What will US do w surplus a/c carriers?

[Survey1215]

The Forrestal and Saratoga are sitting in Newport, RI (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Newport,+Rhode+Isl&sll=47.552556,-122.654006&sspn=0.005177,0.009656&ie=UTF8&ll=41.527825,-71.31496&spn=0.005743,0.009656&t=h&z=17), and we have four carriers berthed in Bremerton, WA (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Bremerton,+WA&sll=47.70052,-122.319031&sspn=0.330412,0.617981&ie=UTF8&ll=47.5553,-122.655873&spn=0.020708,0.038624&t=h&z=15&iwloc=A)(Kitty Hawk not shown), awaiting various fates. I know some of them may become museums while others are slated to become artificial reefs like the Oriskany. I know India and Brazil are looking to upgrade their carrier capabilities - are these ships simply too old for them to buy them from the US? I seem to recall reading something that the US doesn't want to sell them because of the secret design of the hulls as well.

[bordelond]

There are certainly reasons these carriers (with the concommitant fighters) aren't being employed in the "war on piracy" off Somalia's coast. I am not smart enough to impart them here, though, aside from an idle speculation that operational cost is an overbearing factor.

[Philster]

They are so well stripped that it is extraordinarily unlikely they will ever serve again.

I doubt any country is capable of making them viable navy vessels (other than the U.S.A.)

[bordelond]

They are so well stripped that it is extraordinarily unlikely they will ever serve again.
Could fighters or helicopters still land on them? Does "stripping" involve mainly weapons systems, or is it a more comprehensive form of decommisioning than I may imagine?

[Mr. Moto]

Could fighters or helicopters still land on them? Does "stripping" involve mainly weapons systems, or is it a more comprehensive form of decommisioning than I may imagine?

It's far more than weapons systems - the Independence gave up her port anchor and both of her anchor chains. They will be used on the USS George H.W. Bush.

So there really is no way most of these ships can ever sail again - the expense involved in restoring them to service would equal or exceed building a new one.

[robby]

Mr. Moto is right about the expense; however, stranger things have happened in the past.

The Iowa-class battleships were re-commissioned (some of them multiple times) after being put into "mothballs" in similar fashion to the mothballed carriers.

However, more important than expense is the time factor. If the U.S. ever had a pressing need for additional carriers NOW, it would be far faster (though expensive) to restore the mothballed carriers than to start from scratch on a new carrier from the keel up.

They are basically being kept as insurance--and in the big scheme of things, it doesn't cost all that much to keep them mothballed. The expense basically boils down to periodic inspections and dehumidifying equipment.

FWIW, I used to drive right by the decommissioned Forrestal and Saratoga on my way to work every day in Newport. I also watched both of them get towed in to their present berths.

Years earlier, I also spent a couple of nights sleeping in a berthing bay on the Forrestal when she put in at Mardi Gras in New Orleans some 20+ years ago.

[robby]

All that being said, the current wikipedia entry for the Forrestal indicates that she is being environmentally prepared for sinking as an artificial reef.

...Which frankly, I've never understood. Why not recycle the steel in stricken ships (i.e. the old "turn them into razorblades")?

[Mr. Moto]

Well, we already have lots of razorblades - we don't have as many reefs.

This is something already floating that can be sunk relatively easily. Towing it out there isn't hard.

[robby]

Well, we already have lots of razorblades - we don't have as many reefs.

This is something already floating that can be sunk relatively easily. Towing it out there isn't hard.Agreed that it is easy to tow the ship out and sink it. It just seems like a waste of a lot of steel, which we went to all the effort and expense to mine and refine from the ore in the first place.

And how long will such an artificial reef last, anyway? Based on the rate of decomposition of the Titanic (which is in a much colder environment), it will essentially be gone in less than a hundred years or so.

[Philster]

Mr. Moto is right about the expense; however, stranger things have happened in the past.

The Iowa-class battleships were re-commissioned (some of them multiple times) after being put into "mothballs" in similar fashion to the mothballed carriers.

However, more important than expense is the time factor. If the U.S. ever had a pressing need for additional carriers NOW, it would be far faster (though expensive) to restore the mothballed carriers than to start from scratch on a new carrier from the keel up.

They are basically being kept as insurance--and in the big scheme of things, it doesn't cost all that much to keep them mothballed. The expense basically boils down to periodic inspections and dehumidifying equipment.

FWIW, I used to drive right by the decommissioned Forrestal and Saratoga on my way to work every day in Newport. I also watched both of them get towed in to their present berths.

Years earlier, I also spent a couple of nights sleeping in a berthing bay on the Forrestal when she put in at Mardi Gras in New Orleans some 20+ years ago.

Mothballing is a process. The carriers in question were not mothballed. They have been prepared for sinking, partly due to protect the design qualities of the hulls that led to current carrier hull design.

Mothballing is a specific way of storing a navy ship. The carriers in question are simply anchored remnants.

[Johnny L.A.]

And how long will such an artificial reef last, anyway? Based on the rate of decomposition of the Titanic (which is in a much colder environment), it will essentially be gone in less than a hundred years or so.

Titanic is in very cold, very deep, and very dark water. Artificial reefs are placed in shallow, warm, light water. (Of course with a ship 'shallow' is relative.) The idea is to promote the growth of marine organisms on the hulk, rather than to just have it sit there like an aquarium decoration. It provides a structure for corals to latch onto. So while the steel may be gone in a hundred years, the structures built by corals and other sea creatures will (it is hoped) endure.

[Mk VII]

The environmentalists' objections mean that it is now very expensive to scrap ships in the West. Asbestos etc., has to be stripped out and disposed of as hazardous waste. Plus heavy metals and oil sludge. This means it's now very difficult to make a profit out of shipbreaking, which in the past they could expect to do when they bid for the hull. That's why they have been run up a beach in Goa and broken apart with hammers by women and children - life is cheap out there and nobody cares if they die twenty years down the line. Now that line of action has been closed off as well.

[robby]

Mothballing is a process. The carriers in question were not mothballed. They have been prepared for sinking, partly due to protect the design qualities of the hulls that led to current carrier hull design.

Mothballing is a specific way of storing a navy ship. The carriers in question are simply anchored remnants.I guess I assumed they were mothballed, considering that the Forrestal and Saratoga were decommissioned some 15 years ago.

[Johnny L.A.]

The environmentalists' objections mean that it is now very expensive to scrap ships in the West. Asbestos etc., has to be stripped out and disposed of as hazardous waste. Plus heavy metals and oil sludge.

Hazardous materials must also be removed when a ship is used for an artificial reef.

FWIW, my dad's ship, CLG-5 Oklahoma City, was torpedoed by a South Korean submarine in a war game.

[bump]

Well... it's kind of nice to have a virtual monopoly on large aircraft carriers, so I suspect that's why the topic of selling a supercarrier never came up.

The reason those aren't being used is because they're conventional carriers, i.e. not nuclear. The fuel costs are horrendous on those ships, not to mention that they have to be periodically resupplied with fuel.

That's the primary reason they weren't kept, when the Navy downsized, along with the construction of some more Nimitz class carriers.

[Johnny L.A.]

The fuel costs are horrendous on those ships, not to mention that they have to be periodically resupplied with fuel.

I should know this, but I'm tired and I don't feel like looking up details; but just off the top of my head, large aircraft carriers are most useful for power projection. As you say, they're horrendously expensive; not only in fuel costs, but they also have complements of 3,000 to 5,000 crew. In addition, carriers are somewhat vulnerable and need a task force for protection (among other things). The countries known for power projection have been the U.S. and the former Soviet Union. IIRC the Russians have decommissioned and/or sold several of their carriers. They just don't fit into their plans. France and Great Britain have carriers sized to their needs and aircraft. Given the roles of the world's navies, I don't really see that most navies have a real need for carriers. Given the expense, I don't see much of a market.

[MEBuckner]

Agreed that it is easy to tow the ship out and sink it. It just seems like a waste of a lot of steel, which we went to all the effort and expense to mine and refine from the ore in the first place.
World steel production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_production_by_country#cite_note-0) is well over a billion tons a year. The U.S. alone produces enough steel every year to build a thousand aircraft carriers. So I suppose there is little reason to conserve every scrap of the stuff. As a civilization, the cost of sinking a hundred thousand tons of steel a few times a decade to make a home for the fishies is trivial.

[Duckster]

It's far more than weapons systems - the Independence gave up her port anchor and both of her anchor chains. They will be used on the USS George H.W. Bush.

So there really is no way most of these ships can ever sail again - the expense involved in restoring them to service would equal or exceed building a new one.

If this story from the US Naval Institute is accurate (https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp), don't expect another aircraft carrier to be built anytime soon. Another link (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3307277).

[Snnipe 70E]

The super carriers have a projected life of 50 years. I doubt we will see any new ships laid down with the present administration. So I would doubt plans will be made up for maybe 8 years.

[IAmNotSpartacus]

Speaking of Goa, if you want an aircraft carrier that seems like a good place to go (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&z=15&ll=21.383233,72.177515&spn=0.019301,0.028281&t=k&om=1)

[Mr. Moto]

Speaking of Goa, if you want an aircraft carrier that seems like a good place to go (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&z=15&ll=21.383233,72.177515&spn=0.019301,0.028281&t=k&om=1)

That ship was the NAel. Minas Gerais (ex-HMAS Vengeance, ex-HMS Vengeance). It saw service in three navies going back to WWII.

Link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAeL_Minas_Gerais)
Another link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vengeance_(R71))

[Mr. Moto]

The super carriers have a projected life of 50 years. I doubt we will see any new ships laid down with the present administration. So I would doubt plans will be made up for maybe 8 years.

Well, the older Nimitz class carriers still need to be replaced - they're pretty old. And I don't think Obama wants to see Newport News Shipbuilding go out of business, especially since Virginia is still considered a swing state.

Those carriers will be built.

[Snnipe 70E]

Well, the older Nimitz class carriers still need to be replaced - they're pretty old. And I don't think Obama wants to see Newport News Shipbuilding go out of business, especially since Virginia is still considered a swing state.

Those carriers will be built.

Ya know you may be right.

[HPL]

Well, the older Nimitz class carriers still need to be replaced - they're pretty old. And I don't think Obama wants to see Newport News Shipbuilding go out of business, especially since Virginia is still considered a swing state.

Those carriers will be built.

None of the Nimitz class ships are due to be retired in the next decade.

Hell, the Enterprise hasn't been retired yet and she's almost 50 years old(and a lot of people would argue she needs to be retired).

[coremelt]

Speaking of Goa, if you want an aircraft carrier that seems like a good place to go (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&z=15&ll=21.383233,72.177515&spn=0.019301,0.028281&t=k&om=1)

Thats not Goa, it's Alang in the Indian state of Gujurat. it's about 1500 km from Goa and Goa is a tourist state with clean beaches (at least by Indian standards). They don't break up ships anywhere near Goa.

[Mr. Moto]

None of the Nimitz class ships are due to be retired in the next decade.

Hell, the Enterprise hasn't been retired yet and she's almost 50 years old(and a lot of people would argue she needs to be retired).

It takes a while to build a carrier, you know. Even with modular techniques it takes a few years. So the planning for this is indeed going on as we speak.

The lead ship of the Gerald R. Ford class is being laid down this year, and it will replace the Enterprise when it joins the fleet. Follow on ships in this class will replace Nimitz, Ike and so on.

Even with this rate of replacement, we will likely have a ten-carrier Navy by 2040 rather than the eleven carriers we sail today.

[Ravenman]

In fact, Secretary Gates made a budget announcement a couple weeks ago that echo Mr. Moto's points very closely.

" The healthy margin of dominance at sea provided by America’s existing battle fleet makes it possible and prudent to slow production of several major surface combatants and other maritime programs.
• We will shift the Navy Aircraft Carrier program to a five-year build cycle placing it on a more fiscally sustainable path. This will result in 10 carriers after 2040."

http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1341

We aren't going to stop building carriers.

[robby]

World steel production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_production_by_country#cite_note-0) is well over a billion tons a year. The U.S. alone produces enough steel every year to build a thousand aircraft carriers. So I suppose there is little reason to conserve every scrap of the stuff.A thousandth of the annual steel output of the U.S. still seems like a great deal of steel to me. Heck, a thousandth part of any annual U.S. domestic output (whether steel, wheat, etc.) of the U.S. seems like a lot to me. Expanding this to the whole U.S. economy, one-thousandth part of the U.S. GDP is over $14 billion.

It just seems like a complete waste of steel to me. I've had the same thought every time I hear that a ship is being scuttled at sea.

There have to be cheaper and more appropriate materials that could be used for artificial reefs, like rock, concrete, etc. And with the more recent focus on removing hazardous materials from a ship prior to sinking, I don't see that it would take much more effort to cut up a ship and recycle the steel.

[Mr. Moto]

Well, it's not an all or nothing thing - I did a UNITAS cruise on the Moosbrugger in 1996, and she was scrapped. You might have shaved with a piece of her this morning.

This is one of the last pictures of her. (http://www.pbase.com/pinemikey/image/65909257)

[Elendil's Heir]

I know one of the Moosbrugger grandsons - he's very proud of the family's Navy history. His license plate is that ship's Navy List registry number.

The British have sold aircraft carriers to other, friendly countries, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Viraat, as have the French, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAe_S%C3%A3o_Paulo, the Australians and the Russians, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Chinese_aircraft_carrier. Don't think the U.S. ever has, or ever will.

[Tristan]

I've always wondered if one could buy one, tow it off shore, anchor it, and plant crops on the flight deck. Sort of a house boat gone very very large?

[HPL]

I've always wondered if one could buy one, tow it off shore, anchor it, and plant crops on the flight deck. Sort of a house boat gone very very large?

If the nearby nation doesn't mind, it don't see why not. Just be aware that if you're going to have anything resembling utilities, there's gotta be a crew of some size to operate and maintain that equipment. Even attaching to shore utilities is only going to lessen this to some degree, and that's where you can find them. You did imply someone living on this thing, and not just using it as a giant planter.

[electronbee]

The only reason the Enterprise is still around is because of all the reactors she has. But, alas, they will be decommissioning her in 2012/2013 and to be replaced by the Ford in 2015.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/04/navy_enterprise_040509w/

That Enterprise is one old ship. A lot of things have been updated in the Navy's fleet since then and the cost to retrofit can be extremely high if not impossible on some ships. Also, there is metal fatigue and believe it or not ships spring leaks and cracks develop that have to be maintained. Eventually, the metal is so fatigued that it's a structural concern.

I had an EMO that was on the Enterprise when she was a sonar tech and when they removed the flooring on the ship in some of the passageways they could see into the hangar bay! It had just rusted out beneath them.

As far recycling the steel, that's a lot of steel to cut down, and you'll need a place to eventually dry dock the ship as you cut it up. Labor is very expensive in this country so it would be a diminishing return the longer it took to cut it up. You will probaby make more money in the log run as a museum or as an artificial reef. I know a lot of the states on the Southern seaboard will "fight" over who gets the next ship as its an attraction for scuba divers.

[Sean Factotum]

It takes a while to build a carrier, you know. Even with modular techniques it takes a few years. So the planning for this is indeed going on as we speak.

The lead ship of the Gerald R. Ford class is being laid down this year, and it will replace the Enterprise when it joins the fleet. Follow on ships in this class will replace Nimitz, Ike and so on.

Even with this rate of replacement, we will likely have a ten-carrier Navy by 2040 rather than the eleven carriers we sail today.
Northrop Grumman Newport News (NGNN) is very far along in the planning of the first carrier in this new class. Our company is one of the sub-contractors, and we're finishing up vibration, shock and EMI testing on equipment that will be installed in systems onboard the ship. We are contracted with NGNN to deliver quite a bit of stuff before the end of this fiscal year.

I hadn't heard that these will be Gerald Ford class (not doubting you, though, Mr. Moto) - everyone we deal with, including the yard, calls it CVN-21 (as in 21st Century Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carrier.)

[Mr. Moto]

Webpage from Newport News Shipbuilding for the program. (http://www.nn.northropgrumman.com/cvn21/index.html)

CVN-78 - USS Gerald R. Ford.

I'm not a fan of this, personally. I liked President Ford but I think capital ships should be named after large things and not just every president we have. Nobody would propose a USS Nixon - yet he was a naval officer too.

This would probably have eliminated the George H.W. Bush as well. I have no particular issue with that. Same with the USS Jimmy Carter.

The USS Ronald Reagan was different, just as the Truman was different - these were consequential presidents that had an outsized impact on the world.

[Elendil's Heir]

Well, the USS Jimmy Carter is a submarine, but I agree with you in principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uss_Jimmy_Carter

I think it was a serious mistake to name supercarriers after relatively obscure members of Congress like John Stennis and Carl Vinson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_Stennis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Carl_Vinson_(CVN-70). There's no way, in terms of national significance, that those gentlemen were in the same league as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, etc.

But there's not much consistency to the Navy's naming practices anymore, and politics has certainly been known to rear its ugly head. I wouldn't mind seeing supercarriers named after FDR, John Adams and Chester Arthur, given their importance re: naval affairs in their day, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Mr. Moto]

But there's not much consistency to the Navy's naming practices anymore....

If by anymore you mean the last forty years at least.

The Ticonderoga class ships were all named after battles except for the USS Thomas S. Gates. The 688 boats were all named for cities except for the USS Hyman Rickover. The 637 boats were named for fish - except for three named for powerful politicians.

The Seawolf class has no consistency at all among the three boats in it. The Virginia class was shaping up to be named after states until someone got the bright idea to name one of them USS John Warner. Now, I'm not opposed to the notion of that name, but I think it could have been applied to a destroyer - especially as there was already a ship of that class honoring Virginia.

[Mr. Moto]

Now, I'm not opposed to the notion of that name, but I think it could have been applied to a destroyer - especially as there was already a ship of that class honoring Virginia.

Sorry. Boat of that class. I wanted to correct that before my bubblehead brother got on my case.

;)

[robby]

Sorry. Boat of that class. I wanted to correct that before my bubblehead brother got on my case.

;)No problem! :)

While submarines are usually referred to as "boats," they are also referred to as "ships," especially in formal communications.

[Elendil's Heir]

...The Virginia class was shaping up to be named after states until someone got the bright idea to name one of them USS John Warner. Now, I'm not opposed to the notion of that name, but I think it could have been applied to a destroyer - especially as there was already a ship of that class honoring Virginia.

Better yet, name a Virginia-class submarine after the USS Monitor!

http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/monitor/press_release.htm
http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/honor_the_monitor.htm

[ralph124c]

How about the "USS BUDGET DEFICIT"-has a nice ring to it..also accurately describes the state we are in.

[Dead Cat]

Am I the only one who thought of "air conditioning" and "alternating current" before "aircraft" when reading the thread title?

[Mr. Moto]

How about the "USS BUDGET DEFICIT"-has a nice ring to it..also accurately describes the state we are in.

Well, OK. But for sake of fairness, we ought to rename Social Security to something like Unfunded Obligation, and Medicare to Budget Buster.

Since I don't see that happening, you're stuck with ships named after politicians who screwed the budget up, and not the budget.

[Bryan Ekers]

FWIW, my dad's ship, CLG-5 Oklahoma City, was torpedoed by a South Korean submarine in a war game.

Playing for keeps, were they?

[Mk VII]

I'm waiting for the USS Robert S McNamara

[Mr. Moto]

Well, there's a USS Ford, Lincoln and Falcon. That has McNamara's career prior to the DoD covered.

[Snnipe 70E]

I'm waiting for the USS Robert S McNamara

No please never never

[Captain Carrot]

I think it was a serious mistake to name supercarriers after relatively obscure members of Congress like John Stennis and Carl Vinson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_Stennis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Carl_Vinson_(CVN-70). There's no way, in terms of national significance, that those gentlemen were in the same league as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, etc.
Not national significance, but Stennis and Vinson were both very influential in the development of the Navy that exists today. And they are the only two with ships named after them.

[Declan]

How about the "USS BUDGET DEFICIT"-has a nice ring to it..also accurately describes the state we are in.


You've been reading Ian Banks , have'nt you.

Declan