Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 182

Thread: recomissioning Iowa class BB's

  1. #151
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    I suggest Private Messaging if you want to share with all concerned.
    Chimo

  2. #152
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    I suggest Private Messaging if you want to share with all concerned.
    I agree. But I was just kicking myself in the posterior for wanting to be a "Land Grabber". Well, that's one way you can translate my last name from German.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

  3. #153
    New Member
    Join Date
    18 Mar 15
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    I'm assuming that's sarcasm . . .

    Overall, the Yamato and the Musashi ... didn't have very good fire control
    According to Lundgren in "The World Wonder'd: What Really Happened Off Samar" the Yamato shot quite well at Samar.

  4. #154
    Patron
    Join Date
    22 May 09
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by DCSculler View Post
    According to Lundgren in "The World Wonder'd: What Really Happened Off Samar" the Yamato shot quite well at Samar.
    Yep, I've seen that. Guy did some very in-depth analysis.

    Regardless....I would NOT want to be on the ship that a Yamato was shooting at, even an Iowa. Nothing ever put to sea could stand up to those guns, so if you're on an Iowa you better pray that your FC really is 'that much better' and you get some critical early hits, because if Yamato is the one that gets an early hit and slows Iowa enough to close....it's all over.

  5. #155
    Military Professional maximusslade's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 08
    Location
    New England, USA
    Posts
    801
    Based on what little bit I've read, Iowa's 2700lb AP shells were found to out perform the Japanese 18" shells. Iowas were supposedly designed to withstand their own ordinance.

    As always, take it with a grain of salt.
    Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...

  6. #156
    Patron Michigan_Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Feb 07
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    218
    I wish they'd recommission one or two of them just to get this conversation over with.
    "If a man does his best, what else is there?"
    -General George Patton Jr.

  7. #157
    Regular
    Join Date
    17 Feb 15
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigan_Guy View Post
    I wish they'd recommission one or two of them just to get this conversation over with.
    I don't think it would matter. The conversation would just change to the Battleships aren't getting the [fill in the blank] they need. It's a conspiracy by the carrier admirals.

  8. #158
    Contributor SlaterDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Oct 09
    Location
    Newport, RI
    Posts
    519
    I have always believed and I wish they would come around to my way of thinking!
    But, they should create another tier of ship commission. Maybe place custody of the ship(s)
    under the History and Heritage Command. Then any ship that is to be held in an inactive
    (so called "ready" reserve) like the Iowa would retain it's name and status even as a museum.
    I does not make sense to decom a ship, transfer ownership and still restrict use of so much of it!
    So, instead of "in commission" or "out", you would have another tier called "in commission, inactive"
    Then, with so few ships that have been "struck" being left, NAVSEA would have an extended purpose.
    That is one of the things that many of these museum ships have lacked, someone keeping an eye
    on their condition and status. Yes, I know the "can of worms" that might be opened with them involved.
    But, all that could be avoided with responsibilities being clearly defined and understood.
    Also, situations like what happened with Olympia could be avoided! I know that is not the only museum
    ship that has suffered from mismanagement, neglect and what appears to be outright financial pilferage!

  9. #159
    Contributor Battleship IOWA's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Dec 13
    Location
    San Pedro, Ca
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by SlaterDoc View Post
    That is one of the things that many of these museum ships have lacked, someone keeping an eye
    on their condition and status. Yes, I know the "can of worms" that might be opened with them involved.
    But, all that could be avoided with responsibilities being clearly defined and understood.
    Also, situations like what happened with Olympia could be avoided! I know that is not the only museum
    ship that has suffered from mismanagement, neglect and what appears to be outright financial pilferage!
    I can't speak for other Naval ship Museums but I can speak for the Battleship Iowa Museum and can tell you that the "condition and Status" of the USS Iowa is closely monitored with many eyes on the issue.
    Not only does the Navy do yearly inspections of the ship but we also do twice a year underwater inspections using divers with ultrasonic paint thickness measuring equipment. We also have a cathodic protection system for the entire hull of the Iowa.
    We are currently drawing up plans to build a coffer dam type system to repaint small sections of the hull at the waterline in the hope we can get another 20 years before needing a haul out.
    Craig Johnson

  10. #160
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    4,191
    Hornet has a yearly inspection by Navy divers. We also have a cathodic protection system around the hull.

  11. #161
    Contributor SlaterDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Oct 09
    Location
    Newport, RI
    Posts
    519
    Yes, you are definitely one of the most closely monitored! Although, I am going to guess Missouri probably has even more due to location! Plus Midway, also because of her location!

    All the more reason for her to retain some sort of commission status and her name not being available.

    Funny thing is that our little DE that the Navy has no involvement with anymore seems to get a lot of "non-official" inspections! Though that has more to do with curiosity brought on by the Command staff of the two area Naval facilities. Like the happen-stance visit from the Admiral in charge of the Aircraft Carrier projects in VA last Summer.
    Name:  Admiral.jpg
Views: 200
Size:  41.4 KB

    Actually, I think they are just jealous!


    Quote Originally Posted by Battleship IOWA View Post
    I can't speak for other Naval ship Museums but I can speak for the Battleship Iowa Museum and can tell you that the "condition and Status" of the USS Iowa is closely monitored with many eyes on the issue.
    Not only does the Navy do yearly inspections of the ship but we also do twice a year underwater inspections using divers with ultrasonic paint thickness measuring equipment. We also have a cathodic protection system for the entire hull of the Iowa.
    We are currently drawing up plans to build a coffer dam type system to repaint small sections of the hull at the waterline in the hope we can get another 20 years before needing a haul out.

  12. #162
    Regular
    Join Date
    09 May 16
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by dundonrl View Post
    ok, if you look at the forward ABL's on the Iowas.. the platform they are on is approx. 87 x 28 ft a single 64 cell Mk 56 VLS is approx. 30 x 24 ft.. you could reasonably easy remove the 4 ABL's and in their place install two Mk 56 VLS launchers, giving an Iowa an upgrade from 32 Tomahawks to 128 Tomahawks, remove the rear ABL's and install two Harpoon launchers in each location giving her 48 Harpoons.. that's one HELL of a load out, especially since you'd have the 9 16" guns and 12 5" guns.. (also, the Iowa's can shoot 11" sabots to a range of approx. 100 miles..
    1) Mk-56 VLS can't shoot TacToms.

    2) The 11" sabot projectile with a range of 100 NM was PPT vaporware.

  13. #163
    Regular
    Join Date
    09 May 16
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by dundonrl View Post
    US Navy ship building budget is 21 billion dollars a year.. To convert the SSBN's into SSGN's it cost 1 billion dollars each.. for that SAME amount, they could have recomissioned the 4 Iowa's and given them almost the same amount of TLAM's 128 vs 154.. plus everything I posted in the post above..
    William Stearman and his associates of the USNFSA now reckon that reactivating & modernizing one Iowa-class BB would cost $1 billion. See here.

  14. #164
    Regular
    Join Date
    09 May 16
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom24 View Post
    If the planned FRAM updates had taken place early to mid 90's they all would have had VLS installed, more tubes total than the Ticos
    I've seen some plans (by JJMA IIRC) and the *FRAM* upgrade actually featured 96 Mk-41 VLS cells in total (2 x 32 cells aft and 2 x 16 cells amidships). The amidships VLS was a source of concern due to the proximity of the expansion joint.

    As a result, I believe the amidships VLS were dropped and the *FRAM* upgrade only retained the aft VLS (i.e. 64 Mk-41 VLS cells in total)

  15. #165
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,121
    Quote Originally Posted by SW4U View Post
    William Stearman and his associates of the USNFSA now reckon that reactivating & modernizing one Iowa-class BB would cost $1 billion. See here.

    Wow, I didn't think you could pack so much bullshit in such a short article.
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Modernized Iowa Class versus Essex WWII Carrier Class
    By talshiar in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 30 Apr 18,, 11:24
  2. Iowa Class & Midway Class - Same Powerplant?
    By eocoolj in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 01 Jun 11,, 17:40
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 24 Sep 09,, 22:20
  4. Iowa Class BB
    By Stan in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 30 Jul 08,, 19:39
  5. Iowa Class vs Kirov Class
    By eocoolj in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 224
    Last Post: 12 Jun 08,, 00:02

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
  •