Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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...

    Comment


    • 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,, 10:21.

      Comment


      • 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.

        Comment


        • 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.

          Comment


          • 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.

            Comment


            • 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.

              Comment


              • 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.

                Click image for larger version

Name:	RemovablePlate.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	502.4 KB
ID:	1470115
                Last edited by SW4U; 28 Dec 16,, 03:03.

                Comment


                • 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.

                  [ATTACH]42955[/ATTACH]
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • 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 :Click image for larger version

Name:	RemovablePlate_2ndDeck.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	571.3 KB
ID:	1470120Click image for larger version

Name:	RemovablePlate_SplinterDeck.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	411.2 KB
ID:	1470121Click image for larger version

Name:	RemovablePlate_3rdDeck.jpg
Views:	4
Size:	494.9 KB
ID:	1470122Click image for larger version

Name:	RemovablePlate_1stPlatform.jpg
Views:	3
Size:	326.8 KB
ID:	1470123

                    Comment


                    • 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.

                      Comment


                      • 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).

                        Comment


                        • 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.

                          Comment


                          • 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.
                            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                            Comment


                            • 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.

                              Comment


                              • Sorry, I meant to include the source. There is no mention of BB joining the fleet.

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X