The Ship Model Forum

I have been looking at the USS Boston and USS Canberra for a while, and these ships are really interesting. They are ships that had so much potenital. When they were decommissoined, they still had approximately 10-15 years left in them before their propulsion plant had to be "replaced", the only limiting factor in their life-cycles. I am curious if such a claim is true. The boiler plants have proven to be remarkably reliable and long-lived. The Sacrameno (AOE-1) is a perfect example.

I have read in US Cruisers by Norman Polmar that the Boston and Canberra were due to be upgraded with SPS-48 search radar and SPG-55 illiminators in order to support SM-1 missiles, and the helo deck was supposed to be enhanced to support greater helo landing capabilites. I am cuious how these would have looked and turned out operationally. I would like to know what your expertise yield as far as actual configurations and potential modernization during the 1980s.
The mission requirements would be as follow:

- NSFS beyond the conventional 8"/55caliber range

- TLAM/TASM capability (where would ABLs or VLS go)

- Harpoon/possibly SLAM

- RPVs/UAVs

- the "increased" helo support capability

- how one would perform a sercive-life extenstion

- improved AAW capability, such as would you implament the New Threat Upgrade to the Mk74 or Mk86 weapons direction systems or leave them stock

- Flag facilities (where would you put them and what kind of alterations would you make to the structure

- New mast to support SPS-48 and/or SPS-49

- What would the missioin statements actually be for a CAG

- Secondary battery replacement (Mk 45 5"/54 caliber perhaps)

Thanks for reading! I look forward to input, gentlemen! If I only had the money, I would buy one of the CommanderSeries USS Canberras and begin building it immediately.

Also, does anyone know of any photo-etch kits that include parts for the SPG-55 illuminators?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I believe its Niko that just released the Canberra in 1/700! I've been considering a similar upgrade for, IMO, these very nice ships. I'm going to have some modified CAGs in my Alt History but I thinking of basing them off the Des Moines class as well as some Baltimores as kind of a test and then use the Des Moines conversions as the basis for some purpose built Missile Cruisers with 8" guns.

Let's see... It'd be nice if there was a way to provide 2 more SPG-55 illuminators to take full advantage of having 2 launchers. If not reduce to one launcher and expand the other one's magazine. For an effective helo deck it seems like everything aft of the funnel should be moved forward, eliminating the pole mast with the SPS-43 on it. The mast/radar arrangement would need some consolidation anyway. Flag, easy, dump the 5"/38 mount below the bridge and extend the superstructure.

Harpoon could go amidships with some ABLs further aft in between the funnel and the missile illuminators albeit with some superstructure mods. Sec battery I'd keep but that's me. Could also add some CIWS mounts depending on when you plan on the SLEP. I almost feel like the twin 3"/50s would need to be retained to provide some sort of close in defense at least until CIWS comes into play. Although removing them would provide some extra deck space needed for the SSMs.

With the SLEP upgrades they could serve as a prototype for the purpose built CGs in the 70s with the new Mk 71 8"/55 and SM-2s. They'd serve as fleet flagships/fleet air defense I'd think.

Those are my thoughts off the top of my head. What do you think?

Here's some drawings from Friedman's Cruiser book. Some more visuals should help get the ideas flowing.



For fun here's a comparison between CA-134 and CAG-1. I think I might do CAG conversion to a Des Moines class CA.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

Cliffe,

Thanks for the quick input and the pictures. They are pretty good and pretty helpful. For clarification, the time frame would be the early to mid-1980s.
I have a 1/350 model of the Des Moines that I am going to do some day but not soon I believe. I am going to acquire a Boston/Canberra from Commander Series very soon. I believe I am going to have to wait to build these for at least a year if not longer depending on where my career goes.
However, the Boston/Canberra it seems might be a little easier. We'll see for sure.
As for your inputs, I know these two ships were slated to get the SPG-55Bs in place of the two aft illuminators. I don't know, however, what kind of fire-control system they would have gotten. However, an update during the '80s would likely have given them the Mk84 WDS at the same time as the New Threat Upgrade This means that the missiles don't need an illiminator showing them where to go for very long; terminal guidance only. I think like the CGs of the time, only two are necessary, but if another would go on, I would replace the forward 5inch director with another SPG-55.
I am thinking to keep the modifications in line with those made to the Iowa-class battleships during the same time frame and modifications made to the other cruisers and destroyers during their big NTU upgrades. NTU provided so much more than just an AAW upgrade. So much of the time, it was rehabilitation of the berthing, AC units, propulsion overhaul, etc.
I do agree the secondary battery would likely stay the same.
I am thinking about the aft mast being removed and building a second mast around the stack and keeping the forward mast where it is.
I think I have worked out pretty well where the Phalanx and chaff would go, but I will wait until I get a model in my hands to make those decisions.
How these ships would have been utilized is an interesting problem. I am thinking amphibious assault command platforms and NSFS ships. However, one asked back in the '80s, would a flag officer be comfortable having his staff aboard and trying to run things froma heavily engaged NSFS ship or would he want to keep the ship away from conflict with the shore, thus reducing its effectiveness.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Alrighty Dave, I did a sketch. I used Friedman's drawing of the Boston as built and went from there. I went a little extreme in the "endless money SLEP" kind of way I drew it in pencil on some thick tracing paper so the scan really sucks.

I upgraded the helo capacity with a Ticonderoga style flight deck but had to restrict the helo hangar to one helo so the aft 5"/38s wouldn't have TERRIBLE fields of fire. If you want better helo facilities then the aft guns need to go but I feel like they need to stay hmmm... I opted to upgrade the GMLS and the illuminators to a MK 26 and SPG-51s. I sketched in 4 illuminators but I'm not sure if they're needed. I was trying to make up for the loss of the second missile launcher. I gave it boat davits like on the Iowas. I cut away the deck house around the center line 5"/38 and snuck an ABL in on either side.

I used the 3"/50 locations to allow for a Harpoon deck and Flag accommodations. I built up the forward 3"/50 mount into Flag space like on Newport News and installed SRBOC and it's ready use lockers atop it along with 2 CIWS mounts 2 decks higher up next to the SLQ-32 mounts. I put 4 quad Mk 141 launchers for Harpoon on the after 3"/50 loaction.

I built up a second mast abaft the funnel and put SPS-48 and TACAN. The forward mast got SPS-49 and SPS-52 (surface search). Not sure if the SPS-48 needs to be lower then the SPS-49 or vice versa. 8" and 5" directors remained the same. I also extended the bow bulwark aft a bit just because. Wasn't really sure what else to do the stern area either.

Anyway, that's my first design idea. What do you think. There's areas where I could try a few different things but I couldn't decide just yet. Mainly everything aft of the after mast So yeah, take a look!

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

Wow, very interesting idea. I can certainly see why you said a near unlimited SLEP. I like the helo hanger idea. That's pretty cool. The concept in general seems pretty sound. The only thing I have a comment about is the structure leading up to Turret 2 being cut away to make room just for the two ABLs, but that's it.

Going from front to back, I would remove the NTDS antenna, because NTU brings that same capability with a different array on board.

I like the decoys you have on board. It's a good place. I might place them up on top of the bridge on mine. The Phalanx would go on the forward 3" director (I think that's what the circular pad is up there). I do wonder if because the ship is so big they would put 3 or 4 Phalanx CIWS on it or keep it at 2.

Mk38 25mm guns will go somewhere on the weather decks; likely on the O2 level.

The flag facility you referred to on Newport News was a combined flag/ECM arrangement and would be a great place to put the SLQ-32 as well.

What I have in mind is a similar radar set up. The SPS-48 would be forward, because that is likely where it would have gone (I think anyway), and the SPS-49 aft on top of the fire-control tower. I don't think it matters which is higher, but when one is higher than the other, the SPS-48 seems to be the higher one. I think the SPS-48 is more important anyway you go about it.

My approach is keeping the structure generally the same for cost measures. The aft mast would be moved to make way for a platform accommodating ABLs that would fire criss-cross the ship like on the Iowas. This would only accomodate 4 launchers, and Harpoons would likely be limited to only two sets. Even the Giant Long Beach only had 8 Harpoons total. The Harpoons would go on top of one of the 3" magazines. I would install similar boat davits where the old ones were.

Elaboration ohthe tomahawks: Between the stack and the aft fire control tower would be a flat deck all the way across for 4 ABLs. This would allow the decks beneath to be available for a 64 cell Mk41 Mod0 (TLAM/VLA shooter) VLS pad to be installed if the funds came available.

Further aft, I would place a king-post for refueling behind the aft 5” guns and the forward SPG-55.

I will keep the aft structure the way it is. I am very curious if they kept the launchers after they were taken off in a warehouse somewhere or if they were scrapped. If they were scrapped, I agree Mk26 launchers would go in their places.

The helo landing pad would be built out beyond the fantail a little to accommodate larger aircraft with a little roll-away fuel cart like the Iowas have.

Generally, that’s what I have in mind for the Boston ships. Teak would stay on the ships, and they would assume a modern color scheme.

Now, a problem is where would the VERTREP station be? It can’t be on the flight deck, because the flight deck is elevated one level. Unless the flight deck was brought down to the main deck OR the crew walked everything down from the missile decks, then there would have to be a VERTREP station somewhere else on the ship. The question is: where.

I like your drawing, man. Good artist-ry. I am seriously considering the removal of the forward 5” mount you suggested and using all that area for flag facilities. Depending on the over-pressure of the 8” guns, it would make a great place for Harpoons or ABLs.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Well, a few concepts in the 80's that could be used to increase NSFS effect with the guns, would be to modify the shells to supply a Base Bleed effect, which would stabilize the rounds in flight, reducing aerodynamic drag as well as improving flight range.

That's just the first step, the second would be to fully re-design the rifling for Extended-Range Full Bore design, which could be adapted from the infamous GC-45 howitzer and its ilk. From there, one could adapt Base Bleed or Rocket Assist munitions, and the Full Bore would allow not only more propellant by removing the driving bands, it would have given the ability to use higher-power propellants which would have simply blown the driving bands off.

I would go so far as to yank the old 5"/38's, and refit with at least the Mk42, for some levels of commonality in the fleet - it's just somewhat foolish to keep those guns unless absolutely direly necessary.

There's just my two pennies.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

I'm currently in the process of converting CA-134 to a CAG type ship. I'm taking a lot of what was said into consideration. I think I'm going to go with the twin Tartar launchers like on Albany CGs and the early Adams DDGs, retain the after 8" turret, swap out the 5"/38s and make the stern a helo pad like the Iowas. Harpoon and ABLs will be thrown in somewhere. I'll try one version without the after 8" turret and some Terrier launchers. We'll see.

I'm operating on the fact that we built far more than 3 of the class, with the last ones coming online in the mid '70s. I'll be converting 3-4 at the end of the class. Whiffs are great like that

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

Well, that's interesting. I thought the barrels could not reasonably take more pressure than what they already have. Because these are loose-liner barrels, the liners could be removed and replaced in the barrels without constructing more barrels, but what about the barrel strength with these higher-pressure propellant charges you're talking about?



I have considered and will continue to consider that. I wonder myself if they did not do that with the best of the best, the Iowa-class, why would they have done that with CAGs?



Thanks for that! What do you think about CIWS and other modern weaponry placement placement?

What do you tihnk about Mast arrangement?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Well, Dave, let's start first with the guns and their barrels, and hearken to the teachings of our Artillery Lord and Master, Gerald Bull, through demonstration, namely in the construction of Project Babylon - that massive gun in itself was to have a replacable internal liner in the gun, so as to retain consistent integrity of the barrel in itself. Babylon was begun After the GC-45 and other such projects, but he did work on designs for larger artillery such as Al Fao, or another version, which was some 210mm in bore. I am not entirely sure how the guns compare up against the loose-linered 203's that these classes used, but one could easily look up weapons such as the AS-90, Archer and PzH-2000, which all use Full Bore design to them, started by the GC-45. The yield of the propellants could be adjusted to compensate if there would be a case of drastically accellerated barrel wear (consider he went from grade 7 up to grade 11 propellants when he started fully testing the design, so ostensibly there's a threshold we can play within). I would imagine the liners might be redesigned to form a tighter fit against the barrel walls in this situation, but they would still retain some higher power efficacy able to expand their power and their range through the modernization.

With regards to the 5/38's it was primarily power and cost - a lot of the concepts for refits and modernizations wanted to replace the guns - beancounters ducked the fog on that one again. Beancounters control the system, so the Navy's left to settle with Good Enough instead of Damn Good. Go fig.

As to the mast arrangement, why not go for a little more effectiveness, pull the aft mast forward, MACK it with the design so you free up a chunk of space. Then we can widen the structure at the Harpoons, lift them up and set them in a more Spruance style setup, and increase internal space some. SPS-48 and SPS-49, seems to preclude NTU in some ways, we could step that up and include it, in theory, with a later upgrade. ABLs on the forward block, not a bad idea, we could also add some on the aft deck as well. I would suggest you're missing SPQ-9 on the refit concept, even the Iowas got SPQ-9. I would dare to go so far as to say yank one of the SPG-51's aft more, set it up in a T-style arrangement, lift the third SPG-51 up so you can now direct three missiles to a side. If we're going for the Mk42/45 refit, lift the forward mount up slightly so it's in a more superfiring position over the 8" mountings - I would also suggest removing the forward wings and replacing them with something like a Mk13 GMLS each side to allow some forward coverage in the defensive suite. Alternately, yank the front 5" turret, ditch the ABLs, and consider a 32-cell VLS with a more modern concept. Doubly so, we could add 64 aft, most likely, in a Tico-style position. ABLs in that could be yanked and replaced with RAM.

A couple of nickels on the pile now, for your enjoyment.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

Indeed. Reactivating or upgrading these ships in the '80s is on the fring of possibility anyway. Given a choice between reactivating and upgrading the Bostons over the Des Moines, I would have to say that even though they were less capable than the Des Moines concerning gunnery, they would have likely pulled the Bostons, because they were already fitted with an AAW capability and arrangement. For as ineffective as the 5"/38s are, I might keep them or at least show them on the ship in both a 5"/38 and 5"/54 arrangement.



I wonder if the forward mast could support modern radars such as the SPS-48C/E or if it would would have to be redesigned. Another ponder is a tripod mast like the Iowas or a quad-pod. The quad would afford for support for addiational material being stepped to the mast, such as the SPQ-9 and a SPG-60. In fact....quad-pod is what I think i will do.



I know it's kind of bland, but I am trying to keep what was established for the actual upgrade in the late '60s (? I forget) and then a modernization in the early '80s, around 1984. If the ships had SPG-55, which is with what they were going to be upgraded, they would have been modified up to the SGP-55B model.
The T-style would be great for a rebuild like is sketched higher up in the thread.



I understand that, and yes, if they had been long-winded enough to get to the point of VLS, I agree, but not even the best, the battleships, got anything more than ABLs.
What you might find interesting is a 32-cell pad forward in the Des Moines is what I recommended to NAVSEA when I was part of a Des Moines modernization project in 2006 before she was condemned to death by scrapping. I did up quite detailed drawings for NAVSEA and sent them with an article to Proceedings, but it was failed to be published.



What are you referring to as a 64-cell aft? Are you suggesting up in the structure where the aft mast is or where the twin-arm launchers are? If we're talking about the long-winded upgrade. I would put 64-cell pads in place of the twin-arm launchers and their magazines.
IF we were to go that route, we could do a few more things to the ships...VLS like that, 2x64 cell aft and 1x32 cell forward. I believe NTU would stay on the ships and be upgraded more and more as the years went on. They would move on to SPECOP ships I am confident. I think RAM would be installed on the ship in place of 2 of the Phalanx CIWS mounts. I am positive more generators will had to be added to support such upgrades as well.
In my upgrades, I will display a generator house with a volcano exhaust on the aft deck.



Yeah! Keep the cash flowing, guys. This is cool. I would ask someone to look back a few posts earlier adn critique my in post on Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:55 pm.

I look forward to more ideas and thoughts. If Seasick is out there watching in the bushes, I'd like his input.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

alright, some more spare change to throw in the pot here....

I equally like the SLEP idea with the hangar and helo pad - that's where my SPG-51 shift concept came from, and that's where I was going from with some of my concepts - it's a good idea and I like it, but there's a few things I would change, and I mentioned some of them.

Fully Modern redesign concept: 64-cell on mk26, 32-cell behind 8-2. Forward 5" Wings replaced with 5/54 Mk45 for commonality. Powerplant likely replaced with diesel for maintenance cost decrease. Aft 5" positions raised, turned to second set of CIWS positions. When CIWS upgraded, half/half with RAM, in opposite corners layout, Block 1B Phalanx for extreme-close engagement. With all the upgrades, the aft 5" has lost most of its field of fire, so it wouldn't bear to be kept in truth. Decoys are good, might add additional on top of hangar for aft coverage and field of fire. Gun liners and systems refitted on the 8" mountings for extended range and accuracy improvements. Aft mast brought forward into MACK arrangement - possible forward mast brought partially aft to stand off MACK as expansion/reinforcement to support full radar suite.

ABL/Arm Launcher Upgrade: 5" position lifted behind 8-2, refitted with Mk13 GMLS for forward AAW support - 5" magazine converted to storage for additional forward missiles to replenish Mk13 Ready Service Magazine. Possible conversion of aft 5" mounts to either CIWS or Mk13, to further increase AAW capacity. Would allow conversion of Mk26 magazine to dual purpose with ASROC and SM-1/2 Hangar and helipad in place of forward Mk26. Forward radars to include two SPG-55B/51C for forward missile engagement capacity, possibly four to six SPG radars on hangar structure. Aft mast converted to MACK for improved top space to accomodate guidance suite.

As a side note, I would suggest moving the ABLs forward a distance, there is something to be said for having them able to be reloaded, of a certainty, and if I recall the Tomahawk ABL is loaded from the aft section. I could be entirely wrong, and if so, disregard entirely.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

Ok, a few questions...

I'm upgrading my Des Moines conversion and I want to install Mk-42/45 5"/54s. I know you either need Mk-63 GFCS or SPQ-9/SPG-60. Question is how many different mounts can those GFCSs control and how many different targets can they engage at once? The Sprucans and Ticos only have one of each radar and 2 5"/54s a piece but if I want to have 4-6 5"/54s do I need another set of radars? I was thinking of swapping out the amidships Mk-37 directors for Mk-63s as a kind of backup/protection against over saturation of air defenses. I know the Iowas only got one SPQ-9 (can't find SPG-60 anywhere) and they had 6 twin 5" turrets. I just wonder is one SPQ-9 is enough to control all 6 or if they simply couldn't add anymore for whatever reason.

I might opt for the Mk-42 mounts since they have a higher rate of fire then that Mk-45s. Navsource rates them around 30-40 versus 20 respectively. Any ideas there?

Also, I read that the Iowas were to receive Sea Sparrow during the '80s modernizations but the launchers couldn't stand up to the pressure of the 16"/50s firing so they scrapped the idea. Question then is can Mk-13/26 stand up to the pressure of the 8"/55s? I know they're have the size of the Iowa's main battery but it made me think about that.

I also wanted to, at least for one version, go the route of the Iowas and in a sense make some baby Iowas. Retain the 5" and 8" turrets, add some Harpoons and ABLs and make a nice gunfire support ship for the Marines. Another idea was to dump the forward 5" and mount 82 and replace with a Mk-26 or a VLS pack.

The main question that surrounds this all is what role do you want the ship to play? Should they have flag accommodations and then serve as flagships? Should they serve strictly as gunfire support ships with some SM-1/2s for self defense? Or should they simply fill the current role of cruisers; fleet air defense, just with a more substantial gun battery with Harpoon and Tomahawk taking a back seat to SAMs?


In my alt history, I want to arm my cruisers with 8" and 5" guns and reserve 5" only batteries for the destroyers. The cruisers will be large like Des Moines or Long Beach (which surprisingly have almost exactly the same hull dimensions) so triple 8" auto turrets won't be a problem. They won't need to stripped down MK-71 8", which actually was just one barrel from a Des Moines turret stripped down to weigh as little as possible. I like the idea of having at least 2 triple turrets on them but not restricting them both to one end or the other for survivability reasons. I don't want one hit to take out an entire gun/missile battery.

I think I might go back to the old school Helo hangar in the stern to free deck space elsewhere. Install an elevator to move them and call it quites. I know the Virginia CGNs had something similar but they didn't use it much because it leaked to badly. Anyway around the leaking issues?



Dave, you still have those drawings by chance or remember your modifications? *please, please, please*

Phew, long winded post over. Any thoughts gents?

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

Well, here's the interesting thing - some of the modern GFCS suites that the US Navy has, the gun isn't actually directed by the radar, but the internal systems - the firing solutions are queued from within, computed, and engaged without the radar being slaved to the guns. This is why Iowa had only the one SPQ-9, same with the Sprucans, Kidds and Ticos.

The Des Moines were considered for an alternate to the Iowas - from what I read, the aft turret would have gone for the ABL battery on the aft deck, set along the beam for orientation. Let me dig up the image here, a guy I know did a shipbucket-style Des Moines conversion you might find interesting:

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c275/hangar/Shipbucket%20profiles/USACADesMoines2AU.png

He claims it was actually based off what he could find of the upgrade proposal, so I'm not entirely sure what he had on hand for that modernization.

I could see the Mk42's having better rate of fire, they have more internal space, so they could have a more efficient autoloader setup mounted in the turrets.

My thought with the Mk13 on 5" mounts is it's got about the same size of footprint, so it would be able to fit in place with little problems - the Mk26 also uses a long track style magazine, which would make it harder to feed in a lot of positions.

I would imagine leaking on the helo elevator would have been a bad case of a wet deck - if there's something to hold the stern up out of the water, or raise the freeboard at any means, you've got a plan.

I'm with you on REAL Cruisers, Cliffy, not these overgrown Destroyers.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

To my knowledge, the SPQ system is mainly for detection of sea-skimming missiles. Because it is a dopplar radar, I can only assume it is very good at watching the rounds go out and plotting where the next shot needs to go.

The Mk-160 GFCS can pair any director with any gun mount you want, so you can use a SPG-51 to direct a 5" mount if you wanted. I believe, however, if you strictly want to stay consistant with a Mk-86 GFCS, which is what I am doing, you need one GFC director per mount. I know that one thing the NTU equipped Kidds could do was direct a missile with its SPG-60 director. So, I really, really wonder if NTU allowed the opposite; can a SPG-51/55 direct a gun mount?
Why the hell not? Seasick and CAPT Potter might have some input.



The fire-control solutions came down to any one if not all of the five-inch mounts. I know the battleships and the Newport News could direct its main battery to fire upon two targets at once with the third turret being slave to the turret requiring more firepower. When talking about this before, I have been told Iowa successfully engaged 3 different targets with her main battery at Viequez...but that's Iowa. She was good. Really good. The best in history.



An instructor of mine was a Mk42 GMG, and he spoke very favorably of the Mk42 mount. He said its strengths were that it could fire very, very fast, because it had two loading mechanisms, and if one went down, you had a second that could maintain a constant rate of fire. The 40 RPM was possible but led to jams, sometimes mission-killing jams, so they kept the rate of fire down. That's what multiple mounts is all about, that's for sure.
On that note, if they changed the ejection system on the Mk45s and gave it a second loading drum and feeding mechanism, they could really throw some rounds down range.
But on the Mk42s, one of the biggest draw backs he said was the mount had guts running deep, deep inside the ship. It wasn't like a Mk45 or a Mk71 that was like a tooth.



Yes, however, the Sea Sparrows were going to be put on the ships in 1993 starting with Iowa and moving to NJ the following year after Iowa was back on line. The upgrade was going to consist of the removal of the ABLs and installation of the Mk41 Mod0, Mk160 GFCS to direct the 16" ERGM rounds, and Mk23 TAS. So, the Sea Sparrow launchers could handle it, but they had to be hardened to withstand the overpressure. It's like the phalanx mounts. All four mounts kept breaking their wave-guides. Iowa was down 3 phalanx at one time until they could figure out how to fix the wave-guides. They brazed the corners, and they were strong enough to support routine 16" firing at all firing archs.
But with that upgrade, even then, the five-inch battery was going to stay the same!



Good question, man, but honestly, those launchers are nothing but metal. Especially if they're on the other side of the ship they should have no problem at all.



Well, the reasons for the ships is NSFS. AAW is great for a well rounded capability set. Especially for escorting around amphibious groups. If self-defense was the only name of the game, then Sea Sparrow launchers would do it, and the Des Moines would have been a much, much better candidate for reactivation. Rapid fire guns are so, so much better than breach-loaded bag guns.
The Harpoon and Tomahawks are good for strike missions. Even with ERGM rounds for the 8" guns, reaching out and touching is the role of Harpoon and Tomahawk. The battleships never received enough tomahawks. the ABLs were good for Iowa and New Jersey. The VLS arrangement came on-line when Missouri was being reactivated. Missouri and Wisconsin should have received that fitting, no question, and the capability back-fitted into Iowa and New Jersey. Thus, on the Boston/Canberra, I think the tomahawk missile load out would be at least 4 ABLs. Knowing the Navy, they would have restricted it to 4 ABLs.
"It's just a cruiser. What do they need another set of ABLs for?"
With the armament variety we're talking about, the designation I would give a ship like this is a heavy strike cruiser.



I understand. I am working in pretty strict margins. My margins reflect what the Navy would likely have authorized...which means even keeping only 4 of the 5"/38 mounts.



I agree. That is what I had suggested with the Des Moines. A very large effort would have been put toward making the aircraft hanger compatible with storing and maintaining an SH-60. The aft deck have been elevated and ramped down to the main deck, but the protective hatch removed and replaced with simply an elevator that went up to the elevated flight deck. This would have provided the Des Moines with a capability the battleships never had: embarked helos.



Yes, I do. I have the originals, but the scans were on my computer that died. I will have to scan them when I get another scanner. Hopefully sooner rather than later. The article I wrote for Proceedings died with that computer, too. I am willing to be Naval Institute Press still has a copy of my final, though.
The forward and aft 5" mounts would have been pulled and the entire space gutted and raised by one deck. This made way for a full 64 cell arranged across the ship instead of from front to back. This did interfere with the firing arch of Turrets 2 and 3, but not that much.

I must say, a modification I would make is a newly designed barrel for the 8" turrets. When we were working on the Des Moines, the first thing that would have been done was to re-gun the turrets. I convinced them future barrels should be focused around planning for ERGM rounds. The chamers needed to be long enough to fire the Army's 8" copper-head round and planning for rocket assisted rounds. This was done for the Mk71 and should be carried forward. We were hoping the initial statement that the use of existing copper-head technology could work as a stop-gap for precision NSFS missions would gain favor, seeing how there is a TON of copperhead rounds sitting in warehouses. Since the Navy has sucked hard ever since the battleships were decommissioned, the Des Moines was going to fix this, and Salem was going to be put on notice to clean out and get ready to be pulled for reactivation.

Instead, the Des Moines, one of the Navy and Marine Corps's most valuable assets was destroyed.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Seems I found a solution to the leaky helo hangar problem. Apparently the Northhampton had the first ever weather proof below decks helo hangar in the stern. She was an Oregon City class CA (Baltimore hull, same as Boston) that they re-built into a command cruiser by raising the hull and main deck up one full deck, giving them more internal space and as a by-product, weather proofing the hangar! I guess raising it up by only one deck got it high enough above the water line to keep it dry.

Question though, would raising the hull up a full deck for either of our conversions cause any inherent stability problems? We're packing a lot of top weight onto our cruisers although a lot of it will be on he main deck. Would the superstructure/masts/directors need to lowered any? Should the hull be raised up with the turrets one deck and then leave everything else where it is? I don't know but I think it would be a very easy solution and would allow for more internal room for magazines, fuel, supplies, etc... not to mention sufficient maintenance room for the embarked helos.

Just a thought I had. Anyone think its feasible or otherwise?

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

I don't think it would risk the stability a lot as it would indeed "push" the ship lower in the water anyway. The high superstructure is probably the biggest problem in terms of stability, no?

Marco

This is an interesting concept. The Des Moines could see up to 2,000 tons at the O4 level before she got unstable. Especially seeing how the stern is at the weather deck, building the aft deck up it seems might not be a problem.
Finalizing the Des Moines design that involved full utilization of the elevator was going to be addressed by NAVSEA if a study was funded. It think all of our suggestions would have been fully investigated. I could only have hoped that I could have hung out as part of the team if it had gone official.
What rediculous fun that would have been.

Here's something I saw a long time ago and is still very interesting to me. The Mk16 5"/54 caliber mount from which they fired (Semi-Active Laser Guided) SALG rounds. They look pretty neat, and I would consider them a remote possibility for use on the 1980s Boston and Canberra on the basis: In the era of the 1980s, we know they could have been constructed, but the question is, would they have been if SALG rounds would have been pursued?
The guided rounds and any extra range is what I think we/I need to focus on when addressing our NSFS issue. Even if the battleships, NSFS experts, came back we would have to field laser guided rounds immediately.

So, an open question, to the knowledge of you gentlemen, how many special 5" rounds with which did we experiment on a serious level? I know of the recent ERGM, the dead-eye which is what the Mk16 is firing, the RAP round for the Mk12 5"/38s. Anything else?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Modernizing the Boston and Camberra further than the Terrier fit got plug pulled for a variety of reasons.

1. The boilers and machinery would need upgrades to be kept with current (early 1960s) USN standards.
2. The ships had become a bit top heavy.
3. The Mk4 guided missile launch system [GMLS] had been suceeded by the Mk10 GMLS on Terrier ships. Keeping the Mk4 in service was an unnecessary cost.
4. The Albany class conversions had gone way over budget and the USN was weary of complex conversions.

The Boston can't be modernized because she very active in Vietnam as a fire support platform and had insufficient maintance as she was being allowed to ware out. She was Stricken in 1973, and was scrapped starting in 1975. http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/CA69.htm

Canberra was sold for scrapping in 1980. http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/CA70.htm

By time Lehman is sworn in to office as Secretary of the Navy both ships have ben cut up in to razor blades.
Otherwise I would say neither ship would be a candidate for modernization in 1981 if they still exsisted.
The helicoptor platform was just that a platform. No hanger or any other facilities were fitted. To add helicoptor facilities would require a significat reconstruction. The reconstruction would require a Mk4 launcher to be removed. The second Mk4 launcher is likely not to be compatible with the standard missile and would require a seperate upgrade package from the Mk10 launcher. Removing the second Mk4 launcher and replacing it with a launcher that is still in production, either the Mk26 or Mk13 would also be expensive. . THe only acceptable thing to do would be to remove both launchers down to the dec and converting the below decks to another use.

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

Good information from Seasick. The hulks of cruisers Canberra and Providence were still being scrapped at Terminal Island, Los Angeles harbor, in late 1981. While cranes lifted the sections off the former cruisers and dropped them into barges moored alongside bound for Japan, USS New Jersey arrived a few hundred yard away for modernization at Long Beach Naval Shipyard.

At that time the USN studied converting the remaining two Des Moines class cruisers for Tomahawks. They would lose #3 turret to make room for diesel electrical generators. They would then need new interior networks for electrical distribution.

The sketches in this thread for notional updated CAs should realistically allow for (among other things, like NTDS, satellite communications, EW, point defenses, etc., to bring the ships into the 1970s) huge increases in electrical power for new combat systems, with additional emergency back-up generators and switchboards. If a warship steams split-plant, which is the battle condition, each SSTG relies on the fireroom for that particular MER. If you lose boiler power, you lose that SSTG, too. If the concomitant loss of electrical power brings down part of your combat system, that's called a cheap kill.

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.

Hey, guys, here is my idea so far for Canberra.

First, I really want to thank some of the powerhouses here on the forum for commenting on this. I understand neither the Boston nor Canberra were available for reactivation or modernization. Nor if they had been available, would they have been brought back. The Des Moines were far superior ships in most ways. The only advantage these had over the Des Moines was that they had AAW facilities constructed, and they had breach loaded guns. The breach loaded guns would have made for utilization of Copperhead and 8" RAP rounds. The propulsion plants and all other systems would have needed to be brought up to speed like the Iowas had been, so I offer that might have been easier than people make it sound. It does sound like Boston was run pretty hard and hung up wet.
I apologize for a few inconsistancies between the top-down and profile views. I spent the most time on the profile view, so that should be consulted closer.
There are still a few differences that there will be between this drawing and how the model will turn out.
The Harpoons might still be too close to Turret 2. I know they had no problem with the 16" overpressure, but they were further away and did not risk being directly affected by the ends of the barrels like this arrangement is.
Let me know what you think and please ask questions. I really hope to get this concept down before I get to fabrication.

You can click on and download a little higher resolution picture from my deviantart page. That way the lettering is a little easier to read.

http://wiskybb64.deviantart.com/art/Can ... -135365569

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance