USS Texas

I last visited the Texas in 2002. Very much enjoyed the tour. I have also visited the Alabama and was struck by the contrast in the condition of the ships with less than 30 years difference in age. Does the Texas have programs for community participation to up the citizen's interest? The Alabama often has youth groups spend the night in berthing spaces and they use the mess spaces. So you have a younger generation with fond memories and I suspect future support.
 
Well the Texas was stripped and turned into a museum right after the war. She had no work really done to her to refit her since she wasn't an asset anymore so that didn't help. She also had a rough first 30 years as a museum because the caretakers sucked and did no upkeep on her.

Meanwhile the Alabama, like all the fast BBs, was refitted and put into reserve so she was in much better condition and I believe has had a decent amount of upkeep throughout the years.
 
Battleship Texas could gain repair funds in Senate budget

By Madlin Mekelburg | April 1, 2015

The Battleship Texas could be in line for some much needed funding after the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday voted to allocate $25 million for repairs to the aging vessel.

If approved in the final budget, it would mark the second time in eight years that the deteriorating ship parked adjacent to the San Jacinto Battlefield State Historic Site has been the beneficiary of public funds. Texas voters in 2007 approved a $25 million bond proposal to help preserve the ship.

Andy Smith, Manager of Battleship Texas, said the bond funds already have been utilized, but the ship still has major repair needs vital to maintaining the integrity of the vessel. Smith said the long-term goal of the repairs is to ensure the ship is structurally sound enough to be moved to a dry berth to improve the likelihood of preservation.

According to Smith, some parts on the ship are endanger of deteriorating and potentially collapsing if they do not receive repairs – although he said he could not predict the exact timetable.

"They've lasted 100 years, could they last a year more? Five years more?" Smith said. "These repairs, they have to be done if we want to save the ship."

Bruce Bramlett, executive director of the Battleship Texas Foundation, said one danger of waiting to allot funds for repairs is an inevitable increase in the cost of the work.

"To me, the biggest issue is that the ship is 101 years old and for a long time there has been a lot of deferred maintenance that needs to be done," Bramlett said. "The longer you defer things ... it doesn't get cheaper, it gets more expensive."

The battleship, which participated in both world wars and has been docked at the San Jacinto Battleground site as a museum ship since 1948, developed a series of debilitating leaks in the summer of 2012. More than $2 million was spent on repairs.

Battleship Texas could gain repair funds in Senate budget - Houston Chronicle
 
Any news or updates?

Given her importance, I don't totally understand why she doesn't receive more attention or better care. Yes it costs money but money is being spent on less worthwhile projects. Just venting there.

I visited the Texas back in the late eighties and then again in the late nineties. They had made a lot of progress in restoring her, but had more sections closed off for safety reasons (the downside to more public attention).
 
Representative Culberson also offered an amendment to the NDAA legislation, which was adopted by voice vote, to preserve our nation’s historic battleships. The amendment creates a competitive grant program within the Department of the Interior to maintain historic battleships, like the USS Texas.

“These historic battleships played an important role in America’s success in World War I and II. These battleships are floating museums that stand as a memorial to the bravery and sacrifice of the servicemen that fought on them. This amendment ensures that those battleships can be preserved so that we never lose these national treasures,” Rep. Culberson stated.

For text of Representative Culberson’s amendment, click here.
 
More problems on the USS Texas over Veterans Day. Apparently they started taking on water from the stern and the ship developed a bit of a list. They HAVE to get this ship out of the water or eventually pony up for a major drydocking and hull job (I know, no money...). The TV interview with the curator makes reference to some of the 2012 patches "being loose" with complete replacement of at least one patch happening as an emergency repair.

Any more info out there on what broke loose?

Eric

http://www.khou.com/news/local/battleship-texas-closed-through-saturday-for-leak-repairs/351118694
 
Last edited:
Band-aids. That hull has got thin spots all over it and they keep doing band-aids. Either get it out of the water for good, or dry dock it for correct repairs, or admit you just aren't up to the task.
 
Texas & Olympia ???

Texas & Olympia ???

Time is running out for both of these museum ships and the ugly truth is no one wants his hand on the trigger to put both of these ailing vessels down.

The options are clear and there is no $$$$.
 
Texas got another $25 mil from the last legislative session in 2015. That money will be used for more structural repairs which are scheduled for next year. This work is important whether Texas goes to drydock or dry berth. She has to be able to support her own weight out of the water. There's some pictures of her framing on http://battleshiptexas.org/restoration/
 
It's a sad fact that the Iowa's are headed for this same fate. At least 1 of the museums needs to make plans to get their ship out of the water. Big cost up front but a saving in the long run. Otherwise, come the end of the century, there'll be no battleships left. With their careers over and their crews gone for good the water is no longer their home but their enemy. A dryberthed battleship would make a much better museum anyway without the water hiding half its mass.
 
Building a permanent dry dock and then maintaining for a 45k+ ton warship would be incredibly expensive, it would have to be huge! I could see the maintenance bills digging deep into any organization's operating budget. How about permanently encasing it in concrete much like the Japanese Mikasa? Budget permitting, I'd never do it, but as things get more expensive, this is an alternative that would keep the ship 'afloat'. There'd be corrosion issues as water seeped between the hull and the concrete 'berth', but it'd never sink....
 
Gun Boat said:
It's a sad fact that the Iowa's are headed for this same fate. At least 1 of the museums needs to make plans to get their ship out of the water. Big cost up front but a saving in the long run. Otherwise, come the end of the century, there'll be no battleships left. With their careers over and their crews gone for good the water is no longer their home but their enemy. A dryberthed battleship would make a much better museum anyway without the water hiding half its mass.
Click to expand...

Actually the Iowa hulls are in great shape. Iowa and Wisconsin particularly, since they were in reserve status for so long. Missouri just got a dry docking, and the New Jersey is in fresh water.
 
JCT said:
Building a permanent dry dock and then maintaining for a 45k+ ton warship would be incredibly expensive, it would have to be huge! I could see the maintenance bills digging deep into any organization's operating budget. How about permanently encasing it in concrete much like the Japanese Mikasa? Budget permitting, I'd never do it, but as things get more expensive, this is an alternative that would keep the ship 'afloat'. There'd be corrosion issues as water seeped between the hull and the concrete 'berth', but it'd never sink....
Click to expand...

Not a dry dock as such. Like the plan for the Texas. Dig a big hole next to a body of water and lay foundations with intergrated keel blocks. Open the side adjacent to the water and float the BB in. Seal the hole off and pump out the water settling the BB on her blocks. Job done. It would be a significant initial investment but hugely beneficial for a museum ship that you want to be around basically forever. Costs would be basically earth moving and concreting. I reckon that you see a return with maintenance savings after 40-50 years.

With the ship out of the water you would no longer need to drydock for cleaning/painting of the hull. More importantly you reduce hull corrosion levels to pretty much zero and completely put a stop to the inevitable ingress of water into the hull. Plus you allow visitors to tour beneath the ship.

Without a crew perpetually maintaining the ship and limited museum budgets each of the Iowa's will follow the path of the Texas. A slow deterioration til the point where it's no longer economically viable to maintain.
 
ArmorPiercing88 said:
Actually the Iowa hulls are in great shape. Iowa and Wisconsin particularly, since they were in reserve status for so long. Missouri just got a dry docking, and the New Jersey is in fresh water.
Click to expand...

They are in good shape but they're simply no match for water and time. Look at the Missouri and the bow flooding she suffered before her drydocking. I'm pretty sure a lot of the problems she had were only band aided as costs limited what could be done. It's thousands of dollars just for the drydock time alone.

The New Jersey being a fresh water is a plus though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top