CV-17 Bunker Hill retirement?

"Mike Kanze" wrote:

While both ships went into the yards just as the war was ending, it is very likely that they were only patched together enough to be worth keeping in reserve as secondary mobilization assets, with little intention of ever really having to send them out again. With so many other ESSEX class ships in much better material condition at the end of WWII - and with war $$ drying up faster than a puddle in the desert - this hypothesis makes as much sense to me as any other.

My understanding is that both ships were completely repaired...at
least that's what the Bunker Hill veterans that I've talked to have
said. . As the "low milage" ships at the end of the war they were
held back for a super upgrade when needed. However, by the mid 1950's
it was clear that the Essexes were too small to operate the jets that
were coming into service. Also, the cost of upgrading the Essexes
already in service went far over budget. As a result the Navy had no
interest in spending any money on the Franklin and Bunker Hill. They
didn't want Essexes, they wanted Forrestals and even bigger ships.

I've seen navy pictures of the Franklin with the flight deck
completely removed for repairs.

Check out the picture here with this caption
Grainy but interesting shot of USS Franklin (CV-13) in drydock, New
York, 1945. The entire flight deck and supporting upper hull was
removed and rebuilt because of the extensive damage caused by two
Japanese bombs that penetrated the flight deck, exploding on the
hangar deck, igniting fuel and ordinance from the aircraft below
decks. The circular rings to the left are the two forward 5" DP gun
mount supports with the island superstructure behind them. The lower
ring would be the flight deck level. U.S. Navy, National Archives
photo.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/021324.jpg


Scott Peterson

--
Q. Which is the greater problem in
the world today, ignorance or apathy?

A. I don't know and I don't care.

(190/708)

----------
In article , Scott Peterson
wrote:

My understanding is that both ships were completely repaired...at
least that's what the Bunker Hill veterans that I've talked to have
said. . As the "low milage" ships at the end of the war they were
held back for a super upgrade when needed. However, by the mid 1950's
it was clear that the Essexes were too small to operate the jets that
were coming into service. Also, the cost of upgrading the Essexes
already in service went far over budget. As a result the Navy had no
interest in spending any money on the Franklin and Bunker Hill. They
didn't want Essexes, they wanted Forrestals and even bigger ships.

Thanks for that perspective. My suspicion was that they might have been
only partially repaired and perhaps needed more work on interior spaces or
aircraft support equipment to make them fully operational again. But it's
entirely believable that by the time they emerged from drydock, there was
really no need for them and so they got mothballed.




D

Scott Peterson wrote:
"Mike Kanze" wrote:


While both ships went into the yards just as the war was ending, it is very likely that they were only patched together enough to be worth keeping in reserve as secondary mobilization assets, with little intention of ever really having to send them out again. With so many other ESSEX class ships in much better material condition at the end of WWII - and with war $$ drying up faster than a puddle in the desert - this hypothesis makes as much sense to me as any other.


My understanding is that both ships were completely repaired...at
least that's what the Bunker Hill veterans that I've talked to have
said. . As the "low milage" ships at the end of the war they were
held back for a super upgrade when needed. However, by the mid 1950's
it was clear that the Essexes were too small to operate the jets that
were coming into service. Also, the cost of upgrading the Essexes
already in service went far over budget. As a result the Navy had no
interest in spending any money on the Franklin and Bunker Hill. They
didn't want Essexes, they wanted Forrestals and even bigger ships.

I've seen navy pictures of the Franklin with the flight deck
completely removed for repairs.

Check out the picture here with this caption
Grainy but interesting shot of USS Franklin (CV-13) in drydock, New
York, 1945. The entire flight deck and supporting upper hull was
removed and rebuilt because of the extensive damage caused by two
Japanese bombs that penetrated the flight deck, exploding on the
hangar deck, igniting fuel and ordinance from the aircraft below
decks. The circular rings to the left are the two forward 5" DP gun
mount supports with the island superstructure behind them. The lower
ring would be the flight deck level. U.S. Navy, National Archives
photo.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/021324.jpg


Scott Peterson

--
Q. Which is the greater problem in
the world today, ignorance or apathy?

A. I don't know and I don't care.

(190/708)

About 50 years ago, "old hands" told me that Franklin would never sail
again because her keel was so badly warped that she wouldn't hold shaft
bearings or stern tubes. According to them, it was due to graving
damage, not battle damage.

Rick

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

"DDAY" wrote:

But it's
entirely believable that by the time they emerged from drydock, there was
really no need for them and so they got mothballed.

Franklin never went back into service. But everything I've seen says
she was fully repaired. The 1947 Navy had too many carriers as it
was. She was in good enough condition that part of her flight deck
was used to rebuild the Valley Forge following a fire.

Bunker Hill did go back into service and wasn't finally mothballed
until 1947. But her post war service was strictly to return troops
home.


Scott Peterson

--
If you have ever seen the movie Night of the
Living Dead, you have a rough idea how
modern corporations and organizations
operate, with projects and proposals that
everybody thought were killed constantly
rising from their graves to stagger back into
meetings and eat the brains of the living.
(Dave Barry)

(636/708)

Yofuri wrote:


About 50 years ago, "old hands" told me that Franklin would never sail
again because her keel was so badly warped that she wouldn't hold shaft
bearings or stern tubes. According to them, it was due to graving
damage, not battle damage.

I heard the same story about the Bunker Hill. She was supposedly
dropped off the blocks while in dry dock. I've never found any
verification for that story for either ship.

Scott Peterson

--
If you have ever seen the movie Night of the
Living Dead, you have a rough idea how
modern corporations and organizations
operate, with projects and proposals that
everybody thought were killed constantly
rising from their graves to stagger back into
meetings and eat the brains of the living.
(Dave Barry)

(636/708)

On Wed, 24 May 2006 16:35:59 -0700, Scott Peterson
wrote:

I heard the same story about the Bunker Hill. She was supposedly

Heard the same story about virtually every ship ever damaged or
retired "early" for any reason.

Never found any evidence of it being true, except in the few cases
were it's a plainly documented fact in all the reference works.

Any story from a friend from a guy who knew a guy who worked in the
shipyard way back then.....can be assumed to be false absent
documentation.


--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

I heard the same story about the Bunker Hill. She was supposedly
dropped off the blocks while in dry dock. I've never found any

And I should add...."dropping a ship off the blocks" in a graving dock
is a very hard thing to do, unless there is complete incompetence by
the docking officer or some really, really bizarre circumstance such
as an earthquake. Drydock people are very, very careful to be very,
very conservative in their docking and support arrangements to avoid
just this sort of thing. The frequency of this rumor would have one
believe all docking officers are buffoons.

Remember: a graving dock is a fixed, immobile, stone/concrete/steel
structure. What in the world would motivate a ship to suddenly jump
off its blocks and fall to the floor? Unless it's a very narrow ship
requiring side bracing, it's not going anywhere.....

A floating drydock is a different thing entirely. Since it moves, and
sinks, and floats the entire time the ship is in it, there are many
more opportunities for a foul-up. Improper ballasting, improper
positioning, a failure of a pump or valve...all can cause big
problems. Then of course one could have structural failure of the dock
itself....

Floating drydock accidents do happen. They rarely result in any major,
lasting damage (for example, I never heard a rumor about SPRUANCE
being somehow incapacitated, despite her docking accident before
delivery).




--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
I heard the same story about the Bunker Hill. She was supposedly
dropped off the blocks while in dry dock. I've never found any


And I should add...."dropping a ship off the blocks" in a graving dock
is a very hard thing to do, unless there is complete incompetence by
the docking officer or some really, really bizarre circumstance such
as an earthquake. Drydock people are very, very careful to be very,
very conservative in their docking and support arrangements to avoid
just this sort of thing. The frequency of this rumor would have one
believe all docking officers are buffoons.

Remember: a graving dock is a fixed, immobile, stone/concrete/steel
structure. What in the world would motivate a ship to suddenly jump
off its blocks and fall to the floor? Unless it's a very narrow ship
requiring side bracing, it's not going anywhere.....

A floating drydock is a different thing entirely. Since it moves, and
sinks, and floats the entire time the ship is in it, there are many
more opportunities for a foul-up. Improper ballasting, improper
positioning, a failure of a pump or valve...all can cause big
problems. Then of course one could have structural failure of the dock
itself....

Floating drydock accidents do happen. They rarely result in any major,
lasting damage (for example, I never heard a rumor about SPRUANCE
being somehow incapacitated, despite her docking accident before
delivery).




--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

The only ship I ever heard of that dropped of her blocks in a dry dock
was the aircraft carrier Amagi. However it took the Great Kanto
Earthquake of Sept. 1, 1923 to make that happen.

ALV

On Wed, 24 May 2006 19:57:15 -0700, Andrew Venor
wrote:

The only ship I ever heard of that dropped of her blocks in a dry dock
was the aircraft carrier Amagi. However it took the Great Kanto

And it should be noted she was a half-complete conversion from a
battleship at the time.


--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

On Sat, 27 May 2006 13:56:15 GMT, "famous apollo"
wrote:

If CV-17 was not a slant deck carrier it would be considered obsolete.

Every ESSEX class carrier was obsolete once the concept of angled
decks was devised. All of them, like every other carrier up to
FORRESTAL (commissioned 1955) was built with a straight deck.


--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/