Page 36 of 40 FirstFirst ... 2728293031323334353637383940 LastLast
Results 526 to 540 of 586

Thread: Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate

  1. #526
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Apr 09
    Posts
    868
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    The LRLAP rounds have been scrapped due to cost and the USN has requested a low cost alternative. There was a discussion about the Zumwalt ammunition situation recently here http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sho...=62664&page=20

    Personally I'd like to see them pull the AGS from the Zumwalts altogether and stuff in a pair of EM railguns in their place. They are effectively technology demonstrators at this point, so they may as well use them accordingly.

    Hopefully after a few years of driving the Zumwalts around and working out the kinks, they can turn out a CG(X) and/or DDG(X) based on the Zumwalt's hull and tech.
    Its been reported that the third in class PCU LBJ (DDG-1002) might get a railgun and one 155MM AGS instead of two AGS. Note that LBJ is the only one of the three getting a steel deckhouse instead of the composite deckhouse, a cost reduction due to the big increase in quoted cost on that third composite deckhouse, so I suspect it might be the one of the three most likely to be used as a development platform. Timing on that might also coincide with developments on the hyper velocity projectile HVP, if they continue to pursue that.


    https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R44175.pdf
    .
    .
    .

  2. #527
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,042
    Quote Originally Posted by dundonrl View Post
    Rusty, your forgetting a drydock.. Pearl Harbor, and I know that an Iowa can fit, since the Missouri was recently in it, and received her new paint (blue if I recall).. oh, while were at it, do you still have the drawings to remove the ABL's and install the VLS launchers in their place.. if so, there's what 128 TLAM cruise missiles (or LRASM for anti-ship work)...
    No, I did not forget Pearl Harbor. Re-read my previous message that Missouri does have dry dock capabilities "close to her". Basically, that's just across the channel from Ford Island. But that would be an awfully long tow for the Iowa. We would have to temporarily "militarize" the large floating dry dock National Ship & Steel is getting next year. That's only a one hundred mile tow. Now I wouldn't mind towing the dry dock up to San Pedro, but we don't have the shops to restore ANY ship. Well, Pacific Ship (if it's still around) has some shops. So it is better to tow Iowa down to the San Diego area where National ship is literally next door to the Naval Base so there are plenty of shops there for shipfitting, bulkhead repair, deck repair, ventilation duct work, piping replacements, electrical shops, etc.

    Also we are still missing four Tomahawk ABL's, sixteen armored Harpoon tubes, four Vulcan Phalanx Gatling guns and the SPS-49 antenna. But the missing midships ABL's can be replaced with other weapons systems or at least extra berthing compartments.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

  3. #528
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,988
    Now this is like playing fantasy football. So can we place bets...?

  4. #529
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacfanweb View Post
    Not disagreeing, but a bit of devil's advocate with some of your points here:

    Re: The missile systems, ESM, and such: You say they'd have to be replaced. Well, wouldn't a new ship need all that same equipment as well?
    Because since I assume the comparison is "cost of returning an Iowa to service vs a new Burke or some other ship", right?
    A new ship would need all that, in addition to the rest of the new ship being procured and built.

    A new Burke frightens $2 billion to death.

    As far as folks touting the armor and survivability, you certainly have a good point about the modern, large ASM's and of course, torpedoes.....but what is more likely to survive a hit by either? An Iowa, or any other surface ship other than a carrier?
    random thoughts

    A new Burke may frighten 2 billion to death. But some of the main differences is that Its a new build. Those things will be installed as the ship is being built.
    To bring an Iowa up to date, they would pretty much have to be gutted, Armor cut, equipment installed, then armor reapplied.

    2 Bilion on a Burke= way more to put it on a Iowa. They got ABLs/R2D2S on the cheap last time. From ships being decommissioned.
    Just as important. That Burke is a new hull. How many years do the Iowas have.

    Do you cut her open and install new engines? If not how many steam ships are left? Do we need to reopen a school to teach snipes that go to her? How much will that cost.

    No one knows how to operate the big guns. New school? Who teaches it? And no having guys that served on them in the 80-90s come back to teach won't work. The results in the 80s show that isn't a good idea.

    And thats not a knock against those manning the guns back then. We have lost the institutional knowledge that only comes from experience. Now we could man a gun with everyone from the Turret Chief (?)
    to the swab guy all knowing the basics. That is a recipe for disaster.

    Do we have spare barrels/retubes for the 16in guns? How about the shells and powder? The problem with AGS and her ammo is that we were not buying enough to get the cost down. The same will happen with the 16in shells/powder also.

