Cold War Era Alternatives to the Iowa Class

Delta Force

Banned
Does anyone know what types of engines were specified in the North Carolina class reboilering proposals? It seems they were examining 600 psi engines instead of 1,200 psi engines, which would have been better able to fit. The new power plant might have been usable on the South Dakota and Iowa class ships as well. In the case of the North Carolina and South Dakota class ships it would be a power upgrade, and in the case of the Iowa class it would mostly be upgrading to a more compact and modern powerplant.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Does anyone know what types of engines were specified in the North Carolina class reboilering proposals? It seems they were examining 600 psi engines instead of 1,200 psi engines, which would have been better able to fit. The new power plant might have been usable on the South Dakota and Iowa class ships as well. In the case of the North Carolina and South Dakota class ships it would be a power upgrade, and in the case of the Iowa class it would mostly be upgrading to a more compact and modern powerplant.

Also, in addition to this, what about replacing the 600 psi boilers on the Alaska class with a double set of the 1,200 psi boilers from the Leahy/Belknap class cruisers?
 

Delta Force

Banned
Would the 1,200 psi boilers on later ships have been capable of being retrofitted to the Alaska class, Iowa class, and other World War II era ships, or sourced from a commercial firm? Quite a few warships, including battleships, had boiler replacements, so it seems doable.
 
I've heard the Bismarck class described as an updated WW1-era battleship, but I'm not informed enough to comment.

SMS Ersatz Yorck Battlecruiser ordered in 1915


800px-SMS_Ersatz_Yorck_line_color-aaa3.png


Displacement: 38,000 t (full load) 27 knot. (8) 15" guns, (12) 5.9" in casemates. 12" Armor belt, 11" Turrets and Barbettes

Four Shafts and twin Rudders, though
a21bismarck040.gif
 
Would the 1,200 psi boilers on later ships have been capable of being retrofitted to the Alaska class, Iowa class, and other World War II era ships, or sourced from a commercial firm? Quite a few warships, including battleships, had boiler replacements, so it seems doable.

I couldn't tell you for sure whether that was the case or not, but I would suspect it would be possible. What would IMO make the most sense if you are going that route is to use the same machinery that was used by the Forrestal or Kitty Hawk class aircraft carriers, which is eight 1200psi oil-fueled boilers and steam turbines, the powertrains sourced from a variety of makers - Babcock and Wilcox, Combustion Engineering and Foster Wheeler made the boilers, General Electric and Westinghouse the steam turbines. I'm not sure how well these would fit in a battleship, but considering the higher pressure of the boilers and better steam turbines meant you could improve efficiency, I suspect that they would fit. The Iowas were also an eight-boiler, four-turbine setup, so it may well be possible that it would be a case of simply replacing the components in existing engine rooms. I couldn't tell you on the Alaskas, I don't know much about them.

The fact that they were used on a bunch of carriers that saw lots of service (the last steam turbine-powered carrier was retired in 2009) says to me that the industrial base was quite alive and well at the time, so it might be a simple case of designing the installation, having the components manufactured and then hauling the ships into the dry-docks at Newport News, Long Beach, New York or Alameda and installing it.
 
The expertise and industrial base for marine steam turbines doesn't seems to be a problem. LNG carriers still largely run on boil gas-fired steam turbines, and in any case the learning curve for any company that builds nuclear steam turbines for carriers shouldnt be too steep.
 

Delta Force

Banned
I couldn't tell you for sure whether that was the case or not, but I would suspect it would be possible. What would IMO make the most sense if you are going that route is to use the same machinery that was used by the Forrestal or Kitty Hawk class aircraft carriers, which is eight 1200psi oil-fueled boilers and steam turbines, the powertrains sourced from a variety of makers - Babcock and Wilcox, Combustion Engineering and Foster Wheeler made the boilers, General Electric and Westinghouse the steam turbines. I'm not sure how well these would fit in a battleship, but considering the higher pressure of the boilers and better steam turbines meant you could improve efficiency, I suspect that they would fit. The Iowas were also an eight-boiler, four-turbine setup, so it may well be possible that it would be a case of simply replacing the components in existing engine rooms. I couldn't tell you on the Alaskas, I don't know much about them.

The fact that they were used on a bunch of carriers that saw lots of service (the last steam turbine-powered carrier was retired in 2009) says to me that the industrial base was quite alive and well at the time, so it might be a simple case of designing the installation, having the components manufactured and then hauling the ships into the dry-docks at Newport News, Long Beach, New York or Alameda and installing it.

Are Navy boilers a standard size? They probably wouldn't be earlier, but perhaps by the time of World War I and World War II they would have been. If so, that would make changing the machinery easier.

Could the existing shaft machinery support a major power jump if the Navy decided to go for more power instead of freeing up room inside?

The expertise and industrial base for marine steam turbines doesn't seems to be a problem. LNG carriers still largely run on boil gas-fired steam turbines, and in any case the learning curve for any company that builds nuclear steam turbines for carriers shouldnt be too steep.

By boil gas, I take it you mean the LNG that boils off during transit? That's an efficient way to run the ships.
 
A replacement for the Iowas?

From the mid 70s onwards I would suggest a Spurance Hull with 2 x Mk71 8" guns 1 fore and 1 aft and 4 x Mk 143 Armoured Box launchers (2 fwd 2 aft) for a total of 16 Tomahawk Land attack Cruise missiles.

Later refits replaced the Armoured box launchers and the Hanger and Helicopter facilities (but retained the landing pad) with 2 x 61 cell MK41 VLS 1 each fore and aft with up to 122 Tomahawk Land attack cruise missiles. Refit also increased Mk 71 Magazine capacity to over 150 rounds per gun (from 75).

After the Cold war these ships were eventually decommissioned with the Marine assault landing support mission absorbed by the new fleet of more general purpose Arligh Burke and Ticonderoga class ships.
 
By boil gas, I take it you mean the LNG that boils off during transit? That's an efficient way to run the ships.

Yep. Some LNG heats up and boils off in transit, and before the 2000s onboard reliquification was uneconomic. Things are starting to change though, since the price of LNG is now high enough that it's profitable to reliquify on board, and reciprocating diesel & gas engines have gotten efficient and compact enough to dump the steam turbines.
 
Top