# Aircraft Carriers JFK and Enterprise **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 21, 2001, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-jfk-and-enterprise/83100 "2001-09-21T21:48:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-jfk-and-enterprise/83100/1 "2001-09-21T21:48:33Z")
While perusing the U.S. Navy’s website, I noticed that the _Enterprise_ (CVN-65) was the first nuclear carrier, deployed in Nov., 1961. The next active carrier is the _John F. Kennedy_ (CV-67), deployed in Sept., 1968. Next in line, we see the _Nimitz_ (CVN-68). Now, the _Enterprise_, and everything _after_ the _JFK_ are nuclear-powered. The _JFK_ isn’t. What happened? It _looks_ like the _Enterprise_ and _JFK_ may have been sister ships, with one fitted for nuclear and the other with boilers (this makes some sense, since the _JFK_ has 8 boilers, and the _Enterprise_ has 8 reactors, whereas all carriers from the _Nimitz_ forward only have 2 reactors). Is this the case? And, if so, which was the “intended” design - nuclear or diesel (steam?)? Or was the _Enterprise_ simply a prototype for nuclear plants? Also, as a bonus question, what’s the deal with the _America_ (CV-66)? Its run seemed to have lasted only about a year and a half, and it has been stricken from the Navy’s list; it is to be scrapped. ---
**Author:** ![SmackFu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/53a042/32.png) [@SmackFu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmackFu)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-jfk-and-enterprise/83100/2 "2001-09-21T22:44:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > \*\*Also, as a bonus question, what’s the deal with the _America_ (CV-66)? Its run seemed to have lasted only about a year and a half, and it has been stricken from the Navy’s list; it is to be scrapped. \*\* Huh? [This page](http://www.acehunter.com/cv66/cv66specs.htm) says it was in active service from January 1965 to August 1996. That’s 31.5 years, not one and a half. Maybe a typo in your source on one of the dates? ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-jfk-and-enterprise/83100/3 "2001-09-21T22:57:12Z")
D’oh! Damn my eyes…I swore that the decommision date was 19 **6** 6. So, is there a word for reading things both backwards _and_upside down? Thanks, **SmackFu**. My apologies…scratch the bonus question. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Zero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@Saint\_Zero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Zero)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-jfk-and-enterprise/83100/4 "2001-09-21T23:18:11Z")
[http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cv.htm](http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cv.htm) That’s one of my favorite sites. That page should help answer everything you should want to know. It looks like the Enterprise finished a refit in 1994 of it’s refueling complex, so I’ll assume it’s military standard now. Under old rules, it was to be decomissioned in 2013 and replaced by CVX-78, one of the newer designs. Given the changes since then, it’s hard to tell. ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-jfk-and-enterprise/83100/5 "2001-09-21T23:25:00Z")
The JFK and Enterprise are not “sister ships” The JFK is Kitty Hawk (CV-63) class along with the America IIRC. The Kitty Hawk class introduced a new flight desck design that was an improvement over the previous Forrestal class carriers. I was on the Forrestal class Ranger which had the island more forward with two elevators on each side forward. The port side elevator was actually in the angle deck landing area making it nearly useless. We rarely used it because if it ever failed in the down position the ship would be crippled with no way to land planes. The Kitty Hawk moved the island aft with two starboard elevators forward and one on each side aft with the single portside elevator being out of the landing area. The enterprise is a single class ship as subsequent nuclear powered carriers have all been of the much larger Nimitz class. The Big E also was originally fitted with planar array antennas around the island but they have been removed. All those ships have the same general lay out as the Kitty Hawk class but the Nimitz class ships are much bigger. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-jfk-and-enterprise/83100/6 "2001-09-21T23:26:33Z")
According to [this page](http://www.warships1.com/UScv67_JFK.htm) > [@](#): > > In 1963 it was decided to lay down a new nuclear powered carrier, but congress did not approve the cost of one and it was decided to revert to a conventionally powered carrier built to a modified Kitty Hawk design. The dimensions and displacement of the JFK are almost identical to the Kitty Hawk’s. (The [_Kitty Hawk_ Class](http://www.warships1.com/UScv63_KHawk.htm) includes the two conventionally-powered ships built just before _Enterprise_, _Kitty Hawk_ and _Constellation_, as well as the conventionally-powered _America_, built right after _Enterprise_.) ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-jfk-and-enterprise/83100/7 "2001-09-21T23:31:15Z")
> [@](#): > > The enterprise is a single class ship as subsequent nuclear powered carriers have all been of the much larger Nimitz class. Actually _Enterprise_ is a touch longer than the _Nimitz_-class ships (1,101 feet, 2 inches, versus 1,092 feet), but the _Nimitz_-class ships are considerably heavier (97,000 tons vs. 89,600 tons). ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-jfk-and-enterprise/83100/8 "2001-09-21T23:39:57Z")
You are correct sir, but as you noted the Nimitz class ships have greater displacment and have room for more a few more aircraft. As any woman will tell you length isn’t the only thing or even the most important. The Forrestal class ships were about the same length but still smaller than the kitty Hawk class. My air wing was able to fit all the squadrons’s planes on the Constellation but on the Ranger we had to leave one or two planes from each squadron in the Phillippines when we went to the Indian Ocean. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2001, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-jfk-and-enterprise/83100/9 "2001-09-22T00:23:01Z")
Ah-ha! It was the “modified _Kitty Hawk_ class” bit that threw me; the fact that the _JFK_ was not given a class designation on the [Navy’s site](http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-cv.html) made me think it was more closely related to the _Enterprise_ than the _Kitty Hawk_. In terms of lineage the non-nuclear power plant makes sense, despite it’s chronological appearance. Many thanks, especially for the links!