USS America to be sunk off East Coast

[D]

I just read in Defense News that the carrier USS America is going to be sunk
in tests off the East Coast of the US. They will detonate various
explosives aboard her to determine how much damage she takes. Six A-7
Corsairs will be located at various positions to see how much damage they
take. The Navy will also detonate large explosives in the water nearby.
Finally, they will set off scuttling charges.

The USS Oriskany will be sunk as an artificial reef in the Gulf of Mexico.

The article implied that most of the retired supercarriers will be disposed
of this way. Forrestal is probably next. Saratoga and Ranger are on a list
for possible preservation, but the Navy leadership is trying to change the
rules to get ships off of the preservation reserve list faster. And I doubt
that anybody is going to be able to save the kind of money necessary to
preserve a supercarrier (and certainly not more than one--the goal should be
to save the Enterprise when she is eventually retired).

Scuttling at sea is now cheaper than scrapping due to the environmental
costs.




D

[[email protected]]

D wrote:
> I just read in Defense News that the carrier USS America is going to
be sunk
> in tests off the East Coast of the US.
<snip>

>From the San Diego Union-Tribune:

By John J. Lumpkin
ASSOCIATED PRESS

2:07 p.m. March 3, 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.

[John Carrier]

Sigh. That's two of my ships that'll make homes for the sea critters.
Well, at least I won't be shaving with them.

R / John

"D" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>I just read in Defense News that the carrier USS America is going to be
>sunk
> in tests off the East Coast of the US. They will detonate various
> explosives aboard her to determine how much damage she takes. Six A-7
> Corsairs will be located at various positions to see how much damage they
> take. The Navy will also detonate large explosives in the water nearby.
> Finally, they will set off scuttling charges.
>
> The USS Oriskany will be sunk as an artificial reef in the Gulf of Mexico.
>
> The article implied that most of the retired supercarriers will be
> disposed
> of this way. Forrestal is probably next. Saratoga and Ranger are on a
> list
> for possible preservation, but the Navy leadership is trying to change the
> rules to get ships off of the preservation reserve list faster. And I
> doubt
> that anybody is going to be able to save the kind of money necessary to
> preserve a supercarrier (and certainly not more than one--the goal should
> be
> to save the Enterprise when she is eventually retired).
>
> Scuttling at sea is now cheaper than scrapping due to the environmental
> costs.
>
>
>
>
> D
>

[D]

----------
In article >, "John Carrier"
> wrote:

> Sigh. That's two of my ships that'll make homes for the sea critters.
> Well, at least I won't be shaving with them.

Actually, short of becoming a museum, this is the most honorable end to a
proud ship. After all, data gathered from the tests will be used in the
design of new ships and will help save lives.




D

[Rob van Riel]

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 04:09:45 +0000, D wrote:
> Scuttling at sea is now cheaper than scrapping due to the environmental
> costs.

Isn't that just a bit hypocrytical? Simply dumping waste is obviously
cheaper than disposing of it in an environmentally friendly way. But isn't
that what the government is doing in this case?

Rob

[Gord Beaman]

wdossel > wrote:

>Agreed -- it was exceedingly painful to watch Coral Sea die a death of
>a thousand cuts from the breakup torches over on the south branch of
>the Elizabeth River. A very sad, forlorn sight indeed :(
>
>Will Dossel
>Last of the Steeljaws (VAW-122)
>
>
Yes...similar to us watching the torching of the whole fleet
(33) of our CP-107 Argus ASW aircraft a few years ago, they
melted them down for the aluminum. Tough to watch that big knife
slicing off wings, tails etc.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Walt Morgan]

Not really. After thest tests the ship will be sunk as an artificial
reef for fish and other sea life. IT has been quiet common to do this
with old aircraft, the A-6 being an example, in the last decade or so.
I was on the Coral Sea, Midway, Ranger, Kitty Hawk and Constellation.
I even highlined over to the Oraskiny and stayed overnight once.
America was my last ship and I'd sure rather see her go this way that
under a cutting torch .

Walt
ISC, USN Ret.

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:09:51 +0100, Rob van Riel >
wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 04:09:45 +0000, D wrote:
>> Scuttling at sea is now cheaper than scrapping due to the environmental
>> costs.
>
>Isn't that just a bit hypocrytical? Simply dumping waste is obviously
>cheaper than disposing of it in an environmentally friendly way. But isn't
>that what the government is doing in this case?
>
>Rob

[Rob van Riel]

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 08:10:40 -0700, Walt Morgan wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:09:51 +0100, Rob van Riel >
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 04:09:45 +0000, D wrote:
>>> Scuttling at sea is now cheaper than scrapping due to the environmental
>>> costs.
>>
>>Isn't that just a bit hypocrytical? Simply dumping waste is obviously
>>cheaper than disposing of it in an environmentally friendly way. But isn't
>>that what the government is doing in this case?
>>
>>Rob
>
> Not really. After thest tests the ship will be sunk as an artificial
> reef for fish and other sea life. IT has been quiet common to do this
> with old aircraft, the A-6 being an example, in the last decade or so.

