What-If upgraded USS Boston/Canberra CAG-1/2

[Sauragnmon]

A few thoughts...

Tomahawks - yeah, 16's not all that grand, but if I recall, the Spruances never were planned for more than 16 when their weight setup was laid in. Though, the key is, that's what's Ready for launch - they Could have additional rounds stored in a magazine to reload the ABLs in Principle.

SPG-55B - I don't see why you can't rip off the Mk37 and put the 55 in place. Probably there is the weight question, but in theory it's doable unless we can get the number crunching on the weight questions.

Harpoon - Two Quads is a general idea, we could keep it there and alternately have internalized reloads in addition to the one barrage.

Missile Threats - yeah, the armor belt is there, but it also becomes a case of what're you going to do when you get hit - most of the Russian missiles go straight past the Mission part and all Kill - yes, in theory the damage is more confined, so it comes down to damage control as well as the protection suite.

RPV - why not stow them under the sides of the helo deck for launching that way?

[navydavesof]

RPV - why not stow them under the sides of the helo deck for launching that way?

Oh, oh, oh....of course! You know, I don't know what is happening to me. I considered that but discarded it after a few seconds of thought. I figured there would be something else underneath that helo deck. Now, however, I don't think there will be anything other than the helo control facility.

Armor...well, I see where you're coming from for sure. It might not offer too terribly much resistance against some of the bigger stuff the Soviets were throwing around during the '80s. What I do know, however, is that the damage control, compartmentalization, and ship materials were so much better back WWII mindset. The Boston and Canberra were ready to take hits, hard hits, and managely keep going. Ticonderoga, on the other hand, cannot sustain operations after taking a Silkworm. So, yeah, I understand that if the Canberra eats a Silkworm or something similar, she would suffer damage, but she would be in far better shape.

So, anyone and everyone:
How would these ships been used during Operation Praying Mantis, anti-Iran force operations, and escort matters?

How do you think would these ships be used in Somalia?

[CanDo Donovan]

I served aboard thge USS Canberra CAG2/CA70 from 1966 to 1969. I am looking for a model of the "CanDo". I had one that I put together back in the 70's, but in moving it was crushed. I was a 2nd class electricia and would love to have a model a bit larger than the 1/700 that is offered by Nikko.
Can some one help me?

Thanks
Don
WSpruill@bham.rr.com

[Sr. Gopher]

I am not aware of any (but that's normal), so sadly, the nearest you can get I believe is 1/350. Yankee Modelworks. The cheapest I think is just upwards of $200. Plus all of the needed Scratchbuild materials. I'm not of much help, but you could check here: viewtopic.php?f=48&t=18522 , or you could check some of the builds in the gallery.

[CAG-Duece]

I served aboard thge USS Canberra CAG2/CA70 from 1966 to 1969. I am looking for a model of the "CanDo". I had one that I put together back in the 70's, but in moving it was crushed. I was a 2nd class electricia and would love to have a model a bit larger than the 1/700 that is offered by Nikko.
Can some one help me?

Thanks
Don
WSpruill@bham.rr.com

Shipmate - You can still find the plastic 1/570 scale Revell models from time to time on eBay - either the USS Boston or Canberra - same molds, different box packaging.

ron.riml@myfairpoint.net CAG2/CA70 '66-'68

[Sr. Gopher]

But, like he said, from time to time. That usually takes a while.

[Seasick]

For the new threat upgrade the SPG-55 was retained for Terrier ships because it was already fit. Tartar ships already had SPG-51 fit so it was upgraded. The reason that the SPG-55 is bigger than SPG-51 goes back to the 1950s and early 60s when they had less sophisticated hardware. The SPG-51 has sufficient range for all NTU AAM. If the Canberra was reactivated i'd select SPG-51D because it is lighter weight and would help the vessels weights to be better distributed. Getting rid of the SPS-37 and replacing it with SPS-49 would also be a tremendous weight savings. Replacing the SPS-39 with SPS-48E would cause a gain in weight but its offset by other changes and is well worth it. The old fighter control radar can be dispensed with and not need a replacement. The value of the Canberra would be as a flagship. I'd remove the superfiring 5inch/38 twin between the #2 8inch turret and the bridge. Expand the superstructure and use the freed up space for flagship facilities. Completely new electrical system would be needed for a reactivation. New diesel alternators would provide better electrical power. Also UYK-7 computers that were in service in the early 1980s would have a good weight savings over the older computers fit in the 1950s, as well as being far more powerful. The old computers would have uh . . . vacume tubes.

