Armageddon???? - Part Eighty One Up

[Stuart]

According to the inventory(see above link I edited in) There are no real combat ships stored at Suisun other than the Iowa. So either Google maps is way out of date or the offical inventory is wrong.

That doesn't necessarily contradict Her Grace, a lot of ships sit around for years after the formal scrapping orders are signed and the ships stricken. At least one of the Roanoke class cruisers sat around for almost a decade after she was formally "scrapped" and was actually only broken up in the early 1970s. So, its quite possible that the ships are formally "gone" but in reality still there.

Having said that, bringing them back isn't really on; the problem is the machinery. The Belknaps and Leahys had 1200psi steam plants that were always bad to maintain (a 1200psi steam leak can cut a man in half) and they got worse as the ships aged. That's the primary reason why they were pulled from service. After sitting around for all these years that steam plant is gone, it would have to be totally replaced - and that would take years and cost a fortune. The hull just isn't worth it.

The CLAAs (Atlanta and Roanoke classes) would be ideal for this particular war where the primary threat (as so far constituted) are the harpy hordes. Unfortunately, all the WW2 ships are pretty much gone now. I think Mexico has the only WW2 destroyer left now and she's only got four five inch guns.

The Project 1144s are indeed overkill but the problem is not sending what's ideal but sending what's available. The nuclear power of teh ships is a big plus when they're going to a totally unknwn environment.

[Stuart]

They wanted to end the chance of one faction nicking the money for their pet project or future project, and some ones pet project had to die. So yeah, it was spite, they did it because they could. They were not coming back, their was no money, it was not necessary.

I don;t think it was spite, I think it was simply some junior officer brown-nosing for promotion by demonstrating his efficiency. The de-mill order came through and that means, for starters, 'cripple the guns' (on an aircraft it means 'cut the wing spars and fuselage frames'). Lieutenant Dooright immediately grabs a welding torch and some angle irons and sets off to do his deed, thus impressing everybody with his zeal and initiative. Having finished, he's on his way back when teh Admiral stops him with "Oh, Dooright, don't bother to send a work detail for demilling the battlewagons, the order has been rescinded."

"GULP"

Never look for malignity when idiocy is an equally viable explanation.

[Shermpotter]

The embed in picture says Google 2006. There is an Iwo Jima class LPH there. The original closeup looks like several Belknaps and a couple of Leahy class CG. They are the fore and aft twin armed missile ships. There is a lot of transport, and also on the PDF list there are several sub and destroyer tenders listed for disposal, many built in the 1980's. Refit and store those for transit to the other side in hell for upkeep/repairs- that's what they were built for. I would like to see a more recent picture. There's a fair amount of ships in Philly and Bremerton waiting either the torch or a sinkex. Pity.

[K. A. Pital]

I quite understand the logic of sending CGNs and CVNs into Hell: a high degree of autonomy provided by the nuclear reactors can't be compensated by anything else really.

I do expect to see Kirovs down some massive piece of flesh with their missiles or depth charges. Also the eight AK-630 and AK-130 could literally waste most of the flesh-and-blood enemies and at a tempo which is more than enough. Perhaps for surfaced foes the six-30mm barrel autocannons would suffice If not, the double-barrel 130 mm surely would.

I mean, 22kms and a ROF of 20-35 shots per minute, with zero countermeasures and slow-moving targets (the system is designed to kill incoming airborne ASM and other fast targets, planes, torpedo/missiles boats etc). And the AK-130 with 20-85 shots per minute - 130 mm shots!

Total overkill.

[Bayonet]

I think if I had my choice of naval support vessels, it would be something like the old Gearing class DDs. With six 5" 38s plus 40mm Bofors tubs and small stuff, as well as capacious depth charge racks, it ought to be a good sea critter killer. Remembering how the Sea Herald suffered under a sonar lashing, depth charges ought to be murderous.

Unfortunately, the Gearings are all turned into razor blades by now, and ammunition would be hard to get.

[fb111a]

According to the inventory(see above link I edited in) There are no real combat ships stored at Suisun other than the Iowa. So either Google maps is way out of date or the offical inventory is wrong.

That doesn't necessarily contradict Her Grace, a lot of ships sit around for years after the formal scrapping orders are signed and the ships stricken. At least one of the Roanoke class cruisers sat around for almost a decade after she was formally "scrapped" and was actually only broken up in the early 1970s. So, its quite possible that the ships are formally "gone" but in reality still there.

Having said that, bringing them back isn't really on; the problem is the machinery. The Belknaps and Leahys had 1200psi steam plants that were always bad to maintain (a 1200psi steam leak can cut a man in half) and they got worse as the ships aged. That's the primary reason why they were pulled from service. After sitting around for all these years that steam plant is gone, it would have to be totally replaced - and that would take years and cost a fortune. The hull just isn't worth it.

The CLAAs (Atlanta and Roanoke classes) would be ideal for this particular war where the primary threat (as so far constituted) are the harpy hordes. Unfortunately, all the WW2 ships are pretty much gone now. I think Mexico has the only WW2 destroyer left now and she's only got four five inch guns.

The Project 1144s are indeed overkill but the problem is not sending what's ideal but sending what's available. The nuclear power of teh ships is a big plus when they're going to a totally unknwn environment.

Actually, there is a vessel-class that could be relatively quickly built: The Somers-class destroyers modified to carry DP mounts. You'd get half the five-inch fire of an Atlanta, but it would be faster to build than a cruiser. The Somers-class was built in three years during the Great Depression (probably as a jobs program), but during World War II, the Sumner-class destroyers, which were larger (3,300 tons full load to 2,150 for the Somers) were going from laid down to being commissioned in six months.

I'd even go further and suggest that the three quadruple torpedo tubes could be replaced with a mix of SAMs (say, RAM or a modified Mk 29 launcher for Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles) or guns (say 76mm OTO Melara).

Disadvantages: They do rely on fossil fuel, but in Hell, would 35 knots really be needed, or could they make do with a plant that gets 25 knots?

[R011]

I think if I had my choice of naval support vessels, it would be something like the old Gearing class DDs. With six 5" 38s plus 40mm Bofors tubs and small stuff, as well as capacious depth charge racks, it ought to be a good sea critter killer. Remembering how the Sea Herald suffered under a sonar lashing, depth charges ought to be murderous.

Unfortunately, the Gearings are all turned into razor blades by now, and ammunition would be hard to get.

It wouldn't be very hard to come up with a suitable frigate or CV escort. Take an existing design, like one of the modular European warships. Fill it up with 76 mm, 35 mm, and 20 mm AA as well as Hedgehog. A simple sonar and radar suite, and there ya go. For shore bombardment, take a medium-large merchant hull. Add a battery or so of MONARC 155 mm guns and a couple hundred Mark 41 VLS cells with a naval GMLRS packed four per cell, and you have something quite capable of chastising the wicked.

[fb111a]

I think if I had my choice of naval support vessels, it would be something like the old Gearing class DDs. With six 5" 38s plus 40mm Bofors tubs and small stuff, as well as capacious depth charge racks, it ought to be a good sea critter killer. Remembering how the Sea Herald suffered under a sonar lashing, depth charges ought to be murderous.

Unfortunately, the Gearings are all turned into razor blades by now, and ammunition would be hard to get.

It wouldn't be very hard to come up with a suitable frigate or CV escort. Take an existing design, like one of the modular European warships. Fill it up with 76 mm, 35 mm, and 20 mm AA as well as Hedgehog. A simple sonar and radar suite, and there ya go. For shore bombardment, take a medium-large merchant hull. Add a battery or so of MONARC 155 mm guns and a couple hundred Mark 41 VLS cells with a naval GMLRS packed four per cell, and you have something quite capable of chastising the wicked.

I can go one better.

You want a reasonably cheap way to get a carrier?

Convert some supertanker or large container ship hulls on the ways to carriers. Don't even bother with an island - go with something like the flush-deck carriers Japan used.

Maybe you can't use conventional carrier planes, but you could put 60 Harriers and two dozen choppers on it. More than enough to bust up a bunch of harpies.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I wouldn't want slow vessels because then Krakens may be able to catch up with them, and we don't know how many there are. I think for ships we could actually start mass-producing in a matter of months the Cyclone class is probably the biggest you manage. And, again, they are as big as some WW1 German GTBs.

[Sea Skimmer]

I do expect to see Kirovs down some massive piece of flesh with their missiles or depth charges. Also the eight AK-630 and AK-130 could literally waste most of the flesh-and-blood enemies and at a tempo which is more than enough.

But remember the ship only has five fire control channels for those systems, the 30mms are controlled in pairs; against thousands of harpies that would be a serious limitation. As I recall the Admiral Nakhimov and Pyotr Veliky also each only have a single director for the Klinok SAM system, besides the two for Fort owing to funding limitations. Its possible they’ve managed to get the second Klinok director onboard in the wartime buildup though. Each director can guide up to four pairs of missiles against four targets, the Fort directors guide up to six pairs of missiles against six targets.

The embed in picture says Google 2006.

Dont trust the dates Google throws on images. I’m looking at the same bunch of ships in what’s clearly the same image through the desktop viewer, and it says 2007 and 2008. Reality is while Google has claimed (at times anyway) that all imagery is from the past 3 years many of the high res pictures are actually 7-8 years old at this point, though some areas have been recently updated.

There's a fair amount of ships in Philly and Bremerton waiting either the torch or a sinkex. Pity.

The reserve fleet basin at Philly, I drove by it just last night, is getting mighty lean I’m afraid. Most of the ships have been towed away in the last several years, including USS Des Monies which would have been downright perfect for this war, even if only as a floating AA hulk for defending our first hell side naval base. Ten years ago the place had about twenty Forest Sherman, Hull and Charles F Adams class destroyers, now its down to three. It also has a Tico (Ticonderoga herself I think), three Spruance’s, a few submarine tenders and that’s about it.

Also, I don’t think anyone should consider building medium speed ships to be any big deal, because aside from the eight SL-7 class RO-ROs and the four Sacramento class AOEs all USN logistic and amphibious warfare shipping is limited to about 24-26 knots. Even the Supply class AOEs can’t do better then that. Heck most of our existing high end escorts and CVNs can only make about 31 knots anyway.

[R011]

I very much doubt that the blue-prints for all those fifty and sixty-year old ships exist, let alone the tooling to make the machinery and guns. It would be as easy to start from blank paper.

Nor do we really want that old steam plant or ancient hull forms. Modern metallurgy, hull forms, and machinery, like diesels and gas turbines, give better performance, cheaper, with fewer crew.

We'd also get better anti-harpy performance, IMO, from modern auto-cannon like the OtoBreda 76 mm Mk 75 or the BAE Systems (formerly Bofors Defence) 57 mm Mk 110 backed up with 20 mm Phalanx and 25 mm Bushmaster than from the WWII mix of 5in 38 cal, 40 mm Bofors, and 20 mm Oerlikon.

[fb111a]

I wouldn't want slow vessels because then Krakens may be able to catch up with them, and we don't know how many there are. I think for ships we could actually start mass-producing in a matter of months the Cyclone class is probably the biggest you manage. And, again, they are as big as some WW1 German GTBs.

True.

That said, Your Grace, I would like to point out that the engines used in a Cyclone would be more than adequate for the Flower-class corvette, which hit 16 knots on 2,750 horsepower. The Cyclone's plant hits 3,350 horsepower, which should add some more speed (think in the neighborhood of 20 knots).

Now, a revamped Flower would have two 76mm, and probably could carry hedgehog and Stingers, in addition to the AA armament of your mass-produced Cyclone. Tack on the benefits of greater endurance and I think it's worth the loss of 15 knots of speed.

When local naval bases can be established in hell, the Cyclone is a great idea, but until then, I think endurance might be the more important factor.

[fb111a]

I very much doubt that the blue-prints for all those fifty and sixty-year old ships exist, let alone the tooling to make the machinery and guns. It would be as easy to start from blank paper.

Nor do we really want that old steam plant or ancient hull forms. Modern metallurgy, hull forms, and machinery, like diesels and gas turbines, give better performance, cheaper, with fewer crew.

We'd also get better anti-harpy performance, IMO, from modern auto-cannon like the OtoBreda 76 mm Mk 75 or the BAE Systems (formerly Bofors Defence) 57 mm Mk 110 backed up with 20 mm Phalanx and 25 mm Bushmaster than from the WWII mix of 5in 38 cal, 40 mm Bofors, and 20 mm Oerlikon.

The Flower-class corvettes and a number of U.S. Navy DEs used diesel power plants. In fact, the Cyclone's diesel plant has about 600 more horsepower than the Flower plant did.

[Cecelia5578]

Wouldn't having a permanent ocean hole open increase the risk of Hell aquatic creatures coming through to Earth?

[Sea Skimmer]

The Flower-class corvettes and a number of U.S. Navy DEs used diesel power plants. In fact, the Cyclone's diesel plant has about 600 more horsepower than the Flower plant did.

A Flower isn’t diesel powered, the things had a single triple expansion steam engine! The whole ship was based off the design of a whaler too; it is NOT a sound basis for further development in any way. For 1000 tons displacement you can find numerous much more modern ships to work from. Its not like the small escort building business simply died after WW2 ended.

[CaptainChewbacca]

We could open the gate in a locked harbor. Any sea-creature that gets through would be stuck in that harbor unless we let it out.

[Sea Skimmer]

We could open the gate in a locked harbor. Any sea-creature that gets through would be stuck in that harbor unless we let it out.

Any harbor big enough to hold a CVN and modern supertankers is going to be a vitally important installation. We do not want an enemy attack to have the potential to burst through directly into that kind of environment. Anyway, we could easily put anti sub nets and command detonated around an ocean portal as long as it was on the continental shelf, while also converting some freighters into guard ships so that our major warships aren't tied down guarding it.

[fb111a]

The Flower-class corvettes and a number of U.S. Navy DEs used diesel power plants. In fact, the Cyclone's diesel plant has about 600 more horsepower than the Flower plant did.

A Flower isn’t diesel powered, the things had a single triple expansion steam engine! The whole ship was based off the design of a whaler too; it is NOT a sound basis for further development in any way. For 1000 tons displacement you can find numerous much more modern ships to work from. Its not like the small escort building business simply died after WW2 ended.

My mistake on the propulsion. I had misread it in my copy of Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II.

That said, there is one benefit to some of these WWII designs - they would be simpler and easier to build quickly. Sumner-class DDs were built in six months.

You don't need a bolt-for-bolt copy, you just need something along the same lines.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So by count we have 13 destroyers of the Fletcher, Gearing, Forest Sherman, Hull, and Charles F Adams class still intact--3 at Philadelphia, 10 as museums. Particularly the museum ships might be restored to good enough condition that a return to service would be viable?

As for the existing ships, my count is that between decommed and awaiting scrapping or sinking, reserve, and active ships, we have 39 OHPs left. So obviously modifying them for combat in Hell is the first priority, as they're our destroyers in a real sense.

I'd propose building out a raised pedestal in front of the superstructure on which a quad 40mm tub can be placed, somewhat below the bridge in height. Ahead of that, on the deck, a single mount for a 5in/38cal gun can be provided--there should be enough of those still around that we can refurbish them for this purpose. The magazine will be the old SM-1 magazine and access provided directly aft of the gun, which will be in a shield mount.

The hangar deck will be cut down aft, with depth charge racks and two depth charge throwers emplaced. To either side on the forward part of the hangar deck, and sponsoned out to the sides, abutting the hangar, will be two more quad 40mm tubs. The Phalanx will be retained, as will the 76mm gun, and the ASW torpedoes. The hangar will be converted to carrying additional ammunition for the ship's guns, and berthing space for the gun crews as necessary. On each side ahead from the bridge on back will be either three twin 20mm mounts or three single 25mm or three single 30mm mounts, as available, though standardized for one ship (of course). An additional twin 20mm, single 25mm, or single 30mm will be mounted on top of the bridge, and another one directly aft of the mast amidships on the superstructure.

Directly under the raised pedestal for the forward 40mm and slightly to the sides, we can fit two 375mm Bofors ahead-throwing ASW rocket launchers, one to each side. Everything except air search/tracking and attack sonars can be removed. The total AAW armament will be 1 x 5in, 1 x 3in, 1 x Phalanx, 12 x 40mm, and 16 x 20mm or 8 x 25/30mm. Total ASW armament, two triple ASW torp tubes, two Bofors ASW RLs, two depth-charge throwers, aft depth-charge racks.

Any absolutely unnecessary electronics topside will be cut down to remove topweight, and ballasting will provided as an emergency measure if stability proves an issue.

In addition to the 39 surviving hulls in our possession we can convert to this standard, an immediate order for another 60 should have been placed the moment the nature of the Harpy threat was discovered, with the goal being to deliver 15 a year for four years starting one year from March of 2008.

As for LCS, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics will both be asked to immediately provide designs for simplified versions without any stealthing measures and a maximum speed of 30kts only, with reduced engine fit. All decoy/chaff launchers will be removed to save on topweight. The 1 x 57mm will be retained, with a twin 40mm bofors built up behind it on a raised pedestal like on the OHPs in place of the supposed VLS. Two twin 20mm Oerlikon will be mounted on the top of the superstructure out of the fire arc for the Sea RAM, which will be retained, and a third will be mounted over the bridge, or single 25/30mm as necessary. Under it will be provided two Bofors ASW RLs as usual; the aft flight deck will be converted for two 40mm quadruple gun tubs, with depth charge racks and two depth charge throwers aft on the cut-down flight deck. Each of the four single M2's planned will be replaced with a single 20mm cannon or 25mm cannon as appropriate.

That will give a total armament of 1 x 57mm, 1 x Sea RAM, 10 x 40mm, 10 x 20mm OR 7 x 25/30mm, two ASW RLs, two depth-charge throwers, and launching racks as necessary. Again all electronics will be removed except the bare minimum for anti-harpy operations and the sonars needed for the ASW role will be added, and the superstructure ideally cut down to save topweight.

Sixty will be ordered from each company with deliveries to cover a four year span of 15 ships a year starting one year after March of 2008.

The next class of ship will be the Cyclone class patrol craft, to be produced in two groups of 120 ships each. These ships will be lengthened by 11ft over the current Cyclone batch, to 181ft from 170ft; beam will be increased from 25ft to 28ft, and design draft will be increased by 2ft. Speed expected will be 30kts. In the AAW version, the forward superstructure will be modified, reduced in length and with a flat top on which a twin 20mm (or single 25/30mm) can be placed. Forward of it will be a twin 40mm. The bridge wings will be fitted with single .50cal; two twin 20mm or two single 25/30mm can be placed on the after superstructure between the flying bridges, and a single such mount can be placed on the right aft superstructure (where a single 25mm is already normally fitted). Under the flying wings, to either side, will be single 25/30mm or twin 20mm mounts, for another four. Right aft, in place of the crane and Zodiac on the original design, will be a second twin 40mm bofors, with the fantail built outward and the recovery point removed. It may have just enough space for a single depth charge pattern's worth to be fitted in racks, but I doubt it. The ASW version will have the twin 40mm removed in favour of two ahead-firing ASW RLs and a single pattern's worth of depth charges fitted in racks, with two twin 20mm (or single 25/30mm) mounts on the beams removed to save on weight. The final design I imagine might well get close to 400 tons displacement and will probably be overloaded like everything else I'm proposing, though not impracticably so. As usual, absolute minimum of electronics, and these will simply be delivered as fast possible.

The final build order will be for 80 Flight III Burkes. They will be built fitted for but not with most of their electronics, so that they can be used in the future with Aegis and so on, but simply do not need to be built with it--one Aegis Burke or Ticonderoga can command a squadron of these ships in Hell. Plug-in modules to replace the VLS with 155mm MONARC mounts will be designed, providing an armament of 2 x 155mm (for fire support) and 1 x 5in (anti-air/DP), with two Sea RAM or Phalanx mounts fitted, and three quadruple 40mm tubs occupying broadly the flight deck area. Another three twin 20mm/single 25/30mm mounts will be placed forward in the superstructure, and three to each beam; ahead-firing Bofors ASW RLs will be provided forward, and two to four depth charge throwers aft with depth charge racks as well. ASW torpedo tubes retained. If additional anti-air is needed, the VLS could instead be replaced by two more 5in guns, unifying the armament (this may frankly be better), though still with a mind to make conversion to VLS ships easy postwar.

A similar autocannon fit may be provided to all existing Burkes at the expense of helicopter capability.

Ships to definitely be reactivated will consist of 4 twin-arm Ticonderogas, and (after double checking) 6 Spruances + the Foster still in active service, so 7. I'd try to fit the all the Tico's including the four twin-arms wiith a third Phalanx, put two 40mm quad tubs on their hangar, and add about 6 - 8 twin 20mm/single 25mm, but they're already so overloaded that even that might cost something--probably the Harpoons. Retain the ASW torpedoes and maybe depth charge throwers aft.

The Spru-cans can get a similar fit, possibly without the quad 40mm tubs if it's felt that their helicopter fit is important, though another 5in gun might be mounted forward in place of the VLS/ASROC, to make 3 x 5in as the main anti-air armament as well, and the fantail of course cleared for depth-charge throwers, and aft racks. Should try to wedge in two ASW RLs forward abeam the superstructure as well. This can be done while they're being restored to service.

We may already see more than a couple OHPs and Spru-cans equipped to this fit being able to accompany the carrier taskforces into Hell, if Bremerton got to work like crazy. The existing smaller Cyclone class PCs could be hastily fitted with 6 x 25/30mm (two twin, two single--I believe there is a twin mount for the 30mm, or 25mm at least), 4/8 x 20mm (not sure if twin or only single Oerlikon could be fitted), and 2 x .50cal as well as aft depth-charge racks and sent to as a last-ditch support if necessary.

The Hamilton class cutters can be loaded up with 8 x harpoons or possibly a forward 40mm quad tub in addition to the 3in, with ASW torpedo tubes provided to the sides, as well as head-throwing ASW RLs, and six - nine twin 20mm or single 25/30mm provided on the superstructure and beams, the helicopter deck placed with two 40mm quadruple tubs, and and the aft deck fitted with depth charge throwers and racks; this would necessitate the removal of the 20mm phalanx, but that could be put on other ships anyway, and they'll serve admirably as escorts to the UNREP.

The new Legend class cutters will be fitted with two triple ASW torpedo tubes, two twin 20mm on the top of the bridge, .50cal on the bridge wings, four more twin 20mm (or, as usual, single 25/30mm) on the upper superstructure and extreme forward hangar aft (by the mast in the first case), as well as two more above the hull-integrated torp launchers right amidships, though the arcs will be very limited there on the main deck level due to the superstructure design. Retain Phalanx. Cut down the flight deck, put two quad 40mm bofors tubs there, and then you have the fantail two depth-charge throwers and depth charge racks. So 1 x 57mm, 8 x 40mm, 1 x Phalanx, 16 x 20mm or 8 x 25/30mm, and 2 x .50cal, along with two depth-charge throwers, depth charge racks, and ASW torpedoes. The existing run of eight Legend class will not be fitted with ASW torpedoes; rather they will be fitted to a new run of 60 ships to be ordered under the same terms as the LCS orders.

There, that's what we have, those are our newest hull designs, and that's what we can probably do with our existing ships as well. That means that the total wartime production orders will number 80 destroyers, 60 frigates, 180 (the cutters and LCS orders) of what we'll designate as Corvettes, and 240 patrol boats, along with all-out maximum production of CVNs and SSNs from the existing construction yards.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

When local naval bases can be established in hell, the Cyclone is a great idea, but until then, I think endurance might be the more important factor.

That's what the sub and destroyer tenders can be done with, modified to support the operations of smaller Patrol Boats for AAW/ASW roles, that and further modified freighters and so on can also be used for those tasks.

[Sea Skimmer]

That said, there is one benefit to some of these WWII designs - they would be simpler and easier to build quickly. Sumner-class DDs were built in six months.

You don't need a bolt-for-bolt copy, you just need something along the same lines.

That was in an era of different technology and manufacturing methods, what they could do quickly then we can’t necessarily do quickly now without a lot of preparatory efforts. You comment on not going bolt for bolt misses the real issue. Its easy to design the general characteristics of a ship, it’s the detailed design that takes time. We’d have to come up new detailed designs to actually build those WW2 ships and weapons, so we might as well just go all new or at least use a hull that’s close to something people working in the year 2008 know how to build.

That's what the sub and destroyer tenders can be done with, modified to support the operations of smaller Patrol Boats for AAW/ASW roles, that and further modified freighters and so on can also be used for those tasks.

Seakeeping is also a serious issue, and one which would be poor in a 310 ton patrol boat with limited draught and freeboard. I can’t imagine hell has very calm oceans.

[R011]

The Flower-class corvettes . . . used diesel power plants.

Actually, the WWII Flowers used a reciprocating steam plant. They also had poor seakeeping qualities ("roll on wet grass" was the saying) and limited range which replected their original role as coastal escorts. They were replaced as far as possible on the stocks with "twin-screw corvettes" - which Churchill dubbed frigates. We're starting from scratch so we can probably do better than a Flower hull and I'm fairly sure we have better diesels now than in 1945.

[Michael Garrity]

Duchess:

Does that 13-ship total include USS Cassin Young (DD-793)? This vessel is moored as a museum ship in Boston Harbor, near the Charlestown Navy Yard.

Mike Garrity

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Duchess:

Does that 13-ship total include USS Cassin Young (DD-793)? This vessel is moored as a museum ship in Boston Harbor, near the Charlestown Navy Yard.

Mike Garrity

It does.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Oh, what about the condition of USS Salem? If bringing back the battleships is unfeasable, what about the last Des Moines?

Isn't there also a preserved CLG in Buffalo? If her engines are repairable, she could be littered in AAA and sent out as well. Ah, yes, USS Little Rock, 3 x 6in, 2 x 5in, twin TALOS. She was acquired as a museum within a year of being struck, which sounds somewhat positive for her engine condition (maybe).