PDA

View Full Version : Economics Two Navy Ships That Cost $300 Million Are Headed To The Scrapyard Without Having Seen


KILLER_CLOWN
07-15-2011, 09:32 PM
Two Navy Ships That Cost $300 Million Are Headed To The Scrapyard Without Having Seen A Day Of Service

Embroiled by legal battles for more than 25 years, two U.S. Navy ships are finally headed to the scrap heap without ever having sailed and despite the fact that they're almost completely finished.

According to Hampton Roads, the USNS Bejamin Isherwood and the USNS Henry Eckford were commissioned in 1985 at the Pennsylvania Shipbuilding Co. to carry fuel to the Navy's fleet around the globe.

USNS Benjamin Isherwood

USNS Benjamin Isherwood #191

Image: wikipedia commons
When the company defaulted on its Navy contract in 1989 the 660-foot ships were sent to Florida for completion, but cost disputes terminated that contract in 1993.

Since then, the vessels have sat 95 and 84 percent complete at the mouth of the James River as part of the mothballed ghost fleet.

In 1997, the Navy cut its ties and British company Able UK considered re-commissioning them for international sale to a NATO country.

Because they're single-hulled ships, not the double-hulls required of today's tankers, Able UK passed and instead took $10 million to scrap them along with two other ghost ships.

This week both vessels are being towed to International Shipbreaking Limited in Brownsville, TX to be cut up, their innards pulled out and their steel and other metals sold for recycling.

Hampton Roads quotes Joseph Keefe from maritimeprofessional.com who says the scrapping of the tankers will "close one of the saddest chapters in American shipbuilding and for that matter, federal fiduciary folly."

No money will be returned to the U.S. treasury.
The James River ghost fleet isn't the only one in the U.S. > Check out the inside of the San Francisco fleet.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/two-navy-ships-henry-eckford-benjamin-isherwood-scrapyard-2011-7?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29&utm_content=Google+Reader#ixzz1SEfeMZ00

And the Pentagon just got a budget increase?!?!?

ROYC75
07-16-2011, 12:11 PM
This brings a new meaning in " Cut The Waste ".

chasedude
07-16-2011, 01:24 PM
Well at least they didn't waste as much as they did on the Bradley!

2bikemike
07-17-2011, 01:27 AM
And still there are folks on here just itching to give the Govt. more money.

jiveturkey
07-17-2011, 08:08 AM
It sounds like the private company that the government contracted with dropped the ball on this one.

mikey23545
07-17-2011, 08:39 AM
Maybe we should let the government handle health care as well...sounds like they know what they are doing.

mikey23545
07-17-2011, 08:39 AM
It sounds like the private company that the government contracted with dropped the ball on this one.

Well, the government is who picked that private company.

The_Doctor10
07-17-2011, 11:58 AM
And still there are folks on here just itching to give the Govt. more money.

Republicans and Democrats alike have been slaves to the military industrial complex since Kennedy.

But what exactly are you suggesting, that we privatize the military as well?

chris
07-17-2011, 05:55 PM
Republicans and Democrats alike have been slaves to the military industrial complex since Kennedy.

But what exactly are you suggesting, that we privatize the military as well?

"slaves to the military industrial complex since Kennedy"

ROFL

Good, independent thought.

Price of security is never free.

go bowe
07-17-2011, 06:05 PM
"slaves to the military industrial complex since Kennedy"

ROFL

Good, independent thought.

Price of security is never free.

since eisenhower, who warned us about the military industrial complex...

chris
07-17-2011, 06:50 PM
since eisenhower, who warned us about the military industrial complex...

One speech, ~60 years old, forever defines the status between public and military?? Amusing and yet sad.

Where are the comments about the runaway growth of progressive entitlements which has destroyed the USA budget???

Once again, lack of original thought and wisdom by an unthinking niche of society.

2bikemike
07-17-2011, 07:55 PM
One speech, ~60 years old, forever defines the status between public and military?? Amusing and yet sad.

Where are the comments about the runaway growth of progressive entitlements which has destroyed the USA budget???

Once again, lack of original thought and wisdom by an unthinking niche of society.

Exactly of the big 3 expenditures of this country Defense is the one and only thing the Govt should be doing. The other 2 come down to personal responsibility.

Hydrae
07-17-2011, 09:46 PM
Exactly of the big 3 expenditures of this country Defense is the one and only thing the Govt should be doing. The other 2 come down to personal responsibility.

And defense is supportable under the Constitution. The others, it is arguable.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-17-2011, 09:54 PM
And defense is supportable under the Constitution. The others, it is arguable.

Waste to the tune of 300 million is not.

Dave Lane
07-17-2011, 10:07 PM
"slaves to the military industrial complex since Kennedy"

ROFL

Good, independent thought.

Price of security is never free.

Is this Tom Cash? I'm just sayin'

chris
07-18-2011, 07:08 AM
Is this Tom Cash? I'm just sayin'

Who is Tom Cash?

Is this supposed to be a cute attempt at an insult?

Amnorix
07-19-2011, 07:40 AM
One speech, ~60 years old, forever defines the status between public and military?? Amusing and yet sad.

Where are the comments about the runaway growth of progressive entitlements which has destroyed the USA budget???

Once again, lack of original thought and wisdom by an unthinking niche of society.


There are lots and lots and lots of comments around here about progressive entitlements.

Far less about the bloated military budget which is roughly equal to the entire rest of the world's military budget COMBINED.

Both need to be combed back. Unthinking morons who would give the Pentagon whatever budget it wants, no questions asked, are no better than those who think our current entitlement programs are indefinitely sustainable in the face of changing demographics.

chris
07-19-2011, 08:15 AM
There are lots and lots and lots of comments around here about progressive entitlements.

Far less about the bloated military budget which is roughly equal to the entire rest of the world's military budget COMBINED.

Both need to be combed back. Unthinking morons who would give the Pentagon whatever budget it wants, no questions asked, are no better than those who think our current entitlement programs are indefinitely sustainable in the face of changing demographics.

Rep.

Both extremes are driving USA off cliff. Watched a show last night on Roman military. Rome was destroyed from within.....just as we are.

orange
07-19-2011, 09:19 AM
... Tom Cash ...

... Tom Cash ...

Why, shut my mouth - I see a parole has been granted.

Saul Good
07-19-2011, 09:26 AM
Who is Tom Cash?

Is this supposed to be a cute attempt at an insult?

I'm not certain, but I think he once missed 3 FGs in a playoff loss to the Colts.

Backwards Masking
07-19-2011, 12:06 PM
Couldn't that $300 Million been spent on repaying the Natioanl Debt?

Or is this an example of Our Government is using Our Money for Our Best Interests?

Calcountry
07-19-2011, 12:32 PM
Meh, they should have sold them to China.

The_Doctor10
07-19-2011, 07:41 PM
"slaves to the military industrial complex since Kennedy"

ROFL

Good, independent thought.

Price of security is never free.

Who exactly is going to invade your country? It's physically impossible to do so. You could be 'secure' by giving one tenth of your defense budget to your intelligence services and keeping your troops at home.

You're not in 'danger' from these shit little Arab countries; they're far more interested in killing each other than you, especially if you were to withdraw most if not all of your military presence. Any country that could actually challenge you in a fight is not going to bother attacking you. Why would China or Russia or whoever you imagine to be a threat bother to engage in conflict with a fellow nuclear power? Never mind that everyone makes too much money off one another to actually start a war...

'The price of security is never free'... Yep, Canada and Mexico are real military threats alright...

Please.

chris
07-19-2011, 07:55 PM
Who exactly is going to invade your country? It's physically impossible to do so. You could be 'secure' by giving one tenth of your defense budget to your intelligence services and keeping your troops at home.

You're not in 'danger' from these shit little Arab countries; they're far more interested in killing each other than you, especially if you were to withdraw most if not all of your military presence. Any country that could actually challenge you in a fight is not going to bother attacking you. Why would China or Russia or whoever you imagine to be a threat bother to engage in conflict with a fellow nuclear power? Never mind that everyone makes too much money off one another to actually start a war...

'The price of security is never free'... Yep, Canada and Mexico are real military threats alright...

Please.

One of the reasons why Canada has such a small military is that, like the Europeans, depend on USA for strategic and even tactical defense. At least you could at least say "thank you". :)

The_Doctor10
07-19-2011, 07:58 PM
One of the reasons why Canada has such a small military is that, like the Europeans, depend on USA for strategic and even tactical defense. At least you could at least say "thank you". :)

You've got nukes. Thanks :)

There also happens to be no country on earth capable of an invasion of either of us. In a world where the economy is increasingly global and the world itself is increasingly smaller, war is becoming a thing of the past. At least among modern, industrialized nations. So who are you really frightened of?

chris
07-19-2011, 08:27 PM
You've got nukes. Thanks :)

There also happens to be no country on earth capable of an invasion of either of us. In a world where the economy is increasingly global and the world itself is increasingly smaller, war is becoming a thing of the past. At least among modern, industrialized nations. So who are you really frightened of?

