Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 45 of 90
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,049

    Default Scrapping super carriers

    J--TOWING AND COMPLETE DISMANTLEMENT OF MULTIPLE CV-59/CV-63 CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN THE UNITED STATES

    Solicitation Number: N0002412R4211
    Agency: Department of the Navy
    Office: Naval Sea Systems Command
    Location: NAVSEA HQ

    Added: Jan 26, 2012 3:27 pm
    The Naval Sea Systems Command intends to solicit for the towing and complete dismantlement of multiple CV-59/CV-63 Class Aircraft Carriers in the United States, removal and disposal of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations, and processing and sale of scrap metals and reusable items. Ownership of the vessels remains with the United States. Towing will be required from the carriers' locations in Philadelphia, PA and Bremerton, WA to the Contractors' facilities in accordance with the U.S. Navy Tow Manual. The contract(s) will be five-year Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts awarded on a firm fixed-price basis at the net cost to the government, considering the estimated value to the Contractor of the resulting scrap metals and reusable items.

    The Contractor shall retain the proceeds of the sale of scrap metals and reusable items to offset its costs of performance. The government may award one, two or three IDIQ contracts depending on the best value to the government. The first ship to be awarded is ex-FORRESTAL (AVT/CV 59), located in Philadelphia, PA. The second is ex-INDEPENDENCE (CV 62), located in Bremerton, WA, and the third is ex-CONSTELLATION (CV 64), also located in Bremerton, WA. Additional aircraft carriers may be solicited during the five-year period if the Navy changes their disposition to dismantling. The hull and all portions of the structure of the vessels must be demilitarized by reduction to scrap dimensions not exceeding five (5) feet.

    Any and all weapons systems and communications equipment remaining on the vessels must be demilitarized by complete destruction. The Contractor must obtain a facility security clearance at the CONFIDENTIAL level at minimum from the Defense Security Service. All employees and others with access to the vessel, to components of the vessels prior to reduction to scrap, and to information regarding the vessels must be U.S. citizens and, for those with access to the third deck and below, possess individual security clearances at the CONFIDENTIAL level at minimum. The Contractor must have facility controls in place to prevent physical access to the vessels and facility by unauthorized persons, and limit visual observation of the dismantling of the third deck and below by unauthorized persons.

    The Contractor must provide office space for on-site government representatives who will serve as the Contracting Officer's Representative, and to observe and monitor the performance of the Contractor.

    Contracting Office Address:
    N00024 NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND, DC 1333 Isaac Hull Avenue S.E. Washington Navy Yard, DC

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    'Merca.
    Posts
    12,689

    Default

    Wonder what this ship breaking party will cost us? We should reef them off Panama City at 120 feet.
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
    George Orwell

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by limpetmine View Post
    Wonder what this ship breaking party will cost us? We should reef them off Panama City at 120 feet.
    Not likely, as some of their design points to the current carriers. America was sunk in 13,000 feet so no one could learn much about what the Navy learned about how to sink a big carrier.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    295

    Default

    I remember the Forrestal and others of that class in Norfolk. The Navy is presently looking for a place to practice carrier landings. Every place they have looked at has responded negatively. This is due to the noise created by the fighter jets. It would be a wonderful time for the Navy to build a floating school. It could be created by connecting four old carriers. The bulk of the insides could be scrapped and the hulls welded into a floating island for landing practice. This could be moved to locations where noise would not be a problem. The present carriers are five acres on the flight deck.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    9,909

    Default

    Dutoy,

    That makes too much sense the gubament will never go for it.
    Laugh hard and often.

    Gary

  6. #6
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is online now Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    56,842

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curly1 View Post
    Dutoy,

    That makes too much sense the gubament will never go for it.
    I hink there was at one time a proposal to use one of the Forrestals/Improved Forrestals aas a training carrier at P'cola upon retirement from active commission (as the Lex was for amny years). Seems to me that is still a pretty fair idea, though somewhat expensive (over-haul and operation). Maybe they should retire the Enterprise to that an use her as a crew training (nuclear propulsion plants) as well as pilot trainng boat.
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Where the B&O and PRR Cross in MD
    Posts
    10,185

    Default

    Holy Crap, I'm working in the wrong part of the government.

    A multiple-award IDIQ contract worth millions, if not tens of millions, and thats all the documentation? I have to write more than that to buy $10,000 disk array!

    "Brave men tell the truth, a wise man's tools are analogies and puzzles. A woman holds her tongue, knowing silence will speak for her"--Royksopp

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fushigi Ojisan View Post
    Holy Crap, I'm working in the wrong part of the government.

    A multiple-award IDIQ contract worth millions, if not tens of millions, and thats all the documentation? I have to write more than that to buy $10,000 disk array!
    While our troops die (Iraq, Afganistan) you must buy back parts from surplus dealers for our Helicopters and planes. In order to do this you must create a second contract for the same item we gave away for pennies on the dollar. The Florida Surplus Dealers love you. Under a war act you can buy to save lives unless certain contractors controlled by the Super Pacs stop your buy. "FAR".

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Friendsville,TN
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Shiver me timbers! I worked on The Saratoga back in 1955 at the Bklyn, Navy Yard. From Keel laying to second deck. At which time I changed careers. I never got to see it completed. The Forrestal waas being built at Newport News,VA at that time. Even the bklyn Navy Yard does not exist as it did then. Oh well ! Sgt. Ron.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    1,331

    Default

    My grandfather was a plankowner of the RANGER, currently berthed at Bremerton. I would hate to see her scrapped. Even so, I'd love to have a clock or something from the ship. My grandmother would certainly love it.

    Maybe they should retire the Enterprise to that an use her as a crew training (nuclear propulsion plants) as well as pilot trainng boat.
    The enterprise will never be used in this role. Simple fact of the matter is that it would cost FAR too much to get even a couple of her reactor plants up to snuff for training. Nevermind the fact that her plants are so aged they bear small resemblance to the current sub and carrier plants. Even so, current nuclear operators are trained on 50 year old "41 for Freedom" plants and a similiar vintage prototype up in New York. I would imagine if the USN ever felt the need to replace any of its prototypes, it would probably use one of the 688's that will be headed for the chopping block withing the next few years.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Oldsmar, FL (Tampa Bay)
    Posts
    23,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutoy View Post
    While our troops die (Iraq, Afganistan) you must buy back parts from surplus dealers for our Helicopters and planes. In order to do this you must create a second contract for the same item we gave away for pennies on the dollar. The Florida Surplus Dealers love you. Under a war act you can buy to save lives unless certain contractors controlled by the Super Pacs stop your buy. "FAR".
    Source??? The Daily Paul or the Democratic Underground?
    I swear by Jupiter Optimus Maximus .... in the army of the consul Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus and for 10 miles around it I will not steal anything worth more than a sestertius in any one day.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Higher AZ Mountains
    Posts
    1,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt.Ron View Post
    Shiver me timbers! I worked on The Saratoga back in 1955 at the Bklyn, Navy Yard. From Keel laying to second deck. At which time I changed careers. I never got to see it completed. The Forrestal waas being built at Newport News,VA at that time. . . Sgt. Ron.
    Sgt Ron

    The Forrestal was launched in 1954 but topside construction was still underway in 1955. I was on the USS Coral Sea at the time. The Coral Sea was the last of the straight deck carriers and the Forrestal was the first of the angled deck carriers. I was a 5"/54 Gunners Mate and went on the Forrestal in Norfolk to get a tour of the new 5"/54 RF guns. What an eye-opener that was. It's hard to imagine what the new super carriers must be like.

    Ray

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Damascus, Oregon
    Posts
    439

    Default

    Maybe we should trade one of the careers to the Brits, in exchange for a bunch of high speed trains?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    1,331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by R.L.Klaus View Post
    Maybe we should trade one of the careers to the Brits, in exchange for a bunch of high speed trains?

    No offense to our brothers across the pond, but they can barely afford the two carriers they are building. On top of that they can barely afford to man and operate them. Could you imagine the cost to upgrade the electronic suites to modern RN standards?

  15. #15

    Default Carriers on Google Maps

    Here's Bremerton:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Bremerton.jpg 
Views:	143 
Size:	89.3 KB 
ID:	510476
    And Philadelphia
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Philadelphia.jpg 
Views:	116 
Size:	39.9 KB 
ID:	510477
    Couldn't find my own ship, USS Luce DDG-38 in Philly. Kinda sad.
    Turning relics into near-relics since 2005.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Oldsmar, FL (Tampa Bay)
    Posts
    23,234

    Default

    The only carrier I ever took a short cruise on was the old Boxer, CV-21. That was after they'd stripped it of its CV designation and made it LPH-4, actually just kept it in its old Essex class unmodernized configuration.

    We hit a Cape Hatteras storm in an anchorage, the ship rolled 23 degrees, dragged many thousands of feet of anchor chain, and got a lot of structural cracks in the hull. You could stand on the front of the hanger deck and the back of the deck would disappear under the overhead, the ship was flexing so much. The exercise was cut short, and the poor old Boxer never steamed out of a port again under her own power, got scrapped over a year early.
    I swear by Jupiter Optimus Maximus .... in the army of the consul Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus and for 10 miles around it I will not steal anything worth more than a sestertius in any one day.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    2,376

    Default

    At least they are not discussing giving them to the Chinese. I would not doubt that a company from China puts in a bid to scrap them, though.

  18. #18
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is online now Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    56,842

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by srinde View Post
    At least they are not discussing giving them to the Chinese. I would not doubt that a company from China puts in a bid to scrap them, though.
    Doubt one would qualify. Notice that part about everybody with access to things having to be AmCits? That would include company managers and execs.
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Higher AZ Mountains
    Posts
    1,386

    Default

    The older carrier flight decks were wood which allowed them to flex (bend) in heavy seas. The newer ones were made of steel plates with overlapping joints. In heavy weather it was interesting to walk on the deck and watch it bend and twist.

    Ray

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Oldsmar, FL (Tampa Bay)
    Posts
    23,234

    Default

    Supposedly the hanger deck floor in the Boxer was armored. Didn't seem to help as it was really strange wathching the aft elevator disappear from sight with every heave - of the ship AND my stomach
    I swear by Jupiter Optimus Maximus .... in the army of the consul Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus and for 10 miles around it I will not steal anything worth more than a sestertius in any one day.

  21. #21
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is online now Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    56,842

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jjk308 View Post
    Supposedly the hanger deck floor in the Boxer was armored. Didn't seem to help as it was really strange wathching the aft elevator disappear from sight with every heave - of the ship AND my stomach
    Presume you are discussing CV-21 - if so it was a Ticonderoga-class (late war Essex, not completed in time or service in War Two). All of the Essex-class ships had an armored hangar deck (which was also the strength deck for that class, as it was for the Yorktowns that preceeded it). I show hanger deck as 2.5" (100 pound) and a 1.5" (60 pound) 4th deck for horizontal armor..
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    1,331

    Default

    I think you guys are trying to talk about armored FLIGHT decks, which the Essex did not have. The Midway Class was the first CV class to have armored flight decks.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    20,527

    Default

    My ONE sea story (I was a SeaBee) of haze grey and underway was on a fleet tug,USS Cree, taking tha mail from Adak Island, Alaska to Atka Island. We took a wave that put her on her side and we took water down the stack and had a fire in the engine room. I thought she would never right and go turtle up. I was never so glad to get back to Adak and happiliy remained a Sand Sailor the next three years. My hat is off to the fleet sailors. Neptune's Ocean is mighty.
    "Don't you have anything better to do than to troll gunboards"? Mauserboy48

    "But broadly accurate, probably." Clyde

    -produced by- Shameless Self-Promotions Inc. All rights reserved

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Slade View Post
    I think you guys are trying to talk about armored FLIGHT decks, which the Essex did not have. The Midway Class was the first CV class to have armored flight decks.
    No, they are talking about armored HANGAR decks, which the Essex's did have. You are right about the Midways having armored flight decks.

  25. #25
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is online now Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    56,842

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tplan View Post
    No, they are talking about armored HANGAR decks, which the Essex's did have. You are right about the Midways having armored flight decks.
    That is correct, at least as far as I am concerned (and so stated). jjk also mentioned an armored HANGAR deck ("hanger floor") as contrast to an armored flight deck.

    As far as i know, all purpose-built American carriers prior to the CVBs (the Midways) had the hangar deck as the strength deck and it carried the horizontal armor as well (to protect the ship girder and the machinery), with the hangar sides and flight deck being unarmored to save weight high in the ship (as contrasted to the British fleet carriers of immediate pre-WWII vintage and wartime cosntruction, with their armored hangars, both flight deck and hangar sides carrying armor).

    I find it somewhat interesting to know that the primary security concerns apparently start at the third deck.
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    1,331

    Default

    I find it somewhat interesting to know that the primary security concerns apparently start at the third deck.
    Probably cause it is just berthing below the flight deck and below the hangar decks.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Oldsmar, FL (Tampa Bay)
    Posts
    23,234

    Default

    The carrier was supposed to protect itself by its aircraft and its superior speed.
    The British armor system resulted in cutting the air complement by a big percentage. Not sure how much as the Brit carriers ran pretty small but they did carry a lot fewer aircraft relative to the Essex class. And even they couldn't shrug off bombs and torpedoes, although the deck armor helped a lot with kamakzies.
    At least the armor on the hanger deck let you save the ship, hopefully, if it got hit.
    The first US class with armored flight decks, the Midways, still carried the strength deck at the hanger, and were not entirely successful as sea ships, having too little freeboard, and a high cg that resulted in a lot of deck movement, hindering landing operations.
    I swear by Jupiter Optimus Maximus .... in the army of the consul Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus and for 10 miles around it I will not steal anything worth more than a sestertius in any one day.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus Slade View Post
    Probably cause it is just berthing below the flight deck and below the hangar decks.
    "All employees and others with access to the vessel, to components of the vessels prior to reduction to scrap, and to information regarding the vessels must be U.S. citizens and, for those with access to the third deck and below, possess individual security clearances at the CONFIDENTIAL level at minimum."

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Higher AZ Mountains
    Posts
    1,386

    Default

    As I remember, 3rd deck was at the waterline. 8" thick torpedo belt protected the hull below that.

    That post about restricted access to 3rd deck and below is a new one for me. Gunners Mate watches had to inspect the magazines at least once during their watch. I'd often go all the way down to the bottom to watch those big shafts turning.

    Midway class was the last to also protect itself with guns. As far as being "not entirely successful as sea ships" that's a new one also. We could launch and trap aircraft in most any sea condition and the escorts were shaking and rattling trying to keep up with us.

    Ray

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jjk308 View Post
    The carrier was supposed to protect itself by its aircraft and its superior speed.
    The British armor system resulted in cutting the air complement by a big percentage. Not sure how much as the Brit carriers ran pretty small but they did carry a lot fewer aircraft relative to the Essex class. And even they couldn't shrug off bombs and torpedoes, although the deck armor helped a lot with kamakzies.
    At least the armor on the hanger deck let you save the ship, hopefully, if it got hit.
    The first US class with armored flight decks, the Midways, still carried the strength deck at the hanger, and were not entirely successful as sea ships, having too little freeboard, and a high cg that resulted in a lot of deck movement, hindering landing operations.
    I think the British felt the armored flight deck was important because the threat of land-based aircraft was more constant in Europe than the Pacific. The cost for this was about half the A/C complement, IIRC UK fleet carriers had 40-50 A/C vice 80-90 in US carriers. A kamikaze was going to ruin your day regardless of where your armor was...
    Turning relics into near-relics since 2005.

  31. #31
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is online now Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    56,842

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Meketa View Post
    As I remember, 3rd deck was at the waterline. 8" thick torpedo belt protected the hull below that.

    That post about restricted access to 3rd deck and below is a new one for me. Gunners Mate watches had to inspect the magazines at least once during their watch. I'd often go all the way down to the bottom to watch those big shafts turning.

    Midway class was the last to also protect itself with guns. As far as being "not entirely successful as sea ships" that's a new one also. We could launch and trap aircraft in most any sea condition and the escorts were shaking and rattling trying to keep up with us.

    Ray
    The earlier Forrestal-class ships carried a battery of 5"/54s - eight of them, mounted on sponsons below the flight deck level. Forward sponsons apparently tended to have problems in heavy seas. Removed fairly early in te ship's opertional life, and Sea Sparrows fitted at some point, as well as Phalanx systems.

    Ray M notes:

    I think the British felt the armored flight deck was important because the threat of land-based aircraft was more constant in Europe than the Pacific. The cost for this was about half the A/C complement, IIRC UK fleet carriers had 40-50 A/C vice 80-90 in US carriers. A kamikaze was going to ruin your day regardless of where your armor was...

