Navy thread

[billnchristy]

That drydock pic reminded me of when the Washington was in Dry dock and I had a maintenance check of the sea chests. The yard was working on some of the valves and the #2MMR scoop injection valve was unbolted and slightly pulled away from the scoop so there was like a couple inch gap. I climbed on the scaffolding that was built around the scoop and positioned myself in there for the inspection. I noticed I could see people standing near the steam powered sea water pump that is off to the outboard side of the scoop.

*SIDENOTE*
For those that don't know, there is a pump that is used for slow speeds to pump water into the condenser and the 42" scoop is there for full speed and above as you are going fast enough to ram enough water in without the pump's help. I'm standing in the 42" scoop's inlet in this story.

I see my LPO is one of the 3 people shooting the shit in lower level so I start calling out "George!" They all look around. I do it again "George!" Now they're really confused as there is nobody around and they keep hearing his name being called. "GEORGE!" then finally "I'm in the scoop!"

They all look down and see my eyes in the gap and just start laughing.

[Llarry]

A new type medical ship has been authorized for construction for the Navy. It is based on the Expeditionary Fast Transport (T-EPF) catamaran but lengthened and perhaps not quite as fast. News articles state it will have multiple operating rooms and a full range of medical services onboard but the size is much smaller than the hospital ships. The catamaran design means that it is better suited to shallow water operations.

The first ship, once done, will be the USNS Bethesda (T-EMS 1) and the Bethesda will be followed by at least two more.

Update: The T-EMS 2 will be named USNS Balboa. What other large Navy hospital is there to name number three after?

Here is an older builder's model.

[Llarry]

Here's an odd vessel -- not really Navy but a ship and defense-related as part of the Missile Defense Agency. The Sea-based X-band radar (SBX-1) is related to oil platforms, but carries a huge radar for the long-range detection of ballistic missiles. SBX-1 is large -- 50,000 tons -- and has about 75-85 crew aboard. It is self-propelled but for longer journeys tends to rely on heavy-lift ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea-based_X-band_Radar

Two photos:
1) Loaded aboard a heavy-lift ship entering Pearl Harbor. Here you can see the entire 279-foot height.
2) Ballasted down and on station. In this condition, SBX-1 has a draft of almost 100 feet.

[billnchristy]

It's about time on hospital ships. I never realized they were just cargo ships converted and as such are still segmented like cargo ships and require you to bring patients (or yourself) all the way up to the top deck to traverse the segmentation and then back down. That has to be incredibly annoying.

It's odd to me that they didn't cut watertight doors into the bulkheads, our carriers have hundreds of them and are considered battle worthy, seems like it would have been a good solution.

However, I am not sure how thick these bulkheads are. They might have also been built in a hurry, who knows.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by billnchristy

It's about time on hospital ships.

I don't think these T-EMSs are meant to replace the AHs. But you are correct -- it's about time the two AHs were replaced. It should not be particularly difficult: Buy a (new? used?) supertanker and reconfigure it as a state-of-the art full-service hospital ship.

I suspect somebody is worried about war in the Pacific with the Chinese and that is the rationale for these T-EMSs. Some sources say that are closer to MEDEVAC ships than hospital ships. And yet they do have operating rooms, etc.

[RobotDoctor]

BB 60 - USS Alabama

[Llarry]

One of the major issues facing the U.S. Navy in World War II in the Pacific was the great distances that the fleet operated from U.S. shipyards. Battle damage would require a lengthy voyage of thousands of miles back to a shipyard on the U.S. west coast. This was a time-consuming task and took a combat ship out of action for an unacceptably long period of time.

As the Pacific war moved east -- closer to Japan but further from the U.S. -- the problem got worse.

The solution was a whole system of mobile ship repair facilities based on Pacific islands. A key component was a floating drydock, which would enable a ship to be raised out of the water for repairs under the waterline.

The U.S. Navy built 7 large auxiliary floating drydocks (ABSDs) in 1943-44 to address this problem. These were modular in construction, with each section being about 80 feet wide. For the largest ships (battleships or aircraft carriers), 10 sections would be joined to create an 800-foot long drydock. Outriggers at each end actually took the total length to 927 feet and the 10-section ABSD could lift up to 90,000 tons.

When necessary to relocate the dock, the dock would have to be disassembled into sections and each section would be towed to the new location, then reassembled.

The Navy discarded all these WWII-era drydocks by the turn of the century. However, new medium drydocks were built in the 1970s and 1980s specifically to accommodate nuclear submarines; these are 492 feet long with a lifting capacity of 7,800 tons. The USS Shippingport (ARDM 4) is based at New London, while USS Arco (ARDM 5) is at San Diego. These ARDMs, like the WWII drydocks, are not self-propelled and would need to be towed if relocated.

[Boomer 2019]

The genius and ingenuity of people never ceases to amaze me. I am not worthy.

[Llarry]

The Kim Family Regime (North Korea) has rolled their missile submarine out of its assembly shed and launched it. Per the attachment, it appears to have ten missile tubes: four larger and six smaller. Not quite what was predicted in the open press.

Importantly, this submarine has probably had its after battery removed to make way for missile tubes, meaning that its underwater endurance will be quite limited. (See 1st photo; but note that the missile tube arrangement is different than that depicted in the 1st photo)

[Llarry]

A group of decommissioned nuclear-propelled ballistic missile and attack submarines at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington. The missile subs have had their missile compartments cut out, making them appear oddly stubby.

Bremerton or Newport News, Virginia is where the Navy de-fuels nuclear-powered ships; I believe they have a large backlog of ships awaiting processing.

[billnchristy]

I'm going to guess some had their reactors cut out too because here is one of the Navy's MTS subs (moored training ship or moored tub of shit as we called them).

They had their missile tubes cut out as well, but the reactor is operational for training. The ships feature a water brake in lieu of a screw so it makes no thrust meaning you can run the engines while moored and the ship won't move.

I was on MTS-626 at prototype. They apparently have added to Los Angeles class subs and retired the MTS-635.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by billnchristy

I'm going to guess some had their reactors cut out too because here is one of the Navy's MTS subs (moored training ship or moored tub of shit as we called them).

They had their missile tubes cut out as well, but the reactor is operational for training. The ships feature a water brake in lieu of a screw so it makes no thrust meaning you can run the engines while moored and the ship won't move.

I was on MTS-626 at prototype. They apparently have added to Los Angeles class subs and retired the MTS-635.

According to Wikipedia, the two former SSBNs (MTSs 626 and 635) are either retired or imminently to be so and two Los Angeles class SSNs have been converted to newer MTSs: MTS-701 La Jolla and MTS-711 San Francisco.

[billnchristy]

I never realized that the IJN Kaga had side pipes like it was a Dodge Viper or Shelby Cobra. JDM got soft in the coming years.

[Llarry]

At least in the pre-WWII big six (Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku (photo) and Zuikaku) the Japanese handled stack gasses very differently than U.S. carriers did. They all had "side pipes." I suspect the Japanese approach was superior under some conditions to the U.S. design of having the uptakes on the island.

The Kaga photo you posted was pre-modernization with the gasses carried well aft; later they were piped over amidships. (2nd photo)

The Japanese had excellent OPSEC both before and during the war; decent photos of Japanese carriers are rare. (Plus at war's end they destroyed a lot of documents and photos).

[billnchristy]

Yeah they all had the short funnels, I just thought the original design was awesome looking. That pipe is massive.

Japanese carriers were not attractive girls but they were functional. Their downfall was their highly combustible fuels.

I don't know if you've seen it but there have been recent unmanned dives on the Midway wrecks with some amazing footage. There are actually 2 livestreams but the sub was on deck both times I tuned in. There are videos though of Yorktown and Akagi. Pretty amazing stuff.

It's Nautilus live.

[3798j]

Originally Posted by billnchristy

I don't know if you've seen it but there have been recent unmanned dives on the Midway wrecks with some amazing footage.

This came out earlier in the week...

[3798j]

Japanese aircraft carrier, Akagi
.
https://youtube.com/shorts/dyxARoAUz...GznwQt4cLMPA0e

[Llarry]

Before Navy ships used fuel oil, they used coal-fired boilers to make steam for propulsion. Here's a shot of the battleship USS New York (BB 34) coaling in February 1918. A filthy job -- coal dust everywhere -- and the crew were wearing white uniforms.

This is an at-sea coaling; the collier on the left just dumps piles of coal on the New York's deck and then it is pure muscle power to shovel the coal into wheelbarrows and on to the coal bunkers.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Before Navy ships used fuel oil, they used coal-fired boilers to make steam for propulsion. Here's a shot of the battleship USS New York (BB 34) coaling in February 1918. A filthy job -- coal dust everywhere -- and the crew were wearing white uniforms.

This is an at-sea coaling; the collier on the left just dumps piles of coal on the New York's deck and then it is pure muscle power to shovel the coal into wheelbarrows and on to the coal bunkers.

The operating word in that sentence is WERE!

The threat in "A" school was that those that don't pass become IBM's, an Instant Bo's'n Mate (those guys shoveling coal)! The very last thing I wanted was to be a BM! It was hard enough standing watch in the air conditioned comfort of the CIC! The hardest part was they got the A/C working in the winter and the heat working in the summer! Took them a year or so, but they finally got the correct source in the correct season/part of the world.

[billnchristy]

Nuke dropouts always became sonar techs or fire control techs so that was our bogeyman.

[Llarry]

A couple of U.S. Navy Littoral Combat Ships are retiring this month after fewer than ten years of service. Thus cementing the LCS or "little crappy ship" as one of the major shipbuilding screwups in recent memory.

Then-CNO Admiral Vern Clark initiated the LCS program in 2001 and it was seen as a program to build 55 low-cost warships through the 2020s. One of the key features was that the ships were minimally equipped with small crews but would be supplemented by mission modules for anti-submarine warfare, mine countermeasures or surface warfare. The modules were a flop. As usual the whole program went over budget and was delayed.

Another unique characteristic of the program is that TWO competing designs were chosen for production. The Lockheed Martin Freedom-class design (with odd hull numbers) is a steel monohull ship of 2,800+ tons full load. The Austal USA Independence-class design (with even hull numbers) is an aluminum trimaran ship of about the same displacement. 16 ships of each class were built and the final ships are being commissioned as the earlier ships are being decommissioned. Disgraceful! Billions of taxpayer dollars largely pissed away. I suppose long-retired Admiral Clark still gets his fat retirement check each month, though, so there's that. (And I suspect that Admiral Clark is not the only villain in the story, either.)

Oh, look at the time! It's time for this old retiree to take his meds!

Edit: Further sleuthing reveals that ships of both classes are still under construction! Flushing of $100 bills down multiple toilets proceeds at full speed. The total number of ships built/building is actually 38.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

A couple of U.S. Navy Littoral Combat Ships are retiring this month after fewer than ten years of service. Thus cementing the LCS or "little crappy ship" as one of the major shipbuilding screwups in recent memory.

Then-CNO Admiral Vern Clark initiated the LCS program in 2001 and it was seen as a program to build 55 low-cost warships through the 2020s. One of the key features was that the ships were minimally equipped with small crews but would be supplemented by mission modules for anti-submarine warfare, mine countermeasures or surface warfare. The modules were a flop. As usual the whole program went over budget and was delayed.

Another unique characteristic of the program is that TWO competing designs were chosen for production. The Lockheed Martin Freedom-class design (with odd hull numbers) is a steel monohull ship of 2,800+ tons full load. The Austal USA Independence-class design (with even hull numbers) is an aluminum trimaran ship of about the same displacement. 16 ships of each class were built and the final ships are being commissioned as the earlier ships are being decommissioned. Disgraceful! Billions of taxpayer dollars largely pissed away. I suppose long-retired Admiral Clark still gets his fat retirement check each month, though, so there's that. (And I suspect that Admiral Clark is not the only villain in the story, either.)

Oh, look at the time! It's time for this old retiree to take his meds!

Edit: Further sleuthing reveals that ships of both classes are still under construction! Flushing of $100 bills down multiple toilets proceeds at full speed. The total number of ships built/building is actually 38.

Sounds like the FAA and the multiple millions flushed developing their sector suite program. I had one scope (technically a repeater) and one row of progress strips to watch. Someone with fewer brain cells than I decided that I needed a monitor to see what was proposed, what was taxiing, what was rolling down the runway and finally one to work the actual traffic. I don't know how they figured out that diverting my attention from one (the strips could be "ignored" as the pertinent information was in the data block), "monitor" to 4 wasn't progress, but they decided to cancel the program. We didn't really care about proposed flights anyway, we separated KNOWN (as in airborne) aircraft, not proposed

The gummint is really good at flushing millions upon millions of our money down the money pit.