Farewell Nimitz

[RP#62]

This was the last ship my dad served on before he retired.  The navy actually let him ship over with 30 years but told him he'd have to go to sea.  He said he didn't care.  He said the Nimitz was a luxury liner compared to some of the boats he'd been on.

https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2025-12-15/uss-nimitz-homecoming-last-time-20102985.html

RP

[carolinarider09]

I enjoyed the article and was not aware of the Nimitz history.  Good story. 

Only issue I have is near the end of the story, the following statement is made:

If all goes as planned, Nimitz will retire. It’s to be decommissioned, defueled and deactivated. To date, the Navy has not found a way to turn a nuclear-powered ship into a museum ship without risking radioactive contamination.

Since I served in a nuclear powered submarine, and have never had an issue with being "contaminated", I expect the same could be said for a surface ship. 

I would like to know the "real" why it will not become a "museum ship".

Otherwise, good story and great ship.  (was on the USS Wasp, CVS-18 for a year in 1969)

[98valk]

and they didn't mention the major movie she was in.     it one likes sci-fi it was pretty good.

[old2soon]

    I'd spent 3 days on Enterprise BEFORE going to Yorktown-1964. Lets just say I wuz Not aboard Yorktown very long when I wuz lookin into being transferred back to Enterptise instead of Yorktown. To say my request was Not in the best interests of The Navy and the Mission assigned to Yorktown is couched here near as I can recall comin up on 62 year ago! If you've served you might imagine some of the explitives showered on me by the Leading Chief of VS 23 and also told me-This does NOT even bear mentioning to the least junior butter bar currently embarked! The difference tween Enterprise and Yorktown was Waldorf Astoria V Skid Row!  I did in Fact spend almost 2 years on Yorktown! Yorktown Is a Museum ship. Patriots Point Maritime Museum Mount Pleasent S. C. RIDE SAFE.

[RP#62]

I was looking at Daddy's service notes relating to sea duty.  He was in VS-23 in 1959 on the west coast and did two tours on the Princeton on one on Yorktown
In 1965, he was in VS-27 and did two tours on Randolph and one on the Wasp.  In 1974, he as in RVAH-9 and did two tours on Nimitz (he was a plank owner).

RP

[Rams]

I enjoyed the article and was not aware of the Nimitz history.  Good story. 

Only issue I have is near the end of the story, the following statement is made:

If all goes as planned, Nimitz will retire. It’s to be decommissioned, defueled and deactivated. To date, the Navy has not found a way to turn a nuclear-powered ship into a museum ship without risking radioactive contamination.

Since I served in a nuclear powered submarine, and have never had an issue with being "contaminated", I expect the same could be said for a surface ship. 

I would like to know the "real" why it will not become a "museum ship".

Otherwise, good story and great ship.  (was on the USS Wasp, CVS-18 for a year in 1969)

I would suggest $$$$$$.

Rams

[OnaWingandaPrayer]

As Ron says $$$$ would keep it from becoming a museum. Though I also would think it needs a hosting port city to step up.

[Rams]

As Ron says $$$$ would keep it from becoming a museum. Though I also would think it needs a hosting port city to step up.

The US Navy is quickly being outnumbered by another navy in the world. China is building a super navy that could not only outnumber our own US Navy, but with technology out class our Navy. Super carriers are a huge threat to our enemies, as well as our submarine force, but all can be taken out by a superior force.

In other words, the US Navy has significant challenges and apparently wants to spend the dollars they are allowed on other priorities.

Rams

[scooperhsd]

One reason (that I've heard) for not making museums out of our attack carriers - the layout hasn't really changed (the whole Nimitz class), so our potential advesaries could get a good idea of where to hit the ship to mission kill it most effectively. Plus I can believe the difficulty in defueling the reactor. Plus, it takes a long time to build a carrier (at least now in the one American shipyard that can build them). Having it in reserve would help cover potential loses in an armed conflict.

[Flyingfree]

One reason (that I've heard) for not making museums out of our attack carriers - the layout hasn't really changed (the whole Nimitz class), so our potential advesaries could get a good idea of where to hit the ship to mission kill it most effectively. Plus I can believe the difficulty in defueling the reactor. Plus, it takes a long time to build a carrier (at least now in the one American shipyard that can build them). Having it in reserve would help cover potential loses in an armed conflict.

I'd be curious if the Nimitz was ever sunk by a Canadian Oberon.  Seems the Eisenhower was sunk twice, once in '72 in the Pacific and once in 81 in the Atlantic. We routinely catch Soviets in our northern islands I am told. Gotta wonder if the boys on the on any of the Victoria class ones have had similar, unpublished success. We always here stories of our submarine superiority, I'd be curious if the stories were true. Sadly we still don't have an aircraft carrier even in the works, Gob bless the Bonny and her crew.