South Dakota Class Re-activation

[shadow01]

Here is a question that was brought up the other day when I was discussing the re-activation of the Iowa Class a retired navy captain that was on the New Jersey during the 1980s said the navy was considering bringing back the South Dakota Class BBs that were museum ships.

According to him the navy had just enough funds to re-activate the 4 Iowas and the problem of spare parts and trained crews was also a big factor.

Looking at the Alabama's position, (stuck in the mud), I wonder if the overall condition of the ships was more the deciding factor. I know when the Massachusetts was dry docked they had to fabricate and replace many of her sea chests and many plates to the hull do to corrosion.

[Gun Grape]

I don't think either were "Museum Donations". But bought when the ships were put up for sale to scrappers.

So the navy doesn't have as much of a hook as they do with other "Museum" ships.

[Pacfanweb]

I believe Alabama has a cofferdam built around it that they can drain for hull maintenance.

North Carolina is in the mud....I have a thread here with a pic taken today at low tide.

That work on Mass. was in the late 90's....the reactivations were started in the early-to-mid 80's, IIRC....so maybe the problems wouldn't have been as severe since it would have been 10-15 years earlier?

I think they also considered reactivating the Desmoines class CA's, and maybe even the North Carolina. (not sure how seriously, though)

I'd think that all the fast BB's that were left should have had some miles left in them....the SoDak's and NC were only used for about 5-6 years....they were designed to be used for a lot longer than that, I'd think.

It'd sure be fun to speculate on a what-if scenario of reactivating either Mamie or The Showboat.......let's say the gov't and the Navy, for whatever reason, decided they wanted either/both back in service, regardless of cost. I wonder how much would HAVE to be done just to sail and shoot with one again?

[Pacfanweb]

I don't think either were "Museum Donations". But bought when the ships were put up for sale to scrappers.

So the navy doesn't have as much of a hook as they do with other "Museum" ships.

Mamie is definitely a "Museum Donation"....Alabama is not, from what I've read.

I know they wanted to cut the outboard prop shafts or something off Mamie when they dry docked her awhile back, and the Navy said "No".

[Gun Grape]

Mamie is definitely a "Museum Donation"....Alabama is not, from what I've read.

I know they wanted to cut the outboard prop shafts or something off Mamie when they dry docked her awhile back, and the Navy said "No".

I was thinking of the North Carolina instead of the Mamie for some reason.

North Carolina belongs to the State.

I trimmed my post down and it got lost in translation.

[Pacfanweb]

I was thinking of the North Carolina instead of the Mamie for some reason.

North Carolina belongs to the State.

I trimmed my post down and it got lost in translation.

I think BB55 is also still technically property of the Navy. I believe her status is listed as "Permanently on loan to the state of NC".

Alabama is owned outright by her name state.

edit: Plus, I remember Rusty talking about robbing parts off the museum ships for the Iowas.....he got stuff off NC and Mamie, but couldn't get anything from Alabama as it was owned outright by that state, and they had already sold anything that wasn't critical to the museum, anyway.

[RustyBattleship]

Alabama was bought outright by the State, outbidding the scrappers. So she was untouchable and the curators sold most of their spare parts to raise funds for making it into a museum ship.

However, at least during the Iowa class reactivations, both the Massachuesetts and North Carolina were still under the Navy caveat of keeping them in good shape for possible reactivation.

As a matter of fact, NAVSEA 05 unloaded so many spare parts (that would fit an Iowa) the North Carolina rose out of the mud. They have since been released totally to the museum organizations and they can modify them any way they want.

I myself "commandeered" the towing Pelican Hook off the Mamie for New Jersey just as I "commandeered" two winches off the Chicago for the boat booms on Missouri and Wisconsin.

However, how the "Rumor" started in the opening post of this thread was that somebody had posted a date of when North Carolina was going to be towed out to join the Iowas and several hundred people lined the shoreline to see it go. Which it never did.

The debunking of this stunt was reported in the monthly newsletter of the Battleship New Jersey Historical Museum Society.

[Pacfanweb]

That would have been sweet to see BB55 sail again.

Heck, if they all followed the same reactivation/deactivation timeline, she'd probably be back in Wilmington by now, anyway.

[shadow01]

As much as I would love to see Mamie sailing with the fleet, even if the navy wanted her, the cost and work required would be off the charts.

The only way I could even seeing that happen is if a company like BAE did a complete re-design of her from the keel up. She would probably not even look like a true BB in the end.

Also, I beleive that the only way that would even be considered is if they upgrade the "Big" guns to electromagnetic rail gun system. The Iowa Turrent #2 explosion is just the excuse, (and manpower), cited for keeping her and her sisters out of the dance.

[Dreadnought]

*One small thing many dont consider. Once you cut through that WWII pre Atomic bomb era armored plating the integrity of the armor plating strength is compromised. They cannot make that armor anymore, it would have to be a modern derivative and no doubt weaker then the original armor plate. Im sure this came into play during the 80's reactivations when installing the AC systems in the former 5"/38 mounts among other changes.

