CV-17 Bunker Hill retirement?

I was looking through Stefan Terzibaschitsch's book Aircraft Carriers of the
US Navy and I see that CV-17 Bunker Hill was withdrawn from service in 1947
and essentially stayed in mothballs until 1966. She was used as an immobile
electronics research ship during that time.

Does anybody know why she was withdrawn from service in 1947?



D

"DDAY" wrote in
nk.net:

I was looking through Stefan Terzibaschitsch's book Aircraft Carriers of
the US Navy and I see that CV-17 Bunker Hill was withdrawn from service
in 1947 and essentially stayed in mothballs until 1966. She was used as
an immobile electronics research ship during that time.

Does anybody know why she was withdrawn from service in 1947?

See http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...istories/cv17-
bunkerhill/cv17-bunkerhill.html for further info.

Google is your friend!

Dave in San Diego

"Dave in San Diego" wrote in message
. 30...
"DDAY" wrote in
nk.net:

I was looking through Stefan Terzibaschitsch's book Aircraft Carriers of
the US Navy and I see that CV-17 Bunker Hill was withdrawn from service
in 1947 and essentially stayed in mothballs until 1966. She was used as
an immobile electronics research ship during that time.

Does anybody know why she was withdrawn from service in 1947?

See http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...istories/cv17-
bunkerhill/cv17-bunkerhill.html for further info.

Google is your friend!

Dave in San Diego


Well OK but it really doesnt answer the question as to why she was
withdrawn and not modernized like most of the other Essex class carriers.

An article on the global security website claims that along with the
Franklin
she was excluded from other modernization programs to be available for the
"ultimate"
conversion to operate with the supercarrier United States.

Following the cancellation of the United States, they were eventually broken
up unmodified.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../ship/cv-9.htm

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Keith W" wrote in
:


"Dave in San Diego" wrote in message
. 30...
"DDAY" wrote in
nk.net:

I was looking through Stefan Terzibaschitsch's book Aircraft Carriers
of the US Navy and I see that CV-17 Bunker Hill was withdrawn from
service in 1947 and essentially stayed in mothballs until 1966. She
was used as an immobile electronics research ship during that time.

Does anybody know why she was withdrawn from service in 1947?

See http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...istories/cv17-
bunkerhill/cv17-bunkerhill.html for further info.

Google is your friend!

Dave in San Diego


Well OK but it really doesnt answer the question as to why she was
withdrawn and not modernized like most of the other Essex class
carriers.

An article on the global security website claims that along with the
Franklin
she was excluded from other modernization programs to be available for
the "ultimate"
conversion to operate with the supercarrier United States.

Following the cancellation of the United States, they were eventually
broken up unmodified.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../ship/cv-9.htm

Well, I read the article, and came to this conclusion - money, and needs of
the Navy, which, in many cases, are the driving forces for change or the
the lack thereof.

Dave in San Diego wrote:
"Keith W" wrote in
:

"Dave in San Diego" wrote in message
. 30...
"DDAY" wrote in
nk.net:

I was looking through Stefan Terzibaschitsch's book Aircraft Carriers
of the US Navy and I see that CV-17 Bunker Hill was withdrawn from
service in 1947 and essentially stayed in mothballs until 1966. She
was used as an immobile electronics research ship during that time.

Does anybody know why she was withdrawn from service in 1947?
See http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...istories/cv17-
bunkerhill/cv17-bunkerhill.html for further info.

Google is your friend!

Dave in San Diego

Well OK but it really doesnt answer the question as to why she was
withdrawn and not modernized like most of the other Essex class
carriers.

An article on the global security website claims that along with the
Franklin
she was excluded from other modernization programs to be available for
the "ultimate"
conversion to operate with the supercarrier United States.

Following the cancellation of the United States, they were eventually
broken up unmodified.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../ship/cv-9.htm

Well, I read the article, and came to this conclusion - money, and needs of
the Navy, which, in many cases, are the driving forces for change or the
the lack thereof.

I arrived at that hypothesis without reading the article

On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:16:41 GMT, Dave in San Diego
wrote:


Well, I read the article, and came to this conclusion - money, and needs of
the Navy, which, in many cases, are the driving forces for change or the
the lack thereof.

Intersting article, but incomplete. INTREPID (CV/CVS-11) is not
mentioned at all (except as a museum). I know she had a variety of
the -27C conversion ('cause I flew off her with VS-27 from '70-'72).

IIRC, budgets drive fleet size. (In theory needs should drive
budgets, but that's not always how it works.) If a fleet downsizing
is required, cadidates are identified and surveys are done to
determine which vessels are in the best material condition. List is
made in order of condition. Cutting begins at the bottom.

Again, pure rationality might not drive a program but it's more likely
than not.

