alongside the newest, the French Charles De Gaulle on May 16, 2001"? T-bonham (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the steams starboard with upper left and lower right to the caption to be clearer. See if that's alright. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good like that. E2a2j (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

CVAN -65

The original designation for the USS Enterprise was CVAN 65.

The pitures typically used do not show the original super structure that included a Phased Array Radar and a domed super structure that hosted an extensive set of SIGINT collect antenna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.76.219 (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The original designation for the USS Enterprise was CVA(N)-65--Pat Glesner (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

I suggest deletion of this section, as it contributes nothing to the article at present time. The only information there, pertaining to the removal of defensive armament at launch, and later addition of such equipment, is already noted in the "Design" section of the article. LordShonus (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC) i think the US Navy needs to build and comision a new Enterprise possibly CVN 65-A? Stuho1mez (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Cuba Crisis...

Two things about this part of the page.

1. Is it really necessary to point out that Cuba is "an island nation 90 miles (140 km) off the coast of Florida", seems pretty much like pointing out that Florida is a pointy peninsula in southeastern North America...

2. I find it hard to believe that the USA feared Cuba was building nuclear missiles, I think "missile launch sites suited for nuclear armament" or some similar description might be more accurate. Not necessarily that formal of course, just not claiming the cubans were building nuclear missiles.

"what appeared to be Soviet nuclear missiles on the island of Cuba under construction" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djingis Khan (talk • contribs) 18:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

43.21 knots?

I'm going to have to ask for a source on this one; otherwise it's original research and should be removed. Iceberg3k 19:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that I have anywhere I can point you to on this one, but I can tell you I've been at the helm of the Big E when she was doing this, and more.

Because of the 8 reactors on Enterprise, her top speed is classified. On numerous occassions, Enterprise was able to excellerate faster than her escorts and also be able to out run them by a considerable speed. With her large number of reactors as well as a more streamlined "crusier" hull, 43.21 knots would not be unreasonable, especially during her early years whiel her machinery was still young. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.162.156 (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Radioactive Boyscout

Hey, does anyone object to someone (or me) putting a blurb about how David Hahn, the "Radioactive Boyscout" served on the ship in the late 90's in the miscellaneous section? He is quite notable, and it is rather ironic that he was restricted to view the nuclear reactors, despite his knowledge and infatuation with "atomic energy". I remember that kid I was with the mastar at arms on Big"E" and a friend showed me the article in a readers digest he was a "nuke" so he knew all about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.132.176 (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

flagship

besides the constitution and other museum pieces, is cvn 65 considered the flagship of usn even unofficially? 72.0.187.239 (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In addiion to the USS Constitution the USS Pueblo AGER 2 is still listed in commission as a U.S. Navy ship older than the USS Enterprise. 72.188.213.155 (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ussenterpriseassn

Pueblo is still considered in commission because the North Korean government has refused to repatriate the ship. Had she finished her career in US service, she would likely have been retired by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.67.227 (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

USS Pueblo was only commissioned into the USN on 13 May 1967. Since the Big E was commissioned on 25 November 1961 it is not correct to characterise Pueblo as older in active service, never mind that "active" in Pueblo's case is entirely academic. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

2002 EDSRA

for the 2002-2003 EDSRA Enterprise was in dry dock in Portsmouth Va. at the Norfolk Naval Ship Yard, not the New Port News Shipyard. I was stationed on her at the time, and TAD to the barracks in Portsmouth for half of it.

Mobile Chernobyl

Yes we called her Mobile Chernobyl and their were patches made up you can see one on one of the facebook pages the sold out quickly and were never reproduced as the command was not happy of them but as of the 96 med cruse thats when the patches were made I really never heard much of the name after that cruse. The air wing made the pacthes so I am guessing they brought the name to light.I never heard her called that before or after their(air wing) arrival and depature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.132.176 (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a real nickname...though of course an unofficial one.

Take a look at this Google search. Which includes WP's own List of warships by nickname. File under M . Note Big E is there also along with Three-Quarter Mile Island.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine but google searches and other wiki pages do not meet WP:Reliable sources policy. See WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE also. Besides that not every nickname can be listed. There is such a thing as Notability also. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Verify and WP:Cite, essentially say we don't care about the truth...long as it's verified and citated. While WP:RS says Yes we do, actually, cuz we want to be reliable and not just verifiable.. So which one takes precedence? Don't you get a headache from reading such contradictory and constantly changing policies? It's not like we're being paid here.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Doing a Google Search on just "mobile chernobyl" indicates that this is a US political slogan being used to contest some nuclear waste-related issues - there is also this page which discusses a patch that was created and banned which linked the term Mobile Chernobyl to USS Enterprise. I also saw Google relating this term to the USS Long Beach though - I think it's a pretty generic term that'll get applied to every nuclear warship at one time or another due to military gallows humour, and is not actually a distinct nickname for Enterprise herself. -=Straxus=- (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so what about Three-Quarter Mile Island, which pokes fun at CVN65's length as well as her overabundance of nuclear goodness? This seems to be a nick unique to the Big E. Typing of which, the Big E is also used to fondly refer to her predecessor-the legendary CV-6.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No sources? No nickname. I've removed both nicknames per WP:BRD. Please refrain from adding these back until a consensus to add them has been reached. - BilCat (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

EDIT Confilct
Totally agree Bill. I have no idea whether these names are/were actually in widespread use about Enterprise, but it is no different from my position regarding the nick names for HMAS Melbourne which carrier I served in and at the time was known by a significant part of the air group as either the offal barge or the war canoe. Whilst I can attest to these names as "true", I have never found them in any suitable documantation, so I have never suggested them for inclusion in the article as that would be original research. The same thing applies here. Unless a reliable source can be produced to show that these nick names are in use, then we cannot include them in the encyclopedia. BTW, R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine), you are not correct to say that we do not care about the truth. The reason we insist on verifiable and reliable sources is precisely so we can be as certain as possible of our facts in an online project that anyone can edit. This policy serves us well and you have provided no reason why we should abandon it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

While we're considering less than flattering nicknames, here are 2 more: The Enterprison and The Pig. I can't list the site I found them on, because it's on a WP spam blacklist. Anyway, it's a community-edited site with no sources, so it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. - BilCat (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia will sink into the sputum produced by its clusterfuck of contradictory, idiotic policies, petty bureaucracies and armature lawyers. If you wish to sink with it, that's fine by me.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's basic principal of citing what you add has been there from the start. So this is probably not the right place for you... -Fnlayson (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Newsflash for you, sunshine, it hasn't been there from the start. In fact this whole WP:VERIFYANDCITEEVERYTHING, quality=verifiability =inline cites fetish is a relatively recent trend. It started long after I joined and didn't really become de-riguer-mortis until after you did. You are right, though, this is no longer the place for me...but for bland, little minds.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? Well, what do the five pillars say? Let's see, Pillar Number one says Content should be verifiable with citations to reliable sources. It then goes on to say Our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here.

I think that pretty well wraps it up. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Here from another that was their his story same time i was their..http://www.mooj.com/rxdept_page15.htm Here buy your own http://www.cvn65.us/Patches/mobile_chernobyl.gif and another with a diffrent air wing http://www.cvn65.us/Patches/Patch_cvw-17_Moble_Chernobyl.jpg

How many more confirmations do you need trust me I was their.EVERYONE who was their knows.I find it funny that 90% of the info put on wiki comes from people that were not even their...and want to discount info from those that were actually their.in law enforcement if your not their or witness the crime we tend not to use that info over someone that was their. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.173.60 (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Top Gun

Not Top Gun.

The USS Nimitz was in fact the fictional setting in Top Gun, not the USS Enterprise as stated in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.119.243 (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything I can find (with a Google search) says it is indeed on the Enterprise... RP459 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Just checked the beginning of the film, the CO clearly is wearing a hat with "USS Enterprise CVN 65" on it. Rapier1 (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I meant to pop in the DVD and double check myself but have not had the chance... -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It was filmed on the BIG E their are photos of the cast/crew and filming crew in the libary on the ship and some autographs as well.Plus photos in the cruse book for that year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.132.176 (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oldest Active Ship

USS Constitution is a lot older than that Enterprise.Racingstripes (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That's already stated in the Lead. The other mention says Enterprise is the "oldest active combat vessel". Constitution is not an active combat vessel, right? So what's the problem? -Fnlayson (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The succession box stated it was the oldest active ship.Racingstripes (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. You had not mentioned where... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I realized my mistake.Racingstripes (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Time frame Error

WE were in Canns France less then 24 hrs we were supposd to be their a month when we left for operation desert fox. I was on her. I woke up next day and the hanger bay was full of bombs. then operation desert fox started after we got all our crew back from shore .After that we went to jabal ali.We wanted to go back to france. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.132.176 (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Scheduled decommissioning in 2013

"In April 2010, the Navy announced that the cost of refurbishing the carrier had risen to $655 million and was scheduled to be completed the same month.[25] On April 19, 2010, Enterprise left the Northrop Grumman shipyard to conduct sea trials in preparation for return to the fleet. [26] The total cost of refurbishing the carrier was $662 million, which was 46% over budget and took eight months longer than originally scheduled. The Navy stated that it planned to use the carrier for two six-month deployments before her scheduled decommissioning date in 2013"

Makes a lot of sense to refurbish the whole ship for 2/3 of a billion dollars, and then decommission it three years later. Not. There ought to be some serious protests against this waste of tax-payer money. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that $662 million dollars is a lot to refurb our oldest carrier, but bare in mind that is costs almost $1 million a day to run a deployed carrier. Multiply that times 183 days at sea, that's almost $366 million a year and almost $1.9 billion for three years. In the DOD's mind, the $13 million cost overrun still fiscally worth it over three years. Neovu79 (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)