Announcement

Collapse

New Site - PLEASE READ

Hello All,
My name is Ashley and I am the one that moved the forum to its new hosting location. This was done for security reasons and try to keep the forum from going down every other day. I understand that the new forum looks very different from the old one but I promise almost everything you had before you still have it might just be in a different place.

Items that are gone due to a limitation of the new hosting/ forum update:
- Awards
- Flags

As I was going thought your posts I was able to fix a lot fo the issues you were listing. Below is kind of a running list of issues an what is fixed and what I am still working on.

Items that I have fixed from your comments:
- Smilie are now working.
- Color/Theme changes
- Signature are now showing up. (Here is how to edit them https://screencast.com/t/OJHzzhiV1)
- Ranking is now showing up.
- Private messaging is now working.

Some issues I am still working on are:
- Missing items from the Calendar
- Like button the posts is giving an error.

One other note I have seen a lot is theme/color related items. I know this is important to all of you but at the moment the most important thing was getting you back a functioning forum with as many features I can get you back from before.

Theme/color is something we can change but it the moment I do not have the time and resources to fix all of the issue and design the site. I did do some theme updates yesterday but it is very time consuming. Please just be patient with the forum as we get it back to as close as I can to what you had before.

If anyone has any issues that they are running in to please let me know in the post below. Please give me as much detail as possible .
https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/forum/world-history-group-welcomes-you/armchair-general-magazine/5034776-new-site-please-read
See more
See less

USS Forrestal to be scrapped not sunk

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • USS Forrestal to be scrapped not sunk

    Recycling, not reefs, in store for old aircraft carriers

    By Miguel Llanos Reporter , msnbc.com msnbc.com, updated 4/7/2011 6:55:24 PM ET 2011-04-07T22:55:24

    It's a heave-ho, U.S. Navy style. After several years during which turning old warships into artificial reefs was fashionable, four decommissioned aircraft carriers will instead be dismantled, and recycled, at shipyards.An environmental group that's been championing the shift said it makes sense: creating shipyard jobs in the U.S., instead of a potential toxic mess at sea.

    "The Obama administration's new plan to recycle these four aircraft carriers appears to be a signal that the administration may be correcting long-standing misguided policies that not only squander resources, but American jobs as well," stated Colby Self of the Basel Action Network, a group that monitors global toxic issues and that last December issued a report critical of the artificial reefs.


    More Here

    Staff Edit: Post truncated to abide forum copyright rules.
    Last edited by Admiral; 10 Jun 11, 11:56.
    God Save The Republic.

  • #2
    CVs (and other warships) are nice artificial reefs and long term source of income as turist atractions. Also toxic materials were removed before sinking ship.

    So IMO this decision is wrong.

    Comment


    • #3
      Are we becoming another Great Britain, in a hurry to get rid of our older warships? I would rather they be mothballed and put in storage. They might be repaired and put back in service in case of emergency. They might not be a match for a Nimitz, but they would be useful as aircraft transports and ASW. They might even be used to transport troops. Think of all the WW 2 ships we once had in mothballs. Some came in handy when Reagan wanted a larger Navy. If we don't use them in say 15 years, then scrap them.

      Pruitt
      Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

      Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

      by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Richard

        Well your certainly not becoming another GB, as the US has a great tradition of keeping some of its naval vessels. Sadly the UK and the RN have never been that sentimental.

        Though these ships gave good long service I think any politician would find it hard to justify sepending X million $ on keeping these vessels in any semblance of longterm readiness in the current economic background.

        Regards
        "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

        "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
          Are we becoming another Great Britain, in a hurry to get rid of our older warships? I would rather they be mothballed and put in storage. They might be repaired and put back in service in case of emergency. They might not be a match for a Nimitz, but they would be useful as aircraft transports and ASW. They might even be used to transport troops. Think of all the WW 2 ships we once had in mothballs. Some came in handy when Reagan wanted a larger Navy. If we don't use them in say 15 years, then scrap them.

          Pruitt
          WW2 ships were only forty-something years old in the mid-80's. The Forrestal is now 55 years old.

          Comment


          • #6
            The difference being that WW 2 ships were built in a hurry and had corners cut. Peacetime built ships should last much longer. I remember we had a Destroyer Tender built in the 30's on duty for what over 70 years? Looking at the time it now takes to build a large aircraft carrier, we should not be so quick to get rid of the older ones. I remember when we had something like 16 carrier air groups. What are we down to now?

            Pruitt
            Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

            Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

            by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
              The difference being that WW 2 ships were built in a hurry and had corners cut. Peacetime built ships should last much longer. I remember we had a Destroyer Tender built in the 30's on duty for what over 70 years? Looking at the time it now takes to build a large aircraft carrier, we should not be so quick to get rid of the older ones. I remember when we had something like 16 carrier air groups. What are we down to now?

              Pruitt
              Hi Richard

              Reading around about these 4 carriers, it seems that most are just really hulks. Most of the ships have been stripped for spares years ago to keep others going. Where there have been campaigns to raise the money for them to become museum ships, the campaigns have come up short by several millions in some cases.

              Though I understand the emotional facet it just doesn't stack up in financial or military terms.

              Regards
              "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

              "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Andy H View Post
                Hi Richard

                Reading around about these 4 carriers, it seems that most are just really hulks. Most of the ships have been stripped for spares years ago to keep others going. Where there have been campaigns to raise the money for them to become museum ships, the campaigns have come up short by several millions in some cases.

                Though I understand the emotional facet it just doesn't stack up in financial or military terms.

                Regards
                I totally agree with the decision to scrap rather than sink these ships. It makes no economic sense to maintain these vessels for some future war. They are fifty plus years old and have been stripped of anything of value.
                It makes far more sense to scrap them and sell off the metals to generate some immediate return for the taxpayers. The Oriskany was sunk as an artificial reef and while it does generate tourism, the bulk of the benefit goes to Florida , not the Federal treasury. The Defense department is looking for every dollar it can find .

                Three of the decommissioned carriers (Ranger, Kitty Hawk and John F Kennedy) may join the other five carriers that have preserved as museum ships. They will probably be the last since the Navy recycles all nuclear ships.
                God Save The Republic.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The Oriskany was an Essex class carrier. I have no problems with it going. The others mentioned are modern built carriers even if a bit old. We also have an older carrier, the Enterprise, which will be an interesting disposal. The nuclear reactors and the low level radiation will probably keep it from being scrapped. I am unsure if there is a deep enough place in the ocean to sink her.

                  Left unsaid is we need a training carrier and a Navy Reserve carrier. It is a little too expensive to put a nuclear carrier down in Pensacola to fill these jobs. A bare bones Forrestal or Kitty Hawk for each job would do it better. In time of war they could be used for other purposes until the Navy builds more.

                  Pruitt
                  Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                  Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                  by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                    The Oriskany was an Essex class carrier. I have no problems with it going. The others mentioned are modern built carriers even if a bit old. We also have an older carrier, the Enterprise, which will be an interesting disposal. The nuclear reactors and the low level radiation will probably keep it from being scrapped. I am unsure if there is a deep enough place in the ocean to sink her.

                    Left unsaid is we need a training carrier and a Navy Reserve carrier. It is a little too expensive to put a nuclear carrier down in Pensacola to fill these jobs. A bare bones Forrestal or Kitty Hawk for each job would do it better. In time of war they could be used for other purposes until the Navy builds more.

                    Pruitt
                    Actually The Navy recycles all nuclear powered ships rather use them for target practice. They will cut the reactors out of the ship and bury them in concrete in Washington. The rest of the ship is scrapped. The Navy has allowed a nuclear submarine, the Nautilus, to be decommissioned to become a museum ship. We visited the sub a number of years ago in Connecticut and so far, we don't glow in the dark so it can be done.

                    I think the last training carrier was the Lexington. We may not really need a ship dedicated for that purpose.
                    God Save The Republic.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                      The Oriskany was an Essex class carrier. I have no problems with it going. The others mentioned are modern built carriers even if a bit old. We also have an older carrier, the Enterprise, which will be an interesting disposal. The nuclear reactors and the low level radiation will probably keep it from being scrapped. I am unsure if there is a deep enough place in the ocean to sink her.

                      Left unsaid is we need a training carrier and a Navy Reserve carrier. It is a little too expensive to put a nuclear carrier down in Pensacola to fill these jobs. A bare bones Forrestal or Kitty Hawk for each job would do it better. In time of war they could be used for other purposes until the Navy builds more.

                      Pruitt
                      Pruitt, without trying to be insulting here, I think that you're suffering from the same syndrome that me and many others here are, also. It's called the "I remember when they were new and I'm still (kinda) young, so they can't be old" syndrome.
                      I'm 51 and I was even surprised when I looked up when the Forrestal was commissioned.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Why you are just a young pup! I am 57 and feel older. I am not saying they were not old. Several other navies across the world also had old aircraft carriers. What I am trying to get understood is we could have kept them in mothballs for 10 or 15 years in case we get in a war and needed them. We once had a large mothball fleet and maybe because of that, we never really needed them.

                        Also we used to take an aircraft carrier into port and SLEP them to get a few more useful years out of them. Since we aren't doing that any more we are working the few we have left harder. It takes too long to build a new aircraft carrier now. Battle damage to just a couple would cripple our ability to defend ourselves.

                        Pruitt
                        Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                        Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                        by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The problem lies not in keeping the ships around, but 1) the cost of keeping them around (updates, cadre crew, etc) and 2) shrinking economy means money has to be generated someplace to help pay for current ops. Personally I'd rather keep them around myself as museum ships, but the economy also doesn't allow for that. But nuclear ships can be museum ships.

                          First there was the USS Nautilus and then this ship.
                          Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

                          "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Life moves on, so must we.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I am of two minds about the attempts to save naval ships. Certainly we cannot save them all and in these time of economic disaster, only the most historically significant ought to even be considered.

                              OTOH, I toured the USS Midway in San Diego this summer with my wife and son and it was one of the best experiences we have had in a long time. That there is a real value to saving some of these ships is unquestionable.
                              "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
                              George Mason
                              Co-author of the Second Amendment
                              during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X