|
I liked the California – one of the two best cruises I had (Kidd was the other). Crew was outstanding; ship was in great shape (final cruise, 1998), very capable with NTU. Loved that these ships could hold five SM-2 in the terminal phase at once – no other vessel could do that.
The only gripe was the 5” mounts, which, because they were such early production and had so many years on them, had become less than reliable. Mount 51 was sacrificed as spare parts for mount 52. (Why mount 52 and not mount 51? Because 52 matched the arc of the SPQ-9, which was placed on the after mast). She had the first and second production MK 45 127mm/54 guns. The only older MK 45 was/is in Dahlgren.
These were the first ships built with a hull form to exploit nuclear power – their hulls were designed for top speed, not cruising efficiency. Really cool to cross the gangway and see the hull come back to the deck amidships. She looked fast pier side.
However – these ships were very cramped, and showed a rather specific design philosophy. That design philosophy was the ‘Rickover attitude’ where when you took a nuclear ship to sea, you were not actually taking a combatant vessel for a mission, you were taking two of ADM Rickover’s reactors out for a spin and all other vessels functions were secondary. My Father had told me about that one, and I got to live it on California.
So, California was basically two D2Gs with weapons added at either end, sensors put above, stuffed into the fastest hull they could design, with crew littered in wherever there was space. I was in OE berthing which was pretty far forward and down – while I worked near the top of the aft superstructure.
I had asked about Tomahawk while aboard, and the general consensus was that the ABL in the former ASROC position would have worked, but at the time of her NTU refit the Spruance class was getting VLS for 61 cells apiece, so fitting the 8 Tomahawk to two ships didn’t seem like that good of a bargain when you were certainly going to have one of those 24 VLS Spruance in the group. I was left with the idea that topweight was a concern on the vessels, so that may have been another major reason.
After the NTU refit/refueling, ABLs could have gone in place of the ASROC and the reload house (California retained her reload house, South Carolina had hers removed during refit) – I don’t imagine two ABLs were anywhere near the weight of the reload house, weapons, and ASROC launcher, and in both cases it would all be carried in a similar location on the same level.
Having spent so much time within the hull and seeing the cramped layout, any VLS would have required major work.
Assuming you were willing to do that major work, I’d mount the Mk 71 in the forward Mk 13 position (weight for a Mk 13 loaded with 37 SM-2 is comparable to the Mk 71) and put a 64 cell VLS roughly where mount 51 came from. You could not place the VLS farther aft than that, as reactor 1 is immediately below where the ASROC box used to be. Naturally, in today’s small/fast boat threat environment, I’d try and add a smaller caliber in the former ASROC position on top of a deckhouse (as in the Burke thread – Mk110 if I can, MK46 If I can’t make Mk110 fit)
Aft I’d remove mount 52 and the Mk 13, and try and get 32 more cells in mount 52’s place (at the 01 level) with a hangar behind it to service the aft helo pad. I’d stretch the transom if needed for the helo pad (ala long-hull Perry class), and add another light gun above the hangar if possible.
And I'd find a way to move the friggin SPQ-9 to the forward mast to match the firing arc of the Mk 71...
|
Login
Register
FAQ
