Return of the battleship.
- Thread starter Tankcrewman2008
- Start date
-
- Tags
- battleship cannon guns ship weapons
- Status
EngineerScott
New Member
Able and Baker atomic tests at Bikini
Operation Crossroads was an atmospheric nuclear weapon test series conducted in the summer of 1946 at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The series consisted of two detonations, a low altitude test and a shallow water test. The devices, each with a yield of 21 kilotons, were named shots ABLE and BAKER. A planned third test, a deep underwater detonation, was canceled after the second test.
Operation Crossroads was a series of nuclear weapon tests conducted by the United States at Bikini Atoll in the summer of 1946. Its purpose was to test the effect of nuclear weapons on naval ships. The series consisted of two detonations, each with a yield of 23 kilotons:[1] Able was detonated at an altitude of 520 feet (158 m) on July 1, 1946; Baker was detonated 90 feet (27 m) underwater on July 25, 1946. A third burst, Charlie, planned for 1947, was canceled primarily because of the Navy's inability to decontaminate the target ships after the Baker test.
New York prepared at Pearl Harbor for the planned invasion of Japan, and after war's end, made a voyage to the West Coast returning veterans and bringing out their replacements. She sailed from Pearl Harbor again on 29 September with passengers for New York, arriving on 19 October. Here she prepared to serve as target ship in Operation Crossroads, the Bikini atomic tests, sailing on 4 March 1946 for the West Coast. She left San Francisco on 1 May, and after calls in Pearl Harbor and Kwajalein, reached Bikini on 15 June. Surviving the surface blast on 1 July and the underwater explosion on 25 July, she was taken into Kwajalein and decommissioned there on 29 August. Later towed to Pearl Harbor, she was studied during the next two years, and on 8 July 1948 was towed out to sea some 40 mi (35 nmi; 64 km) and there sunk after an 8-hour pounding by ships and planes carrying out full-scale battle maneuvers with new weapons. An article in Naval Aviation News (October 1948) described the weapons exercise that USS New York was subjected to:
"The ex-BB's New York and Nevada, having survived the tests at Bikini, were towed from Pearl Harbor to a spot south of Oahu, and there were subjected to an unmerciful pounding by fleet air and surface units. Planes led by the commanding officer of Fleet All Weather Training Unit Pacific (FAWTUPAC), Captain Paul H. Ramsey, USN, were in on both kills. On 7 July 1948 the New York was the first to feel the sting of the fighters and attack aircraft. Twenty-six planes, consisting of two F7F-4Ns, six F8F-1Ns, twelve F6F-5Ns, and six TBM-3Ns dropped a total of 48 500-pound bombs, 40 100-pound bombs, 98 5-inch HVARs and expended 4,100 rounds of .50 caliber ammunition. Twenty-one direct hits were scored with the 500-pound bombs, 20 direct hits were scored with the 100-pound bombs, and 56 direct hits were scored with the 5-inch HVARs. While surface units stood by and submarines waited to close in for the kill, the tired old battlewagon rolled over and sank as the last participating FAWTUPAC planes recovered from their bombing attacks."[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_York_(BB-34)
us naval history site has info on BB class ships
Operation Crossroads was an atmospheric nuclear weapon test series conducted in the summer of 1946 at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The series consisted of two detonations, a low altitude test and a shallow water test. The devices, each with a yield of 21 kilotons, were named shots ABLE and BAKER. A planned third test, a deep underwater detonation, was canceled after the second test.Operation Crossroads was a series of nuclear weapon tests conducted by the United States at Bikini Atoll in the summer of 1946. Its purpose was to test the effect of nuclear weapons on naval ships. The series consisted of two detonations, each with a yield of 23 kilotons:[1] Able was detonated at an altitude of 520 feet (158 m) on July 1, 1946; Baker was detonated 90 feet (27 m) underwater on July 25, 1946. A third burst, Charlie, planned for 1947, was canceled primarily because of the Navy's inability to decontaminate the target ships after the Baker test.
New York prepared at Pearl Harbor for the planned invasion of Japan, and after war's end, made a voyage to the West Coast returning veterans and bringing out their replacements. She sailed from Pearl Harbor again on 29 September with passengers for New York, arriving on 19 October. Here she prepared to serve as target ship in Operation Crossroads, the Bikini atomic tests, sailing on 4 March 1946 for the West Coast. She left San Francisco on 1 May, and after calls in Pearl Harbor and Kwajalein, reached Bikini on 15 June. Surviving the surface blast on 1 July and the underwater explosion on 25 July, she was taken into Kwajalein and decommissioned there on 29 August. Later towed to Pearl Harbor, she was studied during the next two years, and on 8 July 1948 was towed out to sea some 40 mi (35 nmi; 64 km) and there sunk after an 8-hour pounding by ships and planes carrying out full-scale battle maneuvers with new weapons. An article in Naval Aviation News (October 1948) described the weapons exercise that USS New York was subjected to:
"The ex-BB's New York and Nevada, having survived the tests at Bikini, were towed from Pearl Harbor to a spot south of Oahu, and there were subjected to an unmerciful pounding by fleet air and surface units. Planes led by the commanding officer of Fleet All Weather Training Unit Pacific (FAWTUPAC), Captain Paul H. Ramsey, USN, were in on both kills. On 7 July 1948 the New York was the first to feel the sting of the fighters and attack aircraft. Twenty-six planes, consisting of two F7F-4Ns, six F8F-1Ns, twelve F6F-5Ns, and six TBM-3Ns dropped a total of 48 500-pound bombs, 40 100-pound bombs, 98 5-inch HVARs and expended 4,100 rounds of .50 caliber ammunition. Twenty-one direct hits were scored with the 500-pound bombs, 20 direct hits were scored with the 100-pound bombs, and 56 direct hits were scored with the 5-inch HVARs. While surface units stood by and submarines waited to close in for the kill, the tired old battlewagon rolled over and sank as the last participating FAWTUPAC planes recovered from their bombing attacks."[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_York_(BB-34)
us naval history site has info on BB class ships
And this site has all the information you will ever need to know about Knitting - Learn to Knit - Knitting Patternsus naval history site has info on BB class ships
It's about as relevant to the current discussion.
EngineerScott
New Member
well if you want
but i want to know yours first
and i was asked yield of the atomic devices used in cross roads
knitting is a zen technique it helps
whats your point:duel
but i want to know yours first
and i was asked yield of the atomic devices used in cross roads
knitting is a zen technique it helps
whats your point:duel
Cross posting is not something that we encourage, although I'm guilty of doing it on WAB as well.
However, one of the DefProfs on WAB was the prog manager for the Iowas, and he has made it pretty clear that some of the commentary on the Iowas in the public domain is absolute tosh.
the reason I say that is because I'm in a restricted online discussion group where a senior member has made similar claims about what the BB's carried and could do. The prog manager has unequivocably rejected some of the internet chat as too much NCIS and pretend engineers making things up along the way.
the thread is not visible in WAB public threads, but I'm happy to flag it (partial content) offline to those with a need to be informed rather than a continuation of this particular thread.
Please do. I find the whole reactivation "debate" highly interesting.
Seconded, it'd be good to see a comprehensive rebuttal.
I think you might have misunderstood my prev. I meant I would not provide privileged commentary into the public domain via an open forum.
happy to field specific questions offline, but not happy to relay it all via the public internet
that might sound weird, but it was an offline chat for a reason and was meant to test the integrity of another poster who was making claims about their expertise (in another forum)
and they certainly more than have a person in there qualified to talk about that particular class
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Definitely agree with you on that one. And from the sounds of it they are quite happy to part with what information they can.
Under normal circumstances I'd be quite happy to flap my gums off, but as it was wrapped around a private conversation re testing other peoples credentials, then it puts me in an invidious position.
EngineerScott
New Member
what so i knit
i like knitting do i have to show a sweater to prove it
im so mad now.
i like knitting do i have to show a sweater to prove it
im so mad now.
Ah, totally misunderstood what you meant. Sorry about that, by no means did I intend to pry into anything private.
Thanks for the suggestion Steve, might go check those forums out.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Didn't mean to suggest that, meant to suggest that people may want to ask Rusty and Ytlas? themselves.
Invidious? Had to look that one up.
:Bonza, no problem.
Steve
Excellent! Can I place an order for a fishermans cableknit please in mushroom colour with leather reinforcements on elbows and shoulders? Size L.i like knitting do i have to show a sweater to prove it
im so mad now.
t68
Well-Known Member
In response to someone saying about the reactivation of an Iowa Class Battleship for shore bombardment needs for the Marines and with the Zumwalt class being scaled back to 2 of her kind.
Could an evolved Arleigh Burke Destroyer be made with twin 155mm guns fore and aft and a single 5”gun mounted near the forecastle with a secondary capability of Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System and all built to same as flight IIA ships with the exception of the following ,
BGM-109 Tomahawk
RGM-84 Harpoon SSM
SM-2 Standard SAM
SM-3 Standard Ballistic Missile Defense
All other armament stay, now this evolved Arleigh Burke is purely to be used with the marines for NGS.
I am ready to be shot down in flames for suggesting such a vessel with virtually one goal in mind or even if the USN has such a need for a ship.
Could an evolved Arleigh Burke Destroyer be made with twin 155mm guns fore and aft and a single 5”gun mounted near the forecastle with a secondary capability of Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System and all built to same as flight IIA ships with the exception of the following ,
BGM-109 Tomahawk
RGM-84 Harpoon SSM
SM-2 Standard SAM
SM-3 Standard Ballistic Missile Defense
All other armament stay, now this evolved Arleigh Burke is purely to be used with the marines for NGS.
I am ready to be shot down in flames for suggesting such a vessel with virtually one goal in mind or even if the USN has such a need for a ship.
A twin 155mm gun with magazine (in a US design, see AGS) would come in at an absolute minimum 200 tons. Perhaps possible with additional hull sections... definitely not on a standard Burke IIA hull. But with the removal of SM-2/SM-3/Tomahawk and adding in NLOS you're looking at basically a redesign of the entire superstructure anyway, unless you want to carry a couple hundred ESSM.
Although i'd question the usefulness of NLOS in such a NGS system. Just use a guided 155mm round instead, same bang at virtually same range for a lot less bucks (NLOS missile unit cost $466,000, Excalibur unit cost $85,000). NLOS might make sense when you don't have the ability to mount a 127mm or 155mm gun, but if you have them already...
Although i'd question the usefulness of NLOS in such a NGS system. Just use a guided 155mm round instead, same bang at virtually same range for a lot less bucks (NLOS missile unit cost $466,000, Excalibur unit cost $85,000). NLOS might make sense when you don't have the ability to mount a 127mm or 155mm gun, but if you have them already...
Hello couple quick questions.
Hello first time here really impressed with the site. The amount of people who seem to know nothing but are convencied they are all knowing on matters of Battleships always amazes me.
Ok first anyone know a place i can find alot of info on reactivating remodernizing the existing Iowa class BB's and the pros/cons/cost of doing so? Thanks if ya do.
Ok second. I may be a FNG but i was wondering has the navy ever thought of either modifying a existing vessel like the arleigh class with a seaborne variant of the armies ATACMS which from what ive read has a range of almost 200 miles. The range of the future railgun systems are supposed to be 200 miles so there ya go. And if it used something like the MLRS Could probably be fired and reloaded rather quickly even if it was nt put in a VLRS tube
M26 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS)
Hello first time here really impressed with the site. The amount of people who seem to know nothing but are convencied they are all knowing on matters of Battleships always amazes me.
Ok first anyone know a place i can find alot of info on reactivating remodernizing the existing Iowa class BB's and the pros/cons/cost of doing so? Thanks if ya do.
Ok second. I may be a FNG but i was wondering has the navy ever thought of either modifying a existing vessel like the arleigh class with a seaborne variant of the armies ATACMS which from what ive read has a range of almost 200 miles. The range of the future railgun systems are supposed to be 200 miles so there ya go. And if it used something like the MLRS Could probably be fired and reloaded rather quickly even if it was nt put in a VLRS tube
M26 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS)
John Sansom
New Member
Good to see you, Belisari. I just Googled up <Iowa Class BBs upgrade costs>. That might be your best bet for a mix of information and opinion (along with some connecting links to take you further). Lotta stuff there. Can't help with your second question...but would be interested in the answer.
- Status