USS John F Kennedy

[ScubaGypsy]

An interesting sidenote that relates the Forrestal and the JFK is that the Forrestal's four propellers became part of the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) during its overhaul from 1993 to 1995. The two anchors from the Forrestal are now part of the USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74).

 

[mike_s]

yeah... but unlike the Oriskany, the Forrestal will be sunk deep


from - Navy News, benefits, careers, entertainment, photos, promotions - Navy Times HOME

The successful Oriskany project was seen as a test case for dealing with the Navy’s surplus aircraft carriers, and according to Clark, the sinking of the next ship is already being planned. No date has been set for that ship, the Forrestal, Clark said. Unlike the Oriskany, it will not be accessible to commercial divers. The Forrestal design led directly to aircraft carriers in service today, Clark noted, and certain design details remain classified. To prevent unauthorized eyes from prying into the ship’s secrets, Forrestal and all other aircraft carriers will be sunk in deep water at classified locations.

An interesting sidenote that relates the Forrestal and the JFK is that the Forrestal's four propellers became part of the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) during its overhaul from 1993 to 1995. The two anchors from the Forrestal are now part of the USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74).

the first thing they usually do in drydock is cover the props up to keep cameras from them.


good info about the props ScubaGypsy. I think they removed the props from the Oriskany before sinking also.

 

[tfsails]

Forgive my ignorance but can someone explain the issue regarding the secrecy of the hull of this carrier?

The classification is not so much the design of the hull. Rather, what's classified is how much damage the carrier can sustain before she sinks. We don't need to let the bad guys know that. If you'll recall, when they sank the Oriskany, they had to compromise all of the design features that made the carrier hard to sink in battle. All subsequent CVs and CVNs have those features, too.

As far as speed goes, all you have to know is the length of the boat at the waterline, then multiply the square root of that number by 1.34. That gives you "hull speed", or the theoritical maximum speed of the hull.

 

[Cave Diver]

good info about the props ScubaGypsy. I think they removed the props from the Oriskany before sinking also.

I *believe* two were left and two remain.

 

[OldNSalty]

As far as speed goes, all you have to know is the length of the boat at the waterline, then multiply the square root of that number by 1.34. That gives you "hull speed", or the theoritical maximum speed of the hull.

I thought it was a little more complicated then that, like width had to be factored into the equation as well...then again, I am not a marine architec.

 

[BelchFire]

As far as speed goes, all you have to know is the length of the boat at the waterline, then multiply the square root of that number by 1.34. That gives you "hull speed", or the theoritical maximum speed of the hull.

I was taught that this formula gives the "displacement hull speed" or the speed at which a displacement type hull (like a cargo ship or tanker) is most efficient. Certainly with enough thrust all ships could go "faster" but there is a sweet spot that is defined by the culmination of the bow wave that provides the most efficient use of thrust for any given length as provided by tfsails' formula

 

[Nemrod]

"This very sharp rise in resistance at around a speed-length ratio of 1.3 to 1.5 probably seemed insurmountable in early sailing ships and so became an apparent barrier. On the other hand, these values change dramatically as the general proportions and shape of the hull are changed. Modern displacement designs that can easily exceed their 'hull speed' without planing include hulls with very fine ends, long hulls with relatively narrow beam and wave-piercing designs. These benefits are commonly realised by some canoes, competitive rowing boats, catamarans, fast ferries and other commercial, fishing and military vessels based on such concepts."

Never mind, I will let y'all worry over that, I just want to dive it.

The summer past on my Florida Festivus I dove the Mighty O, Speigal Grove, Vandenburg (and a few others) all in one trip, would love to add the Kennedy to the list. N

 

[Doc Harry]

With a name like the "John F Kennedy," the only satisfactory final destination is the bottom of the sea.

I'd love to dive that wreck, see if I could find my old stateroom, my old ready room and that ****ing bathroom where the toilets used to overflow into the passageway right outside of our stateroom.

Here are some of my photos from my days on that big cesspool called the "Big John."

 

[Doc Harry]

deleted

 

[pacificgal]

That was cool, Harry, thanks for sharing. Didn't see the JFK though, is it buried in there somewhere?