Navy sink list includes Forrestal, DDGs

[CommunityEditor]

The Navy plans to sink 15 decommissioned ships and scrap an additional 24 in the next five years, according to the latest shipbuilding plan.

In fiscal 2009, the Navy will sink the Yellowstone-class destroyer Acadia, the Spruance-class destroyer Conolly and the acoustic research ship Hayes. The Hayes is still active and will be decommissioned sometime this year, according to the Navy. The service requested $5.4 million to sink the three ships in the fiscal 2009 budget presented to Congress in early February.

Two ships in the current plan are slated to sink and become artificial reefs, the plan notes: the Spruance-class destroyer Arthur W. Radford, which rests in Philadelphia, and the auxiliary aircraft landing training ship and former carrier Forrestal, currently berthed in Newport, R.I. Specific sink dates have not been set for these two ships because plans must be coordinated with Congress and other government agencies, the plan states.

The Radford was named after the first Navy admiral to hold the position of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and was decommissioned in March 2003 after about 26 years in service. The Forrestal spent 38 years in service. The ship was the first of its class of aircraft carriers, and was known unofficially as the “Forrest fire” due to the number of fires onboard. Innovations on the Forrestal-class carriers included an angled flight deck and a steam catapult. The ship was named after former Navy secretary James Forrestal, who was also the first defense secretary.

The majority of the ships the Navy plans to sink — 11 vessels of the 15 — are auxiliary ships. These ships will be replaced by T-AKE dry cargo and ammunition ships. The Lewis and Clark-class T-AKE ships replace three auxiliary ships: the Kilauea-class ammunition ships, the Mars-class combat stores ships and — when operating with a Henry J. Kaiser-class oiler — the Supply-class fast combat support ships.

The Navy plans to buy 12 T-AKE ships by fiscal 2012. Right now, there are three T-AKEs in service with a fourth, the Richard E. Byrd set to enter service this year. The Navy plans to scrap 24 ships in the next five years, but specific dates are not provided in the fiscal 2009 30-year ship plan. Nearly half of the ships — 10 hulls — are submarines, nine of which are nuclear powered; the Navy does not sink nuclear ships due to environmental concerns.

“For nuclear ships, dismantling through a special recycling process is the only viable option,” the plan states. “Disposal of conventionally powered ships by sinking will usually be conducted as part of an approved training exercise or to support weapons testing requirements.” according to the Navy plan.

The Navy’s fleet of inactive ships has been reduced by more than two-thirds in the last decade, the plan notes. An inventory of 195 ships in 1997 is now down to 62 ships, the document says.

“Over the past seven years, the Navy’s average cost to dismantle conventionally powered Navy inactive ships in the U.S. is $300 per ton,” said Kathleen Roberts, a Naval Systems Command spokeswoman.

Further, it costs the Navy $14 million per year to maintain its current inactive ship inventory, Roberts said.

The Navy is asking Congress for $110 million total in fiscal 2009 to pay for ship deactivations and disposal, according to the budget request.

Plans for how and when the Navy moves forward with its inactive fleet are made at the service’s annual ship disposition review conference. The next conference is slated for November or December this year, said Lt. Clay Doss, a Navy spokesman.

Sinking
These ships will be disposed of by sinking in the listed fiscal years.

* 2009: destroyer tender Acadia, destroyer Conolly, both no longer in service, and research ship Hayes.

* 2010: combat store ships Concord, San Jose, Spica and Niagara Falls.

* 2011: combat store ship Saturn and ammunition ship Kilauea.

* 2012: ammunition ships Flint, Shasta, Mount Baker and Kiska.

The decommissioned auxiliary aircraft landing training ship — and former carrier — Forrestal and destroyer Arthur W. Radford also are expected to be sunk, but no time frame has been determined.

Scrapping
These decommissioned ships are scheduled to be dismantled in the next five years: destroyer tender Puget Sound; command ship Coronado; submarine tenders Simon Lake, L.Y. Spear and McKee; cruisers Yorktown, Vincennes and Thomas S. Gates; aircraft carriers Independence and Constellation; amphibious transport dock Austin; helicopter amphibious assault ship New Orleans; dock landing ships Anchorage and Fort Fisher; submarine Trout; and nuclear submarines Drum, Omaha, Cincinnati, New York City, Groton, Birmingham, Phoenix and Baltimore. The fast-attack submarine Los Angeles, still in commission, also is on the list to be dismantled.


Article: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/0...posal_080223w/

What is with this insistence on on all but eliminating the reserve fleet? There is still a valid reason on having a reserve fleet, which is for contingincies anticipated and unforseen. These ships though dated are assets which are already paid for by american taxpayers. Some of these platforms, such as Sprance class destroyers are still very capable, and in a national emergecy, it would be desirable for our war planners to have the option to consider reactivating a destroyer or an oil burning carrier. I believe the leadership in the Navy are being penny wise and pound foolish. Iin a time that our Navy has a full plate and limited funding, sinking these irreplaceable assets is shortsighted and foolish.

I was just thinking the same thing, Michael...I spent the Korean War riding a WWII Seaplane Tender...Rode all the way through the Viet Nam thing riding WWII Destroyers, and now they want to get rid of all of the Reserve Fleet...?...But of course, the Chinese, or whomever, will graciously allow us a 3 to 10 year grace period so that we can replace these ships...HAVFND...John

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I was just thinking the same thing, Michael...I spent the Korean War riding a WWII Seaplane Tender...Rode all the way through the Viet Nam thing riding WWII Destroyers, and now they want to get rid of all of the Reserve Fleet...?...But of course, the Chinese, or whomever, will graciously allow us a 3 to 10 year grace period so that we can replace these ships...HAVFND...John

Don't worry about the Chinese. They wouldn't kill the goose that lays most of their
Wal-Mart golden egg's. They make to much money off us. Go to your local Target
or Kmart and find something that isn't...... made in China.

Wow! Hard to believe the Simon Lake, a BIG part of my life, is going to be dismantled. Hard to believe it's been that long ago. So many memories. Sorry to see her go. Would rather have seen her sunk as an artificial reef. Seems like a more fitting end to her career.

I was aborad the Forrestal on the flight deck during the fire , July 29th 1967. It's difficult to see her put to the bottom. The Forrestal Association along with the state of Maryland worked hard to have her placed at Fort Mc Henry as monument. This would have been fitting as she was the first super carrier and had a long history as a fighting vessel. The cost would have been less than it will be to sink her, any many private donations were avialable. It's a sad ending. ( no spell check, please excuse)

Unofficially known as the Forrest Fire? Maybe to a hack like Zack, but not to any salt worth his salt. I was a G Division AO on the Forrestal at the time of the fire and I think Peterson needs some sensitivity training.

Zack, This past July at "The Wall" 40th annual memorialI service in Washington DC I had the honor of reading the names of 134 of my shipmates who died on board the Forrestal 29 July 1967. They deserve better than journalists like you making stupid remarks like "Forrest fire". Your story is not in the highest traditions of the Navy. Shame on you!

Lou Braasch AMH3
AIMD Division
USS Forrestal
on board 02/1965 -12/1967

Although not a former Forrestal crew member myself, in my opinion the use of the "Forrest fire" nickname is utterly disrespectful to the men who lost their lives, or those who suffered life lasting effects, while serving their country aboard USS Forrestal. Hope Mr. Peterson will apologize.

Every ship has a nick name. Forest Fire isn't the right one to use out of respect for people that lost their lives while serving their country. I think the correct name to use is FID, first in Defense (First Secretary for Defense).