OK, I'm quite willing to take your word for that, but then I must ask,
where is the environmental cost of scrapping them? I mean, if you leave
them at the bottom long enough, whatever comes out of the ships during
scrapping would also come out during decay. What am I missing?



> America was my last ship and I'd sure rather see her go this way that
> under a cutting torch .


I agree. It might be more logical to recycle the lot of them, but this has
to do with human emotion, and logic has no business in that arena.

Rob

[D]

----------
In article <1110208238.2941b4e94385527f9fa18beac50c08a6@terane ws>, Walt
Morgan > wrote:

> Not really. After thest tests the ship will be sunk as an artificial
> reef for fish and other sea life. IT has been quiet common to do this

In the America's case, she's being sunk in "greater than 1000 fathoms." Are
there reefs that deep?



D

[Glenn Dowdy]

"D" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> ----------
> In article <1110208238.2941b4e94385527f9fa18beac50c08a6@terane ws>, Walt
> Morgan > wrote:
>
> > Not really. After thest tests the ship will be sunk as an artificial
> > reef for fish and other sea life. IT has been quiet common to do this
>
> In the America's case, she's being sunk in "greater than 1000 fathoms."
Are
> there reefs that deep?
>
Not yet.

Glenn D.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:04:11 +0100, Rob van Riel >
wrote:

>OK, I'm quite willing to take your word for that, but then I must ask,
>where is the environmental cost of scrapping them? I mean, if you leave
>them at the bottom long enough, whatever comes out of the ships during
>scrapping would also come out during decay. What am I missing?

The "administrative cost" of environmental cleanup can be truly
massive, even if the actual cost is not. You also have the liability
exposure if some dim dot chooses to act stupidly with materials they
know, or ought to know, are dangerous. Putting the whole thing on the
bottom solves all the problems. You can disolve a whole lot of stuff
in a few billion cubic yards of water.

And it's not like there's going to be some problem with accumulation
over time. We can't do it but thre or four times, total.

>> America was my last ship and I'd sure rather see her go this way that
>> under a cutting torch .
>
>I agree. It might be more logical to recycle the lot of them, but this has
>to do with human emotion, and logic has no business in that arena.

It might be more logical to recycle, then maybe it's not. "Logic" in
this case is probably synonomous with "dollars."

Bill Kambic

[John A. Weeks III]

In article t>,
"D" > wrote:

> I just read in Defense News that the carrier USS America is going to be sunk
> in tests off the East Coast of the US. They will detonate various
> explosives aboard her to determine how much damage she takes.

This is a travesty. They should tie up this ship next to some
major city, and use it for housing homeless people. An aircraft
carrier can hold 5000 or more people when sailing, so it should
be no big deal to house 1000 homeless people, plus have deck
space for another 500 tents. After all, the ship has all the
living facilities like bunks, state rooms, plumbing, bathing,
kitchens, cafeterias, etc. It is a shame to let such a valuable
resource be destroyed like this.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

[Dave in San Diego]

"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in
:

> In article t>,
> "D" > wrote:
>
>> I just read in Defense News that the carrier USS America is going to
>> be sunk in tests off the East Coast of the US. They will detonate
>> various explosives aboard her to determine how much damage she takes.
>
> This is a travesty. They should tie up this ship next to some
> major city, and use it for housing homeless people. An aircraft
> carrier can hold 5000 or more people when sailing, so it should
> be no big deal to house 1000 homeless people, plus have deck
> space for another 500 tents. After all, the ship has all the
> living facilities like bunks, state rooms, plumbing, bathing,
> kitchens, cafeterias, etc. It is a shame to let such a valuable
> resource be destroyed like this.

Who pays for the conversions to meet basic fire codes? Who pays for the
required environmental cleanup? Who pays to staff it? Who pays for the
continued maintenance?

The USS Midway is currently docked at Navy Pier here in San Diego. It
required the expenditure of well over a million dollars to get it to its
present condition, and would require a lot more to get to a condition
where what you are proposing would be feasible.

I fear that such a project would quickly turn into a floating Cabrini
Green, for similar reasons, the foremost of which is lack of "pride of
ownership", somebody else's property, someone else's problems.