[shadow01]

*One small thing many dont consider. Once you cut through that WWII pre Atomic bomb era armored plating the integrity of the armor plating strength is compromised. They cannot make that armor anymore, it would have to be a modern derivative and no doubt weaker then the original armor plate. Im sure this came into play during the 80's reactivations when installing the AC systems in the former 5"/38 mounts among other changes.

Just a question from ignorance. They have not found better ways to make steel since the 30 & 40s?

How about composite armor like they use on tanks?

[Dreadnought]

Just a question from ignorance. They have not found better ways to make steel since the 30 & 40s?

How about composite armor like they use on tanks?

*No question is ignorant. One seeks to learn, thats a sign of being smart enough to understand that which one dont know. Thats the awesome benefit of the WAB.;)

Please dont get me wrong, we could produce armor like that again but the money, time and testing it would take to recreate this would pretty much be astronomical. Your military (plural) would not wish to waste their budgets and time when protection has switched from being defensive (such as battleship armor) to offensive, such as new generation weapons capabilities and kevlar armor. Instead of planning defensive heavy armor in order to absorb a hit, warships now depend upon their offensive capabilities to hit first instead such as long range SPY radar, ballistic missles and passive armor systems etc.

Composite armor has already found its way aboard ships and coupled with alot of STS plating as well. Rusty would have first hand knowledge of this as when they replated areas of the Iowas during reactivation in the 1980's and other classes of ships as well.

Many warships that were hit (by Exocet missles) and sunk during the Falklands campaign were lightly armored. Its very doubful they (or others) would have penetrated any of the vitals of an Iowa. The biggest problem would be fire from unburnt propellant. But then again missles continue to change everytime you blink.

Ships these days are designed to take a few hits but they are more inclined to hit first and from farther away then say "upclose and personal". IMO, these days the heaviest armor in the USN would be aboard those monster carriers that roam the worlds oceans.

[RustyBattleship]

As Dread says, "if we made it once, we could make it again". But the cost of retooling would be awesome.

However, we do not need Class A face-hardened armor anymore. The purpose of heat treating the threat side of the armor to hardness greater than a drill bit was to break up the shell of an artillery round or a air dropped bomb.

But even all the gun duels in WW II and Korea did not prove the need for face hardening. Iowa and New Jersey still have a small chip in the side of one of their turrets from shore based artillery. One of the earlier "Fast class" Battleship had a Japanese bomb literally "bounce" off the top of turret II that was simply Class B armor and only 6 or 7 inches thick.

Most of the armor I had to design for the Tarawa, Spruance and Iowa classes was officially titled "Fragmentation Protection" rather than true armor plate.

However, the steel would have been the same but thickness would vary depending upon how critical the compartment was behind it and also how many other decks or bulkheads a warhead would need to go through before hitting the armor.

In the 80's reactivation of the Iowas, HY-80 (High Yield 80 kpsi) was the standard replacement for the WW II vintage STS (110 kpsi yield strenght). In any major replacements that had the old STS we were to replace with HY-100 (100 kpsi yield strength). But that was only for shell plating or main deck plating for hull strength and not armor.

HY-130 (140 kpsi yield but the weld strength was only 130 kpsi) was used mostly in submarine construction.

HTS (High Tensile Steel) was used widly in hull structure but later replaced with a commercial Carbon Manganese when the MIL-SPEC for HTS was concelled.

In its place HSLA (High Strength Low Alloy, ASTM A568 or MIL-STD 129) steel has become the standard metal used by the Navy in both hull structure and Armor.

Though we no longer have the steel factories set up for Class A armor, we don't need it. We have something better and with the right design team can still make a very tough to sink ship.

However, I do still favor 16-inch guns for a couple of reasons. One; is that their shape makes them nearly undetectable from enemy tracking Radar. Two; is that they are not "advertising" their flight path with target seeking Radar. Three; is that they are not receiving or transmitting a visual (TV) guidance system. Four; is that they travel about 1500 mph (mid-range velocity) as most Cruise missiles can only do about 600 mph though they have far greater range but sending out detectable Radar and TV transmissions.

[Pacfanweb]

The fast BB that had a bomb bounce off the turret was South Dakota. They nicknamed that turret the "Bomb Shelter" afterwards.

I believe a sliver from that explosion cut the jugular of the Captain on the bridge....quick thinking by someone there saved him....he was still feeling it when SoDak and Washington took on Kirishima and Co.

[Dreadnought]

However, I do still favor 16-inch guns for a couple of reasons. One; is that their shape makes them nearly undetectable from enemy tracking Radar. Two; is that they are not "advertising" their flight path with target seeking Radar. Three; is that they are not receiving or transmitting a visual (TV) guidance system. Four; is that they travel about 1500 mph (mid-range velocity) as most Cruise missiles can only do about 600 mph though they have far greater range but sending out detectable Radar and TV transmissions.

*In addition, your not going to intercept them either. And they carry approximately 1,210 rounds on those shell decks. With 9 16" guns blazing your looking at sustained firepower for slightly over 1-1/2 straight hours. One round from each gun every approx 30 seconds.;)