Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/23/2025 5:38:24 AM PDT by whyilovetexas111
The battleship’s contract with the Navy, Spevak said, says two things: They are “not allowed to touch the engine systems,’ which is one reason why tug boats were used to move it from the dry dock.
And the other is that “the Navy reserves the right to recall the ship back into service in the event of a national emergency.” However, Spevak stated “we have no feeling that that will ever happen again,” and that none of the refurbishments were done with the idea that the ship would ever return to service. The Navy does, however, issue guidelines about how often a museum ship should return to dry dock.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalsecurityjournal.org ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Interesting this is the first time I've heard about this. I guess political correctness was in earlier than I knew. I guess it kinda makes "sense" based upon the posturing in politics.
I was thinking about the 16" Gun Turret Accident that occurred. But I was mistaken because that actually happened on the Sister Ship, USS Iowa killing 42 and injured another 16 out of 58 Crew Members in the USS Iowa's #2 Gun Turret. The Accident occurred on 19 April, 1989. And that is a very busy and sometimes very unfortunate date in American History at times.
According to the currator of the new Jersey the turbines are pretty worn out
Maybe to give you something to worry about on a Saturday morning ?
Or so it triggers Me to flashback and remember things like I Posted Here.
I wonder how many Fish got stunned by the shockwaves from those Guns going off ? (Similar to Fishing with a Grenade or a stick of Dynamite.)
I’m thinking perhaps enough to have a Ship sized Fish Fry Party.
Interesting - thanks for posting. I don’t see that ever happening - they’re obsolete and too vulnerable...
with all the higher power laser and gps guided missles and bombs, the thought of kicking 16” shells is realistically a step back(or 10) in warfare.
My father was on the 1st American ship, a Destroyer into Tokyo Bay at the end of WWII. The US Navy did not trust the Japanese and did not want to lose the Battleship Missouri. So in went the little Destroyer….
**16 inch guns have a range of 25 miles. Not good anymore.
Wonder why no RAP was developed. (Rocket assisted projectile).**
Interesting. I do recall mobile missiles on ships being developed that could launch from 10k miles away. Perhaps they could fit in a 16” gun. The mobility of the ships would be like which-a-mole.
That’s whak amole. Too smart by half.
“firing aiming analog systems”
yep, like obsolete one ton analog computers with thousands of tiny high precision parts and obsolete radars ...
Ryan Szimanski, the curator of the New Jersey, highly doubts that. Among the things he mentioned in his YouTube videos:
It would cost billions and years to refurbish to commission status.
NJ has about half the firepower of an Arleigh Burke destroyer.
The engines haven’t run since 1991.
It would take a minimum crew of 1600 to operate.
There are few, if any personnel, who know how to fire the 16 inch guns.
NJ would require escorts since it has limited AA and AS capability.
It was considered briefly - the old propulsion system is probably not maintainable these days. The problem is that "drop in" part. To replace the propulsion systems would require cutting through either the armored deck or the armored (torpedo belt) hull. Good luck with that one.
The Soviet Union - sorry, Russia - had to do something like that when they attempted to upgrade the Kuznetsov's boilers. The operation was successful but the patient sank at the dock. Bummer.
I used to work with a guy that served on the Wisconsin during the run-up to the Gulf War. He said that the Navy still had a Chief Petty Officer’s in the service that had worked on the New Jersey the last time it had been in commission (Vietnam). Add to the fact that there were still a lot of Boiler Technician Ratings in the service. Neither of those are true today. Just for those 2 reasons, I doubt the US Navy would ever pull the New Jersey back into service.
Fast BBs can go where carriers can’t.
Facing down the Houthis in that Red Sea strait would be one good example. Should have built the Montana class instead of those stupid Little Crappy Ships.
One of the thing that makes a battleship a battleship is compartmentalization. That give you watertight integrity, the ability to counter-flood, and the hull strength to hang all that heavy belt armor. Compartmentalization means that you don't have the open spaces below deck for aircraft handling, maintainence and spare storage. No. Battleships make for terrible aircraft carriers. Even the IJN Shinano (a Yamato-class battleship) was considered an auxiliary aircraft carrier -- which is a fancy term for an aircraft taxi for sailing aircraft to within distance of a land-base. Not for fleet battle.
Of course it is. Everything he posts is clickbait.
-PJ
I was stationed on the NJ for 9 mo. right out of boot camp. Got to go to Hawaii, San Fran, sink a welded up old destroyer and the most fun part, giving tours on the boat to the large line of people at every port. Lots of pretty girls came on board. Gravy duty, 2 hour lunches. Decommissioned in Bremerton then had to go on a work your brains out LGM Frigate at westpac, only good thing there was spending time in Japan and finding a good woman.
Sounds like an overall bad idea due to cost, ill fitting vessel for modern needs, and worn out irreplaceable parts.
Probably better to make new exactly as needed and lots of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.