Replies

CVN-80 will be USS Gerald Ford.

CVN-78, first of the new class, will be the Gerald Ford. Done deal. The question is what to name CVN-79 and 80.

The current Enterprise will be out of service by the time CVN-79 comes along. Should be a no-brainer.

The current Enterprise will be out of service by the time CVN-79 comes along. Should be a no-brainer.

Agree 100%. Back to tradition. Enterprise, Hornet, Wasp, Intrepid, etc. I think we have a Yorktown as a cruiser, but after its decommissioning, use that name on a CVN.

The current Enterprise will be out of service by the time CVN-79 comes along. Should be a no-brainer.

With the early retirement of the Kennedy and the slipping of the Ford's construction schedule, there has been talk of giving Enterprise another refueling to maintain the number of carriers. There's a real cost downside though ... nobody expects that she'd do more than another deployment or two (US CVNs run 6-8 month deployments every 18 months or so), but refueling would cost a few billion dollars (for getting five years or so out of 15-20 year cores).

Having said that, notice that the language in the proposed resolution specifically says CVN-79 or -80. I know a lot of people in DC and in the Navy are cognizant of the significance and symbolism of the name "Enterprise". Not just for the CV-6 and CVN-65 legacy, but also for the fact that Trekkies can be expected to go berzerk if the name is allowed to slip into disuse (people still remember how they managed to get OV-101's name changed). I think the resolution is deliberately worded to hold a slot open for the name, depending on whether CVN-65's decommissioning coincides with CVN-79 or -80 coming into service.

I've even heard the really neat idea that Enterprise name would be transferred from CVN-65 to the new "Enterprise" in a joint decommissioning/commissioning ceremony with the two ships sharing a pier at Norfolk.