Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Battleships

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

  • 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.
    RIP Charles "Bob" Spence. 1936-2014.

    Comment


    • 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.

      Comment


      • 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

        Comment


        • 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 The Navy is obviously purging/scrapping/eliminating those spare parts and infrastructure, so what authority superseded Congress' orders in ' 06?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?

          Comment


          • . . . 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.

            Comment


            • 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.

              Comment


              • You bet.

                Comment


                • With most "donations" of Navy ships to Museum organizations, there are three clauses in the "contract" where the Navy still has a finger on those ships, particularly those of potential future use should the Navy need to reactivate them in a National emergency. I will use the Iowa as an example.

                  First: We cannot reactivate the Crew's Galley. It must be preserved in its pristine condition as best as possible. The mess decks, however, we can use for crew meetings and we may even remove some or all of the tables and chairs to set up museum displays and the gift shop. However, we must stow all those furnishings in one of the storerooms so they can be reinstalled for reactivation.
                  However, we are allowed to reactivate the Officer's wardroom galley, Captain's & Admiral's galley and the CPO galley which we have done. The first galley we opened was the wardroom galley on our tow from Benicia to Richmond and served breakfast there. Periodically we have a hamburger night in the Chief's quarters and the top executives of the Pacific Battleship Center put on aprons and do the cooking and serving. We ARE quite a team.

                  Secondly: We cannot unlock the rudders & propeller shafts or reactivate the boilers and engine rooms to propel the ship. To operate the main machinery spaces we would have to cut off the welded plates sealing the intakes and discharges in the bottom of the ship. But, if necessary we could get permission to reactivate one of the boilers if steam heat is needed. In southern California I doubt that would ever be needed.

                  Thirdly: We cannot reactivate any of the Navigation equipment -- for navigating. A tad redundant there as if we cannot propel the ship there is no need to navigate a course. Technically, however, we could activate our Radars to assist the active Navy, Coast Guard, etc. in searching for wayward ships or aircraft at night or in a heavy fog, track the precursor shock wave of a Tsunami, etc. Even our global positioning antennas (as of yesterday we have four of them hanging off of turret III after being repainted) to assist recalibration of other ships, etc.

                  Prior to the 1980's (and the reactivation of the Iowas) the East Coast museum Battleships were still under those restrictions. As I understand it those restrictions have been lifted and the museum organizations can do what they want with them.

                  But even if not lifted, we can still make the ship look alive. One of our crewmen found a real SPS-10 antenna and it is now mounted on the mast and rotating. Whether the wave guide has been restored or not, I don't know. Our SPS-49 RADAR is actually a mock up and we are looking for a real one to install on the mast. That is the really long range dude and can pick up a lost ship or airplane as far south as San Clemente Island.

                  Oh, what about restrictions on the weaponry? None that I know of. We have even reactivated one of our 5"/38 mounts and use it for firing salutes for passing Navy ships or for special holiday occasions such as Independence Day. We use only the short case clearing charges for blanks as well as we also have a 40mm black powder saluting gun that really puts out the smoke and flame.

                  No. We will NOT reactivate any of the 16" guns. Our insurance would not be able to replace all of the broken windows in San Pedro, Wilmington, Harbor City and the west end of Terminal Island.
                  Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                  Comment


                  • So again my original question...what authority superseded Congress' directive that BB spare parts/infrastructure be maintained, that would allow the Navy to purge all of its BB materials as surplus and scrap the remaining gun barrels? And nevermind reactivating a turret, what if you wanted to DISABLE a turret for museum display purposes. Could you? Or for that matter do something that would permanently disable the engines? Is the Navy in any way invested in preserving the Iowas MILITARY UTILITY, or are they simply concerned with the ships not being left to rot and sink like the Texas at this point, and the curators can do whatever the hell they want with them. And where did the 2020 date for Iowa come from?

                    Comment


                    • Again no-one but higher ups in the Navy and/or Congress would know and you won't see them on here. As for the other question Rusty still answered it but I'll give you this. The Navy in NO WAY invests in upkeep of ANY museum even the Iowas but that doesn't mean the museums can do what they want per se. I know on the Iowa they just redid a bathroom (main deck aft Rusty?) to be split Male/Female. When they did that they did it to Navy specs because that's part of their donation agreement and they're just awesome. The NJ has a good size hole cut in the barbette leading into Turret II because they are not on the reactivation list BUT that doesn't affect the reactivation if for some reason it was needed. Lastly, an old one, in the late 80s the Massachusetts was going into dry dock for needed repairs but the outer props wouldn't clear the dock. The people in charge were gonna cut them off but the Navy put their foot down and made them remove them correctly (the original 4 BBs were never meant to be reactivated). This doesn't strictly apply to the older museums where they don't have a snowballs chance in you know what of being reactivated but they can't do radical BS either.

                      Engine wise again Rusty answered it but I'll say what I know. When the Iowa's were decommed the machinery was preserved for future reactivation (remove fluids, seal etc). When they were turned into museums they weren't touched as there is no reason to but they aren't as controlled as the Navy does (WhiKy and Iowa are maintained). The Captain can elaborate WAYYYYYYYY better then I can I'm just giving cliff notes but there you have it. If SHTF and we needed the big guns I doubt we'd need more then the 2 on hold and they'll last for years as they are.

                      Basically for now BB-61/64 are kept nice and BB-62/63 will NEVER be reactivated as the other 2 all that would be needed.
                      Last edited by 85 gt kid; 02 Sep 15,, 04:15.
                      RIP Charles "Bob" Spence. 1936-2014.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ArmorPiercing88 View Post
                        So again my original question...what authority superseded Congress' directive that BB spare parts/infrastructure be maintained, that would allow the Navy to purge all of its BB materials as surplus and scrap the remaining gun barrels? And nevermind reactivating a turret, what if you wanted to DISABLE a turret for museum display purposes. Could you? Or for that matter do something that would permanently disable the engines? Is the Navy in any way invested in preserving the Iowas MILITARY UTILITY, or are they simply concerned with the ships not being left to rot and sink like the Texas at this point, and the curators can do whatever the hell they want with them. And where did the 2020 date for Iowa come from?
                        I don't know anything about a 2020 date. However, when we were reactivating the Iowas advance guidance was coming out for improving them even more so where the missile capability would be 96 VLS and the ships were to be in service until 2010. But, as everyone know, Congress has the last say so and though very few of the members have had ANY military service (not even Reserves) they make horrible decisions about where THEY want the money to go. I don't know what "authority" made these decisions. It's sort of like the Base Realignment and Closure committee that voted for closing Long Beach Naval Shipyard AND Long Beach Naval Station. The head (loudmouth) speaker of the committee nearly screamed that "The Navy wants to close the shipyard."

                        B.S. The Navy was forced to keep its mouth shut. It was just a couple of years ago that the Navy let the word out that they did NOT want to close the shipyard. She had the most capable Dry Dock facilities on the West Coast especially with our huge Dry Dock 1. Today if you want to dock an Aircraft Carrier, you have to transit the twists & turns of Puget Sound to get to Bremerton, Washington. Mare Island Shipyard is using its (smaller) Dry Docks to cut up ships from the "Ghost Fleet" in Siusun Bay. Hunters Point Shipyard is the main "studio" for MythBusters".

                        In the San Diego area National Ship & Steel has a huge Dry Dock but ONLY for building super tankers. They have a fairly good size floating dry dock that can take the LHD's and that's about it. They are, however, having another floating Dry Dock being built that can take a Battleship. But it won't be available until 2017 and already have a long waiting list for it.

                        But I'm not a politician or a budget analyst. I can design you the most super Battleship/Aircraft Carrier (Gibbs & Cox Scheme D?) in the world. Just don't ask me how to pay for it. I'm an engineering type and prefer to stay that way. So I can't (or prefer not to) answer any political type of questions.

                        Like you, all I can do is bitch about it.
                        Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                        Comment


                        • I heard Missouri is in better shape than Iowa, with New Jersey the most banged up of the 4, though she looks great on the outside.

                          Comment


                          • "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."

                            http://www.dailybreeze.com/governmen...n-in-san-pedro

                            Comment


                            • Rusty,

                              Glad to read your reply! Very informative (and TRUE!). I would also add that today's industrial complex in the U.S. would be unable to produce the kind of ship we are all familiar with when discussing "battleships". Our armament factories and steel mills aren't geared to producing the type/size of guns and classes of armor like the IOWAs contain - it's a different world out there and "missile-mania" seems to be the rule of thumb.

                              AP88's last reply must not apply to NEW JERSEY as her Turret 2 interactive tour sort of takes her out of any theoretical recommissioning anytime. I personally don't believe any IOWA class will ever see duty again.

                              FYI - the model is slowly coming along; still working on the superstructure.

                              Hank

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ArmorPiercing88 View Post
                                I heard Missouri is in better shape than Iowa, with New Jersey the most banged up of the 4, though she looks great on the outside.
                                I've never seen Wisconsin so I cannot comment. I was aboard Iowa briefly with Rusty whilst attempting to inspect a leaking number 3 shaft seal. I never got to the seal because the guy in charge wasn't there but I will be back. She was in descent shape engineering-wise for a ship from an entirely different era. Now, I formerly inspected both New Jersey and Missouri pierside in Pearl Harbor in the spring of 1990, and rode Missouri back to Long Beach. I was returning from Yokosuka after inspecting Midway (hottest ship I've ever been on . . . and not in a good way), and caught the two BBs on the way home. Missouri was pristine relatively speaking. New Jersey had been rode hard and put away wet. They failed because they could not get underway due to a fuel leak in one of their shaft alleys (I don't recall which because I didn't see it, my boss did, and as he metaphorically wears CINCPACFLT's four stars, that means New Jersey was welded to the pier until they either got it fixed or someone higher than us accepted the risk of getting her home to Long Beach). I frankly don't know which happened because I was a little busy. I did some 60 of those exams in two years. A lot of air and sea miles involved as our reach was from San Diego to Bahrain.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X