    Spare parts for various pumps/motors. Either replace every one on the ship with modern equipment or be stuck with trying to find parts for equipment that hasn't been built for 50+ years

    And in the end, what do you have? A ship that has most of the capabilities of a Burke IIa, with guns that are too short range and to inaccurate to be used IAW current doctrine.

    Zumwalts cost so much because we went from building 20+ to building 3.
    Last edited by Gun Grape; 22 Nov 16, at 02:42.
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  5. #530
    Regular Tom24's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jul 13
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    87
    "2 Bilion on a Burke= way more to put it on a Iowa. They got ABLs/R2D2S on the cheap last time. From ships being decommissioned.
    Just as important. That Burke is a new hull. How many years do the Iowas have."

    Please explain this. The Iowa class BB's were among the first ships to take the ABL's to sea. No decommissioning ships from the late 70's to early 80's had ABL's or Phalanx R2D2's to donate to the Iowa class BB's. Those were new weapons systems. I don't know where you always come up with these incorrect statements. You do it every time a new "bring them back" thread comes back that you want to squash. You get called on it every time but you keep doing it. The schools are closed but there are still 12 ships with steam/boiler power plants in active USN service, so while not an easy task, personnel can still be trained to operate the boilers. I'm not a "bring them back" advocate, but I don't like seeing untrue statements being used in the argument against recommissioning them.

  6. #531
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,049
    Specifically , the New Jersey was done on the cheap, so that the Navy could proclaim how inexpensive it was to reactivate the ships. Notice that the other 3 cost way more to rearm.

    The ships were not being decommissioned, . Was going off memory. The equipment ABLs, R2D2s and Harpoons were appropriated from ships they had been bought for that were being modernized, not decommisssioned. They were not "Charged to the New Jersey" but to other ships

    The ABLs and R2D2s came off Sprucans. The Harpoons came off a Farragut. Been stated in many sources. From Freeman to the US Navy.

    the thing the Iowas did was be the first ship that carried a quantity of T-hawks. The other ships had at most 2 ABLs.

    Those 12 steam ships. Same system used on the Iowas?

    Time for work
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  7. #532
    Regular Tom24's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jul 13
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Specifically , the New Jersey was done on the cheap, so that the Navy could proclaim how inexpensive it was to reactivate the ships. Notice that the other 3 cost way more to rearm.

    The ships were not being decommissioned, . Was going off memory. The equipment ABLs, R2D2s and Harpoons were appropriated from ships they had been bought for that were being modernized, not decommisssioned. They were not "Charged to the New Jersey" but to other ships

    The ABLs and R2D2s came off Sprucans. The Harpoons came off a Farragut. Been stated in many sources. From Freeman to the US Navy.

    the thing the Iowas did was be the first ship that carried a quantity of T-hawks. The other ships had at most 2 ABLs.

    Those 12 steam ships. Same system used on the Iowas?

    Time for work
    Again incorrect. The few Sprucans that ever got ABL's before the change to VLS for the whole class didn't get them until the late 80's, just before the Gulf War. 7-8 years after New Jersey got hers. The Ticos never had them at all. When New Jersey was being recommissioned the only other vessels in the process of getting the ABL's were USS Long Beach and the Virginia class CGN's. The California class CGN's never got them due to top weight issues. No Sprcans went without Phalanx R2D2's during the 80's.

  8. #533
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom24 View Post
    Again incorrect. The few Sprucans that ever got ABL's before the change to VLS for the whole class didn't get them until the late 80's, just before the Gulf War. 7-8 years after New Jersey got hers. The Ticos never had them at all. When New Jersey was being recommissioned the only other vessels in the process of getting the ABL's were USS Long Beach and the Virginia class CGN's. The California class CGN's never got them due to top weight issues. No Sprcans went without Phalanx R2D2's during the 80's.
    The US Navy , the GAO and I disagree with you.

    http://archive.gao.gov/f0102/115403.pdf

    Page 18

    WEAPON SYSTEMS FOR THE NEW JERSEY
    The New Jersey, when modernized, will have TOMAHAWK
    cruise missiles, HARPOON, and close-in weapon systems. TOMAHAWK
    hardware will not be available unti1 March 1983 and will
    then be obtained by diverting assets from the regular overhaul
    of two DD-963 class ships.
    The impact of the diversion will be
    a delay of one overhaul cycle in installing TOMAHAWK on the two
    DD-963 ships.

    Cannister-type HARPOON assets will be available in October/
    November 1981 by diversion from two DDG-37 class ships. Those
    ships will not receive HARPOON until armored box launchers become
    available to replace cannisters.