Dave in San Diego

[Keith W]

"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> "D" > wrote:
>
>> I just read in Defense News that the carrier USS America is going to be
>> sunk
>> in tests off the East Coast of the US. They will detonate various
>> explosives aboard her to determine how much damage she takes.
>
> This is a travesty. They should tie up this ship next to some
> major city, and use it for housing homeless people. An aircraft
> carrier can hold 5000 or more people when sailing, so it should
> be no big deal to house 1000 homeless people, plus have deck
> space for another 500 tents. After all, the ship has all the
> living facilities like bunks, state rooms, plumbing, bathing,
> kitchens, cafeterias, etc. It is a shame to let such a valuable
> resource be destroyed like this.
>

And who exactly is going to pay for the maintenance, running costs,
security, utilities and harbour space ?

If you want an accomodation hulk a disused liner or cruise ship
is a FAR better bet and much more cost effective, better yet
any offshore yard will build one on a barge pretty quickly
and it'll be FAR cheaper than refurbishing and making safe
a CV which will definitely NOT meet the safety requirements
imposed by any fire department in the USA.

Keith

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >,
Dave in San Diego > wrote:

> "John A. Weeks III" > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article t>,
> > "D" > wrote:
> >
> >> I just read in Defense News that the carrier USS America is going to
> >> be sunk in tests off the East Coast of the US. They will detonate
> >> various explosives aboard her to determine how much damage she takes.
> >
> > This is a travesty. They should tie up this ship next to some
> > major city, and use it for housing homeless people. An aircraft
> > carrier can hold 5000 or more people when sailing, so it should
> > be no big deal to house 1000 homeless people, plus have deck
> > space for another 500 tents. After all, the ship has all the
> > living facilities like bunks, state rooms, plumbing, bathing,
> > kitchens, cafeterias, etc. It is a shame to let such a valuable
> > resource be destroyed like this.
>
> Who pays for the conversions to meet basic fire codes? Who pays for the
> required environmental cleanup? Who pays to staff it? Who pays for the
> continued maintenance?

Who pays for everything else in America? Government and faith-based
charities.

> The USS Midway is currently docked at Navy Pier here in San Diego. It
> required the expenditure of well over a million dollars to get it to its
> present condition, and would require a lot more to get to a condition
> where what you are proposing would be feasible.

That cost is a drop in the bucket compared with the war in Iraq.
It is also small compared to the crime and vandalism that currently
happens to and due to people being homeless.

> I fear that such a project would quickly turn into a floating Cabrini
> Green, for similar reasons, the foremost of which is lack of "pride of
> ownership", somebody else's property, someone else's problems.

So, you are in favor of letting homeless people freeze to death
sleeping under freeway overpasses and in rail yards in the harsh
cold winter climates in the northern lattitudes?

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

[Jim Carriere]

Keith W wrote:
> If you want an accomodation hulk a disused liner or cruise ship
> is a FAR better bet and much more cost effective, better yet
> any offshore yard will build one on a barge pretty quickly
> and it'll be FAR cheaper than refurbishing and making safe
> a CV which will definitely NOT meet the safety requirements
> imposed by any fire department in the USA.

Oh, it could, but before anyone could move aboard, you'd first have
to send them (all 5000 residents) to basic firefighting school, then
have recurrent training such as "general quarters" at least once a
week and a main space fire drill about once a month... :)

[Jeb Hoge]

Yeah, and then if they start getting uppity about living conditions,
you can float the whole shebang out to sea some night and use it for a
Shootex! Right, Weeks? That's a great idea you had there.

[Noah Little]

John A. Weeks III wrote to Dave:
> So, you are in favor of letting homeless people freeze to death
> sleeping under freeway overpasses and in rail yards in the harsh
> cold winter climates in the northern lattitudes?

I thought that your earlier post was one of the most ill-thought-out
things I'd read in 15 years on Usenet...until I read this.
--
Noah

[Keith W]

"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Dave in San Diego > wrote:
>
>> "John A. Weeks III" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > In article t>,
>> > "D" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I just read in Defense News that the carrier USS America is going to
>> >> be sunk in tests off the East Coast of the US. They will detonate
>> >> various explosives aboard her to determine how much damage she takes.
>> >
>> > This is a travesty. They should tie up this ship next to some
>> > major city, and use it for housing homeless people. An aircraft
>> > carrier can hold 5000 or more people when sailing, so it should
>> > be no big deal to house 1000 homeless people, plus have deck
>> > space for another 500 tents. After all, the ship has all the
>> > living facilities like bunks, state rooms, plumbing, bathing,
>> > kitchens, cafeterias, etc. It is a shame to let such a valuable
>> > resource be destroyed like this.
>>
>> Who pays for the conversions to meet basic fire codes? Who pays for the
>> required environmental cleanup? Who pays to staff it? Who pays for the
>> continued maintenance?
>
> Who pays for everything else in America? Government and faith-based
> charities.
>
>> The USS Midway is currently docked at Navy Pier here in San Diego. It
>> required the expenditure of well over a million dollars to get it to its
>> present condition, and would require a lot more to get to a condition
>> where what you are proposing would be feasible.
>
> That cost is a drop in the bucket compared with the war in Iraq.
> It is also small compared to the crime and vandalism that currently
> happens to and due to people being homeless.
>

So campaign for public housing, hell it would be cheaper to
pay their rent at a local Motel than refurbish a CV as
an accomodation ship.


Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mike Kanze]

....Not to mention teaching them all of the petty "survival" tricks and
cultural understanding needed to thrive on shipboard, such as (for example):

* Water hours.
* Smoking lamp.
* Visiting the seabat.
* Mail buoy watches.
* Knowing when potable water is available from the scuttlebutt (and
conversely, knowing when you could refill your Zippo from the same source).
* Enjoying the Nth rerun of the same movie.

Etc.

--
Mike Kanze

"One phrase that no Member of Congress should ever use lightly is 'political
hack.' The ironic possibilities are too rich."

- Wall Street Journal (3/7/05)




"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
...
> Keith W wrote:
>> If you want an accomodation hulk a disused liner or cruise ship
>> is a FAR better bet and much more cost effective, better yet
>> any offshore yard will build one on a barge pretty quickly
>> and it'll be FAR cheaper than refurbishing and making safe
>> a CV which will definitely NOT meet the safety requirements
>> imposed by any fire department in the USA.
>
> Oh, it could, but before anyone could move aboard, you'd first have to
> send them (all 5000 residents) to basic firefighting school, then have
> recurrent training such as "general quarters" at least once a week and a
> main space fire drill about once a month... :)

[John A. Weeks III]

In article om>,
"Jeb Hoge" > wrote:

> Yeah, and then if they start getting uppity about living conditions,
> you can float the whole shebang out to sea some night and use it for a
> Shootex! Right, Weeks? That's a great idea you had there.

Well, if they move it out 12 miles, they can start their own
casino and get rich like the American Indians. It was only
a matter of time before some sicko would think of sailing
the thing out into open water and sinking it. 8-) But that
sicko wouldn't be me.

Seriously, in Phoenix, the very popular sheriff puts prisoners
in tent cities in the desert by the airport. At least on this
carrier, they could pitch tents in the hangar deck. That would
a least give the homeless people some real shelter. Some of
the carriers that I have seen have stacks of rooms for the
aircrews right under the flight deck. These rooms were left
vacant after the aircrews were moved under the hangar deck.
At any rate, the would make great dorm-style space. Or if
you don't want the homeless to get this facility, how about
making it into a jail? We are building half-billion dollar
prisons at fever pitch rates, yet we still cannot keep up with
all the people we want to put in jail. How about a floating
jail put 20 miles out to sea. There would be no escapes.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

[Gord Beaman]

"John A. Weeks III" > wrote:
>
>So, you are in favor of letting homeless people freeze to death
>sleeping under freeway overpasses and in rail yards in the harsh
>cold winter climates in the northern lattitudes?
>
>-john-

I hate it when people resort to 'tear jerking' to promote their
projects instead of using logical and sensible arguments. There's
lots of good reasons pro and con than resorting to this crap.
Smarten up.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Tiger]

John A. Weeks III wrote:

>In article t>,
> "D" > wrote:
>
>
>
>>I just read in Defense News that the carrier USS America is going to be sunk
>>in tests off the East Coast of the US. They will detonate various
>>explosives aboard her to determine how much damage she takes.
>>
>>
>
>This is a travesty. They should tie up this ship next to some
>major city, and use it for housing homeless people. An aircraft
>carrier can hold 5000 or more people when sailing, so it should
>be no big deal to house 1000 homeless people, plus have deck
>space for another 500 tents. After all, the ship has all the
>living facilities like bunks, state rooms, plumbing, bathing,
>kitchens, cafeterias, etc. It is a shame to let such a valuable
>resource be destroyed like this.
>
>-john-
>
>
>
Are you serious? :-\

[Tiger]

John A. Weeks III wrote:

