USS America

[Dave in San Diego]

Retired Carrier Sunk Off Atlantic Coast

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050521/ap_on_re_us/carrier_sunk

[Jimmy G]

Made the 1970 World Cruise. VA-146 line crew. I hope they learned alot by
sinking her. Sad.

"Dave in San Diego" > wrote in message
. ..
> Retired Carrier Sunk Off Atlantic Coast
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050521/ap_on_re_us/carrier_sunk

[_]

"Jimmy G" > wrote in message
...
> Made the 1970 World Cruise. VA-146 line crew. I hope they learned alot by
> sinking her. Sad.

It is a sad day.

I made a Med Cruise with the "Rooks" of VAQ-137 under the exceptional
leadership of CDR Ewell. We had a real tight Chiefs Mess and lot's of good
times.

Somehow it does not do her justice to be sitting on the 1,000 fathom line!

[Walt Morgan]

It makes you wonder. doesn't it? Why the America and not one of the
othere retired carriers. I'll bet real money that the same doesn't
happen to the JFK when she's retired.
I was on the America for the '81 cruise to the Med and IO We were the
first carrier to transit the Suez Canal since, what 1956? We made the
entire cruise without losing a plane. Should have gotten the battle E
for that cruise. But the powers that be thought it was politically
incorrect that a non-nuke was a better at its job than a nuke. I did
the subsequent '83 cruise also. A fine ship with a fine crew.

Walt
ISC, USN (RET)

Sun, 22 May 2005 05:23:36 GMT, Dave in San Diego
> wrote:

>Retired Carrier Sunk Off Atlantic Coast
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050521/ap_on_re_us/carrier_sunk

[Mac]

I made the Nam cruise in 1972 and also am saddened that the ship was
sunk. But since when did things in the Navy make sense? Why is the
Kitty still in service? Why are people fighting over decom of the
Kennedy? Why are Forrestal and Saratoga on the donate to museum list
while the America was denied that status? Why was America decommed
before other ships that were older?

[Guy Alcala]

Mac wrote:

<snip>

> Why was America decommed
> before other ships that were older?

IIRR, it was because America was next in line to be SLEPed while the
others had already gotten theirs. So when either Stennis or Truman (I
forget which) commissioned, America was the obvious choice to
decommission, saving a bundle of money that would otherwise have to have
been spent on a SLEP refit.

Guy

[Jim]

Mac wrote:
> Why is the Kitty still in service?

Perhaps the material condition overall? Attributable to the rotten XO's
we had over the years doing their jobs. :)

Recall once when pierside at NORIS the Enterprise was tied up there as
well. Looked like a rust bucket. Word had it that AIRPAC felt the same.

If the same standards are still being maintained it wouldn't be any
surprise. I'm sure the aircrew here who've served on several boats can
provide many comparisons.



ACC USN ret.
NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
&
74-77

Founder: rec.aviation.military.naval
RAMN

[Andrew Venor]

Mac wrote:

> I made the Nam cruise in 1972 and also am saddened that the ship was
> sunk. But since when did things in the Navy make sense? Why is the
> Kitty still in service?

The America was the next ship on the list awaiting her SLEP when the
call came down decommission a CV to save money in the 1990's. The Kitty
Hawk had already been through it's SLEP by then.

> Why are people fighting over decom of the Kennedy?

That's not so much a battle to save the Kennedy, but a fight to keep a
CV/CVN homeported in Jacksonville. I'm sure the local officials would
be just as happy if the JFK were retired and a CVN was moved to JAX as a
replacement so the base could stay open.

> Why are Forrestal and Saratoga on the donate to museum list
> while the America was denied that status?

That I don't know. Maybe they were in a better material condition?
Unfortunately their isn't enough public interest or money out there to
save every retired CV for museum duty.

> Why was America decommed before other ships that were older?

Aside from the SLEP issue, I remember their was a bit of a scandal in
the news over the America's poor material state towards the end of her
service. The cost of fixing those problems on top of the standard SLEP
costs at might have also played a factor in the decision.

ALV

[Mac]

Jim wrote:
> Mac wrote:
> > Why is the Kitty still in service?
>
> Perhaps the material condition overall? Attributable to the rotten
XO's
> we had over the years doing their jobs. :)
>
> Recall once when pierside at NORIS the Enterprise was tied up there
as
> well. Looked like a rust bucket. Word had it that AIRPAC felt the
same.
>
> If the same standards are still being maintained it wouldn't be any
> surprise. I'm sure the aircrew here who've served on several boats
can
> provide many comparisons.
>
>
>
> ACC USN ret.
> NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
> 67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
> &
> 74-77
>
> Founder: rec.aviation.military.naval
> RAMN

My first hand knowledge stopped in 1972 when I left the America.
During 1971 and 72 I visited Saratoga, Forrestal, Kitty Hawk, Oriskany,
and Hancock. Being a typical sailor all the other carriers seemed
better than America - but that was a very subjective opinion.
I, too, heard rumors of unacceptable condition just prior to
decommissioning. There were (are) persistant rumors that the America
was to be a Nuc but was pushed out as a conventional carrier with parts
borrowed from many other decommissioned vessels.
I do know that there were many problems with major systems during the
'72-73 cruise.
Most of my earlier questions were more retorical that actual. I
realize why America was decommed and then blown up but it still give me
pause.