    The close-in weapon system is currently produced at a 3
    unit-per-month rate with an increase to 7 units-per-month expected.
    The impact on pipeline assets of installing four
    units on each of the battleships would be minimal.
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  9. #534
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,042
    Gun Grape said: To bring an Iowa up to date, they would pretty much have to be gutted, Armor cut, equipment installed, then armor reapplied.

    Of course new electronics, and some existing need to be overhauled. BUT your will NOT have to cut open any of the armored spaces. Not the way I designed the armor for them. All doors are 26 wide openings. But I have had to cut temporary access through so many hulk heads and decks to get gizmos in that won't fit through a door I wasn't about to have to do that with HY-80 armor from 1/2 inch thick to 1 1/2 inches thick.

    Take a close look at the modernized Iowas. Especially the 1 1/2" thick armor around CEC. Look just forward of the door. You see that 4 foot wide bolted plate access there? On the port side you will also see bolted plate accesses to the main SPS-10 and SPS-49 receivers that processes the antennas and spreads it out to the repeaters. Even the Radio Room just aft of midships on the main deck, where I added 1" thick armor to the bulkheads and overhead and main vents, etc. has a 3 1/2 foot wide bolted plate access just forward of the port side door. You will also notice that each access already has a padeye welded onto it so all you have to do is set up the lifting rigging and start taking out the bolts.

    No torch cutting required.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

  10. #535
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,049
    Quote Originally Posted by RustyBattleship View Post
    Gun Grape said: To bring an Iowa up to date, they would pretty much have to be gutted, Armor cut, equipment installed, then armor reapplied.

    Of course new electronics, and some existing need to be overhauled. BUT your will NOT have to cut open any of the armored spaces. Not the way I designed the armor for them. All doors are 26 wide openings. But I have had to cut temporary access through so many hulk heads and decks to get gizmos in that won't fit through a door I wasn't about to have to do that with HY-80 armor from 1/2 inch thick to 1 1/2 inches thick.

    Take a close look at the modernized Iowas. Especially the 1 1/2" thick armor around CEC. Look just forward of the door. You see that 4 foot wide bolted plate access there? On the port side you will also see bolted plate accesses to the main SPS-10 and SPS-49 receivers that processes the antennas and spreads it out to the repeaters. Even the Radio Room just aft of midships on the main deck, where I added 1" thick armor to the bulkheads and overhead and main vents, etc. has a 3 1/2 foot wide bolted plate access just forward of the port side door. You will also notice that each access already has a padeye welded onto it so all you have to do is set up the lifting rigging and start taking out the bolts.

    No torch cutting required.
    Rusty,

    I defer to you when it comes to such matters.

    However, here is my thinking. Are we upgrading the Iowas? or just bringing them back?

    Upgrade means a modern comm suite, including link 16 capabilities. Aegis capable combat system. More electrical power, more A/C for those systems.

    Upgrade the weapon system? ABLs are useless today. So no T-hawks or do you upgrade to VLS cells? Wouldn't you have to cut into the armor to install them? Or do you do as thought out in the 90s and remove turret 3 and make it a VLS farm? Want to fire SM-3-6? that requires AN/SPG-62 radar Armor intrusion installing them?

    5/38s are also useless. Cannot shoot the modern family of 5" ammo. Remove them Possibly install some 5/62 mounts. Does that require intrusion of existing armor?

    Or do you sail a ship that can only fire 9 big guns?

    Then there are the non armor intrusive items, Making work spaces conform to current standards. Upgrading crew berthing to modern standards, upgrading Heads (females will be assigned).

    I would also think that the Navy would insist on crew reduction, so lots of automation. A Iowa swallows up a crew that could man 5.5 Burke Flt IIa's or 13 Zimwalts, Automation that would include way more computers which equals more generator power and more a/c cooling for those computer rooms.
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  11. #536
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    5/38s are also useless. Cannot shoot the modern family of 5" ammo. Remove them Possibly install some 5/62 mounts. Does that require intrusion of existing armor?
    Dick, that's an interesting question: What would it take to replace the existing 5"/38's with the latest 5"/62?
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  12. #537
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,042
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Dick, that's an interesting question: What would it take to replace the existing 5"/38's with the latest 5"/62?
    I was involved in an official study on that. The gun mounts would fit okay. The projectile hoists are okay. But two of the powder hoists had too sharp of a bend in them to handle the longer propellent cannisters. i did figure out a cheap way to do it, but it was never carried through.
    Last edited by RustyBattleship; 23 Nov 16, at 21:59.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

  13. #538
    Regular
    Join Date
    17 Feb 15
    Posts
    42
    There are always less expensive alternatives for equipment and unit cost will go down with experience or better (more honest) accounting. With the Iowa class you're stuck with the cost of 1500 sailors and those costs will only continue to go up.

