USS America

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??

""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.

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

Dave in San Diego wrote:

Retired Carrier Sunk Off Atlantic Coast

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

"Scott Peterson" wrote in message
...
Dave in San Diego wrote:

Retired Carrier Sunk Off Atlantic Coast

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

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/...s/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

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

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(@)

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).

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).