[Mike Kanze]

Walt & others,

Unfortunately, and as much as we would otherwise prefer, it is not possible
to save each and every one of these great ships. The costs of such endeavors
are daunting and an unforeseen turn of events (like 9/11's impact on
tourism) can easily overwhelm even the best-founded preservation and
exhibition plans. One need look no farther than the troubles the Aircraft
Carrier Hornet Foundation is currently experiencing. My own feeling is that
we are probably doing well if we are able to preserve one or at most two of
each class of these great ships. Beyond that, the economics become very
dicey, IMHO.

I can certainly understand and sympathize with everyone who has seen any
ship on which they have served come to its end, especially if that ship
holds memories of camaraderie and jobs well done. In my own case, every ship
on which I have ever served or just visited is either razor blades (USS
CORAL SEA (CV-43), USS SYLVANIA (AFS-2)), reposing in Davy Jones' Locker
(USS BRAINE (DD-630): sold to Argentina and later expended as an Exocet
target), or awaiting its ultimate fate (USS RANGER (CV-61): stricken from
the Naval Vessel Register last year).

--
Mike Kanze

"The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation
between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting
done by fools and its thinking by cowards."

- Sir William Francis Butler

"Walt Morgan" > wrote in message
news:1116770064.e572bb6237e7e614504f29062f70f8ee@t eranews...
>
> It makes you wonder. doesn't it? Why the America and not one of the
> othere retired carriers. I'll bet real money that the same doesn't
> happen to the JFK when she's retired.
> I was on the America for the '81 cruise to the Med and IO We were the
> first carrier to transit the Suez Canal since, what 1956? We made the
> entire cruise without losing a plane. Should have gotten the battle E
> for that cruise. But the powers that be thought it was politically
> incorrect that a non-nuke was a better at its job than a nuke. I did
> the subsequent '83 cruise also. A fine ship with a fine crew.
>
> Walt
> ISC, USN (RET)
>
> Sun, 22 May 2005 05:23:36 GMT, Dave in San Diego
> > wrote:
>
>>Retired Carrier Sunk Off Atlantic Coast
>>
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050521/ap_on_re_us/carrier_sunk
>

[[email protected]]

I made the IO/MED cruise on CV-66 in '81. The America was the dirtest
ship I was ever on. I was on 5 carriers. But it was a safe ship with a
pretty good crew.

To me the America was chosen to be sunk because it more closely
resembles a Nimitz class carrier than to the Forrestal class now out of
service. The Chinese have been practicing sinking carriers. Also it
was decomissioned early because of poor material condition.. The ship
was never SLEP'ed.. What about the Connie? It was on the west coast and
NAVSEA who run the test is on the east coast.

Why the sink a carrier? The Chinese have a anti ship cruise missile,
the Sunburn, when loaded with a tactical nuke warhead could sink a
carrier. The missile travels at twice the speed of sound.

Could it be that the Navy sunk her with some captured munitions from
the mid east? Perhaps some munitions bought from China,sold to N. Korea
and then sold to a country in the Middle East? Who knows??

[[email protected]]

""There were (are) persistant rumors that the America
was to be a Nuc but was pushed out as a conventional carrier with parts
borrowed from many other decommissioned vessels.""

Not true. the America was always intended to be conventionally powered.

The JFK however was orignally designed to be a nuke. During
construction Robert McNamara, in a cost cutting move, had the JFK
changed to a conventional powered ship.

I served on the JFK in '72 & '73 and the Nimitz in '91. From the Hangar
deck to the flight deck up to the flight deck they are about 85%
identical.

[[email protected]]

Wonder why no pics of the actual sinking have been released, secrecy?
concern over the public response? concern over the vets feelings?

[Scott Peterson]

Dave in San Diego > wrote:

>Retired Carrier Sunk Off Atlantic Coast
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050521/ap_on_re_us/carrier_sunk


Has anyone seen any pictures of these tests?

This seemed to happen awfully quickly. Usually it takes years and
lots of manpower and money to prepare a ship and remove all the
contaminants, asbestos, etc.

Anyone else think that the Navy short circuited some of the
environmental regulations they're supposed to follow?

Scott Peterson

--
A king has no proper business with reforming.
His best policy is to keep things as they are; and
if he can't do that, he ought to try to make them
worse than they are.
Mark Twain

17/612

[Keith W]

"Scott Peterson" > wrote in message
...
> Dave in San Diego > wrote:
>
>>Retired Carrier Sunk Off Atlantic Coast
>>
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050521/ap_on_re_us/carrier_sunk
>
>
> Has anyone seen any pictures of these tests?
>
> This seemed to happen awfully quickly. Usually it takes years and
> lots of manpower and money to prepare a ship and remove all the
> contaminants, asbestos, etc.
>

The level of preparation depends on the final disposition. Ships
that are going to be sunk in shallow waters or fishing grounds
as artificial reefs obviously need more preparation than those
being sunk in deep oceanic waters.


