BB fans good news

[Bill]

Because Harpoons are big bulky skyrockets with no rapid reloading capability of the launchers. Same problem with Tomahawks and they are even bigger. Once you launch them you have to return to depot to reload. We tried designing, building and testing an at-sea reloading system and it's just too dangerous and far too slow even in a port with only small crane services.

You have no idea how many hairs were torn out in Bremerton when we inspected the first Battleship (New Jersey) for reactivation. The original proposal was for 8 Harpoons in two quad launchers (one on each side of stack #2) and 16 Tomahawks in four quad launchers (ABLs) aft of Stack #2. We said we could reactivate and modernize New Jersey for 365 million dollars.

Congress said "Okay. BUT you have to double up on the missiles or we won't budget the program". Putting two more Harpoon launchers up there wasn't any problem. Finding a spot for the extra four Tomahawk launchers shot about 3 days of inspections down the tubes. Then I had an absolutely ridiculous idea and thought I was going to be laughed off the ship. Comparing to the fact that the Harpoon launchers FACE each other on Spruance class Destroyers, why don't we do the same thing with four launchers amidships and let the exhausts expend over the sides. We would only be firing one at a time so there was no fear of collision.

It's really pleasurable to see the eyes of all these big shot engineers open up to the size of double shot glasses when they say, "Why didn't we think of that before?"

Made MY day.

Even with VLS modifications, the most birds we can put on board are 96 mix and match missiles of Tomahawks, Harpoons, or whatever it is that goes WHOOSH when the firing button is hit.

The 16-inch guns, on the other hand, can stow 1,210 projectiles within their turret foundations backed up with 2,514 cans of full service charges containing three 110 pound bags of propellent each. :)

Improve the 16-inch projectiles with lighter weight sub-caliber (sabot) rounds, scramjets or whatever to increase ranges up to 60 miles or even possibly 100 miles we may make the Harpoons obsolete instead of the other way around. ;)

'
Well now you sound like ME! :)

[2DREZQ]

It's really to bad that the Caspian sea is landlocked. It looks like Tehran is within 16" range of the coast. I doubt there is a feeling in the world like waking up one morning and seeing that silhouette on the horizon... Anybody got access to a transporter that can handle 70,000 tons?

[Shipwreck]

On the personal spitting contest side, my question is: Just WHO are you and WHAT DIRECT involvment did you have with the Battleships in the 1980s?

I would like to know because if we did work together on the same project I would like to chew the fat with you sometime of the "fun" we had working 10 to 12 hours a day and often having to design something all over again because NAVSEA came up with a Change Notice.

Dick,

I am NOT interested in a personnal spitting contest with anyone, even less with someone like you, for a couple of reasons :

1. WHO I AM doesn't matter. What matters is WHAT IS SAY. If WHAT I SAY doesn't hold water, then I'd be pleased to stand corrected whenever necessary.

2. Being reasonably familiar with most details surrounding the successive reactivations of the Iowas, I have the greatest respect for your carreer and achievements.


As a result, it was never my intention to :

1. denigrate the efforts you put into the reactivation of the Iowas back in the 1980s (which is something you can definitely be proud of).

2. suggest that the idea to fire the aidships ABLs across the ships and have the gases exhausting over the side was not from you.


This being said, there are a few things I would like to clarify :

I am NOT saying you are wrong. You probably got those figures out of some book or website. But at the time they were totally insignificant as the figures WE were given were the figures WE had to WORK with as part of our Marching Orders. (...) Why didn't Ray Schull the head Program Manager of NAVSEA go into that detail?

The initial $247 million for reactivation of the New Jersey come straight from the FY1981 supplemental and FY1982 budgets. These documents are no longer classified and a copy can be easily obtained from NHC or NARA.

I KNOW for sure that both Ray Schull (Design Director for the Battleship Reactivation / Modernization Program at NAVSEA) and Jim Edwards (BB-62 Ship Design Manager until 1983) had a copy of these documents, as well as a copy of subsequent estimates, including the final $326 million estimate dated April 1981.

With the exception of those involved in the first feasibility study (February 1981 - April 1981), most of the project team members went on board after April 1981. I would speculate that it made no sense for Ray to communicate on anything but the most recent cost estimates.

But then I noticed the start of one of your other positings degrading some "civvies" about their confidence in the Battleship.

I don't know what specific incident you are referring to, but let me clarifying again : I don't care WHO people ARE (civvies or uniforms), all I am interested in is WHAT people SAY.

Because you are one of the most knowledgeable expert on how to reactivate a battleship, and as such deserves the greatest respect, doesn't mean your opinions on usefulness of Battleships should not be taken with a fair "pinch of salt".

The only problem with their usage was Congress and jealous brown shoe Admirals that didn't let them go all out.

The actual problem with BBs during the 1980s is that no one really knew what to do with them.

Once VLS Sprucans and Burkes started to come in service in significant numbers, the primary driver for BB reactivation as a cruise missile platform was gone. All BB had left were their 16" guns.

The piss-poor performance of USS New Jersey of Beirut coupled with the rather modest achievements of USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin during GW1 finally convinced the much denigrated *brown shoe* admirals that those 16" guns were no longer worth the efforts and money to keep a couple of BBs in commission.

No offense intended here : you are fully entitled to be proud of your work, it's just that a poor concept, even when brilliantly executed, remains a poor concept at the end of the day.

Oh! One last note about usefulness of Battleships. After I got back from the Bremerton ship check, I was buying some extra work clothing and mentioned to the salesman that I will probably wear these out quickly as I was assigned to be one of the project leaders to bring the New Jersey back. He reached out, shook my hand and said, "Well, when you go aboard her the next time, give her a salute for me. She saved my life in Viet Nam".

You'll be amazed by the number of vets claiming that NJ saved their life in Nam. I don't mind such statements, as long as they are regarded as a subjective truth.

Objectively however, anyone who studied the 16" gunfire missions performed by USS New Jersey during her Vietnam tour quickly comes to realize that very few (if any) could qualify as *direct* life saving missions.

As for 5" gunfire, some direct connections that can be made between missions performed by USS New Jersey during her Vietnam tour and actual lives being saved as a direct result of those missions (Oceanview being the most obvious example). Objectively however, these missions could have been performed successfully by any other warship mounting enough 5" guns with sufficient magazine capacity.

At least SOMEONE appreciated our efforts.

I do appreciate your efforts. I do have respect for the work you did.

I own a copy of lots of documents you produced, e.g. the drawings you did for the BB museums, which are much BETTER than anything that's commercially available. I am sure the audience would be delighted if you could post some of these drawings on the board.

Because I've chosen not to disclose my credentials on a public forum doesn't mean we cannot enjoy in-depth dscussions on some obscure technical details of the 1980s reactivation process or the late VLS upgrade proposals.

Just don't expect me to buy the reactivation non-sense, for which there's objectively no justification whatsoever.

[Shipwreck]

I'll let you know after next week. I've been "invited" to go up to Benicia to inspect the Iowa.

I don't know whether you have a specific agenda for this trip, but I would suggest you :

1. Take a look at the engineering plant in general, and Boiler #3 in particular.

2. Check the overall condition of the main deck.

3. Check whether all the spare parts for the repair of Turret #2 are still there.

4. Ask the guys at MARAD whether they have already received written instructions to *unplug* cathodic protection and dehumidification systems and when this is due to happen.

[RustyBattleship]

I don't know whether you have a specific agenda for this trip, but I would suggest you :

1. Take a look at the engineering plant in general, and Boiler #3 in particular.

2. Check the overall condition of the main deck.

3. Check whether all the spare parts for the repair of Turret #2 are still there.

4. Ask the guys at MARA whether they have already received written instructions to *unplug* cathodic protection and dehumidification systems and when this is due to happen.

All that stuff is already on my list. But your concerns are genuine.

1. I take it you mean boiler ROOM No. 3. But I'm only allowed to bring two others of my original team with me on this trip. There is another member of the team who would be perfect for that inspection and I think you may know him as he was the one who would always fake snoring just before a meeting started.

2. I already have a set of new TYPE drawings (copied from two different NAVY drawings) of how to replace deck planking and where to get the teak from.

3. Because of the time span between the turret II "incident" and now, I'm just waiting with baited breath for someone to say they don't know what has to be repaired or replaced.

Nyah, nyah. I have the list I wrote down myself back in 89. Also have the repair procedures I wrote in 88. Ummm, yeah. Slightly less than a year before the actual incident. Scary, isn't it?

4. Cathodic protection was one of my prime responsibilities. Iowa got the first installation of Built In ICCPS (Impressed Current Cathodic Protection System). I developed the drawing myself and will have a copy with me so they can trace down the wiring tubes and cofferdams. Missouri is now using that system in Pearl Harbor as it works perfectly and esthetics are not marred by a string of wires hanging over the side.

As it is, NAVSEA has already complained about not having lighting power aboard the ship. So we are all going to need flashlights unless they can find somebody that knows where the main switchboard is on 3rd deck from the shore power receptacles on main deck.

[RustyBattleship]

For Shipwreck:
I appreciate your response. I still wish I knew who you are and am pleasantly suprised you knew of Ray Schull and Jim Edwards. I am also surprised that somehow you have gotten hold of some copies of some of the drawings I did for museum configurations.

However, I must disagree with you on New Jersey's "bad" performance. Yes, it was VERY bad but ONLY if you believe every word in the Washington Post.

I am not going into detail but will relate what I was told by the people who were there and pulled the triggers.

Yes, we did take out a Syrian General and his entire staff in a small hotel on a hill. It just happened to be between the New Jersey and the grid for her first shot of grid firing calibrations. The round was a little short because the Chief read a number wrong.

Yeah. Sure.

I interviewed the Chief myself. He said the gunnery officer took the "blame" because he decided to go for a cup of coffee right after being notified that a short round could land on the hotel.

Right.

After the "brown shoe" Admiral in charge lost two F-4 Phantoms and the crew of one of them, it is said he got a message from a person who was very high up in command who said "I sent you a Battleship. Now USE IT." How true that is cannot be proven. But it sounds good.

The back of turret II was pasted with aerial photos of Beirut with every missile site and gun emplacement circled. A gun captain of that turret lived a block from me and let me drive his restored Model T stake bed truck around a bit.

After New Jersey was fully "released" the next set of aerial photos showed nothing but big holes in the ground where guns and missiles once were.

So there. I may not be the "direct" horse's mouth, but I'm not going to discount the reports of the men who were there. They were the horse's mouths. I only provided them their war wagon.

[Shipwreck]

Dick,

There are a couple of things in your last post that deserve further clarification.

After the "brown shoe" Admiral in charge lost two F-4 Phantoms and the crew of one of them, it is said he got a message from a person who was very high up in command who said "I sent you a Battleship. Now USE IT." How true that is cannot be proven. But it sounds good.

It's not clear to me what "brown shoe" Admiral you are specifically referring to and what error(s) you think he made.

There are a couple of guys I can think of, so let me know which one should be blamed and what he should be blamed for :

a. Adm. James D. Watkins

Following the suicide bombing of the USMC HQ at Beirut Airport on October 23, 1983, decision was made to launch a retaliatory strike against Hizbullah and Syrian facilities in Lebanon.

Though the strike was delayed until December 3, 1983 when a couple of F-14 were fired upon by Syrian SAMs, the details of the strike had already been discussed between President Ronald Reagan and Adm. James D. Watkins (by then CNO).

Decision was made that retaliation would be conducted by means of an aircraft strike rather BB gunfire, for a variety of reasons discussed in the book Super Carrier by George C. Wilson.

b. Rear Adm. Jerry O. Tuttle

Rear Adm. Tuttle was the commander of the Task Force 60, comprising at the time USS Independence and USS John F. Kennedy.

Tuttle had an excellent reputation within the USN, for being a hard-worker and a perfectionist. Very careful and detailed planning for the airstrike was prepared under his leadership by Cdr. John J Mazach (CVW-3, USS John F. Kennedy) and Cdr. Ed "Honiak" Andrews (CVW-6, USS Independence) on December 3, 1983.

All of the sudden, in the early hours of December 4, 1983, very specific instructions came from whoever in Washington, ordering the strike to be conducted at 05:45 instead of 11.00, to fly in at 20,000 feet instead of low altitude and detailing what weapons should be used and what targets were to be attacked.

From there, it's no wonder that this last-minute re-scheduling resulted in a considerable chaos that led to the loss of one A-7 from VA-15 and one A-6 from VA-85.

While the pilot of the A-7 (Cdr. Ed Andrews) was able to eject over the Mediterranean and was shortly after picked up by USN helos, the crew of the A-6 had much less luck (Lt. Mark A. Lange being killed and Lt. Robert O. Goodman taken prisoner).

More details on this disaster can for instance be found in the book Intruder by Lou Drendel.

It's worth noting that no official documents about this catastrophe was ever released publicly by the USN, so your guess on who in Washington interfered with the operation is as good as mine.

This disaster nevertheless cleared the way for the 16-inch guns... ;)

However, I must disagree with you on New Jersey's "bad" performance. Yes, it was VERY bad but ONLY if you believe every word in the Washington Post.

It wasn't just the Washington Post that reported this VERY BAD performance. Below is what some reputable sources publicly available have to say on the subject :


1. US Battleships 1935-92 by Garzke and Dulin :

page 218 : "Secretary Lehman and Congress were concerned about the 16-inch gunnery inaccuracy that the New Jersey had displayed off Beirut in 1982 (sic). There had been too much dispersion in the gunfire that silenced Syrian Artillery".

page 236 : "The CNO indicated that the New Jersey's 16-inch fire had silenced the gun batteries that had been shelling Beirut. Still, her gun performance off Lebanon was much poorer than expected and led to the Iowa's intensive and comprehensive gunnery test program from 1984 to 1988"


2. Iowa Class Battleships by Robert Sumrall :

page 79 : "The condition of the powder was the main reason for the lacklustre gunnery performance of the New Jersey off Lebanon in 1984"


3. Iowa Class Battleships by Malcolm Muir :

page 135 : "But other assessors have maintained that new Marine Corps target acquisition radars did allow precise correction '... to within about 13 meters accuracy, well within the lethal radius of the battleship New Jersey's 16-inch guns. Unfortunately, the battleship's 16-inch gunfire proved nowhere near as accurate'."


Using your connections, you might also be able to take a look at what some other sources, not publicly available, have to say :

1. The team in charge of the Gunnery Improvement Program in NSWC Dahlgren carried out a detailed analysis of the performance of USS New Jersey off Lebanon, estimating the actual dispersion patterns and investigating the root causes. There are at least two reports from Dahlgren discussing the subject specifically. Unfortunately, both reports are still classified "For Official Use Only" AFAIK.

2. Following the USS New Jersey controversy, the GAO carried out a study in 1984 to review "The Capability and Effectiveness of USS New Jersey". Unfortunately, the GAO report has apparently not yet been cleared for PD.

I really hope you'll be able to check these for yourself (because they are self-explanatory to say the least, especially the reports from Dahlgren) and find out what solid reasons I have to stand by my claim that USS New Jersey did piss-poor shooting off Lebanon.

Incidentally, I seem to remember that our resident gunny offered more or less the same opinion a few months ago on this board.

Take care.

[RustyBattleship]

Sorry. Right now I don't give a damn. I had to put my wife in the hospital today and she may not be able to get out until Thursday at the very earliest.

You probably won't see me on this board for a while as I have other more important things on my mind and I would not be able to give a proper answer.

Thanks for wanting to chew the fat with me though. Right now I'm going to get stinking drunk, heart meds or not.

[sparten]

Sorry. Right now I don't give a damn. I had to put my wife in the hospital today and she may not be able to get out until Thursday at the very earliest.

You probably won't see me on this board for a while as I have other more important things on my mind and I would not be able to give a proper answer.

Thanks for wanting to chew the fat with me though. Right now I'm going to get stinking drunk, heart meds or not.

Hope your wife recovers quickly sir.

[Shipwreck]

Sorry. Right now I don't give a damn. I had to put my wife in the hospital today and she may not be able to get out until Thursday at the very earliest.

Dick,

I'm truely sorry to hear about your wife.

I hope she recovers quickly and will be back home pretty soon.

Meanwhile, take good care of yourself.

[Bill]

Dick,

I am NOT interested in a personnal spitting contest with anyone, even less with someone like you, for a couple of reasons :

1. WHO I AM doesn't matter. What matters is WHAT IS SAY. If WHAT I SAY doesn't hold water, then I'd be pleased to stand corrected whenever necessary."

Who you are does matter or people wouldn't keep asking.

What's the big secret dude?

Your continual evasion of even the most basic of background info on you is extremely discrediting to you and your opinion IMO.

[Bill]

It wasn't just the Washington Post that reported this VERY BAD performance. Below is what some reputable sources publicly available have to say on the subject :


1. US Battleships 1935-92 by Garzke and Dulin :

page 218 : "Secretary Lehman and Congress were concerned about the 16-inch gunnery inaccuracy that the New Jersey had displayed off Beirut in 1982 (sic). There had been too much dispersion in the gunfire that silenced Syrian Artillery".

page 236 : "The CNO indicated that the New Jersey's 16-inch fire had silenced the gun batteries that had been shelling Beirut. Still, her gun performance off Lebanon was much poorer than expected and led to the Iowa's intensive and comprehensive gunnery test program from 1984 to 1988"


2. Iowa Class Battleships by Robert Sumrall :

page 79 : "The condition of the powder was the main reason for the lacklustre gunnery performance of the New Jersey off Lebanon in 1984"


3. Iowa Class Battleships by Malcolm Muir :

page 135 : "But other assessors have maintained that new Marine Corps target acquisition radars did allow precise correction '... to within about 13 meters accuracy, well within the lethal radius of the battleship New Jersey's 16-inch guns. Unfortunately, the battleship's 16-inch gunfire proved nowhere near as accurate'."


Using your connections, you might also be able to take a look at what some other sources, not publicly available, have to say :

1. The team in charge of the Gunnery Improvement Program in NSWC Dahlgren carried out a detailed analysis of the performance of USS New Jersey off Lebanon, estimating the actual dispersion patterns and investigating the root causes. There are at least two reports from Dahlgren discussing the subject specifically. Unfortunately, both reports are still classified "For Official Use Only" AFAIK.

2. Following the USS New Jersey controversy, the GAO carried out a study in 1984 to review "The Capability and Effectiveness of USS New Jersey". Unfortunately, the GAO report has apparently not yet been cleared for PD.

I really hope you'll be able to check these for yourself (because they are self-explanatory to say the least, especially the reports from Dahlgren) and find out what solid reasons I have to stand by my claim that USS New Jersey did piss-poor shooting off Lebanon.
Incidentally, I seem to remember that our resident gunny offered more or less the same opinion a few months ago on this board.

Take care.

Piss poor gunnery that killed the targets.

How that counts as anything but effective fire is to me, utterly beyond comprehension.

And in any case the entire issue is moot because the powder bag problems were corrected and good sized contingents of modern UAVs were soon after embarked aboard all 4 US Battleships.

The 16" guns are terror weapons in todays world......they dont need to be super accurate, just good enough to target specific grid squares- and they clearly are....even WITH heavily worn barrel liners AND WWII munitions.

You can talk shiit all day about the Iowas guns, but you and i and the gunny and every other diick whose ever called a firemission or pulled a lanyard knows that with new liners and modern conventional shells that both ACCURACY and RANGE would be significantly(probably even 'dramatically) improved.

Frankly, your continued evasion wrt who you are or even your general background tells me that you're hiding something.

Otherwise, there would simply be NO REASON AT ALL for you to be COMPLETLEY evasive as to who you are.

[Bill]

Sorry. Right now I don't give a damn. I had to put my wife in the hospital today and she may not be able to get out until Thursday at the very earliest.

You probably won't see me on this board for a while as I have other more important things on my mind and I would not be able to give a proper answer.

Thanks for wanting to chew the fat with me though. Right now I'm going to get stinking drunk, heart meds or not.

Hope she recovers ok Dick. Good luck to both of you.

[Shipwreck]

Who you are does matter or people wouldn't keep asking.

Just some guy looking for a new avatar at present.

BTW, snipe, what happened to the Dragunov (the new banner sucks IMHO) ?

[TopHatter]

Just some guy looking for a new avatar at present.

Somebody who worked at - or consulted with - LBNSY? Or NAVSEA?