Refitting museum ships

>>30961302
Probably as effective as the aircraft they can carry.

>>30961302
Other than being bigger and probably faster, what advancement had been made that is integral to the ships?
As in not the aircraft or any crystal missile etc...

>>30961697
how hard would it be to make a nokia 3310i perform the same or similar duties of a modern smartphone?

Thats pretty much your answer. So much needs to be worked on its easier and less work to build a new one.

>>30961743
Not answering the question
Giving a false dichotomy
Using a strawman
Implying ad hominem
Lying
Reduction to absurdity
Being wrong

>>30961302
stuffed and mounted. bilge filled with concrete. they're not ships anymore they are static displays.

Aren't the Essexes too short for modern jets to take off from them anyway?

>>30961910
F-35s and Helicopters say otherwise.


Still, they're old iron. You could use them as ad-hoc troop transports in case we somehow lose every fucking transport ship under an American flag, civvie or military.

>>30962097
Probably not. Plants completely inoperable, and of doubtful seaworthyness at best.

File: 1470268874155.jpg (529KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 800x600px

>>30961302
Reminds me of battlestar galactica

>>30961783
Not even the guy you're replying to, but are you delusional? Seriously, did you watch Battleship for the first time and were too distracted by Rhianna's non-existent tits to realize the absurdity of converting a museum ship to an active warship? Let's just forget that fact that most of these boats are stripped of their equipment prior to becoming museum ships and assume that everything's left in there. They are so goddamn old that you would have to replace miles of pipes and cables and several components to get just the actual propulsion plant operable again. These things fail and there's a reason the boats are retired...because you've reached the operable limits to these things. I'm not even going to approach the fact that some of the equipment on board is so outdated that you have no one that knows how to use it, let alone have anyone to train (admittedly) retarded teenagers to use it. Stop being fuckin retarded.

>>30961302
Hey guys, what if ninjas broke into the army and stole every m16, would the army use the flintlocks from museums?

>>30963550
No they would use the ARs that are in every sporting goods store

>>30963490
Not the guy you replied to, but that movie was fun as hell just for the scenes where they killed off the aliumz.

Also the olds dudes driving the Mo was raging funboner

>>30963614
Ya dude. I actually enjoyed it for how shit it was. And I'm from NC, so the old timer representing Showboat made the movie for me.

>>30961302
The Independence and Kitty Hawk are still sitting at anchor at a naval base in Bremerton, Washington. Those would presumably be much easier to retrofit for modern use since they're right next to a major shipyard.

>>30963660
If anyone wants, I'm a 20 min drive from the carriers and really need an excuse to drive by and take shitty pics of them

>>30963667
Go ahead and do it

>>30963678
wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

It would take years.

Throw gobs of money at them and you might reduce that to one year.

And thats to make them combat ready, not top of the line.

it would be probably easier to build new temporary carriers from some random tanker or any other ship which couldn't climb a tree fast enough to avoid your hands being laid on her

File: image.jpg (2MB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1936px

>>30963716
The nearest decommissioned ship.

Other than finding live ordnance, she is at least still complete. And supposedly her engines are functioning.

So that just leaves actually making her sea worthy again.

No problem!

>>30961302
The Midway was the only one of those set up for jet fighters and even then everything was taken off of it

>>30961783
Actually he gave you a pretty good analogy for the situation youd run into. A bunch of old ships set up for equipment we dont have and dont make anymore that probably arent compatible with what we do have.

But its cool, at least you paid attention in your debate class.

File: Bbxgjzi.jpg (135KB, 896x571px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 896x571px

>>30961302
No need, just refit mothballed carriers. The navy has plenty of those.

>>30961302
All of those used gear turbine engines that haven't been build in half a century. No spare parts exists for them and to operate them would require they be rebuilt, effectively, from the ground up.

This would leave them in drydock for 8 months or so while either a new power-plant was built and designed for the ship or tooling was built to produce the old Westinghouse geared turbines.

There's a lot of other problems, but I think they could all be solved while the basic propulsion problem was addressed.

>>30963810
Couldn't you just convert for diesel electric propulsion. It wouldn't be fast but it would move.

>>30961302

if this is your fetish, Harry Turtledove has written books just on this subject matter , though I believe it was gunships

File: image.jpg (516KB, 1442x1358px) Image search: [Google]

516KB, 1442x1358px

Come at me China!

>>30961302

They aren't seaworthy anymore. Full stop, end of story.

They aren't just like floating in the water, they are moored permanently to the land. They are filled with concrete. They are islands now.

All the elevators, hydraulics, engines, everything has been removed to allow more museum space inside the ships. The crew quarters have been gutted, the Yorktown is REALLY cool because they kept some of the quarters intact so you can see what it was actually like, but it's a tiny fraction that's been preserved.

It would be VASTLY easier to just build a new ship. We don't even make the equipment that those old ships are built for anymore.

>>30964043
Lexington has crew quarters too, I've spent the night on board a couple times in JROTC during high school

>>30964085
>>30964043
You are all missing the point that we would only set aims on old ships once we run out of the ability to MAKE new ones. Once that straw breaks, we would convert everything from oil tankers to the old ships and make them able to float. Once we hit the point we are actually making museum ships and decom. ships water worthy, it doesnt matter about what works and what doesn't: If it floats, its given a combat load

No to museums.

We could use LHA's to act as a stopgap carrier force.

Or long range strategic bombers to glass whomever sunk all our carriers.

>>30964129
>what is 'moving the goal posts', Alex?

Regardless, this fact does not matter. Let's ignore the fact that the OP stated we would convert these ships in the case that our current fleet was decimated. If we've lost the ability to build new carriers then we have most certainly lost the ability to refit museum ships to be combat capable. Are you really this fucking dense?

>>30964307
It aint hard to retrofit a ship to just float lad. If we lack the steel to make an entite ship, then we do what we can to atleast make one float and then strap some useable gun platform on it such as tanks lining the plane deck or some such thing.

>>30964129
I think the point that people are trying to make is that even if these ships weren't full of concrete and utterly un-seaworthy, and even if all the shipyards in the western hemisphere were destroyed and so on and so forth, that If the USA was at war, whether it was up shit creek sans paddle or doing okay (except for the inexplicable destruction of its navy), if it was desperately in need of naval presence of some sort, regardless if that's in ten days or ten years, the US would be better off cutting down trees and making wooden boats than attempting to restore these museum ships to any sort of usefulness.

it was a good question and its been answered, stop being salty

>>30962097
>F-35s and Helicopters say otherwise.
As for STOVL F-35Bs, what do you think the flight decks of those Essexes are made of? The answer is nope. Nope, nope, nope aaaaaaaand fuckinnopem8.

>>30962097
>F-35s and Helicopters say otherwise.
Do you have any idea how heavy modern jets are?

>>30962419
It was still in commission at the beginning of the series, just starting to convert to a museum. Whole different ballpark from a completely deactivated warship with propulsion plants which haven't moved or been serviced in 20+ years.

>>30963590
Well played, anon

>>30963667
Get me a pic of the Coral Sea please.
I used to live on it

>>30963950
>still actively commissioned 200 years later
How will lobsterbacks ever recover?

>>30963869
It'd be just as long in drydock. You'd have to cut very significant portions of the ship out to do it.

If we were ever in that much shit, they'd reactivate any mothballed carriers and got to maximum turbo mode on new-build ships. Reactivating museum carriers that cannot even launch modern planes would be a useless money sink.

>>30963768
Fund it!

File: coral05[1].jpg (71KB, 705x295px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 705x295px

>>30964546
>Coral Sea

She's been gone for over a decade, anon.

>>30964574
What?
I wasn't even consulted.
Heads will roll.
It was fine 30 years ago

>>30964559
If we ever go to war against England again I hope they send her out against a fishing trawler or something, just to say that she's still sinking British ships

>>30964387
>It aint hard to retrofit a ship to just float lad.
Fucking really? Are you really this fucking stupid?
>brand new propulsion/completely refitted propulsion from retooled plants
Requires dry dock, probably a full graver's dock. Which, if functioning in your scenario, would be pumping out new builds rather than useless old ships which would be less effective than a converted container ship or MSC ship for what use it could be put to.

>remove concrete from bilges
graver's dock, again

>replace machinery (elevators, rudders, cable/anchor handling gear, bilge/freshwater/seawater pumps, DC equipment, etc.)
Brand new machinery basically hand-built from factories whose production would be desperately needed for new-build ships

and that's just the start of it. You've got a hulk capable of propulsion at this point, not a warship capable of fighting.

>If we lack the steel to make an entite ship
Then we've already long lost. However, this is retarded, considering the museum ships themselves are a source of scrap steel which could be useful in limited areas on new build ships

>then we do what we can to atleast make one float and then strap some useable gun platform on it such as tanks lining the plane deck or some such thing.
Congratulations. You're the dumbest nigger on 4chan.

>>30964387
And again, you move the goalposts. You've gone from making museum ships fully fit for service ships, then to last ditch ships if we've lost shipbuilding ability to literal floating gun platforms. This logic is so pants on head retarded that I shouldn't even dignify your posts with a response but I'm taking the bait.

Building on what >>30964673
Said, at that point we've already lost. But let's ignore that for a moment. You're already thinking we can remove concrete from bilges and machinery spaces (we can't even if we wanted to without rebuilding that entire portion of the ship), so imagine we did. Are we just going to keep these ships in place where they're, more often than not, occupying areas that aren't even worth attacking? Or, I'm guessing you're going to pre-empt that question and say you'll float them to areas of strategic importance...with what? You've already assumed that our shipping is utterly fucked, so how are you going to divert tugs in areas where they're probably desperately needed to move this heavy fuck? And if we again assume that our shipbuilding capabilities are fucked, how are we going to be able to strap ordinance to it? And I'm already going to assume that if our shipbuilding ability is up shits creek that our air defense ability is destroyed. Assuming it isn't, you're quite limited in the offensive aircraft that could land on such a short strip, because our naval aircraft would be non-existent.

See how ridiculous this is sounding? You're going farther and farther into the realm of absurdity to justify your deluded wet dream of a "plan." Just give up, delete your thread, and do the world a favor and chug bleach.

Visited yorktown yesterday, that thing is not going to fair well in a modern navy senpai

>>30964856
>>30964673
>same fagging
>Not knowing you can demo concrete and jack hammer it away from where it was poured
>Not understanding nigger rigging
>Not understanding secondary power plants that can be installed without fussing with the old ones
>Not tugging it to a strategic location to use as artillery platform or anti air platform
>Not using them simply as barrack ships
>Not using them as radar stations
>Being this much of a nay-saying cum stain

Get off the internet, its bed time

>>30963768
USS Call Of Duty

File: image.jpg (128KB, 1536x563px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1536x563px

>>30966556
>dohohoho
Listen dipshit, I work in a military shipyard, so I think I can say with some authority that you might be fuckin retarded. The fact there are multiple people telling you such should be an indication.

>>30966556
>>Not knowing you can demo concrete and jack hammer it away from where it was poured
t. someone who doesn't even know what a bilge is, much less seen one.
Holy. Fucking. Shit.

>>Not understanding nigger rigging
Then why not set it up on land or on an MSC/commercial hull if shit has to be that ridiculously, cost-ineffectively and illogically negro-engineered?

>>Not understanding secondary power plants that can be installed without fussing with the old ones
wot. just fucking wot.

>>Not tugging it to a strategic location to use as artillery platform or anti air platform
>>Not using them simply as barrack ships
>>Not using them as radar stations
Why in the name of Thor's blue balls would they use a ship for any of this shit when it would be ten times more cost effective to set all that up on the ground/shore?

Fucking retards. Retards everywhere.

>>30966650
I'd give you a high five through the interwebs if only I could figure out how.

Actually that's a fucking terrifying thought.

>fappin' to Olympic cuties while one-handed /k/ postin'
>suddenly man hand out of nowhere

>>30966650
>Listen dipshit, I work in a military shipyard

Sure you do, and Im a secret squirrel O-3 who says youre full of shit

File: image.png (4MB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1536x2048px

>>30966684
Another picture I screen capped tonight. Are we twins?

>>30966698
It's fine, believe whatever you want. I'm just comfortable in the fact that you've already made an absolute fool of yourself in your own thread.

>>30966698
He's not the one suggesting "secondary power plants" can just be dropped into a fucking Essex like it's goddamn legos, and then this Essex will then be good for anything but a floating facerape factory for anyone dumb enough to sail into a modern war on her.

File: therese-alshammar.png (276KB, 486x709px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 486x709px

>>30966703
such a cutie. pic related was my discovery for the evening. god bless the swedes. fuckin' 38 and still swimming in the olympics.

>>30966714
Hey this isn't his thread this is my thread.

>>30966714
>>30966717
Let me guess, youre both super duper ship experts who also work in ship yards and have years of experience in the field? Looks more like a pair of neckbeards fapping to chicks they will only know with a "www." Infront of their name and their knowledge only in the grasp of how fast they can wiki. If you two are done, can the adults go back to talking? Thanks

>>30966576
Looks like a submarine.

>U.S.S COD: DEEP BLUE

>>30966737
>youre both super duper ship experts
Not really. But I did work for Electric Boat for 6 years before going back to school.

>Looks more like a pair of neckbeards fapping to chicks they will only know with a "www." Infront of their name and their knowledge only in the grasp of how fast they can wiki.
It's literally basic common sense for anyone who's spent time on a boat of any size. It requires zero knowledge of the old carriers, the Navy or even shipbuilding. Anyone who has ever owned a boat knows you're a complete moron. We just happen to have had first hand experience with the shit you're so blithely suggesting like it's nothing, or flat handwaving away. What is abundantly clear is just how minuscule your knowledge of anything you're proposing is.

You can't fix stupid, though, so this is where I get off the ride.

>>30966765
>You can't fix stupid, though, so this is where I get off the ride.
>getting off the ride because youre too small minded with your immense knowledge of fishing boats.

Kay.

>>30966737
>adults
top fucking kek

my twelve year old nephew has more realistic and logical daydreams about ridiculous military scenarios. you're just a fuckin idiot.

>>30961302
Well the Midway, being the largest aircraft carrier in the world at the time it was built (before modernization), so probably the midway with an arsenal of F-14 Tomcats and whatever few aircraft are on deck like A-4 Skyhawks and E-2Ds. Living near one has its perks.

>>30963550
You might just be onto something...

>>30966765
EB? No way, me too! We actually do have the common sense together in this thread.

>>30966776
>F-14 Tomcats
The Midway was never able to launch F-14s. The largest fighters it could launch were F-4s and F-18s. Also, the US doesn't have any F-14s left. They were all scrapped.

>>30961302
>refitting aircraft carriers

haha

The only big museum ships which the US has plan to modernise/refit in case of troubles are Iowa and Wisconsin.

>>30966798
>EB
No fuckin way.

Man, I loved working there, even with all the pressure and deadlines. Going back to finish college and grad school after that just seemed like total cake.

I'd say leave a socket wrench set in a ballast tank for me, but that shit isn't even funny to joke about.

I'll leave braining the retard with some common sense to you. I've got an early morning. Later EB bro.

>>30966872
>>30966798
>>30966765
>Neckbeards RP as boat technicians on an Alpaca Mulch Making Forum

File: Screenshot_20160813-020750.png (1MB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x2560px

>>30966866
Sounds pretty cheap when compared to the cost of a brand new carrier or Battleship

>>30961302
cool

>>30966576
This torpedo salvo brought to you by MntnDeW!

>>30961302

It would be a less retarded idea to recommission the Iowas.

>>30961302
7 months

>>30966936

I swear the Navy is tsundre for the old BBs: they don't want to admit that they're obsolete beyond the possibility of ever being used again even though they know it's the case, because that would mean they're "dead", and they're making it look like "only" a couple billion to keep on that glimmer of hope.

If anything, they should be worrying about Texas.

>>30963804
thats... the enterprise isn't it?

File: image.jpg (315KB, 1152x864px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1152x864px

>>30966757
It is a sub.

Its one last ones in the US that hasnt been altered in any way.

Aka no holes cut in her.

File: image.jpg (53KB, 620x735px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 620x735px

>Not posting the Olympic Milf.

The hull of the Yorktown is eggshell thin due to rusting. It also been grounded.

Fixing her would require a full refit from the ground up and a full yard.

It would be easier to build a carrier from scratch since a brand new carrier wouldn't require you to figure out what half the pipes and conduits actually carry.

>>30961302
If we are up against an enemy that can sink 11 carriers at once, refitting some dinosaur carriers won't help us at all.

>>30963490
>>30963771
No faggot. I'm not op and that's not what I even asked.
I asked what advancement, integral in the design, as opposed to an added piece like an upgraded radar or something, has been made. I know they're bigger longer and probably faster due to better engines and more efficient hull but what else?

It's a reasonable question.

>>30968745
To be quite honest famalam, the most striking difference I've seen between that and the ships we're building today is electric distribution infrastructure. Without going into too much detail, those who know the electrical distribution differences between 688s and Virginia submarines know what I'm talking about. Another good example would be the Zumwalts. While I don't have much experience with that ship personally, I'm willing to bet that between the switch from gas turbine to turbo-electric drive and the original intention of having it be a test platform for high energy weapons that the ship was designed with a much more robust electric distribution system compared to Arleigh Burkes.

>>30963950
>a fucking 200 year old sail ship is in commision
>a fucking battleship isn't

>>30970265
Keeping wood afloat is easy, the wood that is actually used to keep her sailing isn't 200 years old
Keeping a Battleship isn't