BB-55 at low tide

Dreadnought said:
IMO, Mud only accelerates the process of hull deterioration no doubt and no matter where it happens the result is the very same.

Wow, Im surprised they really didnt give her a top to bottom clean and sealing against oil seapage, bunker "C" as she used to burn was very thick for fuel oil. So the residue can make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Apparently the man has a plan, very simular to Alabama's current state.
Click to expand...

And guess who will direct the plan: EPA and OSHA. They will probably require the fuel tanks to be steamed out as on the Texas. But Philadelphia Resins has a coating that then can be put on the inside (and even outside) of the shell plating. As long as abrasive silt does not rub against the ship, it should last for generations.

But then again, we could also get lucky if the tanks remain sealed and the agencies may issue a waiver in that case. However, if any shell plating has to be replaced and it is part of a fuel tank, we got a problem. :(

You cannot just weld extra plating over a deteriorated area. There will always be a thin gap between the plates that will continue to corrode both of them. Plus the heat of the welding could ignite any fuel residue in the tanks thus requiring steam cleaning.

At least the three Iowa class BB's in museum status are not only free floating but in their 1980's reactivation all bunker oil was steamed out and the tanks repainted and sealed to accept Navy Distillate.

But I'm still worried about Missouri's last dry docking. According to the photos I saw, standard Navy Haze Gray paint was used below the boot top. I haven't received any information yet if it was treated as the red or blue anti-fouling paint to prevent sea critters from dining on the paint and exposing the steel.

Yes, that's another thing to consider besides shell repair. Use the right kind of paint.:rolleyes:

Hey! I have an idea. :eek: Hire 1,000 welders that are good at overhead welding, bring in a train load of 25-20 welding rods and clad the entire hull below waterline with the stainless steel welds. :)):))
 
I think anytime the project leader announces it will cost half as much to repair you have to assume that corners are being cut.

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that they have decided the moving her is to expensive, and if the bottom of the hull is as bad as everyone thinks, moving her may be to great a risk to justify.

I believe the decision is also based on the fact she will never be recalled to active duty, and at least from what is visable is presentable and will continue to draw people and $$$.

I remember when the Massachusetts went in for her dry docking, besides replacing steel and fabricating new sea chests, they stressed that the hull below the surface would be coated in "red hand epoxy" and that it would both seal and preserve the ship better than the standard paint.

I wonder if they used that on the Missouri then painted over it.

Rusty would know more about this than me, again, only conjecture on my part.
 
Pictures of BB-60

Pictures of BB-60

RustyBattleship said:
Thanks for the link. That confirms just what I was thinking of how they would build such a cofferdam - using interlocking steel beams driven very deep into the mud.

Replacing bottom plating will have to be done a narrow section at a time by actually tunneling under the ship.


:confused:

A confused land lubber writes..... The cofferdam used is straight forward and the aerial pictures illustrate the concept quite nicely.

But.... the interpertation of replacing the corroded steel hull using this technique is confusing. As BB-60 is resting on the mud and tunneling is required to gain access, how does one "crib up" to prevent stress points as the micro tunneling progresses?

Is the cofferdam to be once again flooded to refloat BB-60? Then the process ( turbidity screens ) will prevent sediment for contacting the hull in the future?

Second question.... are other museum ships still holding bunker oil? I.e. Showboat, Mammie, the DD's & DE's across the nation.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Second question.... are other museum ships still holding bunker oil? I.e. Showboat, Mammie, the DD's & DE's across the nation.

If the were museumed before mid 1980's chances are they were/are Bunker "C" fuel. They shouldnt be holding any oil at all and should have had a modest cleaning prior to their donation. The Iowas were all converted from Bunker "C" to DFM during their 80's reactivation.
 
Dreadnought said:
Second question.... are other museum ships still holding bunker oil? I.e. Showboat, Mammie, the DD's & DE's across the nation.

If the were museumed before mid 1980's chances are they were/are Bunker "C" fuel. They shouldnt be holding any oil at all and should have had a modest cleaning prior to their donation. The Iowas were all converted from Bunker "C" to DFM during their 80's reactivation.
Click to expand...

I know they removed what was left on Mammie before they moved her to ensure that she floated at high tide, then cleaned out her tanks in dry dock.
 
Just looked as some of the pics of BB-60's hull in that .PDF. The damage from corrosion looked severe. I suppose anyone in the 80s who ever fantasized about re-activating her would have been in for a rude shock.

What must the Olympia look like after all these years?
 
tmasi said:
Just looked as some of the pics of BB-60's hull in that .PDF. The damage from corrosion looked severe. I suppose anyone in the 80s who ever fantasized about re-activating her would have been in for a rude shock.
Click to expand...
I don't know, that was over 25 years ago....they were all certainly in better shape than they are now. If 'Bama looked like that back then, she'd have been half gone by now with no repairs.
 
What they need to do is build a cofferdam around it, fill it with more water, float the ship off the mud, do some basic underwater repairs so it won't leak, then get it out to a dry dock and fix it the right way.

DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME!!
 
For Blidgepump (I assume you mean BILGE pump).

You wrote: But.... the interpertation of replacing the corroded steel hull using this technique is confusing. As BB-60 is resting on the mud and tunneling is required to gain access, how does one "crib up" to prevent stress points as the micro tunneling progresses?

Is the cofferdam to be once again flooded to refloat BB-60? Then the process ( turbidity screens ) will prevent sediment for contacting the hull in the future?

As I could see in some of the photos of that link, they did dig out enough mud to do repairs on the Bilge Strake which is one of the main hull stringers for strength (Keel, Bilge strake, Stringer strake and Shear strake). To tunnel underneath, putting in miners type of shoring on the sides would of course be necessary. But as the ship is now, that is the only way you can get to the areas needing repair.

But as Michigan Guy said to put it into a dry dock and emphasized it by saying, "Do it the right way the first time" is precisely correct. The only way to properly repair the steel hull of any ship is in a dry dock. Then the best way to keep it preserved is to never let it touch the bottom of the mooring site (leaving 4-feet minimum clearance at extreme low-low tide for diver inspections if needed).

And if you have a watertight cofferdam around it (actually dikes or quays), fill it with FRESH water. Any seepage from the salt water outside can be neutralized by doing recycling of the fresh water to filter out the sea water minerals and critters.
 
Dreadnought said:
Second question.... are other museum ships still holding bunker oil? I.e. Showboat, Mammie, the DD's & DE's across the nation.

If the were museumed before mid 1980's chances are they were/are Bunker "C" fuel. They shouldnt be holding any oil at all and should have had a modest cleaning prior to their donation. The Iowas were all converted from Bunker "C" to DFM during their 80's reactivation.
Click to expand...

I have heard that the Hornet was not as empty as was originally thought....
 
One might keep in mind that at the time some of these ships were both laid up and donated the EPA and other entities rules may have changed since. When the last of the Iowas were laid up (New Jersey in 1969) it was laid up in very good condition. No one ever thought they would be recommed but planned for none the less. Thats why she was chosen to re-enter service before the others and not as expensive due to modest upgrades in 1967. I think they knew with Hornet, Midway etc that they would not re-enter service as the US is constantly building replacement carriers. A good check of this would be say the former USS Kennedy or the former KittyHawk for comparison. Or perhaps Rusty could comment on former Ranger or the former Constellation's condition for mothballs or donation. Being used as a target ship or reef I'm pretty sure would offer its own sets of material conditions before sinking.
 
Last edited:
RustyBattleship said:
For Blidgepump (I assume you mean BILGE pump).

You wrote: But.... the interpertation of replacing the corroded steel hull using this technique is confusing. As BB-60 is resting on the mud and tunneling is required to gain access, how does one "crib up" to prevent stress points as the micro tunneling progresses?

Is the cofferdam to be once again flooded to refloat BB-60? Then the process ( turbidity screens ) will prevent sediment for contacting the hull in the future?

As I could see in some of the photos of that link, they did dig out enough mud to do repairs on the Bilge Strake which is one of the main hull stringers for strength (Keel, Bilge strake, Stringer strake and Shear strake). To tunnel underneath, putting in miners type of shoring on the sides would of course be necessary. But as the ship is now, that is the only way you can get to the areas needing repair.

But as Michigan Guy said to put it into a dry dock and emphasized it by saying, "Do it the right way the first time" is precisely correct. The only way to properly repair the steel hull of any ship is in a dry dock. Then the best way to keep it preserved is to never let it touch the bottom of the mooring site (leaving 4-feet minimum clearance at extreme low-low tide for diver inspections if needed).

And if you have a watertight cofferdam around it (actually dikes or quays), fill it with FRESH water. Any seepage from the salt water outside can be neutralized by doing recycling of the fresh water to filter out the sea water minerals and critters.
Click to expand...

;) The pdf file is great for the aerial view, and the sides above the mud line illustrate your point made about corrosion.

So BB-60 got a patch job ? :(

Has any large ship ever been left on cribbing for display?
 
Are you referring to USS Kidd in Baton Rouge on the Mississippi? She is moored on pilings that allow her to rise and fall. You can easily see the ship as you cross over the river on I-10. I have gone by when the river is low and the ship is sitting on cradles. Everything I have seen and heard about Kidd is that she is a great example of all of the right ways to preserve and maintain a museum ship.

I presume you have heard about BB35 springing a leak almost 2 weeks ago and took on about 100k gal. of water. The ship settled about 2' at the stern and there may have been some hull stressing. I don't know the details. They were able to slow the leak and pump the ship out. Fortunately, the money is now in place to get the ship out of the water, and some political obstacles have been overcome. The goal is to have her permanently out of the water in time for the 100th anniversary of her commissioning in 2014. The hull is so poor in places, it is probably going to be a close race between drying her out or a catastrophic event.
 
Even the Midway had a leak. I'm not sure if it has been fully fixed or not. I know the Hornet's Chief Engineer was going down there quite a bit to help locate the leak. All boils down to a little bit of poor planning by the Midway Association. First they forgot to have the ship hooked up to the sewer system when she opened. Then her berth was not fully dredged or not dredged at all. At low tide her front half was still free floating but her stern was in the bay mud and so there is stress in her middle.
 
Just learned more info about the Midway. As I said the back half of the ship sits in mud when the tide goes out. She still has her rudders and props on her. These sink into the mud and put stress on their respective shafts. Previously 7-01 and 7-04 had flooded completely while 7-05 partially. They drained the compartments and installed baffles to prevent future flooding so to speak. They are also now monitoring the shafts for leakage. I asked why they were not getting the area under dredged for a long term solution all our engineer could do is shrug his shoulders. They made $4 million in profit last year so I don't understand their delay either.
 
Bound for Louisana with a GPS on my knee

Bound for Louisana with a GPS on my knee

Gun Grape said:
Yep, Its the Kidd.
Click to expand...


Very strong prospect for a tour of the USS Kidd this fall.
Directions are simple, get on the river and go downstream.
Thank you for the picture. ;)
 
I was planning on going to see the Kidd this last 2 weeks. Family and other problems kept that from happening.

But on a happier note she isn't that far from me. About 400 miles. I can do that on a long weekend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top