Navy gets OK to sink ships for targets in Gulf of Alaska

[Arctic Dave]

The Navy has obtained authority to blast and sink as many as two real ships a year in the Gulf of Alaska over the next five years to give pilots and gunners authentic targets for their sights.

But ocean campaigners say that even decommissioned, stripped-out ships, like the ones the Navy will use as targets, contain residual hazardous materials that can poison the Gulf's rich habitat for years. They're trying to stop the target practice before it begins.

In May, the Navy finished an environmental review of new training options and authorized itself a maximum of two ship sinkings a year in the Gulf.

A Navy spokesman said there is currently no schedule to start the Alaska sinkings. But opponents of the practice want to ensure it doesn't happen.



Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/07/25/1985023/navy-gets-ok-to-sink-ships-for.html#ixzz1TBzsntqj



Did they get run out of all there other live fire areas or are too contaminated now?

[Incitatus]

1. That's crazy.

They should just sell the ships to some other country then we can start a war with them a few years later and sink them off their coast.

:sarcasm:

[Arctic Dave]

2. LOL

Then we can go swim in the "man made reef" after we kiss and make up.

[Angry Dragon]

3. Good one

[Mimosa]

4. The US is war-crazy.

SAD. :(

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. The Navy could float PAPER TARGETS scaled to size, and drop TRAINING weapons on them.

The training would be JUST as realistic.

Stupid MOTHERFUCKERS.

[Arctic Dave]

6. Back in the day we had, "the killer tomato".

It was a large red blow up cube we would tape tin foil to and then we would target and blast the ever loving shit out of it.

Hell of a lot cheaper.

[hack89]

11. You have to use real weapons routinely

it gives you valuable information on weapon reliability (fuel and electrons degrade over time) plus it allows you to test the actual effectiveness of new tactics or improve weapon components.

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. This Naval Air veteran understands the use of real weapons.

I've been on many a detachment to El Centro, CA and Fallon, NV so we could drop live weapons.

That doesn't change the fact that they could be dropped on just about any type of target one chooses.

[hack89]

16. We have been sinking real ships at the rate of 2 or 3 a year

for the past decade. Did you know that nearly every Spruance class destroyer is now on the bottom of the ocean?

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. The aircraft carrier I sailed with twice, USS America CV-66, sleeps with the fishes too.

Not trying to start a pissing match here. My first inclination was to post that they could do it somewhere in open water where the contaminants left onboard would dissipate more easily. There is no way on earth those ships could be made contaminant free without someone diving the bilges and swabbing them with absorbant rags by hand and I doubt that is happening.

Prince William Sound is just not the place I'd choose to sink naval ships.

[hack89]

18. There is a huge joint exercise conducted in Alaska every year

it is presently our biggest and most realistic exercise. These targets are in support of that. It is cheaper to bring the targets to the shooters then move the shooters.

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. That's hard for me to understand seeing as how there aren't many "shooters" based in Alaska.

Here's a list of military facilities in AK.

Naval Air Facilities:
Adak NAF: Adak, Alaska

Coast Guard Air Stations:
Kodiak CGAS: Kodiak Island, Alaska
Baranof CGAS: Baranof Island (Sitka), Alaska

Army Airbourne:
Allen AAF: Fort Greely Delta Junction, Alaska
Bryant AAF: Fort Richardson, Alaska
Fort Wainwright AAF: Fairbanks, Alaska

Air Reserve, Air Rescue Stations, and Air Stations:
Eareckson AS: Shemya Island, Alaska

Air National Guard:
Kulis: Anchorage IAP

Air Force Bases:
Eielson AFB: North Pole, Alaska
Elmendorf AFB: Anchorage, Alaska

Army Bases:
Fort Richardson AB- Fort Richardson, Alaska
Fort Wainwright AB- Fairbanks, Alaska

Air Force:
Clear Air Station: Clear, AK

[hack89]

21. The Air Force plus the Navy

some years they have several carriers.

Here is the website of the last exercise - it should answer a lot of your questions

http://www.jber.af.mil/alcom/northernedge/northernedge2011.asp

[Judi Lynn]

7. Incomprehensible. Very expensive training plan, in so many ways. n/t

[hack89]

12. Train as you fight, fight as you train

the more realistic the training the better the fighter.

In this case, it is a good way to get rid of unwanted ships.

[1776Forever]

8. "FIVE YEARS: Hazardous materials will remain on vessels, critics say."

Quote:

"Solid PCBs would be removed to the maximum extent practicable, but some vessel materials with PCBs would remain on board when the vessel is sunk," according to the Navy's environmental impact statement for the program.

The impact statement concluded that the level of remaining contaminants would not hurt ocean resources.

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/07/25/1985023/navy-gets-ok-to-sink-ships-for.html#ixzz1TCm38csj

...............

Really? Unbelievably sad:(

[Politicalboi]

9. What gives them the right

They should have to use paint ball ammo on the ship and then they can repaint it. That would show where the target was hit. If they do it their way, once the ship is sunk, target gone. Why use live ammo? For effect? It goes BOOM!

[hack89]

10. Several reasons to use real ships

1. cheaper then scrapping - these are ships the navy wants to get rid of.

2. obtain detailed information of weapons performance.

[Renew Deal]

13. On the next episode of Deadliest Catch!

:nuke:


:evilgrin:

[LeftinOH]

14. Isn't there some scrap value in old ships? $$$?

[Blue_In_AK]

20. This really blows.

I was shocked to read this in the paper this morning.