2. In most cases of more recent memory, the USA did not "to fight 'its' wars" [a pejorative statement] but tried to help out other people by injecting a large troop presence.(e.g. Kuwait). Admittedly US did have a casual interest here, namely oil supplies. But in Kosovo national interests were not at stake.

3. US Aircraft and chartered commercial aircraft can and did bring in troops, but troops need their fighting tools, and, unless stocks are pre-positioned (e.g. Saudi Arabia), a maritime followup is required. This seriously impacts the effects of troop deployments.

4. In short, this means troops and equipment have to be at the same place at the same time. The UK, by using Canberra and QE2 in the Falklands did just this.

5. The late Admiral Zumwalt proposed to study the feasibility of high-speed ("the 80-knot Navy") naval deployment vessels, using hovercraft technology. I worked on this study, and, among other things compared it to the effectiveness of the "United States" in a similar scenario.

6. Bottom line, speed,fuel and cargo capacity favored the "Big U" every time.

7. And the "Big U" would make a superb Hospital Ship for other people's famines, earthquakes and similar catastrophes too.

8. So forget about personalizing "its wars." As a rule, we try to help other nations doing what thay cannot or will not do not themselves! Remember the photos of the Albanian refugee camps, and imagine how the "United States" could have provided a haven for many of such.

Secondly, I'm really not so sure that the government wants to spend the money necessary to clean her up and give her a new interior. They have been silent so far in terms of coming to her rescue despite the efforts of the SS United States Foundation, save her inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. That is only a formality, and does little to protect the ship.

Thirdly, based on articles recently published in the Philadelphia Daily News, her current owner more than likely has no plans of turning her over to the government for any reason.

That said, I can only hope that some sort of resolution is arrived at in the near future. But the history of this saga suggests that I shouldn't hold my breath.

A troopship is definitely NOT a warship. Troopships in WWII had minimal armamnent, those on which I traveled had Anti-aircraft protection but that was all.

But an APA or an AKA (amphibious assault ships and for troops and equipment) definitely were!

The design of the "United States," however, definitely included those design factors which made the vessel easily converted into a troop carrier - interport, not assocaited with amphibious operations. I again refer to the roles of the Queens and many other passenger vessels in WWII and to QE2 and Canberra in the Falklands.

Troopships were never comfortable passenger vessels! Those who slept in the multi-tiered hammocks on the Queen Mary can so testify. Therefore, requirements to give the Big U a true passenger-friendly interior are not that great.

And, within the past decade or so, the Big U was under consideration to replace the C-4 era "Mariner Class" hospital ships with a larger and more commodious vessel. A refitted LNG tanker was the result of this analysis. I was not privy to the parameter examined.

Gray paint does not a warship make, and a troop carrier is not a "warship!"

And neither is a hospital ship.

The defense rests.

Question, has the US ever had armed merchant raiders, not armed-in-self-defense merchant vessels, since the Civil War?

I do not believe we had anything like Von Luckner's "Seeadler" in WWI, and aside from merchant vessels landing forces in clandestine operations, I am not aware of even "Q-ships" in US operations.

Maybe I should spend more time on the History Channel.

After Sept 11, I believe that traditional defenses do not work. The game has changed.

Imagine if Arab or American right wing terrorists take control of a cruiseship and ram her into a dock at 20 knots.

Al Qeada and Aryan Nation are in cahoots.

I believe the SSUS would best serve as a hospital ship in time of war.

[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: ROTTERBRANDT ]

In Africa die each day a lot of Children by Diseases or Hunger. It would cost only very small Money, to safe ONE.

If each Cruisegoer saves one, Millions would be saved.

But i think, Cruisegoers are interested in Lobster and Caviar. they are not interested in African Children, and: they will not change Lobster into cheap Fish and spend the Difference.

Interesting thread... It should be noted that SSUS was built to the standards of the U.S. Navy, unlike the Project America ships which the Navy recently rejected. She was, when properly maintained, of military standard.

However, her structure has most likely decayed considerably, since she was sold by MARAD to private owners, who naturally could not maintain her to the same meticulous level.

Also, although she may be a fast ship, I imagine she would hardly be economical to run.

So I don't think she would be militarily viable solution as a troop carrier. A large, fast vessel is undeniably the best way to get a large amount of people from place to place, however technology is different today and the SSUS is an antique.

On the other hand, she could possibly be a hospital ship, or a command and control ship. Both were also considered for Project America, which is a ship of much lower standard than SSUS - at least the standard to which SSUS was when new. Her current condition, I do not know much about, from the inside. Externally, she looks very poor, I have seen her in person on various occasions, and make a point of visiting her when in Philadelphia.

On the other hand, I think it is an excellent idea to have, at the ready, large vessels capable of transporting, for long distances, large equipment, and large numbers of personnel. However, perhaps a nuclear-fuled ship, similar to the latest aircraft carriers, might be in order so that fueling is not a concern. I imagine that it is hardly practical to have a troopship stopping midocean during wartime, with thousands of military personnel aboard, for ship-to-ship refueling!

However, I am hardly an expert on any of this...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amerikanis:
Rex, there is only one Problem: No Money for the "Bimbos"...

In Africa die each day a lot of Children by Diseases or Hunger. It would cost only very small Money, to safe ONE.

If each Cruisegoer saves one, Millions would be saved.

But i think, Cruisegoers are interested in Lobster and Caviar. they are not interested in African Children, and: they will not change Lobster into cheap Fish and spend the Difference.

So: there is no Money for the Bi...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gohaze:
It's not economic or safe to transport large numbers of troops by sea today. The heavy equipment of course, but that requires a completely different type of ship dedicated to it. Even Hospital ships are different as they are configured for rapid air evacuation.
What I'm saying is that the SSUS really is not economic for anything. If the Navy had wanted her they could have had her years ago and if she was any good for cruising some enterprising Greek would undoubtedly have done something about it.
...peter

---

I agree - as I said, she is not designed to the specifications that are needed today. In order to rebuild her to a modern standard, so much captial would be needed, that it would likely be cheaper to build a new ship and the result would be designed especially for whatever the intended purpose would be.

HospitalShips

quote:

---

Originally posted by Draikar:
Yea and why don't you also just scrap the statue of liberty.... Just because something's old and need a little care dose not make it worthless, things only die when forgotten.

Ðraikar

---

I sent a letter to our Mayor a couple of years ago asking them what they were going to do about the BIG U. I never got an answer.

Originally I had planned to do a marketing plan on how to revitalize her when I was in college, but decided to do the Hyundai Corporation instead.

Now I wish I had chosen the BIG U. Maybe I could do it anyway and submit it to the owners.

In college, we would come up w/marketing plans and concepts by "brainstorming" -- writing down any idea that came to our head, then selecting the most feasible ones. Maybe we could do that here...people have already chosen:

Reactivation as a cruise ship

Floating exhibition ship

hospital ship

Maritime museum/hotel/restaurant

Floating University

quote:

---

Originally posted by Draikar:
Yea and why don't you also just scrap the statue of liberty.... Just because something's old and need a little care dose not make it worthless, things only die when forgotten.

Ðraikar

---

Agreed! I don't know if SSUS could be saved for active service, but she is a national treasure, and should at least be good for static display.

Remember - the Queen Mary is only unpopular because she is mismanaged and poorly marketed!

I personally think that perhaps SSUS could join the Intrepid here in New York, maybe with an old submarine and/or battleship, plus the sailing ships at South Street Seaport, making New York into a city much more in tune with its maritime heritage!

The port made us, why have we forgotten it ?

This would be the cheapest way to somewhat restore her if your counting your beans. Public awareness only goes so far on the Internet, you have to let people see her and let them think " i wander what ship that is, can I find info on her" and "why is she not open for business" and "what can I do to help her". I think she could be of grate use if more people could just see her and spread the word.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gohaze:
[QB
What I'm saying is that the SSUS really is not economic for anything. If the Navy had wanted her they could have had her years ago and if she was any good for cruising some enterprising Greek would undoubtedly have done something about it.
...peter[/QB]

---

Agreed,

The Great Britain, on display in Bristol as a museum, The Bufel of 1869 in the City of Rotterdam, USS Olympia of 1875, and the beloved Queen Mary are there to educat the generations to come about the era they represent. Queen Mary was retired when I was very little. I am glad she is here for me to enjoy now.

The old battleships of the Olympia, Bufel era were long gone befor my grandparents were born.
Touring these ships has been a wonderful enriching experience, that no amount of books or models can match.

Let the SS United States, Rotterdam V, and Canberra should have been, Normandie if she had not burned, a chance to do the same.

2nd point: Ships of State; built with government money, as symbols of national pride, I believe would not be built if modern private industy ROI was used.

If built by private funds thru corporate bonds, for profit, would not have been the graceful ships they were.

The 'Great Britain' you mention was unique in that she was a Quantum leap in technology. Some of the things she had did not become common until many years afterwards...ie. watertight sub-division and double bottoms. Her propeller designed by Brunel was not only many times larger than anything before, but was amazingly efficient even by today's standards.