Navy may sink carrier Forrestal

[abitton]

Hey! We don't even OWN aircraft carriers...

How 'bout sharing one with up here in the Great White North?

I vote for Lake Ontario.

It'll stay in great shape for a LONG time. Promise!!



Alex

 

[mike_s]

Hey! We don't even OWN aircraft carriers...

How 'bout sharing one with up here in the Great White North?

There was an Aircraft Carrier for sale on the internet a while back if you want to get the rest of the Canadians to "pool their funds".


http://www.ships-for-sale.com/aircraft_carrier.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20040110...ekboatsales.com/details.asp?File_Number=BOP12


Also a Russian one that was for sale

http://www.cdnn.info/industry/i041207a/i041207a.html

 

[abitton]

There was an Aircraft Carrier for sale on the internet a while back if you want to get the rest of the Canadians to "pool their funds".


http://www.ships-for-sale.com/aircraft_carrier.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20040110...ekboatsales.com/details.asp?File_Number=BOP12


Also a Russian one that was for sale

http://www.cdnn.info/industry/i041207a/i041207a.html

I take it you haven't heard of the last major 'used' military purchase by Canada?

Subs... From the UK... Do a search... :11doh:

 

[GottaDive]

I say save the Navy a ton of money and sink it in the North East!

It's quite a site above water. I can't imagine how cool it would be to dive it.

~Steve~

 

[tstonedvr]

Due to the size (twice the "O") and being somewhat taller she will need around 300ft in depth to clear the limit, unless they whack a lotta island off. That would put her well offshore in many areas.
Yarg

 

[rhyz]

I would love to dive that one too, but don't make me go to Florida again to do so... But on second thought it would be a great excuse for another dive vacation!

 

[fire_diver]

Due to the size (twice the "O") and being somewhat taller she will need around 300ft in depth to clear the limit, unless they whack a lotta island off. That would put her well offshore in many areas.
Yarg

You assume a keel down resting. Whats wrong with laying her down on her side? Could sink it in a lot less water that way.

FD

 

[aue-mike]

Sorry guys, this one is designated for deep water due to confidential/classified aspects that still pertain to the vessel. This comes directly from MARAD/USN...
Don't know why the media didn't check into that...

 

[mike_s]

Aue-mike,

I was hoping to find something to rebuke your statement about sinking it deep, however, I found supporting information about it.

According to The Navy Times (July 31, 2006) at http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1991033.php

The successful Oriskany project was seen as a test case for dealing with the Navy’s surplus aircraft carriers, and according to Clark, the sinking of the next ship is already being planned. No date has been set for that ship, the Forrestal, Clark said. Unlike the Oriskany, it will not be accessible to commercial divers. The Forrestal design led directly to aircraft carriers in service today, Clark noted, and certain design details remain classified. To prevent unauthorized eyes from prying into the ship’s secrets, Forrestal and all other aircraft carriers will be sunk in deep water at classified locations.

I'm still not sure how they can "donate it to a museum" like they were planning to if it still has classified design features still employed on the ship.

 

[SeaAggie]

can be anyship just not that one, im saying sweet we need some out here there sinking, ships right now why not sink some in cali there is a bone yard out here too

Something tells me that Cali's environmental regs would make it even less economical to sink a ship there than in Florida.

"Sure you can make a reef here. Just make sure the entire ship is sandblasted down to bare metal first please!!!!!"