Any Life Left!?

[Ytlas]

Some use Main steam for soot blowers (reduced down to 300 and 150) and for other systems as well, and some use auxiliary steam. However there are the Desuperheaters that take 1200 LB main steam and reduce the temperature (not pressure) of the Steam to utilize it for auxiliary equipment. On the D-types the Navy used the utilization of the desuperheater serves two purposes. One, it enables the superheater outlet temperature to remain fairly constant throughout the entire load range and two saves money (don't have to worry about building the turbine to withstand 1100 Deg).

I've only seen soot blowers run off main steam. The strangest thing I ever saw on the 1200lb system was on the Garcia class FF's and Brooke class FFG's was them reducing the 1200 main to 8 lbs steam for the augmenting steam system. I always wondered why they didn't at least tie off of the 1200 aux/desup line or something less instead of superheated steam. (augmenting steam basically is to "pump up" the auxillary exhaust in the main condenser if it falls too low and since the safeties on aux exh lines were usually set to around 15# psi, main steam seems kind of drastic) I just covered 'em, but it made me wonder sometimes.

[Dreadnought]

[QUOTE=fitz;469631]

What about it? I was merely responding to your statement that nothing could be done about the range problem.

And what could have been done for the range problem during the Korean conflict which was what we were discussing at this point. Zero. The 5 inch guns have limited range of 10-13 nm. That is the entire point. They would have to get dangerously close to shore (in range of enemy gunfire) to reach anywhere desired inland thus bringing them in range of enemy gunfire and that is why you had so many casulaties onboard the DD's.

[Ytlas]

Hey Dread, I don't really want to get into this debate, but just off the top of my head, the majority of casualities on DD's during the Korean War was from mine damage, Ernest G Small, Brush, Mansfield, Walke (although many in the Walke association swear it was a torpedo instead of a mine).

[Dreadnought]

Hey Dread, I don't really want to get into this debate, but just off the top of my head, the majority of casualities on DD's during the Korean War was from mine damage, Ernest G Small, Brush, Mansfield, Walke (although many in the Walke association swear it was a torpedo instead of a mine).

An excellent point Pal, I notice both mine and Korean gun batteries. However as we mentioned before the range of the 5" guns on the DD's (10-13 nm) would draw the DD's closer to shore to reach further inland ie closer to mines laid along the coast as well.

[Shipwreck]

Have you seen the BIRMIS report? No. Have you seen the actial report in detail on the Frank Cable? No, just the one from the link you provided. So that is why I said do not comment on something you have no clue about.

Would you tell the audience what may be have been omitted or inaccurate in the Stars & Stripes article ?

And, for a change, don't forget to give exact references for your sources. You never know, someone might want to check whether what you say is pure BS or not

[Shipwreck]

(ignorant BS snipped) In place of the Carrier (that would have been deployed) you have a BB in place of that with a far lower O&M cost than that of the carrier.

Only John Lehman (spit, puke, gag ) or an idiot would believe that a BB can replace a CV.

Are you John Lehman (spit, puke, gag ) ???

[Shipwreck]

the reasons why they were commisioned and retired so many times and have lasted some 65 years to date.

Because of the mystique and nothing else (especially after Korea).

[Tin Man]

Saw a moving documentary a few nights ago on the fate of the USS Arizona at Pearl`.1941.
They were trying to determine what sank her, people had believed it was either a bomb down the stack or a torpedo. The dive team found no evidence of a torpedo hit but they concluded that a dive bomber put a bomb through the deck near the forward main turrets into a mag`...

I just thought watching it, I wished they had left the ship at peace and the sailors who lay with her. Do we really need to know what EXACTLY destroyed the ship nearly 70 years later? The survivors stories and emotions put a lump in my throat I can tell you. I don`t know, just seemed kind of "wrong" to be disturbing that place.

With carrier airgroups and PGMs, I must admit it is hard to see a place for the return of this class of ships, impressive as they were.

[RustyBattleship]

Saw a moving documentary a few nights ago on the fate of the USS Arizona at Pearl`.1941.
They were trying to determine what sank her, people had believed it was either a bomb down the stack or a torpedo. The dive team found no evidence of a torpedo hit but they concluded that a dive bomber put a bomb through the deck near the forward main turrets into a mag`...

I just thought watching it, I wished they had left the ship at peace and the sailors who lay with her. Do we really need to know what EXACTLY destroyed the ship nearly 70 years later? The survivors stories and emotions put a lump in my throat I can tell you. I don`t know, just seemed kind of "wrong" to be disturbing that place.

With carrier airgroups and PGMs, I must admit it is hard to see a place for the return of this class of ships, impressive as they were.

I have also seen the show and what it did was confirm that it was an armor piercing bomb that penetrated through the decks and exploded in the powder magazines. NOT the projectile stowage shown in that Dizny movie "Pearl Harbor" (large caliber projectiles are NOT stacked that way). There was also contention that since Arizona was inboard another ship, a torpedo hitting in the right place could not have gotten through without hitting the outboard ship.

However, determining whether it was a bomb or torpedo (even at this late date) is important data to gather for future designs of warships. A similar argument was held over the Bismarck as to whether the British ship-fired torpedos sank him or scuttleing charges did the job. Deep dives with very manueverable ROVs proved that the British torpedos did NOT penetrate the inboard belt armor.

