recomissioning Iowa class BB's

[Tom24]

In 11 years on this board I haven't sat around boasting. but when some deckape that chipped paint on a broke down boat for 6 months tells me I don't know WTF I'm talking about because I am only going off "Second hand information, I thought I would let him know my qualifications.

And from your post It seems that you are the one that is basing everything off second hand info.

Lessons learned from Statistical reports is how we make improvements. Ignoring them because Billy Bob said we did real good is how we reinforce failure

Friggin idiot

t

Perhaps you could post a link to that statistical report about New Jersey's shooting in Vietnam so we can read it for ourselves. You're obviously biased against the Iowa class BB's based on the many different threads in these forums. I've noticed that you tend to cherry pick facts that back up your opinions and dismiss those that don't. I'd like to read it for myself.

I also find it strange that you consider New Jersey's performance in Lebanon not up for debate because you were there, but dismiss the New Jersey's CO, and bbvet who was on New Jersey in Vietnam as not credible in regards to New Jersey's shooting in Vietnam.

[TopHatter]

Guys. STOP. Stop with the name-calling, stop with the insults.

Debate the issue, don't attack the poster.

[RustyBattleship]

Guys. STOP. Stop with the name-calling, stop with the insults.

Debate the issue, don't attack the poster.

I agree with you. The reason I have not posted on this thread lately is because of the bickering going on.

Some of the statements, regarding the possibility of reactivation, are right on. Others missing a fact or two. But all are too trivial to make such a big issue out of.

The fact is that all four Iowa class BB's can be reactivated as they are in such long lasting condition. But they wont be because of politics and lack of funding that only the politicians would approve of.

So let's get off this thread and get back to more friendly threads because I will not waste my time (what's left of it because I'm turning 80 years old this year) even reading it. Besides, I have to get back into Photo Shop to continue cleaning up some drawings on the RPV antennas for the Missouri and Iowa.

Yes, I'm still working on my favorite ships. The other day (at the VFW post I hang out at) I found a list of all the ships that served in Viet Nam. I copied it and was amazed as to how many of them I worked on from the time I was an Apprentice Shipfitter until I retired as a Naval Architect. That was 86 ships out of 713 that served in Nam. That's not counting how many I worked on that served elsewhere such as WW II, Korea, Lebanon, Gulf War, etc. Add to that special projects such as SEALAB II, DSRV, Bathyscaphe Trieste, Polaris/Poseidon/Trident Missile tests,------------ ooh, ooh. Too much to mention.

No wonder my face is so wrinkled.

[Gun Grape]

t

Perhaps you could post a link to that statistical report about New Jersey's shooting in Vietnam so we can read it for ourselves. You're obviously biased against the Iowa class BB's based on the many different threads in these forums. I've noticed that you tend to cherry pick facts that back up your opinions and dismiss those that don't. I'd like to read it for myself.

I'll try to find one. Not something I kept bookmarked

I also find it strange that you consider New Jersey's performance in Lebanon not up for debate because you were there, but dismiss the New Jersey's CO, and bbvet who was on New Jersey in Vietnam as not credible in regards to New Jersey's shooting in Vietnam.

I don't just base it on my observations. I also base it on official reports Google the report By Col Don Price. This thread has many references that say the same.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=43550

And yes I will admit to being biased about bringing back Battleships in the modern era. never denied that

[Gun Grape]

Guys. STOP. Stop with the name-calling, stop with the insults.

Debate the issue, don't attack the poster.

Your right. I don't know why I let myself get sucked into it. These threads never end well.

On a positive note, it did put me into the top 5 posters for the last 21 days stat.

[Gun Grape]

Why would it need to begin at high angle of trajectory, if given that the guided projectile would not be on a ballistic trajectory in latter portion of flight, and if given deployed aerodynamic control surfaces capable of forcing it nearer to vertical flight path in the dive?

You would need massive control surfaces to overcome the resistance of the round to stray from its fired path. You are trying to change direction of a 1900 lb round traveling somewhere between 26 and 2700 FPS And a short time to do it. You also have the inherent inaccuracies of a gun against a horizontal target. Range Probable Error is very long. Think of a machine gun beaten zone. Plunging from High angle greatly reduces that and would require less radical changes of flight.

Thats the simple explanation

[tbm3fan]

Your right. I don't know why I let myself get sucked into it. These threads never end well.

On a positive note, it did put me into the top 5 posters for the last 21 days stat.

Bandwidth hog!

Sometimes we need some humor injected to keep things light and keep Rusty and me reading...

[RustyBattleship]

Gun Grape asked Tom 24 something about the New Jersey's shooting in Viet Nam.

Simple. See pate 177 of my book on the History of LBNSY. I got the hit list off of the Internet, somewhere. Forgot where though. But, so what? It's the closest thing you will find publicly.

[bonehead]

Rusty.

At your convenience I have a couple of questions:

Has there been any major improvements in hull designs for larger ships like the Iowa class? I don't see current ships of that size being much faster and have not seen much on newer hulls that are better armored or handle better. Secondly, which would be quicker and/or cheaper. To build a new ship from scratch or to gut out the superstructure and upper decks of an Iowa class and rebuild it for a new purpose.

[Officer of Engineers]

Actually, reading this thread, I have zero concept asking for indirect fire support 30 miles away. I don't even have a clue to tell them how to adjust their fire

[Stitch]

Rusty.

At your convenience I have a couple of questions:

Has there been any major improvements in hull designs for larger ships like the Iowa class? I don't see current ships of that size being much faster and have not seen much on newer hulls that are better armored or handle better. Secondly, which would be quicker and/or cheaper. To build a new ship from scratch or to gut out the superstructure and upper decks of an Iowa class and rebuild it for a new purpose.

I'm not sure about the second question, but as for the first question, no, the "mathematical formulas used to design the Iowa-class battleships still stand today, and have been used to design hulls for U.S. ships and to predict the speed of those hulls for the ships when commissioned, including nuclear powered ships like the U.S. fleet of Nimitz-class supercarriers." Large, capital ships basically reached the apogee of speed design with the Iowa-class hullform.

For more detail, read the section entitled "The Quest For Speed" on page 5: DEVLOPMENT OF THE WORLD’S FASTEST
BATTLESHIPS, byJ. David Rogers

[Officer of Engineers]

Actually, reading this thread through, can anyone tell me what those 16 inch guns can do that a single sortie of B-52s can't and do it faster? 30 hours to target from a flight of B-52s and unless stationed right in theatre, minimum 3 weeks to target from another theatre.

I'm Canadian. I asked for help when and where I can get them. More than once, I can ask for B-52s. Never had I had a chance from an IOWA and frankly, I don't even know how to ask for help from an IOWA.

[blidgepump]

Fluid dynamics .......

I'm not sure about the second question, but as for the first question, no, the "mathematical formulas used to design the Iowa-class battleships still stand today, and have been used to design hulls for U.S. ships and to predict the speed of those hulls for the ships when commissioned, including nuclear powered ships like the U.S. fleet of Nimitz-class supercarriers." Large, capital ships basically reached the apogee of speed design with the Iowa-class hullform.

For more detail, read the section entitled "The Quest For Speed" on page 5: DEVLOPMENT OF THE WORLD’S FASTEST
BATTLESHIPS, byJ. David Rogers

Without a doubt the chief architect got the lines right on the Iowa class hulls.

[RustyBattleship]

Rusty.

At your convenience I have a couple of questions:

Has there been any major improvements in hull designs for larger ships like the Iowa class? I don't see current ships of that size being much faster and have not seen much on newer hulls that are better armored or handle better. Secondly, which would be quicker and/or cheaper. To build a new ship from scratch or to gut out the superstructure and upper decks of an Iowa class and rebuild it for a new purpose.

There have been a number of advancements, both in hull and propulsion. The bulbous bow actually "captures" the water and makes it travel along with the ship. That's the area where dolphins & porpoises travel in making a person on deck think that those mammals are swimming as fast as the ship. David Taylor conceived that way back in the 1930's and a small bulbous bow was designed for the Iowa class. However, it's usefulness was partially cancelled when the forefoot skeg was modified to install a paravane eye to deploy paravanes to sweep for mines. See the photos on pages 197, 204 & 205 where I removed the paravane eye and plated it in to meet Taylor's concept. Actually this was done only on the New Jersey because, for some reason, the eye kept rotting out and flooded the pipe that fair leaded the paravane chain.

I'll get to the other part of your questions later as I need to find a phone number for my wife.

[RustyBattleship]

Rusty.

At your convenience I have a couple of questions:

Has there been any major improvements in hull designs for larger ships like the Iowa class? I don't see current ships of that size being much faster and have not seen much on newer hulls that are better armored or handle better. Secondly, which would be quicker and/or cheaper. To build a new ship from scratch or to gut out the superstructure and upper decks of an Iowa class and rebuild it for a new purpose.

For the second part of your question: I think building a whole new ship would be the best way to go. Especially with the hull. On the Iowa class (and the two Fast Class BB's before) the hull plating is a mixture of Medium Steel (MS)l, High Tensile Steel (HTS) and Special Treated Steel (STS). HTS plate MIL-SPECS are no longer in the system and its equivilant is Carbon Manganese that was the main hull plating of the Spruance Class Destroyers. STS no longer has a MIL-SPEC and was replaced with HY-80 and HY-100 steel. In turn, the HY steels (HY=High Yield) have been replaced with HSLA (High Strength Low Alloy) steel specs. So we have to keep up with the latest alloys of steel that are in production.

Thicknesses at the main strength points of the cross section of the hull "girder" can be modified to suit. Those main points are the Keel assembly (flat plates plus the vertical keel), Garboard Strakes (first strakes of plating outboard of the Flat Keel_, Bilge Strakes (at the turn of the Bilge that also supports the Bilge Keels for list resisting when the ship is in a roll), Sheer Stakes (upper most strakes of the hull) and Stringer Strakes (outer most strakes of the Main Deck).

Not only have qualities of Steel have vastly improved over the years, but welding procedures and welding rods have jumped up in leaps and bounds. Note: No rivets (HTS) required at all anymore.

Anything added on above the Main Deck will have to accomodate the latest in weapons and electronics technology. More space is needed for tons of electronic "Black Boxes" to support the latest in RADAR, SONAR, Incoming Threats, Outgoing Weaponry, etc. The crew is stuffed down below so the Wave Guide and Cable runs from the antennas to their main receivers are within maximum lengths required by the manufacturers so we can keep within their warranties.

It's not a pretty picture, for a guy like me who has to ask his son-in-law to install a light switch without turning off the entire household current, to add so much topside weight and make sure the ship will still return from a 45 degree roll in a Typhoon.

BUT, it can be done. I guarantee THAT.

BUT, don't ask me how to get the funding to pay for it. I can barely balance my own measly check book which is why I leave financial matters up to my wife (of 47 years come tomorrow) who worked for a bank for 18 years.

Or, in a Navy Planning & Design I leave it up to Type Desk. Read page 189 of my book to see how we beat out Congress on a far too lean budget they offered and still brought the New Jersey back a month ahead of schedule and (technically ) UNDER budget. We actually made a 2.1 MILLION dollar PROFIT.

Long Beach Naval Shipyard eventually was made into a parking lot for a container terminal. But believe me, WE WENT DOWN FIGHTING. The chairman of the BRAC committee announced that it was the Navy that wanted the shipyard closed. A LIE. The Navy did NOT want the shipyard closed because of its multiple Dry Dock capabilities. But the Navy was ordered not to interfere with "progress".

Excuse me. I need another drink.