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

Jim wrote:

I have seen some of the decisions made on carrier retirements and can only
wonder who REALLY determines which carrier goes and which stay.

Case in point... The America (CVA-66) was decommissioned in 1996 - before
Independence (CVA-62) decommissioned 1998, Kitty Hawk (CVA-63) (still in
service), Constellation (CVA-64) decommissioned in 2003, and Enterprise
(CVA-65) still in service.

The official reason was that the overall condition was worth that the others
mentioned but I was on both the Kitty and America in 71-72 and she wasn't in
better shape than at that time.

Which is neither here nor there as to their respective condition in the mid-90s
-- the other carriers had been through fairly recent SLEPs or at least major
overhauls at the time the decision was made, and America hadn't.

Seemed to many that the decision was very
political.

Seems like common sense to me.

While other carrieres were considered for donation as museams - America was
sunk to determine how much damage it would take to sink a modern carrier.
Didn't even get a chance to be an artifical reef.

At least the Bunker Hill will live on doing something useful.

ISTM that knowledge gained by sinking America is likely to live on through at
least another generation of warships, and any crewman of a ship that survives
damage because of lessons learned will owe a debt to her. I'd say that was at
least as useful as becoming razor blades.

Guy

Jim wrote:
I have seen some of the decisions made on carrier retirements and can only
wonder who REALLY determines which carrier goes and which stay.

Case in point... The America (CVA-66) was decommissioned in 1996 - before
Independence (CVA-62) decommissioned 1998, Kitty Hawk (CVA-63) (still in
service), Constellation (CVA-64) decommissioned in 2003, and Enterprise
(CVA-65) still in service.

The official reason was that the overall condition was worth that the others
mentioned but I was on both the Kitty and America in 71-72 and she wasn't in
better shape than at that time. Seemed to many that the decision was very
political.

However your time on those ships was over twenty years before the
decision on which ship to decommission was made. By the mid 1990's the
Kitty Hawk, Constellation and the Independence had already been through
their SLEP rebuilds. The America on the other hand was the oldest CV
that still needed to be SLEPed. The Forestal was also decommissioned
about the same period while in the middle of her SLEP.

In fact the poor material condition of the America was a bit of a
scandal back in the early 1990's. I remember a long article in US News
about how bad he condition was back then.

ALV


While other carrieres were considered for donation as museams - America was
sunk to determine how much damage it would take to sink a modern carrier.
Didn't even get a chance to be an artifical reef.

At least the Bunker Hill will live on doing something useful.

An additional factor - especially in FRANKLIN's case - may have been the extensive battle damage received by both ships at the very end of WWII.

While both ships went into the yards just as the war was ending, it is very likely that they were only patched together enough to be worth keeping in reserve as secondary mobilization assets, with little intention of ever really having to send them out again. With so many other ESSEX class ships in much better material condition at the end of WWII - and with war $$ drying up faster than a puddle in the desert - this hypothesis makes as much sense to me as any other.

Just a guess, though.

--
Mike Kanze

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."

-- General William Tecumseh Sherman

"Jim Carriere" wrote in message . ..
Dave in San Diego wrote:
"Keith W" wrote in
:

"Dave in San Diego" wrote in message
. 30...
"DDAY" wrote in
nk.net:

I was looking through Stefan Terzibaschitsch's book Aircraft Carriers
of the US Navy and I see that CV-17 Bunker Hill was withdrawn from
service in 1947 and essentially stayed in mothballs until 1966. She
was used as an immobile electronics research ship during that time.

Does anybody know why she was withdrawn from service in 1947?
See http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...istories/cv17-
bunkerhill/cv17-bunkerhill.html for further info.

Google is your friend!

Dave in San Diego

Well OK but it really doesnt answer the question as to why she was
withdrawn and not modernized like most of the other Essex class
carriers.

An article on the global security website claims that along with the
Franklin
she was excluded from other modernization programs to be available for
the "ultimate"
conversion to operate with the supercarrier United States.

Following the cancellation of the United States, they were eventually
broken up unmodified.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../ship/cv-9.htm

Well, I read the article, and came to this conclusion - money, and needs of
the Navy, which, in many cases, are the driving forces for change or the
the lack thereof.

I arrived at that hypothesis without reading the article

My suspicion is that Bunker Hill was in poor condition and that's why she
was not modernized and was retired early.

Franklin was clearly in bad condition and bringing her back to flight status
was not considered practical. But Bunker Hill suffered from a bad fire, and
the info I have seen implies that she really did not regain flight
capability after the damage.

The Navy probably could have repaired her, but they had a lot of Essex class
carriers and they didn't need more. In fact, if anything, they probably
needed a few ships laid up to provide spare parts.

But I don't have anything that confirms that.




D