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

Scott Kenny said:
Sea Chaparral was basically a non-starter, as the IR Sidewinders available at the time were tail chase only. Maybe if they used the AIM-9C SARH versions, but then that would require an illuminating radar same as Sea Sparrow...

Wait.

Did the AIM-9C use the same radar frequencies as the Sparrow? Because if they don't that means you could have a Sea Chaparral and Sea Sparrow covering each arc and not conflicting with each other. Which would be a worthwhile improvement over being stuck with a single launcher per side and only able to engage a single target per side. Trick would be setting up the systems so that the Sea Sparrow would engage the longer targets and the Sea Chaparral the ones that got past the Sea Sparrow. Radar range gating, maybe?
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain this can't work. The CW illuminator beam isn't a floodlight, it's fairly narrow and has to be held on a specific target (in BPDMS, this was done manually, IBPDMS/NSSM added automatic tracking). It was only with active phased array radars (APAR, etc.) and autopilot-equipped missiles like ESSM that they could use something called Interrupted Continuous Wave illumination to guide multiple missiles in flight at one time.

Some Sea Sparrow installations (mainly carriers, I think) do have two guidance radars for each launcher.
 
TomS said:
I'm fairly certain this can't work. The CW illuminator beam isn't a floodlight, it's fairly narrow and has to be held on a specific target (in BPDMS, this was done manually, IBPDMS/NSSM added automatic tracking). It was only with active phased array radars (APAR, etc.) and autopilot-equipped missiles like ESSM that they could use something called Interrupted Continuous Wave illumination to guide multiple missiles in flight at one time.

Some Sea Sparrow installations (mainly carriers, I think) do have two guidance radars for each launcher.
Click to expand...
What I meant was having two separate illuminators on different freqs, so that you wouldn't need to worry about the Sea Chaparral going after the target the Sea Sparrow was illuminating.
 
Scott Kenny said:
What I meant was having two separate illuminators on different freqs, so that you wouldn't need to worry about the Sea Chaparral going after the target the Sea Sparrow was illuminating.
Click to expand...

Well, sure, you could do that. But frankly, just doubling up Sea Sparrow illuminators as on the carriers will accomplish almost all of that. Eight missiles with two channels of fire is 4-6 engagements, probably more than enough for a terminal engagement c. 1978.
 
TomS said:
Well, sure, you could do that. But frankly, just doubling up Sea Sparrow illuminators as on the carriers will accomplish almost all of that. Eight missiles with two channels of fire is 4-6 engagements, probably more than enough for a terminal engagement c. 1978.
Click to expand...
I wasn't sure if the illuminators were a narrow enough beam to allow multiple launchers and radars. All the flying games make it look like a roughly 60moa/1deg circle or more for tracking, and you can get a lot of targets in that circle size. I mean, at 10km that tracking circle would be some 180m wide, minimum.

I'd personally prefer more ready ammo than one attack, but if we're topweight limited I can live with a single Sea Sparrow launcher and a pair of illuminators. I'd prefer two launchers and 2-4 illuminators per side.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I wasn't sure if the illuminators were a narrow enough beam to allow multiple launchers and radars. All the flying games make it look like a roughly 60moa/1deg circle or more for tracking, and you can get a lot of targets in that circle size. I mean, at 10km that tracking circle would be some 180m wide, minimum.

I'd personally prefer more ready ammo than one attack, but if we're topweight limited I can live with a single Sea Sparrow launcher and a pair of illuminators. I'd prefer two launchers and 2-4 illuminators per side.
Click to expand...

Sea Sparrow most definitely supports multiple directors per launcher, I found a nice photo here which shows the installation on the Danish frigate Peder Skram, with two Mk95 sets and a single Mk29 launcher.

Things to remember about missiles on gun ships though is that Sea Sparrow was considered for the Iowa modernization and then dropped because the systems were apparently insufficiently shock-hardened. That would have been an issue on the Des Moines-class as well, most likely, unless the guns were removed entirely.
 
Winchester said:
Sea Sparrow most definitely supports multiple directors per launcher, I found a nice photo here which shows the installation on the Danish frigate Peder Skram, with two Mk95 sets and a single Mk29 launcher.

Things to remember about missiles on gun ships though is that Sea Sparrow was considered for the Iowa modernization and then dropped because the systems were apparently insufficiently shock-hardened. That would have been an issue on the Des Moines-class as well, most likely, unless the guns were removed entirely.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. The shock of 8" guns didn't prevent the Navy from planning to put the 8" Mark 71 on multiple classes of missile ship, nor did it prevent the Bostons from still using their fore 8" guns as Terrier cruisers.

At the end of the day the blast pressure from an 8" gun is a couple orders of magnitude less than a 16" gun, and so far more practical to harden against.
 
Then you had the Strike Cruisers design which all had early SPY1s and 1 or 2 Mk71 designs. Also the landing gunfire support ships which had up to four Mk71 was expected to have Sea Sparrows for self defense.

Even with the theorical 8"/60 supercharge the navy planned for the Mk71 would had a tiny blast wave compare to the 16"50. As is you can stand within 10 feet of the muzzle and be fine for the 8 inchers. While with the battleship big guns hayday of pre-safety people dont want to anywhere NEAR them firing. Also the Des Moines class got alot of even more sensitive communication equipment including one of the first Satcoms with no issues there reported.

As is the Sea Sparrows could have been Iowa Proofed.

But that would have results in another system just for the Iowas much like the Harpoons cans and the Tomahawk ABLs were. The Iowas needed two already expensive systems specifically modified for dealing with the gun blasts for them.

Especially since unlike the other two which could and was used on other ships, an Iowa specific Sea Sparrow was going to be an Iowa only mod. Cause not only did it needed reinforced Directors, but also likely a new launcher to protect the missiles as well, then an aera nearby to store the reloads. The shoestring budget the 80s Refit got could not support the whole design process for that.
 
Firefinder said:
But that would have results in another system just for the Iowas much like the Harpoons cans and the Tomahawk ABLs were.
Click to expand...

I came across an interesting alternative explanation for the ABLs -- the Belknap fire. Before that, Tomahawk was supposed to go into launchers that were basically scaled up Harpoon launchers. Then the Belknap fire burned to within feet of her nukes, which prompted a rethink of nuclear weapons safety aboard ships. Since Tomahawk was definitely going to be nuclear, they needed much better protection, hence the ABL. But the ABLs were actually meant to go on DDs first, and only got redirected to the battleships when they were reactivated.

Anyway, the upshot is that ABL was apparently not developed specifically for the Iowas. (Second order effect is that because ABLs got redirected away from a bunch of Spruances, those hulls were available for the later VLS conversions. If the Iowas had not been reactivated, that's 16 ship sets of ABL that would have gone on the DDs instead.)
 
Firefinder said:
Even with the theorical 8"/60 supercharge the navy planned for the Mk71 would had a tiny blast wave compare to the 16"50. As is you can stand within 10 feet of the muzzle and be fine for the 8 inchers. While with the battleship big guns hayday of pre-safety people dont want to anywhere NEAR them firing.
Click to expand...
The Navy didn't want people anywhere topside when the 16" guns were firing! If the big guns were firing, the 40mm and 20mm AA crews were under cover.

And I'm not sure I'd want to be within 10 feet of the business end of an 8" gun...

 
TomS said:
I came across an interesting alternative explanation for the ABLs -- the Belknap fire. Before that, Tomahawk was supposed to go into launchers that were basically scaled up Harpoon launchers. Then the Belknap fire burned to within feet of her nukes, which prompted a rethink of nuclear weapons safety aboard ships. Since Tomahawk was definitely going to be nuclear, they needed much better protection, hence the ABL. But the ABLs were actually meant to go on DDs first, and only got redirected to the battleships when they were reactivated.
Click to expand...
Holy (expletives deleted)!!!! Bet that induced some serious pucker factor...

1) No, those nukes were highly unlikely to go high order boom. I'd say impossible, but never taunt Murphy.
2) That's still a couple hundred lbs of boom with all sorts of nasty fissionables going everywhere that would likely have resulted in the ship being unrepairable due to contamination.
 
A retracable blast shield or a simple pop-up/elevator for the Sea Sparrow launchers would do the trick in my opinion. They were to be placed on the no.1 and 2 5" turrets hence closest to the two front turrets.
 
Tzoli said:
A retracable blast shield or a simple pop-up/elevator for the Sea Sparrow launchers would do the trick in my opinion. They were to be placed on the no.1 and 2 5" turrets hence closest to the two front turrets.
Click to expand...
You mean the forward two side 5" turrets, right?

I actually would have expected that same need at the after two side 5" turrets, as those are just as close to the aft/X 8" turret as the forward two side 5" turrets are to the B turret.
 
Never quite realized that Canada got Sparrows in the end. Not Sparrow II for Avro fighters (CF-100 Mk.6 and Arrow) but actually, Sea Sparrows for their destroyers...
 
Archibald said:
Never quite realized that Canada got Sparrows in the end. Not Sparrow II for Avro fighters (CF-100 Mk.6 and Arrow) but actually, Sea Sparrows for their destroyers...
Click to expand...

They also had Sparrow on their CF-18 Hornets.
 
TomS said:
Anyway, the upshot is that ABL was apparently not developed specifically for the Iowas. (Second order effect is that because ABLs got redirected away from a bunch of Spruances, those hulls were available for the later VLS conversions. If the Iowas had not been reactivated, that's 16 ship sets of ABL that would have gone on the DDs instead.
Click to expand...

What I ment was that the Iowas ABLs, the ones actually ON the Iowas were slightly modified with thicker metal then the Standard ones to better protect the missiles from blast. Especially on the ABLs near turret 3. I have seen pictures of an post 80s refit Iowa firing the main guns basically over those ABLs.

But the modifications were not enough to keep like four from being pulled off the Iowa herself and install on Spruances after her retirement.

Scott Kenny said:
The Navy didn't want people anywhere topside when the 16" guns were firing! If the big guns were firing, the 40mm and 20mm AA crews were under cover.

And I'm not sure I'd want to be within 10 feet of the business end of an 8" gun...

Click to expand...
so long as you not in front of it you be mostly fine.

The Tinnitus is not service related as said by the VA.

Point was that the 8 inch gun blast is far more manageable then a 16. So less need to refit everything to take it. You could be on deck firing away with the 20mm as the 8 inchers hammer away.

You can see the Newport News hammering away with a full broadside of all Nine 8 inchers, eight 5 inchers and 12 3 inchers in Nam here.

View: https://youtu.be/04Efnm6ikpQ


BlackBat242 said:
Just use the Canadian Sea Sparrow launcher!

As used aboard the Iroquois class DDs:


View attachment 704632

View attachment 704633

View attachment 704634


View: https://youtu.be/cwvckhztI2I?t=110
Click to expand...
While a good idea...

That design was notorious finicky and prone to breaking in strange and unique ways. To the point that they pulled them from the ships.

Also was slow as hell to react and tge like.

www.thedrive.com

Canadian Destroyers Had These Totally Wacky Sea Sparrow Missile Launcher Systems

They had pretty much all the attributes you don't want in a point defense system, which limited the Iroquois class' air defense capabilities.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com

Also did not solve the major issue of the directors getting destroyed by the gun blast.

Which isnt that big of a deal to fix, just expansive as hell and basically need a new director design just for the Iowas. Which been uselessly heavier then what other ships needed.
 
Firefinder said:
so long as you not in front of it you be mostly fine.

The Tinnitus is not service related as said by the VA.

Point was that the 8 inch gun blast is far more manageable then a 16. So less need to refit everything to take it. You could be on deck firing away with the 20mm as the 8 inchers hammer away.

You can see the Newport News hammering away with a full broadside of all Nine 8 inchers, eight 5 inchers and 12 3 inchers in Nam here.

View: https://youtu.be/04Efnm6ikpQ
Click to expand...
The VA says a lot of stuff isn't service connected. Because if it was then it'd come out of their budget to pay for it.
 
On naval encyclopedia, the article on the des moines references a planned modernisation program in the late 60s which would have given the ships the ability to carry a pair of helicopters in a permanent hanger.

"The modernization project aimed at correcting this and procure them a large spot and permanent hangar for two, probably Sea King models."

Does anyone know anything about this refit? I'd assume that the helicopters would be stowed in the existing seaplane hangar, but aside from that I've got nothing.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230804_115814_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20230804_115814_Chrome.jpg
    910.5 KB · Views: 31
Frestylewyvern said:
On naval encyclopedia, the article on the des moines references a planned modernisation program in the late 60s which would have given the ships the ability to carry a pair of helicopters in a permanent hanger.

"The modernization project aimed at correcting this and procure them a large spot and permanent hangar for two, probably Sea King models."

Does anyone know anything about this refit? I'd assume that the helicopters would be stowed in the existing seaplane hangar, but aside from that I've got nothing.
Click to expand...
While I don't know anything about it, it sounds like it would require removing the aft turret to make enough space for the hangar...
 
Two Sea Kings sounds too large an aircraft complement to make use of the seaplane hangars in the transom, whilst simultaneously too small an aircraft complement for the mid-1960s Amphibious Support Ship proposals, which were supposed to have hangar space of six CH-46s.
 
Needs to be pointed out that Folded up the SH3 Sea King was only 8 foot longer then the SO3C Seamew at 46 Foot long to the Seaew 38.

The Sea King was slightly taller in hieght 16 foot 10 inches but thinner at 16.4 compare to the Seamew at 16 nil and 17. Thru the later Seahawk came in 17 tall.

And the Des Moines class hanger hatch was 55 foot long, 18 foot wide with a 18 foot max allowed hieght in hanger.

Eyeah they could fit the Sea Kings if need, weight is another question.

As is they did carry the like of the Piasecki twin rotor, the S53 types and even the early Seasprites during their careers, the Salem museum had many images of those being in the 3 sisters hangers.
 
The article says that the planned helicopters were "probably" Sea Kings, but given the lack of any available sources in the article, it's possible that the actual plan could have been to carry smaller helicopters like the H-34 or the SH-2 instead, and the person writing the article got confused.
 
Might be related, but the Des Moines Typhon conversion scheme in Friedman does seem to have a hangar, proposed in January 1962. Could this be (related to) the mentioned plan?
 
Firefinder said:
Needs to be pointed out that Folded up the SH3 Sea King was only 8 foot longer then the SO3C Seamew at 46 Foot long to the Seaew 38.

The Sea King was slightly taller in hieght 16 foot 10 inches but thinner at 16.4 compare to the Seamew at 16 nil and 17. Thru the later Seahawk came in 17 tall.

And the Des Moines class hanger hatch was 55 foot long, 18 foot wide with a 18 foot max allowed hieght in hanger.

Eyeah they could fit the Sea Kings if need, weight is another question.

As is they did carry the like of the Piasecki twin rotor, the S53 types and even the early Seasprites during their careers, the Salem museum had many images of those being in the 3 sisters hangers.
Click to expand...
Bit of a snug fit for Sea Kings.

I was thinking of making a better hangar that doesn't require an elevator!
 
Look at the avaiable space:

dg2in2o-669556df-8ab7-4026-9908-a02e70749cdc.png
 
Adding this this discussion with an idea from another: "The last modernization plan of the Iowas"

Had these cruisers been reactivated in 1990's, was there any prospect of adding VLS and retaining all three eight-inch turrets? I understand that would have been top-weight issues. However, sacrificing perhaps all of the 5-inch guns might have been a means of making room and weight allowances for VLS. I welcome any thoughts.
 
Honestly it might be easier and safer to bugle them and put the VLS there along the sides.
 
Ironmiked said:
Adding this this discussion with an idea from another: "The last modernization plan of the Iowas"

Had these cruisers been reactivated in 1990's, was there any prospect of adding VLS and retaining all three eight-inch turrets? I understand that would have been top-weight issues. However, sacrificing perhaps all of the 5-inch guns might have been a means of making room and weight allowances for VLS. I welcome any thoughts.
Click to expand...

By the 1990s, the numbers of VLS cells in the fleet was growing rapidly and I can see absolutely no reason to bring these ships back into service, with or without VLS.
 
Ironmiked said:
Adding this this discussion with an idea from another: "The last modernization plan of the Iowas"

Had these cruisers been reactivated in 1990's, was there any prospect of adding VLS and retaining all three eight-inch turrets? I understand that would have been top-weight issues. However, sacrificing perhaps all of the 5-inch guns might have been a means of making room and weight allowances for VLS. I welcome any thoughts.
Click to expand...
Unlikely. It would require significant cutting of the armor around the 5" barbettes to install VLS cells. An earlier refit in the late 60s or early 70s with Mk13 single arm launchers in place of the side 5" turrets is probably the best option, then adding Tomahawk ABLs on the aft end of the helicopter deck for good measure in the 1980s.
 
Related to a possible 1980s reactivation.
Does anyone know how many 8" shells were still in inventory in 1975 when Newport News decommissioned? I'm assuming whatever was in inventory stuck around until 1991 when Des Moines and Salem were stricken.
 
James1978 said:
Related to a possible 1980s reactivation.
Does anyone know how many 8" shells were still in inventory in 1975 when Newport News decommissioned? I'm assuming whatever was in inventory stuck around until 1991 when Des Moines and Salem were stricken.
Click to expand...
Unknown, but the US still had the capability to make more as we were using M110 howitzers. Yes, the M110 shells are much lighter than the naval shells, but the tooling was still available. (I'm still surprised that the Army didn't want the 335lb super heavy 8" shells for the M110s instead of the 220lb shells...)
 
Scott Kenny said:
Unknown, but the US still had the capability to make more as we were using M110 howitzers. Yes, the M110 shells are much lighter than the naval shells, but the tooling was still available. (I'm still surprised that the Army didn't want the 335lb super heavy 8" shells for the M110s instead of the 220lb shells...)
Click to expand...
I doubt the Army 8"/25 gun is comparable to the 8"/55 RF Mark 16 gun.
 
Tzoli said:
I doubt the Army 8"/25 gun is comparable to the 8"/55 RF Mark 16 gun.
Click to expand...
Certainly not in range.

I was expecting a desire for much greater capacity per shell with the development of DPICM and dedicated AT submunitions.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Unknown, but the US still had the capability to make more as we were using M110 howitzers. Yes, the M110 shells are much lighter than the naval shells, but the tooling was still available. (I'm still surprised that the Army didn't want the 335lb super heavy 8" shells for the M110s instead of the 220lb shells...)
Click to expand...
The "superheavy" 8" weight is for AP. The HC and SP Common rounds per Navweaps is 260lbs which is closer (but still somewhat larger than the Army shell weights. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if the Army howitzers, being designed for lower velocities, fire shells with proportionally larger bursting charges/payload capacity than the naval shells that have to built heavier to take higher velocities.

Common shells may be possible, had the US not abandoned development of the 8" altogether in both Army and Navy.
 
CommanderRenHoek said:
The "superheavy" 8" weight is for AP. The HC and SP Common rounds per Navweaps is 260lbs which is closer (but still somewhat larger than the Army shell weights. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if the Army howitzers, being designed for lower velocities, fire shells with proportionally larger bursting charges/payload capacity than the naval shells that have to built heavier to take higher velocities.

Common shells may be possible, had the US not abandoned development of the 8" altogether in both Army and Navy.
Click to expand...
Some jobs would still make me want that superheavy shell. Bunker blasting, for example.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Some jobs would still make me want that superheavy shell. Bunker blasting, for example.
Click to expand...
Had the Mk 71 continued development and reached deployment, the 8" CLGP could have entered service. A version for Army use would not be inconceivable and would've served that bunker-busting role.

Bringing it back to the topic, could CLGP have been backward compatible with the Des Moines' guns, had that project continued and the cruiser modernization proceeded?
 
CommanderRenHoek said:
Bringing it back to the topic, could CLGP have been backward compatible with the Des Moines' guns, had that project continued and the cruiser modernization proceeded?
Click to expand...
I believe so. Depends on whether the Mk71 stayed as an 8"/55 or the 8"/60 with more propellant.
 
While the guns might have been compatible with the 8 inch CLGP, I doubt that you could make the autoloaders compatible. CLGP was substantially longer than the standard 8 inch shells that they were designed for.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Talos had lots of potential but was cut short mostly by size. The system required a large ship with considerable magazine space to fit it. I think as a complement to Standard it had far more potential than it was given. At one point, it was considered as a viable alternative to Nike Hercules / Zeus as an ABM system.

That's really pretty amazing considering it's origins lie in WW 2 and the development program beginning in 1944.
Click to expand...
And when it hit a surface ship, it hurts

 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom