Washington State Wants to Build a Bridge Out of Old Aircraft Carriers
58 replies, posted
Wow they so poor.
[QUOTE=Sableye;47524298]Pretty sure these are all conventional carriers, the ones a forstall class and the Kitty hawk is its own class. The enterprise is not really a suggestion since the majority of the ship will need to be gutted removing the 8 powerplants, it would be neat but this doesn't seem practical at all[/QUOTE]
That's why I said ONE has a nuclear plant. The ships are mostly gutted anyway and are not normally moved to scrap yards under their own power so in the end the powerplants type weather it be conventional or not is irrelivant since all of the electronics, cooling, and equipment will be gone if it's not already. I could easily see Big E still being used once they finish gutting her reactors. I can also their hangers being turned into some sort of shopping/tourist attraction they're easily big enough to put in some restaurant or something. That's what they did with the midway in San Diego, they have a cafe on the fantail and and bunch of cool shit to look at.
One solution to the whole ship passing would be to use only two ships, then build a short bridge between the two. However, wouldn't they have to seal up the ship or risk having people go down inside? And how hard/easy would it be for some people to break in?
The biggest issue would be maintenance, I think. Aircraft carriers have enormous interior volumes which would be prone to potentially catastrophic decay if left unattended - but there's no reason that space couldn't be put to use to justify the maintenance cost. Shopping, restaurants, museums, housing... using the hangars as parking garages. It'd be pretty doggone cool to live up in the bridge of a decommissioned aircraft carrier.
No need for tugs or keeping them working, just convert them into a standard pontoon moveable bridge.
It's basically 2 approach slabs with a barge in-between. The barge in-between is swung open using a series of cables, pullies, and winches. Not that hard to do. We have quite a few here in Louisiana, where the waterway is too narrow for a high bridge, and building a swinging bridge is impractical.
This would be a maintenance nightmare.
[QUOTE=OvB;47525754]This would be a maintenance nightmare.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. Cathodic Protection can severely limit corrosion. The only maintennance would truly be roadway maintennance and things like the occasional painting.
Each ship would need to be refurbished. The hulls would need anti-corrosion work, they would probably be permanently moored in position. Moving them would be more work than its worth for boats that would need access to that little spot. There could probably be enough space between them For small boats anyway. The ships would have to be docked every few years to resurface the hulls or they risk sinking them. Alternatively, they could sink them there, but then corrosion would be an issue.
[editline]14th April 2015[/editline]
It would be millions of dollars more for a cool novelty bridge that needs constant babysitting.
[QUOTE=OvB;47525754]This would be a maintenance nightmare.[/QUOTE]
So worth it, though.
Just imagination how badass it would be to drive over a bridge of fucking aircraft carriers.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47525779]Not necessarily. Cathodic Protection can severely limit corrosion. The only maintennance would truly be roadway maintennance and things like the occasional painting.[/QUOTE]
Depending on conditions, cathodic protection requires periodic maintenance (can be every dew months, to years) to replace the aluminum blocks, or else it's worthless.
Not a huge job. Can be solved with divers. But it's another job normal bridges don't have. It also requires a power supply.
Aircraft carriers are becoming obsolete and it's really sad because these things are awesome
[QUOTE=mcgrath618;47526164]Aircraft carriers are becoming obsolete and it's really sad because these things are awesome[/QUOTE]
How
[QUOTE=mcgrath618;47526164]Aircraft carriers are becoming obsolete and it's really sad because these things are awesome[/QUOTE]
That's not true in the slightest.
[QUOTE=mcgrath618;47526164]Aircraft carriers are becoming obsolete and it's really sad because these things are awesome[/QUOTE]
wtf, how are you supposed to project power with aircraft carriers?
[QUOTE=dbk21894;47523838]I feel like no on in this thread realizes where they're attempting to build this bridge. The water past the point at which it would be constructed is not navigable. Boat traffic is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
I looked this up because west of the bridge the water is still 25+ feet deep for some time, but that entire inlet is closed to public and private use. It is exclusively Navy use only.
Kinda strange. Kinda cool.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47526944]I looked this up because west of the bridge the water is still 25+ feet deep for some time, but that entire inlet is closed to public and private use. It is exclusively Navy use only.
Kinda strange. Kinda cool.[/QUOTE]
Probably because you have a bunch of decommissioned naval craft right to the other side of the proposed bridge iirc. The Navy doesn't like people getting close to their ships without supervision, decommissioned or not.
[QUOTE=Dcmetax;47522587][URL]https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5367369,-122.6363378,13z[/URL]
There's not a whole lot down there, and I don't remember seeing any houses along the water there. It's really just a highway.
Honestly, I don't see the point for it. They're just cutting down a five minute drive.[/QUOTE]
And letting you drive on fucking [B]aircraft carriers[/B].
[QUOTE=viperfan7;47527638]And letting you drive on fucking [B]aircraft carriers[/B].[/QUOTE]
Which is awesome. Yet impractical
As a Washingtonian I can only say that I'm proud of my state for letting me one day experience the greatest display of naval power we have to offer.
For a true display of our Global Power our next bridge should be made with our Island Territories.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;47526479]How[/QUOTE]
Anti aircraft carrier missiles.
[QUOTE=mcgrath618;47526164]Aircraft carriers are becoming obsolete and it's really sad because these things are awesome[/QUOTE]
they're called "carrier strike groups" for a reason
[QUOTE=Fhenexx;47523763]Y'know, while we're on the subject of repurposing old aircraft carriers, I wonder how feasible it would be for someone to turn one of them into a shopping center of some sort. There's a hell of a lot of space on those things and they usually have a lot of facilities for all the crewmen on board, it'd be a pretty interesting premise at least[/QUOTE]
Are you aware of just how narrow the corridors on a supercarrier are?
[editline]14th April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=OvB;47525813]Depending on conditions, cathodic protection requires periodic maintenance (can be every dew months, to years) to replace the aluminum blocks, or else it's worthless.
Not a huge job. Can be solved with divers. But it's another job normal bridges don't have. It also requires a power supply.[/QUOTE]
That means jobs. Jobs are good for the economy, for local unemployment rates, for local citizens who need work and cannot otherwise find work.
I don't see the downside you're trying to point out. 'We need to have a maintenance crew to replace these aluminum blocks and keep the anti-corrosion paintwork up and whatnot' is a good thing.
[QUOTE=OvB;47526487]That's not true in the slightest.[/QUOTE]
I think he means [I]those[/I] aircraft carriers, not aircraft carriers in general.
They'll never pick a CVN for this because as part of the nuclear decommissioning process they cut the ship apart. They take one compartment in each direction around the nuclear plant, seal it up, then float it over to Hanford. The nuclear engineering spaces of a CVN take up a huge portion of the lower decks, after cutting them out you'd be left with a massive hulk with no backbone. It would be impossible to refloat a nuclear carrier after removing the reactor compartments. Especially the Enterprise, which has a much larger reactor compartment than the Nimitz's.
That being said, I think it would be really cool to have a bridge constructed out of carriers, even if the maintenance and logistics would make it impossible.
Everyone needs to keep in mind that a carrier requires constant painting to keep rust at bay, they're not designed to be rust-proof.
Such a bad idea on so many levels.
This needs to happen.
I think [I]everything[/I] should to be built out of aircraft carriers.
[QUOTE=CrossTownNews;47527896]Anti aircraft carrier missiles.[/QUOTE]
You mean that thing the Chinese tested once...at a static passive target...that was stationary...in calm weather?
Hypersonic anti ship missiles sound terrifying but they require an incredibly series of interlocking systems to hit, its like trying to do space-x landing but with an actively moving target and your vehicle is going hypersonic, they require a complex series of positioning systems to first identify a ship, then pinpoint its exact position and continuously update the warheads trajectory, US carriers along with their phalanx systems have ecm warfare jets in the sky at all times
It'd be a good surprise weapon but because the time from initial launch to a successive hit is still significant, early warning systems would at least catch it by descent and give carriers time to jam it
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
