# Why just one Enterprise class aircraft carrier? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 11, 2008, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623 "2008-06-11T21:37:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2008, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623/21 "2008-06-17T15:12:12Z")
I know the maximum speed for carriers is classified, the books usually say greater than 35 knots or so. I have heard rumors that Enterprise could reach 45 or 50 knots. This seems unbelievable and I know former sailors could not verify this even if they knew, but is Enterprise faster than the Nimitz class? BTW what was the purpose of that funny cone shaped thingy with all the “hash” mark projections around on top of the island. I think after a refit it was gone. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2008, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623/22 "2008-06-17T20:34:28Z")
[QUOTE=Icerigger] I know the maximum speed for carriers is classified, the books usually say greater than 35 knots or so. I have heard rumors that Enterprise could reach 45 or 50 knots. This seems unbelievable and I know former sailors could not verify this even if they knew, but is Enterprise faster than the Nimitz class? [/quote] Dunno for sure. But remember that both ships use their reactors to convert water to steam, and use that steam to turn turbines to turn the ships propellers. There is only so much power that can be transferred from the props to the water before you hit some point of diminishing returns (and just making the water foam more). Seems to me that whatever efficient propeller design they come up with should be able to be used on either ship class. > [@Icerigger](#): > > BTW what was the purpose of that funny cone shaped thingy with all the “hash” mark projections around on top of the island. I think after a refit it was gone. According to _U.S. Aircraft Carriers_, by Norman Friedman, on pages 309 & 311, he says that is the “unique conical ECM array”, which got removed during a refit in Puget Sound Shipyard around 1980ish. ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2008, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623/23 "2008-06-17T21:08:00Z")
[QUOTE=Icerigger] I know the maximum speed for carriers is classified, the books usually say greater than 35 knots or so. I have heard rumors that Enterprise could reach 45 or 50 knots. This seems unbelievable and I know former sailors could not verify this even if they knew, but is Enterprise faster than the Nimitz class? BTW what was the purpose of that funny cone shaped thingy with all the “hash” mark projections around on top of the island. I think after a refit it was gone. [/QUOTE] Sorry, I have no direct knowledge about which is faster. I will suggest this: For hulls in the water, AIUI, the ultimate limiting factor (assuming infinite power availability) for the top speed of the hull is going to be directly related to the top speed of a wave with a wavelength equal to the ship’s length. Since _Enterprise_ appears to be the longer vessel, there’s at least one reason to suspect she might have the higher top speed. AIUI the “beehive” was a work-around for the failure of the ship’s original radar suite. _Enterprise_ and _Long Beach_ actually were both test beds for an early generation [phased array radar](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array_radar). I don’t know the exact details, but what I’ve heard was that the first generation just was too buggy to work properly. Eventually the technology became the [AN/SPY-1 installation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPY-1), but both _Enterprise_ and _Long Beach_ were stuck with the original installation for a long while, and then with the work arounds for a longer time. (That installation is why the [original superstructure of both ships](http://www.navybuddies.com/cvn/Image16.jpg)\* looks so similar. Again, AIUI.) \*In order, left to right, the ships shown in the linked picture are: USS _Bainbridge_ CGN 25 (Though at the time, I believe she was known as DLGN 25); USS _Long Beach_ CGN 9; and USS _Enterprise_ CVN 65. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2008, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623/24 "2008-06-17T21:13:44Z")
**OtakuLoki** , I just wanted to congratulate you for such a clear explanation - my boyfriend and I have been watching _Carrier_ on Instant Netflix, and we were talking about carrier classes (and how the British ones sound so much cooler) and you explained the reactor thing so well that I looked _super informed_. Most military guys _definitely_ don’t explain things so well that nontechnical people can tell other people a day later. ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2008, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623/25 "2008-06-17T21:30:15Z")
**Zsofia** , thanks! I’m glad you found my explanation both clear and memorable. I can’t think of a better compliment. I missed this earlier - thanks to **Mr. Goob** for confirming the ability and practice of carriers fueling escorts. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2008, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623/26 "2008-06-18T14:14:05Z")
[QUOTE=OtakuLoki] AIUI the “beehive” was a work-around for the failure of the ship’s original radar suite. _Enterprise_ and _Long Beach_ actually were both test beds for an early generation [phased array radar](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array_radar). I don’t know the exact details, but what I’ve heard was that the first generation just was too buggy to work properly. Eventually the technology became the [AN/SPY-1 installation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPY-1), but both _Enterprise_ and _Long Beach_ were stuck with the original installation for a long while, and then with the work arounds for a longer time. (That installation is why the [original superstructure of both ships](http://www.navybuddies.com/cvn/Image16.jpg)\* looks so similar. Again, AIUI.) [/QUOTE] Norman Friedman disagrees with you, sir. 🙂 According to him, the phased array radar was large retangular pieces mounted on the sides of the ships island. [http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/026519.jpg](http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/026519.jpg) In this photo, the phased array radar system is the large white colored retangular object mounted below the bridge (the row of windows on the island), visible just above the tail of an aircraft in the photo. The “Bee hive” was to conceal various ECM antennas (models not identified in his write ups). ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2008, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623/27 "2008-06-18T14:22:47Z")
[QUOTE=OtakuLoki] **Zsofia** , thanks! I’m glad you found my explanation both clear and memorable. I can’t think of a better compliment. I missed this earlier - thanks to **Mr. Goob** for confirming the ability and practice of carriers fueling escorts. [/QUOTE] Military people often have a physical impairment when it comes to speaking in whole words, not acronyms, and not using words that the military uses in a way that nobody else in the world does. I once dated an Army lieutenant who corrected, very seriously, me, on our first date, at a movie, when I said something about a character and his gun. ETA - I was going to correct that awful sentence, but I think I’ll let it stand, because it’s the way I’d say it while pointing fingers and slamming my fist on the table. “Weapon” my ass. ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2008, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623/28 "2008-06-18T16:38:51Z")
[QUOTE=mlees] Norman Friedman disagrees with you, sir. 🙂 According to him, the phased array radar was large retangular pieces mounted on the sides of the ships island. [/quote] I agree that the large, blocky portion of the structure on the ship’s island, which is exactly identical to the installation on forward superstructure on the cruiser steaming next to the _Enterprise_ in the photo I’d linked is the phased array radar. I always thought the “Bee hive” was added on to support/conceal the radars that were added when it was admitted the phased array radar just wasn’t working out. Not that the “Bee hive” was the phased array radar. But if you say it’s the ECM suite, I will have to eat my words. > [@](#): > > The “Bee hive” was to conceal various ECM antennas (models not identified in his write ups). ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2008, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623/29 "2008-06-18T17:03:13Z")
[QUOTE=OtakuLoki] I agree that the large, blocky portion of the structure on the ship’s island, which is exactly identical to the installation on forward superstructure on the cruiser steaming next to the _Enterprise_ in the photo I’d linked is the phased array radar. I always thought the “Bee hive” was added on to support/conceal the radars that were added when it was admitted the phased array radar just wasn’t working out. Not that the “Bee hive” was the phased array radar. But if you say it’s the ECM suite, I will have to eat my words. [/QUOTE] That’s what Friedman identifies the structure as. Unfortunately, my cite is a book, not a internet source in this case. Please do not take offense at my nitpick. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2008, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623/30 "2008-06-18T17:42:43Z")
No offense taken at all. I’m perfectly willing to accept your cite, too. Any book is better than what I was going on, which was “A couple former _Enterprise_ sailors told me…” I figure it is good enough to pass on, but I have to admit, sometimes word of mouth does end up passing on scrambled data. ---
**Author:** ![RxAJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b19c9b/32.png) [@RxAJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RxAJ)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2012, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623/31 "2012-12-09T17:46:37Z")
> [@Rhubarb](#): > > I trained at the S1W (Nautilus) prototype, next door to A1W. I was always told it was the Enterprise reactor prototype. You could be right about the A2W plant, but I never heard anything about it. > > Regarding the number of nuke surface ships, the bubbleheads (submarine sailors) would say it’s because skimmers (surface ships) are just too easy a target. 😃 > > Also, IME, the nuke program has closer to a 75% washout rate. Even higher if you count the ones who are bumped out after they reach the fleet. Of course, that may have improved since Rickover joined the great mothball fleet in the sky. > > ETA: On further thought, I recall that there was a major retrofit of the E involving new reactors. Maybe the switch was made then (late '70s, early '80s time frame)? Enterprise has ALWAYS had eight A2W plants. She was designed with A2W plants and no refuel or retrofit installed/removed anything that changed that. Now, the cores themselves became better (longer life) with each refueling, but the reactor plants themselves remained essentially unchanged. Yeah, I served aboard her in Reactor Department. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623/32 "2012-12-09T18:20:31Z")
