World Affairs Board - View Single Post

neilmpenny · 09-26-2006, 10:20 AM

In answer to the original question "How much servicable hull/boiler life does each of the Iowas have left"?

It depends from what angle you look at it. If there is a need for these ships and a role that cannot be fulfilled by any other ship in service today then these ships will undergo refits to keep them in front line readiness for as long as they are needed. I suppose it is an argument between capability and cost of keeping them service ready.

I served on an old aircraft carrier in the Australian NAVY that was 35 years old. You got the old stories of how a Jasons pistol or chipping hammer punctured the hull whilst it was in drydock being antifouled (who knows if they were true). I guess a hull plate could be replaced as and when required.

Boilers are easy to maintain (relatively) and the tubes can be replaced as and when required. Re-bricking is also not a major undertaking. They can be kept going indefinitely as long as there is the will and the financing.

The HMAS Melbourne as far as I know got paid off because her auxiliary systems were ancient by any measure you may employ. And because we only had one (and I believe she only had three sister ships, one still in service in the Indian NAVY today!!!!) we sufered from a lack of scale. Parts were at a premium as they generally had to be custom made.

Government policy changes over time too as well as geoplolitical policies and objectives, alliances, trade agreements and technological requirements to name a few. It may be fine to focus on the engineering limitations of these ships but what could well do them in is a shift in the strategic or political environment.

09-26-2006, 10:20 AM	#66 (permalink)
neilmpenny Regular Join Date: 09-26-06 Location: Singapore via Australia Posts: 75 Country:	In answer to the original question "How much servicable hull/boiler life does each of the Iowas have left"? It depends from what angle you look at it. If there is a need for these ships and a role that cannot be fulfilled by any other ship in service today then these ships will undergo refits to keep them in front line readiness for as long as they are needed. I suppose it is an argument between capability and cost of keeping them service ready. I served on an old aircraft carrier in the Australian NAVY that was 35 years old. You got the old stories of how a Jasons pistol or chipping hammer punctured the hull whilst it was in drydock being antifouled (who knows if they were true). I guess a hull plate could be replaced as and when required. Boilers are easy to maintain (relatively) and the tubes can be replaced as and when required. Re-bricking is also not a major undertaking. They can be kept going indefinitely as long as there is the will and the financing. The HMAS Melbourne as far as I know got paid off because her auxiliary systems were ancient by any measure you may employ. And because we only had one (and I believe she only had three sister ships, one still in service in the Indian NAVY today!!!!) we sufered from a lack of scale. Parts were at a premium as they generally had to be custom made. Government policy changes over time too as well as geoplolitical policies and objectives, alliances, trade agreements and technological requirements to name a few. It may be fine to focus on the engineering limitations of these ships but what could well do them in is a shift in the strategic or political environment. __________________ No sea too rough, no muf* too tough.