Has the Oriskany settled deeper since sinking?

[Soggy]

As usual, your ego knows few bounds....

 

[Nemrod]

I don't know if the mods will clean out the beligernat posts by certain people in this thread or not. Some people need to practice their manners and sense of humor and tolerence for differences of thinking and styles of expression. Name calling and other personal attacks are poor form.

Back on thread--notice the pic on the Oriskany that I posted just prior to it's sinking. Notice how SMALL the tower actually is compared to the massive hull--that is mostly all you can dive as the ship sits now. If the tower had been removed they possibly could have set the ship more shallow--vastly--hugely--increasing the diveable portion of this massive ship. Instead, that tiny, little bitty, hardly noticeable tower is what you get to dive unless your prepared to take the risks of doing sub 150 foot dives.

Hopefully the ship will not settle much more--who can know what storms may cause in the future good or bad--just that there will be storms and that is for certain.

N

 

[aue-mike]

Again, since you appear to be slow in grasping this point, allowing recreational divers into that portion of the wreck is a huge mistake. There are waaaaaay too many areas to seal off and where recreational divers can get into trouble. More conventional vessels would be more appropriate to put in shallow water, where these issues can be mitigated.

I don't know if the mods will clean out the beligernat posts by certain people in this thread or not. Some people need to practice their manners and sense of humor and tolerence for differences of thinking and styles of expression. Name calling and other personal attacks are poor form.

Back on thread--notice the pic on the Oriskany that I posted just prior to it's sinking. Notice how SMALL the tower actually is compared to the massive hull--that is mostly all you can dive as the ship sits now. If the tower had been removed they possibly could have set the ship more shallow--vastly--hugely--increasing the diveable portion of this massive ship. Instead, that tiny, little bitty, hardly noticeable tower is what you get to dive unless your prepared to take the risks of doing sub 150 foot dives.

Hopefully the ship will not settle much more--who can know what storms may cause in the future good or bad--just that there will be storms and that is for certain.

N

 

[mike_s]

notice the pic on the Oriskany that I posted just prior to it's sinking. Notice how SMALL the tower actually is compared to the massive hull--that is mostly all you can dive as the ship sits now. If the tower had been removed they possibly could have set the ship more shallow--vastly--hugely--increasing the diveable portion of this massive ship. Instead, that tiny, little bitty, hardly noticeable tower is what you get to dive unless your prepared to take the risks of doing sub 150 foot dives.

Hopefully the ship will not settle much more--who can know what storms may cause in the future good or bad--just that there will be storms and that is for certain.

N

Nemrod, I had the same thoughts that if the tower was removed or lowered that more of the flight deck could be dove if put in shallower water.. But still if the ship flipped onto it's starboard side the flight deck could become very vertical. At 157' wide, it would definately not fall within the permit requirements if sunk in much shallower water.

But like it was said many different earlier posts/threads, this isn't being sunk for the primary purpose of recreational diving.

 

[ReefHound]

Back on thread--notice the pic on the Oriskany that I posted just prior to it's sinking. Notice how SMALL the tower actually is compared to the massive hull--that is mostly all you can dive as the ship sits now. If the tower had been removed they possibly could have set the ship more shallow--vastly--hugely--increasing the diveable portion of this massive ship.
N

I can see that perspective but I agree with Michael, the content of his posts not the tone. I think the intent was to have the sub-deck sections below recreational limits due to the extensive overhead environments. While the tower is small relative to the whole ship, I think there is still plenty of it to dive for someone who does it once or twice a year.

And for some (veterans as well as divers), cutting off the tower destroys the integrity and honor of the ship.

 

[mike_s]

Well there were three choices for this ship.

One was to scrap it and cut it into pieces. The 2nd was a floating museum, but that requires valuable deep water pier space and massive hurricane enforcements. This didn't happen because of funds. The third was to keep her whole and sink her.

Ironically they spent enough money on sinking her that they could have prob funded option #2 easily.

I understand veterans not wanting to remove the island.

I'm sure they didn't want the ship scrapped wither. With the museum option not appearing to work as no one took it on, it appears that sinking was the best way to keep the ship whole.

While this won't make every veteran of the ship happy, I'm hopping that for the most part the sailors of the ship can show their grand kids pictures of the Oriskany underwater as a reef now and tell them "look at this big ship underwater with all the fish and divers on it. Your Grandpa used to serve on that ship". That in my mind is better than telling them your old ship is now been turned into Gillette razor blades.

 

[aue-mike]

Reefing of the ORISKANY was the preferred option to scrapping due to financial reasons: it was more cost-effective for the USN to sink her than scrap her. But in the end they did spend as much or more than it would have taken to scrap the vessel. However, much of the costs will be spread over future vessels, since the reefing of the ORISKANY was the pilot project for future deployments.

Ironically they spent enough money on sinking her that they could have prob funded option #2 easily.

Not likely. You really overestimate the condition the ship was in prior to sinking. She was really in sad, sad shape. It would have cost a considerable sum of money just to keep her afloat, not considering the amount of revenue for berthing in a high-profile, high-rent waterfront area of any given city. And these costs do not disappear -- they are annual sums of money that would have to be allocated or raised, all the while developers are knocking on the door to build condos or marinas.
Then there is the HUGE sum of money it would have taken to refurbish her to make it even attractive for visitors. Or just safe. One of the reasons veterans were not allowed to tour the vessel prior to sinking was the sad state she was in. Holes rusted thru decks, no lighting below decks, standing water in most compartments, etc. Not to mention environmental issues such as asbestos, etc.
To get even close to display condition, such as the YORKTOWN in Charleston, would have required a HUGE amount of money upfront, and a sizeable annual budget as well. Given there are other carriers in much better condition and eligible for museum allocation, I don't think too many cities -- if any -- would have been willing to pony up and take the ORISKANY. I know many veterans feel she is worthy of better, but that was just the cold reality of the situation.

 

[aue-mike]

I can see that perspective but I agree with Michael, the content of his posts not the tone.

I really don't care if I offended anyone with my tone in this instance. This guy was given good information and responses from several people -- from the safety issues, to the issue of settlement (the topic of this thread), to charter information, etc. -- and all he can do is be antagonistic and continue his whining. I have no tolerance for idiots like that.

For him to allude to belligerent posts by others, when he himself tells others are wrong, he is right, or telling others to not argue with him, is the pot calling the kettle black. And he deleted and modified his own posts for some reason....

And for some (veterans as well as divers), cutting off the tower destroys the integrity and honor of the ship.

Aside from the considerable costs to do so, and the issues of structural integrity, as you said, you might as well just sink a barge as that is what you basically have left -- a 900-foot long flat surface. neat-o.

 

[BRANDY]

Now everyone is finished beating chest's! Im gonna dive her next week if weather permits,I'll check and see if she's settled.

 

[mike_s]

Reefing of the ORISKANY was the preferred option to scrapping due to financial reasons: it was more cost-effective for the USN to sink her than scrap her. But in the end they did spend as much or more than it would have taken to scrap the vessel. However, much of the costs will be spread over future vessels, since the reefing of the ORISKANY was the pilot project for future deployments.



It would have cost a considerable sum of money just to keep her afloat, not considering the amount of revenue for berthing in a high-profile, high-rent waterfront area of any given city. And these costs do not disappear -- they are annual sums of money that would have to be allocated or raised, all the while developers are knocking on the door to build condos or marinas.
Then there is the HUGE sum of money it would have taken to refurbish her to make it even attractive for visitors. Or just safe. .....To get even close to display condition, such as the YORKTOWN in Charleston, would have required a HUGE amount of money upfront, and a sizeable annual budget as well. Given there are other carriers in much better condition and eligible for museum allocation, I don't think too many cities -- if any -- would have been willing to pony up and take the ORISKANY. I know many veterans feel she is worthy of better, but that was just the cold reality of the situation.

Very true.

The uss intrepid, which has been a floating museum in New York, is being refurbished. so are many of it's aircraft. it's a two year project including drydock, etc.. they are also rebuiling the pier it docked at which will take 18 months.

Cost of project: $55+ million.