The Ship Model Forum

The remaining Perry class frigates are high mileage with lots of ware. The USN retires them mainly because of hull stress and general material condition. They are sold to other navies which use them for local operations (aka no global deployments). The USN was going through the Cruiser conversion program to upgrade the remaining Ticonderoga cruisers to the latest Aegis baseline. Major refits on surface combatants have turned into money pits in the past. For instance the Albany class CG (Albany, Chicago, and Columbus) modernizations. Ten CA were to be converted into Albany class ships. The three that were converted went way over budget, took a year longer than planned, and didn't stay in service long enough to justify the cost. The last 7 were canceled. The number of sailors qualified on the steam systems on the Iowa class is very small. The 4 ships of the Sacramento class were retired around 2003. They were in awful material condition at that time. The first five Ticonderoga class ships are classified as floating equipment (except for Yorktown which was sunk as a target) and are used sources of spare parts for the remaining Ticonderogas. Many of the Spruance class ships that were decommissioned early were picked over for spare parts in the mothball fleet. Lots of the spare parts were used on Ticonderoga class and Perry class ships after the last Spruance decommissioned. I think the LCS is a so-so warship, but every one in service frees up Burke class DDG for more important rolls, so I say build the LCS and run them into the ground. The reason the older ships are used for spare parts is because lots of the parts on the older surface combatants are out of production.

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝

Seasick,

As usual, I agree and disagree with your statements. From an active duty Navy perspective, I would like to contribute to your fact base.

It's always cheaper to repair minor damage to an existing warship than to build a new one. In the case of the Perrys, they're so cheap to operate and repair, there is never an excuse to not repair or maintain one.

While that's true, I saw two Gearing-class DDs establish coms with my ship 2 months ago. Those are 60-70 year old ships that are still going...

That was over 30 years ago with super heavy modifications to very heavily armored heavy cruisers to accommodate weapons system NEVER considered for the hull form. Modern electronic upgrades is no problem.[/quote]

That does not matter. With the 14 boiler driven ships, including 10 capital ships, and two boiler C-schools, there is no problem training people to operate the Iowa-class boilers. That's a myth that is said over and over and over again but is still 100% BS BS BS. Please quit presenting BS in your arguments.

The 2 remaining can still be modernized and reactivated. There is no problem there. Why did you even bring them up?

Again, that does not matter. The Navy can always buy more parts. Instead of falling to the way-side as your comment suggests, they could have been reactivated and used for another 15-20 years. In the Navy, numbers of capable warships matter, and those ships had a LOT more to offer.

[/quote]That's the root problem with this logic. You don't say, "hey, there is a cheaper, uncapable warship that can take the place of a DDG...let's build a s#$t load of them." Instead, since you KNOW LCS is such a pile of crap, you need to think about it and suggest a cheaper alternate design and push that. UNLESS they are going to heavily modify it and make it into a frigate, the LCS program needs to end today.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

We are not talking about minor repairs in the Perry class. The effect of hull stress on all the welds in the hull is cumulative over time. The cost of repairs increases to the point its not cost effective to repair the ship. Many of the Perry class have reached this point. In the 1990s many of the Spruance and Perry class ships were run into the ground with deployment schedules harder than Cold War levels and insufficient maintenance. When I did purchasing the rule was that if the prices of maintenance exceeds the cost of replacement its time to buy new.

Next purchasing spare parts for equipment that out of production is a pain. The manufacturer has stopped producing something and now produce an improved design. To produce new spare parts after a production line has shut down is an expensive proposition. Tooling doesn't exist, craftsmen have retired, drawings are lost, materials no longer available etc. Machine shop production of parts is expensive if your talking about an entire class of ships. Pulling used parts out of retired ships is very inexpensive. The Cruiser conversion program for the remaining Ticonderogas is trying to avert this problem by replacing old equipment with newer equipment that is still in production, and less expensive to maintain.


Which former Gearing class are you talking about? Mexico has one in commission but its rated as a patrol vessel, and Taiwan has two laid up in inactive reserve. Taiwan has wanted to replace its Gearings for some time. The reason they still had them in commission was that few foreign sellers would sell to Taiwan.

I can't find anyone authoritative who says that any of the Iowas can be reactivated. For reactivation, all the berthings would have to be replaced, all the electronics are obsolete. The electric systems, including generation, would need to be replaced. Everything related to food service will need to be replaced: refrigerators, freezers, ovens, stoves, dish washers, medical facilities, fresh chilled water systems, laundry: washers and dryers, water distilling. No schools exist for the ships steam turbines or boilers and the engine rooms would need to be brought to current standards. The Iowa class steam systems are antiques compared to the systems on the Wasp class LHD. The rest of the USN now is now nuclear, gas turbine, or diesel.

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝

Why? They have coffin racks like all other Navy ships. In fact, it's better than a lot of the ships out there.


Take a flicker tour through the ship. Shown here is what are "rack and locker" set ups. You literally have a rack to sleep in and then a locker on the wall to put your belongings in. What is the demand you perceive to replace them? It's the same set up used on "modern" ships.

Gallery:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/archiew/5 ... 5053976327

1990s berthing aboard Wisconsin:


USS Asheville today:


The same!

The SPS-49, SPS-55 and LINKs are all modern. Everything else, just like an HM&E upgrade would be replaced.

Correct! Easy and cheap. That's no challenge for a standard "modernization".

What engineering source do you have for that? NAVSEA has told me that the Iowa generation is sufficient to run an LHD sensor suite with surplus. That ranges from SPS- 48, 49, 55, 67, and The SPQ-9B.

Some will, but most of that is inaccurate. Washers and driers, medical, etc, that's stuff that's rotated in and out when needed, but it's the same as on other active ships. You should have included sheets, pillow cases, and mattresses for that matter lol! Don't forget about the hand soap! I have been through the Wisconsin, the Carter Hall, Wasp, etc, and the truth of the matter is that they all have almost the exact same set ups from the early 1990s.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/archiew/5 ... 5053976327

Indeed there are! I checked CANTRAC this week, and that are scheduled as early as June, August, and September at Norfolk that train Sailors in 600lb, 800lb, and 1200lb boilers, and the school lasts 41-45 days depending on which class you schedule. Why are there boiler schools? It goes without saying, but here it is anyway: It's part of the EN rate, and the Navy uses them in its capital ship fleet. Don't forget the LHDs, LHA, and LCCs all use boilers, and they're not being converted any time soon. In fact, the LCCs are likely going to be SLEPed to serve for a total of 70 years...running boilers. See Ronald O'Rourke's report on the 30-year ship building plan put out last year.

The only thing that differentiates the Iowas from the LHD and LPD plants from the Iowa is that they operate at a lower and safer pressure, and they are mounted inside the ship differently. Sure, there are a few differences, but I bet it's not a very big deal. If any BTs are watching, please contribute!

Once again, technically, the Iowas are just fine. They would be fully electronically modernized, and that would be a real challenge for sure. Digging out the 5"/38s and replacing them with Mk45s would be a challenge, but it's 100% feasible and economical! There were already detailed plans to install VLS produced, a second mast already designed, methods of replacing the Mk37s with Mk95 Sea Sparrow directors prepared, a plan to shift to the Mk160 GFCS for the main and secondary batteries etc. Even the Iowa-class Program Manager, they guy who designed the modernizations, has said described at length over at the World Affairs Board how little physical challenge there is to fully modernizing the Iowas.

Look, modernizing a ship that has not been modernized since 1990 is a challenge, but using that as a reason to not do it is silly. Playing like the benefit is not worth the effort of a modernization is silly. Why not quit building ships all together? Building new ships is a real pain in the ass! Modifying the Iowas in the '80s was the same technical challenge and effort as building an FFG. Modernizing them today has been illustrated as a similar but less involved undertaking.

Operationally, the Iowas are needed...bottom-line. There is nothing tangible standing in their way of reactivation. Instead of examining the facts and drawing a conclusion, people begin with the assumptions you described and find information to back that up. My interviews with NAVSEA engineers, LBNSY and Iowa-class Program Manager, BAE, United Defense, former crew members, Ronald O'Rourke, and the CNO Admiral Gary Roughead, that mechanically and in terms of material condition, the Iowa-class BBs are sound. Otherwise, it is clear that the only thing standing in their way is a continued misconception and continued dissemination of incorrect information in the public domain.

Even Admiral Roughead said that the only reason why we don't have them is because of image.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

As a former docent on the USS New Jersey and an MEP systems designer, it would be prohibitively expensive to bring the NJ back into commission. For a start, the casing of one of the turbines has been cut open and the steel replaced with acetate so visitors can see the inner workings. Anyone know where you can get a replacement? The trunk for Turret 3 has had a door cut through it on, IIRC, Deck 2 to facilitate tours of the interior of the turret structure. All of the accommodations aft of the Wardroom on the Main Deck have been removed to house the museum displays. A number of the bulkheads were torched through to bring in additional A/C units (God forbid tourists get a little warm in there). You get the picture. Can it be done? Yes. Is it going to be inexpensive or quick? Not a chance. Of the four, Iowa would probably be the quickest turn-around, only because she hasn't been in museum hands very long.

As far as the Spruances go, I thought the reason they were decommissioned early and not turned over to the USCG was they all suffered from fatigue cracking of the hull in the location of the forward edge of the superstructure, in some cases causing seawater contamination of the fuel tanks, because they were structurally overloaded forward. Basically, they weren’t worth the expense of fixing.

The Spruance class DD's were never considered for Coast Guard service. Too big, too manpower intensive, too expensive, and to short ranged for the Coast Guard's needs too operate. There was a time when someone suggested turning over a few Perry class FFG's, but they have shorter range than our 378's and the idea was shot down for many of the same reasons. Although our high endurance cutters occasionally UNREP from Navy tankers, mostly we operate alone on extended patrols requiring long range. That's why our large cutters have CODAG propulsion plants.

Iowa's number 2 turret was never repaired.

Iowa was being repaired and upgraded in 1990 at Norfolk Naval Shipyard at the sudden announcement of decommission. Her SPQ-9A had just been installed.

Turret 2 was open, the guns were being elevated and depressed under load, and the repairs were underway. All of the armored bolts had been removed from the front half of the top of the turret, and the armor plates were being readied for removal when the "stop work" order came down. All but 47 of the armored bolts were reinstalled. The 47 were replaced with water-tight fittings manufactured at NNSY. The 47 bolts were sent to each of the families of those killed aboard Iowa.

With the exception of the optical director, the rest of the repair materials were put inside Turret 2 and are stored there today. The repaired optical director is stored in Building 1575 at NNSY, the Phalanx CIWS shop. In adjusted dollars, it would take $2.2 million in labor and new HSLA-80 plate and one week to repair Turret 2.

If they wanted to take the opportunity to regun the ship, there are 9 guns available locally, 1 at NNSY and 8 at Cheatham Annex down the road.

So, when you consider that a full VLS modernization and switch to Mk45 Mod4 5"/62caliber guns would be close to $800 million, the repair of Turret 2 is the light-work.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Interesting, I knew the parts to repair it were, and are still stored inside the turret, but I didn't realize that the repairs were that far along. Is that information in Richard Landgraff's book? There are a couple of active discussions going on right now regarding the Iowa's at the World Affairs Board with a certain Gunny still using misleading info to bash them.