>In article >,
> Dave in San Diego > wrote:
>
>
>
>>"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in
:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In article t>,
>>> "D" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I just read in Defense News that the carrier USS America is going to
>>>>be sunk in tests off the East Coast of the US. They will detonate
>>>>various explosives aboard her to determine how much damage she takes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>This is a travesty. They should tie up this ship next to some
>>>major city, and use it for housing homeless people. An aircraft
>>>carrier can hold 5000 or more people when sailing, so it should
>>>be no big deal to house 1000 homeless people, plus have deck
>>>space for another 500 tents. After all, the ship has all the
>>>living facilities like bunks, state rooms, plumbing, bathing,
>>>kitchens, cafeterias, etc. It is a shame to let such a valuable
>>>resource be destroyed like this.
>>>
>>>
>>Who pays for the conversions to meet basic fire codes? Who pays for the
>>required environmental cleanup? Who pays to staff it? Who pays for the
>>continued maintenance?
>>
>>
>
>Who pays for everything else in America? Government and faith-based
>charities.
>
>
>
>>The USS Midway is currently docked at Navy Pier here in San Diego. It
>>required the expenditure of well over a million dollars to get it to its
>>present condition, and would require a lot more to get to a condition
>>where what you are proposing would be feasible.
>>
>>
>
>That cost is a drop in the bucket compared with the war in Iraq.
>It is also small compared to the crime and vandalism that currently
>happens to and due to people being homeless.
>
>
>
>>I fear that such a project would quickly turn into a floating Cabrini
>>Green, for similar reasons, the foremost of which is lack of "pride of
>>ownership", somebody else's property, someone else's problems.
>>
>>
>
>So, you are in favor of letting homeless people freeze to death
>sleeping under freeway overpasses and in rail yards in the harsh
>cold winter climates in the northern lattitudes?
>
>-john-
>
>
>
Well instead of letting them freeze, we'll drive them to your place. 5
Pm Ok with you???

[Tiger]

John A. Weeks III wrote:

>In article om>,
> "Jeb Hoge" > wrote:
>
>
>
>>Yeah, and then if they start getting uppity about living conditions,
>>you can float the whole shebang out to sea some night and use it for a
>>Shootex! Right, Weeks? That's a great idea you had there.
>>
>>
>
>Well, if they move it out 12 miles, they can start their own
>casino and get rich like the American Indians. It was only
>a matter of time before some sicko would think of sailing
>the thing out into open water and sinking it. 8-) But that
>sicko wouldn't be me.
>
>Seriously, in Phoenix, the very popular sheriff puts prisoners
>in tent cities in the desert by the airport. At least on this
>carrier, they could pitch tents in the hangar deck. That would
>a least give the homeless people some real shelter. Some of
>the carriers that I have seen have stacks of rooms for the
>aircrews right under the flight deck. These rooms were left
>vacant after the aircrews were moved under the hangar deck.
>At any rate, the would make great dorm-style space. Or if
>you don't want the homeless to get this facility, how about
>making it into a jail? We are building half-billion dollar
>prisons at fever pitch rates, yet we still cannot keep up with
>all the people we want to put in jail. How about a floating
>jail put 20 miles out to sea. There would be no escapes.
>
>-john-
>
>
>
I'm quite sure there are existing shelters in your area on dry land. A
carrier seems like a very big & expensive solution.

[Dave in San Diego]

"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in
:

[redacted]

> So, you are in favor of letting homeless people freeze to death
> sleeping under freeway overpasses and in rail yards in the harsh
> cold winter climates in the northern lattitudes?
>
> -john-

Hmmm... let's see - harsh cold winter climates in the vicinity of ports
capable of supporting a carrier in a non-profit capacity:

West coast - Bremerton and Seattle don't have harsh cold winter climates,
nor do any ports south of there

East coast - Boston - not a likely candidate; small port
NY - maybe, but unlikely due to financials
Phila - See Boston and NY
Ports south - don't have harsh cold winter climates

So you would be proposing to not only house the homeless on this carrier,
but to transport them from their "home" cities to whatever port the
government can suck into hosting it.

BTW, John, have you ever lived on an aircraft carrier? Further responses
on my part depend on your answer.

Dave in San Diego
USS Midway, '80 - '83

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >,
Dave in San Diego > wrote:

> So you would be proposing to not only house the homeless on this carrier,
> but to transport them from their "home" cities to whatever port the
> government can suck into hosting it.

Sure. There are a lot of empty port facilities, so there should
be cities out there that would be happy to bring in a major
government white elephant project. There are lots of busses out
there. Greyhound has been hurting for years, so I think they
could give the government a good deal on transporting these
homeless people to their new home.

> BTW, John, have you ever lived on an aircraft carrier? Further responses
> on my part depend on your answer.

No. But how could that possibly make any difference. Have you
ever had a job working with the homeless people on a day to day
basis? If your answer is no, then are you really qualified to
respond any further?

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >,
Tiger > wrote:

> I'm quite sure there are existing shelters in your area on dry land. A
> carrier seems like a very big & expensive solution.

If so, then why are there still homeless people? Have you ever
been to San Francisco? The homeless are everywhere sleeping in
the sidewalks and doorways along Market Street. Get on the light
rail train about 11PM, and ride around San Francisco--you will get
the education of a lifetime. All they need to do is tie the
America up next to the Hornet, and they are ready to rock and roll.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >, Tiger >
wrote:
> Well instead of letting them freeze, we'll drive them to your place. 5
> Pm Ok with you???

