Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Battleships

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

  • SlaterDoc
    replied
    Originally posted by desertswo View Post
    . . . do the curators have to worry about maintaining the functionality of any of their actual combat systems?

    Yes. Rusty is the real expert but in my experience with INACTSHIPSFAC I learned that these ships' combat systems and engineering plants are placed in what is known as "layup." It's not as extensive as that of a ship in "mothballs"; more to retard decay than to halt it altogether. The problem in this equation is that it's up to the museum folks to do much of it, and as you've probably noted on the Slater thread, even with volunteers like me (Midway, Iowa a little), and a whole host of others here, it takes money, and therein lies the rub.
    and then ... after money .... you need the kind of dedicated experienced crew members that can not only retard the deterioration, but can repair that which will occur anyway! As in the recent rebuild of the RDF platform on Slater, thankfully we had the men that could rebuild it! Since every one of the museum ships depend on donations, grants and foundations, the money is harder and harder to come up with. A big "thank you" (said sarcastically) can go to Hollywood for their help in letting the public know what it really takes! I just love how they can step on a BB that's been sitting at it's museum berth and light up the boilers, head out to sea at flank speed and fire them 16'ers for full effect! In this case the "CGI" stands for the "Captain Gets it!" or was it the "Captain Goes Insane" or the "Captain Gives In" or ........
    Last edited by SlaterDoc; 31 Aug 15,, 02:09.

    Leave a comment:


  • desertswo
    replied
    . . . do the curators have to worry about maintaining the functionality of any of their actual combat systems?

    Yes. Rusty is the real expert but in my experience with INACTSHIPSFAC I learned that these ships' combat systems and engineering plants are placed in what is known as "layup." It's not as extensive as that of a ship in "mothballs"; more to retard decay than to halt it altogether. The problem in this equation is that it's up to the museum folks to do much of it, and as you've probably noted on the Slater thread, even with volunteers like me (Midway, Iowa a little), and a whole host of others here, it takes money, and therein lies the rub.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArmorPiercing88
    replied
    Still trying to understand the legal/legislative element, though. The '06 defense authorization is very explicit...spare parts, infrastructure, etc. The Navy is obviously purging/scrapping/eliminating those spare parts and infrastructure, so what authority superseded Congress' orders in ' 06? Is the Navy just doing it anyway, because they know nobody cares enough to hold them accountable for it? That's why like I asked above, if the museum curators wanted to do something for display purposes that permanently, irreversibly eliminated the military utility of something like a turret, could they? I know from the Texas that foundations can't just let museum ships rot and sink, but so long as the Iowas are afloat, do the curators have to worry about maintaining the functionality of any of their actual combat systems?

    Leave a comment:


  • Glen
    replied
    Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
    It was a combination of joint procedures. The 12.1-inch face hardened Class A armor is actually bolted to 1 1/2-inch thick Special Treated Steel plate. Large steel ferrules (looking like big cup cakes) are welded to the inboard side of the STS. They are threaded for Class C armor bolts. The edges of the Class A plates was left "soft" so machining of keyways and drilling of bolt holes could be done.

    The STS Panel that forms the mounting plate of torpedo bulkhead 1 is butted together and riveted with butt straps. The butt straps are 3/4" thick steel and the rivets are 5/8-inch diameter HTS (High Tensile Steel aka Carbon Manganese).

    I have some photos of the joints but too busy trying to figure out how to put them altogether for a DVD slide show I have been asked to give at my Model Train club meeting next month. I've never done a DVD slide show before so I'm really going "where no one has gone before" (at least in my mind).
    Hi Rusty, could you tell me the name of your book please? It looks very interesting. Thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • desertswo
    replied
    Nope. Eight SSTGs feed the main bus, with a couple of (I frankly can't recall if it was two, three, or four as it is nearly 25 years since I did the OPPEs on New Jersey and Missouri) EDGs to basically bring the steam plant back up. You're not fighting the ship with those.

    Leave a comment:


  • 85 gt kid
    replied
    Blegh I thought they were diesels memory sucks. Anyways that was the idea (obviously not sure on the power but good luck finding someone that knows what they were gonna do). Philly ended up saying they could get her 100% for whatever the amount was and they went that route.

    Leave a comment:


  • desertswo
    replied
    In a word . . . bovine excrement. Also, it's "Ship's Service Turbo-Generators," and because you would be steaming "Modified Main" because you need the main engine condensers as heat sinks to make the basic steam cycle work, you would need exactly the same number of people. Furthermore, a turbine is a turbine is a turbine. They are not the issue. It's that 600psi superheated genie in the bottle; eight of them that are just waiting for some newb to let them out into the space. I saw the aftermath of USS Iwo Jima. Ever seen a burnt weenie sandwich? I have.

    Leave a comment:


  • 85 gt kid
    replied
    I'm on my phone which is a pain to type but basically they had the idea that to save money in reactivation they were going to reactivate just the main turrets and then just tow her around with tugs (very demeaning). For power they would use the Ship Service Generators which don't require as many people as the main stream turbines. They obviously decided against it and she was fully reactivated.

    You prob won't get a good answer as no-one but the Navy knows (Rusty?). But the current barrels should have enough life to last one more commissioning.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArmorPiercing88
    replied
    Can you elaborate more on this plan to tow around the New Jersey in 'Nam? What's an SSG? Do you mean they just would restore the turrets and nothing else?

    But none of this answers my original question. If Congress said in 2006 that the infrastructure and parts for the Iowa and Wisconsin had to be maintained, under what authority is the Navy able to scrap things like gun barrels?

    Leave a comment:


  • 85 gt kid
    replied
    Something I thought of (well not really) is if the guns were needed that bad they could restore the SSGs and tow her around and take out targets that way (that was an idea for the New Jersey for Vietnam).

    Or you could become a teacher desert :) :D

    Leave a comment:


  • desertswo
    replied
    Why 2020? And what legal authority allows the Navy to skirt the '06 requirement that spares and infrastructure be maintained?

    Who will man them? Do you realize that there are essentially no engineering ratings left to operate that obsolete tea kettle? I could be her chief engineer, but I'll be 60 in May. Not bloody likely. That's why neither Congress nor the Navy really care at this point.

    Leave a comment:


  • 85 gt kid
    replied
    Originally posted by Battleship IOWA View Post
    It's only the Iowa and I think the Wisconsin that must be kept if fighting shape until 2020.
    The Navy will never reactivate any of the Iowa's and will never fire a mark 7 bag gun again, for safety reasons.
    The future is high velocity kinetic energy, directed energy weapons and missile systems with room to sling some lead around.
    I highly doubt that's the reason. It always comes down to money and the Iowa's are too expensive to operate it's as simple as that. AFAIK in US Navy history there have been 3 major incidents involving big guns (Newport News, Mississippi (?) and of course the Iowa) and while I can't remember the other BB incident Newport News was a flash ignition from excess heat in the barrel that blew up a bad round and the Iowa was, reportedly, over ramming of the powder bags. If done properly they are safe but when accidents happen it's huge (unlike smaller guns).

    Until they work out the Rail gun system the Iowa and Wisconsin will stay ready for reactivation though that's unlikely although a SHTF scenario with China looks imminent.

    AP88: Not sure on the barrels/liners but there hasn't been "Battleship" infrastructure since the 50s. The other spares you mention are still in storage somewhere as is the shells/powder.
    Last edited by 85 gt kid; 29 Aug 15,, 23:27.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArmorPiercing88
    replied
    Why 2020? And what legal authority allows the Navy to skirt the '06 requirement that spares and infrastructure be maintained?

    Leave a comment:


  • Battleship IOWA
    replied
    It's only the Iowa and I think the Wisconsin that must be kept if fighting shape until 2020.
    The Navy will never reactivate any of the Iowa's and will never fire a mark 7 bag gun again, for safety reasons.
    The future is high velocity kinetic energy, directed energy weapons and missile systems with room to sling some lead around.

    Leave a comment:


  • 85 gt kid
    replied
    Had a response and my phone deleted it ugh. RustyBattleship will be able to answer this for you though.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X