Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Battleships

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

  • Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
    All 40mm guns were removed and sent to Crane as well EXCEPT for the two Quad Forties from turrets II & III on the Missouri when we reactivated her in the 1980's. When I reviewed the removal drawing I had a note added in that those two mounts should be saved intact for possible museums. A couple of other supervisors higher than me didn't think that was "legal" to say that on an official Navy Drawing, but they shared my enthusiasm anyway
    When Texas had her dry-docking and overhaul in the late 80's, she got a whole batch of 40mm quads installed that seemed to be in fairly good shape. They said they had come from the Missouri and had been removed when she was reactivated about 2-3 years prior. So I think I know where those mounts may have wound up. Prior to that, Texas had a bunch of 1.1" Chicago Piano's and more single 3" guns than she has now filling the tubs where the quad 40's are now. I'd be curious where those 1.1" quads wound up going...

    Comment


    • Came across this on FB, thought it was interesting: Click image for larger version

Name:	alabama.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	149.8 KB
ID:	1468063

      Comment


      • I've seen it mentioned in a number of news articles that the Iowa has to be kept ready for possible recall until 2020. Who picked that date, and why? Why would the ship need to be kept in that condition if all the gun barrels and ammunition is being scrapped? Does that 2020 date apply to the Wisconsin, too?

        Also I've asked this before but didn't get a satisfactory answer, but how does the navy's decision to scrap the barrels, shells and other infrastructure not run afoul of the 2006 DOA that said that capacity had to be maintained? What authority superseded that statute?

        http://www.dailybreeze.com/article/Z...NEWS/120608737

        "The ships, however, are not particularly tourist-friendly, Horn said, with tight spaces and little open deck room. Under the donation agreement with the Navy, the ship cannot be significantly altered and - though unlikely - needs to be kept available until 2020 for possible recall to duty in the event of a national emergency."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ArmorPiercing88 View Post
          I've seen it mentioned in a number of news articles that the Iowa has to be kept ready for possible recall until 2020. Who picked that date, and why? Why would the ship need to be kept in that condition if all the gun barrels and ammunition is being scrapped? Does that 2020 date apply to the Wisconsin, too?

          Also I've asked this before but didn't get a satisfactory answer, but how does the navy's decision to scrap the barrels, shells and other infrastructure not run afoul of the 2006 DOA that said that capacity had to be maintained? What authority superseded that statute?

          http://www.dailybreeze.com/article/Z...NEWS/120608737

          "The ships, however, are not particularly tourist-friendly, Horn said, with tight spaces and little open deck room. Under the donation agreement with the Navy, the ship cannot be significantly altered and - though unlikely - needs to be kept available until 2020 for possible recall to duty in the event of a national emergency."
          Rusty, having dealt with the Iowa transfer can answer these questions better (and correct the things I get wrong) but this is what I gathered from reading various GAO reports.

          The Navy went to Congress and this is the plan. Propellant and ammo were scrapped because it cost a whole bunch to properly store. What they did was get the Army Ammo Plant in McAllister Ok, to certify that they can start (restart?) the manufacturing line for 16" in 3 months. The did the same with propellant. The idea being why store old shit that may have reliability problems (its over 70 yrs old) when you can have brand new rounds packed with modern stable fillers rolling off the line in less time then it takes to reactivate the ships that will fire them.

          For spare parts and barrels, reading the 2006 Congressional Record 152, part V Dated Sept 26, the plan for spares, including barrels and unique parts is to rape the other 2 ships if they ever have to be recalled. The Navy did that when bringing them back in the 80s. Taking parts from the North Carolina, Alabama and the rest of the museum fleet..

          Thats what I gather anyway. Thats how the donations can comply.

          (edit- wrong reference for the barrels, that the original transfer of the first 2 Iowas)
          Last edited by Gun Grape; 30 Jan 16,, 17:04.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
            Rusty, having dealt with the Iowa transfer can answer these questions better (and correct the things I get wrong) but this is what I gathered from reading various GAO reports.

            The Navy went to Congress and this is the plan. Propellant and ammo were scrapped because it cost a whole bunch to properly store. What they did was get the Army Ammo Plant in McAllister Ok, to certify that they can start (restart?) the manufacturing line for 16" in 3 months. The did the same with propellant. The idea being why store old shit that may have reliability problems (its over 70 yrs old) when you can have brand new rounds packed with modern stable fillers rolling off the line in less time then it takes to reactivate the ships that will fire them.

            For spare parts and barrels, reading the 2006 Congressional Record 152, part V Dated Sept 26, the plan for spares, including barrels and unique parts is to rape the other 2 ships if they ever have to be recalled. The Navy did that when bringing them back in the 80s. Taking parts from the North Carolina, Alabama and the rest of the museum fleet..

            Thats what I gather anyway. Thats how the donations can comply.

            (edit- wrong reference for the barrels, that the original transfer of the first 2 Iowas)
            Very interesting! Especially the part about being able to certify they can restart shell production. Thank you!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
              Rusty, having dealt with the Iowa transfer can answer these questions better (and correct the things I get wrong) but this is what I gathered from reading various GAO reports.

              The Navy went to Congress and this is the plan. Propellant and ammo were scrapped because it cost a whole bunch to properly store. What they did was get the Army Ammo Plant in McAllister Ok, to certify that they can start (restart?) the manufacturing line for 16" in 3 months. The did the same with propellant. The idea being why store old shit that may have reliability problems (its over 70 yrs old) when you can have brand new rounds packed with modern stable fillers rolling off the line in less time then it takes to reactivate the ships that will fire them.

              For spare parts and barrels, reading the 2006 Congressional Record 152, part V Dated Sept 26, the plan for spares, including barrels and unique parts is to rape the other 2 ships if they ever have to be recalled. The Navy did that when bringing them back in the 80s. Taking parts from the North Carolina, Alabama and the rest of the museum fleet..

              Thats what I gather anyway. Thats how the donations can comply.

              (edit- wrong reference for the barrels, that the original transfer of the first 2 Iowas)
              Actually, you have more intel than I have. I had to concentrate on just getting the Iowa out of the ghost fleet and into a safe home before San Francisco forced it to be cut up into Toyota car frames.

              We can make the ammo all right, because that is relatively small size production. It's the gun barrels themselves probably cannot be made again. And to have so many cut up, there are not enough for replacements should the Battleships be reactivated. For example, one barrel that was slated for the carbon arc cutting was actually marked for the USS Iowa. One of our team members of the Pacific Battleship Center (formerly the Iowa Class Preservation Association) found that barrel before cutting and had the muzzle cut off and had it shipped to San Pedro. Our machinists trimmed it down and it is on display in our museum area on the Second Deck.

              An interesting aside here about cutting up Battleships. The heavy Class A and Class B armor is DISASSEMBLED in its intact sections and returned to the Navy. From there it is used to build underground laboratories to try to catch extremely rare neutrinos passing through the planet Earth. The reason why is because all of the iron mined for the armor was used to make such high grade steel BEFORE the first atomic bomb was set off. All atomic bomb tests (and the two used against Japan) have irradiated our planet and the residual effects are found in iron ore that was exposed to it.

              A valiant effort of course, but ironically a Neutrino was finally tracked on BOTH sides of the Earth in underground Salt mine laboratories that just happened to be activated at the same time (they only turn on the instruments for about 15 minutes with quite a delay and not necessarily in tune with each other).
              Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

              Comment


              • GunGrape's answer addressed the question of how they could scrap all the ammo w/o running afoul of the DAA, but Rusty if you're saying there aren't enough gun barrels left to support a reactivation, then I still don't understand how that doesn't violate the 2006 statute? Even if it's just lip service, doesn't the Navy at least need a plan on paper to provide extra gun barrels? I'm also still curious as to where this 2020 date came from (re: maintaining the ship for possible recall), and why the ship has to be maintained in any type of recallable condition of there aren't gun barrels left anyway?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
                  Actually, you have more intel than I have. I had to concentrate on just getting the Iowa out of the ghost fleet and into a safe home before San Francisco forced it to be cut up into Toyota car frames.

                  We can make the ammo all right, because that is relatively small size production. It's the gun barrels themselves probably cannot be made again.
                  Many years ago, while I was still on active duty I was told that we don't even have the capability of making 175 and 8" tubes anymore. Once we took them out of service, and started using 8" tubes as bombs (ODS) the Army didn't see the need to keep the capability. When they modernized 155/62 was the max capacity they built for. Don't know what the Navys capability is.

                  What did surprise me was McAlister's price for 16in HC rounds. 7 thousand per shell and 3 thousand per complete powder charge.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ArmorPiercing88 View Post
                    GunGrape's answer addressed the question of how they could scrap all the ammo w/o running afoul of the DAA, but Rusty if you're saying there aren't enough gun barrels left to support a reactivation, then I still don't understand how that doesn't violate the 2006 statute? Even if it's just lip service, doesn't the Navy at least need a plan on paper to provide extra gun barrels? I'm also still curious as to where this 2020 date came from (re: maintaining the ship for possible recall), and why the ship has to be maintained in any type of recallable condition of there aren't gun barrels left anyway?
                    I think the plan would be to use the NJ and Missouri barrels to retube the Iowa and Whisky. Those are the only 2 ships that were suppose to be retained for activation.

                    Then again, when they were dropped from the Naval Registry, did the Navy get that portion of the Defense Act nulified. In 2006 Both the Navy and the Marine Corps certified that the Battleships would not be needed in a future war. Thats what allowed them to be put up for museum donation. The Zimwalt class, 5/62 with BTERM, TacTom and the surface package for LCS were suppose to be the "replacement". The CMC stated that fire support would be sufficient coming from air and tac Missiles

                    Some of those programs went away, some got downsized, some are still being figured out, and new programs (railgun) have come on line. . If they were put back on the registry, their life as museum ships would be over. They would have to go back to the reserve fleet. The Navy would have to find money for them. Maybe no Burke Flt IIIs, cut funding for LaWs/Railgun, F-35C The Corps knows/thinks that money would come from their slice of the navy Budget. Cuts in the amphib fleet and F-35Bs.

                    Unless someone, with power, in Congress makes a stink, the lapse in adherence to the law (if there s one) will be overlooked. And tell the Congress Critters from California and Virginia that they are going to lose those museums. See how far that gets you

                    Comment


                    • Even though the Iowa and Wisconsin were struck from the register, their donation as museums was made contingent on the following conditions:

                      1. Iowa and Wisconsin must not be altered in any way that would impair their military utility;

                      2. The battleships must be preserved in their present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection, dehumidification systems, and any other preservation methods as needed;

                      3. Spare parts and unique equipment such as the 16-inch (410 mm) gun barrels and projectiles be preserved in adequate numbers to support Iowa and Wisconsin, if reactivated;

                      4. The navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of Iowa and Wisconsin should they be returned to the navy in the event of a national emergency.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ArmorPiercing88 View Post
                        Even though the Iowa and Wisconsin were struck from the register, their donation as museums was made contingent on the following conditions:

                        1. Iowa and Wisconsin must not be altered in any way that would impair their military utility;

                        2. The battleships must be preserved in their present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection, dehumidification systems, and any other preservation methods as needed;

                        3. Spare parts and unique equipment such as the 16-inch (410 mm) gun barrels and projectiles be preserved in adequate numbers to support Iowa and Wisconsin, if reactivated;

                        4. The navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of Iowa and Wisconsin should they be returned to the navy in the event of a national emergency.
                        I can add to that.

                        We are not allowed to reactivate the Crew's Mess Galley. It is a very complex and large galley and must remain in condition to be rapidly reactivated should the ship be called back to duty.

                        However, we are allowed to reactivate the Officers Galley and the CPO Galley to support our crew and volunteers.

                        We are not allowed to reactivate the boilers and propulsion machinery --- for the purpose of moving the ship under her own power. However, if we have to reactivate a boiler or two for heating of the ship's interior (not really needed in Southern California) we could do that but requires cutting off the welded closure plates at the bottom of the hull for intake and discharge of water.

                        We are not allowed to reactivate the Navigation systems of the ship --- for navigation. Well, if we can't turn the propellers (whose shafts are locked) we can't navigate anywhere. However. we can activate the RADAR systems to MONITOR weather fronts, tsunamis, ship traffic, etc. in support of land based monitoring systems.

                        Ummm, anybody out there that has an AN/SPS-49 antenna we can install in place of the sheet metal and fiberglass copy we have? We have an SPS-10 and a LN-66, but not the long range baby. If you know where there is one, I can get the truck to pick it up.
                        Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                        Comment


                        • Trump apparently wants to recommission the Iowa!

                          http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/tru...ctu-1731114811

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ArmorPiercing88 View Post
                            Trump apparently wants to recommission the Iowa!

                            http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/tru...ctu-1731114811
                            The Donald would certainly like to. But he will have to use his own money to do it because Congress will not fund it as it would cut too deep into their personal pickle barrels. Note pages 188 & 189 of Chapter 26 "Calling All Battleships" of my book where I show how Congress approved a budget for the New Jersey that was way too low. But Congress met its match with LBNSY and we got that baby out "UNDER budget" and a month early.
                            Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                            Comment


                            • Where were the 16" naval rifles made?

                              James

                              Comment


                              • I believe they where all made at the Washington DC Navel Yard.

                                http://www.dcmilitary.com/base_guide...0a21b8de5.html
                                Craig Johnson

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X