# What will US do w surplus a/c carriers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 24, 2009, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223 "2009-04-24T15:24:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Survey1215](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecb155/32.png) [@Survey1215](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Survey1215)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2009, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223/1 "2009-04-24T15:24:27Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2009, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223/2 "2009-04-24T15:33:02Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2009, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223/3 "2009-04-24T16:00:53Z")
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.) ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2009, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223/4 "2009-04-24T16:44:16Z")
> [@Philster](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2009, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223/5 "2009-04-24T17:05:42Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223/6 "2009-04-24T17:18:35Z")
**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. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2009, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223/7 "2009-04-24T17:28:30Z")
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”)? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2009, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223/8 "2009-04-24T17:34:04Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223/9 "2009-04-24T17:57:39Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2009, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223/10 "2009-04-24T17:59:34Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2009, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223/11 "2009-04-24T18:04:30Z")
> [@robby](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223/12 "2009-04-24T18:17:00Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2009, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223/13 "2009-04-25T03:37:03Z")
> [@Philster](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2009, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223/14 "2009-04-25T03:44:08Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2009, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223/15 "2009-04-25T03:59:26Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2009, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223/16 "2009-04-25T04:14:12Z")
> [@bump](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2009, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223/17 "2009-04-25T04:16:37Z")
> [@robby](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2009, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223/18 "2009-04-25T06:30:51Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > 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). ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2009, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223/19 "2009-04-25T07:06:04Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2009, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223/20 "2009-04-25T13:12:11Z")
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) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-us-do-w-surplus-a-c-carriers/494223.md?page=2)