Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects

[Scott Kenny]

You're kidding, right?

Reboilering a battleship is Major Ship Surgery - there's a reason most navies didn't bother unless they literally couldn't buy more battleships, it costs a very significant percentage of just buying a new ship since you need to cut open the armored deck to replace them. They don't call the battleship modernizations involving new boilers "reconstructions" because it was an easy task.

For another example, recall how much work had to be done on Victorious to reboiler her. Same deal.

No, I'm not kidding.

IF THE BOILERS NEED TO BE REPLACED, you drop in 1200psi boilers more like what all the newer ships use. You're cutting the ship up regardless of which type of boilers you install, so you install the most up-to-date.

 

[SSgtC]

No, I'm not kidding.

IF THE BOILERS NEED TO BE REPLACED, you drop in 1200psi boilers more like what all the newer ships use. You're cutting the ship up regardless of which type of boilers you install, so you install the most up-to-date.

That's not the point. The point is, if the boilers are that bad, the ship is no longer a reactivation asset since it would cost 85-90% of the cost of just building a brand new battleship. The Navy only did it in the inter-war years since they were not allowed to build new battleships by Treaty. Remove the Treaty, and they never would have even considered doing that. Same here. If the Iowa class boilers had been worked that hard (or maintained that poorly), they never would have been considered for reactivation and modernization.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That's not the point. The point is, if the boilers are that bad, the ship is no longer a reactivation asset since it would cost 85-90% of the cost of just building a brand new battleship. The Navy only did it in the inter-war years since they were not allowed to build new battleships by Treaty. Remove the Treaty, and they never would have even considered doing that. Same here. If the Iowa class boilers had been worked that hard (or maintained that poorly), they never would have been considered for reactivation and modernization.

Ah, gotcha!

 

[Yellow Palace]

And no Navy ships have ever used a steam plant even approaching 3-4,000 psi.

For reference, that would be a supercritical steam plant. The first land-based supercritical plant didn't exist until 1957.

So far as reboilering goes: about the only non-replaceable elements are the steam and water drums. Those are life-of-ship components: the design expectation would be that by the time the boiler drums are worn out, the rest of the ship is equally knackered and the only economic option is the breaker's yard. Same thing with steam turbines and gearboxes.