OT: CV-63 Making her final voyage

[rogueusmc]

Final voyage of the Kitty Hawk

Were any forumites part of her crew at any point? I am just curious.

[dr.hal]

An old shipmate of mine posted an article about her last voyage to the breakers. I was not on her, I was stationed on her sister, Constellation, CV64 for two and a half years. My best time in the navy was on that ship, and that's saying something as I was a blackshoe and should NOT like such brownshoe stuff. But I will say that my grandfather helped build BOTH ships as he was a lagger at the Brooklyn Naval Yard and these were the last two warships built there. In fact, the Connie was SUPPOSED to be the Kitty Hawk and vice versa, however a fire on the original "Kitty Hawk" delayed it's launch so the hulls names were changed (despite the keels saying which ship was ORIGINALLY supposed to be which). The man who took my grandfather's place on the night shift was killed in that fire! Very sad. Another tidbit that most don't know is that both ships' masts had to be built with the ability for the mast to lay down on deck, as the masts had to be lowered in order to get under the Brooklyn Bridge and out to sea!!! Strange but true. Hal

[rogueusmc]

The mast laying down to get out makes sense...

The article says they are tugging her all the way down around the cape as she is too big to fit through the canal. They estimate 193 days to make it with two crew changes.

[dr.hal]

Well rogueusmc that surprises me as I thought her beam was built with the canal restrictions in hand. Certainly our last BBs were built with that in mind. I'll have to look into that. Maybe I'm only thinking of the WW2 CVs.

[dr.hal]

I just looked up some information and historically you're right, the Connie's beam is 130' at the waterline while the largest locks back then were 120'! Yet now they claim the new locks (opened in 2015) will allow for far larger vessels so I'm not sure why NOW she can't get through. Does anyone have more details?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

I just looked up some information and historically you're right, the Connie's beam is 130' at the waterline while the largest locks back then were 120'! Yet now they claim the new locks (opened in 2015) will allow for far larger vessels so I'm not sure why NOW she can't get through. Does anyone have more details?

Maybe they don't have enough or want to use that Kentucky Jelly?[;)]

[Yaab]

What do you do if a war breaks out and Panama denies the use of the Canal to the US Navy?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

What do you do if a war breaks out and Panama denies the use of the Canal to the US Navy?

Then Panama would have a VERY BIG problem ....

[USSAmerica]

I was on a "sort of" sister ship, the USS America, CV-66. There were some engineering changes, as she was originally intended to be nuclear powered after the Enterprise, but they decided to redesign the reactors. Hence, America and the Kennedy (CV-67) were both build as conventionally powered carriers, but with significantly enhanced fresh water capability that would have been used by the reactors. Enterprise had 8 reactors where the Nimitz class only needed 4.

As for the Panama Canal, the new, larger locks might allow her to fit at the water line, but keep in mind just how much wider these babies get by the time you reach the flight deck. The locks are pretty high, so they still wouldn't fit. I know the Iowa BBs and Essex CVs were build to fit in the old locks (not sure about the Midways), but all the carriers build post war were too large.

[BananaConvention]

I feel so old. 2003, when this ship was still active, I was in Army AIT. I deployed to Iraq the following year as part of OIF 3....

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: BananaConvention

I feel so old. 2003, when this ship was still active, I was in Army AIT. I deployed to Iraq the following year as part of OIF 3....

Really, I was 10 years old when they laid the keel.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

An old shipmate of mine posted an article about her last voyage to the breakers. I was not on her, I was stationed on her sister, Constellation, CV64 for two and a half years. My best time in the navy was on that ship, and that's saying something as I was a blackshoe and should NOT like such brownshoe stuff. But I will say that my grandfather helped build BOTH ships as he was a lagger at the Brooklyn Naval Yard and these were the last two warships built there. In fact, the Connie was SUPPOSED to be the Kitty Hawk and vice versa, however a fire on the original "Kitty Hawk" delayed it's launch so the hulls names were changed (despite the keels saying which ship was ORIGINALLY supposed to be which). The man who took my grandfather's place on the night shift was killed in that fire! Very sad. Another tidbit that most don't know is that both ships' masts had to be built with the ability for the mast to lay down on deck, as the masts had to be lowered in order to get under the Brooklyn Bridge and out to sea!!! Strange but true. Hal

Great story, Doc, thanks for that.

[Rob322]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Well rogueusmc that surprises me as I thought her beam was built with the canal restrictions in hand. Certainly our last BBs were built with that in mind. I'll have to look into that. Maybe I'm only thinking of the WW2 CVs.

If I remember correctly, the last American CV's that could fit through the original Panama Canal locks were the Essex Class. Even the Midways were (just) too wide.

[rogueusmc]

ORIGINAL: BananaConvention

I feel so old. 2003, when this ship was still active, I was in Army AIT. I deployed to Iraq the following year as part of OIF 3....

lol...you just a youngin' yet...

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Yaab

What do you do if a war breaks out and Panama denies the use of the Canal to the US Navy?

Then Panama would have a VERY BIG problem ....

How big? Operation Plowshare-big?