> [@OtakuLoki](#): > > An imponderable is this: Navy Nuke training has about a 50% wastage rate. That is, for every two people who start the training only one will be deployed to a sea-going command. > [@Rhubarb](#): > > Also, IME, the nuke program has closer to a 75% washout rate. Even higher if you count the ones who are bumped out after they reach the fleet. Of course, that may have improved since Rickover joined the great mothball fleet in the sky. Whether it’s 50% or 75%, why is the washout rate so high? When you say “navy nuke program”, do you mean nuclear reactor technician training or something else? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2012, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623/33 "2012-12-09T18:47:41Z")
> [@Icerigger](#): > > I know the maximum speed for carriers is classified, the books usually say greater than 35 knots or so. I have heard rumors that Enterprise could reach 45 or 50 knots. This seems unbelievable and I know former sailors could not verify this even if they knew, but is Enterprise faster than the Nimitz class? > > BTW what was the purpose of that funny cone shaped thingy with all the “hash” mark projections around on top of the island. I think after a refit it was gone. This stuff is classified, so nobody who actually knows will answer. Various documentaries over the years have claimed that the Enterprise is faster than Nimitz class ships. That might be the shape of the hull. The Nimitz stern (back of the ship) is flatter than the Big E, and that causes the ship to be slower, but more stable. It is rumored that the Enterprise is so fast that if taken up to very top speed it shudders, so they don’t do that. But even at safe speed it is generally considered faster than a Nimitz. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2012, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623/34 "2012-12-09T18:50:53Z")
This is a four year old thread, folks. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2012, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623/35 "2012-12-09T19:04:51Z")
> [@naita](#): > > This is a four year old thread, folks. But wasn’t it worth the wait to get a response from RxAJ, who served in the _Enterprise’s_ Reactor Department? ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2012, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623/36 "2012-12-09T19:39:07Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > Whether it’s 50% or 75%, why is the washout rate so high? > > When you say “navy nuke program”, do you mean nuclear reactor technician training or something else? In reverse order: the navy nuke program refers to the various power plant technicians and operators that keep the nuclear power plants on carriers and subs operating. The washout rate is so high because it’s a pretty demanding program. The topics covered include: thermodynamics radiation health physics corrosion science nuclear physics materials science and especially engineering applications of all the above. And they’re all covered in a six month program that’s going at a pace that’s calculated to be challenging for the candidates they get. At the time that I was in, the program was considered to be one of the most challenging education programs in the US. Not everyone who passes the selection criteria is able to keep up with the pace of the course materials. For that matter, not everyone can grok all the topics easily. There were specific topics covered that I found nearly impossible to get through my head, while others came easily to me. It’s not unusual for a specific candidate to find a single subject to be their personal wall. The military aspect is another factor: some people just don’t thrive in military schools. I happen to believe that military training is some of the most effective training and education I’ve encountered, but I’ll be the first to admit it’s not for everyone. Motivation matters. There are a lot of people who have the innate ability to master the intellectual concepts involved, provided they put in the effort to achieve that. There are also some people who just can’t maintain that effort. One of the many non-academic things I had my nose rubbed in while going through the nuke training program was that perseverance and determination matters a hell of a lot more than simple native ability. Someone who didn’t find the concepts covered easy but worked 40 hours, or more, a week studying would often out perform someone else who found things coming to him easily, but who wasn’t putting in the effort to master the material. Traditionally, nuke field candidates include a lot of people who were the bright