I think you miss the point. I don't want homeless people sleeping
in my front yard. I want to find nice housing for them. An
aircraft carrier can hold thousands, and they are built for war,
so they should be able to hold up to the every day wear and tear
from a community of homeless people.

One idea that people are working on is to convert the mountains
of shipping containers into pre-fab homeless housing. In the
case of an aircraft carrier, you have almost all of the facilities
you need right there, so there wouldn't be much conversion to do.
We could even stack containers on the flight deck and make a
high rise unit to increase the capacity of the housing.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

[D]

----------
In article >, Noah Little >
wrote:

> John A. Weeks III wrote to Dave:
>> So, you are in favor of letting homeless people freeze to death
>> sleeping under freeway overpasses and in rail yards in the harsh
>> cold winter climates in the northern lattitudes?
>
> I thought that your earlier post was one of the most ill-thought-out
> things I'd read in 15 years on Usenet...until I read this.

He was trolling and caught a lot of fish.




D

[Scot Bearup]

Find me a city mayor willing to take a shipload of homeless people from all
parts of the country and I'll show you a mayor who will be looking for
another job in the immediate future. This idea is stupid. Not only is it
not cost effective, but from a liability standpoint its financial suicide.
"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Dave in San Diego > wrote:
>
>> So you would be proposing to not only house the homeless on this carrier,
>> but to transport them from their "home" cities to whatever port the
>> government can suck into hosting it.
>
> Sure. There are a lot of empty port facilities, so there should
> be cities out there that would be happy to bring in a major
> government white elephant project. There are lots of busses out
> there. Greyhound has been hurting for years, so I think they
> could give the government a good deal on transporting these
> homeless people to their new home.
>
>> BTW, John, have you ever lived on an aircraft carrier? Further responses
>> on my part depend on your answer.
>
> No. But how could that possibly make any difference. Have you
> ever had a job working with the homeless people on a day to day
> basis? If your answer is no, then are you really qualified to
> respond any further?
>
> -john-
>
> --
> ================================================== ====================
> John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
> Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
> ================================================== ====================

[Dave in San Diego]

"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Dave in San Diego > wrote:
>
>> BTW, John, have you ever lived on an aircraft carrier? Further
>> responses on my part depend on your answer.
>
> No. But how could that possibly make any difference. Have you
> ever had a job working with the homeless people on a day to day
> basis? If your answer is no, then are you really qualified to
> respond any further?

On a day-to-day basis, no, but I have done some work in our local shelters.

On my end, I spent almost three years sleeping on carriers, and am very
familiar with the plusses and minuses.

As for the practicality of your scheme, I think that you are painfully
unaware of exactly what will be involved in doing the conversion you
propose.

1. A carrier is a large metal structure that is, at best, poorly insulated
- cold in the winter, and hot in the summer. This requires a lot of energy
for environmental control. This is on top of ordinary ventilation
requirements.

2. When any Naval ship is decommissioned, it is stripped of most of the
furnishings, including mattresses, and similar creature comforts. This also
included all of the cooking equipment that is not permanently installed.
The facilities you speak of are, in many cases, no longer there. You are
looking at an almost total refit of the living spaces.

3. Meeting fire codes is a huge expense. All of the public access areas on
the carrier museums but be plumbed with sprinkler systems. This is a
significant expense. I'm sure a housing unit would be no different.

You say: "Who pays for everything else in America? Government and faith-
based charities."
Right. As long as it isn't coming out of *your* pocket, anything is
possible.

Sorry, my supply of troll food just dried up.

Dave in San Diego

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >,
"Scot Bearup" > wrote:

> Find me a city mayor willing to take a shipload of homeless people from all
> parts of the country and I'll show you a mayor who will be looking for
> another job in the immediate future. This idea is stupid. Not only is it
> not cost effective, but from a liability standpoint its financial suicide.

OK, its time to wind this discussion down. But one last tidbit...

Back in the 70's some guy who called himself "Bagwhan Ramesh" or
something to that effect chartered a bunch of busses and sent
them to various cities. He collected homeless people, and only
promised them a meal if they got on the bus. He took all these
people, thousands of them, to a place in the middle of nowhere
called Antelope, Montana. Bagwhan was already famous because
he had over 50 Rolls Royces, all painted in bizarre patterns like
flowers. The locals up there tried to throw this group out.
The responded by getting all the former homeless people to
register to vote. They voted all the natives out of office and
took over the city government. I don't recall what finally
happened. I think they failed to file taxes and the IRS got
them. At any rate, the entire town was forsale at one point.

