Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The mighty US navy.

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Navy to sink aircraft carrier for "practice"

Unread postby ararboin » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 13:04:27

Where but in the most wasteful country in the world would this happen?
Environmental rules make it uneconomical to recycle the ship, so let's just blow it up to see how hard it is to sink. Of course environmental laws allow the ocean to be a dumping ground for our military trash.

Oh, by the way, it will cost $22 million in taxpayer dollars. And you won't be allowed to watch. So there.

Navy To Sink Retired Carrier USS America
Associated Press
March 4, 2005

WASHINGTON - The Navy plans to send the retired carrier USS America to the bottom of the Atlantic in explosive tests this spring, an end that is difficult to swallow for some who served on board.

The Navy says the effort, which will cost $22 million, will provide valuable data for the next generation of aircraft carriers, which are now in development. No warship this size or larger has ever been sunk, so there is a dearth of hard information on how well a supercarrier can survive battle damage, said Pat Dolan, a spokeswoman for Naval Sea Systems Command.

The Navy's plan raises mixed emotions in Ed Pelletier, who served on the America as a helicopter crewman when the ship cruised the Mediterranean shortly after its commissioning in 1965.

He said he was "unhappy that a ship with that name is going to meet that fate, but happy she'll be going down still serving the country." Pelletier, of Poughkeepsie, N.Y., is a trustee of an association of veterans who served on the America.

Issues surrounding a vessel bearing the name of its country are often more sensitive than for other ships. In 1939, Adolf Hitler, fearful of a loss of morale among his people should Germany's namesake ship be sunk, ordered the pocket battleship Deutschland renamed for a long-dead Prussian commander.



Since its decommissioning in 1996, the America has been moored with dozens of other inactive warships at a Navy yard in Philadelphia. The Navy's plan is to tow it to sea on April 11 - possibly stopping at Norfolk, Va. - before heading to the deep ocean, 300 miles off the Atlantic coast, for the tests, Dolan said.

There, in experiments that will last from four to six weeks, the Navy will batter the America with explosives, both underwater and above the surface, watching from afar and through monitoring devices placed on the vessel.

These explosions would presumably simulate attacks by torpedoes, cruise missiles and perhaps a small boat suicide attack like the one that damaged the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen in 2000.

At the end, explosive scuttling charges placed to flood the ship will be detonated, and the America will begin its descent to the sea floor, more than 6,000 feet below.

The Navy has already removed some materials from the ship that could cause environmental damage after it sinks, Dolan said.

Certain aspects of the tests are classified, and neither America's former crew nor the news media will be allowed to view them in person, Dolan said. The Navy does not want to give away too much information on how a carrier could be sunk, she said.

Why the America? No other retired supercarriers were available on the East Coast when the test was planned, Dolan said. The others - the Forrestal and the Saratoga - were designated as potential museums, she said.

In a letter to Pelletier's group, Adm. John Nathman, the Navy's second-in-command, called America's destruction "one vital and final contribution to our national defense."

"Ex-America's legacy will serve as a footprint in the design of future aircraft carriers," he wrote.

Although no larger warship has ever been sunk, bigger civilian vessels have gone down. The largest ship in the world, the supertanker Seawise Giant, was sunk by Iraqi warplanes in the Strait of Hormuz during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Fully loaded, it displaced more than half a million tons. It was later refloated and renamed.

The America, which is more than 1,000 feet long and displaces about 80,000 tons, exceeds the size of the Japanese World War II battleships Yamato and Musashi, and the carrier Shinano, which all displaced close to 70,000 tons. The Yamato and Musashi fell to American warplanes, the Shinano to a U.S. submarine.

The America was the third carrier of the non-nuclear Kitty Hawk class, and the first to be retired, a victim of post-Cold War budget cuts after 31 years at sea. It launched warplanes during the Vietnam War, the 1986 conflict with Libya, the first Gulf War, and over Bosnia-Herzegovina in the mid-1990s.

Pelletier and other veterans who served on the America said their farewells in a Feb. 25 ceremony at the ship in Philadelphia. Some artifacts have been removed for museums and veterans' groups; in addition, Pelletier's association will place a time capsule on board.

The Navy has several other carriers awaiting their fates. Environmental regulations make breaking warships up for scrap metal largely unprofitable, though some still are dismantled. The Oriskany, a smaller carrier that was commissioned in 1950, is scheduled to be sunk as an artificial reef off the coast of Pensacola, Fla., late this year.
User avatar
ararboin
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby TWilliam » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 16:27:06

How incredibly ironic that it's the America... 8)
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Unread postby TrueKaiser » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 16:39:11

as long as they remove all oil, gas, and explosives from the ship before sinking it there isn't much of a problem. the ship will just become a artifical reef.
they sink old subway cars near new york for the same reason. after a few years they become reefs.
User avatar
TrueKaiser
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 503
Joined: Thu 28 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby DriveElectric » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 16:56:16

Too bad they are sinking it in such deep water. As an artificial reef it would be much more useful in water that is less than 1000 feet deep. That would provide a really useful area for fishing to develop.

I suspect they want it really deep to avoid scuba divers from checking out the damage to figure out where to target an aircraft carrier for attack.
User avatar
DriveElectric
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby ararboin » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 22:54:31

Too bad they are sinking it in such deep water. As an artificial reef it would be much more useful in water that is less than 1000 feet deep. That would provide a really useful area for fishing to develop.


Damned expensive reef, I'd say. But it's the American way of doing things.
User avatar
ararboin
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby DriveElectric » Sun 13 Mar 2005, 23:06:06

ararboin wrote:Damned expensive reef, I'd say. But it's the American way of doing things.


I suspect that the aircraft carrier is already fully depreciated. :-) It was built in 1965. Of course, the US Navy doesn't use GAAP, so it doesn't matter.
User avatar
DriveElectric
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby Grimnir » Mon 14 Mar 2005, 05:09:48

Reefs aren't possible except in shallow water. It will just sit at the bottom and have fish swim around in it. But really; what would you rather have them do with it?
Grimnir
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: USA

Unread postby ararboin » Mon 14 Mar 2005, 10:45:50

Reefs aren't possible except in shallow water. It will just sit at the bottom and have fish swim around in it. But really; what would you rather have them do with it?


Tow it onto a beach and turn it into low income housing units, with a built in landing strip for ultra-lite enthusiasts.
User avatar
ararboin
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Ships of wood, men of steel

Unread postby Specop_007 » Mon 26 Sep 2005, 21:41:45

My how far we've come......

Image

Alot more pictures here
Some amazing pictures....... 8O
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."

Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Ships of wood, men of steel

Unread postby rogerhb » Mon 26 Sep 2005, 21:49:04

The Royal Navy used to be referred to as the "Wooden Walls of England".

The King would send out scouts to the forests to mark out the biggest trees to be reserved for the navy.

Then there was the wood shortage due of land-clearing and over-use which was only relieved by nasty-smelly-coal.
User avatar
rogerhb
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4727
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Smalltown New Zealand

Re: Ships of wood, men of steel

Unread postby EdF » Tue 27 Sep 2005, 15:19:20

The scary part is those guys are like 30 years old.
EdF
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun 08 May 2005, 03:00:00

U.S. Navy greatly increasing forces in the Gulf

Unread postby Zardoz » Tue 19 Dec 2006, 13:18:27

The tempo of the drumbeat of war increases:

U.S. plans naval buildup in Gulf to counter Iran

"Gunboat diplomacy", or "initial preparations"?
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia

Re: U.S. Navy greatly increasing forces in the Gulf

Unread postby NEOPO » Tue 19 Dec 2006, 16:42:35

Odd how it takes the MSM this long to say something about what we have been aware of for some time now....Not!
MSM got the cue from TPTB period.

The average person might gather that we have no force or a small force or less of a force then what we NEED in the region etc etc.. yet the build up began in ernest before this time last year.

Off to the Iran thread!! see ya!
which is probably where this thread will be moved shortly as that is where it belongs 8)
It is easier to enslave a people that wish to remain free then it is to free a people who wish to remain enslaved.
User avatar
NEOPO
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3588
Joined: Sun 15 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: THE MATRIX

Re: U.S. Navy greatly increasing forces in the Gulf

Unread postby 128shot » Tue 19 Dec 2006, 19:51:15

they're going to send boats to west Africa too (the new oil african states)
User avatar
128shot
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed 18 Jan 2006, 04:00:00

Re: U.S. Navy greatly increasing forces in the Gulf

Unread postby themallard » Wed 20 Dec 2006, 20:38:45

Nuclear Warfare... Iran's wants nukes, and also wants a country next door wiped off the map... Israel probably has nukes, the US does not want Nuclear war. The destroyers are equipped with anti missile technology. Go figure.
User avatar
themallard
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00

Major step to another oil seeking war.

Unread postby pana_burda » Thu 08 May 2008, 12:18:28

¿Fourth Fleet reactivation? ...... ¿SouthCom? ....... ¿Caribbean?

YEP ....... war drums started to beat off!.

LINK

By the way, if all what they wanna is to knock down anti us "governments", all they gotta do is to buy that crap from another, more "friendly", supplier. Simple!!
User avatar
pana_burda
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: In freefall speed right down to the claws of the devil

Re: Major step to another oil seeking war.

Unread postby seahorse2 » Thu 08 May 2008, 12:54:24

There may be a time when tankers heading from Venezuela to China may need to be redirected to New Orleans by the U.S. 4th Fleet;

or

possibly that the new Brazilian finds may need to be protected by the 4th Fleet, since Brazil does not have a navy capable of protecting its deep waters;

or

that the Chinese drilling off the coast of Cuba may get redirected back to . . . China, after, of course, they sink the investment and get the wells pumping;

Sounds like the Monroe Doctrine is finding new life.
User avatar
seahorse2
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2042
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Major step to another oil seeking war.

Unread postby heroineworshipper » Thu 08 May 2008, 14:19:06

Chinese bond holders R liquidating. Time for war.
People first, then things, then dollars.
There will be enslavement, cannibalism, & zombie invasions.
User avatar
heroineworshipper
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 890
Joined: Fri 14 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Calif*

Re: Major step to another oil seeking war.

Unread postby Mquinon3 » Thu 08 May 2008, 14:20:43

Put a link up to the Chinese bond holders liquidating if it is anything significant.
User avatar
Mquinon3
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu 03 Apr 2008, 03:00:00

Next

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests