The Ship Model Forum

I can tell you are saying the Long Beach is the last heavy cruiser hull. Even though the Long Beach was a heavy ship, and she was a cruiser, she was not a heavy cruiser. The answer is:

USS Salem.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

You are going to have to get some real numbers going and get an arrangement drawn out! I think this is a little bit more proportionately correct. The actual lengths of the super structure, helos and hanger, etc. You should be able to get a real nice drawing going!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I will get round 2 drawing up something eventually! ( I draw old school paper & pencil !!) Got sidetracked working on fwd mast of CGN-9 (what a PITA soldering brass is!!) will post a couple of pick's in the WIFF CGN-9 thread shortly.
Your shipbucket effort is spot on that would make an awesome model!(and real ship), you could have a short length VLS in front of bridge for ESSM's,and Harpoon's(if there was a VLS 'Poon)or SM-XX(insert no they up 2 now!!).

Bruce

_________________
building:
1/72 RC USS LONG BEACH CGN9
1/72 RC USS CALIFORNIA CGN36
1/72 RC USS SAIPAN LHA2
1/72 RC USS JOHN PAUL JONES DDG53
1/72 RC USS SHARK SSN591
1/72 RC USS SEAWOLF SSN21
1/72 RC USS ALBANY CG10

The 8 inch guns on the Des Moines class would be legitimate anti-ship weapons if modern technology was applied to the shells. Submunitions, RAPs and GPS guidance could extend their range well over the horizon and they already have a very high rate of fire: 7rds/min per tube.

Had the Des Moines-class been employed operationally in a modern environment, they would not have been consorts for BBs and could possibly have been employed autonomously as the lead ship in a task group environment. They would be especially useful in naval gunfire support, which, had modern technology been applied properly to, could have enabled them to project power well inshore.

I see no particular benefit in removing the after 8 inch turret and replacing it with numerous helicopters, whether for ASW, ASM, or heliborne assault. Other ships in the task force are better suited for those missions.

I can see the Des Mones-class being altered in such a way ONLY in the case that is is an ultimate ASW ship or if it is specifically an amphibious assualt ship. Even then, the case for both situations is very, very weak. The role performed by the helos as you suggest, or as NAVSEA suggested (assault), is much better filled by the aft 8" turret. Sure, the concept looks really cool, but the utility does not match the utility of the aft 8" turret. Again, there is NO amount of helicopters that matches the utility of 3 8" guns, TACAIR or not. So you know, the rate of fire for the Des Moiens 8" guns was not 7 round per minute. It was 10 rounds per minute. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk16.htm which is totally awesome!!! The Mk71 is 12 rounds per minute.

Again, the helos are cool, but their TACAIR capability over the 2 SH-60s currently supported by the Des Moiens design for insertion and extraction under gunfire support don't amount to much...ever...ever. The only way to overcome this is to specifically designate these ships as artillery amphibious assault ships. Then the utility of the aft 8" gun is no longer relivent, and the helos are for landing a large number of troops instead of landing ordnance in support of troops ashore (TACAIR).

But like I said, the CAH version of the Des Moines would look really, really cool, and I think it would make a good looking model if done right. I will finalize drawings of such a modification to the Des Moines-class with THE man who was in charge of finalizing the design before reactivation and make the model some day.

On the ASW and large helo capability front, I am already going to make a DDH based on the Burkes, and she already looks good!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I for one would love 2 see what your final design's look like Dave (both the CAH & DDH)

I don't think its been mentioned but how many 8" shells did a Des Moines class carry??

Cheers Bruce

_________________
building:
1/72 RC USS LONG BEACH CGN9
1/72 RC USS CALIFORNIA CGN36
1/72 RC USS SAIPAN LHA2
1/72 RC USS JOHN PAUL JONES DDG53
1/72 RC USS SHARK SSN591
1/72 RC USS SEAWOLF SSN21
1/72 RC USS ALBANY CG10

The recent flurry of posts concerning a conversion of a cruiser to a CAH type has been focussed on the US Navy cruisers. Some of you WIF'ers might want to consider such a conversion using a Soviet approach. Attached is a photo of the old Soviet ASW carrier, Moskva. Note the fore/aft separation of flight ops from weapons with the superstructure placed in between. Also, note the large amount of deck space that operating helos require (and the Soviet helos are small by comparison to the Seahawk variants!). This is an aspect of helo use that is consistently underestimated in this forum. Helos need room and lots of it. The Soviet solution was to provide a very wide deck with diagonally alternating helo spots. Navydavesof proposed this type of arrangement in some of his posts and notes. Even so, it requires lots of deck space. Moving on to weapons, squint your eyes and you can easily imagine a couple of 8" (single or triple) turrets mounted forward in place of the ASW weapons. The superstructure location helps to protect the helos from the weapon's effects, missile backblast, in this case. I would think it would be equally effective in isolating the blast effects of heavy guns. So, this design represents a somewhat different approach to combining helos and weapons as well as graphically demonstrating the room that is required. Maybe this can offer some inspiration. In any event, continue on. I'm enjoying following this thread. Well done to all.

Regards,
Bob

Most of the Carrier-Cruiser concepts have been only marginally sucessful. The Moskva class was originally intended for 10 vessels. Only 2 were built a third was scrapped under construction. The Moskva's large super structure caused eddies that hindered flight operations. Italy and Japan both tried and have switched to normal light carrier concepts.

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝

That would be a fascinating study. Place a large scale model in a wind tunnel, intrduce a stream of "smoke" and watch what happens at various combinations of ship a wind speeds. That would have definite implications for helo, manned and un-manned, usage on all classes of non-carriers.

_________________
Russ

Quite correct, although who knows what the Soviets rationale for not continuing the class was. They may have deemed it a success but decided to move on for other reasons. For instance, one school of thought was that the Moskva class was simply a learning experience (experiment) in the step towards a true big deck carrier, which they desperately wanted, rather than a serious attempt at a stand alone ASW platform. Perhaps they felt they had learned all that was needed from that class and it was time to move to the Kiev type. On the other hand, they may well have learned that the type was not a success, period. When you think about it, the Moskva was not really much different from the Essex helo ASW conversions the US built, at least in concept. Regardless, as you state, countries that have tried the cruiser/helo combo have fairly quickly abandoned it.

None of which means that a WIF build can't model it. WIF builders don't have to be limited to only designs that would be totally successful. The US wanted to build combo helo ships back in the 70's and 80's. There's no reason a WIF'er couldn't model one. I guess I'm just saying not to pass on an interesting design/model just because it might not have been a successful design in the real world.

Regards,
Bob

Like the Virgina CGNs there is not a whole lot of improvement the Des Moines can have. RCS reduction is not a big deal when you get to a certain size of ship. I would suggest a CA crosses that barrier. The CA/CAG should likely assume much the shape as the original DES Moines shape. ECM and CIWS and countermeasures will provide plenty of protection. I would suggest only minimal RCS reduction, because as we have seen with the Burke's total RCS reduction strips topside surface area for additional systems.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Boy, it's been a while since we have played on this thread. I thought I would go ahead and include some of the conclusions and questions I have made and come up with since the lively discussion a year or so ago.

I would not go with the NTU weapons package as the ship's air defense package, because the ship actually does not need a world-class AAW package like the NTU improved Tartar weapon direction system, because like an LHD, CVN, or BB, the CA (heavy cruiser) would be in the company of several Aegis ships. Because of the network-centric nature of the US Navy today, even a Perry FF can have the radar picture of an Aegis cruiser. The heavy cruiser instead would only need a solid self-defense package that would include ESSMs fired from VLS quad-packs, RAM, and Phalanx Block 1B CIWS systems.

An appropriate sensor and electronic package would be a modernized Spruance DD suite. The only big changes would be what have been described in the Modernized Spruance-class thread.

SPS-49(v)5
TRS-3D
SPS-67
SPQ-9B

The secondary armament would be upgraded to Mk45 Mod4 5"/62caliber guns, and 96 - 128 VLS strike length tubes would be arranged in place of Mts 51 and 56 equipping the ship with 88-120 TLAM and 32 ESSMs in 8 tubes.

The stern hanger itself is large enough to accommodate two HH-60 helicopters side by side, one on the elevator and one stored next to it, the hanger opening just needed to be made few feet longer which is not a problem. In practicality they hanger would of course have to be renovated like the rest of the ship, but the existing elevator would have to be removed and replaced with a new one. I don't know if the elevators originally equipped could handle the 16,000 or so lbs of an HH-60, but they were not reliable anyway. Salem used hers a lot, but Newport News relied on the crane most of the time. They did not trust the elevator to not get stuck somewhere in the middle.

A new hatch would be fashioned, one that would be flush with a raised flight deck similar to the flightdeck on the Iowa-class battleships as they were modernized during the '80s. The hatch's forward face would be the end of the flight deck. The hatch would simply slide forward, exposing the hanger, and up would come the HH-60 ready to go.

All of the incidentals such as SLQ-32, Chaff, NULKA, Mk38Mod2, etc would all be there. As is custom with our ships today it would be wrapped in the PCMS radar absorbent material, leaving a bit of an interesting checker board pattern in places along the structure. Mts 34 and 35 I believe would be modified exactly like those during the Newport News's flag modernization. If an admiral and his feeder-fish staff want to be on a cool ship, they're welcome to tag along, but they have to be willing to get close to the fight. The bridge would be closed off with angled bridge windows similar to what was done on NN.

With the dramatically reduced crew aboard, around 400-600, these ships known for their cramped living conditions would be opened up and more comfortable.

The knuckle crane on the DDG-51s would be accommodated amidships in place of Mts 36 and 37(? the location might be a mount off) aboard to service 2 RHIBs per side, two 11meters and two 7meter work boats.

Here's a question Seasick might be best to answer: Even though the ship would have SPQ-9B, the secondary battery radar really needs to be upgraded, and ESSM needs terminal illuminators. There seem to be three options for this: Upgrade the Mk37 mounts(?) with the SPG-53 radar dish like they were going to do with the Iowas to guide Sea Sparrows, SPG-60s in place, or Mk95 Bugeye illuminators seen on CVNs, LHA/Ds, and Spruances. Which is best?

As a whole these reflect the general moderate modernization scheme that would have equipped Des Moines with some serious firepower and given the Navy quite the asset, and this coming year it is going to be fun to build. I look forward to hearing what Seasick has to say.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Just a reminder, the -60 helos can't move sideways so you'll need quite a bit of room, fore and aft, to "wiggle" the -60 on and off the elevator.

Bob,
It seems to me that the front wheels of -60's could be engineered to both caster or to lock fore and aft.
Likewise, if hydraulic lifting and castering dolly wheels could be developed for skidded copters, the same thing could be done for the -60's. Seems to me that it would be something that Aviation Bos'ns would love. All that is needed is a demand from the Fleet and an RFP. As someone who supervised the loading of a lot of choppers for transport to the First Gulf, the fixed rear wheels on the -47's were a pain because once the crane placed them, that was it, no adjustment.

Russ

Yes, sir, one of the most practical concerns in both this thread and Russ's Kentucky (BB-66) thread. There is a system of dolleys and jacks airbases use to move HH-60s (perhaps other helos as well) sideways inside of an aircraft hanger on airfields so they do not have to zig zag it back and forth. The concern there is available space, and a lot of the time zig zagging means you have to open the bay doors to the hanger. This comes in partiularly handy during inclement weather so the hanger doors can stay closed and work can continue.

I really wish I had a the hacks, but it's a remarkably simple idea. All it does is lift the helicopter off the ground by a few inches, and then your aircrew can roll it around anywhere you want.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Heres something I have been playing around with.

_________________
Under Construction:
1/700 USS Iowa
1/350 Bismarck

Here is a visual description of the VLS arrangement. Forward and aft would be a total of 112 strike-length Mk41 Mod5 VLS accommodating TLAM, ASROC, SM, etc but would be fitted with TLAM only. The second set of tubes would be two self-defense length (SSD) VLS modules (8 tubes per side) inside of the armored former 3-inch magazines accommodating up to 32 ESSMs.

The 112-cell VLS arrangements along centerline would be elevated to the O-2 or O-3 level depending on how deep into the ship we would want to penetrate. I would suggest the VLS structure...or "missile deck" surrounding the six VLS modules forward and 64 aft would rise up to the O-3 level with some penetrating into the former 5-inch magazines, which at 10' decks is plenty of space.

There is a possible alteration where I would change the SSD/Tactical length VLS from Mts 38 and 39 to Mts 36 and 37 that are on the outside. On the other hand, I may indeed put RAM on slightly elevated platforms on top of Mts 36 and 37.

This permits 112 Tomahawk Land Attack cruise Missiles (TLAM) and 32 ESSMs. Oh yeah. This enables the ship to wage some serious war. This isn't just "reach out and touch someone." This is "reach out and beat someone's ass".

More development to be had!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

NOTE:
I committed the horrible sin or editing a post after others have commented. It does not contradict what anyone has said, I have just updeated a photo.

In addition to this, I am beginning to think that two 30mm variants of the Mk38 Mod2 per side instead of trying to jam Mk110s on this ship would be a good choice for small boat defense. 5" KE-ET rounds are a lot more lethal against small boats than 57mm super rapidfire guns anyway. The only thing the 57mm has on the 5" KE-ET is rate of fire. Five-inch fire employed against small craft is a lot different today than it was when the Vincennes tried to fight small boats in the Straights of Hormuz with standard 5” rounds back in the day. The rate of fire and speed of engagement at closer range is where the 30mm Mk38 Mod2s would supplement nicely.

I think a single 8-cell module of self-defense length tubes on each side of the ship would be best. While 16 could be accommodated just fine, the only reason to have the extra tubes is if the ship is going to be an SM shooter...or unless you want to carry over a hundred ESSMs...which is dumb. I would not recommend turning the ship into a CAG, because that changes the profile and focus of the ship. This is a surface warrior, not an AAW platform, so they should focus on surface warfare and NSFS and let the rest of the strike group worry about AAW stuff. The advent of ESSM has also really revolutionized self-defense capabilities to where if you have ESSMs, you pretty much have SM-1s.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I like the layout drawings, but I am continuing to wrestle with the loss of the two superfiring 5” mounts. Those are the best positions for firing arcs, and should give you two twin mounts to either beam while manning only half as many mounts.

My Mk1 mod 1 eyeball makes me think that the space for mounts 52 through 55 would only allow 16 cells in exchange for each, leaving two twin 5” mounts and 64 strike length cells. It would disperse the cells, so you should never lose more than 16 in one hit, but move them closer to the sides where they are more likely to encounter damage (as opposed to your VLS fits on the centerline). Grrr….

I want superfiring 5” mounts and I don’t want to give up cells for them….damint…