Talk:USS Belknap (CG-26)

Frigates

I really didn't think that anyone would contest the change I made, changing the definition of the hull designation of DLG from "Frigate" to "Destroyer Leader", but here we are.

If you go to the U.S. Navy's website [1] and search for "DLG", you will find a series of articles in which DLG is either defined as "guided missile destroyer" or guided missile destroyer leader". There are only two pages that define DLG as "guided missile frigate" and one is a copy of the other.

In addition, no one I know that ever served aboard a DLG (while it was a DLG) would have called their ship a "frigate".

The only reference to them being Frigates in the Navy.mil website is on a handful of ship histories, but not all of them.

I don't know who called them "frigates" but the Navy doesn't (and didn't) and the sailors that served on them don't (and didn't.)

I also would like to call your attention to the USS Norfolk (DL-1), the USS Mitscher (DL-2), the USS John S. McCain (DL-3), the USS Willis A. Lee (DL-4), and the USS Wilkinson (DL-5). If a DL is a Destroyer Leader, why isn't a DLG a Guided Missile Destroyer Leader?

-TCav (talk · contribs) 01:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see centralized discussion at Talk:USS Fox (CG-33). TomTheHand 15:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No disrespect to Mr.TCav, but please see United States Navy 1975 ship reclassification

Wfoj2 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I served aboard a CG ex-DLG and have first-hand information but a couple moderators hereabouts with apparent delusions of grandeur have berated me so, thus, I add this comment explaining why I am not tossing real-life information into the fray. I fear that the little "Napoleons" reigning over their self-perceived fiefdom may harm the info/data/etc. that Wikipedia has the potential to convey.Obbop (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

New Entry: I served on USS Belknap as Electronic Warfare Officer from 1970 to 1971. At that time, we always referred to her as a "Guided Missile Frigate" as did ourr sister ship, Josephus Daniels DLG-27. submitted by john.pratchios at gmail com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:837B:17A0:5AB0:35FF:FEF8:C059 (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ticonderoga class cruiser were ordered in 1978

"This fire and the resultant damage and deaths, which would have been preventable had Belknap's superstructure been made of steel, drove the US Navy's decision to pursue all-steel construction in its next major class of surface combatants, the Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer." The fact that the Ticonderoga class cruiser wasn't ordered until 1978 would seem to conflict with this statement since its superstructure is also aluminum. And yes I know they were based on the Spruance hull, but if there was that big of a problem, one would think that some other method would have been selected for that "major class of surface combatant." --Dual Freq (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

On that note, the USS Oliver Hazard Perry was laid down the same year as the Belknap accident. This is pertinent in that the "Fig-7" class also had aluminum superstructures, and the near sinking of the USS Stark was chronologically closer to the decision to cease using Aluminum for U.S. Navy warships. User:70.189.161.147 23:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

See NYT article on aluminum cracking that led to the switch. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Aluminium superstructure

There's a common urban myth that aluminium plates burn in ship and tank fires. This article seems misleading to me as it mentions the aluminium superstructure and implies that the aluminium burned. Well, the next one who agrees with me should clarify that it melted, but that the aluminium did not contribute to the fire - it merely failed in its structural integrity task.

I'm sure that there are enough official reports about this somewhere. Lastdingo (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC) There is probablly enough official navy documents- if on the Internet -then its public domain, for a separate article on the collision, events and weather leading up to collision, afterwards - damage control efforts, investigation, hearings, etc. 74.214.49.182 (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

New entry: I served on USS Belknap from 1970 through 1971. I was an engineer at the Naval Ship Engineering Center at the time of the accident and we were briefed on the details. I saw photos of where my state room had been on the main deck. All that remained was the frame of the joiner door into my quarters. The comment on Aluminum superstructure and less loss of life had it been steel is incorrect in this case. The seven sailors killed on USS Belknap were in the forward boiler room. They were killed when the boiler exploded and the compartment was filled with 1200 psi superheated steam. Their deaths were instantaneous. Steel would have made no difference. When the ships collided, Belknap's superstructure severed a 5 inch jet fuel line running through the angled flight deck. This dumped an estimated 1,000 gallons of JP-5 onto Belknap. A large quantity of the JP-5 flowed into the air intakes for the forward boiler room. When the JP-5 was sucked into the flames of the boiler, the boiler exploded.

The JP-5 that poured onto the decks, as well as onto the forward superstructure, into the bridge and into the ship from open hatches and watertight doors burned. JP-5 burns at about 1050 degrees F, Aluminum melts at about 1220 degrees F; no true melting took place. But Aluminum loses half of its strength by 800 degrees F. The burning JP-5 in the space below the missile directors (the large searchlight looking RADARs) weakened the decks and the Directors fell through puncturing the deck below. The remaining JP-5 poured through the holes and the process continued deck by deck... the deck collapses, the director punctures the deck below, JP-5 flows to deck below and burns weakening the deck above. After the fires were extinguished, the Directors were found on the steel deck. submitted by john.pratchios at gmail com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:837B:17A0:5AB0:35FF:FEF8:C059 (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

thank for information - I do recall the specifics that the deaths were "Engineers" in the propulsion; and fuel went down down the Stack.I had never heard before that a boiler explosion occurred. Wfoj3 (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Trivia Removed

I've seen that trivia sections are frowned upon, so I removed the below text. I don't even understand why people would care that this particular ship was mentioned as back history of a character in a book.

"Popular Fiction

In Clear and Present Danger, a novel by Tom Clancy, the character Vice Admiral James Cutter is said to be a past commander of Belknap." 75.95.47.110 (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

One piece of trivia that should be included is that the "collision" between the Belknap and the JFK was not a typical collision. When the Belknap came along side of the JFK, the telephone size antenna were still in the horizontal position (the normal position during flight ops) which effectivley "clotheslined" the superstructure of the Belknap, where most of the underway refueling nozels and lines are located. 70.189.161.147 (talk · contribs) 23:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

More Talk

As I come here today - I find it lacking - almost all IRT the collision, very limited on other activity of her career. next I note she was decommissioned 1 month after the accident and remain such for 5 years. If you read a quantity of articles on older US ships - they had frequent decomissionings - for repair work and etc. The USN stopped that for some reason. Note the recent Overhaul and refueling of USS George Washington (CVN-73) from August 2017 to May 2023. Many sailor would have had their life improved (and Navy career if inclined) improved if she had been decommissioned in the time frame. Wfoj3 (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

"Many sailor would have had their life improved (and Navy career if inclined) improved if she had been decommissioned in the time frame." - Not sure this opinion is something that should, or could,/ be discussed in an individual ship article. That said, the Navy would never base the decision to decommission a capital ship, especially the class of the capital ships, the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, on such a factor as the crew's careers or making their lives better. I also don't believe congress would allow it, nor would the law. The US Code states the Navy must have a minimum number of carriers in service. - wolf 07:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

agree with all your points. Note I specifically left this in talk - not the article. ~~ Wfoj3 (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)