Page 1 of 8 12345678 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 116
Like Tree20Likes

Thread: USN Carriers to be Scrapped

  1. #1
    BB64's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 06
    Location
    Central British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    10

    USN Carriers to be Scrapped

    I guess this was inevitable:

    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

    It's going to be hard to see the old girls go ...

  2. #2
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    1,916
    How many firms could anyone expect to bid on these monsters given all that is required of them before a torch could be taken to the hulls. Would the value of the steel, after all the remediation is done, actually yield a profit. Was not the Coral Sea the last carrier dismantled and that was a long drawn out affair or disaster depending on your point of view.

  3. #3
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,723
    Ex-USS Forrestal was a given. They could not find a home for her and most of that equipment if it is not already will probably be removed before this takes place. It was much the very same with the ex-USS America before she was taken out.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  4. #4
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Chogy's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Apr 09
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,752
    "demilitarized to no greater than 5 foot sections"? Are they really saying that a six foot piece of sheet steel is somehow militaristic vs a five foot section?

    Cutting the carrier to such tiny pieces is ridiculous overkill and will hugely raise the cost of dismantling.

  5. #5
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,210
    Why can't you sink those carriers as artificial reefs once you remove the toxic materials? Or better yet, take them to shipbreakers areas in Bangladesh or India once removing the toxic materials? They will do the work a lot faster and more efficiently than the workers in US could ever hope to do.

  6. #6
    Contributor
    Defense Professional
    Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Nov 11
    Location
    Rocket City, Alabama
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by Chogy View Post
    "demilitarized to no greater than 5 foot sections"? Are they really saying that a six foot piece of sheet steel is somehow militaristic vs a five foot section?

    Cutting the carrier to such tiny pieces is ridiculous overkill and will hugely raise the cost of dismantling.

    Actually not...depending on the steel it will probably end up on Humvees, or used as add-on armor somewhere in the inventory. But the cutting up of the vessel is designed to help facilitate the removal. How they came about 5ft sq is beyond me but then why do B52s who have outlived their usefulness have to be shredded. The answer usually is "Thats what the DoD wants."

  7. #7
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Chogy View Post
    "demilitarized to no greater than 5 foot sections"? Are they really saying that a six foot piece of sheet steel is somehow militaristic vs a five foot section?

    Cutting the carrier to such tiny pieces is ridiculous overkill and will hugely raise the cost of dismantling.
    In the past when the USN has "surveyed" items for destruction they make sure (even if by unreasonable means) that it resembles nothing of it former self. Call it regulation if you would. One thing I have noticed though in watching steel scrap get loaded aboard ship along the piers it is better to be in smaller pieces, that way the cranes can just pick away at a very fast pace and can be sent to where ever.

    Can you imagine how many ships holds that a carrier dismantled into 5 foot sections can fill?
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  8. #8
    Contributor SlaterDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Oct 09
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    Why can't you sink those carriers as artificial reefs once you remove the toxic materials? Or better yet, take them to shipbreakers areas in Bangladesh or India once removing the toxic materials? They will do the work a lot faster and more efficiently than the workers in US could ever hope to do.
    Those great ships are material assets that can continue their lives in the hull of a new ship or as a vehicle protecting our soldiers! We don't need to send any more to the bottom as reefs! The companies in Texas are quick to say they are "recyclers", not "ship breakers"! I believe a certain percentage of each ship should be used in the construction of a new ship, just as was done with the trade center steel in the USS New York. That way a little bit of the soul of a ship lives on in an another! A new carrier should have some of an old carrier in her!
    As for the far east, have you ever looked at an aerial of those places? This is a shot of Alang. That's not "volcanic sand"! That's why we can no longer supply them with our ships!
    Attachment 28390

  9. #9
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    5,692
    Please, anybody with some pull on this board. Can you arrange it to have the SPS-49 and SPS-35 antennas of one of the Carriers shipped down to the Iowa?
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

  10. #10
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,723
    One would think with the right investment these three once stripped of dangerous materials would make one hell of a home for the homeless Vets and others. Wishful thinking.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  11. #11
    Contributor SlaterDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Oct 09
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts
    Posts
    463
    Dread, great minds think alike! I suggested to the RI group going for the JFK that they set aside a berthing, messing and medical area for just that purpose! Plus, in exchange for the housing on board the vets could do the maintenance and upkeep as well as the restoration. Another idea would be to use a carrier as a detention facility! Where else could a state or city get a billion dollar building for nothing from the feds!! A carrier would have everything they need on it, berthing, mess, medical, shops, classroom space and plenty of exercise area! NO escaping either! Too big of a jump down!

  12. #12
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    1,916
    Quote Originally Posted by RustyBattleship View Post
    Please, anybody with some pull on this board. Can you arrange it to have the SPS-49 and SPS-35 antennas of one of the Carriers shipped down to the Iowa?
    You don't need pull. Do you have anyone on your board at Admiral level? All you need to do is call Bremerton and start asking if you could get the radars off the Connie or Indy. We called numerous times asking for permission to take that 3"/50 cal twin mount and they eventually consented. Or enlist the help of Boxer or Feinstein (yes, that is what I said) to put light pressure on the Navy to cooperate. When the Hornet learned that the ships original wheel was down at Leemore NAS we asked for it. The ship was turned down flat. So one of the ships last QM's started writing letters to Feinstein about getting the wheel. A year or so later, lo and behold, we are told the Captain of the base was going to bring up the wheel to us. There was a little ceremony in the Pilot House as it was presented and installed and I was behind the helm watching. Then I took the wheel that was there, ex-Bennington, and placed it on the helm in Secondary Con.
    Dreadnought likes this.

  13. #13
    Field mechanik Senior Contributor omon's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 06
    Location
    bk
    Posts
    3,604
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyDoc View Post
    Dread, great minds think alike! I suggested to the RI group going for the JFK that they set aside a berthing, messing and medical area for just that purpose! Plus, in exchange for the housing on board the vets could do the maintenance and upkeep as well as the restoration. Another idea would be to use a carrier as a detention facility! Where else could a state or city get a billion dollar building for nothing from the feds!! A carrier would have everything they need on it, berthing, mess, medical, shops, classroom space and plenty of exercise area! NO escaping either! Too big of a jump down!
    that wont happen for 3 reasons.
    politics, politics, politics
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

  14. #14
    Senior Contributor blidgepump's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Jul 09
    Posts
    1,854

    Sounds like a mission for ????

    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    You don't need pull. Do you have anyone on your board at Admiral level? All you need to do is call Bremerton and start asking if you could get the radars off the Connie or Indy. We called numerous times asking for permission to take that 3"/50 cal twin mount and they eventually consented. Or enlist the help of Boxer or Feinstein (yes, that is what I said) to put light pressure on the Navy to cooperate. When the Hornet learned that the ships original wheel was down at Leemore NAS we asked for it. The ship was turned down flat. So one of the ships last QM's started writing letters to Feinstein about getting the wheel. A year or so later, lo and behold, we are told the Captain of the base was going to bring up the wheel to us. There was a little ceremony in the Pilot House as it was presented and installed and I was behind the helm watching. Then I took the wheel that was there, ex-Bennington, and placed it on the helm in Secondary Con.
    Which one and where is the array located?
    Could be interesting to see what happens in an election year.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  15. #15
    Contributor SlaterDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Oct 09
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts
    Posts
    463

    These views may be a little more help in identification!

    Attachment 28396
    Attachment 28394

    Rusty, would those be the animals you're looking for that are already laying on Sara's deck?
    Attachment 28393

    If they are, it might be better to wait until they move her to Philly! They'd be a few hundred miles closer!
    Maybe we can find a Navy vet trucker that is making an empty turn around in Philly!
    Last edited by SlaterDoc; 14 Feb 12, at 23:48.

Page 1 of 8 12345678 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. SS United States in danger of being scrapped
    By Ken_NJ in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 26 Feb 15,, 05:41
  2. USN Cruiser to be scrapped - ID?
    By Gus00 in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01 Feb 10,, 22:27
  3. More Carriers, but smaller.
    By CGXC runner in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 08 Sep 08,, 12:16
  4. New and Current Carriers
    By Stan in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 02 May 07,, 11:42
  5. T-3A Firefly Fleet to be scrapped
    By glyn in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03 Nov 06,, 18:35

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

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