Instead of Scrapping Aircraft Carriers

I always thought Star Blazers used a battleship, but I guess it was a carrier of sorts, too.

 

Some battleships carried aircraft. Just not very well.

 

Sometimes they do.

 

It's not a requirement, I never said they couldn't.

 

Fair enough.

 

But when they do, the extreme speed makes the fighter pilots really nervous.

 

Wouldn't a bridge made mostly of aircraft carriers pose a pretty major navigational obstacle compared to a traditional bridge?

 

Yes. Like I said, bridge pylons usually aren't 700-100 feet wide (whatever a carriers waterline is).

 

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the carriers would not be connected directly bow to stern, but have conventional bridge sections between them. The article points out that the illustration showing the bridge design is wrong, because the plan calls for only using two carriers, not three.

The carriers would serve as the anchor points on shore for the bridge, with a conventional span crossing the bulk of the water.

 

How about Devil's Island type prisons? Prison riot? Remove the guards and sink the damn thing.

 

Then the spaces between the carriers would act as channels with high volumes of water flowing through them at a higher speed than the river itself. They would pose a danger and difficulty for the ships passing through them. The carriers, by sitting on beds would act as dams causing the water to flow around them into the spaces between them.

 

What if we used obsolete submarines as a tunnel under the inlet?

 

True, but the amount of trouble this would cause for shipping would depend upon the width of the river and the speed of the current.

As I said before, it's an interesting idea. I've made no claims as to how practical it might be. I would like to see a feasibility study done, as the Congressman who originated the idea is asking for. That's the only way to be certain that it isn't worth doing.

 

It's still an amazingly dumb idea. I wasn't joking when I said it was on the same level as space traveling submarines.

 

What makes it dumb? If it's comparable in cost to a conventional bridge, or even slightly more expensive, it beats another drab concrete and steel bridge, which is indistinguishable from any other you can name.

 

Because...

Ballasting

50+ years old iron hills with holes rusting into them.

Hundreds of inlet and outlet openings in the hull.

A hundred+ internal tanks that would have to maintain some basic level of preservation to prevent your bridge from sinking.

The hull blocking the channel for a thousand feet at a time.

What are you going to put on the flight deck for your bridge? Asphalt or non-skid? Non-skid must be replaced regularly and I'm betting asphalt would crumble due to thermal expansion and contraction of the steel.

Probably a hundred other reasons it's a stupid idea.


It's only plausible to someone who has no idea about ship construction.

 

So, fill them with concrete.

Which can be plugged.

Assuming it needed to remain floating. Depending upon the exact circumstances of the installation, this may not be an issue.

Depending upon the channel, and the speed of the current, this may not be an issue. Nobody ever said it'd be perfect for every bridge.

I drive over bridges that are paved in asphalt, it seems that somebody's got the problem figured out. Would it work in this instance? I don't know.

So, you're a naval architect? Or a structural engineer? Because those are the only people who can say definitively that it won't work. Its not like trying to strap a submarine on top of rocket, and launch into space, where the problems are obvious from the get-go.

Either way, its good to ask the questions, because how we learn new things is by trying new things, not doing the same crap over and over again.

 

Fine go push the idea....good luck with it.

 

A good thing, too, as it's entirely impractical, for the many reasons posted in this thread -- maintenance, structural, channel capacity, and on and on. But even if it were practical, it's not like there are all that many extra carriers just sitting around, waiting to become bridges.

 

I'm not pushing it. I merely said it was an interesting idea. Can you not see the difference?

Apparently, we've got at least two, which is all that's needed in the case the Congressman is talking about. It may turn out that its not feasible in this instance, but it is in others, or it may turn out that its never feasible. I don't know, I do know that I'd rather be asking questions about it, than just automatically dismissing the idea out of hand. Elon Musk has admitted that had he been better informed about automotive technology, he'd never have started Tesla. Its still too early to declare the company a success, but if he hadn't done it, I don't think we'd have seen the push to develop new technologies by the established car companies that we are now. So, even if Tesla winds up being a failure, we've all gained from Musk's efforts.

 

Nothing wrong with asking questions, but there have been a lot of good answers in this thread, answers that convince me the idea doesn't hold water.

 

Been there! My son's Army Basic Training graduation was right next to it. Thus a lot of families have pictures taken there with their proud graduates and visit the museum since they are there anyway. They have an IMAX theater there too. I saw Batman (the one with Anne Hathaway as Cat Woman).

 

Anc married his beard and they had a baby together.

 

I like the idea of turning old capital ships into floating museums. That is what we did to the USS Midway in San Diego.

 

And the U.S.S. Alabama in Mobile, and a great number of others.

 

Aren't all US aircraft carriers nuclear powered, with radioactive parts that can only be disposed of by cutting the ships apart?

 

Portland needed a way to keep Seattlites to keep visiting

 

All carriers since USS Nimitz, yes. There are still a few conventionally powered carriers awaiting disposal. All the Nimitz class are still in active service.

 

Is Enterprise the only nuke retired so far?