backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 16 comment(s) - last by fictisiousname.. on Dec 11 at 9:10 AM

USS John F. Kennedy  (Source: JFK CV-67 Memorial Foundation)
Supporters rally to save the decommissioned aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy from being scuttled

Visitors to San Diego’s tourism corridor have seen and likely visited the former USS Midway that is now the San Diego Aircraft Carrier Museum.

Navy personnel and civilians are now fighting to save another famous U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67). The carrier was recently decommissioned and its tenth commanding officer, Vice Admiral Diego E. Hernandez (retired) is attempting to save the carried from a watery grave as an artificial reef and turn it into a tourist attraction. A previously decommissioned aircraft carrier, the USS Oriskany, was sunk to form an artificial reef in 2006.

Hernandez says, “"There is a higher use for this $1.5 billion US taxpayer asset. The John F. Kennedy Maritime Museum will profitably serve south Florida as a platform for education where parents, children and educators can learn firsthand the role that history, math, science, geography, social studies, seamanship and aviation play, in real-life terms that kids can get excited about!"

Hernandez and other team members are trying to mobilize some of the 500,000 plus veterans that served on the USS John F. Kennedy during the ships service life they say are necessary for the success of the plan to save the carrier. The key to saving the ship according to Hernandez is, “The key to our ultimate success is to prove to the Navy in a highly-detailed way that our business plan provides the self-sustaining solution to the US Taxpayers' problem.”

Paul Troxell, founder of the JFK CV-67 Memorial Foundation says, “Tourism revenue is the key to ensuring that this vessel will sustain itself in perpetuity and the "John F. Kennedy" name combined with our choice of location for this major attraction, adjacent to one of the world's largest cruise embarkation ports in either Miami or Fort Lauderdale, virtually guarantees 1.2 million-plus annual visitors.” The team points to the former USS Midway in San Diego as an example, that ship drew 900,000 visitors in 2006. In a time where military projects are overshooting budgets, many feel the U.S. Navy would be keen to look for alternate uses for decommissioned assets.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Smart Move
By UppityMatt on 12/7/2007 1:36:49 PM , Rating: 5
As a retired navy veteran, I think they would be very smart to turn this amazing piece of wartime history into a museum. If you have ever been to Charleston South Carolina, they have an old Aircraft Carrier docked that draws in lots of tourism. Not only that they look imposing and amazing. I would hate to see this sunk to the ocean when it could provide a much better service to the communities.




RE: Smart Move
By Ringold on 12/7/2007 3:30:18 PM , Rating: 2
It looks like the flight deck length is a bit over 1000ft, though that's not clear to me if that's 1000ft worth of deck that can be used in a straight line with which to take off.

I don't know about any other pilots, but I'd pay perhaps between $100 and $200 to be able to land on that beauty.

A Cessna 152 can take off with a minimum of 750 foot ground roll, probably less with a STOL kit.

Piper Archer, 720ft. A Decathlon, 495ft.

What I'm getting at is that there may be good money to be made by clearing the deck one day a week of the school kiddies and letting guys like me live the fantasy of a carrier landing! It would have to be a careful exercise, with a close eye paid to the type of aircraft allowed to do it.. A 172, for example, would be definitely pushing it. I'm sure a nearby FBO would be happy to have some STOL-equipped tricycle and conventional aircraft capable of making the run on their flight line, available for rental, though probably requiring an instructor.

Perhaps it'd be too risky; a 152 would have a very narrow envelope for screwing up, not so much in width but in ground roll. Just an idea to look in to, though.


RE: Smart Move
By customcoms on 12/7/2007 5:42:12 PM , Rating: 3
The history some of these ships contain is FAR too valuable to just sink to the bottom of the ocean...these should definately be turned into a museum. I have personally been to Charleston and sailed next to the carrier and battleship stationed there-its one of the best places to sail on the East Coast.

As far as opening one of these things to carrier landings, I say no way. As a private pilot with significant experience in the aviation world, having shot approaches in conditions where airliners where going missed and successfully landed, 95% of pilots out there are in no way qualified to land on one of these things, myself included. The average pilot just doesn't have the training, period. Those numbers you quoted are under ideal conditions with HIGHLY experienced test pilots. I know, for example, that some of Cessna's chief test pilots have over 20,000 flight hours, and I'm sure American Champion test pilots are equally qualified.

The navy's own pilots have several thousand hours by the time they are landing on a carrier, and are in the cockpit of an airplane almost every day-how many pilots do you know that can say that (outside of the corporate/airline/military world)? They also undergo specialized training well before they are allowed to attempt such landings (granted, they are flying aircraft with landing speeds 30-40 kts over the cruise speeds of the aircraft you listed).

In essence, this could only be attempted if the pilots went through a thorough training procedure specifically for these landing attempts, and only if the aircraft carrier was docked somewhere where such attempts could be made (no carrier museum I know of is located far enough AWAY from civilians/buildings/power lines etc. for flight in the vicinity to occur-in fact, quite the contrary, they are located in downtown waterfront areas). Basically, you would have to solicit the navy for a carrier specifically for this purpose, and I doubt they would cave in to even a hundered thousand pilots requesting to permission to land on a docked carrier.

I might add that, to the best of my knowledge, the military never lands airplanes on aircraft carriers while they are in port (yes, they probably land helicopters all the time but thats a completely separate subject)

And don't get me wrong, I would LEAP at the opportunity to land an airplane on one of these things, I just don't think it is practical for the navy to implement.


RE: Smart Move
By Ringold on 12/7/2007 10:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
You may be perfectly correct in how difficult it may be, perhaps we could just ride along with a trained instructor,I was just throwing an idea out. Don't even try to deny it, you know you'd want want to land on a carrier! :P

That said, if there really is 1000ft of straight, nice runway on the deck, and a given aircraft's POH has a ground roll over no obstacle of 500', or less as many do, then I'd think it'd be little problem. For take off, anyway. Landing on anything other then a perfect day, one would definitely have to set it down with precision. So perhaps again, trained instructors could be required.

Before 9/11 I was able to fly over, fairly low, KSC's runway for the shuttle. That alone was impressive; from a distance, it looks like a part of the river rather than a runway. Even if I had to sit back hands-off watching a multi-thousand-hour skygod land a conventional gear plane made for low, slow flight on the JFK, then, well, at least I could operate a camera.

Of course, I agree, I'd rather see it perserved regardless of if I can land on the thing. That's just icing on a billion dollar cake. I just thought it'd be cool, nothin' more. A guy can dream. :)


RE: Smart Move
By rklaver on 12/7/2007 3:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I agree, I would rather see a carrier as a museum as well. I was in San Diego a few weeks ago and I made it to the midway 30 minutes after closing (dammit!!!) Would have been one of the highlights of the trip.


RE: Smart Move
By just4U on 12/7/2007 9:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
If these carriers are worth so much money, why would they sink them? Surely the salvage on it would be worth a considerable sum?


RE: Smart Move
By Sylar on 12/7/2007 10:25:28 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they salvage what they can before the scuttle it. It would seem like an awful waste to sink a 1.5B ship without considering alternative solutions. If they don't want it, I wonder if it's possible to sell it for millions to wealthy people. If people are willing to pay millions for cars, why not millions for a carrier, it would be an awesome to own it over a yacht. They have would have to of course remove anything technologically sensitive before selling it.


So many planes
By jajig on 12/8/2007 5:24:15 AM , Rating: 1
Looks like a single US carrier could take on half the countries in the world, individually of course.




RE: So many planes
By JDub02 on 12/8/2007 10:15:43 AM , Rating: 2
I'm thinking our fleet could take on the rest of the world ... at the same time. The US Navy is, by far, the finest in the world.


RE: So many planes
By wordsworm on 12/8/2007 10:16:04 AM , Rating: 3
Fool... don't you know what power is? You know what it is, don't you, boy? Shall I tell you? It's the least I can do. Steel isn't strong boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! The strength and power of flesh! What is steel, compared to the hand that wields it? Look at the strength in your body, the desire in your heart, I gave you this! Such a waste. Contemplate this on the tree of woe. Crucify him!


RE: So many planes
By Ringold on 12/8/2007 9:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
+6 for Conan the Barbarian reference! :P


A better use
By dluther on 12/9/2007 6:39:06 PM , Rating: 3
... would be to redeploy with the Coast Guard or FEMA.

An aircraft carrier has nearly unlimited water supplies, can carry several helicopters, a sizable cargo of emergency food rations, blankets, etc...




RE: A better use
By Dvornik on 12/10/2007 5:14:42 AM , Rating: 2
It's a 40 year old ship with major reliability issues and very high maintenance cost. $120 million per year from what I read.

So thats $10 million per month on a ship that the US Navy doesn't deem mission-capable.


By nurbsenvi on 12/7/2007 11:18:44 PM , Rating: 1
It's just plain dumb idea to sink this ship... morons.




By fictisiousname on 12/11/2007 9:10:15 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree that a better use of this Ship is as a Maritime Museum, creating an artificial reef out of sunken ships has proven in the past to be a jump-start on establishing or re-establishing an Ecological habitat.

At the rate our Oceans are being harvested, and the resultant long term effects on our home planet, an argument could be made that the returns outperform the loss.


Sell it?
By barclay on 12/8/2007 4:35:06 PM , Rating: 3
I wonder if they put any thought into selling the JFK to another country. Despite being 40 years old and non-nuclear, it still has more deck space than any of the carriers currently employed by other countries. So there is a good chance that another country might be interested.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carri...

Although, I'm guessing the countries most likely to be interested, would be the countries the US is least interested in selling to (China).




"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




16 Comments











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki