Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker Menu

USS Enterprise vs Nimitz class

Started by m75, Jan 17, 2009, 11:00

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

m75


Here is a dumb question but i'll ask it anyway. The USS Enterprise CVN-65 has 8 small nuclear reactors (atleast thats what they tell the civilian world) vs a Nimitz class which has 2 reactors. I think I read here once that each reactor has a bull nuke (highest enlisted man assigned to the reactor) Does that mean CVN-65 has 8 bull nukes??

thanks

Gamecock

"If the thought police come... we will meet them at the door, respectfully, unflinchingly, willing to die... holding a copy of the sacred Scriptures in one hand and the US Constitution in the other."

93-383

No in fact the Nimitz class only has one SEA (bull nuke) in reactor department.

Harley Rider

Well having served as a "Bull Nuke" on the Enterprise I think I am qualified to answer this question. The Enterprise reactor department has a Reactor Department Master Chief who is the senior enlisted nuke for the department. Additionally engineering department has a Engineering Department Master Chief that is also a nuke and serves the same function as the RDMC. So in reality there are two "Bull Nukes" on Enterprise. Hope that answers your question.
Despite inflation, a penny is still a fair price for the thoughts of many people

deltarho

Quote from: Harley Rider on Jan 17, 2009, 04:34
So in reality there are two "Bull Nukes" on Enterprise. Hope that answers your question.

:D That's a lot of bull... :o
The above has nothing to do with any real  or imagined person(s).  Moreover, any referenced biped(s) simulating real or imagined persons--with a pulse or not--is coincidental, as far as you know.

93-383

However I did see a time when there was a Master Cheif for M,RM,RE,and RC div (RL lucked out and only an MMCS).
On the flip side of that coin there was a time when RM div only had one MMC, so two MM1s where the RM1 and 2 LCPOs

Khak-Hater

Don't think of Enterprise as having eight (8) reactors.  Think of it as having four (4) dual-reactor plants.  Oh, and don't let anyone tell you that they're small.  It's a very powerful and flexible system.  No one, as I recall was assigned to a specific reactor, except maybe the RO standing watch on it, and then there's no rule that says that he would need to be from that plant (i.e., it's a temporary assignment that only lasts the length of the watch). 

As far as "Bull Nukes" go.  I have no idea what you're talking about.  I served on the E for six (6) years and never heard anyone referred to as the "Bull Nuke."  We had several Master Chiefs in Reactor Department.  One of them was the Departmental Master Chief.  I never heard anyone call him the "Bull Nuke."  We called him "Crusty the Clown" because of a remarkable physical and behavioral resemblance to the "Simpsons" character. 

The Engineering Department Master Chief was no more revered than that.  Having never served in Engineering Department, I couldn't even tell you who he was, but I never heard any of the EM or EE dudes referring to a "Bull Nuke." 

I think that maybe this "Bull Nuke" is a tuber-term like the Chief of the Boat (COB).  I always heard all of my tuber friends from NNPS and NPTU referring to the COB, like they knew him and he had some noticeable effect on their daily lives.  Yes, we had a Command Master Chief, but he was usually an Air Dale of some sort and no blueshirt in Reactor Department would've known who he was [by name and/or sight].

MGM


Already Gone

"Small" is a relative term, isn't it?  The Navy's biggest reactor is absolutely tiny compared to the smallest commercial reactor.  All 8 of the reactors on E put together are still smaller than one commercial nuke.
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

Fermi2

Like I always say. Startup Sources!

Preciousblue1965

Quote from: BeerCourt on Jan 20, 2009, 02:32
"Small" is a relative term, isn't it?  The Navy's biggest reactor is absolutely tiny compared to the smallest commercial reactor.  All 8 of the reactors on E put together are still smaller than one commercial nuke.

It isn't the size of your reactor, it is what you do with it.  At least that is what I have always been told..... :-\ :-\
"No good deal goes unpunished"

"Explain using obscene hand jestures the concept of pump laws"

I have found the cure for LIBERALISM, it is a good steady dose of REALITY!

Harley Rider

Quote from: Khak-Hater on Jan 20, 2009, 01:59
As far as "Bull Nukes" go.  I have no idea what you're talking about.  I served on the E for six (6) years and never heard anyone referred to as the "Bull Nuke."  We had several Master Chiefs in Reactor Department.  One of them was the Departmental Master Chief.  I never heard anyone call him the "Bull Nuke."  We called him "Crusty the Clown" because of a remarkable physical and behavioral resemblance to the "Simpsons" character. 

The term "Bull Nuke" is a relatively new term to the surface nuke world. I would say the moniker has been around 10 years or so and yes the term is used to describe the departmental Master Chief. Some embrace the term but I never used it. The Crusty the Clown made me laugh so hard I spit my coffee on my keyboard. Does that ever bring back memories.
Despite inflation, a penny is still a fair price for the thoughts of many people


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2025 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?