It can be done. If you build it, they will come.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

[Jim Carriere]

Mike Kanze wrote:
> ...Not to mention teaching them all of the petty "survival" tricks and
> cultural understanding needed to thrive on shipboard, such as (for example):
>
> * Water hours.
> * Smoking lamp.
> * Visiting the seabat.
> * Mail buoy watches.
> * Knowing when potable water is available from the scuttlebutt (and
> conversely, knowing when you could refill your Zippo from the same source).
> * Enjoying the Nth rerun of the same movie.
>
> Etc.

LOL...
powdered eggs with Texas Pete sauce on top for breakfast
sliders and autodog

[John Miller]

John A. Weeks III wrote:
> OK, its time to wind this discussion down.

Way past time. Someone (was it you?) should be spanked for floating the
idea in the first place. But let me point out the likely reason for the
resistance you're encountering, because I believe you're not trolling,
merely misguided.

The homeless/carrier thing is simply the wrong solution to the wrong
problem. Like many well-intentioned people, you're attacking the
symptom rather than the cause. The focus should be on eliminating
homelessness, not warehousing the homeless.

But even if warehousing were the goal, putting them on an aircraft is,
if I may say so, a spectacularly bad way to do it. If you would only
reflect on it it a bit, you'd no doubt come to the same conclusion.

--
John Miller

[Keith W]

"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Scot Bearup" > wrote:
>
>> Find me a city mayor willing to take a shipload of homeless people from
>> all
>> parts of the country and I'll show you a mayor who will be looking for
>> another job in the immediate future. This idea is stupid. Not only is
>> it
>> not cost effective, but from a liability standpoint its financial
>> suicide.
>
> OK, its time to wind this discussion down. But one last tidbit...
>
> Back in the 70's some guy who called himself "Bagwhan Ramesh" or
> something to that effect chartered a bunch of busses and sent
> them to various cities. He collected homeless people, and only
> promised them a meal if they got on the bus. He took all these
> people, thousands of them, to a place in the middle of nowhere
> called Antelope, Montana. Bagwhan was already famous because
> he had over 50 Rolls Royces, all painted in bizarre patterns like
> flowers. The locals up there tried to throw this group out.
> The responded by getting all the former homeless people to
> register to vote. They voted all the natives out of office and
> took over the city government. I don't recall what finally
> happened. I think they failed to file taxes and the IRS got
> them. At any rate, the entire town was forsale at one point.
>

You have it almost totally wrong.

This was a cult led by the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and his followers
built the Rajneeshpuram commune. Not only did they have a habit of
flaunting land use ordinances and election laws but they took to poisoning
those who opposed them.

> It can be done. If you build it, they will come.
>

Thats what Jim Jones said in Guyana I believe.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Jim]

Jim Carriere wrote:

> LOL...
> powdered eggs with Texas Pete sauce on top for breakfast
> sliders and autodog

But as I recall the noname BBQ sauce was great.

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 21:27:35 -0600, "John A. Weeks III"
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Tiger > wrote:
>
>> I'm quite sure there are existing shelters in your area on dry land. A
>> carrier seems like a very big & expensive solution.
>
>If so, then why are there still homeless people?

Answer this question and you can get quite rich.

Have you ever
>been to San Francisco?

Yup.

The homeless are everywhere sleeping in
>the sidewalks and doorways along Market Street. Get on the light
>rail train about 11PM, and ride around San Francisco--you will get
>the education of a lifetime. All they need to do is tie the
>America up next to the Hornet, and they are ready to rock and roll.

Have you ever lived on a Big Grey Boat? If so, you would not make
this comment. If not, then you are speaking from a Great Well of
Ignorance.

A much better solution would be old troop ships, retired liners, etc.
This has already been suggested.

But the cost to do either would be vastly higher than just creating
places on dry land.

Bill Kambic

[Tiger]

John A. Weeks III wrote:

>In article >,
> Tiger > wrote:
>
>
>
>>I'm quite sure there are existing shelters in your area on dry land. A
>>carrier seems like a very big & expensive solution.
>>
>>
>
>If so, then why are there still homeless people? Have you ever
>been to San Francisco? The homeless are everywhere sleeping in
>the sidewalks and doorways along Market Street. Get on the light
>rail train about 11PM, and ride around San Francisco--you will get
>the education of a lifetime. All they need to do is tie the
>America up next to the Hornet, and they are ready to rock and roll.
>
>-john-
>
>
>
Never Been to San Fran. Stayed in San Deigo for a while thanks to Uncle
Sam. Most of the guys on the street tend to be folks who either don't
like shelters or have been kicked out for bad behavior. Now if you said
open some unused Base housing units at a place like the Presido or NAS
Alameda and then I would agree with you. Those are real houses....

[Mike Kanze]

>Now if you said open some unused Base housing units at a place like the
>Presido or NAS Alameda and then I would agree with you. Those are real
>houses....

"Were" is more operative.

Much of the Presidio housing has been razed and the rest is mostly being
used for its original purpose. At the former NAS Alameda, ALL of the
"outside the gate" Capehart housing has been flattened and the land is being
"redeveloped" with current stock, while that remaining on the former base
proper is being used for - housing. Similar with the housing on-board
Moffett Federal Airfield (ex-NAS Moffett Field), today a NASA facility.

There were any number of hare-brained schemes by former San Francisco Mayor
Willie Brown's Administration to house the homeless at the former NS
Treasure Island, but none of these got off the ground. All of these were as
poorly conceived as Mr. Weeks' suggestion and many were even worse.

Much of the housing stock on "BRACed" bases is very old or expensive to
maintain, or has contamination issues ranging from lead-based paints to
proximity with Superfund-grade contamination. This problem would be even
greater if people were housed on WWII construction ships due to asbestos,
lead, volatile organic compounds, etc., which brings us right back to one of
the main reasons that the Gummint plans to turn AMERICA into a crab condo.

Meanwhile, the voters in San Francisco approved a "care not cash" program
for addressing the very large homeless population. In the resulting absence
of generous cash payouts, San Francisco's homeless population has declined
significantly.

--
Mike Kanze

"One phrase that no Member of Congress should ever use lightly is 'political
hack.' The ironic possibilities are too rich."

- Wall Street Journal (3/7/05)




"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Tiger > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I'm quite sure there are existing shelters in your area on dry land. A
>>>carrier seems like a very big & expensive solution.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>If so, then why are there still homeless people? Have you ever
>>been to San Francisco? The homeless are everywhere sleeping in
>>the sidewalks and doorways along Market Street. Get on the light
>>rail train about 11PM, and ride around San Francisco--you will get
>>the education of a lifetime. All they need to do is tie the
>>America up next to the Hornet, and they are ready to rock and roll.
>>
>>-john-
>>
>>
>>
> Never Been to San Fran. Stayed in San Deigo for a while thanks to Uncle
> Sam. Most of the guys on the street tend to be folks who either don't
> like shelters or have been kicked out for bad behavior. Now if you said
> open some unused Base housing units at a place like the Presido or NAS
> Alameda and then I would agree with you. Those are real houses....
>
>

[Tiger]

Mike Kanze wrote:

>>Now if you said open some unused Base housing units at a place like the
>>Presido or NAS Alameda and then I would agree with you. Those are real
>>houses....
>>
>>
>
>"Were" is more operative.
>
>Much of the Presidio housing has been razed and the rest is mostly being
>used for its original purpose. At the former NAS Alameda, ALL of the
>"outside the gate" Capehart housing has been flattened and the land is being
>"redeveloped" with current stock, while that remaining on the former base
>proper is being used for - housing. Similar with the housing on-board
>Moffett Federal Airfield (ex-NAS Moffett Field), today a NASA facility.
>
>There were any number of hare-brained schemes by former San Francisco Mayor
>Willie Brown's Administration to house the homeless at the former NS
>Treasure Island, but none of these got off the ground. All of these were as
>poorly conceived as Mr. Weeks' suggestion and many were even worse.
>
>Much of the housing stock on "BRACed" bases is very old or expensive to
>maintain, or has contamination issues ranging from lead-based paints to
>proximity with Superfund-grade contamination. This problem would be even
>greater if people were housed on WWII construction ships due to asbestos,
>lead, volatile organic compounds, etc., which brings us right back to one of
>the main reasons that the Gummint plans to turn AMERICA into a crab condo.
>
>Meanwhile, the voters in San Francisco approved a "care not cash" program
>for addressing the very large homeless population. In the resulting absence
>of generous cash payouts, San Francisco's homeless population has declined
>significantly.
>
>
>
Hmmm, tore them down. Well they would been nicer quarters than the
America.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >,
John Miller > wrote:

> But even if warehousing were the goal, putting them on an aircraft is,
> if I may say so, a spectacularly bad way to do it. If you would only
> reflect on it it a bit, you'd no doubt come to the same conclusion.

Actually, I thought the symbolism would be very powerful...using
the most powerful warship afloat to help fight the war on poverty
and homelessness. And of retasking billions of dollars of cold
war spending into a humanitarian project for the 21st century.

A had not intentions of simply "warehousing" people. Like
someone pointed out, there is a lot to running one of these
boats. That would give work to the residents to keep the
place operating. And the hangar deck is big enough to play
football on one end, soccer on the other end, and still have
room for a band and tennis court in the middle. The carriers
that I have toured have post offices, doctor's offices, a
dentist office, kitchens, shops, radio rooms, and all kinds
of stuff to keep people busy and making a contribution.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================