6/8/2006: Sinking of the USS Oriskany

[mickja1]

A few thoughts from a retired Navy officer. First, the reason they don't keep these older ships and use them for casinos, hotels, etc. is that they take a tremendous amount of maintenance just to keep them floating, on the order of $20-30,000 a year on up, considering their condition. It is easier to build a new ship from the keel up than to renovate a warship like this.

Also, the idea that a ship 200' down is going to be a tourist site is nuts. Even professional wreck divers that dive more than about 150' are really pushing it.

The government probably spent several million dollars (around 15 million) getting this ship ready to be sunk. All the fuel tanks need to be emptied and sealed, the wiring (several hundred miles of wiring) needed to be removed (the insulation is toxic to the environment) for starters. The main reason to sink it is that the shipbreaking process is so expensive in the U.S.

A great book that covers this subject in depth is "The Outlaw Sea" by William Langewiesche (now available in paperback)--*truly fascinating*. The shipbreakers are typically third world businessmen who take the ship and drive it aground, then start cutting it apart with blowtorches. It takes several months to dismantle a ship. Usually there are casualties. The poor people go to work walking around iron shards in bare feet. Occasionally someone cuts into a fuel tank that still has diesel vapor, and a large explosion results. Greenpeace types would have a stroke if they saw their utter disregard for any type of respect for the environment.

Well that's my 2c.

[milkfish]

Originally Posted by mickja1

First, the reason they don't keep these older ships and use them for casinos, hotels, etc. is that they take a tremendous amount of maintenance just to keep them floating, on the order of $20-30,000 a year on up, considering their condition.

Aw, heck, why didn't they just ask their buddies over at the Air Force to fill the thing up with foam?

[lawman]

I was also wondering why they sank it in 212 feet of water if it were to be used as a dive site. I checked on this carriers dimensions, and it has a height of 129 feet, so the top of the conning tower (were it to rest vertically - which it won't) would be within reach of recreational divers. I would surmize that they really didn't want it to be a wreck dive destination, where divers could enter it, but merely something divers could see clearly at depth.

[glatt]

This page, which has ads in the margin that are NSFW, has some images of divers around the tower checking it out. It landed right side up.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I should give thanks to wolf in preparing these, she had the images after the other site went down.

My boss had the series on his rotating pictures screensaver and emailed them to me after I had a WOW COOL moment at him.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

btw...This was the ship McCain flew off when he was shot down in Viet Nam.

Previous to that, McCain's plane (in cooperation with rockets from another plane) all but tried to sink the USS Forrestal.

Meanwhile, those who taugh me scuba diving also so 200 foot dives. Some of those dive include the Texas Tower located on the continential edge. Tower itself is over 200 feet down. But its deck rises to something like 180 feet. Problem is water so dirty there that diving is by feel.

Another problem with sunken wrecks - they must be modified so as to not trap a scuba diver.

[wolf]

Can't they just spray paint "dive at your own risk" on the side before they sink it?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I understand the dive tourist thing is secondary to the artificial reef for fishing.
Probably the divers would be in more danger from whizzing lures, dangling multiple treble hooks than from the ship.