Rendering of the USS Charles F. Adams Naval Ship Downtown

[rbirds]

I can't imagine why Jacksonville needs a behemoth like a 400+ foot-long destroyer on our riverfront. Or that this single ship with a meager battle record (a few weeks at the Bay of Pigs) would draw people downtown. As mentioned already, this isn't a ship with an oversized historical profile or a recognizable name.

I've read through the executive summary of the business plan and destroyer advocates claim they will triple their revenue from the first year to the second year. But I didn't read in the plan how this extraordinary feat is accomplished.

While pride of one's service to the country is a positive attribute, burdening the cityscape of Jacksonville to satisfy that sense of pride is not. We all value the Navy's contribution to the nation and Jacksonville but I personally am not interested in looking at the Navy's mothballed relics every time I come downtown.

[WmNussbaum]

As a scholar of Latin, I can absolutely assure you that an accurate translation of "pro forma" is "wish list," or, loosely, "SWAG."

I'm kinda with rbirds on this but maybe at the opposite end of the spectrum. A destroyer is at the small end of the warship scale. If we want to attract visitors, we need something bigger. If we can have the world's biggest jumbotron, it seems to me that we ought to have a battleship or at least a cruiser on the waterfront, and I'll bet we can have one for less than $43 million. The bed tax statute probably allows for such an expenditure.

[JayBird]

Though I can agree with the points brought up by rbirds and WM, I think this is a good idea solely because something is better than nothing. This is causing people to look at downtown. To look at the Shipyards. Personally, I would rather see the city lobby for CV-67 JFK because that has a local, more personal connection. And though I understand it is really too big for downtown, JTA or JaxPort does own some nice property in Mayport that they apparently no longer want to use for a cruise port. And even with something being better than nothing, I would not want to see the city have to take on costs of it because it isn't the great tourist magnet that it's founders think it will become. I do know a portion of the operating income is planning to come from Duval County Public Schools, in the form of class trips but am not sure what percentage of total income that is. Either way, better than looking at empty fields and piers while people talk of amusement larks, aquariums and sky scraping residential towers.

[I-10east]

Some are questioning the USS Adams's history by saying it isn't that it doesn't have a significant historical profile. I'm not trying to say that it's the most war tested floating fortress ever by no means, by it was the lead ship in the Cuban Missile Crisis, and it's the only Adams Class ship that's still around; Not exactly the history of an unused lifeboat. IMO it's smaller size is okay; I don't think that we need some gargantuan thousand foot long aircraft carrier to prove our Naval might. I guess that I'm in the minority, but I actually prefer a smaller ship like this one, opposed to some hulking maritime monstrosity.

www.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/336440/483/Plans-for-USS-ADAMS-Naval-warship-museum-moving-forward

www.news4jax.com/news/nonprofit-works-to-bring-uss-adams-to-jacksonville/-/475880/23117168/-/4dkkdt/-/index.html

[JayBird]

This is about the largest that can be docked downtown, I think everyone understands that. It's also worth mentioning that out of the 23 Adams class Destroyers made and put into service, all are retired and the Charles Adams is the only one to be preserved. In 20 years, this will be one of the few ways for people to "see" a piece of the Cold War.

[thelakelander]

I'm in the minority. While I don't mind the ship being docked downtown, I seriously doubt it's sustainable without clustering a variety of other complementing activities nearby.

[JayBird]

^Agreed, but like I said earlier by the time this becomes reality there will be other stuff there (or at least I hope so, because it is easily 3-5 years down the road)

[thelakelander]

I doubt anything is built on the Shipyards in 3 years.  We don't even have a proposal or solid idea of what we want there at this point. If things were good, you'd be looking at, at least a year or two to go from concept to permitting and another 18-36 months of construction.

[I-10east]

This is about the largest that can be docked downtown, I think everyone understands that.

Well the USS Saratoga (a past failed plan to bring in it during the 'Save Our Sara' effort) was more than twice as long than the USS Adams. Some preferred a larger ship than the USS Adams.

[Charles Hunter]

And what does this say about guys thinking about Bigger Ships? 

[JayBird]

How exactly were they planning to get the Sara in? Remove bridges? Drop it from Chinooks? And were they planning to dredge the river downtown? The ships that made Green Cove home look like bath toys compared to what we have had in service lately. Anything larger than 700' or so and needing more than 25'-30' feet of water is going somewhere other than Jacksonville.

And I'm assuming the group that wanted the Sara downtown is probably similar to the group that wants Tebow QBing for the Jaguars. Sometimes the loudest or most annoying aren't always right.

[I-10east]

How exactly were they planning to get the Sara in? Remove bridges? Drop it from Chinooks? And were they planning to dredge the river downtown? The ships that made Green Cove home look like bath toys compared to what we have had in service lately. Anything larger than 700' or so and needing more than 25'-30' feet of water is going somewhere other than Jacksonville.

And I'm assuming the group that wanted the Sara downtown is probably similar to the group that wants Tebow QBing for the Jaguars. Sometimes the loudest or most annoying aren't always right.

Well said. I wasn't positive about the Sara's dimensions etc. LOL, the Tebow comparison was right on. When I was younger, all I heard was 'Save our Sara' like it was actually possible to dock it DT.

[rbirds]

I-10 East suggests this ship was the "lead ship in the Cuban Missile Crisis". 

Certainly it was near Cuba for about 6 weeks or so.  But a Navy-produced ship history of the Charles F. Adams describes its participation in the crisis as "one of the ships actively involved in the quarantine and
surveillance operations."  It was there but no mention is made of a "lead ship" status.

Acknowledging the ship's and its crew members' service to the country is important and should be remembered by all of us. However, our obligation to acknowledge its service hardly justifies parking a 1.5 city block-long ship downtown.

[rbirds]

That Navy report on the ship's history is at http://www.history.navy.mil/decomship/c/DDG2/1986.pdf

[Noone]

Support the USS Charles F. Adams