Modern nations? I can see England and Argentina going at it again for starters. Or India and China via Pakistan.

War is an extension of politics.

11 aircraft carriers help keep the global peace. History like WW1, WW2, cold war, Bosnia, PG1 shows that a sheriff is needed.

Rome never fell until it quit supporting its amy and hired merecenaries as soldiers...who turned on the masters. The USA needs to be strong.

England just gutted its military, and became a 2nd rate power, to help balance its books while keeping its social nets in place. Is that what you think we should do?

For example...without the USA military...who will Canada come running to when Russian/China start drilling/mining in Canadian territory?

USA has to stay strong.

The_Doctor10
07-19-2011, 09:43 PM
Modern nations? I can see England and Argentina going at it again for starters. Or India and China via Pakistan.

War is an extension of politics.

11 aircraft carriers help keep the global peace. History like WW1, WW2, cold war, Bosnia, PG1 shows that a sheriff is needed.

Rome never fell until it quit supporting its amy and hired merecenaries as soldiers...who turned on the masters. The USA needs to be strong.

England just gutted its military, and became a 2nd rate power, to help balance its books while keeping its social nets in place. Is that what you think we should do?

For example...without the USA military...who will Canada come running to when Russian/China start drilling/mining in Canadian territory?

USA has to stay strong.

Truthfully, I have no idea what you should do. I'm sure aircraft carriers help keep the peace, I really do. And I'm very much an anti-welfare state person, but there's other stuff that money could be spent on... like the debts America owes the rest of the world.

Right now, America is keeping the rest of the world on a sort of military welfare; like you said, why should Canada or Britain or anywhere else spend money on defense when America's just gonna come running if we ask?

Reduce your defense budget. If parts of the world aren't safe, you going in to 'make them safe' is a stopgap at best which causes you to hemorrhage money, and frankly makes you look like dicks to the rest of the world.

America wants to be the leader of this planet; what's wrong with taking a leading role in a more global effort for peace? Reduce the size of your military, back off and worry about your own house before worrying about the rest of the world.

And btw Argentina and England aren't going to have a fight, be serious. Over what? The only things that come up when you Google england argentia conflict and vs are sporting events. They aren't going to war.

Now, America would gain a whole lot of respect in the eyes of the world if they adopted a less interventionist posture, and a big part of that is reducing the size of its standing army, which in many situations isn't useful. And let's be honest; these countries like Iran and North Korea etc are scared shitless of America. If they see America taking a less aggressive stance worldwide, do you really think they're going to take that opportunity to attack the United States directly?

No. When America chills the **** out, the world chills the **** out. Act accordingly, and we'll all get back to making lots and lots of money.

One last thing: Canada has a small army because we don't fight people. If they don't like us, we don't deal with them. We, like you, have the luxury of being impossible to conquer.

chris
07-19-2011, 09:56 PM
Truthfully, I have no idea what you should do. I'm sure aircraft carriers help keep the peace, I really do. And I'm very much an anti-welfare state person, but there's other stuff that money could be spent on... like the debts America owes the rest of the world.

Right now, America is keeping the rest of the world on a sort of military welfare; like you said, why should Canada or Britain or anywhere else spend money on defense when America's just gonna come running if we ask?

Reduce your defense budget. If parts of the world aren't safe, you going in to 'make them safe' is a stopgap at best which causes you to hemorrhage money, and frankly makes you look like dicks to the rest of the world.

America wants to be the leader of this planet; what's wrong with taking a leading role in a more global effort for peace? Reduce the size of your military, back off and worry about your own house before worrying about the rest of the world.

And btw Argentina and England aren't going to have a fight, be serious. Over what? The only things that come up when you Google england argentia conflict and vs are sporting events. They aren't going to war.

Now, America would gain a whole lot of respect in the eyes of the world if they adopted a less interventionist posture, and a big part of that is reducing the size of its standing army, which in many situations isn't useful. And let's be honest; these countries like Iran and North Korea etc are scared shitless of America. If they see America taking a less aggressive stance worldwide, do you really think they're going to take that opportunity to attack the United States directly?

No. When America chills the **** out, the world chills the **** out. Act accordingly, and we'll all get back to making lots and lots of money.

One last thing: Canada has a small army because we don't fight people. If they don't like us, we don't deal with them. We, like you, have the luxury of being impossible to conquer.

Not a bad comment. I can see your perspective. I would love to pull all our troops home. What if you are wrong? Bosnia was in EU's backyard and they did nothing until USA jumped in.

I have both English and Argentinan friends. England kicked their butts the 1st time and the losers have not forgotten.