Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: BB's Cruise Missle load Message-ID: <1991Feb4.050242.12253@cbnews.att.com> Date: 4 Feb 91 05:02:42 GMT References: <1991Jan28.035448.7775@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 29 Approved: military@att.att.com 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.