CA-134 Des Moines-Class Heavy Cruisers - 1980's Reactivation Proposals

I

Ironmiked

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
5 May 2020
Messages
47
Reaction score
72
I understand there was a proposal to reactivate two CA-134 Class Heavy Cruisers (probably USS Des Moines and USS Salem) in place of or in additional to the Iowa Class reactivations. Below are two of the concepts I have found. However, I was wondering if there are any more details out there? The Iowa's were a response to the Kirov's; could these have been a similar response to the Slava's? Could the US Navy have operated six Surface Action Groups (four BB based + two CA based) as a part of the 600 Ship Navy? I know this would have required additional escorts beyond what was already programed for the 15 CVBG + 4 SAGs. Any thoughts or insight are welcome.

Thanks!

1627426932652.png

1627426840098.png
 
As I understand it the Des Moines were look for reactivation instead of the Iowas.

Reason being that they were smaller, had less crew, were in better shape since they were active recently so they be cheaper to upgrade.

Especially consider the Navy was looking heavily into bring back the 8 inch guns in the Mk71 MCLWG which was basically just a single barrel Des Moines turret. Handly since the Navy was looking at advance long range 8 inch projectiles.

Problem was that since they were smaller they couldn't carry the need Flag Crew or the fuel load the navy wanted. And after they did the math the Navy found it cost the same to upgrade the Iowa's as it would the Des Moines. And we had 2 more Iowa's to refit as well.
 

Attachments

  • BB-61_NEJ-96-3-25-1984 Desmoines.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 142
Last edited:
I love those huge cruisers ! and yes the 8-inch shell story made a lot of sense. In the end the Iowas were probably a better bargain for the reasons you mentionned.
 
Gosh, I did that Shipbucket art so many years ago...

The USN probably made the wiser choice in plumping for the Iowas, but equally given the decade-long twilight of the big guns until the early 1990s either solution would probably have worked out ok.
 
Interesting that they chose an assymetrical arrangement for the ship boats and the Harpoon launchers at the sides...
I very much doubt that the cost for modernization would had been the same as the Iowas. Indeed they would carry the same missile armament of 4x4 RGM-84 Harpoon and 8x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk and 4x Phalanx CIWS but the radar set seems smaller and the entire hull is smaller.
 
Nice designs! Interesting to see those "wing" ABL boxes forward; I could not recall such position in other projects.

P.S. Note the lack of Sea Sparrow launchers. If I recall correctly, on Iowa's they were omitted because it was found out that they are not designed to survive blasts of main guns. But there are also suggestion that Iowa's did not have enough electric power to feed their guidance radars. Since on modified Des Moines's the rear deck is free of main guns, it seems that the second reason is right.
 
Tzoli said:
Interesting that they chose an assymetrical arrangement for the ship boats and the Harpoon launchers at the sides...
I very much doubt that the cost for modernization would had been the same as the Iowas. Indeed they would carry the same missile armament of 4x4 RGM-84 Harpoon and 8x4 BGM-109 Tomahawk and 4x Phalanx CIWS but the radar set seems smaller and the entire hull is smaller.
Click to expand...
They had to do a Similar amount of work on the Des Moines as they did for the Iowas. Plus the cost for the Harpoons and Tomahawk launchers and support systems would have been the same for either ship.

Plus they had to remove one of the main turrets as well as well which means rebalancing the ship which is a costly thing to do.

The PDF in my other post here goes into detail of it pretty well.
 
Couldn't they leave all three turrets , remove the anti-aircraft , and install the sea sparrows
maybe two phalanx and the harpoons and leave off the tomahawks.
 
muttly said:
Couldn't they leave all three turrets , remove the anti-aircraft , and install the sea sparrows
maybe two phalanx and the harpoons and leave off the tomahawks.
Click to expand...
A large part of the reactivation reason was to get more Tomahawk anti ship and nuke out to sea.

So while leaving them off be nice, it will kinda defeat the purpose.

Honestly I wonder how hard it be to remove turret 2 and stuff in as many VLS cells in its place. The Follow up of course will be adding Aegis since 8 inch guns play just fine with it.
 
Interesting the lack of ASROC and the lightweight 324mm ASW torpedo tubes. I can see it would be difficult to find enough centreline space for the ASROC but the Torpedo launchers were quite small and always placed on the ship sides.

Any data on this modernization about the proposed displacement change and sensor suite?
 
These were seen as surface strike assets, so any ASW weaponry was not seen as required. Don't forget as SAG flagships they would have had escorts with them at all times. In any case adding sonar would have added cost and rebuild time.
 
They would had been dry docked anyway so rebuild time would not be extended by the sonar, cost yes.
 
Tzoli said:
Interesting the lack of ASROC and the lightweight 324mm ASW torpedo tubes.
Click to expand...
I suppose the lack of ASROC was due to lack of acoustic. What the point of installing the anti-sub weapon, if cruiser could not even notice the sub? Installing sonar would require hull alteration, and additional spaces for acoustic center and its crew. And what the point to do it for the ship that is not supposed to operate without a lot of escorts anyway?
 
Dilandu said:
And what the point to do it for the ship that is not supposed to operate without a lot of escorts anyway?
Click to expand...
To be fair that was the job of the cruiser at the time and the Des Moines was not going to lose that classifition. Part of the reason why they looked at the Des Moines was as even cheaper replacement for the strike cruiser designs. Apperantly they were thinking of refiting all three Des Moines and giving the Long Beach her strike cruiser refit.


And there were plans in the late 1950s for outfitting the Des Moines with the Typhon system and era standard sonar with both ARsocs and torps. So it could be done.

If the money was there, which it wasnt.
Tzoli said:
Any data on this modernization about the proposed displacement change and sensor suite?
Click to expand...
Accordign to that PDF the electronics where to be..

SPS-49
SPS-67
SLQ-32v3
SLQ-25 Nixie
4x MK36 SRBOC
AIMS MK12 IFF
TACAN
Satnav (the nonmentclur is to burry to make out. Looks to be URN-5a)
Something that looks to be called BB Com Suit and Omega. No bloodly clue what that is.
2 MK37 directors for the left over 5 inchers
1 Mk38 for the 8 inch guns
1 Tomahawk and 2 Harpoon Fire Control system

Displacement looks to be have kept roughly the same. They also was going to sealed up the hanger since it is only listed as 2 parking spots for LAMPS 3 helicopter support with the hanger being used for storage.
 
Work on the planned ASW variant of Tomahawk had already gotten underway by that time as well, IIRC. I wonder if they were planning on eventually equipping the Des Moines-class with those?
 
There were also to be an Amphibious Command Ship Conversion akin to the Iowas but only one ship.
2x3 8" RF Mark 16
3x2 5" Mark 12
1x2 RIM-24 Tartar
1x8 RUR-5 ASROC
Space for 3x QH-50 DASH Helicopters
Command facilities and equipment for amphibious landings: 3 pair of davits for 2-2 Landing crafts and 1-1 life boats
1627644310680.png
OR
2x3 8" RF Mark 16
3x2 5" Mark 12
4x2 3" RF Mark 22
Space for 6x CH-46 Sea knight Helicopters and 8x Landing Crafts

1627644216240.png
 
Originally just a nuclear depth charge, but they then added a torpedo option early in development. Don't have much more on it than that at the moment unfortunately.

EDIT: Now that you mention it, I think I remember hearing somewhere it also could carry sonobuoys to assist with followup attacks.
 
Last edited:
Depth charge, of course. Forgot that one. And nuclear - "it's the only way to be sure" as would say Ripley.
 
Archibald said:
The whaaat ?

Gimme a break. Did they intended to shoot submarines using cruise missiles ? alternately, don't tell me they would drop torpedoes or mines or buoys from a BGM-109 ?
Click to expand...
What's the problem with it? There is plenty space inside the TLAM-C to fit either depth charge or anti-sub torpedo, especially if fuel supply is reduced. The idea was probably to obtain the analogue of Soviet long-range anti-submarine missiles like "Metel" and "Rastrub". The goal - probably the same, to reduce confidence in "standoff" submarine weaponry ("Rastrub" have max range about 90 km, which made early sub-"Harpoon" and "Exocet" missiles not exactly very standoff-ish - unless the sub was launching from nearly the maximum range, it could be destroyed by counter-attack.
 
I love the big US cruisers
If three Alaska class (battlecruisers) had survived (Alaska, Guam and Hawai) and three Des Moines class (Des Moines, Newport News and Salem) as well. I would have loved them to be missile equipped flagships with Talos.
If they had not been converted I think the New Jersey mod with Tomahawk, Harpoon and Vulcan Phalanx was the best compromise. You keep the full main gun armament and add decent surface warfare kit ASW and AirDefence is better dealt with by modern ships.
 
I was remembering the rocket powered shells they were considering for the
16 inch guns, had a sixty mile range if I remember. I thought they might have a similar
shell for the 8 inch. If so, the guns and harpoons along with some anti-aircraft would
let them fight service ships.
 
muttly said:
I was remembering the rocket powered shells they were considering for the
16 inch guns, had a sixty mile range if I remember. I thought they might have a similar
shell for the 8 inch. If so, the guns and harpoons along with some anti-aircraft would
let them fight service ships.
Click to expand...
Nope. At best they'd most likely get the laser-guided shells intended for the Mark 71, but that was entirely a shore bombardment round.
 
In that case the guns would be of little use. Better to do a complete makeover
which would cost more than building a purpose built ship.
 
muttly said:
In that case the guns would be of little use. Better to do a complete makeover
which would cost more than building a purpose built ship.
Click to expand...
The battleships and cruisers were mainly geared to surface bombardment but their shells would have wreaked havoc on unarmoured warships
 
uk 75 said:
muttly said:
In that case the guns would be of little use. Better to do a complete makeover
which would cost more than building a purpose built ship.
Click to expand...
The battleships and cruisers were mainly geared to surface bombardment but their shells would have wreaked havoc on unarmoured warships
Click to expand...
Yes if the Soviets would not had 500km+range Anti-ship missiles (ehemm SS-N-19 Shipwreck ehemm)
 
The Soviet era SSMs were pretty big beasts. The US big wagons would have been in a task group of USN escorts and aircraft plus even RN ships with Seadart and Seawolf..
Once they closed with a Kirov or a Slava and certainly Karas or Krestas those shells would have done a lot more harm than US 5" or RN 4.5".
 
uk 75 said:
The Soviet era SSMs were pretty big beasts. The US big wagons would have been in a task group of USN escorts and aircraft plus even RN ships with Seadart and Seawolf..
Once they closed with a Kirov or a Slava and certainly Karas or Krestas those shells would have done a lot more harm than US 5" or RN 4.5".
Click to expand...
Probably, but the problem is, that by the time they would close, the battle would be already decided by anti-ship missile exchange on long ranges.
 
It depends I think on the period
up until the widespread availability of Harpoon and Exocet around 1980, Western task groups relied on SSNs, Buccaneers and A6s with bombs, and SAMs lobbed in the surface mode.
In the mid 70s if a battlewagon in the Med stood in for a carrier it could do a lot of damage to a Soviet group consisting of say a Moskwa, a Swerdlow command ship, a Kresta Kara and so on.
 
uk 75 said:
In the mid 70s if a battlewagon in the Med stood in for a carrier it could do a lot of damage to a Soviet group consisting of say a Moskwa, a Swerdlow command ship, a Kresta Kara and so on.
Click to expand...
Assuming it would survive the avalanche of X-22 from Tu-16 and Tu-22 bombers, long-range hits of P-35 missiles from submarines and Kresta-I cruisers, and hits from "Metel" anti-submarine missiles (while they were anti-submarine, they have additional shaped-charge warhead specifically to hit surface ships).
 
In the Mediterranean any Tu16 or Tu22 strikes from the Soviet Union, Bulgaria or Syria would have had NATO airpower to tangle with and could not get more than about ten birds launched. The Karas and Krestas had about 8 missiles each.
Allowing for US Tartars, Sea Sparrows and chaff ecm etc. Still not bad odds.
 
Of course according to Friedman US Amphibous Assualt Ship book.

The MK71 was looking to get a shell with nearly 120 miles of range with a error of 25 feet.

Not that far fetch since it was to be an 8 inch gun, shooting a 5 inch sabot projectile with Basebleed and RAP on the rear. The USS ST. Paul managed to smack a VC target in Nam with a similar projectile at around 50 miles and 60 in tests without the Base Bleed/Rap. Rule of thumb is to about double the range with RAP or Basebleed.

And was to have either a Laser Guidence head or INS type deal.

I imagine that the Des Moines would have gotten it if the Navy pushed for the MK71 on ships and reactived them.
 
@Firefinder
Could the Des Moines Mk 16 guns handle the extra length of the ER/BB shell? I believe the Mk 71 gun had a larger chamber to handle the proposed rounds.
 
Firefinder said:
Of course according to Friedman US Amphibous Assualt Ship book.

The MK71 was looking to get a shell with nearly 120 miles of range with a error of 25 feet.

Not that far fetch since it was to be an 8 inch gun, shooting a 5 inch sabot projectile with Basebleed and RAP on the rear. The USS ST. Paul managed to smack a VC target in Nam with a similar projectile at around 50 miles and 60 in tests without the Base Bleed/Rap. Rule of thumb is to about double the range with RAP or Basebleed.

And was to have either a Laser Guidence head or INS type deal.

I imagine that the Des Moines would have gotten it if the Navy pushed for the MK71 on ships and reactived them.
Click to expand...

A long time ago doing research on Gerald "supergun" Bull I red a proposal of him to Admiral Stansfield Turner (a decade before he become Carter's CIA boss - thus in the days of Vietnam).

Bull proposed to boost 16-inch guns so that their range would be long enough to shell the Ho Chi Minh trail from the relative safety of South Vietnam - at far, far lower cost than those pesky aviators.




www.google.fr

Bull's Eye

"In this stunning work of investigative journalism, James Adams combines the excitement and drama of a thriller with a cast of extraordiinary characters from the worlds of intelligence, govenment, and the arms business. This is the story of the most talented designer of artillery this century; a...
www.google.fr

(presently day dreaming of Iowas getting their 16-inch guns upgraded with Gerald Bull Martlet IV rocket-shells... and a satellite launch capability !)
 
Last edited:
isayyo2 said:
@Firefinder
Could the Des Moines Mk 16 guns handle the extra length of the ER/BB shell? I believe the Mk 71 gun had a larger chamber to handle the proposed rounds.
Click to expand...
Probably not, but they were going to have to Refurb the Des Moines turrets anyways if they reactived them. Through as I understand it, they basically moded one of the Des Moines spare barrel for the MK71 with all of the connectors and the like being the same between the two. So it likely have been a quick swap of the barrels.

Archibald said:
Bull proposed to boost 16-inch guns so that their range would be long enough to shell the Ho Chi Minh trail from the relative safety of South Vietnam - at far, far lower cost than those pesky aviators.
Click to expand...
He wasnt the only ones wanting the big guns back. The Air Force was saying the same thing ironicaly enough.
 
Firefinder said:
Probably not, but they were going to have to Refurb the Des Moines turrets anyways if they reactived them. Through as I understand it, they basically moded one of the Des Moines spare barrel for the MK71 with all of the connectors and the like being the same between the two. So it likely have been a quick swap of the barrels.
Click to expand...
Once the new barrels were made, of course. Or old barrels relined, whichever.

Firefinder said:
He wasnt the only ones wanting the big guns back. The Air Force was saying the same thing ironicaly enough.
Click to expand...
No honor in bombing the same (expletives deleted) bamboo bridge every day.
 
Just read that instead of all 4 Iowas were to be modernized in the 1980's the alternative plan show two Iowas: Iowa and New Jersey and two of the Des Moineses: Des Moines and Salem.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom