We Got the IOWA

[BB61Vet]

I won't spill the beans completely, but at tonight's reunion dinner, Captain Kent (President of Pacific Battleship Center) told us he wants to light off the boilers and get underway. Firing the 5's and the 16's WAS mentioned and he has permission to do so under proper naval supervision. TO A MAN the veterans present volunteered to man their watchstations to accomplish this task. I look for it a couple years out at least though.

Rusty, it sure was good getting to see you at the reunion. HUGE THANK YOUS to PBC and all the volunteers for all the hard work so far! I'm proud to call each and every one of you shipmates.

[DonBelt]

Thought I would post this - my old ship the USS Stump tied outboard the Iowa at the carrier piers in Norfolk, circa 1985-6

[DonBelt]

[QUOTE=BB61Vet;877594]I won't spill the beans completely, but at tonight's reunion dinner, Captain Kent (President of Pacific Battleship Center) told us he wants to light off the boilers and get underway. Firing the 5's and the 16's WAS mentioned and he has permission to do so under proper naval supervision. TO A MAN the veterans present volunteered to man their watchstations to accomplish this task. I look for it a couple years out at least though.]

It was my impression museum ships had their shaft seals welded shut to prevent leaks. Is the Iowa going to be maintained in a seaworthy condition?

[Ytlas]

When a ship's steam plant has been secured for a certain length of time, a thorough and strict inspection by NAVSEA is required. Everything has to be in complete working order for the ship to pass. Prior to the inspections, the piping had been hydro tested 1.5 times it's operating pressure.

I wouldn't expect 70 year old high pressure piping to pass without major $$$ being spent.

[tbm3fan]

I certainly wouldn't want to be in a fire room or engine room with a 600lb. high pressure steam line that hasn't seen steam in 13-15 years. As far as taking her out for a cruise I'd check with the owners of the ship first.

[BB61Vet]

Don - unsure of the condition of anything at this point, but I did listen in on some of the old crew engineers discussing it. BTC said the entire boiler plant would need hydrostat, an EMC who's been working on her since Richmond said electrical plant is sound, MMC said it's do-able.

We discussed lighting off the aft 2 boilers and getting underway on the 2 power screws only, but the issue there is that all the aux stuff is fed off 2 fire - so a technology update would have to take place prior to that happening.

tbm3 - I'd do it in a heartbeat. As for cruising, PBC IS the 'owners of the ship' - and their President is the one who mentioned it...

[qaz14595]

The PCB President about the possibility of it - (Interview starts at 1:36:22 & The part about possibly getting underway at 1:41:40 )

[tbm3fan]

tbm3 - I'd do it in a heartbeat. As for cruising, PBC IS the 'owners of the ship' - and their President is the one who mentioned it...

Actually no. The Navy is still the owners of record of the ship we are just caretakers. The Navy still retains ownership of the Hornet and can take the Hornet back if they deem necessary at any time for disposal. The Navy has already given the Yorktown Museum notice about dealing with her issues or else. The Navy never gives up ownership of anything they once used. Our planes from the Navy still belong to the Navy and they require photographic updates of them every year. Anything done to them, or added, then belongs to the Navy. Just ask a volunteer who obtained Phoenix missiles for the F-14 and hung them on. The Navy saw them in a photo and said thank you. The volunteer was pissed but he was warned. The Navy visits our ship every year for inspection so I find it very hard to believe the Navy said sure go right ahead. Maybe to light a boiler but to move under her own power...

[Pacfanweb]

The PCB President about the possibility of it - (Interview starts at 1:36:22 & The part about possibly getting underway at 1:41:40 )

He specifically says that while it'd be nice to get underway, they can't remove the shaft locks and are prohibited from getting under way by the Navy.

[Alex Mandel]

I'm sorry if this stuff was already discussed but I couldn't find it... On some recent USS Iowa videos, it seems quite certain that some Mk-143 Armoured Box Launchers for Tomahawks and also the Phalanx mounts that were re-installed during the recent restoration, are actually a newly made mock ups. Please can somebody say what is a reason for this (current lack of available real items in the inventory?...), and is there any intention or plan to replace these mock ups with real things, sometimes later maybe?

[ChrisV71]

On some recent USS Iowa videos, it seems quite certain that some Mk-143 Armoured Box Launchers for Tomahawks and also the Phalanx mounts that were re-installed during the recent restoration, are actually a newly made mock ups. Please can somebody say what is a reason for this (current lack of available real items in the inventory?...), and is there any intention or plan to replace these mock ups with real things, sometimes later maybe?

No ships in the US Fleet have used the MK-143 ABL's since 1998 so there probably aren't any laying around in the spare parts warehouses. The last mothballed ship that had any ABL's onboard was the Conolly, which was sunk as a target in April 2009. (with her ABL's still aboard) The Iowa was missing 4 ABL's when she became a museum, so she may be stuck with the replicas. You never know, they may find some replacements in a warehouse somewhere, it happens. Just a few years ago, they found a cache of MK-14 torpedoes in a magazine in Nevada. I think I saw someone post that the Phalanx's were demilitarized older versions (which would probably be more appropriate for the Iowa) and not replicas. Someone who has been on the ship since she became a museum would have more info on those.

[RustyBattleship]

Robert Kent's comments are identical to most of us in the Pacific Battleship Center, including me that was deeply involved in reactivating all four of them in the 80's. For that matter, they reflect the feelings of all associations that have museum/memorial ships.

It would be great to see them under their own power again starting with Destroyers and Submarines on up to Battleships and Aircraft Carriers.

As PBC's resident Naval Architect, I can tell you that the main propulsion rooms can be reactivated rather quickly, except for one missing auxiliary lube oil pump in one of the fire rooms. But the fact remains, as stated above, that the Navy does not want us to unlock the shafts. So we must follow Navy orders. Besides, that would require an eighteen to twenty month overhaul with at least two to three months in dry dock.

The propellers would have to be replaced with new propellers. Though they may look good at first, they are bronze and bronze age hardens. So reconditioned Essex class propellers that have been repaired, annealed and balanced would have to be provided. The shafts would also need to be pulled and steamed out. The shaft stave bearings must be inspected. If they are the new phenolic, then we should be okay. But if they are the original lignum vitae (as we found on the New Jersey) they have to be replaced.

Putting our memorial ships back out to sea is the dream of every ship museum. So we do the best we can to make them look like they are ready to cast off the mooring lines and head for open water.

[Alex Mandel]

No ships in the US Fleet have used the MK-143 ABL's since 1998 so there probably aren't any laying around in the spare parts warehouses. The last mothballed ship that had any ABL's onboard was the Conolly, which was sunk as a target in April 2009. (with her ABL's still aboard) The Iowa was missing 4 ABL's when she became a museum, so she may be stuck with the replicas. You never know, they may find some replacements in a warehouse somewhere, it happens. Just a few years ago, they found a cache of MK-14 torpedoes in a magazine in Nevada. I think I saw someone post that the Phalanx's were demilitarized older versions (which would probably be more appropriate for the Iowa) and not replicas. Someone who has been on the ship since she became a museum would have more info on those.

ChrisV71, thank you for explanation! Hope they may find some real Mk-143s, or will somewhat "modify" the current replicas with some additional details to make them looking more realistic. IMHO they would be OK if "alone" but since there are also some real Mk-143s aboard the same ship, the difference is too obvious. The Phalanx's looks to me rather a replicas too, although the barrels may be real - I just mean the mounts.
Regardless, I'm happy that the great ship is restored and is having a good perspective!

[tbm3fan]

ChrisV71, thank you for explanation! Hope they may find some real Mk-143s, or will somewhat "modify" the current replicas with some additional details to make them looking more realistic. IMHO they would be OK if "alone" but since there are also some real Mk-143s aboard the same ship, the difference is too obvious. The Phalanx's looks to me rather a replicas too, although the barrels may be real - I just mean the mounts.
Regardless, I'm happy that the great ship is restored and is having a good perspective!

I'm surprised Rusty didn't chime in on this one. I know he told us that he has his eye on some Phalanx systems right now as the Navy starts decommissioning and scrapping ships that have them. Once that happens the replicas can be retired. Hopefully the Navy is on board with him.

[Dreadnought]

They would be rather hard pressed to find the original CIWS Block 0's the Iowas were given upon reactivation. New Jersey has four real Block 1's mounted.

As far as Engineering is concerned, In agreement with Ytlas although upon closer look at certain engine rooms they are in remarkable condition with certain systems arrangement still lined up for steaming and numerous crates of replacements stored close by. Were as certain boiler tranes are open for inspection, others are not open at all. Whomever did the job of laying up New Jersey, they did a very good job of preserving her Engineering.