Many people fret that these investigations are just to settle arguments or inflate/deflate pride in who did or did not sink the ship.

But from an engineering and survivability point of view, finalizing of the details are extremely important for future designs of armored, underwater or underground structures.

[SteaminDemon]

I've only seen soot blowers run off main steam. The strangest thing I ever saw on the 1200lb system was on the Garcia class FF's and Brooke class FFG's was them reducing the 1200 main to 8 lbs steam for the augmenting steam system. I always wondered why they didn't at least tie off of the 1200 aux/desup line or something less instead of superheated steam. (augmenting steam basically is to "pump up" the auxillary exhaust in the main condenser if it falls too low and since the safeties on aux exh lines were usually set to around 15# psi, main steam seems kind of drastic) I just covered 'em, but it made me wonder sometimes.

On the Garcia's they had P-type Boilers (pressurized furnace boilers). 1/2 the size and weight of a D. The P's were used for strictly propulsion. They had donkey boilers as well. As for augmenting steam, using main steam can have an advantage, as the higher temperature steam can further increase the temperature of the condensate which will increase efficiency. So I can see why they did that. Good intentions.

[SteaminDemon]

Would you tell the audience what may be have been omitted or inaccurate in the Stars & Stripes article ?

And, for a change, don't forget to give exact references for your sources. You never know, someone might want to check whether what you say is pure BS or not

You can not check, or use your google for it (like you did when you commented on the incident), if you did you would be wasting your time. I do hope you are catching on by now.

[SteaminDemon]

Only John Lehman (spit, puke, gag ) or an idiot would believe that a BB can replace a CV.

Are you John Lehman (spit, puke, gag ) ???

You make me laugh Shipwreck. No, I am not John Lehman, nor am I an Idiot.

If you have 15 ships ( 4 BB's/11 CVN's) you wouldn't have to replace a CVN as there will be more than one carrier out there.

Let me break it down for you:

BATTLE GROUP
1---------2--------3
CVN 68 CVN 69 BBG 61
BBG 62 CVN 70 CVN 71
CVN 72 BBG 63 CVN 73
CVN 74 CVN 75 CVN 76
CVN 77 CVN 78 BBG 64

After the fifth row the process repeats itself. So, there you have it. Replacing a Carrier? Nah. The rotation would be 6 months on and 24 months off for each Battle Group. There is a substantial improvement in rotations, therefore saving on O&M, allowing the ships more time in port, which in turn betters morale and family life for the Sailor as well as other added benefits. This is all while maintaining 3 battle groups out at sea around the clock. Hope that clears things up for you.

[Tin Man]

I have also seen the show and what it did was confirm that it was an armor piercing bomb that penetrated through the decks and exploded in the powder magazines. NOT the projectile stowage shown in that Dizny movie "Pearl Harbor" (large caliber projectiles are NOT stacked that way). There was also contention that since Arizona was inboard another ship, a torpedo hitting in the right place could not have gotten through without hitting the outboard ship.

However, determining whether it was a bomb or torpedo (even at this late date) is important data to gather for future designs of warships. A similar argument was held over the Bismarck as to whether the British ship-fired torpedos sank him or scuttleing charges did the job. Deep dives with very manueverable ROVs proved that the British torpedos did NOT penetrate the inboard belt armor.

Many people fret that these investigations are just to settle arguments or inflate/deflate pride in who did or did not sink the ship.

But from an engineering and survivability point of view, finalizing of the details are extremely important for future designs of armored, underwater or underground structures.

On Bismarck, the scuttling was an afterthought in my view. To all intents and purposes Bismarck was finished before the scuttle.
Yes, the Torpedo launched by a British cruiser that actually hit the catapult deck shows that Bismark was "on her way" anyway.

Good points well taken. In general you are right, however, the show didn`t mention whether any of the reports were going to be perused by, or going to a naval/marine architect/historian. I got the impression it was just "made for TV".

[Dreadnought]

Because of the mystique and nothing else (especially after Korea).

Mystique?
I most sincerely doubt that they were dispatched upon mystique, folklore, myth or anthing else outside of sound judgement by the SecUSN for the right tool at the right place and the right time.
You may not care for some of their decisions but yet these men that sent them hold/held an office that no "expert" here has ever.

So constantly bashing them and not having at minimum their credentials to hold said office speaks volumes about the authors as to the reasoning behind why they were chosen.

Mystique.

[RustyBattleship]

Good points well taken. In general you are right, however, the show didn`t mention whether any of the reports were going to be perused by, or going to a naval/marine architect/historian. I got the impression it was just "made for TV".

Having worked for the Dept of Defense most of my adult life, even fiction shows with fictional weapons are studied. We were almost "ordered" (highly recommended by an Admiral who was forced to watch "Apocolypse Now") to watch "Final Countdown" and take notes. Also under pseudo orders (very highly recommended) we were to watch "The Bedford Incident" and "report" (discuss aroung the coffee machine) how shocked we were that they showed a full ASROC launch from start to finish.

So everyone of the exploratory movies are at the top of our learning lists. They may have been made for adventure and money, but are looked at by us as training films.