> Anyone else think that the Navy short circuited some of the
> environmental regulations they're supposed to follow?
>

CVA-66 was decomissioned in 1996, 9 years seems an
adequate period for preparation.

Keith

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 5/23/05 9:23 PM, in article , "Scott
Peterson" > wrote:

> Dave in San Diego > wrote:
>
>> Retired Carrier Sunk Off Atlantic Coast
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050521/ap_on_re_us/carrier_sunk
>
>
> Has anyone seen any pictures of these tests?
>
> This seemed to happen awfully quickly. Usually it takes years and
> lots of manpower and money to prepare a ship and remove all the
> contaminants, asbestos, etc.
>
> Anyone else think that the Navy short circuited some of the
> environmental regulations they're supposed to follow?
>
> Scott Peterson
>

Last time I had the opportunity to hear about the preparation for a SINKEX,
the EPA had reps on site to ensure that proper environmental procedures were
followed.

This one, of course, was bigger than any others I've heard of, so I'd bet a
rep was present.

I doubt that the Navy could have circumvented any procedures--even if they
had wanted to. Your comments seem to attach a bit of mistrust.

--Woody

[José Herculano]

>> Has anyone seen any pictures of these tests?
>>
>> This seemed to happen awfully quickly. Usually it takes years and
>> lots of manpower and money to prepare a ship and remove all the
>> contaminants, asbestos, etc.

The decision to sink the America was taken a couple of years ago. According
to the planning that was made public, all the environment issues have been
addressed since then. It would be very odd if you came across pictures of
the actual sinking. It was a full exercise to evaluate the amount of real
punishment, from a number of strikes, that a big CV can take and function /
survive. Guess top secret would be the minimum clearance needed to see
those.
_____________
José Herculano

[John Miller]

José Herculano wrote:
> Guess top secret would be the minimum clearance needed to see
> those.

Not only that, but also need to know.

--
John Miller
email domain: n4vu.com; username: jsm(@)

[Walt Morgan]

It's still intersting that they chose the America. In addition to
being ships campany on the America I made 3 cruises on the USS Midway
with CCG-3 Staff, did pre-deployment work-ups on the USS Coral Sea,
USS Hancock and the USS Ranger (74-76). During 68-69 I made cruises on
the USS Kitty Hawk and the USS Constellation as part of CCG-5/CTF-77.
Of all those ships the Ranger was the worst. Not operationally but
materially. Evedy time we left the pier we went on water hours. Coral
Sea was suppose to be in terrible shape. There were rtumors, and IIRC
an artile in a SanDiego papers, that she was in such terrible shape
that you could stomp real hard a punch a hole in her hull throught the
rust. Of course she made several deployments after that and was still
steaming up until the day they decommissioned her.
IMHO the USS Midway was the best. We did an exercise with the
Enterprises once and launched more planes with two cats than she could
launch with four.But then Midway was a full time carrier. All the
carriers deployed to Japan were and are full time carriers.
But in the end I suspect the America, having not gone through SLEP,
was in the worst material condition.
I'll add one thing, who will bet that the Kitty Hawk is not preserved?

Walt

On Mon, 23 May 2005 11:01:40 -0700, "Mike Kanze"
> wrote:

>Walt & others,
>
>Unfortunately, and as much as we would otherwise prefer, it is not possible
>to save each and every one of these great ships. The costs of such endeavors
>are daunting and an unforeseen turn of events (like 9/11's impact on
>tourism) can easily overwhelm even the best-founded preservation and
>exhibition plans. One need look no farther than the troubles the Aircraft
>Carrier Hornet Foundation is currently experiencing. My own feeling is that
>we are probably doing well if we are able to preserve one or at most two of
>each class of these great ships. Beyond that, the economics become very
>dicey, IMHO.
>
>I can certainly understand and sympathize with everyone who has seen any
>ship on which they have served come to its end, especially if that ship
>holds memories of camaraderie and jobs well done. In my own case, every ship
>on which I have ever served or just visited is either razor blades (USS
>CORAL SEA (CV-43), USS SYLVANIA (AFS-2)), reposing in Davy Jones' Locker
>(USS BRAINE (DD-630): sold to Argentina and later expended as an Exocet
>target), or awaiting its ultimate fate (USS RANGER (CV-61): stricken from
>the Naval Vessel Register last year).

[Mike Kanze]

Walt,

Your observations are probably typical, for any range of ships similar to
those you cited.

>Of all those ships the Ranger was the worst.

No argument here. Although my experience aboard her was very short (1 week),
I do have some "inside knowledge" as my Dad was her Air Boss during the
early 1960s. Even then her 1200 psi power plant was a bitch.

>There were rtumors, and IIRC an artile in a SanDiego papers, that [CORAL
>SEA] was in such terrible shape that you could stomp real hard a punch a
>hole in her hull throught the rust.

I have heard (or heard of) that gripe expressed about any less-than
"well-loved" ship, starting with my 1966 Midshipman cruise aboard USS BRAINE
(DD-630). The BRAINE's variant was that you shouldn't wield the chipping
hammer too smartly against the hull for fear of it going right on through.

>All the carriers deployed to Japan were and are full time carriers.

And they "lived" in a shipyard (Yokosuka) when not operating, which
certainly did not hurt their material condition.

--
Mike Kanze

"The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation
between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting
done by fools and its thinking by cowards."

- Sir William Francis Butler

"Walt Morgan" > wrote in message
news:1116946614.354790feb20ca353469974986bb9e7cc@t eranews...
> It's still intersting that they chose the America. In addition to
> being ships campany on the America I made 3 cruises on the USS Midway
> with CCG-3 Staff, did pre-deployment work-ups on the USS Coral Sea,
> USS Hancock and the USS Ranger (74-76). During 68-69 I made cruises on
> the USS Kitty Hawk and the USS Constellation as part of CCG-5/CTF-77.
> Of all those ships the Ranger was the worst. Not operationally but
> materially. Evedy time we left the pier we went on water hours. Coral
> Sea was suppose to be in terrible shape. There were rtumors, and IIRC
> an artile in a SanDiego papers, that she was in such terrible shape
> that you could stomp real hard a punch a hole in her hull throught the
> rust. Of course she made several deployments after that and was still
> steaming up until the day they decommissioned her.
> IMHO the USS Midway was the best. We did an exercise with the
> Enterprises once and launched more planes with two cats than she could
> launch with four.But then Midway was a full time carrier. All the
> carriers deployed to Japan were and are full time carriers.
> But in the end I suspect the America, having not gone through SLEP,
> was in the worst material condition.
> I'll add one thing, who will bet that the Kitty Hawk is not preserved?
>
> Walt
>
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 11:01:40 -0700, "Mike Kanze"
> > wrote:
>
>>Walt & others,
>>
>>Unfortunately, and as much as we would otherwise prefer, it is not
>>possible
>>to save each and every one of these great ships. The costs of such
>>endeavors
>>are daunting and an unforeseen turn of events (like 9/11's impact on
>>tourism) can easily overwhelm even the best-founded preservation and
>>exhibition plans. One need look no farther than the troubles the Aircraft
>>Carrier Hornet Foundation is currently experiencing. My own feeling is
>>that
>>we are probably doing well if we are able to preserve one or at most two
>>of
>>each class of these great ships. Beyond that, the economics become very
>>dicey, IMHO.
>>
>>I can certainly understand and sympathize with everyone who has seen any
>>ship on which they have served come to its end, especially if that ship
>>holds memories of camaraderie and jobs well done. In my own case, every
>>ship
>>on which I have ever served or just visited is either razor blades (USS
>>CORAL SEA (CV-43), USS SYLVANIA (AFS-2)), reposing in Davy Jones' Locker
>>(USS BRAINE (DD-630): sold to Argentina and later expended as an Exocet
>>target), or awaiting its ultimate fate (USS RANGER (CV-61): stricken from
>>the Naval Vessel Register last year).
>

[Mike Kanze]

Scott,

>Anyone else think that the Navy short circuited some of the environmental
>regulations they're supposed to follow?

I don't. Sounds as if you may have an agenda in your post.

Others in this NG have separately cited the length of time that the Navy has
been preparing for this SINKEX. If you are truly interested - and not just
trolling - do a Google search on the plans and environmental preparations
for the upcoming scuttling of the former USS ORISKANY (CV-34) as an
artificial reef off the Florida Panhandle. One example of these is the
removal of ORISKANY's wooden flight deck planking due to PCB contamination.
This will give you perhaps the most comparable analog to what the Navy did
to prepare AMERICA.

--
Mike Kanze

"The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation
between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting
done by fools and its thinking by cowards."

- Sir William Francis Butler

"Scott Peterson" > wrote in message
...
> Dave in San Diego > wrote:
>
>>Retired Carrier Sunk Off Atlantic Coast
>>
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050521/ap_on_re_us/carrier_sunk
>
>
> Has anyone seen any pictures of these tests?
>
> This seemed to happen awfully quickly. Usually it takes years and
> lots of manpower and money to prepare a ship and remove all the
> contaminants, asbestos, etc.
>
> Anyone else think that the Navy short circuited some of the
> environmental regulations they're supposed to follow?
>
> Scott Peterson
>
> --
> A king has no proper business with reforming.
> His best policy is to keep things as they are; and
> if he can't do that, he ought to try to make them
> worse than they are.
> Mark Twain
>
> 17/612

[Dave in San Diego]

"Mike Kanze" > wrote in
:

[redacted]

> And they "lived" in a shipyard (Yokosuka) when not operating, which
> certainly did not hurt their material condition.

I don't have statistics for other carriers, but in my three years in
Midway (May '80 - May '83) I present these:

At sea - @ 540 days
In port Yokosuka - @ 275 days
In port elsewhere - @ 275 days

Of the in port Yokosuka time, only once did we spend more that 21 days at
a time there, and that was the 76 day EISRA (free donut if you know what
that spells out to) in 1981 or 1982.

Since we had such short in port periods, it was always in an industrial
environment.

BTW, y'all need to come to SD to see the Midway. They are opening more
and more of it up all the time. Most recent new areas are the Foc'sl and
an engine room.

Dave in San Diego
AT1 USN (Ret)
CV-41 '80 - '83

[_]

"Dave in San Diego" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Mike Kanze" > wrote in
> :
>
> [redacted]
>
> > And they "lived" in a shipyard (Yokosuka) when not operating, which
> > certainly did not hurt their material condition.
>
> I don't have statistics for other carriers, but in my three years in
> Midway (May '80 - May '83) I present these:
>
> At sea - @ 540 days
> In port Yokosuka - @ 275 days
> In port elsewhere - @ 275 days
>
> Of the in port Yokosuka time, only once did we spend more that 21 days at
> a time there, and that was the 76 day EISRA (free donut if you know what
> that spells out to) in 1981 or 1982.
>
> Since we had such short in port periods, it was always in an industrial
> environment.
>
> BTW, y'all need to come to SD to see the Midway. They are opening more
> and more of it up all the time. Most recent new areas are the Foc'sl and
> an engine room.
>
> Dave in San Diego
> AT1 USN (Ret)
> CV-41 '80 - '83






>EISRA (free donut if you know what that spells out to)
Emergency In Service Refit Activity?????

[Scott Peterson]

"Keith W" > wrote:

>
>CVA-66 was decomissioned in 1996, 9 years seems an
>adequate period for preparation.

True but they only announced that she'd be used for these tests two or
three months ago.

Scott Peterson

--
Auntie EM:
"Hate you,
hate Kansas,
taking the dog"
--Dorothy

132/612

[Scott Peterson]

"Mike Kanze" > wrote:

>I don't. Sounds as if you may have an agenda in your post.
>

Don't waste time looking for what's not there. It's a legitimate
question as the navy does not have a particularly good environmental
record.

>Others in this NG have separately cited the length of time that the Navy has
>been preparing for this SINKEX.

Did look. Did you? It was first announced by the Navy about the
beginning of March, this year. Their announcement at that time said
that "some" materials had been removed.



>If you are truly interested - and not just
>trolling - do a Google search on the plans and environmental preparations
>for the upcoming scuttling of the former USS ORISKANY (CV-34) as an
>artificial reef off the Florida Panhandle. One example of these is the
>removal of ORISKANY's wooden flight deck planking due to PCB contamination.
>This will give you perhaps the most comparable analog to what the Navy did
>to prepare AMERICA.
>

Yes and it's taking 2 years plus on a ship less than half the size of
the America. Oriskany is also having to make two trips between
Florida and Texas to avoid hurricanes while they are working on her.

....and yet the Navy is able to prepare the America for this in months
instead of years, with no money or manpower explicitly budgeted?





>--


Scott Peterson

--
After eating, do amphibians have to wait an
hour before getting out of the water?

127/612

[Joe Delphi]

"Scott Peterson" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
>
> >I don't. Sounds as if you may have an agenda in your post.
> >
>
> Don't waste time looking for what's not there. It's a legitimate
> question as the navy does not have a particularly good environmental
> record.
>
> >Others in this NG have separately cited the length of time that the Navy
has
> >been preparing for this SINKEX.
>
> Did look. Did you? It was first announced by the Navy about the
> beginning of March, this year. Their announcement at that time said
> that "some" materials had been removed.
>
<SNIP>

Just because the Navy issued a press release in March doesn't mean that the
advance planning and material removal had not been going on for some time
before that. Since America was non-nuclear, that takes care of one of the
large environmental problems right there.

Wonder if they have to do an EIR - Environmental Impact Report, for this
type of thing?

[Scott Peterson]

"Joe Delphi" > wrote:

>Just because the Navy issued a press release in March doesn't mean that the
>advance planning and material removal had not been going on for some time
>before that. Since America was non-nuclear, that takes care of one of the
>large environmental problems right there.
>

Totally understand that. It's very clear that some planning had been
going on before the announcement. but generally ships used like this
are in many ways cleaner than when they were built.

>Wonder if they have to do an EIR - Environmental Impact Report, for this
>type of thing?

That's what I was wondering. Usually, like the old joke, when there's
enough paperwork to weigh down the ship, it sinks. Maybe as someone
suggested, a ship sunk this deep does not require the same effort as
one sunk closer to shore. I don't know, it seems to have gone through
awfully quickly for an operation of this size.



Scott Peterson

--
Rome did not create a great empire
by having meetings...they did it by
killing all those who opposed them.

417/612

[[email protected]]

I think secrecy is the reason. THe Navy does not want anyone to know
how they sunk the ship. I hope it took a lot to put her down.

Gerry H

[Dave in San Diego]

"_" > wrote in :

>
>>EISRA (free donut if you know what that spells out to)
> Emergency In Service Refit Activity?????

Not even close. I'll take a few more guesses before I spell it out.

Dave

[Yeff]

On Wed, 25 May 2005 16:49:04 GMT, Dave in San Diego wrote:

> "_" > wrote in :
>
>>
>>>EISRA (free donut if you know what that spells out to)
>> Emergency In Service Refit Activity?????
>
> Not even close. I'll take a few more guesses before I spell it out.

I Googled it. It's a mouthful.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail dot fm

[Gord Beaman]

Dave in San Diego > wrote:

>"_" > wrote in :
>
>>
>>>EISRA (free donut if you know what that spells out to)
>> Emergency In Service Refit Activity?????
>
>Not even close. I'll take a few more guesses before I spell it out.
>
>Dave

Excellence in Statistical Reporting Award
(I take cream and sugar)
--


-Gord.

"I'm trying to get as old as I can,
and it must be working 'cause I'm
the oldest now that I've ever been"

[[email protected]]

Sir you are mis-informed. As former crew member of the America I have
been following the planned sinking of the ship for a couple of years
now. Click this link for information and some letters to the USS
America Carriers Veterans Association from the Navy concerning the
planned sinkink of the ship:

http://www.ussamerica.org/final_mission.htm

It cost the Navy $22 million dollars to sink the ship.

I would suggest thst you go to navy.mil to search for USS America CV-66

Gerry Hamm USN/retired

[José Herculano]

"Dave in San Diego" > wrote in message
. ..
> "_" > wrote in :
>
>>
>>>EISRA (free donut if you know what that spells out to)
>> Emergency In Service Refit Activity?????
>
> Not even close. I'll take a few more guesses before I spell it out.
>
> Dave

Extended Incremental Selected Restricted Availability.

Donut? Donut? =)'

_____________
José Herculano

[[email protected]]

The Oriskany is being sunk as a artifical reef in shallow water. There
fore more preperation. The Navy made the offical announcment about the
America sinking in December 2004. It has been been planned for the last
couple of years. The USN spent $22 million to sink the ship.

http://www.ussamerica.org/

The men operating that site tried in vain for years to save the ship
from being sunk.
If you want the true story about what happened to the America go to the
above website. Scroll down to the links on the bottom of the page and
click on Americas final mission. On that page you will find copies of
the offical letters noting the sinking of the ship. Email the webmaster
of that page and he will send you most anything you want to know about
the sinking of that ship.

Gerry Hamm USN/retired

[Mike Kanze]

Scott,

>Did look. Did you?

Re-read the thread. And when you do you will find further, especially that
by Gerry Hamm.

>Yes and it's taking 2 years plus on a ship less than half the size of the
>America.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Different ship, built in a different
era = different contaminants. For example, there was no wooden flight deck
planking on AMERICA, thus no need to remediate that potential pollution
source. Other contaminants on AMERICA exist only in de minimus quantities
(quantities so small as not to be any hazard) or have been controlled
(through encapsulation, neutralization, etc.) over the years.

Further, ORISKANY was decommissioned and mothballed in 1976, some time
before the passage and implementation of the key pieces of environmental
legislation (RECRA, CERCLA, etc.) that most affect the use, control, and
mitigation of pollutants. So it is not surprising that, weather factors
excluded, it took ~2 years to ready ORISKANY.

>...and yet the Navy is able to prepare the America for this in months
instead of years,

Wrong again, basis posts in this NG by others.

>with no money or manpower explicitly budgeted?

Please cite the source for your statement that "no money or manpower [was]
explicitly budgeted."

--
Mike Kanze

"The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation
between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting
done by fools and its thinking by cowards."

- Sir William Francis Butler

"Scott Peterson" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
>
>>I don't. Sounds as if you may have an agenda in your post.
>>
>
> Don't waste time looking for what's not there. It's a legitimate
> question as the navy does not have a particularly good environmental
> record.
>
>>Others in this NG have separately cited the length of time that the Navy
>>has
>>been preparing for this SINKEX.
>
> Did look. Did you? It was first announced by the Navy about the
> beginning of March, this year. Their announcement at that time said
> that "some" materials had been removed.
>
>
>
>>If you are truly interested - and not just
>>trolling - do a Google search on the plans and environmental preparations
>>for the upcoming scuttling of the former USS ORISKANY (CV-34) as an
>>artificial reef off the Florida Panhandle. One example of these is the
>>removal of ORISKANY's wooden flight deck planking due to PCB
>>contamination.
>>This will give you perhaps the most comparable analog to what the Navy did
>>to prepare AMERICA.
>>
>
> Yes and it's taking 2 years plus on a ship less than half the size of
> the America. Oriskany is also having to make two trips between
> Florida and Texas to avoid hurricanes while they are working on her.
>
> ...and yet the Navy is able to prepare the America for this in months
> instead of years, with no money or manpower explicitly budgeted?
>
>
>
>
>
>>--
>
>
> Scott Peterson
>
> --
> After eating, do amphibians have to wait an
> hour before getting out of the water?
>
> 127/612

