Page 10 of 38 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 568

Thread: Ask An Expert- Naval Forces

  1. #136
    Contributor
    Join Date
    24 Oct 11
    Location
    Austin, Tx
    Posts
    344
    I'm chaparoning a cub scout sleepover trip to the Lexington this weekend. I'll ask around and take a good look at that deck to see how it's doing. I was a crewmember on the Lex in 89-91 and the flight deck had severe issues back then. We were originally scheduled to sail up the east coast to New York for a port visit (and to strip Intrepid for parts) around June 1991 and then go to Norfolk for an engine overhaul and flight deck replacement. Under this plan, the Lex was supposed to remain in service as the training carrier till about 2000, but the fall of the Soviet Union and the decreased need for carriers quickly squashed that plan. In 1991, about 70% of the Lexington's flight deck was its original WW2 Douglas Fir and it was soft in places. One of the soft spots gave out and we patched it back then with some kind of asphalt type mix covered by non-skid. Parts for the overhaul started getting stored on the hanger deck as early as November 1990. I specifically recall seeing a forced draft blower that had a tag saying they came from the Hornet. There were other Hornet and Bennington parts as well.

  2. #137
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,767
    There were other Hornet and Bennington parts as well.
    Yeah, we know and would like our parts back to re-install.

  3. #138
    Contributor
    Join Date
    24 Oct 11
    Location
    Austin, Tx
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Yeah, we know and would like our parts back to re-install.
    Those parts were never installed, because that overhaul was cancelled. I have no idea where they went when they stripped the ship down and hauled off those 12 or so pallets.

  4. #139
    Contributor
    Join Date
    18 Oct 09
    Location
    Howell, NJ
    Posts
    521
    Is laying asphalt down like that on the deck a good things to do? They say it should last 20-30 years. With no cars on it I would think it would last. How hard will it be to repair the deck 20-30 years from now?

  5. #140
    In Memoriam/Battleship Enthusiast Defense Professional USSWisconsin's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Dec 08
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,434
    Its a very different situation for sure - a museum ship vs an active carrier operating aircraft from her deck.The requirements of the museum ship would probably be parking space for aircraft exhibits, heavy foot traffic, long life, low cost and ease of service. I suspect asphalt would fail as an operational deck surface, but it might be good for a museum ship. Being oil based might give it an edge over concrete with respect to corrosion of the steel below it.
    Last edited by USSWisconsin; 09 Oct 12, at 17:20.
    "If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

  6. #141
    Contributor
    Join Date
    24 Oct 11
    Location
    Austin, Tx
    Posts
    344
    I'm posting this from the Lexington's Hanger deck on my iPhone, they did asphalt the flight deck OVER the existing surfaces. The wood, aluminum, nonskid, ect is underneith the asphalt, which was several inches thick and forms a lip at the bow and stern. The catapult runs, jbd's, forward elevator edges, bomb elevators, cat launch station, even the tie downs are all buried. They then coated the asphalt with a filler/sealer and painted the outlines of the major buried features on the deck.

  7. #142
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,767
    Disappointing...

  8. #143
    Contributor
    Join Date
    24 Oct 11
    Location
    Austin, Tx
    Posts
    344
    Here are a few pictures from the Lexington, taken this past weekend of the flight deck asphalt

    Attachment 30514
    Elevator 2, which is now stripped of covering to expose the original wood. Note the lip (striped) to the flight deck caused by the asphalt. One of the Des Moines 5" Twin mounts is in the background.

    Attachment 30515
    Closeup of the asphalt, it's about 3-4 inches thick, covering all the flight deck features.

    Attachment 30516
    Rear of the Flight Deck, the white is the slope, showing how the deck itself is 3-4 inchs higher.

    Attachment 30517
    Some of the buried flight deck features are causing cracks in the asphalt which they are sealing/patching. In this instance, you can make out the actual border of the elevator and the catapult. They totally missed when painting their outlines.

    Attachment 30513
    Hanger Deck looking forward. You can see the how they turned the forward elevator well into a mini-Imax theater.

  9. #144
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,026
    Question: What are the upright structures in between the stacks of the Arleigh Burke destroyers?

  10. #145
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,042
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    Question: What are the upright structures in between the stacks of the Arleigh Burke destroyers?
    Sliding Padeyes for Replenishment-at-Sea. The padeye holding the retrieving block and span wire slides up and down to compensate for rolling of the ship if the seas between it and her supply ship are not very calm. This keeps the load the proper height above the deck before slacking off to land the supplies.

    On the Spruance class Destroyers, they were actually built onto the sides of the superstructure bulkheads. Other classes of ships also had the types shown in your photo. The braces supporting the Sliding Padeye "king post" can lay the units down on deck or at least slant them inboard 15 degrees to equal the STEALTH angles of the ship's bulkheads.

    I worked on part of the design of them (installation details on various classes of ships) as well as every "Rube Goldbert" rig Buships/Navsea came up with to try.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

  11. #146
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by RustyBattleship View Post
    Sliding Padeyes for Replenishment-at-Sea. The padeye holding the retrieving block and span wire slides up and down to compensate for rolling of the ship if the seas between it and her supply ship are not very calm. This keeps the load the proper height above the deck before slacking off to land the supplies.

    On the Spruance class Destroyers, they were actually built onto the sides of the superstructure bulkheads. Other classes of ships also had the types shown in your photo. The braces supporting the Sliding Padeye "king post" can lay the units down on deck or at least slant them inboard 15 degrees to equal the STEALTH angles of the ship's bulkheads.

    I worked on part of the design of them (installation details on various classes of ships) as well as every "Rube Goldbert" rig Buships/Navsea came up with to try.
    Thanks Rusty!! That explains it. I've got another question that's been bugging me for a little bit: what are the pros/cons to having the SPY-1 arrays arranged like on the Ticonderoga class vs the Arleigh Burke class?

    The Tico's have them at 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees relative to the ship. Is there a disadvantage to having them space so far apart as opposed to all in the forward superstructure? Does the smoke from missile launches cause brief problems for the fore and aft arrays?

    The Burkes have them all in the superstructure at what i presume is 45, 135, 225, and 315 degrees relative to the ship. Is there a disadvantage to having the immediate rear of the ship being blocked from the rear arrays by the funnels?

    Other than curiosity, I'm trying to get into creating warship models in the shipbucket style, and wanted your opinion on which is a more efficient design.

    Thanks, Boomer

  12. #147
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,042
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    Thanks Rusty!! That explains it. I've got another question that's been bugging me for a little bit: what are the pros/cons to having the SPY-1 arrays arranged like on the Ticonderoga class vs the Arleigh Burke class?

    The Tico's have them at 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees relative to the ship. Is there a disadvantage to having them space so far apart as opposed to all in the forward superstructure? Does the smoke from missile launches cause brief problems for the fore and aft arrays?

    The Burkes have them all in the superstructure at what i presume is 45, 135, 225, and 315 degrees relative to the ship. Is there a disadvantage to having the immediate rear of the ship being blocked from the rear arrays by the funnels?

    Other than curiosity, I'm trying to get into creating warship models in the shipbucket style, and wanted your opinion on which is a more efficient design.

    Thanks, Boomer
    You have to remember that I was a "sledge hammer mechanic" rather than a "sparktrician". I do know some things about Radio and RADAR antennas because I had to install (later designed) the foundations for them. I learned (more by chance than anything else) how today's FADAR works since I was appointed to be the West Coast contact for STEALTH systems on a certain class of warships.

    So, the best answer I can give you only on the Tico's is that the superstructure arrangement for those positions was selected because the general design of the superstructure was basically an enlargement of the Spruance class Destroyers as both used exactly the same hull. You notice that the superstructure on the Tico's is very square and "boxy" looking taking up a lot of acreage to give it enough compartment volume for whatever we had at the time of building to what we thought might be installed later.

    The Burke class was purposely designed from the keel up to the lightning rod to accomodate the newer electronics comming out or expected to be issued in the near future plus reducing the size of the superstructure and slanting all the bulkheads for STEALTH to DEFLECT enemy targeting RADAR ranther than REFLECTING it directly back to the enemy launch site or incoming missile.

    So the SPY-1 arrangement still covers 360 degrees of the ship but with smaller "sail area" (for wind resistance) and turning it 45 degrees gives an assurance that more of the side of the ship is passively covered even if one of the antennas is not working.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

  13. #148
    Contributor
    Join Date
    16 Nov 11
    Location
    Sullivan County, NY
    Posts
    427
    Another Carrier related question..Below the Gun mounts - Are those really what appears to be regular ole windows they put in? And if so what was originally in that location?

    Ohh & is it just me or dose it also appears that Enterprise is missing a little part of her tail?

    Attachment 30579
    Last edited by qaz14595; 31 Oct 12, at 04:05.

  14. #149
    Contributor
    Join Date
    24 Oct 11
    Location
    Austin, Tx
    Posts
    344
    Those are not Navy... That should just be blank steel. This is the same spot on the Lexington, sorry, it's not very good, it's blown up quite a bit.

    Attachment 30581

  15. #150
    Senior Contributor DonBelt's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Oct 08
    Location
    Taxachusetts, somewhere between Boston and Wista
    Posts
    1,070
    Attachment 30583Those are windows on the Intrepid- not from her Navy days, though. It is part of the modifications done by the Museum.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Ask An Expert- Aviation
    By zraver in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 240
    Last Post: 17 Sep 18,, 20:31
  2. Ask An Expert- LAND Forces.
    By cr9527 in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 636
    Last Post: 25 Apr 18,, 23:02
  3. South Korea naval forces
    By xinhui in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 15 Sep 10,, 03:56
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 15 Dec 09,, 23:38
  5. French naval forces fool Somali pirates
    By LiquidNazgul in forum Sub-Saharan Africa
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 14 May 09,, 12:32

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
  •