Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!purdue!decwrl!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!vrdxhq!vrdxhq.verdix.com!bsmart@uunet.UU.NET
From: vrdxhq!vrdxhq.verdix.com!bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Montana battleships
Message-ID: <6346@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 8 May 89 01:49:06 GMT
References: <5929@cbnews.ATT.COM- <6146@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Verdix Corporation, Chantilly,  VA
Lines: 46
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: vrdxhq!vrdxhq.verdix.com!bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart)

In article <6146@cbnews.ATT.COM>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 
> Not a lot of difference.  The problem is not fuel storage, not to any
> great extent anyway -- fuel tanks can be used as ersatz armor on a
> battleship, so they aren't waste space -- but power output.  Warship
> engines are enormous, especially on WW2-vintage ships which put a
> premium on speed.  (The Iowas are not only the biggest non-carrier
> warships in the world, they are also among the fastest -- faster than
> many of their modern escorts.)  This means they're heavy, which is
> where the tradeoff comes from.  Nuclear propulsion doesn't help the
> weight much (might even hurt it), although it does wonders for high-speed
> endurance.

I remember reading that the Iowa can make 25-26 knots on 1/2 her power plant
The other 1/2 is only required for the last 7-8 knots. this gives some idea
about how expensive high speed is. There was some talk about removing 1/2
the plant and adding other capabilities if the Iowa would only be required to
work with Amphibious ships (LHA,LPD,etc). In fact one problem with the
MO was that it ran aground in Chesepeake bay in 1952 or 3 and after getting
her off ( they used 750 lb depth charges to rock her off) She encountered
very severe vibration above 25-27 knots and was limited to a max of 27 kt.
I wonder if this was ever fixed? Some of this is documented in Breyer and 
some came from USNIP during the reactivation debate. 

> >I believe a couple large carriers are fossil powered(JFK or America?)
> >while most are fission(Nimitz, Enterprise).  Did their designers throw
> >out armor totally in favor of armament(aircraft).
> 
> Carriers generally aren't armored to speak of, unless you count the
> armored flight deck (which is pretty well necessary for structural
> strength anyway) and the limited armor around the magazines.  The main
> penalty the non-nuclear carriers suffer (apart from reduced endurance)
> is less aircraft-fuel capacity, since a hull of unchanged size had to put
> a fair bit of ship fuel *somewhere*.

There are 8 non CV/CVAs of the Forrestal & Kitty Hawk classes. All of the
carriers seem to have suffered from gradual weight increase over the 30
years since Forrestal was commisioned. There was a lot of discussion
about Nuclear fuel for the Kennedy and I think in Friedmans AIRCRAFT
CARRIERS A Design History there is a good discussion of the factors.

Bob Smart (bsmart@verdix.com)