[navydavesof]

For the new threat upgrade the SPG-55 was retained for Terrier ships because it was already fit. Tartar ships already had SPG-51 fit so it was upgraded. The reason that the SPG-55 is bigger than SPG-51 goes back to the 1950s and early 60s when they had less sophisticated hardware. The SPG-51 has sufficient range for all NTU AAM. If the Canberra was reactivated i'd select SPG-51D because it is lighter weight and would help the vessels weights to be better distributed. Getting rid of the SPS-37 and replacing it with SPS-49 would also be a tremendous weight savings. Replacing the SPS-39 with SPS-48E would cause a gain in weight but its offset by other changes and is well worth it. The old fighter control radar can be dispensed with and not need a replacement. The value of the Canberra would be as a flagship. I'd remove the superfiring 5inch/38 twin between the #2 8inch turret and the bridge. Expand the superstructure and use the freed up space for flagship facilities. Completely new electrical system would be needed for a reactivation. New diesel alternators would provide better electrical power. Also UYK-7 computers that were in service in the early 1980s would have a good weight savings over the older computers fit in the 1950s, as well as being far more powerful. The old computers would have uh . . . vacume tubes.

check out the line drawing I did about a year ago and posted on the first page toward the bottom. You'll find many of the alterations you suggested. Before Canberra was stripped of her AAW, the modernization proposal was to fit her with SM1s and SPG-55s, so I figured they might be chosen or retained if the ship, it seemed a logical conclusion

[navydavesof]

You know, this really is a good thread. It has reminded me of the awesome project this represents. I think it would at least be a medium project as opposed to a large project like my BBG or Des Moines CAG conversion. This one is just a plug-and-play bit per-se with a few fun mods.

Does anyone else have any suggestions?

[HvyCgn9]

G'day from Oz, tried 2 post something earlier but nothing happened!! Try Again!!

Very cool thread!! I have a project in the same vein on the go at present She is slightly larger than a Boston Conversion! I am doing a 1/72 scale RC model of USS Long Beach as a Strike CGN reconstruction she is currently in the very start of the detailing Stage.
She mounts original SAM's fwd, with modified weapons fit aft of Bridge, including 2x 30mm GOALKEEPER CWIS (just aft of bridge), then 2x 8" mk71 guns (old 5" position), then 2x 8 cell vls either side of UNREP kingpost, with a redesigned aft superstructure for a heli hanger for 2x SH-60R's!!
She is 3.05m(10')long x 31.5cm(12.4")beam x 13cm(5")draft and weighs in at 70kgs(154lbs) ballasted !! Here R a couple of pic's!! Currently working on bridge detail and bridge lighting before I glue all bridge sections together!! My next project will be a similar reco build of CG-10 USS Albany (with modified Talos launchers firing SeaPhoenix!)

Cheers Bruce

[CAG-Duece]

Bruce;

Nice 'Build' on the Long Beach! I was looking at some of the photos on the Warship Models Underway Forum and am quite impressed!!!

Our 'Flag' - Rear Adm Mark Woods was on the Long Beach in '67 when Canberra had trolled too close and slow to NVN shoreline to draw enemy fire so we could pinpoint their location - then later pull out of range and destroy them at our leisure. One problem was that were were hit several times in the process; RAdm Woods called Canberra's CO Capt Rosenberg over to Long Beach for an ass-chewing session. One small issue - Rosenberg had relieved Woods as CO of Canberra when he made Flag.

Rosenberg was promoted to Flag when he left the Canberra (She was an 'Admiral Maker') then later in '69 handled all the logistics for the release of the USS Pueblo prisoners from North Korea.

When we went to Melbourne in May '67 for R&R (Coral Sea Festival) the Long Beach went to Sydney - and as the story goes, left with a young Sheila stowaway hiding in the Admiral's cabin.... 'Course that may just be shithouse rumor.....

I've a photo somewhere of the Long Beach taken from under the Canberra's 8" turrets.....

[HvyCgn9]

Thx CAG !! There R more pic's of her on the RCgroups site and TF72 site! I am putting CG-10 USS Albany on hold for the moment 2 refit a 1/72 scale HMAS ANZAC for a club mate (he's payin!! YIPPEE) which should pay for LB's weapons/radars/detail fittings from APSmodels.
I will however be starting a smaller cruiser !! CGN-36 USS California will start cutting frames tomorrow!
Here is a couple of pic's from Sunday's Tf72 sail day here in Adelaide (Note the new classified SPS-YODA radar system)

[Guest]

Pardon me for slipping in here guys. I have a quick question on the missiles and radar. I was on the Boston from 63-66 and was an MT first and then FTM3. I am sorry to say I have forgotten the Terrier letter designations and also the fire control radar that I helped maintain. Could you help me this one time?
Ken Talbert
ocalats@gmail.com

[s4usea]

Pardon me for slipping in here guys. I have a quick question on the missiles and radar. I was on the Boston from 63-66 and was an MT first and then FTM3. I am sorry to say I have forgotten the Terrier letter designations and also the fire control radar that I helped maintain. Could you help me this one time?
Ken Talbert
ocalats@gmail.com

My father would have been the EMO on Boston at that time. He would have been (then) Lt Allen. I'm supposed to talk to him tonight and if you don't have an answer by then will ask...

[Timmy C]

Here is Wikipedia's page on the RIM-2 Terrier with a chart of its various incarnations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-2_Terrier

As for the fire control radar, I assume you mean the ones for the Terriers - in which case, they are the SPQ-5: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-u ... b/cag1.htm (See caption for the third photo down)

[Seasick]

Some Trivia:

The AN/SPQ-5 was the radar for the early versions of Terrier back in the 1950s. SPQ-5 isn't an illumination radar strictly. It tracks the target and emits a beam that the Terrier follows to the target. An if the Terrier looses the beam its game over for the intercept. The New Terrier versions by 1960-1961 introduced semi-active homing to the system and the AN/SPG-55 as the new illumination radar. The Leahy class, Bainbridge, and Long Beach were all built with the newer fire control system and the more efficient Mk10 launchers. About the same time the conversions of heavy cruisers to the Albany class was shooting way over budget and the final 8 conversions had just been canceled. The idea of refitting Boston and Camberra was very unattractive. However the Boston and Camberra were in better shape and partially modernized which made their 8 inch guns their primary value again and both ships reverted to heavy crusier status and Canberra was used for fire support in Vietnam.

[MAJOR-B]

Sorry for the confusion the other day, but let's try this again.....
After Re-Reading the thread here is the link which is a perfect example of upgrade to this class.(see below)
This is my first scratch build and I think the build would be rather straight forward...
As been stated here the drawing shows a configuration similar to the IOWA's received in the 80's.. My wife presented this project as a challenge using an expensive kit that has wonderful details but allow for success of this conversion... However,Still have a couple of basic questions which are as follows:
1. Why would they keep the helo deck they added in the late 60's? I think they might do something again like they did on IOWA's to handle the heavy HELO's of the 80's.
2. Could the OLD Fire Control Radars Structures Handle the weight of upgraded system as in drawing?

Lastly my wife said it best, you can build it because it's a model no one else has built before.. just do it..
Right now putting ideas down on paper looking for thoughts/input
Thanks
http://wiskybb64.deviantart.com/art/Can ... -135365569

[Seasick]

The Mk26 launchers are much smaller than the old Mk4 launchers for the early Terrier. The arrangement is fine though the armored box launchers that high up could cause problems with stability and would be vulnerable to damage. I'd go with a single Mk26 launcher. I'd use the space freed up by the sternward Mk4 launcher to build a hanger for SH-60. You would ample space for a aviation fuel storage and a torpedo magazine. I'd move the Harpoon to where you have the Tomahawks and put two armored box launchers atop the location of the deleted 5"/38 twin. The old structures could hold the weight of the AN/SPG-55.