Shamus
In Memoriam/OAF-Old Aggravating Fart
Careful you're not shot down in flames:biggrin:
Modernized Iowa Class versus Essex WWII Carrier Class
- Thread starter talshiar
- Start date
RustyBattleship
In Memoriam
Well, I designed the armored magazines for them and, if memory serves, they were to hold at least 10,000 rounds each. So, 4 X 10,000 = 40,000. So it is probably right.
Parihaka
Dirty Kiwi
Goddamnit I love this forum:biggrin:
Dreadnought
New member
Was just browsing the elevator "system" yesterday for getting the ammo up to the CIWS mounts on I believe the 05 level. Still there but plated or hatched over the vertical tram ways.
RustyBattleship
In Memoriam
Yeah, that was one of the safety requirements we had to install for handling live ammunition. The pallet or boxes had to be on a device held in place by rails.
Really stupid because handling of the 16-inch ammo (both projectiles and powder cans) was all done by wire rope.
You should see the Rube Goldbergs we had to design for loading Tomahawks and Harpoons, when not at a Naval Base with the proper cranes.
Dreadnought
New member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2003
- Messages
- 25,368
What was done with the 5-inch magazines that were made vacant by the removal of the mounts?
RustyBattleship
In Memoriam
They were converted into Air Conditioning machinery rooms. Of the eight 125 ton duplex plants we installed, three went into one magazine and three into the other.
You can imagine the over active imagination I had to come up with to figure out how to get those monsters down below the armored second deck. We were only supposed to put in seven plants but leave room for an eighth to be installed at a later availability. But because of all the bulkheads we had to cut open and the plants disassembled into their three major components we installed the eighth plant anyway to save time and taxpayer money later on.
Dreadnought
New member
And they are a godsend trust me.
RustyBattleship
In Memoriam
And they are a godsend trust me.
True. But I wish the crewmen would use air conditioning systems PROPERLY.
They seem to think it must be icy cold, especially in an electronics space such as the Radio Room down on 3rd deck. Cripes, you could hang meat in there because they keep it so cold.
Then they call out our design people complaining about their electronics equipment filling up with condensate and shorting out. We go out, turn down the thermostate to no LESS than 65 degrees (70 is preferred) and explain to them that keeping the space too cold condenses the air. As soon as we go out the door somebody cranks the thermostat all the way back down again.
Sort of reminds me of the time I overheard an Admiral describe the typical sailor. He said, "A typical sailor is a young man of no previous experience. If you put him in a room that has no doors, windows or furniture and gave him two rubber balls, within the hour he would break one and lose the other."
Dreadnought
New member
Yes I can say we seem to keep her very cool these days and with some of the crazy weather we have been having Im very thankfull. I can certainly deal with 70^. One thing I have noticed though Mr. L is that so long as it remains cool below decks the smell of paint and hydraulic fluid does still linger on your jumper/uniform however not one fraction as bad as it would on say a much hotter day in the below spaces. For this I thank you as so does my deodorant as does my dry cleaners.:biggrin:
"A typical sailor is a young man of no previous experience. If you put him in a room that has no doors, windows or furniture and gave him two rubber balls, within the hour he would break one and lose the other."[/QUOTE]
:biggrin: priceless!
Last edited:
Rick DeBay
New member
A/C plants
A/C plants
Where were the two units go that were not put in the secondary magazines?
A/C plants
Where were the two units go that were not put in the secondary magazines?
RustyBattleship
In Memoriam
Up forward just aft of frame 85, port side on 3rd deck. The space was an old code room if I recall.
Boilermaker9
New member
After thumbing through this thread the conversation themes toward weapons. Absolutely required on a war ship, however might I say no one mentioned the propulsion plants of either ship class even though they are the same design and lay out the bottom line with both classes is they are "stick shift" purpose built vessels. They performed remarkable well in WW2, Korea and Viet Nam..different times different places. Since it has been 11 years since the last post thought it would be interesting to add another perspective. In my opinion today 2018 neither class of ship is applicable to today's warfare. To convert them to current standards is cost prohibitive and it is nearly impossible to modernize and up grade the propulsion plants within the existing real-estate of the hull.
When Regan brought the 61's out in the 80s he was given a very stringent budget and the majority of the crew was required to be Reserves. I believe they also had problems getting people for the topside rates as well. Now, the last of the WW2 destroyers, which shared the same general overall design power plants, were at NISMF or Museum ships. There were severe problems getting them running again, including the NJ. Those ships actually steamed in the 80's with far less optimum crew size for their intended mission, although those crews did a remarkable job with what they had and that the ships performed admirably! Just ask anyone who called in a strike from her during Viet Nam about the Jersey! I did add received abhor dissertation on the accuracy of her guns as oppose to some of the aircraft of the period!
To further this line one needs to consider condition or state of the existing machinery and the condition of the hull. The hull I understand is in great shape as is most of the existing machinery on the Iowa's although hopelessly out dated. The Essex carriers are another matter. do not believe there hulls or their machinery is in as good a shape as the 61's. Intrepid has most of her aux machinery stripped for Lexington when she left Philadelphia Navy Yard 1976 I think. Most of the auxiliaries an both class of ship are outdated by a few decades and parts are almost are non existent. The engines of both classes are heavy powerful and druable each over 50k SHP each of 4 per ship. They are also out dated and suffer from the same problems as auxiliaries. The 61's have considerably less steaming hours than the Essex class theoretically less expensive to recommission. Not necessarily so, age and inactivity the their toll. The experience and accumulated knowledge to operate the power plants is fast moving to the written word and a few old training movies. When they brought the Jersey out and then the rest of the Iowa's, the navy was constrained, as the vast majority of crew were to be reserves. The next obstical was the hand operated power plant as the last of the operating reserve 710, 692, 450 destroyers were in the reserve fleet or museums and again few people left on active duty that could fire up one of those boilers. To compound the issue the propulsion plants themselves did not lend themselves to automaton, therefore requiring a large number snipes to operate them.
I could go on however I believe I made what I consider a valid point to sure all will agree but that is what discussion is about an exchange of ideas. please forgive some of my grammar and spelling!
When Regan brought the 61's out in the 80s he was given a very stringent budget and the majority of the crew was required to be Reserves. I believe they also had problems getting people for the topside rates as well. Now, the last of the WW2 destroyers, which shared the same general overall design power plants, were at NISMF or Museum ships. There were severe problems getting them running again, including the NJ. Those ships actually steamed in the 80's with far less optimum crew size for their intended mission, although those crews did a remarkable job with what they had and that the ships performed admirably! Just ask anyone who called in a strike from her during Viet Nam about the Jersey! I did add received abhor dissertation on the accuracy of her guns as oppose to some of the aircraft of the period!
To further this line one needs to consider condition or state of the existing machinery and the condition of the hull. The hull I understand is in great shape as is most of the existing machinery on the Iowa's although hopelessly out dated. The Essex carriers are another matter. do not believe there hulls or their machinery is in as good a shape as the 61's. Intrepid has most of her aux machinery stripped for Lexington when she left Philadelphia Navy Yard 1976 I think. Most of the auxiliaries an both class of ship are outdated by a few decades and parts are almost are non existent. The engines of both classes are heavy powerful and druable each over 50k SHP each of 4 per ship. They are also out dated and suffer from the same problems as auxiliaries. The 61's have considerably less steaming hours than the Essex class theoretically less expensive to recommission. Not necessarily so, age and inactivity the their toll. The experience and accumulated knowledge to operate the power plants is fast moving to the written word and a few old training movies. When they brought the Jersey out and then the rest of the Iowa's, the navy was constrained, as the vast majority of crew were to be reserves. The next obstical was the hand operated power plant as the last of the operating reserve 710, 692, 450 destroyers were in the reserve fleet or museums and again few people left on active duty that could fire up one of those boilers. To compound the issue the propulsion plants themselves did not lend themselves to automaton, therefore requiring a large number snipes to operate them.
I could go on however I believe I made what I consider a valid point to sure all will agree but that is what discussion is about an exchange of ideas. please forgive some of my grammar and spelling!
G
Guest
Guest
Good Morning Gents, speaking for myself and I'm sure for many other Navy Vets (Old Salts), it would be a source of Prestige & Pride to see the a Upgraded Battleship underway and Combat Ready, however at what cost and just how effective would it actually be ?
The electrical power generation and distribution system would need to be repaired and or replaced. Stable clean power is a requirement for today's Combat and C4ISR systems. In fact I would say that the entire HME would require and complete rework ($$$,$$$$,$$$) + ....
The Legacy Gunnery, Fire Control, Comms. and Navigation Systems would also require and complete replacement .....
It would be more efficient to build the "Arsenal Ship"
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2015-05/breaking-anti-access-wall
The electrical power generation and distribution system would need to be repaired and or replaced. Stable clean power is a requirement for today's Combat and C4ISR systems. In fact I would say that the entire HME would require and complete rework ($$$,$$$$,$$$) + ....
The Legacy Gunnery, Fire Control, Comms. and Navigation Systems would also require and complete replacement .....
It would be more efficient to build the "Arsenal Ship"
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2015-05/breaking-anti-access-wall