Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!clyde.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.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: <1991Feb6.025518.18035@cbnews.att.com> Date: 6 Feb 91 02:55:18 GMT References: <1991Jan28.035448.7775@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb4.050242.12253@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb5.035025.1812@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 53 Approved: military@att.att.com From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) [third party material;] >>> 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... xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan): >> ... the controlling quantity is not deck space, but the "metacentric >> stability"(?) (the tendency of the ship to right itself from a roll)... henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer): > I doubt this would be an issue in the case of the BBs, given that > you'd be replacing the massively armored turret/magazine structure > with relatively light missiles. I don't have any personal stats on BBs, I was just trying to counter the meme that says "plenty of room on deck" means "OK to add equipment". I would guess that 360 vertical missile silos with load would mass quite a bit themselves, though. > As I heard it, one problem with doing aft-deck revamping on the BBs > was the difficulty of lifting the 2000-ton turret off! Good point. As of 1985, the largest shipyard bridge crane in the US, the one at Newport News Shipbuilding, had a capacity of only 900 tons. Unless some US yard has built a bigger one since, you either take it to one of the foreign yards that builds supertankers front to back and lifts whole athwartships sections of ships into place, that might have a crane of that capacity, or you cut it up and take it off in pieces. Neither is a happy choice. [Actually, you could construct a truss across a drydock to support the turret, float the BB, weld/cable the turrett to the truss, drop the BB enough to clear the turret, back the BB out, bring in a barge, float the barge, cut the turret loose into the barge, and get rid of it that way, but I don't know of a drydock both deep enough and large enough, though one may exist among US yards. Slow and expensive way to do the job, but it does keep the turret reasonably intact for later reuse if desired.] Kent, the man from xanth. -- [So tell me, moderator, is maintaining the equipment part of military science?] [mod.note: Yup... Design for Maintainability. 8-) - Bill ]