US Navy Sells 'Top Gun' Aircraft Carrier For One Penny 118
HughPickens.com writes Kitsap Sun reports at Military.com that the USS Ranger, a 1,050-foot-long, 56,000-ton Forrestal-class aircraft carrier, is being towed from the inactive ship maintenance facility at Puget Sound for a 3,400-mile, around-Cape Horn voyage to a Texas dismantler who acquired the Vietnam-era warship for a penny for scrap metal. "Under the contract, the company will be paid $0.01. The price reflects the net price proposed by International Shipbreaking, which considered the estimated proceeds from the sale of the scrap metal to be generated from dismantling," said officials for NAVSEA. "[One cent] is the lowest price the Navy could possibly have paid the contractor for towing and dismantling the ship."
The Ranger was commissioned Aug. 10, 1957, at Norfolk Naval Shipyard and decommissioned July 10, 1993, after more than 35 years of service. It was stricken from the Naval Vessel Register on March 8, 2004, and redesignated for donation. After eight years on donation hold, the USS Ranger Foundation was unable to raise the funds to convert the ship into a museum or to overcome the physical obstacles of transporting the ship up the Columbia River to Fairview, Oregon. As a result, the Ranger was removed from the list of ships available for donation and designated for dismantling. The Navy, which can't retain inactive ships indefinitely, can't donate a vessel unless the application fully meets the Navy's minimum requirements. The Ranger had been in pristine condition, but for a week in August volunteers from other naval museums were allowed to remove items to improve their ships. The Ranger was in a slew of movies and television shows, including "The Six Million Dollar Man," "Flight of the Intruder" and "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" where it stood in for the USS Enterprise carrier. But the Ranger's most famous role was in the 1980's Tom Cruise hit, "Top Gun." "We would have liked to have seen it become a museum, but it just wasn't in the cards," Navy spokesman Chris Johnson told Fox. "But unfortunately, it is a difficult proposition to raise funds. The group that was going to collect donations had a $35 million budget plan but was only able to raise $100,000."
The Ranger was commissioned Aug. 10, 1957, at Norfolk Naval Shipyard and decommissioned July 10, 1993, after more than 35 years of service. It was stricken from the Naval Vessel Register on March 8, 2004, and redesignated for donation. After eight years on donation hold, the USS Ranger Foundation was unable to raise the funds to convert the ship into a museum or to overcome the physical obstacles of transporting the ship up the Columbia River to Fairview, Oregon. As a result, the Ranger was removed from the list of ships available for donation and designated for dismantling. The Navy, which can't retain inactive ships indefinitely, can't donate a vessel unless the application fully meets the Navy's minimum requirements. The Ranger had been in pristine condition, but for a week in August volunteers from other naval museums were allowed to remove items to improve their ships. The Ranger was in a slew of movies and television shows, including "The Six Million Dollar Man," "Flight of the Intruder" and "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" where it stood in for the USS Enterprise carrier. But the Ranger's most famous role was in the 1980's Tom Cruise hit, "Top Gun." "We would have liked to have seen it become a museum, but it just wasn't in the cards," Navy spokesman Chris Johnson told Fox. "But unfortunately, it is a difficult proposition to raise funds. The group that was going to collect donations had a $35 million budget plan but was only able to raise $100,000."
TFS, FFS (Score:5, Informative)
Correction: Navy *pays* a company $0.01 to a company for the service of removing it and dismantling it.
It didn't sell anything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the unsaid truth is that safely and cleanly dismantling an aircraft carrier is really fucking expensive. The dismantling company gets to take the risk and the potential profit, and the Navy (and the taxpayers) washes their hands.
Re: (Score:1)
Or the Navy could put the Aircraft Carrier to work, by sticking it on the sides of an alien spaceship and using it to punch more alien spaceships in the face.
http://www.robotech.com/infopedia/encyclopedia/viewterm.php?id=29
Re:TFS, FFS (Score:5, Informative)
There might be some additional cost because, unlike a lower-profile commercial contract, it will be at least somewhat harder to just beach it on some especially unscenic chunk of Chittagong or Alang and then shrug in innocent ignorance as impoverished locals with hand tools attempt to break the ship before it breaks them. There is a reason why much of the industry is located in places with effectively nonexistent environmental controls and expendable workforces; but it would certainly be embarrassing, and might be illegal for one reason or another, for a particularly iconic ex-military vessel to make an appearance in such a place(based on what happened when the French tried it with the Clemenceau a few years back I would certainly be nervous about trying it).
