Page 106 of 113 FirstFirst ... 979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113 LastLast
Results 1,576 to 1,590 of 1682

Thread: Ask An Expert- Battleships

  1. #1576
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    2,994
    Another from around April 1969.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  2. #1577
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,013
    Sorry old friend. Wrong version of the ship. That was her 1968 Viet Nam modification with AN/ULQ-6 ECM antennas mounted Port & Starboard with the LN-66(B) antennas at 09 level. In your first pic, you can also see that eardrum splitting fog horn mounted underneath the starboard "ear".

    I think the original question was regarding her 1982 modernization where we put the LN-66 on top of the conning tower (05 1/2 level) and mounted the AS3016A/WSC-1(v) "Trash Can" antenna at the 011 level. Yes, we called that antenna the "Trash Can" because it looks like one.

    Don't ask me what they are used for. If I need to change a socket or a light switch in my house, I turn off ALL power because the only way I can "feel" electricity is when its jolting 110 or 220 AC through me. I only need to know what their bolting pattern is, what room they need for rotation (if they move at all) and how much they weigh. My if my son-in-law is changing a light switch or socket, he only needs to know what wires to touch or not to touch and he's not standing in water.

    And yet I put n the right antenna ID numbers? Yeah. I looked them up in the booklet of General Plans.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

  3. #1578
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    2,994
    Ok then maybe this one from 1982 as I wasn't sure what year you all were discussing.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  4. #1579
    Regular
    Join Date
    11 Nov 13
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Ok then maybe this one from 1982 as I wasn't sure what year you all were discussing.
    It's right there.

  5. #1580
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,396
    Much easier now that everyone is on the same page.

    If this is what you mean

    Name:  1980s_ant_example_as3018_asc1_satcomm.jpg
Views: 189
Size:  7.7 KB

    Its a SatCom Antenna
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  6. #1581
    Regular
    Join Date
    11 Nov 13
    Posts
    50
    Two more questions:

    1. Is the New Jersey's Helipad higher than on the Iowa (WI, MO)? NJ's is 9" with 6" coaming. When I see pictures of the Iowa, its platform looks much higher.

    2. What is the purpose of the elevator that is located behind the aftmost 5" turret found only on the RIGHT side, O1 to O3 level emerging below the aft Phalanx platform, between the harpoons and forward tomahawks. (Have pics but no link I can to post).

  7. #1582
    Senior Contributor DonBelt's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Oct 08
    Location
    Taxachusetts, somewhere between Boston and Wista
    Posts
    1,055
    WSC-1 or WSC-3. Most likely whiskey 3, most USN ships in the 80's had one. Don't know what's current.

  8. #1583
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    2,994
    Quote Originally Posted by bigjimslade View Post
    Two more questions:

    1. Is the New Jersey's Helipad higher than on the Iowa (WI, MO)? NJ's is 9" with 6" coaming. When I see pictures of the Iowa, its platform looks much higher.

    2. What is the purpose of the elevator that is located behind the aftmost 5" turret found only on the RIGHT side, O1 to O3 level emerging below the aft Phalanx platform, between the harpoons and forward tomahawks. (Have pics but no link I can to post).
    Do I see landlubber talk here...?

  9. #1584
    Regular
    Join Date
    11 Nov 13
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Do I see landlubber talk here...?
    Army.

  10. #1585
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,013
    Welcome aboard fellow grunt. It doesn't matter if you wore dungarees or Class D fatigues. We welcome anyone of interest.

    Helo Deck: New Jersey's the LOWEST at only 8 to 9 inches above the Main Deck. It was installed in 1968 by Philadelphia for her Viet Nam deployment. Besides having a more level surface for helo's to land on, it also added reinforcement should the helo land too hard, which is possible under various circumstances such as the aft end of the ship pitching up just as the chopper pilot was cutting his throttle.

    In the 1980's, the other three ships received a 12 inch high deck. I wanted to go 18 to 24 inches to allow skinny welders to crawl under and provide 100% efficient welds. Unfortunately that would make the forward ramps far, far too long to tow the helos to their stowage positions with the Yellow Gear tractor. The bottom of that tractor is only 3 to 4 inches clearance so the joint at the forward edge of the landing deck and aft joint of the ramp had to be at a very shallow angle.

    Some of my counterparts thought I was crazy when I suggested using Allis Chalmers civilian sports use ATV which was full tracked, AND amphibious just for the family to have fun in the desert or the Wisconsin bluffs.

    "Elevator": That is the Ammo Hoist for for the 20 mm CIWS magazine. Those ammo cases are over 75 lbs each exceeding the weight limitations of human lifting and carrying anything to prevent back injuries.

    Don't be embarrassed by your questions. They are all good questions. The only BAD question is the one that is NEVER asked.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

  11. #1586
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    2,994
    Just looking Rusty at the Iowa in that area. Very different.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  12. #1587
    Regular
    Join Date
    11 Nov 13
    Posts
    50
    Yes, there are a lot of differences between the NJ and the other here. Some of the things I have noticed:

    1. Behind the tower, the main support for the main mast on the IA/MO/WI extends down the secondary con level (maybe into it) with three extensions from the tower wrapping around the mast.

    On the NJ, there is one wrap-around and a heavier support for the mast. So he mast support stops at the level that used to hold the whistle.

    2. The radar platform on the MO is see through (screen, lots of holes?).

    3. The phalanx platform on the WI is squared off, instead of rounded at the side.

    4. On the MO, the curved edge of the bulwark at the admiral's bridge level continues all the way forward and a triangular piece fills the gap between the enclose area and the bulwark. On the other, the curve eases up and the bulwark merges flush.

    5. The radar platform on the WI as an extension at the rear.

  13. #1588
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,013
    Quote Originally Posted by bigjimslade View Post
    Yes, there are a lot of differences between the NJ and the other here. Some of the things I have noticed:

    1. Behind the tower, the main support for the main mast on the IA/MO/WI extends down the secondary con level (maybe into it) with three extensions from the tower wrapping around the mast.

    On the NJ, there is one wrap-around and a heavier support for the mast. So he mast support stops at the level that used to hold the whistle.

    2. The radar platform on the MO is see through (screen, lots of holes?).

    3. The phalanx platform on the WI is squared off, instead of rounded at the side.

    4. On the MO, the curved edge of the bulwark at the admiral's bridge level continues all the way forward and a triangular piece fills the gap between the enclose area and the bulwark. On the other, the curve eases up and the bulwark merges flush.

    5. The radar platform on the WI as an extension at the rear.
    Okay, answers/explanations of the above comments (all correct but people will ask WHY?):

    1: New Jersey's main leg of her mast was modified in Philadelphia in 1968. They did not have to remove the bottom portion as there really was never a section there. Instead there was a trough recessed into the back of the bulkhead so the mast leg could be lowered to clear the Brooklyn Bridge. THAT was WW II design. In the 1980's, we kept only the main leg of the 1968 design, added height and the aft legs to make a stable TRIPOD mast.

    2: Yes, since the entire mast of the Missouri was to be 100% brand new, a lessons learned from New Jersey is that the platform needed both drain holes (punched with the edge underneath) and traction holes for EC's to walk on when it's wet (holes punched through the other way with the edge above the plating).

    3: That was the way we wanted to do it on 62 & 63 but were stuck with a skimpy budget. Plus the Wisconsin got quite a few more improvements that were going to add to the other ships. As it is, we still had to add some "armor" around the CIWS foundation whereas I would rather have "squared" the platform and could have easily added some "low profile" armor plating to the coaming with my clandistine "return to sender" curve on top.

    4: That's the way she came from the factory according to a 1948 copy of the booklet I have. Which is fine as we would have done the same on the 61 & 62 while adding out-of-the-weather vestibules as the Wisconsin has. I know, because I had to go to Philadelphia to measure them up and later make an installation drawing of them.

    5: Yes that was another thing I had to inspect on Wisconsin as it was intended for an RPV guidance antenna (that was never installed). The Iowa had the same extension but when we (Pacific Battleship Center) were awarded the Iowa, it was my job to figure out how to put it all back together (it was cut up into 9 pieces chained down to the flight deck). I decided to simplify things (and cut down a tad on cost) by ordering that platform NOT to be reinstalled because it was never used anyway. Yeah, hanging over the edge of that platform in Philly to pick up its measurements were not all that fun though I'm not afraid of heights. Fortunately the ship was in dry dock and we only had one day of heavy rain.

    Oh, one more thing to add regarding your photo of Iowa. You will notice that RPV guidance antenna sticking way forward and under the 09 level. The antenna is not there (though I've provided clean drawings of the platform and foundation to both Iowa and Missouri). Instead you see a pole with two cross bars on top. Those are the towing lights that were installed only for her tow from Richmond to San Pedro.
    Last edited by RustyBattleship; 10 Oct 16, at 23:58.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

  14. #1589
    Regular
    Join Date
    11 Nov 13
    Posts
    50
    Thanks for all the information. The various sources I have also indicate that the NJ's radar platform is higher than her sisters. 162' 8" vs. 160' 7".

    Any idea how thick the platform on the NJ is? I presume these heights are the top of the deck.
    Last edited by bigjimslade; 11 Oct 16, at 04:47.

  15. #1590
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,013
    Quote Originally Posted by bigjimslade View Post
    Thanks for all the information. The various sources I have also indicate that the NJ's radar platform is higher than her sisters. 162' 8" vs. 160' 7".

    Any idea how thick the platform on the NJ is? I presume these heights are the top of the deck.
    Well, we had a slight problem with the LENGTH of the platform interfering with the RADAR in front of it. Rather than cutting off the forward portion of the platform (that already had its fiberglass hand rails installed, We merely lifted the mast up (it wasn't welded to the deck yet) and added 1" thick doubler plates at the bottoms of the legs. Actually we only had to lift one leg at a time & brace it with shoring while each doubler was properly welded. That way we could use a pierside portal crane rather than having the German Crane hold it up in the air for such a long time.

    On the other ships, we merely designed the forward end of the platform a couple of inches shorter. And as I recall, the platform plating is only 10.2# O.S. (1/4" thick Ordinary Strength Steel). Except for the armored SPS-49 antenna foundation, cable and wave guide trunks were made of 30.6# HY-80.

    Oh yes, I remember inspecting that platform as Dean Archambeau, Lee Upshaw and I climbed up to it before it was welded down.
    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. What if battleships, fictional
    By USSWisconsin in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 09 Jun 13,, 00:29
  2. How many battleships were built?
    By USSWisconsin in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 153
    Last Post: 06 May 13,, 22:42
  3. Are battleships obsolete?
    By Canmoore in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 211
    Last Post: 02 Aug 06,, 20:34
  4. American Battleships
    By Gio in forum Multimedia & Jukebox room
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 26 Aug 03,, 13:11

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
  •