[Scott Peterson]

wrote:

>The men operating that site tried in vain for years to save the ship
>from being sunk.
>If you want the true story about what happened to the America go to the
>above website. Scroll down to the links on the bottom of the page and
>click on Americas final mission. On that page you will find copies of
>the offical letters noting the sinking of the ship. Email the webmaster
>of that page and he will send you most anything you want to know about
>the sinking of that ship.

I know they've been trying to save it, although as I understand it,
the Navy has consistently turned them down saying that the ships
condition was not suitable for a nuseum ship. But it looks like they
were only told on Dec 15, 2004 that the ship was going to be used in
these these tests. That's 3 months earlier than the Navy public press
release on this.

However, it does indicate that they've been working on the ship for
some time to remove anything that might be needed. It does not discuss
EIR issues.

Regards,


Scott Peterson

--
As far as we know, our computer has
never had an undetected error.

- Weisert

310/612

[Scott Peterson]

"Mike Kanze" > wrote:

>
>Please cite the source for your statement that "no money or manpower [was]
>explicitly budgeted."

http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/pubbud/04pres/db_u.htm



Scott Peterson

--
Kids in the back seat cause accidents;
accidents in the back seat cause kids.

260/612

[Dave in San Diego]

"José Herculano" > wrote in news:4294c9f0$0$24392
:

>
> "Dave in San Diego" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "_" > wrote in :
>>
>>>
>>>>EISRA (free donut if you know what that spells out to)
>>> Emergency In Service Refit Activity?????
>>
>> Not even close. I'll take a few more guesses before I spell it out.
>>
>> Dave
>
> Extended Incremental Selected Restricted Availability.
>
> Donut? Donut? =)'

Ka-ching! The man wins a donut, which may be collected any time he happens
to be in San Diego, California. I'll even throw in a cup of coffee to go
with it!

Dave in San Diego

[_]

"José Herculano" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave in San Diego" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > "_" > wrote in :
> >
> >>
> >>>EISRA (free donut if you know what that spells out to)
> >> Emergency In Service Refit Activity?????
> >
> > Not even close. I'll take a few more guesses before I spell it out.
> >
> > Dave
>
> Extended Incremental Selected Restricted Availability.

Ok. So is that just a 'mini yard period'?

--

[Dave in San Diego]

"_" > wrote in :

>
> "José Herculano" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dave in San Diego" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > "_" > wrote in :
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>EISRA (free donut if you know what that spells out to)
>> >> Emergency In Service Refit Activity?????
>> >
>> > Not even close. I'll take a few more guesses before I spell it out.
>> >
>> > Dave
>>
>> Extended Incremental Selected Restricted Availability.
>
> Ok. So is that just a 'mini yard period'?

As intense, but shorter. Since all of our 21 day in ports were industrial
(ISRA), the rework was a continual process. My EISRA was wet bottom, but
probably two out of three were dry bottom, and occurred about every three
years or so. I think the schedule depended partly on material condition and
leftovers from the shorter ISRAs.

[Gord Beaman]

Dave in San Diego > wrote:

>"José Herculano" > wrote in news:4294c9f0$0$24392
:
>
>>
>> "Dave in San Diego" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "_" > wrote in :
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>EISRA (free donut if you know what that spells out to)
>>>> Emergency In Service Refit Activity?????
>>>
>>> Not even close. I'll take a few more guesses before I spell it out.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>
>> Extended Incremental Selected Restricted Availability.
>>
>> Donut? Donut? =)'
>
>Ka-ching! The man wins a donut, which may be collected any time he happens
>to be in San Diego, California. I'll even throw in a cup of coffee to go
>with it!
>
>Dave in San Diego

Prepare to do battle in front of Judge Judy Dave...or should I
sue Google?, they say it's "Excellence in Statistical Reporting
Award". :)

I still think it's Extraordinarily Involved Sophisticated
repairing of Aircraft... :)
--


-Gord.

"I'm trying to get as old as I can,
and it must be working 'cause I'm
the oldest now that I've ever been"

[Dave in San Diego]

Gord Beaman > wrote in
:

> Dave in San Diego > wrote:
>
>>"José Herculano" > wrote in
>>news:4294c9f0$0$24392 :
>>
>>>
>>> "Dave in San Diego" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> "_" > wrote in :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>EISRA (free donut if you know what that spells out to)
>>>>> Emergency In Service Refit Activity?????
>>>>
>>>> Not even close. I'll take a few more guesses before I spell it out.
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>
>>> Extended Incremental Selected Restricted Availability.
>>>
>>> Donut? Donut? =)'
>>
>>Ka-ching! The man wins a donut, which may be collected any time he
>>happens to be in San Diego, California. I'll even throw in a cup of
>>coffee to go with it!
>>
>>Dave in San Diego
>
> Prepare to do battle in front of Judge Judy Dave...or should I
> sue Google?, they say it's "Excellence in Statistical Reporting
> Award". :)

Wrong context. You know what they say about statistics!

> I still think it's Extraordinarily Involved Sophisticated
> repairing of Aircraft... :)

Nope. They don't fix aircraft as a direct function of the EISRA. Nice
try, though.

See here for a nice look at the blister project:
http://midwaysailor.com/midwayeisra86/

Dave in San Diego

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 5/25/05 4:52 PM, in article , "Scott
Peterson" > wrote:

> "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
>
>>
>> Please cite the source for your statement that "no money or manpower [was]
>> explicitly budgeted."
>
> http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/pubbud/04pres/db_u.htm
>
>
>
> Scott Peterson

Weak.

Care to point to a specific line item?

--Woody

[John Miller]

Dave in San Diego wrote:
> "_" > wrote in :
>>Emergency In Service Refit Activity?????
>
> Not even close. I'll take a few more guesses before I spell it out.

It's not in the 1970 edition of DICNAVAB, by the way.

--
John Miller
email domain: n4vu.com; username: jsm(@)

[Dave in San Diego]

John Miller > wrote in :

> Dave in San Diego wrote:
>> "_" > wrote in :
>>>Emergency In Service Refit Activity?????
>>
>> Not even close. I'll take a few more guesses before I spell it out.
>
> It's not in the 1970 edition of DICNAVAB, by the way.
>

I wouldn't expect it to be there, since the SRA concept didn't come around
until the mid-70s or so.

Dave in San Diego

[Mike Kanze]

Scott,

Ditto Woody's comment, and for the other FY budget documents you didn't link
(2005, 2003, etc.) that might include this.

Frankly I had hoped that you would provide the affirmative reference your
statement implied ("no money or manpower [was] explicitly budgeted") than
something not stating anything at all. Come to think of it, so far you have
offered only opinion, and nothing authoritative that supports your line of
thought.

BTW, a budget is a plan and not necessarily what actually happens. For
openers, how much of any budget sails through the Congress unaltered?
Certainly the costs of our response to 9/11 cannot be found in the FY2002
budget.

--
Mike Kanze

"The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation
between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting
done by fools and its thinking by cowards."

- Sir William Francis Butler

"Scott Peterson" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
>
>>
>>Please cite the source for your statement that "no money or manpower [was]
>>explicitly budgeted."
>
> http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/pubbud/04pres/db_u.htm
>
>
>
> Scott Peterson
>
> --
> Kids in the back seat cause accidents;
> accidents in the back seat cause kids.
>
> 260/612

[Scott Peterson]

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote:

>Weak.
>
>Care to point to a specific line item?
>
>--Woody

No. I was being facetious, but you're asking me to prove a negative.
I said there wasn't one and now you're asking me to point to the line
item where it isn't.

See the fallacy.

The point is that there are entries for other ships involved in
projects but not this one.

Hope this explains it a bit better.



Scott Peterson

--
If at first you don't succeed,
skydiving is not for you.

177/612

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 22:12:47 -0700, Scott Peterson
> wrote:

>"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote:
>
>>Weak.
>>
>>Care to point to a specific line item?
>>
>>--Woody
>
>No. I was being facetious, but you're asking me to prove a negative.
>I said there wasn't one and now you're asking me to point to the line
>item where it isn't.
>
>See the fallacy.
>
>The point is that there are entries for other ships involved in
>projects but not this one.
>
>Hope this explains it a bit better.

If you are concerned about the EIS for this project why don't you go
and find it? They are filed with EPA, no? Contact them and get a
copy. That should put your concerns to rest.

Bill Kambic

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 5/27/05 12:12 AM, in article , "Scott
Peterson" > wrote:

> "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote:
>
>> Weak.
>>
>> Care to point to a specific line item?
>>
>> --Woody
>
> No. I was being facetious, but you're asking me to prove a negative.
> I said there wasn't one and now you're asking me to point to the line
> item where it isn't.
>
> See the fallacy.
>
> The point is that there are entries for other ships involved in
> projects but not this one.
>
> Hope this explains it a bit better.
>
>
>
> Scott Peterson

I understood your facetiousness. My "asking you to prove a negative" is
only slightly more absurd or practical than you asking folks to go
line-by-line to prove it.

You are imply either conspiracy or misuse of funds to hurry up and scuttle
USS AMERICA (CV-66). I don't see it that way.

Anybody that has spent any time in the Navy knows that that vast majority of
folks tend to do things by the book and by the numbers. That tendency gets
more pronounced the higher in rank you go.

There are exceptions, of course. I doubt based on the EPA oversight that
would be required that this is one of those exceptions.

--Woody