Why the Cape Ray and not a Kocak class?

The only reason to use the Cape Ray over a Kocak class is the house being forward.
Kocak class can load/unload containers or RORO, Cape Ray RORO,
Kocak class can berth 180 people, feed many more, Cape Ray not so many more than the 26 crew.

And the reasons go on and on why a Kocak Class is better than the Cape Ray.

GOPHER STATE was refitted completely in 1989 to be 110% gas tight when it transported all that nerve agent from Europe to Johnson Atoll for incineration.

From what I have hear from a neighbor who works on the Cornhusker State the Gopher is going as well.

Going where? Part of this thread seems to be missing. I know some of those guys. What’s up?

Yes, what’s the goddamn point here?

“there is nothing bad about Pabst Blue Ribbon. Why not Busch?”

Makes about that much sense!!!

[QUOTE=z-drive;125877]Yes, what’s the goddamn point here? [/QUOTE]

my point is that if MarAd already has ships fitted to carry nerve agent safely, why convert another? Just more wasted DoD money.

[QUOTE=c.captain;125879]my point is that if MarAd already has ships fitted to carry nerve agent safely, why convert another? Just more wasted DoD money.[/QUOTE]

I’d have to agree, but who said that’s what we’re talking about? The original post makes no mention of this! Maybe we’re all supposed to know that is the issue at hand through osmosis?

[QUOTE=c.captain;125879]my point is that if MarAd already has ships fitted to carry nerve agent safely, why convert another? Just more wasted DoD money.[/QUOTE]

The Ray isn’t carrying the gas for disposal, the chemical will be processed on board. I assume the Gopher State will store boxes of the stuff aboard until they can be processed on the Ray.
Like you said, why use 2 ships when one could of done the job by herself. Kocak Class could of done the job of both ships, probably a 3rd one since all the people needed for this project will have to berth someplace. what is the berthing on a crane ship?

my question is why on earth isn’t this being done with a USS or at least USNS ship? Why not take another old LSD like the one that is supposed to be an anti piracy platform (name)?

That makes more sense than anything.

In fact, take the ship to a secret undisclosed location in the deep Atlantic and sink it with the gas aboard just like they did in the old timey daze? Hundred of thousands of tons of both ammo and gas sitting on the floor of the ocean out there!

[QUOTE=c.captain;125900]my question is why on earth isn’t this being done with a USS or at least USNS ship? Why not take another old LSD like the LASALLE?

That makes more sense than anything.

In fact, take the ship to a secret undisclosed location in the deep Atlantic and sink it with the gas aboard just like they did in the old timey daze? Hundred of thousands of tons of both ammo and gas sitting on the floor of the ocean out there![/QUOTE]

Maybe they CAN find a use for all those LCS’s after all! It’s perfect!

[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;125902]Maybe they CAN find a use for all those LCS’s after all! It’s perfect![/QUOTE]

those lousy FUCKERS are TOO LIGHTWEIGHT and USELESS to even do that mission!

and ironically, this on Workboat.com today

[B]LCS problems not surprising[/B]
Ken Hocke
November 21, 2013

The Navy’s first littoral combat ship (LCS), Freedom, has experienced a series of electrical, computer and waterjet glitches over the past few months. The 378’x57’ steel-hulled LCS developed technical problems shortly before it was to take part in naval exercises off the coast of Brunei earlier this month, according to Reuters.

The Freedom is the first of 12, odd numbered, Freedom-class LCSes being built by a team led by Lockheed Martin Corp. and made up of Marinette Marine Corp., where the vessels are actually built, Bollinger Shipyards Inc., and Gibbs &Cox.

A second team led by Austal USA and General Dynamics is building the even-numbered or Independence-class LCSes. That team has eight of its 417’x99’ aluminum, semi-planing trimaran LCSes already funded. This design has had its glitches, too. In April, LCS 4, Coronado, had a small engine fire while the engines were being tested at Austal in Mobile, Ala.

Both teams are waiting to have four more of their LCSes funded — two each in 2014 and two each in 2015.

The program has had its problems since production began in the early 2000s. In fact, the Freedom (LCS 1) and the Independence (LCS 2) were both so far over budget that the Navy shut down both projects in 2007 to reassess the program.

Yet officials from both teams and the Navy itself have said for years that these first-of-class vessels were going to have some bugs in them that need to be worked out because no has ever built either one of these vessels before.

This past summer, the GAO (Government Accountability Office) suggested the Navy slow down the funding for more LCSes until it has a chance to reevaluate the viability of the program.

The Freedom and the Independence cost more than $600 million each to construct, about three times original estimates. “We have some cost growth,” General Dynamics CEO Nick Chabraja told financial analysts after the announcement to suspend funding for the program in 2007, “but there’s nothing in that program at this point that I would see as a difficulty that’s beyond what might be normal for a first in class.”

I’ve been following this program since the construction teams began to form back in 2002. From shipyard officials to Navy spokesmen, they have all cautioned about the problems associated with first-of-class vessels, especially ships of this size and technical sophistication.

Yes, they knew there would be problems, and sure enough there have been. It’s a process and all those involved seem to be doing their parts. The construction teams are putting the ships together, the Navy is overseeing them, and the GAO and the media are watching them. And the beat goes on.