USS The Sullivans Taking on Water

I was at the launching of the current DDG 51 The Sullivans in Bath a few years ago.

These museum shops DO cost a lot to maintain. It wasn't that long ago the Navy was decommissioning a carrier, can't remember which one, Enterprise maybe? And Portland threw their hat in the ring for host museum city. They didn't get far though because I think the estimated yearly upkeep cost was a few million dollars.
 
Hey, let’s have a WWIII, so we can have a newer crop of ship museums! It’s for the children!
 
More info.



So if all it took was to send a few divers down to plug holes from the outside, then why did everyone wait until this ship is practically submerged to do this now? Couldn't they have sent them down last month? What am I missing?
 
Last edited:
not sure why these ships need to "float" in retirement?
There used to be a ship in boston harbor, next to anthonys rest,

View attachment 604808


it sat on concrete blocks. The SS Peter Stuyvesant.
Did fine until the blizzard of 78
Yea that went well for Anthony he spent a fortune having perini build a pile and timber railway for her then ballast the in side so she wouldn't float so they thought. Surge tide in blizzard of 78 lifted her it sat down in railway on its side and ripped it open and it sank. I broke up and removed the wreck a few years back for another small fortune. For the new owners of the property. They have a built life expectancy after that they are a issue that needs constant attention. If they are an issue they should be repaired or cut up so no has to risk there life trying to save them. I will cut them up free of charge line them up
 
Yea that went well for Anthony he spent a fortune having perini build a pile and timber railway for her then ballast the in side so she wouldn't float so they thought. Surge tide in blizzard of 78 lifted her it sat down in railway on its side and ripped it open and it sank. I broke up and removed the wreck a few years back for another small fortune. For the new owners of the property. They have a built life expectancy after that they are a issue that needs constant attention. If they are an issue they should be repaired or cut up so no has to risk there life trying to save them. I will cut them up free of charge line them up
 

Attachments

  • download-34-768x432.jpg
    download-34-768x432.jpg
    41 KB · Views: 5
  • AXKPLRHIXUI6NOP3YML5E33GNM.jpg
    AXKPLRHIXUI6NOP3YML5E33GNM.jpg
    550.6 KB · Views: 5
So if all it took was to send a few divers down to plug holes from the outside, then why did everyone wait until this ship is practically submerged to do this now? Couldn't they have sent them down last month? What am I missing?
There’s a lot of discussion on Museum Ship groups. And it should be noted the U.S. has, by far, the most museum ships in the world and navy buffs come from all over the world to visit them.

The hull is 3/8” steel and hasn’t been coated for some years. The submarine USS Cod (Also in fresh water) posted this piece from her ballast tanks, made of the same material. They noted that some areas corrode faster than others.

So it’s a combination of money, unpredictable corrosion, money, lagging maintenance, money, difficulty in detection, and money. The water visibility is really bad.

 

Attachments

  • A728B816-71F6-46F2-99A1-F76D55436DA0.jpeg
    A728B816-71F6-46F2-99A1-F76D55436DA0.jpeg
    740.2 KB · Views: 5
The hull is only 3/8" thick?? That can't be right. Fishing boats have thicker steel than that.
 
They made have just meant type of steel, not sure. It’s a Fletcher Class Destroyer, and one article notes

The shell plating is bolted and welded in strakes, or rows. Plating thickness varied from 3/4″ to 3/8″. This is why destroyers were known as “Tin Cans.”


 
I think they produced some 175 or there about Fletcher class Destroyers in a short 4 year span. They were war machines not expected to last a lifetime. That is just one class of ships. Think of that.


...therein lies the problem...

Not really a problem. When you are producing such a large item during war time, you need to produce quantity as well as quality. You want a ship which will last for the duration of the war plus some reasonable time thereafter. It's silly to produce a destroyer that will last some 70 years and be a permanent museum piece . Not to mention prohibitively expensive. Besides, by all accounts this was an outstanding class of ship and did all that was asked of it.

The Fletcher class was a class of destroyers built by the United States during World War II. The class was designed in 1939, as a result of dissatisfaction with the earlier destroyer leader types of the Porter and Somers classes. Some went on to serve during the Korean War and into the Vietnam War.[3]

The United States Navy commissioned 175 Fletcher-class destroyers between 1942 and 1944, more than any other destroyer class, and the design was generally regarded as highly successful. The Fletchers had a design speed of 38 knots (70 km/h; 44 mph) and a principal armament of five 5-inch (130 mm) guns in single mounts with ten 21-inch (530 mm) torpedo tubes in two quintuple centerline mounts.[4] The Allen M. Sumner and Gearing classes were Fletcher derivatives.

The long-range Fletcher-class ships performed every task asked of a destroyer, from anti-submarine warfare and anti-aircraft warfare to surface action.[5] They could cover the vast distances required by fleet actions in the Pacific and served almost exclusively in the Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II, during which they accounted for 29 Imperial Japanese Navy submarines sunk.[5][failed verification] In a massive effort, the Fletchers were built by shipyards across the United States and, after World War II ended, 11 were sold to countries that they had been built to fight against: Italy, Germany, and Japan, as well as other countries, where they had even longer, distinguished careers. Three have been preserved as museum ships in the U.S. and one in Greece.

 
The "problem" I'm referring to is the thread title, not the WWII production numbers.

Then you need to take that up with the OP.

I'll just warn you, I took it up with him and he told me to:

"Bugger off, mate!"
 
Then you need to take that up with the OP.

I'll just warn you, I took it up with him and he told me to:

"Bugger off, mate!"

You misunderstand.

The thin metal caused rapid production, but it also caused problems when these vessels are in the water for 70 years.
 
You misunderstand.

The thin metal caused rapid production, but it also caused problems when these vessels are in the water for 70 years.

Yes, they do.

And the title of the thread was from the first or second line of the original TV report.
 
So if all it took was to send a few divers down to plug holes from the outside, then why did everyone wait until this ship is practically submerged to do this now? Couldn't they have sent them down last month? What am I missing?
Maybe the holes weren’t there last month?
 
Maybe the holes weren’t there last month?

I was under the impression the ship had been taking on water for a while and the holes didn't just appear overnight. With this impression and perhaps it is false, I would have thought proactively sending a few divers down once in a while would be routine maintenance to plug any holes. At the same time, perhaps increase the bilge output to offset the volume of incoming water?

Regardless, I am learning it's not as simple as I was thinking, and these types of things were not possible. :(
 
The concern by museum ship fans is the repair cost for the hull and recovery will make it impossible to sustain.

USS Cod, a Gato Class sub built at Electric Boat, just got a major refurbishment. Not sure how that’s controlled.

 
Back
Top Bottom