| Shipbucket http://67.205.157.234/forums/ |
|
| Bye Bye USS Forrestal http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4632 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Cruel2BEkind [ October 23rd, 2013, 10:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Bye Bye USS Forrestal |
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/10/ ... 382560484/ Thoughts on the 'Forest Fire' being sold for one cent? (My great grandfather had his service on this ship) |
|
| Author: | erik_t [ October 23rd, 2013, 10:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bye Bye USS Forrestal |
I'm surprised the scrap isn't worth more, but it's costing the US Navy money to keep her afloat. Meanwhile, I care a lot more about taking care of the museum ships we currently have than adding to the list. Frankly, until Olympia has a permanent dry home there should be a moratorium on new ones. |
|
| Author: | TimothyC [ October 23rd, 2013, 11:51 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Bye Bye USS Forrestal | |
Frankly, until Olympia has a permanent dry home there should be a moratorium on new ones.
I strongly concur on this point. That Olympia is in the condition she is in is quite a shame.Edit: something else to remember is that IIRC the exact layout of the underwater hulls on all of the post-Midway classes is still NOFORN classified, and that the facilities to scrap the supercarriers all have to meet security reviews. |
||
| Author: | Thiel [ October 24th, 2013, 6:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bye Bye USS Forrestal |
And it's not exactly as if people haven't had a chance to turn her into a museum ship either. |
|
| Author: | Shipright [ October 24th, 2013, 12:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bye Bye USS Forrestal |
Her scrap value may be pretty close to the cost of breaking her up plus profit to make it worth it. At this point the Navy just wants her gone. |
|
| Author: | Syzmo [ October 24th, 2013, 1:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bye Bye USS Forrestal |
I was just aboard Olympia and at the Philadelphia Naval Yard last month for the Historic Naval Ships Association Conference and I am pleased to report that the guys at the Independence Seaport Museum have done a great job in the past year, since I was aboard last, cosmetically improving the ship and using her as an interpretive platform. They don't want floating ships at the museum any more and Olympia needs a lot of work below the waterline but at least they are finally taking care of her like they should. Which is a good thing because neither of the two places left trying to acquire her are going to be able to raise the money any time soon. (Thats from her curator, not just my opinion.) As for the ships being maintained on donation hold at the PNY none of them will ever be turned into museum ships. Charlie Adams and Forrest Sherman are in awful shape. I was on both of them. John F. Kennedy is in the best shape of the ships i visited, but she is far too large to ever be maintained by a none profit. I have worked for Historic Ships in Baltimore for seven years and we are a fairly successful museum because we are in a touristy location and we can still barely maintain our ships, none of which are bigger than a destroyer. Forrestal on the other hand probably isn't worth that penny anymore. She looks like she has been sitting on a beach in India. I don't mean to insult anyone associated with these ships, but the Navy has not maintained them and a museum would never be able to care for them. I have to agree that we need to focus on what we have. I don't mean to bring down the mood any further but Texas and Yorktown are looking even worse off than Olympia. |
|
| Author: | TimothyC [ October 25th, 2013, 7:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bye Bye USS Forrestal |
Just to be clear, the USN paid the penny to have it taken off their hands, rather than All Star Metals paying to buy her. |
|
| Author: | Tagger 1-1 [ November 9th, 2013, 5:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bye Bye USS Forrestal |
Personally I think it's a disgrace. Canada should have bought and operated FORRESTAL. I am tired of seeing good ships become razor blades. S/F Tagger sends |
|
| Author: | Thiel [ November 9th, 2013, 11:57 am ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Bye Bye USS Forrestal | |
Personally I think it's a disgrace. Canada should have bought and operated FORRESTAL. I am tired of seeing good ships become razor blades.
But Forrestal isn't a good ship anymore. She was completely run down by the time they decommisioned her and ten years in storage has done nothing to improve it.
S/F Tagger sends |
||
| Author: | BB1987 [ November 9th, 2013, 12:41 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Re: Bye Bye USS Forrestal | ||
Personally I think it's a disgrace. Canada should have bought and operated FORRESTAL. I am tired of seeing good ships become razor blades.
But Forrestal isn't a good ship anymore. She was completely run down by the time they decommisioned her and ten years in storage has done nothing to improve it.S/F Tagger sends If Canada would ever consider such possibility i think the only "viable" choice would be the former USS Kennedy (CV-67), as she is some 13 years younger. |
|||
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|