Busto963 wrote:
An alternative is to remove the waist 5"/38s and 3"/50s and put two VLS installations on either side of the aft centerline 5"/38 and aft super structure. These would be essentially built up from the main deck.
I have considered that type of arrangement as well. In my CAG/CA with a large VLS battery (96-128) I have considered them centerline in place of the forward and aft 5", installing 32 or 48 cells in each, likely only 32, and then two more arrangements between the stack and the hip 5" mounts and rotated perpendicularly so they run long instead of wide the super structure between would act as room for the deluge and control rooms.
Busto963 wrote:
Personally, I would never give up a single 8" RF turret. The Navy was reluctant to do so in the early cold war era, and instead selected the Baltimore class for missile conversions. By the Reagan era, the 8"/50 RF turrets were gold again.
I agree. I would only work on new munitions that could be handled by the hoists. Those would include base bleed, a limited RAP, the more aerodynamic 8" HC round they developed for the Mk71 pushing the range out of 22nm, etc.
The big modifications I was describing earlier would have been to the 6"/47caliber turrets of the Worcester-class being removed and replaced. My understanding is the juice was not worth the squeeze with the 6" guns, especially as we moved into the AAW missile era. The Mk16 8"RF turrets I would not touch, either. Giving the Worcesters 4 Mk71 8" guns, 4 Mk45 5" guns, 122 Mk41 VLS, Tartar D, and 4 CIWS would be a great capability and value to the fleet.
Busto963 wrote:
One consideration is that by the end of the 1960s, the threat of sea skimming ASCMs from SSGNs, or popping out from shore clutter during NGFS missions might have warranted a Tartar-D (MK11 or MK13) or MK26 GMLS installation in place of the center line 5"/38 turrets. Sea Sparrow, or some other pre-RIM-116 missile with a launcher that points right at the horizon (instead of vertically) is also desirable. That does not get you VLS tomahawk, but Tartar/SM-1 might have been a better tradeoff.
I agree, and while it would be an involved operation, I think it would be pretty feasible to remove the 5" upper handling room and replace it with either the Mk11 twin or a Mk13 one-armed bandit. Perhaps even a second could be installed in the centerline forward 5" mount head of the bridge as well. The bridge might get blasted once in a while from a launch, but that's alright.
Busto963 wrote:
Another consideration is for the installation of a SQS-23/26 sonar in the bow.
Perhaps. I imagine it would only be for self defense. In the Newport News CAH configuration, she might! If she would be carrying four plus SH-60s she might really add value as an ASW asset.
I can hear it now. "Ooo! Ooo! Put Harriers on her! Yeah! Then she could perform close-air support! Yeah! To which I would reply: If we don't do that with LPDs that could handle Harriers, then we would not with a CAH. They would not even be able to carry enough to make it worth it. AH-1 Cobras, on the other hand, Newport News could be come a snake pit for Cobras!
Busto963 wrote:
Finally, mucking about with the propulsion system is unlikely, but the Navy might have trialed the Allison 501 SSGTGs, an very old and reliable commercial gas turbine even by the mid 1960s.
Yeah, I also don't know where they would put them. Of course they could replace the existing boilers, but there isn't much benefit there. My understanding is that the Westinghouse 620 psi boilers were pretty good.