USS Forrestal - First Supercarrier - Sold to Scrap Company for 1 Penny - Polidicks

[QUOTE=TestECull;42623642]Really now. They're going to scrap a piece of history?! That ship should become a museum ship. It is, after all, the first supercarrier. It's unique and it should be preserved in a historical context instead of being scrapped.[/QUOTE] I've lost faith in the military's ability to properly preserve history after they [I]fucking scrapped the USS ENTERPRISE I MEAN SERIOUSLY [B]WHAT THE FUCK YOU GUYS[/B][/I] Oh sorry, I get sort of emotional about that :c

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;42623679]they tried but it's just a warboat jesus, it's not even that old maybe it's just an american thing to get so misty-eyed about military technology and symbols of western interventionism but i really don't get why people care about turning every single armed canoe into a museum so much?[/QUOTE] What about HMS Victory? The oldest commissioned ship in the world (though it sits in dry dock), it's still maintained by the Royal Navy.

I would have paid double that price. But really, why would you even accept that price?

[QUOTE=Britishboy;42625169]What about HMS Victory? The oldest commissioned ship in the world (though it sits in dry dock), it's still maintained by the Royal Navy.[/QUOTE] Victory is, a different kettle of fish entirely, if you want a parallel then look at Ark Royal which our government tossed aside, even though we don't actually have an aircraft carrier to our name now. [QUOTE=Oizen;42625208]I would have paid double that price. But really, why would you even accept that price?[/QUOTE] They accept such a low offer to get it off the books, all the while its not doing anything it's just costing the goverment money, they sold it for a penny but they are actually getting alot more back in return.

[QUOTE=Britishboy;42625169]What about HMS Victory? The oldest commissioned ship in the world (though it sits in dry dock), it's still maintained by the Royal Navy.[/QUOTE] what about it? it's not expensive to maintain, cant be sold for scrap, comparatively small and has an actual claim to fame like you said (it's fucking ancient) [editline]24th October 2013[/editline] not that i'd care too much if they did get rid of it but it'd be really hard to justify in the first place

[QUOTE=Apache249;42625041]So by your logic the only important car was the first one, and no other cars belong in a museum? [editline]23rd October 2013[/editline] your museums would be very empty.[/QUOTE] No, what I'm saying is not every category of something is historically significant. Using cars as the example, the first would be historic. What about the first to include seatbelts? The first four door? The first with a sunroof? The first to include floor mats? There comes a point where 'the first...' doesn't really mean anything anymore. I'd pick the best supercarrier ever built(whichever that one turns out to be) as the museum piece. The one that has everything a supercarrier ever had, in the most modern version. As far as history goes, that's the one to save for future generations.

[QUOTE=Dacheet;42625098]I've lost faith in the military's ability to properly preserve history after they [I]fucking scrapped the USS ENTERPRISE I MEAN SERIOUSLY [B]WHAT THE FUCK YOU GUYS[/B][/I] Oh sorry, I get sort of emotional about that :c[/QUOTE] IIRC, the nuclear reactors on the Enterprise's is a military secret, therefor it could not have been turned into a museum ship even if removed. [editline]test[/editline] Nope, did not remember correctly. [quote]Naval enthusiasts have requested that Enterprise be converted into a museum. Newport News Shipbuilding will deactivate and de-fuel the ship, which will then be formally decommissioned once all nuclear fuel has been removed. The process is scheduled to begin in mid-2013 and be completed in 2015. Once the Navy dismantles and recycles the ship's reactors, there will be very little left to turn into a museum; virtually everything two decks below the hangar bay would have to be cut apart.[/quote] TL:DR, removing the nuclear reactors means practically taking the ship apart. [editline]test2[/editline] Look on the bright side guys, the USS Midway (which is a super carrier by some definitions) is now a museum. [url=http://www.midway.org/][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/USS_Midway_%28CV-41%29_leaving_Yokosuka%2C_Crew_spelling_Sayonara.jpg/1280px-USS_Midway_%28CV-41%29_leaving_Yokosuka%2C_Crew_spelling_Sayonara.jpg[/img][/url]

[QUOTE=Bradyns;42623706]Scuttle it, and make an artificial reef.[/QUOTE] Out of curiosity, whats the advantage of artificial reefs? I thought some of the metal/paint-on-the-metal would be rather toxic to serve as a marine environment. (Sources Please)

didn't know the big E's reactors were so large, i know they had 4 of them and each one had like 2 cores, and i know they needed to be sliced open for refueling, but damn that most of it has to be destroyed to deactivate it. its a shame that it even has to go, but with all weapons, eventually they just can't be re-used, for a ship like the big E that has been at every major conflict since its creation itll be interesting what they do with it. [editline]24th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;42625698]Out of curiosity, whats the advantage of artificial reefs? I thought some of the metal/paint-on-the-metal would be rather toxic to serve as a marine environment. (Sources Please)[/QUOTE] they detox the ship and make it diver-safe before scuttling, which means all the ladders are removed, large holes cut through the decks, all toxic materials drained and scrubbed ect ect, the good thing about artificial reefs is that they grow like wildfires and are resiliant to climate change [editline]24th October 2013[/editline] [t]http://media.tcpalm.com/media/img/photos/2009/05/27/Q-28TSHIPSC-7417_t607.JPG[/t] plus the way they are sunk, they actually preserve the ships for the future in a way, this guy had an even more important role than probably the super-carriers did, it was one of the relays for NASA durring the apollo era and now its one of the largest artificial reefs

I'm still wondering why the fuck they sold it for a penny. The amount of scrap metal in that ship alone is worth at least a couple million. I really, really question the people in charge of things in this country sometimes. I don't care how hard it is to transport, if some country bumpkin shipbreakers in Southeast Asia can move old tankers using jerry-rigged methods, I'm sure a US company can do it too. Especially since they probably have actual tugboats, you know, boats designed for moving big ships around. There is no way the company is going to lose money on this project, they're going to see a hefty profit.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;42627684]I'm still wondering why the fuck they sold it for a penny. The amount of scrap metal in that ship alone is worth at least a couple million. I really, really question the people in charge of things in this country sometimes. I don't care how hard it is to transport, if some country bumpkin shipbreakers in Southeast Asia can move old tankers using jerry-rigged methods, I'm sure a US company can do it too. Especially since they probably have actual tugboats, you know, boats designed for moving big ships around. There is no way the company is going to lose money on this project, they're going to see a hefty profit.[/QUOTE] It's not worth explaining the costs and logistics involved with shipping and dismantling large vessels; all you need to know is that the U.S. saved a great deal of money by passing it on to a private corporation that already has the infrastructure and personnel to oversee such a project.

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;42623679]they tried but it's just a warboat jesus, it's not even that old maybe it's just an american thing to get so misty-eyed about military technology and symbols of western interventionism but i really don't get why people care about turning every single armed canoe into a museum so much?[/QUOTE] The British did it to with older ships atleast anyway. HMS Warrior: [thumb]http://graymonk.mu.nu/photographs/mausi/warrior/2006_HMS-Warrior.jpg[/thumb] HMS Victory: [thumb]http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/31124-1/HMSVictoryAerial-cb05093.jpg[/thumb]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;42627684]I'm still wondering why the fuck they sold it for a penny. The amount of scrap metal in that ship alone is worth at least a couple million. I really, really question the people in charge of things in this country sometimes. I don't care how hard it is to transport, if some country bumpkin shipbreakers in Southeast Asia can move old tankers using jerry-rigged methods, I'm sure a US company can do it too. Especially since they probably have actual tugboats, you know, boats designed for moving big ships around. There is no way the company is going to lose money on this project, they're going to see a hefty profit.[/QUOTE] The Forrestal is sailing to the shipbreaker under her own power afaik

[QUOTE=Dacheet;42625098]I've lost faith in the military's ability to properly preserve history after they [I]fucking scrapped the USS ENTERPRISE I MEAN SERIOUSLY [B]WHAT THE FUCK YOU GUYS[/B][/I] Oh sorry, I get sort of emotional about that :c[/QUOTE] Or destroying weapons from WW2 and earlier, including Garands, Enfields, Tommyguns, and Sturmgewehrs.