Re: (Score:3)
I imagine the DOD would be a little peeved if it turned up in a Chinese shipyard.
We've probably outsourced worse( at least assuming that any more modernized systems, ECM, radar, etc. are stripped from the hulk first); but yeah, I'm guessing that the breakers offering the best rates don't exactly have security clearances, in addition to their atrocious environmental record, nonexistent occupational safety, and so on.
I don't actually know, and so would be interested to, is there anything considered 'sensitive' about something as old as a (presumably modernized here and there) Forrestal
Re: (Score:2)
How much space is relegated to aircraft, how much to personnel, how much to ship maintenance, etc, etc.
Re:TFS, FFS (Score:4, Informative)
All ships of that class have been decommissioned/scrapped already, so any details of the interior are irrelevant, as it's no longer a design in service. Knowing where to hit to sink a ship that isn't being used anymore isn't exactly useful military knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
plus the vessel isn't deep sea worthy must be towed to a shipyard for scrapping. the people who wanted to make it a museum piece couldn't come up with the cash in time.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:TFS, FFS (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you for your two cents on the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I'da payed substantially more to be towed out to the gulfstream and spent a few years trying to keep it from sinking.
The only thing stupider than the US government is the US citizen, notwithstanding stupid illegal aliens tha are too stupid to make it in their own fucked up countries and think it's actually better here.
What group of slimeball politicians got paid under the tablefor this latest episode of fuckme-imamerican?
Well nitwit, you could have bid on it. You generally need to be a telecommunications maganate [thefullwiki.org] before you go out buying aircraft carriers and parking them in the middle of the ocean.
Re: (Score:1)
Stupid/Misleading Title (Score:3)
Re:Stupid/Misleading Title (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
That's a difference of -200%! A difference less that 0% is über right!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stupid/Misleading Title (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, those $0.02 make all the difference in the world.
1) Sold for $0.01 means that the new owner can do whatever they want with it, including sell it to North Korea for $5, hoping that the NKs have enough to make the check clear.
2) Paid $0.01 means that it's a demolitions contract, and the recipient has obligations to perform a service under specific terms. While many commercial contracts limit liability to the size of the contract, (in this case, $0.01 damages) my guess is that this wouldn't be the case for a DOD contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it was sold for a penny, there may still be contract restriction on resale as well as criminal and civil restrictions on what other things they can do with such things. North Korea in particular is banned from the sale of munitions (including computer software in some cases), so I think ITAR would definitely apply to a used but functional aircraft carrier. At the very least, a "right of first refusal" clause could be put into any sales contract where the DOD would need to be offered and informed a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Now let's see who gets mad at the lettering/numbering.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can still take recyclables to a recycler and be paid for them. Most people don't consider it worth the effort for the amount of money they'll get in return, unless they're hobos and/or they have something valuable (like copper) to sell. I had some old steel bits and pieces that I carted down to a recycler a few months ago. I got about five dollars for all of it. I was happier with that arrangement than if the steel had ended up in a landfill, but most people wouldn't have been willing to spend a few hou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mixing up movies... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00... [imdb.com]
The Navy sucks at negotiating (Score:1)
A historic ship both in the actual theater of war and in the movie memories of the general public, in pristine condition and one penny is the best they can do, for a gross weight of 56000 TONS??
Re:The Navy sucks at negotiating (Score:5, Insightful)
A historic ship both in the actual theater of war and in the movie memories of the general public, in pristine condition and one penny is the best they can do, for a gross weight of 56000 TONS??
First, the Navy tried for many years to interest groups with the idea of turning it into a museum, but no one could come up with tho money to fund such a project.
Second, there are considerable problems that have to be mitigated when breakining up such a ship. They can't just sell it to some third world country where it would be "beached" and dismantled by locals in an environmentally hazardous way. The ship almost certainly contains many tons of hazardous materials such as asbestos, and various noxious fluids, all of which must be safely removed and disposed of.
Third, where ever it is disposed of, it has to be towed there, not an insignificant expense.
The Navy got a deal spaying one cent to dispose of it.
Re: (Score:2)
in pristine condition
And no, it was not in "pristine condition".
For (I'm so sorry) Fox News:
âoeWe would have liked to have seen it become a museum, but it just wasnâ(TM)t in the cards,â Navy spokesman Chris Johnson told FoxNews.com. âoeBut unfortunately, it is a difficult proposition to raise funds. The group that was going to collect donations had a $35 million budget plan but was only able to raise $100,000.â
...and...
The Ranger will have to be towed to International Shipbreakingâ(TM)s facility on the Gulf of Mexico from the pacific bit since it is too large for passage through the Panama Canal, it will have to be towed down and around South America. The voyage is anticipated to take up to five months.
Johnson said that the tow will come at no cost to the Navy and the International Shipbreakers is currently drafting a towing plan and will absorb the costs.
Re:The Navy sucks at negotiating (Score:4, Informative)
I got the "in pristine condition" from http://www.military.com/daily-... [military.com], which is one of the links in the summary. I would think that they should know.
Re: (Score:2)
I got the "in pristine condition" from http://www.military.com/daily- [military.com]..., which is one of the links in the summary. I would think that they should know.
Military.com may not have the latest information. I work for the DoD in the Puget Sound area, and know a number of worker bees at Bremerton, and they have a different opinion.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, I don't know about Military.com, but this picture...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ranger_%28CV-61%29#mediaviewer/File:Aerial_Bremerton_Shipyard_November_2012.jpg
I wouldn't say any of them are derelict, but not pristine either.
Still, it is pretty interesting to see such a large collection of former military power. And those are the ships that the US Navy no longer wants!
Re: (Score:2)
They used 'pristine' in an odd context. Possibly 'historically pristine', but certainly not mechanically pristine.
The Ranger had been in pristine condition, but for a week in August volunteers from other naval museums were allowed to remove items to improve their ships.
.
Flying over it makes it obvious it's not in great shape. Hell, the engines don't work.
Re: The Navy sucks at negotiating (Score:3)
Given the age and time out of service, 'pristine' probably means not on fire and not in immediate danger of sinking.
Re: (Score:3)
They sold it to a Texan - let's not be too quick to say that it'll be disposed of an in environmentally friendly way. Perhaps it will but perhaps not.
Still, I get your point about not having it sent to some overseas backwater.
But why isn't the Navy doing this themselves? Surely they have the manpower & capability and there must be huge sections that can easily be re-used.
The US Military just has too much money; they've lost all sense of the value of anything.
Re: The Navy sucks at negotiating (Score:1)
The Navy doesn't build the ships, so why would they dismantle them?
Re:The Navy sucks at negotiating (Score:5, Informative)
Hah! The Navy has no manpower any more; certainly not for construction and demolition. The Navy doesn't build aircraft carriers; why should they dismantle them? Everything that is done except direct warfighting and readiness for warfighting is farmed out.
On August 14 1945, the Navy had in active service 23 battleships, 28 fleet carriers, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, 377 destroyers, 361 frigates, and 232 subs: a total of 6786 ships, including auxiliaries. The total personnel strength was 3.4 million. Uniformed personnel cooked the meals, drove the trucks, loaded ammunition and fueled the ships, etc.
On September 30 2006, the Navy had 0 battleships, 12 carriers, 27 cruisers, 54 destroyers, 35 frigates, and 74 subs: a total of 318 ships including auxiliaries. The total personnel strength was 0.35 million. Meals, truck driving, loading and fueling, etc, are all performed by hired service companies - just like for the Army and doubtless the Air Force (not entirely sure about the Marines, but probably them too).
The size has shrunk considerably since 2006. This despite having twice the national population to draw upon. The Navy can barely man its ships, let alone sparing "manpower" for non-essential tasks. And just like the merchant marine, knowledge, specialties, and capabilities have been cut way back. There are no more hundreds of sailors manning the engine rooms in large ships. The engines are automated.
Re:The Navy sucks at negotiating (Score:5, Insightful)
On August 14 1945, the Navy had in active service 23 battleships, 28 fleet carriers, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, 377 destroyers, 361 frigates, and 232 subs: a total of 6786 ships, including auxiliaries. The total personnel strength was 3.4 million.
Imagine that, we had a shitload of active warships and manpower in the US Navy fourteen days prior to the surrender of Japan during WWII. That was almost 4 years after Pearl Harbor. What was the US Navy looking like in 1939? Nowhere near what it was at the end of the Pacific campaign.
On September 30 2006, the Navy had 0 battleships, 12 carriers, 27 cruisers, 54 destroyers, 35 frigates, and 74 subs: a total of 318 ships including auxiliaries. The total personnel strength was 0.35 million.
