StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Many old ships are scrapped. From the little I know, it seems that, for example, old first and second generation Soviet subs are cut up- but what happens then? What happens to all the material? Can anything be done with it? Where does it go? Is it reused for other purposes? Does 30 years in the ocean have an effect?

Steel has been recycled for a very long time. It's one of the few materials we have a good recycling record with. I believe any corrosion is removed in the reforging process.

They become razor blades... Fate of all military ships eventually, excepting of course, those that sink first...

Does 30 years in the ocean have an effect?

They do have an effect on the hull plates, though not on the material itself.
The most common reforging process, is simply melting the steel.

If you know what other metals were added to the steel during the original forging process (such as chrome) you just have to reach the temperature at which the other metals vaporize.
The result is pure iron.

So basically you could brake up a submarine hull, melt the steel, make new steel from the iron and build another submarine hull. Or a car. Or something completely different.

Ah k cool!

Razor blades though?

Razor blades though?

I guess they're more likely to be made from cars.
There are not enough military ships there to focus razor blade production on warship steel exclusively

An interesting question would be, though, how many razor blades would one need to build the HMS Dreadnought?

Cpt_Frank wrote:

Razor blades though?

I guess they're more likely to be made from cars.
There are not enough military ships there to focus razor blade production on warship steel exclusively

An interesting question would be, though, how many razor blades would one need to build the HMS Dreadnought?

Phew. Don't wanna be shaving with steel from a warship. Ever. It's a disgrace!

Warships indeed deserve a better fate, especially the soviet submarines and the Kirovs.
It's a shame these mighty ships now rot in the ports, waiting to be broken up.

Cpt_Frank wrote:

Razor blades though?

I guess they're more likely to be made from cars.
There are not enough military ships there to focus razor blade production on warship steel exclusively

An interesting question would be, though, how many razor blades would one need to build the HMS Dreadnought?

Assuming that a razor blade weighs two grams, that would be eight billion, one hundred and sixty five million razor blades for Dreadnought.

Cpt_Frank wrote:Warships indeed deserve a better fate, especially the soviet submarines and the Kirovs.
It's a shame these mighty ships now rot in the ports, waiting to be broken up.

Never fear Cpt_Frank, luckily you are incorrect!!!

The Russian Navy has no plans to scrap any of the four Kirov's. The C-in-C of the Russian Navy has categorically stated that they will all be repaired- only the latest unit of the class (Peter the Great) is operational right now- but the Admiral Nakhimov was in service throughout the 1990s and is right now being refitted. The Admiral Lazarev and Admiral Ushakov (the first of class) have been out of service for a while- the Ushakov because she had an engine accident in 1990; she's been kept in good repair otherwise though.

As for the subs, the current generation isn't going to the scrapyard any time soon:

Project 971 SSN (Akula, Improved Akula, Akula II)- out of 18 boats laid down:

7 Akulas (the first of class has been deactivated pending refuelling, the others are in service)
7 Improved Akulas (four commissioned, one complete awaiting payment to be commisioned, two being built at 82% and 25% completion)
4 Akula II (2 in service, the second being the Gepard commisioned in late 2001, and 2 incomplete)

Project 667BDRM SSBN (Delta IV)- 7 boats (all in service, with several units recently having conducted test firings and having completed scheduled refits)

Project 941 SSBN (Typhoon)- 6 boats (3 in service, 2 scheduled to be scrapped, 1 actually being scrapped. The lead unit, TK-208 Dmitry Donskoi, just emerged from an extensive modernization to test a new generation SLBM- it is now Project 941U.

Project 949A SSGN (Oscar II)- 12 boats laid down. The Kursk was lost in 2000 as everyone knows, and three boats are deactivated awaiting refuelling- leaving nine currently in service.

Project 945 SSN (Sierra and Sierra II)- four boats laid down, three in service. The first of class was deactivated in 1997, but the rest are in service. The last of the class, Nizhniy Novgorod, was in refit at Nerpa since 2000, and was reported by the Northern Fleet commander to be returning to the fleet a few months ago. The Sierra-class is little known, but they are held to be more advanced than the original Akula- but far more expensive to produce because of titanium hulls. The Akula was adopted because it was cheaper- the Akula II however is probably superior to the Sierra/Sierra II however.

The problem is of course funding. There are four incomplete Improved and Akula II SSNs in the shipyards being slowly completed- they'd all be in service now if funding had been adequate, as would the Puma and the three Oscar IIs that have been laid up awaiting the refuelling of their reactors.

As for the Typhoons, they are expensive to operate and at the same time six is plainly unecessary- that's 1,200 warheads- the SORT Treaty signed last year between Bush and Putin limited the two sides to about 1,500-2,000 warheads by 2010. Scrapping three makes sense- and those three have been out of service for a while due to lack of funds anyway.


Also for lack of funds, the construction of the new generation has been delayed-

The Project 955 Borey-class SSBN (first of class Yuri Dolgoruky) was laid down in 1996- however the new SLBM it was supposed to use was cancelled so construction was halted pending redesign in 1998, and work restarted in 2000 by all accounts. Refit work on the Dmitry Donskoi (Project 941U Typhoon) also accelerated significantly in 2000- and the Dmitry Donskoi is supposed to test the new SLBM design selected for the job. It was reported 47% complete in 2000, and ITAR-TASS said the submarine was nearing completion in early 2002. However, it won't be ready for operational service until the new SLBM is extensively tested.

The Project 885 Yasen-class SSN (first of class Severodvinsk) was laid down in 1993, a second was laid down in 1996 and a third was laid down in 1998. The Severodvinsk, according to the C-in-C of the Navy, started sea trials in 2001, though she is not complete yet. Service entry sometime next year hopefully.

Phew! I though we'd lose the Kirovs, there were rumours during the last months they were to be scrapped.

The fact that three Typhoons are to be scrapped is already bad enough, but as long as at least one is left, it's not that bad.

Cpt_Frank wrote:Phew! I though we'd lose the Kirovs, there were rumours during the last months they were to be scrapped.

The fact that three Typhoons are to be scrapped is already bad enough, but as long as at least one is left, it's not that bad.

My thoughts exactly

At least 3 Typhoon's will be in service up until the end of the decade it seems. The Dmitry Donskoi will probably serve longest considering its upgrade and refit and how it's spent time out of the sea for the past 10 years.

30 years in the sea only affect the vessel's seakeeping ability, even with corrosion accounted for. Besides, that's the normal lifetime of a vessel.

As much as would like not to see scrapping some subs or ships, there's the money involved. Keeping a vessel seaworthy is very expensive, especially submarines, there's annual inspections, 5 year inspections (where the vessel is pratically disassembled and reassembled again), plus all the permanent maintenance and support infrastructures. When a vessel is "targeted" for scrap, it's due to a number of financial reasons, but mostly because it's simply too expensive to mantain. And the Russian Navy doesn't have the old Soviet infrastructure behind it.

I stiil weep for the Iowa's...

As for razor blades... That's just a funny way to put it, manufacturing razor blades from ships is TOO expensive. Also, steel properties are only defined after it's been melted and recast, the steel that goes into a furnace can have diferent properties when it comes out, it all depends on how the process is carried, for instance, the steel produced nowadays is of a higher quality than 60 years ago, due to a better quality control.

Warspite wrote:30 years in the sea only affect the vessel's seakeeping ability, even with corrosion accounted for. Besides, that's the normal lifetime of a vessel.

As much as would like not to see scrapping some subs or ships, there's the money involved. Keeping a vessel seaworthy is very expensive, especially submarines, there's annual inspections, 5 year inspections (where the vessel is pratically disassembled and reassembled again), plus all the permanent maintenance and support infrastructures. When a vessel is "targeted" for scrap, it's due to a number of financial reasons, but mostly because it's simply too expensive to mantain. And the Russian Navy doesn't have the old Soviet infrastructure behind it.

I stiil weep for the Iowa's...

As for razor blades... That's just a funny way to put it, manufacturing razor blades from ships is TOO expensive. Also, steel properties are only defined after it's been melted and recast, the steel that goes into a furnace can have diferent properties when it comes out, it all depends on how the process is carried, for instance, the steel produced nowadays is of a higher quality than 60 years ago, due to a better quality control.

Thanks for the info. I know nothing about steel, which is why I posted this thread.

As to the Russian Navy/ Soviet infratstructure- the submarines weren't really effected by it that much. All the support infrastructure as well as the shipyards in relation to subs were, and still are, on Russian territory. Some components of the surface fleet were harmed though.

Have any Iowa's been scrapped? Some are out of service but I think there's an order from Congress that insists that two of them will be ready for refit to go back into service at all times (i.e. not allowed to get rid of them, ever).

I was stationed on a 30+ year old aircraft carrier in the late 80's early 90's and even though it was recently out of a major overhaul there was plenty wrong with it still. Lots and lost of rust and plenty of problems with the ventalation and waste (plumbing) disposal.

My first day on that ship we had black water backed up all over the floor of our head(bathroom). I think it took a couple of days for that to get fixed.

At least half of the conveyors to the food storage areas were busted so we got to form human chains tossing it up and down ladders when we resupplied.

While the ship had the latest in technical equipment, overall the ship was a POS. It has since been decomissioned and scrapped.

R.I.P :

Tsyroc wrote:I was stationed on a 30+ year old aircraft carrier in the late 80's early 90's and even though it was recently out of a major overhaul there was plenty wrong with it still. Lots and lost of rust and plenty of problems with the ventalation and waste (plumbing) disposal.

My first day on that ship we had black water backed up all over the floor of our head(bathroom). I think it took a couple of days for that to get fixed.

At least half of the conveyors to the food storage areas were busted so we got to form human chains tossing it up and down ladders when we resupplied.

While the ship had the latest in technical equipment, overall the ship was a POS. It has since been decomissioned and scrapped.

R.I.P :

CV 60 Saratoga eh? That ship was almost 40 years old! 1956-1994. That's shocking.

Are you sure it's been scrapped? from globalsecurity.org:

Saratoga was towed out of the Naval Station Mayport basin on 22 May 1995 and taken to Philadelphia to become part of the Navy's inactive fleet. In 1998, upon the deactivation of the Philadelphia Navy Yard, she was towed to Newport, R.I., departing 3 August and arriving at the Naval Education and Training Center on 7 August 1998. She was first placed on donation hold, then her status was changed to disposal as an experimental ship. Saratoga was returned to donation hold on 1 January 2000. She remains at the Naval Station, Newport, R.I., in this status.

I wonder what condition CVN 65 USS Enterprise is in. She's 41 years old right now, and will be 52 years old when she's replaced in 2013. Can't be in the best condition, can it?

Vympel:

Go to this site: http://www.warships1.com/, it has a lot of info. Only the Iowa is in the Naval Registry, the others are museums.
As for steel manufacturing, you better ask Mike Wong, he's better informed on it, due to it's material's degree... They go very deep on the subject.

Tsyroc:
Yeah, 30 years is a long time for a ship, even with refits... I take my hat to you, serving on the venerable Saratoga...

Warspite wrote:Vympel:

Go to this site: http://www.warships1.com/, it has a lot of info. Only the Iowa is in the Naval Registry, the others are museums.
As for steel manufacturing, you better ask Mike Wong, he's better informed on it, due to it's material's degree... They go very deep on the subject.

Tsyroc:
Yeah, 30 years is a long time for a ship, even with refits... I take my hat to you, serving on the venerable Saratoga...

Definitely have visited that site, it's great. Although some of their Ruskie submarine stuff is incredibly outdated.

Also, steel properties are only defined after it's been melted and recast, the steel that goes into a furnace can have diferent properties when it comes out, it all depends on how the process is carried, for instance, the steel produced nowadays is of a higher quality than 60 years ago, due to a better quality control.

The quality of steel is to 90% a matter of the quality of the iron used.
If there are fewer carbon rests left in the refined iron, it'll make a better base for steel.

Vympel wrote:
CV 60 Saratoga eh? That ship was almost 40 years old! 1956-1994. That's shocking.

Are you sure it's been scrapped? from globalsecurity.org:

The last I heard she had been sold for scrap but it appears that is not the case. There's a group online that wants to turn her into a museum like the Intrepid in NYC. http://www.saratogamuseum.org/ That would explain the donation hold bit from your quote.

Vympel wrote: I wonder what condition CVN 65 USS Enterprise is in. She's 41 years old right now, and will be 52 years old when she's replaced in 2013. Can't be in the best condition, can it?

She might be pretty good. I saw her at sea in '89-90 as she was on her way to a major, major overhaul and yard period. She needed to have her reactors refueled. From what I understand there were a lot of unexpected complications so the Enterprise was basically rebuilt at about 2/3rds the cost of purchasing a new carrier. That's only rumor though.

I believe Alyeska lists the Enterprise as his location. Maybe he'll know more facts about it?

All I know about Steel is how it relates to Civilization 2.

Have any Iowa's been scrapped? Some are out of service but I think there's an order from Congress that insists that two of them will be ready for refit to go back into service at all times (i.e. not allowed to get rid of them, ever).

One of the Iowa's is sitting in Benicia here in the Bay Area. Ive been meaning to drive up there and take a look. Its anchored in the middle of the water along side a bunch of other ships that are in long term storage.

There has been some effort to make it a museum and park it next to the USS Hornet in Alameda. I would pay money to help that effort should it become a reality. Hell Id volunteer to paint if I had the time.

Two Iowa's are museums, two are in category B reserve but one of those is effectively open to the public. However theoretically the USN could still take them all back if it wanted. But the chance of that happening both for military and political reasons is below nil.

Anyone else heard about the campaign to bring back the Independence as a floating commando base? It may actually be making it in to the next budget.

Tsyroc wrote:I believe Alyeska lists the Enterprise as his location. Maybe he'll know more facts about it?

LOL, I am not stationed on CVN-65, I am not even in the armed forces.

Though from what I have heard the Enterprise is an aging ship that while still operatable, is quickly reaching the end of her career. Many nations that allow nuclear powered ships to enter their waters refuse access to the Enteprise. Make what you will with that.