You could have owned your own super carrier for one cent!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by quagmire, Oct 23, 2013.

  1. macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #1
  2. macrumors 68040

    AlphaDogg

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Location:
    Boulder, CO
    #2
  3. macrumors 603

    mobilehaathi

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Anthropocene
    #3
    I suspect it will cost quite a lot of money to 'deal' with it though.
     
  4. macrumors 65816

    decafjava

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    Geneva
    #4
    Somewhere, an evil super villain is rubbing his hands...
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    Sym0

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2013
    #5
    Pretty sure the Govn. has to "sell" it so that would be why the lowest currency value was used, as a token. And I am pretty sure it was not for "sale" but simply being scrapped.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    #6
    The number of potential bidders on scrapping a US Navy warship is pretty limited. By law, former Navy ships cannot be sent overseas for dismantling, because we don't want other Governments finding out how we put our ships together. Which means dismantlers have to be in the US.

    While steel scrap is selling for almost $200/ton, the USS Forrestal (along with most vessels of her vintage) has a huge amount of asbestos and other hazardous material that needs to be remediated. And the work of safely scrapping such a huge vessel will probably take a year or more, during which time the boat will occupy a valuable yard space.

    One of the largest (potential) sources of revenue for the scrapping company is going to be the large amounts of precious, and semiprecious, metals - the gold, silver, and copper to be harvested from the boats remaining electronics and thousands of miles of wiring.
     
  7. macrumors 68000

    Tsuchiya

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    #7
    Aw man, I'd have gone up to a $1. What I would do with it (or store it) to be decided later.

    There's something awe inspiring and somewhat terrifying about a ship that big.
     
  8. macrumors G3

    roadbloc

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    I'll push the boat out a bit and take two.
     
  9. thread starter macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #9
    I know. I'm not surprised by the penny price tag either. USS Coral Sea( which is a Midway class carrier and predecessor to Forrestall) took forever to be scrapped because she was so big it made scrapping her almost unprofitable. It took 7 years to scrap her. I imagine the scrapping of the Forrestall class, Kitty Hawk Class, Enterprise, and Nimitz classes will be just as challenging for scrappers.
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    Antares

    #10
    Then, you can say that the scrappers will find themselves in quite the, "quagmire."
     
  11. thread starter macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #11
    Yeah. They tried to sell Coral Sea to India to finish scrapping her, but the US Navy blocked it. Capital ships have to be scrapped stateside.
     
  12. macrumors 68020

    Kissaragi

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    #12
    I wonder how much profit a scrap company can make from something like that. so much metal in it but such enormous costs just to deal with it.
     
  13. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    #13
    I'd have turned it into a nightclub.....

    Like the stubnitz
     
  14. macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #14
  15. G51989, Nov 3, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2013

    macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #15
    Indeed, the reason being is that even a carrier of this age has much more sophisticated construction than the majority of warships in the world, you don't want that to tall into the hands of say, the Chinese for example. Who at the moment, don't even know how to build a basic aircraft carrier.

    Up until a few years ago, even the design plants for the Essex class carriers remained classified. As if they were built today, they would nearly be up to modern damage control and design standards.
     
  16. macrumors 68030

    needfx

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    macrumors apparently
    #16
    heading off topic

    zumwalts look high tech
     

    Attached Files:

  17. macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #17
  18. macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #18
    The Zumwalt has been in development well before 2000
     
  19. quagmire, Nov 5, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2013

    thread starter macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #19
    And it's a giant POS much like the F-35.

    In a carrier related note, the Ford was floated for the first time.



    Probably a bit better considering they have more armor than a Nimitz/Ford class(especially the Midway class with its armored flight deck).

    The concept today is to prevent something from hitting the carrier, not make it able to take a decent pounding like the WWII era carriers.
     
  20. macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #20
    I would not call it a POS, it is more like a Seawolf Class Submarine, or the North Carolina Class Battleships from WW2, they were low production, but formed the testbeds for the newer classes of ships. ( North Carolina Class? Angled Armored belts?! Are you Crazy?! Junk! Junk Junk! Then the Washington takes out an entire Japanese Squadron of a Battleship and 6 Destroyers by itself ;). At S Straight ;) )

    But I think in how the North Carolina ships were the test bed for South Dakotas and Iowa Class Ships
    And the Ticonderoga ships were mostly a testbed for Arleigh Burke Class ships
    And the Seawolf being the testbed for the Virgina class submarines

    I think the Zumwalt is just a testbed for the next generation of DDGs and technology, it has lots of very interesting and innovative technology on it. It's one badass machine, the Advanced Gun System is crazy.

    Well a Nimitz could more than likely take much more punishment than an Midway, Nimitz's are much larger, they aren't armored like the old carriers, but they're still built of very strong materials, have far more water tight compartments, better damage control, and the machinery spaces are actually pretty well armored, so it would be very hard to Sink a Nimitz, or even knock out its drivetrain.

    I also think the reason everyone went with " Oh god, don't get hit. " was the USS Stark accident, the Exocet Missile is pretty much the smallest Anti ship missile out there, with the smallest warhead, one of them didn't even explode , the other one ripped a giant hole in the Stark under and above the waterline, and cracked the keel.

    It is more than likely a way better idea to shoot down an intruder than have it hit you, a large ASM would likely cut through the Midways armor like butter.

    I believe the only carrier with an armored flight deck, and " armor " is the French Charles De Gaull, which I have seen in person, very interesting and innovative carrier. Then again, I feel the Italian/French FREMM Project ships are probably the best money-performance ratios in the world right now.

    I love the Fords, they show a clear improvement. Look like they'll have a much lower operating cost than a Nimitz, and be much easier to maintain.
     
  21. thread starter macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #21
    Just be glad they were WWI era battleships. The N. Carolina Class, South Dakota class, and Iowa's didn't have the armor to withstand their own guns.

    Maybe, but at the cost that is fairly close to building a Nimitz? It's one very expensive testbed.




    Not saying a Nimitz will be sunk easily. But, maybe an Essex or a Midway built in modern times with their armor could take a bit more. CV-8 Hornet took 9 torpedoes and still remained afloat. Then when the US tried to sink her, she still wouldn't go down.
     
  22. macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #22
    I wouldn't exactly call the Kirishima A WW1 battleship, she was refitted in the 30s fairly heavily. The Kirishima still had WW1 armor layouts, we see how well that worked against more modern guns and shells.

    The reason that the North Carolina, SoDaks, and Iowas couldn't defend against their own guns, is that USN gun technology was light years ahead of everyone else at that point. An Iowa class could have gone up against any battleship ever built and easily come out on top.

    Adjusted for inflation they don't cost much more than a Seawolf Did, and its a fairly more advanced Machine than a Nimitz, the Nimitz design is 40 years old at this point.

    The Zumwalts kind of represent that Pivot Point, and also, there is no way you'll get any of those new weapon systems on a Burke.

    A Nimitz could probably take even more punishment I would assume, as could the Fords.

    The problem with armoring ships these days is that a modern ASM with its spacial charges will cut through armor like it doesn't even exist.
     
  23. thread starter macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #23
    A WWI era BB is still a WWI era BB despite refits. Just like the Iowa's are WWII era BB's despite their extensive refits in the 80's. If a BB was built today, it would be built to todays standards and methods. No matter if you put modern equipment on an Iowa, it's foundation is still WWII tech.

    The reason for it was because the US Navy wanted their battleships to keep up with the carriers( or at least the main consideration for the Iowa's since top speed of the South Dakota class was 28 knots). In order to do that, armor was sacrificed and an Iowa could not withstand shots from her own guns. Which the Yamato class would pose a threat to an Iowa since their guns were just as good as Iowa's, if not a bit better.

    The Montana class was going to be able to withstand shots from her own guns( though they accepted that her speed would go back down to 28 knots).

    Still a destroyer is close to costing the amount of money it takes to build a capital ship. A Ford costs $6 billion to build.....

    I wonder how much it would cost to build a modern BB...... The Zumwalt's railgun is designed to replace the Iowa's 16" guns.....

    Sadly we will never know how much punishment a Nimitz/Ford class can take without a war breaking out.

    Unless the Navy wants to take a decommissioned Nimitz class carrier and use it for target practice( though the test will not show how much punishment she can take with proper damage control). Though the results of the test will be highly classified like the results of the USS America sinking is.
     
  24. macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #24
    This is true, however, WW1 layouts typically went with a brute force armor approach, we see how well t his worked against the Washington, who only suffered superficial damage.

    True, however I think the SoDaks were the best armored Battleships ever built, the Iowas not so much as they were larger, but I think outside the IJN 18 inch gun on the Yamatos, no other gun would be able to punch through its armor. Besides its own.

    As long as the Commander of the Iowa isn't an idiot. A Yamato would not pose much threat to an Iowa. The Iowa is faster, has equal guns ( the IJN 18 inch was not a very good weapon for its size ), a faster rate of fire, and vastly better fire control.

    I never understood why they even laid the Keels for those ships, it was clear by the Battle of Midway that the carrier is what made differences, not battleships.

    There is no point to a BB in the modren world, the concept is outdated and...well it never even worked in the first place. The Railgun on the Zumwalt isn't really made for close encounters, it has pretty insane range.

    The day's of close waters naval warfare has been over for a long time. Destroyers can do the same job as a BB for a fraction of the cost. Things like the Zumwalt and the new French/Italian FREMM is where the future is. Small, fast, smart. With one hell of a punch.

    I can't think of one place where those 16 inch guns serve any purpose these days.

    Well, a Ford is just a modified Nimitz with less moving parts, its a 100% electric ship, with reduces build cost and decreases the number of valves, and moving parts. Making it cheap to build, its also made out of pretty typical materials and uses standard shipbuilding techniques.

    The Zumwalt, is a whore new ball game, everything on the ship is brand new. New materials, new building techniques, new hull, new composites, new computer systems, new power generation which produces a ton of power, all latched onto a very fast and capable ship that can accept ****ing rail guns.

    Its all brand new stuff, so its very very expensive to get it going. The Zumwalt will be a testbed for the next generation of everything, as was the Enterprise, and the Seawolf Class.

    Probably not, but being much newer and more robust than old carriers, built with much stronger materials ( nearly all of it is classified ), more water tight compartments, some of the fire surpression is totally automated, even the hangers can seal up and become water tight if the need be. I would say they could take an insane amount of Punishment. ESp considering the bulkheads, ahd the armor that armors the JP fuel tanks, reactors, turbines and shafts is made out of a steel where even the casting process is classified makes me think they could take a beating.
     
  25. thread starter macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #25
    Her own guns could knock out the radar system that helped aim the guns. Shows how A) Primitive the tech was back then B) How powerful those guns were.



    No Montana class BB keel was laid down. Montana and Ohio were reordered as Illinois and Kentucky which were both supposed to be Iowa classes. Illinois and Kentucky were never finished. Though there were several discussions on converting the hull of Kentucky to a BBG( guided missile battleship) or a carrier( ala the Lexington's), but that never materialized. Her bow was used to repair Wisconsin. She was ultimately scrapped as well.

    The Navy currently lacks shore bombardment capabilities. Something cruise missiles are not practical to do. And the 5" guns on modern ships just don't pack a big enough punch. Thus a purpose for those 16" guns. But, the railgun is supposedly going to be able to pack a similar punch.

    I understand that the Zumwalt is a whole new ballgame. Doesn't excuse the fact it has seen constant delays and cost overruns so much so that it's close to the price tag of a capital ship. Also hence the curiosity of the cost of a modern BB...... Not saying we should start rebuilding BB's. Just curious as how much a modern one would cost. It probably wouldn't need to be as heavily armored as the Iowa's and below due to as you mentioned, there hasn't been a need for ship vs ship combat. It would serve as a naval artillery platform.
     

Share This Page