That ship was the NAel. Minas Gerais (ex-HMAS Vengeance, ex-HMS Vengeance). It saw service in three navies going back to WWII.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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."
We aren’t going to stop building carriers.
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.
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.
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, INS Viraat - Wikipedia, as have the French, Brazilian aircraft carrier São Paulo - Wikipedia, the Australians and the Russians, Chinese aircraft carrier programme - Wikipedia. Don’t think the U.S. ever has, or ever will.
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.
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.
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.)
Webpage from Newport News Shipbuilding for the program.
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.
Well, the USS Jimmy Carter is a submarine, but I agree with you in principle: USS Jimmy Carter - Wikipedia
I think it was a serious mistake to name supercarriers after relatively obscure members of Congress like John Stennis and Carl Vinson: USS John C. Stennis - Wikipedia, USS Carl Vinson - Wikipedia. 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.
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.
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.
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