slackers in HS or even college. It wasn’t unusual to find people in the enlisted nuke program who had enough credit hours to qualify for an associate’s degree. In sum you’ll have some candidates that everyone expects will make it all the way through the program with relatively little serious difficulty. Then you’ll have some candidates who fall into less certain categories. Not that they’ll be bad, or even mediocre, operators once they finish training - just that trying to train them is a calculated risk. Finally, the so-called nuke waste, those candidates that don’t finish the program, are often considered very high quality entrants into related fields throughout the fleet. There isn’t any stigma associated with washing out of the nuke program - it’s recognized that it happens, and provided it wasn’t because of disciplinary problems, those nuke waste are often thrown into the deep end of their duties when they get to the fleet. (Also, a small fraction of the candidates who were counted as having not having completed the nuke training program in my class were scarfed up to go to Annapolis.) ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2012, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623/37 "2012-12-09T21:29:26Z")
> [@OtakuLoki](#): > > I agree that the large, blocky portion of the structure on the ship’s island, which is exactly identical to the installation on forward superstructure on the cruiser steaming next to the _Enterprise_ in the photo I’d linked is the phased array radar. > > I always thought the “Bee hive” was added on to support/conceal the radars that were added when it was admitted the phased array radar just wasn’t working out. Not that the “Bee hive” was the phased array radar. But if you say it’s the ECM suite, I will have to eat my words. Sort of a related question..hope someone has an answer..so here goes: back in the 1970’s the Russian Navy attempted a copy of the USN phased-array radar..I think they called it the “Uranus 2” system. It was an expensive failure-anybody know why? ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2012, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623/38 "2012-12-10T01:48:07Z")
I have no direct knowledge of the system you’re mentioning. FTM my understanding of the specifics of radars is a snipe’s. I will point out that the 15 years between the deployment of the phased array radar installation on _Enterprise_ and _Long Beach_ and the deployment of the AN/SPY-1 installation on _Ticonderoga_ suggests that the technical challenges involved in such a concept are pretty challenging. I suspect it’s one of those deceptively simple theoretical developments that balloons with nested complications. Couple that with the Soviets’ generally bulkier, and less consistent, tech base, and I don’t find the idea that an attempt to reverse-engineer such a system could end up being an expensive boondoggle for them at all surprising. ---
**Author:** ![SCAdian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scadian/32/3292_2.png) [@SCAdian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SCAdian)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2012, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623/39 "2012-12-10T05:11:29Z")
> [@OtakuLoki](#): > > I always enjoyed passing on every tuber joke I ever heard. Every scurrilous story about the lack of moral fiber of the bubbleheads. Just remember - the guy who was caught in the act with the sheep in Scotland was a skimmer, not a bubblehead… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2012, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623/40 "2012-12-10T21:50:43Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > > [@Icerigger](#): > > > > I know the maximum speed for carriers is classified, the books usually say greater than 35 knots or so. I have heard rumors that Enterprise could reach 45 or 50 knots. This seems unbelievable and I know former sailors could not verify this even if they knew, but is Enterprise faster than the Nimitz class? > > > > BTW what was the purpose of that funny cone shaped thingy with all the “hash” mark projections around on top of the island. I think after a refit it was gone. > > This stuff is classified, so nobody who actually knows will answer. Various documentaries over the years have claimed that the Enterprise is faster than Nimitz class ships. That might be the shape of the hull. The Nimitz stern (back of the ship) is flatter than the Big E, and that causes the ship to be slower, but more stable. It is rumored that the Enterprise is so fast that if taken up to very top speed it shudders, so they don’t do that. But even at safe speed it is generally considered faster than a Nimitz. I was only aboard Enterprise as a civilian (with no security clearance of any kind) for 3 days, but it was doing 42 knots while I was aboard, and one of the officers out in the smoking area that I mentioned it to told me that once during the time he was aboard, the display I got that figure from was turned off when it got to 50. It does some unknown to me (and him) speed above 50 knots. My personal guess (and guess is all it is) is 65 knots. I know nothing at all of the capability of the Nimitz class. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-just-one-enterprise-class-aircraft-carrier/452623.md?page=3)