  14. #539
    Patron
    Join Date
    22 May 09
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by Burnet View Post
    There are always less expensive alternatives for equipment and unit cost will go down with experience or better (more honest) accounting. With the Iowa class you're stuck with the cost of 1500 sailors and those costs will only continue to go up.
    In fairness, at $16,000,000 per minute for firing her guns, it only takes about 5 minutes or less to pay the Iowa's crew, lol.

  15. #540
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,042
    GunGrapes concerns: However, here is my thinking. Are we upgrading the Iowas? or just bringing them back?

    Both. Any upgrading would be because Mechanicsburg has run out of the old parts.

    Upgrade means a modern comm suite, including link 16 capabilities. Aegis capable combat system. More electrical power, more A/C for those systems.

    SOP. Standard Operating Procedure. If we need it, we do it. If we don't need it that's one less item to dent our budget.

    Upgrade the weapon system? ABLs are useless today. So no T-hawks or do you upgrade to VLS cells? Wouldn't you have to cut into the armor to install them? Or do you do as thought out in the 90s and remove turret 3 and make it a VLS farm? Want to fire SM-3-6? that requires AN/SPG-62 radar Armor intrusion installing them?

    The ABL's are NOT useless. They can still fire Tomahawks because that is all they are supposed to do. We did a study of converting to 96 VLS cells. It would take at least a year to modify the ships very extensivly. Also, we were NOT going to remove Turret III. Only two of the Salem class cruisers would have their aft turret removed in way of a Helicopter Hangar (plus adding BPDMS) to be the consorts of the Iowas. I had the basic plans for their conversions I sent the Salem its profile drawings of what could have been. The BB VLS drawings are now aboard the Iowa.

    5/38s are also useless. Cannot shoot the modern family of 5" ammo. Remove them Possibly install some 5/62 mounts. Does that require intrusion of existing armor?

    The New Jersey and a few Destroyers tested the RAP rounds quite extensivly in Viet Nam. A standard 5"/38 round can reach out to 12 miles. The the RAP round would go about 18 miles. Also, I was partially involved in replacing the 5"/38's with the newer gun. Everything would fit perfectly EXCEPT for two propellent hoists had too sharp of a turn for the longer cannisters carrying the propellent case. I did come up with a simple fix, but the project got shelved instead.

    Or do you sail a ship that can only fire 9 big guns?

    Fletcher class DD's only had 5 guns (reduced to four later). Gearing class DD's had 6. Spruance class DD's had only ONE. But for 16 inchers, you wouldn't want to be within a hundred yards of one burying itself 25 to 35 feet down at 1100 miles per hour before the fuse activated.

    Then there are the non armor intrusive items, Making work spaces conform to current standards. Upgrading crew berthing to modern standards, upgrading Heads (females will be assigned).

    We did have some basic layouts of how to increase berthing on an Iowa from 1500 to 1800 people. The Women On Ships program was a top priority design project of our compartment arrangements Design Section for at least two years. When I was on one of Missouri's Sea Trials, we had 4 women aboard. One was an excellent engineer from the Fittings Design Division, another woman was from the weapons shop and was part of the team to reactivate the ship's artillery, another was a Clerk/Typist from one of our contract agencies to type up all of our inspection work sheets (such as where I found the piping to the wash basin in the photo shop had its piping put in backwards) and the fourth woman was a Navy Officer. Whatever she did to ride the Battleship, I will never know. But as Peggy (my engineer from Fittings Design) told me that their quarters were way aft on 01 level with only one crew's head. She was not a happy camper with only one lavatory for four women.

    I would also think that the Navy would insist on crew reduction, so lots of automation. A Iowa swallows up a crew that could man 5.5 Burke Flt IIa's or 13 Zimwalts, Automation that would include way more computers which equals more generator power and more a/c cooling for those computer rooms.

    Well, yes automation would help -- automation would help -- automation would help -- Auto--- As you can see, I'm not too confident about automation, particularly anything that would be mass produced. Don't forget, a few months ago a test drive of a fully automated car (no human driver) was in an auto collision. The driverless car was in full compliance with the rules of the road. But the other driver was a human being and Robots cannot read human minds yet.
    Last edited by RustyBattleship; 24 Nov 16, at 20:10.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Littlest Terrorist Dies....we're Safe !
    By visioninthedark in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 29 Aug 07,, 19:20
  2. Is the USA double-tongued Anti-Terrorist? or what?
    By Gazi in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27 Sep 05,, 23:50

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •