Page 38 of 39 FirstFirst ... 2930313233343536373839 LastLast
Results 556 to 570 of 580

Thread: Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate

  1. #556
    Regular
    Join Date
    09 May 16
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    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.
    You'd be able to find quite a lot of highly competent professional mariners at the MSC to do the training. And the MSC has developed some reliable automation solutions for steam plants (though the components being used may not be Grade A items as far as shock requirements are concerned).

    Again, the problem is where you'd find enough motivated sailors (about 400 per BB assuming no automation) to operate such antiquities...

  2. #557
    Regular
    Join Date
    09 May 16
    Posts
    69
    To be clear, the message I tried to convey is that the technical side may not be the most problematic. It's the people side that more often than not ends up being a major stumbling block. Big bonuses may not be enough of an incentive and would likely create distortions with fleet-wide consequences...
    Last edited by SW4U; 07 Dec 16, at 10:21.

  3. #558
    Contributor 85 gt kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Sep 13
    Location
    Roanoke Va
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Boat View Post
    If the Battleships were to put to sea again I would think that the USN would have one hell of a draw card for new recruits. Think about all the young Americans that have toured them as museums. I reckon you'd get a few thousand join up when they're of age just to try and get on one of the BBs.
    Yea i'd try my hardest to get in if they were to sail again!

    Hopefully they would ignore that both ankles have had surgery on, extreme asthma, and need to have specially treated blood in the event of an incident (bone marrow transplant from a Leukemia diagnosis is a bear but hey 14 years in remission!).

    As to the GTs, Rusty has said before that you COULD install GTs BUT the intakes are a problem (too small) but the biggest problem IIRC is that where they wanted to mount the VLS systems is right where the service plates are for the engine rooms. Not a big problem for the steam plants but a huge one for the maintenance on a GT.
    RIP Charles "Bob" Spence. 1936-2014.

  4. #559
    Regular
    Join Date
    09 May 16
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by 85 gt kid View Post
    As to the GTs, Rusty has said before that you COULD install GTs BUT the intakes are a problem (too small) but the biggest problem IIRC is that where they wanted to mount the VLS systems is right where the service plates are for the engine rooms. Not a big problem for the steam plants but a huge one for the maintenance on a GT.
    1) Removable plates provide access to ERs, whereas GTs would most likely have been located in FRs.

    2) GT maintenance mostly involve engine change via a handling route within the plenum.

  5. #560
    Regular
    Join Date
    20 Feb 14
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by BBSupporter View Post
    The crazy idea of recalling at least two of the four Iowa-class is being discussed at some level. Whether that glorious day will ever come is unlikely, but people like myself have remained vigilant and active in reminding the decision makers of the benefits provided by these ships. Don't be such a tin can, shout like a sixteen inch gun!!!
    At what level is this being discussed? Would love some more details o this.

  6. #561
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,042
    Quote Originally Posted by SW4U View Post
    1) Removable plates provide access to ERs, whereas GTs would most likely have been located in FRs.

    2) GT maintenance mostly involve engine change via a handling route within the plenum.
    Ummm, sorry about that. But the "removable" plates (aka "soft patches") riveted to the decks above the machinery spaces now have the armored deck houses for the Tomahawks and midships CIWS.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

  7. #562
    Regular
    Join Date
    09 May 16
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by RustyBattleship View Post
    Ummm, sorry about that. But the "removable" plates (aka "soft patches") riveted to the decks above the machinery spaces now have the armored deck houses for the Tomahawks and midships CIWS.
    As mentioned earlier, the aftmost plate on the port side doesn't seem to have been obstructed by such add-ons.

    I'd be curious to find out if this specific plate (and those underneath) was still usable after the Iowas were reactivated in the 1980s.

    Name:  RemovablePlate.jpg
Views: 515
Size:  502.4 KB
    Last edited by SW4U; 28 Dec 16, at 03:03.

  8. #563
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,042
    Quote Originally Posted by SW4U View Post
    As mentioned earlier, the aftmost plate on the port side doesn't seem to have been obstructed by such add-ons.

    I'd be curious to find out if this specific plate (and those underneath) was still usable after the Iowas were reactivated in the 1980s.

    Name:  RemovablePlate.jpg
Views: 515
Size:  502.4 KB
    Afraid not. That would only go down to the aft Emergency Diesel Generator Room. Most of the other soft patches have 3/4" thick HY-80 armor bulkheads welded to them.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

  9. #564
    Regular
    Join Date
    09 May 16
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by RustyBattleship View Post
    Afraid not. That would only go down to the aft Emergency Diesel Generator Room. Most of the other soft patches have 3/4" thick HY-80 armor bulkheads welded to them.
    I may well be misreading the plans (BB-64, 26 Feb. 1956), but the removable plates I'm specifically talking about seem to go all the way down to ER #4 :Name:  RemovablePlate_2ndDeck.jpg
Views: 507
Size:  571.3 KBName:  RemovablePlate_SplinterDeck.jpg
Views: 504
Size:  411.2 KBName:  RemovablePlate_3rdDeck.jpg
Views: 506
Size:  494.9 KBName:  RemovablePlate_1stPlatform.jpg
Views: 504
Size:  326.8 KB

  10. #565
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,042
    Now transfer your red squares to the 01, 02 & 03 levels to see what we welded on top of them in the 1980's. Yes, I questioned this when I was ordered to direct the detail installation drawings based upun Supships Boston's guidance drawings. Basically NAVSEA's answer was we will have to worry about that if the time comes. But this was the fastest way to get the launchers and Gatlings on and try to keep within budget.

    A budget that was based upon only two Harpoon racks and four ABL's. Congress agreed to the budget but only if we DOUBLED UP on the missile launchers.

    Oh joy! No wonder I turned grey so soon.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

  11. #566
    Regular
    Join Date
    09 May 16
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by RustyBattleship View Post
    Now transfer your red squares to the 01, 02 & 03 levels to see what we welded on top of them in the 1980's.
    You're expecting too much from this soon-to-be-blind individual... :-( Perhaps some charitable soul will jump in and get to get the job done...

    I might well be wrong, but I'm not excessively worried about the add-ons @ 01, 02 & 03 levels. I'd be more worried about potential alterations below deck that would obstruct access to the removable plates (which are not shown on the Booklet of General Plans from the 1980s BTW).

  12. #567
    Regular
    Join Date
    20 Feb 14
    Posts
    46
    Anyone with "inside knowledge" know if the Trump admin is looking at any of the Iowas? They're looking at reactivating some Perry frigates, maybe even the Shitty Kitty. Trump did say on the campaign trail he wanted to recommission the Iowa. If anyone is crazy enough to do it, it would be him.

  13. #568
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    15,913
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmorPiercing88 View Post
    Anyone with "inside knowledge" know if the Trump admin is looking at any of the Iowas? They're looking at reactivating some Perry frigates, maybe even the Shitty Kitty. Trump did say on the campaign trail he wanted to recommission the Iowa. If anyone is crazy enough to do it, it would be him.
    Couple things:

    1. The Perry-class and Kitty Hawk reactivation considerations are red herrings/ scare tactics to pry more new construction money out of Congress. They aren't actually looking at anything of the kind.

    2. There isn't the slightest possibility of the Iowa-class being reactivated.

    3. Trump made a single vague and whimsical comment about it, and almost certainly forgot about it 5 seconds later.

    4. Donald Trump is a narcissistic sociopath that will say anything that occurs to him on a total whim, whatever gets him applause.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  14. #569
    New Member
    Join Date
    19 Jul 17
    Posts
    24
    1- The Perrys were disarmed years ago, and retired prematurely to be replaced by an ineffectual ship class (actually 2 sub-classes) of 52 LCS ships, later reduced to 40. Most have yet to enter service. The Zumwalt class likewise has been reduced from 32 to three, and the main weapon has been repurposed to NOT fulfill the gunfire support mission intended. The Perrys had deficiencies to be sure, but to abandon them without mission replacement was careless at best.
    2- The current shipbuilding program projects a new carrier to the fleet every 5 years. With the original fleet size of 12, that would entail a 60 year lifespan. Having been cut to 11 ships still requires a carrier to serve for 55 years. Even with the current 10 ship waiver in place, each unit would last 50 years. I think the longest interval between RCOH is typically 25 years. If a core can last 30 years, the current schedule can support 11 or 12 units. A second RCOH for each ship would be cost-prohibitive.
    3- Political commentary appropriately withheld.

  15. #570
    New Member
    Join Date
    19 Jul 17
    Posts
    24
    Sorry, I meant to include the source. There is no mention of BB joining the fleet.

    https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...l#document/p95

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 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,, 20:20
  2. Is the USA double-tongued Anti-Terrorist? or what?
    By Gazi in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28 Sep 05,, 00:50

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
  •