We Got the IOWA

RustyBattleship said:
I guess the Russians don't want to waste all those Nuclear Fuel pellets they have stockpiled for those ships. But it makes sense. Once they started that program to build those ships and the funding was available and saved, it does provide jobs and keeps the Russian Navy up to somewhat modern standards.

Though Nuclear may not be the way to go with a missile Cruiser. Just looking over the first photos of a Kirov with some of my NAVSEA counterparts we noted that one 5"/38 common in all those launch tubes up forward could blow that ship to smitherings -- including the reactor.

Hmmm. Maybe a 5-incher would cause us to be a tad too close. A 16" Hi-Cap would be much better. Or a Harpoon at a much greater distance. A Tomahawk might be considered overkill but it would work just as well.

Just get upwind from the mushroom cloud.
Click to expand...

And now you know the gist of the report we filed with the powers that be when I and my two sidekicks toured the Sovremmeny and Udaloy that visited San Diego back in 1990-ish. Lots of things that go "boom" when not treated with respect, and no damage control capability as we would know it, in sight. The philosophy was definitely, "Get the first shot off, and hope they don't shoot back."
 
RustyBattleship said:
I guess the Russians don't want to waste all those Nuclear Fuel pellets they have stockpiled for those ships. But it makes sense. Once they started that program to build those ships and the funding was available and saved, it does provide jobs and keeps the Russian Navy up to somewhat modern standards.

Though Nuclear may not be the way to go with a missile Cruiser. Just looking over the first photos of a Kirov with some of my NAVSEA counterparts we noted that one 5"/38 common in all those launch tubes up forward could blow that ship to smitherings -- including the reactor.

Hmmm. Maybe a 5-incher would cause us to be a tad too close. A 16" Hi-Cap would be much better. Or a Harpoon at a much greater distance. A Tomahawk might be considered overkill but it would work just as well.

Just get upwind from the mushroom cloud.
Click to expand...

Ah, 10 to 14 miles (pending the load) would be just fine to watch such a fireworks display with a great view.It would more then likely sink long before the reactor went off. Way to many missles in the below decks forest to blow the ship in half before any reactor damage. It might go off under water but we have already rode that rodeo in the Bikinni Tests.
 
Last edited:
So, this evening I decide to see if Google has updated their maps yet and show the Iowa at her berth on zoom. But instead, what do I discover? You can now travel her deck via "street view"! But, be careful! You may run right into those who were present during the capture!

View attachment 37595
 
tbm3fan said:
So do we have shore power for the Iowa yet or still on generators?
Click to expand...

We have had shore power for about 2 years now.

We also have our aft CHT tanks running. We couldn't flush the johns through the discharges just above 2nd deck level because they are lower than the city's sewer pipe alongside the pier. Our crew worked long and hard to reinstall the pumps and motors to male the proverbrial run "uphill" to the discharges on the main deck.
 
Well then we need to update a person. I was on the hanger deck getting OSHA training in operating the boom lift. After I finished a fellow walked up to me, definitely ex-Navy, and introduced himself as the technical guy behind our and your flight simulators. He was out from Pensacola fixing ours and we started talking. That's where he related to me that you were operating on generator power and not shore power. First name. Jim.
 
tbm3fan said:
Well then we need to update a person. I was on the hanger deck getting OSHA training in operating the boom lift. After I finished a fellow walked up to me, definitely ex-Navy, and introduced himself as the technical guy behind our and your flight simulators. He was out from Pensacola fixing ours and we started talking. That's where he related to me that you were operating on generator power and not shore power. First name. Jim.
Click to expand...

Getting shore power hooked up was one of our first priorities. Also getting fresh water supply in from the pier. Should there be a local power outage, just switching over a couple of valves will deliver cooling water to our emergency diesel generator down below (WAY down below). With the fresh water supply (that also serves the heads, chief's galley & officer's galley) we do not have to have a diver cut open the intake and discharge piping in the bottom of the hull for seawater cooling.
 
tbm3fan said:
Well then we need to update a person. I was on the hanger deck getting OSHA training in operating the boom lift. After I finished a fellow walked up to me, definitely ex-Navy, and introduced himself as the technical guy behind our and your flight simulators. He was out from Pensacola fixing ours and we started talking. That's where he related to me that you were operating on generator power and not shore power. First name. Jim.
Click to expand...

Jim is right we have never had shore power and have only run on generators. Just last week our COO got our shore power plans approved by the port. The port estimated it would cost $500,000 to hook us up our COO, with a lot of in kind donations got the price down to $185,000. Craig Johnson
 
Battleship IOWA said:
Jim is right we have never had shore power and have only run on generators. Just last week our COO got our shore power plans approved by the port. The port estimated it would cost $500,000 to hook us up our COO, with a lot of in kind donations got the price down to $185,000. Craig Johnson
Click to expand...

??? Read the above post by Rusty.
 
85 gt kid said:
??? Read the above post by Rusty.
Click to expand...

Well, since i'm a glorified sledge hammer mechanic rather than a sparktrician, seeing all those shore power lines hooked into their sockets made me think the switches were on. Funny thing it, I had my son-in-law look things all over before the cables were strung since he works for the DWP and is often in San Pedro on one of their jobs. I got him signed up as a volunteer, but work and family (married to my hyper-active daughter and has sired us FOUR grandchildren) doesn't give him much time to spend aboard the ship.
 
What most people don't know is we operate under an abatement order from AQMD and without shore power we could get shut down for excessive carbon emissions in the L.A. Harbor.
 
excessive carbon emissions???
Sounds like it is time to load up some powder bags into those breaches and send some smoke and noise up their proverbial.......(what would the Cap'n call it?)..... probably something like "their aft crevices"!
 
SlaterDoc said:
excessive carbon emissions???
Sounds like it is time to load up some powder bags into those breaches and send some smoke and noise up their proverbial.......(what would the Cap'n call it?)..... probably something like "their aft crevices"!
Click to expand...

Funny you mention that because I am told that the #3 turret facing almost due North could reach L.A. city hall.
 
Battleship IOWA said:
What most people don't know is we operate under an abatement order from AQMD and without shore power we could get shut down for excessive carbon emissions in the L.A. Harbor.
Click to expand...

That was what I had on my mind when Jim told me that. LA Harbor Authority had to be the same as the Port of Oakland in cracking down on any and all diesel emissions.
 
Well, I'd be inclined to just take what Rusty says as the gospel.

I did some searching on this, and found these mentions about the shore power subject. They are not definitive, so make of them what you will.

Article from this past August

The ship has faced several challenges, including getting utilities and shoreside power set up. But there are now restrooms on board (as well as dockside) and shoreside power — which will make it possible to run fans and air-conditioning units on board — is expected to be in place early next year.
Click to expand...

And from the Battleship's own blog, also in August of this year:

Mike Getscher has been working with an electrical engineer on our modified shore power drawings. We have received assistance from engineers, manufacturers, and our friends at the ECA in getting this work completed. A special ‘thank you’ to all of the folks that are helping move this project forward, especially the Port of Los Angeles.
Click to expand...


So these seem to indicate that it's possible the ship is still running on generators? If so...damn, for 2 years? Not the ship's generators...right? External ones? Maybe rentals?
 
I can't imagine they'd still be running on generators. You'd think they'd have hooked up to shore power long ago. Could you imagine how much fuel it would take just to run the basics?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top