It irritates me that the large caches of these guns they find are not able to be saved under current US law. I feel like more should be done to preserve these pieces of history, but guns and especially automatic guns are a very touchy subject in politics.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;42623706]Scuttle it, and make an artificial reef.[/QUOTE] A lot of money goes into that. A bunch of agencies and shit get involved and oversee what needs to be ripped out, which is everything. Including wires and cables because they could cause cancer to fish (No joke). There's a lot of expense involved in creating an artificial reef out of one

Well to be honest you can't keep every aircraft carrier, some of them are gonna have to be scrapped.

[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;42624177]Or you could have sold it for more to an out of country company to help solve your debt?[/QUOTE] Its sad that some people believe that this is how our debt actually works.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;42627684]I'm still wondering why the fuck they sold it for a penny. The amount of scrap metal in that ship alone is worth at least a couple million. [b]I really, really question the people in charge of things in this country sometimes.[/b][/QUOTE] well it's a good thing your questions carry absolutely no weight because you do not know what you are talking about The US navy is not in the business of taking apart lumps of metal; they do not employ the necessary army of welders, workmen, heavy equipment operators and businessmen necessary to turn a boat into money. Purchasing a ship like this for a penny is still a massive investment because you're going to be paying upkeep on the operation long before you start to see money come in. The costs to drydock something that size alone are already probably pretty astronomical.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;42627684]I'm still wondering why the fuck they sold it for a penny. The amount of scrap metal in that ship alone is worth at least a couple million. I really, really question the people in charge of things in this country sometimes. I don't care how hard it is to transport, if some country bumpkin shipbreakers in Southeast Asia can move old tankers using jerry-rigged methods, I'm sure a US company can do it too. Especially since they probably have actual tugboats, you know, boats designed for moving big ships around. There is no way the company is going to lose money on this project, they're going to see a hefty profit.[/QUOTE] Decomissioning ships is actually a net-loss business. The companies who take them apart actually do so at a loss, even operating in the third world where labour is cheaper. That's why it was sold for a penny, because otherwise nobody would have bought it.

snip I don't know if I actually believe that taking it apart is a net loss business, but I'll take your word for it for now.

[QUOTE=ChristopherB;42627929]It's not worth explaining the costs and logistics involved with shipping and dismantling large vessels; all you need to know is that the U.S. saved a great deal of money by passing it on to a private corporation that already has the infrastructure and personnel to oversee such a project.[/QUOTE]But why sell it for a mere penny? They'll make money, why not charge them at least ten fucking percent of what it's worth.[QUOTE=Sector 7;42628692]The US navy is not in the business of taking apart lumps of metal; they do not employ the necessary army of welders, workmen, heavy equipment operators and businessmen necessary to turn a boat into money. Purchasing a ship like this for a penny is still a massive investment because you're going to be paying upkeep on the operation long before you start to see money come in. The costs to drydock something that size alone are already probably pretty astronomical.[/QUOTE]No shit. I was aware that the United States Navy doesn't break up their own ships. All Star Metals knows the initial costs of the venture because they break up ships [i]all the goddamn time,[/i] my point is we're seventeen fucking trillion dollars in the hole and the US Navy gave away a whole warship.[QUOTE=Craigewan;42628734]Decomissioning ships is actually a net-loss business. The companies who take them apart actually do so at a loss, even operating in the third world where labour is cheaper. That's why it was sold for a penny, because otherwise nobody would have bought it.[/QUOTE]That makes absolutely zero sense, considering that All Star Metals, LLC regularly breaks ships up for scrap. Aside from black magic, there's no way any ship breaking company can run a business at a continuous loss, they have to see a profit somewhere or receive government subsidy. Oh, and, they've also done an aircraft carrier before, the USS Cabot, which was broken up in 2007. Also, the USS Cabot wasn't sold for a goddamn penny.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;42629503]But why sell it for a mere penny? They'll make money, why not charge them at least ten fucking percent of what it's worth.[/QUOTE] Because nobody would take it at any higher. Even if there's a net gain you also have to compare that to other potential net gains should your company use its personnel and facilities for other, more profitable jobs. Net gain alone isn't enough, it needs to be large enough to be worth taking on and turning down other jobs for.

A thing is only worth what someone will pay you for it. I'm sure if someone had offered a million dollars for that carrier, and they met any security requirements, the government would have sold it to them. The price of one penny is symbolic, just so that technically they can say they sold it. It means no one really wanted this to the point it was almost a "you can't give it away" situation.

Either way, I still find it ridiculous and wasteful. Fine, so the US Navy had to basically give the ship away, but I think that alone says a lot about our country and what type of people are in it.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;42631860]Either way, I still find it ridiculous and wasteful. Fine, so the US Navy had to basically give the ship away, but I think that alone says a lot about our country and what type of people are in it.[/QUOTE] ...Are you serious? This is a cost-saving measure, not a government bake sale. Holding on to a useless obsolete pile of metal on the off-chance you'd find someone insane enough to buy it for a meaningful amount of money would be ridiculous and wasteful. I think it says more about the US that people like you are so eager to make judgements on subjects clearly outside your expertise.

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;42623679]they tried but it's just a warboat jesus, it's not even that old maybe it's just an american thing to get so misty-eyed about military technology and symbols of western interventionism but i really don't get why people care about turning every single armed canoe into a museum so much?[/QUOTE] Maybe you should go to San Diego and spend two hours exploring the U.S.S. Midway. You might get a little misty-eyed yourself.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;42631860]Either way, I still find it ridiculous and wasteful. Fine, so the US Navy had to basically give the ship away, but I think that alone says a lot about our country and what type of people are in it.[/QUOTE] you don't understand, they just hands off sold it for the cheapest amount they can legally do because the company that has to pay for it to be moved, berthed, then they have to pay dock fees for years, pay speacialised crews for years before they start to see a break even on scrap vs operating costs. by the time its all over, it'll have been close to a decade worth of work, tens of thousands of man-hours, and tons of delays due to hazardous materials cleanup before they can get to the point where they can move it from a dock to a dry dock for final scrapping. [editline]24th October 2013[/editline] dismantling a ship under normal circomstances is long and expensive and only pays off after years worth of work. dismantling a nuclear powered aircraft carrier will take years more and many more years of delays because the military still has to de-activate and remove the reactors and make sure the ship is even safe to work on

[QUOTE=Sector 7;42636348]...Are you serious? This is a cost-saving measure, not a government bake sale. Holding on to a useless obsolete pile of metal on the off-chance you'd find someone insane enough to buy it for a meaningful amount of money would be ridiculous and wasteful. I think it says more about the US that people like you are so eager to make judgements on subjects clearly outside your expertise.[/QUOTE]Excuse me? I actually went the extra mile and researched the company that's breaking the ship up, so please drop the sanctimony. If the ship is so useless and obsolete, why not sell it as-is to another country? We've regularly sold off our obsolete ships to other nations, and don't give me that military secrets bit because the Cabot was sold to fucking Spain in 1967, which didn't join NATO until '82. We tend to remove the super secret stuff from things when we sell them. Fine, they sold the ship to a scrapping company that bought it out of the warmth, joy, and kindness of their hearts. I hope the ship's materials contribute something, anything, to our economy and maybe this won't be a [i]total loss[/i] after all. Despite whatever the fuck you think, I do actually understand the immense difficulty in keeping a ship mothballed, especially when it's old and has been at sea for decades. She was struck in '93, so since then she's been in ship limbo and yeah, every day is money being used.[QUOTE=Sableye;42637597]dismantling a ship under normal circomstances is long and expensive and only pays off after years worth of work. dismantling a nuclear powered aircraft carrier will take years more and many more years of delays because the military still has to de-activate and remove the reactors and make sure the ship is even safe to work on[/QUOTE]Quite aware of the difficulties involved, but that doesn't change anything. If you were to apply this business model to, say, a company that demolishes buildings they'd go broke right away. There's a lot of just, raw metal that can be taken off of the ship bit by bit, and then there's actual usable pieces of metal that come off and are sold as-is. There's a lot of massive straight and flat surfaces on a ship that are essentially one-inch metal plate, and a two ton plate of steel sells for [i]a lot of money.[/i] Then there's the wires, the special alloys that are put into certain ship systems (you have any idea what the driveshafts for those screws are worth?) and even some equipment that will be sold as surplus. Every time a warship is broken up, the surplus market is flooded with interesting and odd things that are sold for a pretty penny. Things that aren't valuable enough for the military to keep, but not worthless enough to just throw away.