Anyone want an aircraft carrier?

[Pat Carry]

www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/us/19ship.ht ... odayspaper

[Matt Sharkey]

I have always wondered why there isn't a carrier on display at NAS Pensacola. Are they waiting for Nimitz or Enterprise?

[Shay]

Wow, really thought this one would've gone to Boston. Hopefully all works out.

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

[SaxMan]

...meanwhile, Forrestal and Saratoga are slated to be disposed of. For the group that "loses", why couldn't they take one of these two as their "consolation prize"? As the first "supercarrier", Forrestal ought to be saved. There was at one point a fierce fight over who was going to get Forrestal (Baltimore versus Tampa). Now it looks like neither will get it. The sad part is that while the Baltimore & Tampa groups were vying for Forrestal, either one of them had the means to save the Cabot if they had switched their focus.

For the two Forrestal-class carriers at Bremerton, it looks like Ranger will probably be saved, and Independence will end up meeting the scrappers torch.

I imagine Enterprise will be a "lock" to be turned into a museum. Seeing that the Navy has yet to decommission a nuclear carrier, my guess is they will, at least initially, keep very close tabs on the ship...perhaps docking it next to Wisconsin at Nauticus in Norfolk. There certainly is room for it on the adjacent pier, and if there ever was a need to reactivate the ship, they could do so fairly easily from that location.

[TimAPNY]

Is it me or the thought of such a museum in the cold and very long winters of Northern New England seem like a bad idea? I would love to see it saved but I think it might have a very hard time making it, but Maine is a HUGE tourist area in the short summer months. Maybe my blood is just getting thin living in the south.

Tim

[tom d. friedman]

disaster relief staging ground?? that would be a dilly!! no power, water, sanitation, only an empty shell right now with years of restoration to navy, state of maine, & federal authorities specs & standards. that idea must have been a fema brain fart 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.

[jamesintucson]

I know I'll probably be accused of heresy around here but just how many more carriers need to be saved? Enterprise certainly and probably Nimitz are important enough to be saved but what is the big deal with the JFK? Important to the people who served on her sure but she didn't introduce any new technologies in fact she was a throwback to older technology between Enterprise and Nimitz.

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? 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.

James

[Pat Carry]

I have to agree totally with you James. Think of what it would cost to put a carrier like the JFK into drydock when the hull springs leaks and major work needs to be carried out. The Intrepid and the Missoui recently underwent those kind of repairs at major expense but eventually every ship sitting in salt water needs similar work. Most organizations cant come close to securing the funds for that type of work.

[Pat Carry]

Is it me or the thought of such a museum in the cold and very long winters of Northern New England seem like a bad idea? I would love to see it saved but I think it might have a very hard time making it, but Maine is a HUGE tourist area in the short summer months. Maybe my blood is just getting thin living in the south.

Tim

Excellant point Tim

[brucev]

I know I'll probably be accused of heresy around here but just how many more carriers need to be saved? Enterprise certainly and probably Nimitz are important enough to be saved but what is the big deal with the JFK? Important to the people who served on her sure but she didn't introduce any new technologies in fact she was a throwback to older technology between Enterprise and Nimitz.

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? 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.

James

well said

[Pat Carry]

How does the Navy determine whether a ship is to be sunk to form a reef or it is scrapped?

[Shay]

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

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.

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 :

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-67


So 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.

[whistlingdeath77]

battleship cove in massachusetts? They have a destroyer there named Kennedy, so maybe a carrier too? Maybe it can't fit under that bridge, although the uss massachusetts battleship did. Boston would be nice as well

[Garth]

I imagine Enterprise will be a "lock" to be turned into a museum.

Not a chance.

The only nuclear ship that the Navy's allowed to be turned into a museum (not counting the sails of various SSN/SSBNs that still exist in various places) is the Nautilus, and she's kept under extremely tight control ... and is physically parked on the US Submarine Base, Groton under USN care and stewardship.

There were legitimate and well-funded attempts to put the USS Long Beach next to the Queen Mary in Long Beach CA, bring the USS Cincinnati and a couple other SSN's to their namesake cities. Senator John Warner - who had more heft in Naval matters than any other US Senator and basically functioned as a quasi SecNav while representing Virginia, tried very, very hard to get the USS Virginia parked next to Nauticus in Norfolk. Navy flat out refused and he had to "settle" for the USS Wisconsin instead (fair tradeoff, imho).

The ONLY way that the USN would allow Enterprise to be turned into a museum rather than get processed through the Nuke Ship Recycling program is a situation similar to Nautilus ... she's parked at a Navy base and is owned, operated and cared for by the USN. There's a slight difference when it comes to things like that between a smallish first-gen nuke sub and a 1100' long nuclear carrier with eight ancient reactors buried in her well-armored belly.

[jamesintucson]

I imagine Enterprise will be a "lock" to be turned into a museum.

Not a chance.

The only nuclear ship that the Navy's allowed to be turned into a museum (not counting the sails of various SSN/SSBNs that still exist in various places) is the Nautilus, and she's kept under extremely tight control ... and is physically parked on the US Submarine Base, Groton under USN care and stewardship.

There were legitimate and well-funded attempts to put the USS Long Beach next to the Queen Mary in Long Beach CA, bring the USS Cincinnati and a couple other SSN's to their namesake cities. Senator John Warner - who had more heft in Naval matters than any other US Senator and basically functioned as a quasi SecNav while representing Virginia, tried very, very hard to get the USS Virginia parked next to Nauticus in Norfolk. Navy flat out refused and he had to "settle" for the USS Wisconsin instead (fair tradeoff, imho).

The ONLY way that the USN would allow Enterprise to be turned into a museum rather than get processed through the Nuke Ship Recycling program is a situation similar to Nautilus ... she's parked at a Navy base and is owned, operated and cared for by the USN. There's a slight difference when it comes to things like that between a smallish first-gen nuke sub and a 1100' long nuclear carrier with eight ancient reactors buried in her well-armored belly.

Your point is well taken. But to be fair I never said that Enterprise was a "lock" just that she should be saved, not that she would be. I'd like to think the Navy would see the significance of Enterprise, just to make up for the stupid decision to scrap CV-6 if for no other reason.

With your comments in mind I'll revise my position on JFK. Since she may be the only post war super carrier eligible to be saved that would move her up in importance.

James