PBS program on SS United States

[Jack Ray]

Last night I watched an interesting, if rather corny, program on the SS United States.

Discussed was the history of the ship and its possible fate. I was a passenger on this ship in 1966--I still vividly remember seeing the giant red funnel from the other side of the terminal. WOW!

Apparently, Norwegian Cruise Lines bought this ship as has plans to put it back in service cruising.

Jack

[Lesforan]

Jack,

That would be wonderful news. The QE II was converted to a cruise ship and it gave her a whole new career.

Pull out the steam turbine plants and replace them with those big Diesels used in transports. Save some fuel, free up some space. Will cost some speed, but who is in a hurry on a cruise? (Unless you get into some bad buffet items.)

[Werner]

Saw the program. I thought the NCL deal fell through a while ago.

Because some past owner stripped and sold her interior, there is no possibility of making her a tourist attraction. The world has little use for a 40 knot steam powered ship. Any use for her would require replacement of her magnificent steam plant with economical low-speed diesels for a top speed around 20 knots.

I don't see the point. I think her only residual value is to the Navy, and a very small value at that.

Sad.

[kennylibben]

Although perhaps with no interior she can't be a floating museum of herself, but wouldn't it actually be easier to turn her into a floating museum of ocean liners in general? Or it'd be cool if they turned her into a floating hotel, with some businesses in there...

[chuck]

The world has little use for a 40 knot steam powered ship.

The United States was never capable of 40 knots. It was all a cold war propaganda. The best speed she ever managed was only a little bit higher than her Blue Ribbon speed of 36 knots.

I agree her utility in any military role would be no-existent. Modern airlift capacity is such that 10 C-17s can airlift the twice number of troops directly into a forward airstrip very near the battlefield in about the same amount of time as it would take the SS United States to make 1 round trip from a port in the US to a suitable secure port somewhere close to the battlefield.

As a cruise ship she would also be at a gross disadvantage. Modern cruise ships looks like ugly floating condos precisely because they are so efficient in stacking the maximum possible passenger living and entertainment space onto the the least possible hull. This is why the giant, nominally 160,000 ton, modern cruise ships really weigh less, and rest on smaller underwater hulls, than the 80,000 ton ocean liners of the 1940s. Something like the United States, Queen Mary, Normandie, Queen Elizabeth, and other classical ocean liners finds it hard to compete in the cruising trade because these traditional passenger ships weigh a lot and have a lot of hull for their passenger volumes.

[Jack Ray]

The world has little use for a 40 knot steam powered ship.

The United States was never capable of 40 knots. It was all a cold war propaganda. The best speed she ever managed was only a little bit higher than her Blue Ribbon speed of 36 knots.

I agree her utility in any military role would be no-existent. Modern airlift capacity is such that 10 C-17s can airlift the twice number of troops directly into a forward airstrip very near the battlefield in about the same amount of time as it would take the SS United States to make 1 round trip from a port in the US to a suitable secure port somewhere close to the battlefield.

As a cruise ship she would also be at a gross disadvantage. Modern cruise ships looks like ugly floating condos precisely because they are so efficient in stacking the maximum possible passenger living and entertainment space onto the the least possible hull. This is why the giant, nominally 160,000 ton, modern cruise ships really weigh less, and rest on smaller underwater hulls, than the 80,000 ton ocean liners of the 1940s. Something like the United States, Queen Mary, Normandie, Queen Elizabeth, and other classical ocean liners finds it hard to compete in the cruising trade because these traditional passenger ships weigh a lot and have a lot of hull for their passenger volumes.

Modern cruise ships are not much more than hyper car ferries. I wonder how they would take crossing the North Atlantic in December. I remember crossing from Newark to Cadiz in December 1972 aboard the SS Young America, a turbine powered Moore-McCormack Lines (IIRC) container ship--at some points the seas were at least twice the height of the ship and not a cloud in the sky.

Jack

[Werner]

The world has little use for a 40 knot steam powered ship.

The United States was never capable of 40 knots. It was all a cold war propaganda. The best speed she ever managed was only a little bit higher than her Blue Ribbon speed of 36 knots.

Sorry to disappoint you Chuck, but her official recorded top speed (revealed in 1977) was 38.3 knots.

[chuck not signed in]

A certain "moderat"or is confused about whether the number 38 is equal to the number 40 or not.

[chuck not logged in]

Modern cruise ships are not much more than hyper car ferries. I wonder how they would take crossing the North Atlantic in December.

Most of the modern condo style cruise ships are not designed to deal with North Atlantic winters. But a few, such as Cunard's Queen Mary 2, are. So modern style cruise ship construction is not fundamentally incompatible with rough sea navigation capabilities comparable to old ocean liners.