Talk:USS Long Beach (CGN-9)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Correction - Addition

The two 5 inch / 38 single mounts were added amidships during an extended availability in the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. A World War II era gun director and magazines were part of the 5 inch gun modification. During this yard period, 1962 - 1963, the AN/SPS 33 radar and the Naval Tactical Data System (NTDS) were added. These components of the electronic suite were delayed. Rather than delay LONG BEACH in the Builder's Yard (Bethlehem Steel Fore River Shipyard, Quincy, Massachusetts) she went to sea without them. Other work was accomplished in Philadelphia including upgrades to the Nuclear Reactor Plant instrumentation and strengthening of the rudder posts. Cracks had developed in the rudder posts due to the high stresses experienced during hard turns at high speed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shoerat (talk • contribs) 16:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I think some of the dates are wrong. I was assigned to the ship in Feb. of 1984 just after a westpac had started with the Kitty Hawk battle group. We spent about 6 months deployed, a few months in port at NAS North Island, then up to Bremerton for overhaul in which the Tomohawk system was installed and both main condensers replaced, so this would have been Fall/Winter of 1984/1985. I believe this would have been the "comprehensive overhaul" mentioned as "6 October 1980" in the "Milestones" section.Hoxsiew (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)hoxsiew

Hull Configuration

Is TRUE an acronym for something? If it is not, it shouldn't be in all caps.Prehistoricman5 17:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this page and the page of the Class should note that the LB had no armor plate as found on prior CG-class hulls, and their her aluminum superstucture was made of the same kinds of aluminum alloys found on M-113 APCs. This was a fairly unique feature. Additionally in the history of the ship and the hull, I was surprised that it was initially rated at 45 knots. I'd want to know the history of that PR speed. --enm 17:40, 1 Nov 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.232.210.150 (talk)

The USS Long Beach was initally at 45 knots very, very, early on. She grew during her development phase. --Two way time (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep

On 17 August 2006 RainbowCrane (talk · contribs · count · logs) removed the merge tags noting:

removed merge template per discussion

At that time, 64 days into the poll, it was one in support of the merge and three against. I am now formerly archiving the poll. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge Long Beach class cruiser → USS Long Beach (CGN-9)

It has been proposed that Long Beach class cruiser be merged into USS Long Beach (CGN-9).

• Weak oppose - While the ship is the only one of her class, I enjoy the consistency of having separate articles on individual ships (with information on each ship's history and service career) and their classes (with info on the design and construction of the class itself). From a navigation standpoint, it may be confusing to have a combined ship/class article when people are specifically looking for classes (such as via the guided missile cruiser navigation box, or the Cruiser classes category. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If there's no opposition, perhaps we could have this entire discussion on Talk:USS Bainbridge (CGN-25), since I put them up for merge at the same time and it's essentially the same situation: each is a single-ship class of cruisers, but each has a separate class article and ship article. I imagine the arguments for both will be the same. If anyone opposes having just one discussion, please post! I'm happy to deal with them separately. TomTheHand

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

post-scanfar pics

more of those would be nice, or at least one that isn't a profile shot. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Lack of traditional CG armor plate

The configuration should note that the LB didn't have armor plate like prior cruisers (CA or CG). 143.232.210.150 (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert but I do know that the hull was made of HY 80 alloy, which is high strength/high yield strength. Perhaps this is why no armor place was necessary like it was for earlier cruisers. http://www.aasteel.com/hy-80-100.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.157.243.194 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Mention bow and stern are gone?

You can follow her with the timeline feature of Google Earth. If I'm correct, she lies next to the submarines until timepoint 7/2012, on 5/2013 she can be seen on the Eastern part of the port, with tents on deck. On 7/2014, some of the superstructure has been removed. On 4/2015, she is seen in a dry dock North-East of the subs, with approximately 38 meters of the bow and 50 meters of the stern removed/scrapped. On 6/2016, the midsection is afloat again, next to the subs. There seems to be fresh paint and the canvas of the tents removed. If someone can confirm this, parts should be added into the article, especially that more than half of the ship is still afloat as of 2018. Best regards, IP 77.179.249.76 (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

How much is she disassembled ? Article states "her entire superstructure was removed and her reactors were defueled and removed, along with any radioactive parts." I think that is incorrect. - I thought before taken to Puget Sound the submarines and Cruisers did have their reactors defueled, BUT NOT removed. When disassemply occurs at Puget sound - in some cases the entire reactor compartment is not disassembled, as a whole moved to a Long term storage ashore. --Wfoj3 (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Antiship missiles

I believe there is confusion in the configuration; the 1978 refit should say that two four tube Harpoon mounts were installed when Talos was removed; then Tomahawk in ABLs was added ca. 1985 and the existing Harpoon mounts were relocated. Brooksindy (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)