The Ship Model Forum

by **Werner** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:02 pm

I was looking at Friedman last night for something else, and I happened to notice that the Des Moines class were considered so revolutionary that they were the only ships for which the CNO, Secretary of the Navy, General Board, and Nimitz all lobbied for additional construction after the end of the war. They wanted a minimum of eight.

They felt they made all other big gun ships and cruisers obsolete.

Of course, Truman had other plans. He was not even sure a navy was necessary any longer.

by **Werner** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:06 pm

lmo1960 wrote:The ex-Des Moines is now in Texas.
See the Ship Movement link at the crewmembers's website: http://www.ussdesmoines.com/movement.html

The arrival photos remind me of Turner's painting The Fighting Temeraire. More than the passing of a ship; the passing of an era.

I'm sure Turner was every bit as sad as the photographer (and myself).

Like men-at-arms with sword and shield;
Grim patriots marching to Yankee Doodle on fife and drum;
Marines with tin hats debarking Higgins boats;
Fare well, old friend. We will not see your like again.

With her passing, we are as separated from the desperate battles of Guadalcanal and The Slot as we are from Trafalgar and The Glorious First of June.

Old friend, the World is poorer for your absence.

by **Werner** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:23 pm

seasick wrote:The Arleigh Burke Destroyers are not being replaced by the new "DDG-1000" class. The production of the Arleigh Burke class is ending and the new class is starting up. The First DDG-51 class chip wont retire until around 2035.

Good chance DD-1000 won't replace anything but CV-58.

by **lmo1960** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:59 pm

The ex-Des Moines is now in Texas.
See the Ship Movement link at the crewmembers's website: http://www.ussdesmoines.com/movement.html

by **Seasick** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:36 pm

The Arleigh Burke Destroyers are not being replaced by the new "DDG-1000" class. The production of the Arleigh Burke class is ending and the new class is starting up. The First DDG-51 class chip wont retire until around 2035.

by **Werner** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:06 pm

From The Navy Hymn:

O Father, King of earth and sea,
We dedicate this ship to thee.
In faith we send her on her way;
In faith to thee we humbly pray:
O hear from heaven our sailor's cry
And watch and guard her from on high!

And when at length her course is run,
Her work for home and country done,
Of all the souls that in her sailed
Let not one life in thee have failed;
But hear from heaven our sailor's cry,
And grant eternal life on high!

by **lmo1960** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:34 pm

The anchor seen on the pier in the first two photos at http://www.ussdesmoines.com/Boone.html will soon have a new home in the Des Moines birthplace.

The museum hopes to be able to get other larger artifacts from the scrapping firm if they are willing and the price is right.

by **Avery Boyer** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:48 pm

http://www.ussdesmoines.com/Movement.html

by **Devin** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:41 pm

Timmy C wrote:The value of various metals are rising indeed! Recently in our city, thieves have been stealing catalytic converters on cars during night time and selling them to metal shops. Also, they're stealing telephone wires and tried to steal electrical power lines (guess how that turned out ;)) Manhole covers have also been stolen. It's crazy.

It's actually nothing new for the more precious metals. I know for at least the past 20 years here in New York that whenever the phone company field techs go out to run copper cables or do repairs, they have armed guards for the spools of cable. Seems they had too many of them just roll off into the night in the past to be melted down and sold as raw copper.

-Devin

by **Kym Knight** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:37 am

It's a bit of a "catch 22" problem worldwide with metal. For instance, Catapillar and Komatsu can't get enough steel to meet the demands of building trucks, excavators, dozers ect for the mining of Iron ore. There is also a major shortage of rubber for the tyres on these vehicles as well.

by **ddp** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:48 pm

catalytic converters have platnium in them which is more expensive than gold.

by **Timmy C** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:25 pm

The value of various metals are rising indeed! Recently in our city, thieves have been stealing catalytic converters on cars during night time and selling them to metal shops. Also, they're stealing telephone wires and tried to steal electrical power lines (guess how that turned out

) Manhole covers have also been stolen. It's crazy.

by **Devin** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 8:14 pm

Metal is getting harder and hard to come by, the raw materials are in need. And as was said, other museum ships can use the parts as well. I know it's heresy to say so, but I wish they'd scrap these ships instead of using them for so called weapons tests. I doubt much more useful data that can be obtained by pummeling a de-fueled, motionless and crewless ship anchored in a designated target area.

-Devin

by **lmo1960** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:27 pm

Avery Boyer wrote:THere is a rumor circulating that ex-Des Moines will be sunk as a target by gunfire and torpedoes instead of being scrapped. One thing supporting this is that the nvr site still has her listed as "Stricken, to be disposed of by scrapping". USS Knox is listed the same and is scheduled for SinkEx next year. USS America was listed as for Scrap up until the moment she was sunk. O H Perry was listed as "Contract awarded for dismantling" three weeks before she was towed. So we'll see. Let us hope for the best, no matter what it may be for you.

