jamesintucson wrote:
Just how many more carriers need to be saved?
In your opinion James how many is too many?? and how many is just enough? Would we all be happy if the thought process were applied to aircraft?
There are "Many" groups and cities that would like to have an aircraft carrier or battleship put on display, but can't due to the strict criteria set in place by the Navy. So there more then enough potential locations wanting to have a ship. I say as long as there are cities willing to preserve and display ships as memorials then let them do so.
All cities these days depend on tourism and any city that acquires an aircraft carrier for museum will draw in revenue in the form of admission at the museum to support it, as well as fund generated at local restaurants and hotels from people specifically visit just to see the aircraft carrier and all it's exhibits. So there are benefits
jamesintucson wrote:
At least two of the carriers that are already preserved are having money trouble. Is it really necessary to add another carrier to the preserved list?
This is true, but these are circumstances related to the business models that each group is using to support the museum. Each group in charge of administrating these museum need to provide and documented structure of financial support to the Navy prior to receiving the ship. And this is where a lot of groups don't make the cut. The primary goal of every private museum that is finacially dependent should be that of "Generating Capital". Now I say "primary" only because it will be the capital generated from various admissions, activities and uses that will allow the museums to prosper with of the overall mission of telling the story and educating.
Regarding the uses during time of emergency, an aircraft carrier can be the perfect place for this. No building structure will stand up to a Catagory 5 Hurricane like and CV will. Depending on how it is maintain, the flight deck can be used for helo ops for search and rescue, relief supplies, systems for generating power and potable water could be retained in operable condition for these times. And can provide safe and clear facilities for make shift hospitals and local government command centers.
The expenses related with maintaining ships is high and a big portion of this can be that because they continue to sit in water they continue to corrode and eventually hull integrity is compromised. I'm a proponent for making these ships dry and bringing them ashore. I can't recall which it is but I believe there is already one museum battleship that has done this. It would seem to the best investment on money for the duration of the museum.
jamesintucson wrote:
Perhaps they should look to perserving something that is truly historic and in immediate danger of destruction like the Olympia instead of yet another carrier.
How do we judge that one thing is more "historic" than another? Is it length of service? The JFK served longer than the Olympia, by almost half the Olympia's service career. Is it Combat? The JFK was involved in several "Incidents" years prior to it's involvement in Operation Desert Shield and Storm. From wiki :
Quote:
Kennedy launched 114 airstrikes and nearly 2,900 sorties against Iraq, which delivered over 3.5 million pounds of ordnance.
Not to mention her role in operations post 911.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CV-67So what is it that makes the JFK less worthy of being preserved?
Again i say if groups are willing to take on the challenge of maintaining, preserving and displaying a aircraft carrier then let them.
Shay
____________
Semper Fortis
P.S. Look at it this way, The more CVs that are preserved as museums, mean that more aircraft will be preserved.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
i'd love to see her saved but every entity of this nation is cash strapped, so hence not practical. if the torch gets it lets make darn sure the scrap stays here & doesn't go overseas.