> That feels so wrong. It is still floating and could be useful.
It's also an extremely old ship, maintaining it can't be cheap.
> Why not at least sell it to a friendly country, who could use such power to defend itself from neighbouring enemies?
A carrier is a force projection tool, it's for attacking stuff (or make clear that you can attack stuff), to defend a country an airbase is cheaper, simpler and more versatile.
> I'm sure Israel or Japan would welcome the gift - they sure could supply their own planes and weapons.
And fuel supply and crew and maintenance? For a unique ship? No other country on earth comes close to having an Enterprise-class carrier (let alone Nimitz-class), I'm really not sure they'd have any use for it. Not to mention a carrier on its own is basically dead (or a floating museum), you need a carrier group around it which costs the same as the carrier itself.
Also Japan is definitely out, they are not allowed to get weaponry for any other purpose than defense (Article 9 of the 1947 Constitution), and as noted above an aircraft carriers is anything but a defensive platform.
> It's a real shame to destroy so much investment
You do realize the Enterprise has been in active use for more than 50 years right? It's the very first nuclear-powered carrier in human history, and the one and only ship of its class (so replacement parts have to be custom-built, where there are 10 bigger, better, more modern Nimitz-class carriers)
I was going to say pretty much the same thing. I got to tour the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) when it stopped by Alameda and was moored next to the USS Hornet (CV-12). Since our tour guide was caught up traffic we went over to the Hornet and visited, and talked to them about the challenges of that restoration/preservation as well.
Basically there were three things that stood out, first was that there was a lot of 'toxic waste' in the form of stuff we know now to be carcinogenic used in the construction of these things, and re-fitting them, or restoring them, often involved complex programs of setting up barriers to prevent material from escaping during refit, and then disposing of it. That is slow and expensive work. The Hornet is like 1/3 the displacement of the Enterprise (30,000 tons vs 90,000 tons) so there is a lot more space.
I was reminded of how sad it was to see perfectly functional 2U servers being broken down for scrap, they can't justify the power it costs to keep them running.
That said, I also thought "Ok, here is something the sea steaders could start with. Make this the 'core' of their first floating island and build around it. It solves two very real bootstrap problems, one it has a power plant that generates useful electricity and comes with a helicopter 'airport' built in for rapid transportation. Of course the chance of the US Navy handing over a carrier to civilian hands with an intact nuclear power source is about the same as a me winning the PowerBall lottery.
> Basically there were three things that stood out, first was that there was a lot of 'toxic waste' in the form of stuff we know now to be carcinogenic used in the construction of these things
And the Enterprise's got the even bigger issue of the nuclear plant inside it, there are very few non-military refit for which a nuke would be of any interest, and taking out the plant essentially destroys the ship either way.
This is true of course, but the power plant is very very simple. Its a fission powered tea kettle. All the 'complicated' bits, the steam turbines the engines, operate outside the tea-kettle part and have been maintained and kept up to date. I don't know if they have done any long term radiological studies on metal fatigue but there aren't a lot of moving parts to go wrong. No reason to think you couldn't continue to use it for another 100 years. And since it goes about 20 years on a single fill up, you'd probably get 50 years out of a refueling if it basically stayed in one place.
Japan just built 3 Hyuga class helicopter assault carriers. They're basically smaller carriers equipped with helicopter wings, instead of airplanes. The Hyuga is equipped with anti-submarine warfare helicopters, so it has a defensive mission, but that can change, and they can be used for force projection.
It's too expensive to maintain at its current age and generation of technology. Sadly, once they take out the reactor there will be very little left. It follows the previous big E to the scrapyards, but lots of stuff is going to be salvaged just like its predecessor.
Hopefully, the US will get off this kick of naming ships for politicians and move back to the classic names.
We're building supercarriers faster than we're getting new presidents. Either we go back to cool names or we'll read about airstrikes conducted by the USS Chester A. Arthur.
Israel and Japan don't need aircraft carriers. And you can't just supply your own planes and weapons--you need planes that are specially designed to land on a carrier with a tailhook, ordinary planes won't work.
Destructing it is just destruction for the sake of it.
Why not at least sell it to a friendly country, who could use such power to defend itself from neighbouring enemies?
I'm sure Israel or Japan would welcome the gift - they sure could supply their own planes and weapons.
It's a real shame to destroy so much investment - especially since, as noted in the article, its speed is still competitive.