I hope she is scrapped vs. sunk, as there are still many things on board that could be used by other museums. The USS Salem museum has recently removed some items that could be unbolted and carried off, but we also have interest in the anchors, a screw, some radars stored in the sealed hanger, etc. These items and more are possibilities if she ends up in Texas, but not very likely at all if she is sunk. I thought it was a done deal, but we will see in August if she is towed to Texas or not.

by **Avery Boyer** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 6:50 pm

THere is a rumor circulating that ex-Des Moines will be sunk as a target by gunfire and torpedoes instead of being scrapped. One thing supporting this is that the nvr site still has her listed as "Stricken, to be disposed of by scrapping". USS Knox is listed the same and is scheduled for SinkEx next year. USS America was listed as for Scrap up until the moment she was sunk. O H Perry was listed as "Contract awarded for dismantling" three weeks before she was towed. So we'll see. Let us hope for the best, no matter what it may be for you.

Kinda off topic, but USS Scorpion, lost to a torpedo explosion in 1968 is listed as "Lost by storm or perils of the sea"

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/SSN589.htm

by **Werner** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 5:28 pm

There was an interesting article in US Naval Institute Proceedings about procurement. The author pointed out that the F-22 is replacing a plane which is really without peer in the world, the Burkes are being replaced by a stealthy destroyer which has no enemy and so on.

by **NucSub** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 4:23 pm

With costs these days, why rebuild/reconfigure them when we can buy new ships that are more capable, have steel super structures for better damage control and a full lifecycle ahead of them.
Besides, we can always sell them to Taiwan and piss of the Red Chinese, and North Korea.

by **Seasick** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:45 pm

What I was mentioning was the reason that the first 5 Ticonderogas were dropped from the Cruiser Conversion Program.

Here is some info on the SM-2ER Block 4:

The Block IV version was developed to provide extended range [ER], improved cross-range and higher altitude capability for Aegis VLS ships, as well as improved performance against low RCS targets and against complex ECM. The SM-2 Block IV is a kinematic improvement beyond the SM-2 Block III, incorporating a thrust-vector controlled booster, a more robust airframe, and guidance and control modifications for improved altitude/range/cross-range coverage against high-performance, low radar cross-section threats in a stressing electronic countermeasures (ECM) environment. Standard-2 ER incorporates the same midcourse guidance as the MR version.

RIM-67E was an interim designation of the SM-2ER Block IV. The Navy initially proposed the designation RIM-68A for the Block IV missile, in sequence with the RIM-66 and RIM-67. However, the designation RIM-156A was allocated instead.

The Standard Missile-2 Block IV program experienced considerable development problems and schedule delays in 1991. Primarily due to booster problems, the first successful propulsion test vehicle firing was been delayed more than a year. As a result, the initial production decision, once scheduled for the middle of fiscal year 1991, slipped until December 1992, the first quarter of fiscal year 1993. Since only early IOT&E of SM-2 Block IV was conducted to support its LRIP decision, its capability was never fully determined (capability was not demonstrated against ASCM threat representative, maneuvering targets nor against low altitude, low Doppler targets). That is, the Block IV program was restructured, with the intention to proceed to DT&E/OT&E to support a full production decision if technical problems are encountered with development of the SM-2 Block IVA that preclude its retention of Block IV capability (never fully determined) against anti-air warfare threats.

In addition to providing significant increases in ship area defense capability, the SM-2 Block IV is the developmental stepping stone to SM-2 Block IVA, the Navy�s Area Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (TBMD) missile.

by **Werner** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:19 pm

They could order production of the version of SM-2 Block 4+ which was configured to launch from the ex-Terrier ships. A prototype in this configuration launched from a Leahy was reputed to have made the first successful satellite intercept in 1992 over the South Atlantic.

I believe the decision to decommission these cruisers is based on maintenance/training/operational availability costs as opposed to the viability of the weapons systems. Only Japan operates ships as effective as the first Ticonderogas, and only because they also mount AEgis/SM-2. Many allies operate SM-1 and SM-2 missile systems in rail launch configurations. Ticonderoga in Australian commission would be without peer except for the aforementioned Japanese and US ships.

My only concern is for the unreliable prototype engine automation system aboard Yorktown.

by **Seasick** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:16 pm

Block 0 and Block 1 Ticonderoga CG

The Ships of the Ticonderoga block 0 (CG47 and CG48) and Block 1 (CG49,50,51) are armed with Mk26 block5 guided missile launch systems. The standard missile 2 blocks 3, 3A, 3B and 4, and standard missile three are availible only in VLS versions. For the CG47 to 51 to be effective in balistic missile defense the ships would need to have the Mk26 launchers removed and Mk41 launchers fitted. Due to upgrades that have been going on since comissioning, equipment has encroached into space which had been reserved for the Mk41 upgrade. The result would have been 32 VLS cells on the stern and 28 to 32 vls cells forward. The ships would also require upgrades in computer equipment. There are also a large number of other upgrades needed as well as other modifications. Its a big mess, that's why it was decided to decomission them and replace them with Flight 2A Arleigh Burkes.

The Ship Model Forum

USS Des Moines to be scrapped in Brownsville

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: USS Des Moines to be scrapped in Brownsville

Re: DDX and the Arleigh Burke class

DDX and the Arleigh Burke class

The old girl goes to see for the last time

oops

Block 0 and Block 1 Ticonderogas