Calling all USS Long Beach CGN-9 fans

[DrPR]

The Long Beach is a 1950s relic. Virtually everything in the hull is obsolete, with no repair or replacement parts. The ship was in service for 34 years so the hull has to be stressed severely. It certainly would be cheaper to build a new hull than to try to refurbish the old one.

The hull is full of asbestos. That's probably why it hasn't been scrapped yet. I wonder why it hasn't been used as a target?

Phil

[Timmy C]

For the same reason you stated for why it hasn't been scrapped yet - pretty sure asbestos has to be removed before a sinking.

[Tony Bunch]

Hi Guys,
I'm stashing a 90" 1/96 CGN-9 hull "downstairs" at my auto service shop, as I have no room for it in my apartment; that and I never got the acquistion cleared with the wife. Charles Huett has a nice superstructure set for Long Beach made up of 2mm, "Sintra". This will save me a year of scratch-building! I've already used one of Charles s/s sets on my Knox. Lightweight, waterproof and easy to add surface detail to.
I will build her as configured in early 70's; to go along with my FF-1086 and DDG-22 builds.
Keith Bender and I decided the screws were 16'2", so he will do some nice props for my future 96 scale CGN-9.
It's extremely nice to see a former crewmember post here!
Oh yes, I was a certificated Asbestos abatement tech.........in a former life.
Take care guys, Tony

[navydavesof]

I don't understand comments about NAVSEA "saving" LONG BEACH for further use, she was Stricken in 1995 which means the USN was ready to dispose of her at that point and the latest photos of her posted in 2009 show a stripped down relic. The reason they didn't scrap her before this, was the backlog in Nuke Subs needing to be cut-up. I doubt very much that a "modernization" would be cheap ... DoD doesn't do cheap ... certainly not as cheap as taking her apart for scrap at this point.

I asked my friend at NAVSEA what he meant when he said that it would be cheaper to modernize her than scrap her.

This is an excerpt of what he said in response:

• "David,
  
  My statement was meant to convey that modernizing the existing hull is a lot cheaper than a shipyard trying to build a hull like hers again...The hull was gutted specifically so another propulsion system, either her original nuclear plants or GTE, could be installed to bring the ship back to life. It is cheaper to fill an existing hull like hers with new equipment rather than build a new hull. Like I told you before that's one of the reasons why we opposed the scrapping of the Des Moines instead of rebuilding her. The Long Beach is the last of a different method of shipbuilding. She was a real cruiser hull. The thickness of the hull is rare and unique in modern ship construction. It was projected in the 1980s that Long Beach could take 3 Mk48 ADCAPs before she was in danger of sinking...The hull has excellent value...It would probably cost as much as a restart DDG-51 to rebuild her but that would give us a strike cruiser for the cost of a DDG-51."

One way or the other Long Beach is being scrapped.

[Guest]

I served on her for 3 years down in the bowels. I went through a yard period where we had an access window cut out for cranning equipment in and out. The hull wasn't as thick as many imagine. It just wasn't. I also know that there were a number of good reasons why they have waited so long for scrapping. Once a power plant is defueled, the Navy often will allow a ship to sit awhile for half life purposes. Also, the Long Beach and Enterprise have very unique plants which require unique tooling to scrap. The reason why they did not sink her at sea like so many other old ships is also the power plant. Asbestos has nothing to do with it. Most asbestos on a boat is encapsulated and once sunk will eventually be more so as sea growth covers it. What they work at cleaning before sinking is all the oils. No nuclear powered ship is ever destroyed as a target or sunk for a reef. The Navy is entirely to carefull with environmental issues to do that.

[oldnavyguy]

So. They are getting ready to scrap the poor girl. I went on board today. I walked around and found my old rack. I found the engineering log room where I stood at attention being chewed out for one of many infractions. Guilty or otherwise. I crawled around my old work center (M-1) and most all of it was still there. I can confirm with certanty that the hull is not 4 inches thick but is rather more thin. (I won't say what thickness it is) The material condition is actually not too bad. Not great, but not too bad. By the way, it is not open to the public. What a surreal experiance walking aboard her again.
It will be sad to see the old girl go.

[Tony Bunch]

Hi Guys,
oldnavyguy,
I've come to believe that former sailors and officers alike have the most to contribute to these CASF forums, as we modeler's can be as book-wise as a wise old owl, but without the real life experiences to attest or protest; just waiting and watching for anecdotes, accolades and first-hand recollections is what's left. This is real information from real people whom served aboard real ships. The best I can offer is to say that I'm a Log Beach fan, and as such owe a special homage to the sailors and officers whom were proud to have served aboard her.
Thanks for posting here!
I have a 1/96 waiting in the wings to be turned into a 90" monstrosity that will be made to run on local lakes and dedicated model yacht ponds. If you former shipmates from Long Beach see this model, consider it a tribute to you.
That and I'll always have a mini-van to haul 'er around.
Thanks, Tony

[HvyCgn9]

Hi Guys,
oldnavyguy,
I've come to believe that former sailors and officers alike have the most to contribute to these CASF forums, as we modeler's can be as book-wise as a wise old owl, but without the real life experiences to attest or protest; just waiting and watching for anecdotes, accolades and first-hand recollections is what's left. This is real information from real people whom served aboard real ships. The best I can offer is to say that I'm a Log Beach fan, and as such owe a special homage to the sailors and officers whom were proud to have served aboard her.
Thanks for posting here!
I have a 1/96 waiting in the wings to be turned into a 90" monstrosity that will be made to run on local lakes and dedicated model yacht ponds. If you former shipmates from Long Beach see this model, consider it a tribute to you.
That and I'll always have a mini-van to haul 'er around.
Thanks, Tony

Well Said Tony!! As an Aussie with a fondness for Nuke powered ships (its my Dad's fault for making me a balsa Long Beach and Big E when I was little!!)and my well known 1/72 scale addiction! I say well done to all the former crew of CGN9 and it will be a sad day when that beaut hull shape gets cut up.

Cheers Bruce

[navydavesof]

It still won't keep us from making WIF USS Long Beach strike cruisers out of her

[Suvoroff]

Oldnavyguy;
When were you in M1 Div?

I was in M1 Division on Long Beach.
1980-83
1985-86

I'm working at PSNS and will probably find time to make my "nostalgia tour" next week.

Yours,
James D. Gray

[navydavesof]

CliffyB had found part of this picture before, only the back half and wondered where the front half was. I just happened to run across the whole thing when I was searching for something other than Longbeach

[Cliffy B]

Good one Mr. Holmes, pray tell where did you find it and was there anymore info?

[navydavesof]

Good one Mr. Holmes, pray tell where did you find it and was there anymore info?

Found it again! No, unfortunately they don't have anything especially interesting about her, but here is the link!
http://warshippictures.webs.com/nuclear.htm

[HvyCgn9]

Meanwhile still operational (but with heaps of bits to be finished....)

[Tony Bunch]

Hi Guys,
HeavyCGN-9,
Now, that's some modeling! 1/72 is usually referred to as, "small scale modeling", until we're talking SHIPS!

I just got my 1/72 Skipjack today, and it's huge!
I can only imagine my 96 scale Long Beach at 25% larger!

I have a question, and I may have asked this before. When you decided on the sizer of your models props/screws, did you do your absolute best to determine the proper diameter? I have a copy of Loren Perry's 96 Long Beach plans, but I don't trust the props as they are a representation of props in the drawings moreso than an identical likeness; the opposite is true when referring to the rest of the plan drawings I must say. Loren leaves nothing to chance.

Keith Bender and I batted around the size of the screws/props and came up with 16'2" and 4-bladed. I was told by Lee Upshaw that CGN-9's screws were 4 bladed when he was under her in drydock; that was 1980. Soon afterward, Long Beach did have 5 bladed screws installed.
Would you mind showing the screws?

Thanks for sharing!
Tony

[HvyCgn9]

G'day Tony,

I was a bit slack and took a wild guess! I actually ordered a type 23 running set from George Sitek (before I realised he does custom work too...DOH!) and used everything except the small rudders!
The original set of props on my LB where 57mm Scimitar bladed type.....they lasted 15minutes as I forgot to loctite the props and lost one doing an emergency stop After that disaster I got a set of Raboesch 55mm Mtype props which I had on there till November last year when I refitted her with a new set of Sitek props these are Mtype 57mm with the way I set up the A-frames I cannot go any bigger as there is not enough clearance! But with the amount of power N' torque the Graupner 900's have its not a problem

Here is a pic of her current props when they went on last year.

Cheers Bruce

[HvyCgn9]

PS: Are Loren's plans the same as the floating drydock plans?? If so the arrangement of vents aft of the flight deck are incorrect and you are better off detailing that are from photo's. The Model Boat magazine did a walkaround photo series over 3 issues in 2001 that is excellent.

Cheers Bruce

[Tony Bunch]

Hi Guys,
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for sharing. I have studied Long Beach more than some ships and less than some others. I have read the DANFS report but did not commit to memory; impossible!
I have copied BuShips plans in 1/96 scale that were dated 1959. These drawings showed the Polaris missile launch tube placement; FYI. I don't have the FDD plans, so I can't say with any certainty if they differ from Loren Perry's drawings. The Loren Perry plan drawings would be given some credibility simply because of the source; FWIW. I'll study LP's drawings in the area you've mentioned to see if the accuracy is off; same for the BuShips 1959 prospective deck plan drawings.
Thanks very much, Tony

[HvyCgn9]

Here is a pic or 2 of the area I was talking about (and some other nice ones I have come across recently)....and I just noticed I've missed a smaller vent too! Oh well time to get out the hammer....

Bruce

[DrPR]

Tony,

When did you get the BuShips plans? After the 911 attack the Bush administration reclassified anything with the work "nuclear" in it and the plans were no longer available from the National Archives.

I read somewhere on this Forum that some of the plans out there have the height of the top of the superstructure wrong by about three feet. I would trust the BuShips plans for that information.

Phil