Cool, thanks for the pics
#OTD in 1990, THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER premiered. The film was based on the Tom Clancy novel published by @USNIBooks. The Naval Institute had never published original fiction but decided to take a chance on the unknown Clancy who was working as an insurance agent at the time. pic.twitter.com/zvIq0rDVSm
— U.S. Naval Institute (@NavalInstitute) March 2, 2023
I realize prohibitively expensive, but I wish the plans for her were long-term dry display of some kind.Ag_of_08 said:
I'm glad they've eliminated beaumont, that was the goofiest idea possible.
Unless something major has changed, the battlefield actively wanted to get rid of the ship. The sentiment when I was an undergrad was that it was a liability and detracted from the site. She will end up at a temporary dock before she'll go back there I believe.
I'm pretty sure the plan is to put her back in the strand area, the delay is likely just to hammer out the details. The biggest problem for putting the ship anywhere is dredging..... the more they have to dredge I'm, the more they'll have to dredge out in 20 years. We've also learned a lot, and burying these ships in the mud is a terrible idea
No. I don't think they'll ever bring the engines online again, and the rudder is permanently rusted in place.74OA said:
Not sure what the refurbishment includes.
No way Texas returns to its home berth under its own power, is there?
CanyonAg77 said:
Not surprised that the park wants to get rid of her. It seems that park administrators can't stand for people to actually show up and enjoy a park.
DrEvazanPhD said:CanyonAg77 said:
Not surprised that the park wants to get rid of her. It seems that park administrators can't stand for people to actually show up and enjoy a park.
I think the reality is that the battleground just doesn't get enough people to support the Texas. No one will accidentally wind up there, so there's no peripheral traffic from other sights and tourist destinations. The only people that really go are school groups and a few dedicated history buffs
Why not a tourist destination, then? Something on the coast (near Padre Island?) which is flooded with bodies in warm weather?BrazosBendHorn said:DrEvazanPhD said:CanyonAg77 said:
Not surprised that the park wants to get rid of her. It seems that park administrators can't stand for people to actually show up and enjoy a park.
I think the reality is that the battleground just doesn't get enough people to support the Texas. No one will accidentally wind up there, so there's no peripheral traffic from other sights and tourist destinations. The only people that really go are school groups and a few dedicated history buffs
True. All of this.
It's probably going to Galveston.74OA said:Why not a tourist destination, then? Something on the coast (near Padre Island?) which is flooded with bodies in warm weather?BrazosBendHorn said:DrEvazanPhD said:CanyonAg77 said:
Not surprised that the park wants to get rid of her. It seems that park administrators can't stand for people to actually show up and enjoy a park.
I think the reality is that the battleground just doesn't get enough people to support the Texas. No one will accidentally wind up there, so there's no peripheral traffic from other sights and tourist destinations. The only people that really go are school groups and a few dedicated history buffs
True. All of this.
p_bubel said:It's probably going to Galveston.74OA said:Why not a tourist destination, then? Something on the coast (near Padre Island?) which is flooded with bodies in warm weather?BrazosBendHorn said:DrEvazanPhD said:CanyonAg77 said:
Not surprised that the park wants to get rid of her. It seems that park administrators can't stand for people to actually show up and enjoy a park.
I think the reality is that the battleground just doesn't get enough people to support the Texas. No one will accidentally wind up there, so there's no peripheral traffic from other sights and tourist destinations. The only people that really go are school groups and a few dedicated history buffs
True. All of this.
74OA said:Why not a tourist destination, then? Something on the coast (near Padre Island?) which is flooded with bodies in warm weather?BrazosBendHorn said:DrEvazanPhD said:CanyonAg77 said:
Not surprised that the park wants to get rid of her. It seems that park administrators can't stand for people to actually show up and enjoy a park.
I think the reality is that the battleground just doesn't get enough people to support the Texas. No one will accidentally wind up there, so there's no peripheral traffic from other sights and tourist destinations. The only people that really go are school groups and a few dedicated history buffs
True. All of this.
LMCane said:74OA said:Why not a tourist destination, then? Something on the coast (near Padre Island?) which is flooded with bodies in warm weather?BrazosBendHorn said:DrEvazanPhD said:CanyonAg77 said:
Not surprised that the park wants to get rid of her. It seems that park administrators can't stand for people to actually show up and enjoy a park.
I think the reality is that the battleground just doesn't get enough people to support the Texas. No one will accidentally wind up there, so there's no peripheral traffic from other sights and tourist destinations. The only people that really go are school groups and a few dedicated history buffs
True. All of this.
the best possible plan would be to send her to Charleston and dock at Patriots Point next to the Yorktown
huge amount of tourists there - and how awesome would it be to have a battleship and fleet carrier side by side?
Agree, unless you're going to sink her next to Arizona, she needs to be at a Texas port.Quote:
why would they want another battleship when they got the Missouri there already
Nobody is going to sink her, I was just making a ridiculous comparison.Bregxit said:
And why sink Texas at Pearl Harbor? She wasn't there for the attack. Makes zero sense.