And what was the destructive capacity of the Navy in 2006 compared to August 1945? Hell, one Ohio class submarine has more destructive capacity than the entire Navy from 1945. As cool as battleships are, they are a relic and have no real function in the current military. A single carrier group from the current Nimitz class could obliterate all 28 fleet carriers and support ships before they even knew what had happened. Technology has made the requirement for massive amounts of ships meaningless. The amount of manpower is also significantly reduced. You also can't compare the necessary number of ships during a massive multi-year war to post cold war times. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc are regional conflicts at best and not even against the country itself. Massive amounts of firepower are generally not wise when fighting insurgents. You don't carpet bomb an entire village when there are only 4 hostiles in it. .
The size has shrunk considerably since 2006. This despite having twice the national population to draw upon. The Navy can barely man its ships, let alone sparing "manpower" for non-essential tasks. And just like the merchant marine, knowledge, specialties, and capabilities have been cut way back. There are no more hundreds of sailors manning the engine rooms in large ships. The engines are automated.
The cold war is over and the US is not at war with any large governments any longer. Why would you want more men when the ships have become more efficient and have so much more firepower? Look at the number of men in the Iraqi military compared to the US. How did those superior numbers work out for them? In the case of carriers they are also nuclear. You don't need men to shovel coal into boilers any longer either.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell, one Ohio class submarine has more destructive capacity than the entire Navy from 1945.
Which means absolutely nothing because you can't actually use any of that firepower in any conflict short of "Civilization as we know it is coming to an end." That's not to dispute the rest of your points, which are mostly valid, but let us leave the SSBN out of the calculation of modern naval firepower. They have a specific mission: deterrence. The day they are called upon to loft their birds is the day that mission has failed.
Why would you want more men when the ships have become more efficient and have so much more firepower?
There is an argument to be made that we need more ships, particularly attack
Re: (Score:1)
Hell, one Ohio class submarine has more destructive capacity than the entire Navy from 1945.
Which means absolutely nothing because you can't actually use any of that firepower in any conflict short of "Civilization as we know it is coming to an end." That's not to dispute the rest of your points, which are mostly valid, but let us leave the SSBN out of the calculation of modern naval firepower. They have a specific mission: deterrence. The day they are called upon to loft their birds is the day that mission has failed.
Yes, by today's standards. But you made a comparison to a time when the US actually was willing to, and did use atomic bombs in anger. Do you think the US would have shown the same restraint in January of 1945 if they had an Ohio class sub? My guess is that all 24 Trident II SLBMs would have been MIRVed and every one would have had 8 physics packages. They would have been willing to launch every single one at that point in time. Just as they nuked Nagasaki three days after Hiroshima because the Japanese ask
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need men to shovel coal into boilers any longer either.
Neither did we in WW2. Teddy Roosevelt converted the Navy to oil power.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
And what was the destructive capacity of the Navy in 2006 compared to August 1945? Hell, one Ohio class submarine has more destructive capacity than the entire Navy from 1945
A statistic that floated around earlier in the year when Argentina was grumbling about the Falklands again: one of the battleships that the British were sending to the area could fire, in one minute, more munitions than were fired in the entire 1982 conflict. I'd imagine that the differences between 1945 and now are even more pronounced.
One constant trend has been that soldiers are less expendable. In the first world war, sending men to walk slowly towards machine guns and throw a grenade if they survive
Re: (Score:2)
One constant trend has been that soldiers are less expendable. In the first world war, sending men to walk slowly towards machine guns and throw a grenade if they survived to get close enough was their patriotic duty. By Vietnam, having large numbers of soldiers come back in body bags was politically unacceptable.
The Great War was a major reason that soldiers became less expendable. That war saw millions of casualties in a single day, multiple times, with none of it able to break the stalemate. In World War II, not one of the powers was interested in making the same kind of sacrifices, with technology making up the difference. Bombers and tanks prove more effective than meat anyway. But most importantly, ever since the end of World
Re: (Score:3)
Aug 14 1945 was the V-J day. US Navy had just finished battling other nations that had navies that were comparable, and sometimes even bigger than US Navy. Now the highly shrunken US Navy dwarfs all other navies of all other countries by an order of magnitude, I am sure tonnage of the next five navies would not match US Navy's today.
All we need to do was to keep the oil price below 60$ a barrel
Re: The Navy sucks at negotiating (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Now the highly shrunken US Navy dwarfs all other navies of all other countries by an order of magnitude, I am sure tonnage of the next five navies would not match US Navy's today.
Off by one. It's not five, but six by this list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_warships
And raw tonnage is a terrible metric, as bad as raw numbers of ships.
Mitt Romney could have tried to make a legitimate remark about the operational capacity of the US Navy. Instead, he chose to make a blithe analogy that discredited himself.
Re: The Navy sucks at negotiating (Score:2)
The U.S. Navy is less than half the size of China's and a bit smaller than the Russian navy - there are at least a dozen countries with navies at least half as big as the U.S. Navy.
Source: http://www.globalfirepower.com... [globalfirepower.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The listing below includes battleforce ships made up of aircraft carriers, frigates, destroyers, corvettes, torpedo boats, patrol boats, amphibious support craft, landing craft. Auxiliary vessels are also included."
So yes, it sounds like a tally of a number of ships, regardless of what they actually are. So in terms of power, it tells us little as they're counting an unarmed support ship the same as a Nimitz-class carrier. Also, I'm pretty sure they missed the Coast Guard's ships on their list, which gi
Re: (Score:1)
What's interesting to me that most of the 6000 ships were small vessels: patrol boats, amphibious, mine warfare, etc.
http://www.history.navy.mil/br... [navy.mil]
In 1939 the total active warships list is 394, so not too far in terms of total numbers to what we have in 2006 (285 is shown for 2011).
Re: (Score:3)
He thinks the ships are made of Legos.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the person who wasn't insightful enough to notice I asked a QUESTION. I'll take my ignorance over yours but thanks for playing.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a real answer for you - Naval ships are generally designed and built as a unit. The base hull, the systems involved, propulsion, electrical, power generation, etc all are tailored for one another. Once you have all this together, making wholesale changes to it can be tricky without basically redesigning the whole thing anyway. New technology, new efficiency-improving designs, better designs based on things learned can really only be done with new designs. It's like a car chassis - at some point, you
Re: The Navy sucks at negotiating (Score:2)
Yes you asked a question, then you answered it. As soon as you answered your own question you went from being curious to simply asking a rhetorical question just so you could answer it.
I took exception to your answer, not your question. Your assumption that 'huge sections' could be reused and that the navy has the spare manpower to break the ship into 'huge sections' for reuse were simply ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
It's amusing that your offense at my question & assumption led you to an even more useless response.
In the 5+ hours since my OP and your reply, at least 1/2 a dozen informative or truly insightful comments have been made including a couple by ACs and one with a large photo of a harbor with several decomm'ed ships were made.
Your response achieved nothing except to puff yourself up solely by putting me down, for which you've already been congratulated.
Here's a bonus "rhetorical question" with an implied
Re: (Score:2)
Doing the right thing only cost a penny. It also employs a lot of people. Why not?
Towing it to the middle of the Atlantic and sinking it is not necessarily a wrong thing, but they would have to remove all the contaminants first, which would probably cost a lot. If they are looking to use it as a reef or scuba attraction, then the middle of the Atlantic is the wrong place. It would need to be just offshore for use as a reef or for scuba.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't in pristine condition, its full of heavy metal contaminants, asbestos, oils and other problem materials, and requires maintenance just to remain afloat in decent condition - a huge amount of effort is required to do anything with the ship, and the Navy doesn't want it on its budget any more. If the museum project had raised its money, they would have got it.
Having watched a documentary on another scrapping a few years back, the metal in these ships do not command a premium on the scrap market, and
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the navy's enthusiasm f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not WW2. 1950s.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess youforgot to read the last sentence of the article;
"We would have liked to have seen it become a museum, but it just wasn't in the cards," Navy spokesman Chris Johnson told Fox. "But unfortunately, it is a difficult proposition to raise funds. The group that was going to collect donations had a $35 million budget plan but was only able to raise $100,000."
The $35M was the budget to convert it into a museum.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not disagreeing with you but that's not what Military.com says: http://www.military.com/daily-... [military.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm struggling to see what Military.com says with regard to one of my points - I made a few, could you narrow it down for me? :)
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring only to the "in pristine condition" remark
From the last paragraph of the link:
Re:The Navy sucks at negotiating (Score:4, Interesting)
By "pristine condition" they simply mean that they haven't been stripping it of parts to use elsewhere. They don't mean they had been keeping it up or that it was not in need of a great deal of work to be used as a museum, or for any other purpose.
from Bremerton to Texas around South America (Score:2)
is 3400 miles? Really??
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like the course they punched in for the distance calculation went through the Panama Canal instead of around the Horn like they said it was.
No doubt it's been mothballed... (Score:3)
Hold It ! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is much more complex than that. Pumping is nit sufficient as one would have to clean every pipe and tank. There are also toxic substances that can not be pumped out such as PCBs, and asbestos. It costs money to do that. The Oriskany [wikipedia.org], a smaller carrier at 30,800 tons/888 ft vs 56,000-ton/1,050ft, was sunk for a budget of $2.8M in 2006. Taking into account the larger size and inflation I bet $4.0M would not be an unreasonable figure. Now try to justify the Navy spending $4.0M to sink a ship instead of rec
Not the first time. (Score:3)
Ranger in Top Gun??? (Score:1)
What parts of "Top Gun" did RANGER appear in? Any shots that could be identified were of ENTERPRISE, with her distinctive cubic superstructure. See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Did they shot some interior footage on RANGER, or is this just wrong?
Amazingly, one of the pilots in the F-14 footage is still on active duty, nearly 30 years later. ADM James Winnefeld, now the Vice Chair of the JCS, was one of the instructors at Top Gun when the movie was shot and flew some of the dogfights.
Re: (Score:1)
According to IMDB, it's the interior footage.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092099/locations
For F--- sake... (Score:1)
Big Ships == Big Maintenance (Score:5, Informative)
These ships are not cheap to maintain, even in museum status. The battleship U.S.S. Massachusetts, berthed at Battleship Cove, costs over $1M per year to keep in presentable and safe condition for tourists, keep the lights and ventilation on, etc.., and that doesn't count the significant volunteer work that is done for free.The pier built for it was something over $10M IIRC. That's all for a ship that doesn't go anywhere anymore. It just sits and floats. I believe Battleship Cove was offered the U.S.S. JFK (Enterprise(?) class nuclear carrier), but they simply could not afford to build the proper pier structure for a ship of that size, never mind the annual upkeep.
Just sitting in the water takes a big toll on these vessels. They need hull maintenance and paint regularly. Their hulls wear thin over the years due to corrosion, and periodic corrosion removal and repainting. If you just left them to the weather and never maintained the hulls they'd probably rot through and sink in a few decades.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine digging a hole and filling it back in would cost more than all of the engineering, permits, environmental concerns, etc of building a permanent coastal docking facility and the long term savings from not having to worry about mooring, storms, water levels & maintenance should be significant.
Not so, sadly. What you propose would cost upwards of 100s of millions of dollars, would probably be more of a permitting and environmental nightmare, and it isn't physically feasible in a lot of places (places where it is feasible already are dock yards, like Brooklyn NYC).
And then there is the experience of stepping onto a floating vessel, even at dock. It is a museum, and so a big part of the draw is the experience. It is an amazing thing to see the Massachusetts, a big hulking piece of steel, floating
Sad Day (Score:2)
It's a said day for me. I served about the USS Ranger while part of VAQ-137, The Rooks. She was a old ship but purpose build. Unlike the newer ships you knew you were on a fighting ship as that's how she was designed. I've several fond and not so fond memories of my westpac cruses aboard her. I salute the fine ship USS Ranger and applaud here many years of service to the United States. Well done old friend you will be missed.
Re:Sad Day (Score:5, Interesting)
Old 'useta was' "O-Level" AT2 from VAQ-131 here. When I was on the Ranger I heard it got four yards to the gallon. We maintained the avionics of the Prowler, arguably the most important aircraft on board (at least the most expensive). They put us ("airdales" - not "real" Navy) up in an old "drying room" (the AT shop). I could go on and on about how miserable I and my peers were for those five+ years of moist hell but this isn't the place.
That was in the late 80's. You could hardly go down a corridor without there being at least one angleiron bracket for something no longer used or present sticking out, with seven coats of paint on everything. The cats caught fire daily - I almost got to the point of ignoring the alarms. Never did figure out where all the dirt came from - thought they might have brought dumptrucks of it on board the hangar deck and spread it out before we deployed. A peer had those contact lenses he normally had to remove monthly but on the Ranger he had to do it daily. Took several hours (days) of bathing "back at the rock" to finally wash the boat off. I remember sweating through my boots and one of the worst cases of athelete's foot ever. Taking so many aspirin to keep the pain tolerable my ears rang. Launch noise that vibrated your fillings. JP5 or saltwater (!??) in the water supply.
It was a very sad day for me when I met the USS Ranger. Still, you'd think there would be a fortune in steel there. It was a floating metal city of five thousand people once. You'd think it could be repurposed for something.
--CF
Don't worry, fellow Americans (Score:1)
The US still has plenty of pieces of military death crap for you to get your war hard-ons.
What about Libertarians? (Score:2)
You'd think we could re-use it (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)