Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BB fans good news

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BB fans good news

    From House Report 109-452 (May 5, 2006) on National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2007, page 68 :



    Quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Battleship transfer

    In the conference report (H. Rept. 109-360) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006, the committee included instructions regarding the transfer of the battleships USS Wisconsin and USS Iowa to the Commonwealth of Virginia and State of California, respectively, and the President's reversion authority pursuant to a national emergency.

    The committee seeks to clarify that the battleships USS Wisconsin and USS Iowa must be regarded as potential mobilization assets and both the recipients and the U.S. Navy are instructed to treat them as such.

    The committee notes that the following measures should be taken:

    (1) the ships must not be altered in any way that would impair their military utility;

    (2) the ships must be preserved in their present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection and dehumidification systems and any other preservation methods as needed;

    (3) spare parts and unique equipment such as 16-inch gun barrels and projectiles, be preserved in adequate numbers to support the two ships, if reactivated; and

    (4) the Navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of the two battleships should they be returned to the Navy in the event of a national emergency.

    end

    However Im not optomistic.

  • #2
    Question:

    Assuming the navy actually does what it can to preserve the ships. How long can the ships be stored before weathering and normal aging will render them ineffective for military use?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by canoe
      Question:

      Assuming the navy actually does what it can to preserve the ships. How long can the ships be stored before weathering and normal aging will render them ineffective for military use?
      I'll let you know after next week. I've been "invited" to go up to Benicia to inspect the Iowa.

      Just can't seem to get away from "my babies".
      Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

      Comment


      • #4
        Ill be waiting with greet interest to reading your report.

        As for "how long" remember they have spent most of their lives in a laid-up status.

        If the preservation measures have been undertaken properly they should be and can remain in excellent condition for a long, long time..

        As to their "military" utility:

        That resides only in the capabilities of their 16" guns for shore bombardment.

        If indeed the USN/USMC forgo the traditional opposed forced-entry amphibious assault scenario their utility is greatly diminished.

        And for the most part the USMC over the years has been used mostly as an "adjunct"* to the Army for land warfare operations far beyond the range of those guns.

        *This is cursorily addressed in an article in this months USNI Proceedings:

        "if the Marines of 2025 continue to serve as an adjunct to the Army as aground force ashore rather than an assault force from the sea.."

        So not only the utility of the Battleships comes into question but NSFS in general and the DD(X) in particular.

        Comment


        • #5
          Hey cRusty, are you going to drive or fly to Benicia? I seem to remember you posting on another board that you barely have enough gas to move your truck on sweeper day......

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by RAL's_pal?
            Hey cRusty, are you going to drive or fly to Benicia? I seem to remember you posting on another board that you barely have enough gas to move your truck on sweeper day......
            I'm not paying for the gas or lodging on this one. So I'm getting new tires today and start laying out my hard hat, tape measure, medications, knee pads, ankle support boots, etc.
            Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rickusn
              Ill be waiting with greet interest to reading your report.

              As for "how long" remember they have spent most of their lives in a laid-up status.

              If the preservation measures have been undertaken properly they should be and can remain in excellent condition for a long, long time..
              Nobody knows that better than me. I was the hull and structural project leader of their reactivations. Oddly, the Iowa is the only one of the four I had not inspected in Dry Dock. But she was the first to receive ICCPS so her hull should be in good shape.

              When first moved over to Staten Island then towed to the west coast the Dehumidification (D/H) machines had been turned off. Bremerton INACTSHIP facility at the "suggestions" by various BB groups and Iowa veterans went down to Benicia and had extra power lines run out to the ship and the D/H machines were reactivated. They each require 440 volts to run but turn themselves off after humidity levels are brought down.
              Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by rickusn
                From House Report 109-452 (May 5, 2006) on National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2007, page 68 :



                Quote:
                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Battleship transfer

                In the conference report (H. Rept. 109-360) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006, the committee included instructions regarding the transfer of the battleships USS Wisconsin and USS Iowa to the Commonwealth of Virginia and State of California, respectively, and the President's reversion authority pursuant to a national emergency.

                The committee seeks to clarify that the battleships USS Wisconsin and USS Iowa must be regarded as potential mobilization assets and both the recipients and the U.S. Navy are instructed to treat them as such.

                The committee notes that the following measures should be taken:

                (1) the ships must not be altered in any way that would impair their military utility;

                (2) the ships must be preserved in their present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection and dehumidification systems and any other preservation methods as needed;

                (3) spare parts and unique equipment such as 16-inch gun barrels and projectiles, be preserved in adequate numbers to support the two ships, if reactivated; and

                (4) the Navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of the two battleships should they be returned to the Navy in the event of a national emergency.

                end

                However Im not optomistic.

                LOL.......these ships just won't die.

                I like that asset in a WARship. ;)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by rickusn
                  As to their "military" utility:

                  That resides only in the capabilities of their 16" guns for shore bombardment.
                  I'm still waiting for someone to adequately explain to me(which is to say to attempt to explain at all) why the existing Harpoon missile systems(restored to working condition, of course) would for some reason not function as intended and be capable of shooting holes in enemy ships at sea.

                  Makes no sense to me.

                  It further makes even less sense that an Upgrade to Harpoon II(which is suppoed to be a 'bullet only' upgrade) wouldn't also give it true deep inland strike capability as well.

                  Eh....whatever.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well of course Sniper.

                    But the main reason for their existence is the 16" guns.

                    Harpoons can be fitted to any platform.

                    As for "whatever".

                    Dunno. LOL

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Again we come back to the fact that they were well designed and built.

                      No expense was spared.

                      Then on top of that they have had relatively short service lives and have been overall quite well-maintained when not.

                      So I think it would/should be difficult to kill them off.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        I'm still waiting for someone to adequately explain to me(which is to say to attempt to explain at all) why the existing Harpoon missile systems(restored to working condition, of course) would for some reason not function as intended and be capable of shooting holes in enemy ships at sea.

                        Makes no sense to me.

                        It further makes even less sense that an Upgrade to Harpoon II(which is suppoed to be a 'bullet only' upgrade) wouldn't also give it true deep inland strike capability as well.

                        Eh....whatever.
                        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. ;)
                        Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          This reflects the changing attitude on Capital Hill regarding the DD(X) project. If indeed the BBs are kept, the DD(X) will end up being 2 ships of 2 different classes as large surface combatant technology demonstrators for the CG(X) and a future DDG(X).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by RustyBattleship
                            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.
                            The first feasibility study (started February 1981, finished April 1981) featured :

                            * 16 x Harpoon (4 quad launchers) amidships between the stacks.

                            * 16 x Tomahawks (4 quad launchers) aft of Stack #2

                            * 12 x 5"/38 guns (6 x twin mounts) : mounts 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 & 56 retained.


                            Due to congressional pressure on the Navy to have 32 x Tomahawks instead of 16, a second feasibility study was started in May 1981 and completed on June 19, 1981. This second study featured :

                            * 16 x Harpoon (4 quad launchers), still amidships between the stacks , but relocated closer to the aft stack.

                            * 32 x Tomahawks (8 quad launchers) :
                            >> the aft ABLs in the same location as in the first study (4 quad launchers)
                            >> the added ABLs transversaly located between the stacks and firing outboard (4 quad launchers)

                            * 12 x 5"/38 guns (6 x twin mounts) : mounts 51, 52, 53, 54, 57 & 58 retained.


                            Originally posted by RustyBattleship
                            Finding a spot for the extra four Tomahawk launchers shot about 3 days of inspections down the tubes.
                            Serious concerns were raised about the amidships ABLs configuration proposed in the second feasibility, mainly :

                            * too short a distance from the end of the ABLs to the blast shield to avoid exhaust damage to adjacent launchers.

                            * toxic gas being dumped on the ship centerline causing a ventilation hazard.


                            Two new alternatives were therefore considered for the amidships ABLs:

                            * scheme #1 :
                            >> one side by side pair on the 03 level (one ABL facing port, the other ABL facing stardboard)
                            >> the other two ABLs split port and starboard on the 01 level (both pointing forward)

                            * scheme #2 :
                            >> two pair of ABLs firing across the ship, with a common loading zone in the center and the gases exhausting over the side.

                            The second scheme was chosen for the amidships ABLs (obviously), the aft ABLs occupying a new 03 level instead of the 02 level originally envisioned.


                            Originally posted by RustyBattleship
                            We said we could reactivate and modernize New Jersey for 365 million dollars.
                            The cost estimate presented in the FY1981 supplemental and FY1982 budgets for reactivation of the New Jersey was $247 million.

                            The subsequent April 1981 Navy estimate showed a very slight increase (+32% over a 3-month period ) at $326 millions for reactivation of the New Jersey.

                            Congressmen started to worry about uncontrollable costs, but tricky John (Lehman) managed to escape with something like the only real problem with battleships being there were only four of them.

                            And Uncle Ron wanted them so much to show the Soviets who had the biggest ones

                            So we ended up with 4 BBs we never really knew what to do with and more importantly never came close to having enough qualified personnel for (hence some serious problems later on, but Lehman was gone when the sh*t hit the fan ).

                            And here we are, 20 years later, with some jackass Congressman yet again trying to reactivate a couple of warships that have no place in modern warfare (no matter how superb they are).

                            Pathetic.
                            Last edited by Shipwreck; 10 May 06,, 03:01. Reason: political correctness

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Shipwreck: Very interesting and detailed information there. But I don't know you as there is no real name attached to your postings or profile. Only ambiguous statements like "Rebel Without a Cause", residence is "Somewhere over the Rainbow".

                              I don't want to start a spitting contest here but if you were actually involved in the Battleship reactivation & modernization program as I was, why didn't you give that to me during our first meeting aboard New Jersey in her wardroom? Why didn't Ray Schull the head Program Manager of NAVSEA go into that detail? After returning to Long Beach you could have just walked over to my desk in the Northwest Corner of Building 300 on the 4th floor and passed that info on.

                              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.

                              But then I noticed the start of one of your other positings degrading some "civvies" about their confidence in the Battleship. I may have been a civilian (though with over 7 years Army Reserve experience that included being a tank crewman), but a civilian CIVIL SERVANT working directly for the United States Navy. We did not wear a uniform but if our Planning Officer, Production Officer or Shipyard Commander gave a "suggestion" we would answer "Yes Sir" or "No Sir" whichever fit. Many of us did serve in uniform in other times of our lives. The man who redesigned the crew's berths was a Marine in Korea and was once listed as KIA (until they found him still in a coma in a hospital in Japan). My counterpart Configuration Manager for the machinery and mechanical mods was a Marine in WW II and served aboard the Maryland and North Carolina (when she was hit by a Long Lance). Our electronics Configuration Manager was a turret gunner in B-29s over Korea. Our logistics/liason supervisor was only a couple of years older than me so was too young to serve in WW II - except his father was in the Navy and they lived in Pearl Harbor. At the age of 8 years old, on the way to Sunday school, he wound up outrunning Japanese machinegun bullets. One of our piping techs was in the Army in Korea and was one of the last survivors of that burning bunker shown in the movie "Pork Chop Hill" (one of the very few American made war documentaries that was almost perfectly accurate historically). One of our advance planning techs served aboard the Texas when she bombarded that German fortress in France.

                              Let's see now, oh yeah. One of our mechanical engineers was an Officer in the Argentine Navy. One of our electronics engineers was in the Hitler Youth Corps. One of my structual engineers got his degree in Peking, China (though he was originally born in Ithica, NY).

                              WE ALL served faithfully and are proud of our work and proud of what the Battleships did. The only problem with their usage was Congress and jealous brown shoe Admirals that didn't let them go all out.

                              In your comments you say:

                              Serious concerns were raised about the amidships ABLs configuration proposed in the second feasibility, mainly :

                              * too short a distance from the end of the ABLs to the blast shield to avoid exhaust damage to adjacent launchers.

                              * toxic gas being dumped on the ship centerline causing a ventilation hazard.

                              Two new alternatives were therefore considered for the amidships ABLs:

                              * scheme #1 :
                              >> one side by side pair on the 03 level (one ABL facing port, the other ABL facing stardboard)
                              >> the other two ABLs split port and starboard on the 01 level (both pointing forward)

                              * scheme #2 :
                              >> two pair of ABLs firing across the ship, with a common loading zone in the center and the gases exhausting over the side.

                              The second scheme was chosen for the amidships ABLs (obviously), the aft ABLs occupying a new 03 level instead of the 02 level originally envisioned.


                              Almost all of that is right on the button. But your description of scheme number 2 indicates it was somebody else's idea. Forgive me if I'm sounding a bit egotistical, but I'm getting too old to earn new laudits and but am proud of those I have accomplished. But scheme 2 was never - NEVER brought up until I mentioned it precisely on 8 July 1981 after several of us spent the previous nights in our hotel rooms sketching possible locations instead of even going to dinner. We boarded that ship on the 5th of July and this is the very first time I ever heard of scheme 1.

                              However, you are correct in the concerns we had about having the launchers facing outboard at first. I was asked by Jim Snyder (my structural counterpart from NAVSEA) if I could design a longitudinal armored bulkhead coated with heat resistant material on each side to be mounted right down centerline.

                              Oh joy!

                              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.

                              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".

                              At least SOMEONE appreciated our efforts.
                              Last edited by RustyBattleship; 10 May 06,, 03:52.
                              Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X