Article

2003-08-04 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dar 2003-08-04 10:59:25 AM|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Cool pics and hopefully more to come. There's a reference to a USS Gonzo on some of the photos. Is that actually the USS Gonzalez?

Posted by Patrick Phillips 2003-8-4 11:11:04 AM|| 2003-8-4 11:11:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Gonzo? We named a ship after a Muppet?

Posted by Jim K 2003-8-4 1:08:34 PM|| 2003-8-4 1:08:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Still waiting on word of the USS Duke

Posted by mojo 2003-8-4 2:08:38 PM|| 2003-8-4 2:08:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Why are they sinking a perfectly good destroyer? Couldn't they just mothball it? Given the amount of ordnance they used up, I'm real impressed at the sturdiness of the hull. I've got to figure that decommissioned ships like this could come in handy if we ever need to get a bunch of replacement ships out on the ocean in a hurry. So why did they sink it?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-8-4 2:25:02 PM|| 2003-8-4 2:25:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Because they cost cubic dollars just to maintain. And you can't hardley maintain them if they never get any use, which means you have to have at least some sort of minimal crew just to use them once and a while. Which cost more money. Might as well not have decommisioned it.
Firing up a car that hasn't been used in ten years is miserable. It takes a lot of money and even more work to get them back into condition. And that can still take me a year or more.
For a friggin' car!
I can't imagine what a destroyer would be like after a decade or two. I shake thinking about it.

Posted by Mike N. 2003-8-4 2:52:24 PM|| 2003-8-4 2:52:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Zhang Fei, the Gompers wasn't a Destroyer. It was a Destroyer Tender (repair ship) as was one of the other two ships that were sunk. These ships had reached the end of their life-cycle. At that point, it is better (and more cost effective)to replace them, than attempt to keep them in service.

Posted by Bill 2003-8-4 3:05:14 PM|| 2003-8-4 3:05:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I just love the idea of naming ships after the Muppets. It would be a great taunt: after destroying an enemy vessel, you could shout: "You've just been wasted by a bunch of muppets!".

Posted by A 2003-8-4 3:07:03 PM|| 2003-8-4 3:07:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Firing up a car that hasn't been used in ten years is miserable.

I understand, but a car is just sheet metal that can be put together in just hours, whereas a modern ship's hull takes years. Maybe what I'm missing is how ships are designed. With a car, when you need a new engine, you unbolt the engine mounts, take out the old engine and plop in a new one. Perhaps with a ship, you might have to take the hull apart and put it back together again after the engine's installed. So installing a new engine or weapons systems might actually involve as much work as building a ship from scratch.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-8-4 3:12:24 PM|| 2003-8-4 3:12:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Anyone else bothered by the fact that a defenseless ship with no damage control parties (and I assume all watertight doors wide open) took over 16 Harpoon hits and still needed more to sink? OTOH, there weren't any spectacular flammables on board, like munitions, but still--maybe we should be phasing the Harpoon out as well?

Posted by Dar 2003-8-4 3:18:44 PM|| [http://users.stargate.net/~dsteckel/] 2003-8-4 3:18:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Anyone else bothered by the fact that a defenseless ship with no damage control parties (and I assume all watertight doors wide open) took over 16 Harpoon hits and still needed more to sink?

How's this reconcile with the USS Cole, which took one hit from Yemeni terrorists and was reported to be in bad condition (maybe a little journalistic license there). Was the damage really all that bad?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-8-4 3:29:14 PM|| 2003-8-4 3:29:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 When the Navy sets up a ship as a target for an exercise like this. All flammable materials are taken off, the hatches are all welded shut and the interior space is filled with a material that floats making them very difficult to sink.

Posted by PJAnonymous 2003-8-4 4:19:05 PM|| 2003-8-4 4:19:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 PJAnon--Ah ha! Thanks for the info--this ignorant landlubber appreciates it! Guess since it was a live fire exercise they wanted the targets to stick around for a while so everybody could share in the fun. Makes sense...

Posted by Dar 2003-8-4 4:32:56 PM|| [http://users.stargate.net/~dsteckel/] 2003-8-4 4:32:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Man! Welding all the hatches shut puts a whole new light on General Quarters! Heh heh.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-8-4 4:51:14 PM|| 2003-8-4 4:51:14 PM|| Front Page Top

09:27 raptor
09:10 raptor
08:58 raptor
04:20 Bulldog
02:31 Anon1
00:16 Anonymous Troll
00:05 Anonymous Troll
23:59 Zhang Fei
23:57 Anonymous Troll
23:54 Mark IV
23:49 someone
23:22 tu3031
23:17 Not Mike Moore
23:06 Not Mike Moore
23:05 Not Mike Moore
22:55 Douglas De Bono
22:49 jacques
22:37 Not Mike Moore
22:31 Alaska Paul
22:30 Frank G
22:29 Not Mike Moore
22:28 Frank G
22:27 Frank G
22:25 Frank G