    As i understand it, the main reason for the smaller aircraft complementof the British CVs was they struck aircraft below as they landed on and did not use a deck-park as the US doctrine called for. Reduced cpacity and slowed operational tempo as well. The general understanding i that the armored flight decks (which, by the way were NOT armored over the entire deck, but only about 60% of it) and armored hangar sides did reduce kamikazi damage. That said, I recently saw a mention of a recent article that apparently analyzed all Kamikaze hits on aviation vessels and concluded the British ships that were hit were as badly damamged and out of action as long as US vessels that had unarmered flight decks and hangar sides. I haven't seen the article and cannot recall where I saw it mentioned.
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Higher AZ Mountains
    Posts
    1,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    The earlier Forrestal-class ships carried a battery of 5"/54s - eight of them, mounted on sponsons below the flight deck level. Forward sponsons apparently tended to have problems in heavy seas. Removed fairly early in te ship's opertional life, and Sea Sparrows fitted at some point, as well as Phalanx systems.

    Ray M notes:
    Clyde,

    I was a 5" Gunners Mate on the USS Coral Sea and the USS Midway. Both were designed for 18 guns but was reduced to 14, 7 on each side. Sponsons were at Hangar Deck level. I maintained mounts 2 and 4 which were the two forwardmost on the port side. The sponsons actually tended to divert big waves away from the ship and I don't recall any problems at all.

    The Midway was converted to an angle deck in 1956 and the Coral Sea in 1957. As part of the conversion the sponsons were removed, as was the torpedo belt and most of the guns. Centerline elevators were also removed and replaced with deck-edge elevators. Open bow was replaced with a hurricane bow. I was out of the Navy by then and never served on an angled deck ship or on a Super Carrier.

    The Forrestal originally had eight 5"/54 Rapid Fire guns but they were later removed and replaced with missles.

    Ray

  33. #33
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is online now Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    56,842

    Default

    Midways and Forrestals had the gun mount sponsons located differently. According to Freidman, the arrangement of the 5"/54s (in single armored gun houses at hangar deck level) was intended to perform as part of the armor for the hangar - idea was that shells or missiles coming in at that level would hit the gun mounts and fuzes would be initiated prior to impact with the vertical armor on the ship's side.

    Apparently the forward gun sponsons on the Forrestals (located a bit lower) caused sea-keeping problems (apparently too low and too far forward and tended to get washed out, sort of like the casement guns in our earlier BBs)and it was determined that the guns were not of much use to a CV by that point, so the forward guns were removed by 1962. Saved weight, etc.. Friedman's US CARRIERS: AN ILLUSTRATED DESIGN HISTORY discusses that if my memory isn't playing games. Unfortunately, while I have his books on BB and Cruiser design histories, and the second volume of his submarine design history, I don't have the ones on CVs, DDs or small combatants. Library has gotten them for me via ILL in the past, so i could read them, but haven't bought copies. one of these days...
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Higher AZ Mountains
    Posts
    1,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    . . . it was determined that the guns were not of much use to a CV by that point, so the forward guns were removed by 1962 . . .
    Actually the 5"/54 slow fire guns were pretty much obsolete by the mid 1950s. The 5"/54 Rapid Fire guns were not much farther behind them. They simply could not track the faster jets and it was highly unlikely that a piloted aircraft would have gotten close enough to a carrier to do any harm anyway.

  35. #35
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is online now Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    56,842

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Meketa View Post
    Actually the 5"/54 slow fire guns were pretty much obsolete by the mid 1950s. The 5"/54 Rapid Fire guns were not much farther behind them. They simply could not track the faster jets and it was highly unlikely that a piloted aircraft would have gotten close enough to a carrier to do any harm anyway.
    Yep - hence the "Not much use" comment...

    Weight and space better used elsewhere.
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Back in the Keystone !
    Posts
    2,148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jjk308 View Post
    The first US class with armored flight decks, the Midways, still carried the strength deck at the hanger, and were not entirely successful as sea ships, having too little freeboard, and a high cg that resulted in a lot of deck movement, hindering landing operations.
    Huh?
    http://www.midwaysailor.com/midway/history.html
    Commisioned in `45 and decomissioned in `92.
    I don`t know of a carrier THAT SERVED AS LONG AND AS HARD AS CV-41.
    Her problems during heavy seas were the results of her several major retrofits.
    This was the first straight deck carrier retro-fitted with an angled deck among other major mods.
    One thing they generally don`t tell you is she had a 3 degree "programmed" list to port as the result of the angle deck installation. She could out-launch and out-recover any four cat carrier and sank Enterprise twice in exercises. In fact an F-14 became lost and had to land on her deck for fuel and to regain their bearings, this was in 1980 I seem to recall.
    She did pitch and roll much more so compared to modern designs but hey, what do you want for a fleet carrier that missed WW2 by 6 months and managed to serve through Desert storm?
    She is now a floating museum in San Diego and as such is the only one entirely self sufficient from a monetary standard, she does not accept Federal aid.
    Yes, she was my home for 2 1/2 years, I`m biased......
    Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
    gewehrpatrone

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Higher AZ Mountains
    Posts
    1,386

    Default

    Freundlichen

    Howdy shipmate. I served for a short time on the Midway when she came out of Bremerton after the retro-fit. I was then transferred to the Moth Ball fleet where I served out my enlistment. Before that I was on the Coral Sea and rode her around the Horn and up to Bremerton where she was de-commissioned for the last of the Class to be retro-fitted.

    Actually, the FDR was the first of the Class to be retrofitted.

    As a straight deck carrier, the Coral Sea could launch and trap in most any reasonable sea condition. The escorts were hard pressed to keep up with us.

    Ray

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    14,010

    Default

    then there was the last French carrier built that had a "slight flaw" They didn't make the flight deck long enough to launch aircraft and had to retrofit it.

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Higher AZ Mountains
    Posts
    1,386

    Default

    STOVL may make all carriers obsolete before too long. Maybe the French were thinking ahead?

    Ray

  40. #40
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is online now Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    56,842

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Meketa View Post
    STOVL may make all carriers obsolete before too long. Maybe the French were thinking ahead?

    Ray
    Dunno about that. The Brits have dumped all the Harriers, we have (or are about to) do the same for the AV-8s, don't think the Spanish or Indians are going to replace theirs with another STOVL design, and the F-35Bs are, as best I can tell, problematic for actual production and service....
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  41. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Higher AZ Mountains
    Posts
    1,386

    Default

    The F35s are still a few years from production. They are only just now getting the bugs ironed out as far as operation. The idea seems kinda far-fetched to us now, but so did B-25s off the Hornet appear to be foolish at one time. In my Navy days, any airplane that had two props wasn't considered practical for the Midway Class straight decks.

    Ray

  42. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Back in the Keystone !
    Posts
    2,148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Meketa View Post
    The F35s are still a few years from production. They are only just now getting the bugs ironed out as far as operation. The idea seems kinda far-fetched to us now, but so did B-25s off the Hornet appear to be foolish at one time. In my Navy days, any airplane that had two props wasn't considered practical for the Midway Class straight decks.

    Ray
    Hi Ray,
    Don`t mean to sound boorish but didn`t you guys run S-2`s off Coral Sea as a straight deck?
    I know Midway did and of course E-2`s and C-2`s until de-commisioning.
    In fact our COD bird was an old S-2 that would trap on the angle, unload then taxi back to the sponson and launch herself off the angle without a catapult!! That was cool to watch...
    Good times...
    Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
    gewehrpatrone

  43. #43
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is online now Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    56,842

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Meketa View Post
    The F35s are still a few years from production. They are only just now getting the bugs ironed out as far as operation. The idea seems kinda far-fetched to us now, but so did B-25s off the Hornet appear to be foolish at one time. In my Navy days, any airplane that had two props wasn't considered practical for the Midway Class straight decks.

    Ray
    Suspect jjk308 is right about the F35Bs - they are gonna have grief with the lift fans.
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  44. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Higher AZ Mountains
    Posts
    1,386

    Default

    Freundlichen

    You're right, some amazing things were done on the old carriers. Launching and trapping the S-2s became routine in the 1950s. My point was that things such as STOVL off a pitching deck may seem unrealistic now, but there were far more unrealstic things done in the past. For example, the first carrier landing of the North American AJ-l Savage, 31 August 1950 on (and off) the USS Coral Sea, demonstrated the feasibility of operating heavy attack aircraft from a carrier. (I would also mention that the first flight deck crash of an AJ-1 occured on that very same straight deck Coral Sea.) With the USN, anything is possible. The impossible takes a little longer.

    Ray

  45. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Now and Then, Here and There
    Posts
    874

    Default

    The lift fans are being made by Rolls Royce in Indianapolis.

    Worked on high voltage circuit breakers there a couple of times.

    Used to be an Allison plant IIRC.
    I aim to misbehave.

    Mostly harmless.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •