Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Battleships

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

  • ArmorPiercing88
    replied
    Why do you have to worry about complying with Navy regs for reactivation when the Navy just scrapped all the remaining 16 inch barrels, essentially putting the nail in the logistical coffin re: ever reactivating even in some hypothetical WWIII shit hit the fan scenario? Does the Navy really give a damn if the 16 inchers can still fire or not?

    Leave a comment:


  • blidgepump
    replied
    Personal request ...

    Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
    The CIC (Combat Information Center) was also reactivated but more as a back up system to the new CEC (Combat Engagement Center). Within CEC was also the "Spook Room" that intercepted "enemy" radio traffic and did decoding.

    Such redundancy is typical of US Navy ships. For example, the Iowa class Battleships have TWO Main Battery Fire Control computers rather than just one. One is forward of Broadway and the other is at the aft end of Broadway.

    Which reminds me. The Washington Navy Yard "STOLE" our aft computer and we need it back to comply with the Navy requirement to keep the ship ready for reactivation.
    Mr. L,

    I am in D.C. on business near the WNY next week.
    Would you like for me to present a letter for you?
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • James M
    replied
    Where were 16" naval rifles made?

    James

    Leave a comment:


  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    The CIC (Combat Information Center) was also reactivated but more as a back up system to the new CEC (Combat Engagement Center). Within CEC was also the "Spook Room" that intercepted "enemy" radio traffic and did decoding.

    Such redundancy is typical of US Navy ships. For example, the Iowa class Battleships have TWO Main Battery Fire Control computers rather than just one. One is forward of Broadway and the other is at the aft end of Broadway.

    Which reminds me. The Washington Navy Yard "STOLE" our aft computer and we need it back to comply with the Navy requirement to keep the ship ready for reactivation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Battleship IOWA
    replied
    Would love to hear Rusty's explanation but as far as I have heard the CEC replaced the CIS when the Harpoons & Tomahawks where installed. I was in the CEC of the USS Iowa just 2 days ago and it is high on our list of additions to the Battleship Iowa tour. Craig Johnson

    Leave a comment:


  • ArmorPiercing88
    replied
    Question: After the 1980's refit, what role did the CIC play, vs. the newly installed CEC. Is the CIC open to the public at any of the museums?

    Leave a comment:


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

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

    Leave a comment:


  • James M
    replied
    Where were the 16" naval rifles made?

    James

    Leave a comment:


  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArmorPiercing88
    replied
    Trump apparently wants to recommission the Iowa!

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

    Leave a comment:


  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArmorPiercing88
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArmorPiercing88
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X