JEWELLLW@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU (Larry W. Jewell) (01/28/91)
From: "Larry W. Jewell" <JEWELLLW@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
I was homeported in Long Beach, Ca. '83-'86 while both the New Jersey
and the Missouri underwhen reactivation and each of them was fitted with
eight four-unit Tomahawk Launchers, four between the stacks and four
aft of the after stack, all on the 01 level, the deck just above the main
deck. With the setup that was visible from the pier (me no spy!) it looked
like it would be very easy to add a few more in unused deck space. They also
received four Harpoon units (each with four tubes).
The buzz in the ship yard was that the Jersy would be back for a further
modification in which the after turret would be removed and the fantail
would be converted to a Vertical Launch System setup for 360 missiles.
Sounds crazy if you've never seen a BB, but they would have fit easily.
I can't think of ANYTHING that would have had that much punch and move under
it's own power. (No George Foreman jokes, please.)
************************************************************************
*The man who can smile when everything is going wrong has found *
*someone to blame it one. *
***************************Nixon's Theorem *****************************
Larry W. Jewell JEWELLLW@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDUxanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (02/04/91)
From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) JEWELLLW@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU (Larry W. Jewell) writes: > [I watched]...the New Jersey and the Missouri under[go] reactivation > ... Tomahawk Launchers [were added] ... it looked like it would be > very easy to add a few more in unused deck space. > The buzz in the ship yard was that the Jersy would be back for a > further modification in which the after turret would be removed and > the fantail would be converted to a Vertical Launch System setup for > 360 missiles. Sounds crazy if you've never seen a BB, but they would > have fit easily. >From taking a couple of ships through yard periods to add equipment above the main deck, and helping with the calculations, the controlling quantity is not deck space, but the "metacentric stability"(?) (the tendency of the ship to right itself from a roll); add enough massive gear up high, and a ship develops a dismaying tendency to be most happy sailing with the stacks pointed down. As a result, we were burning and grinding off even little foot square, inch thick deck equipment mounting pads not in use to try to shave every stray bit of mass above the waterline. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (02/05/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) >> The buzz in the ship yard was that the Jersy would be back for a >> further modification in which the after turret would be removed and >> the fantail would be converted to a Vertical Launch System setup... > >... the controlling >quantity is not deck space, but the "metacentric stability"(?) (the >tendency of the ship to right itself from a roll); add enough massive >gear up high, and a ship develops a dismaying tendency to be most happy >sailing with the stacks pointed down. I doubt this would be an issue in the case of the BBs, given that you'd be replacing the massively armored turret/magazine structure with relatively light missiles. As I heard it, one problem with doing aft-deck revamping on the BBs was the difficulty of lifting the 2000-ton turret off! There have been various proposals for doing something with the aft deck, including replacing the aft turret with an armored hangar and flight platform for Harriers. The financial climate seems to be against any major modifications in those old ships, though. -- "Maybe we should tell the truth?" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Surely we aren't that desperate yet." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (02/06/91)
From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) [third party material;] >>> The buzz in the ship yard was that the Jersy would be back for a >>> further modification in which the after turret would be removed and >>> the fantail would be converted to a Vertical Launch System setup... xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan): >> ... the controlling quantity is not deck space, but the "metacentric >> stability"(?) (the tendency of the ship to right itself from a roll)... henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer): > I doubt this would be an issue in the case of the BBs, given that > you'd be replacing the massively armored turret/magazine structure > with relatively light missiles. I don't have any personal stats on BBs, I was just trying to counter the meme that says "plenty of room on deck" means "OK to add equipment". I would guess that 360 vertical missile silos with load would mass quite a bit themselves, though. > As I heard it, one problem with doing aft-deck revamping on the BBs > was the difficulty of lifting the 2000-ton turret off! Good point. As of 1985, the largest shipyard bridge crane in the US, the one at Newport News Shipbuilding, had a capacity of only 900 tons. Unless some US yard has built a bigger one since, you either take it to one of the foreign yards that builds supertankers front to back and lifts whole athwartships sections of ships into place, that might have a crane of that capacity, or you cut it up and take it off in pieces. Neither is a happy choice. [Actually, you could construct a truss across a drydock to support the turret, float the BB, weld/cable the turrett to the truss, drop the BB enough to clear the turret, back the BB out, bring in a barge, float the barge, cut the turret loose into the barge, and get rid of it that way, but I don't know of a drydock both deep enough and large enough, though one may exist among US yards. Slow and expensive way to do the job, but it does keep the turret reasonably intact for later reuse if desired.] Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> -- [So tell me, moderator, is maintaining the equipment part of military science?] [mod.note: Yup... Design for Maintainability. 8-) - Bill ]