SAM-N-8 Zeus

[A_Random_Guy]

They additionally cited that while it could be fitted to a DE type ship in lieu of a 5"/38 gun house, the ship would likely need to be equipped with active roll stabilization to allow the system to work as that type rolled sufficiently that it would be hard to keep a FC radar locked on the target with enough accuracy to allow the missile to hit reliably.

I've seen on more than one occasion that the Mk 13 could slip into a 5"/38 sized hole, I wonder if that really was the case?

My understanding of the Mk 13 is that it was meant to fit inside the space of a Mk.42 gun (as seen on the Forrest Sherman DDG conversions and the Charles F. Adams purpose built DDGs). One may note that it does stick up a good bit on those, hence the new structure around them.

The MK.42 automatic was, in turn, supposed to fit into the space of a dual 5"/38, hence why, by extension, the Mk 13 fits into the space, albeit sticking up a good bit.

I've seen installation weight for the Mk13 as being 133,000 pounds, so something like 10,000 pounds more than a Mk.42 gun.

 

[A_Random_Guy]

Alright so I have some more information on the Angled Arrows.

From: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0903789.pdf
Page 184

(Unclassified Abstract) A summary is given of the firing results in thepropellant development for the angled Arrow projectile. The material covers the period from 1951-1953. Test rounds weighed approximately 105 pounds and were supported by a discarding sabot and base plate.

The citation given for it is the following:

Rossbacher, R. I.: "A Summary of Firing Results in Angled Arrow Projectile Propellant Development Through 1953 (U)"; (Confidential Report), NPG Report No. 1378, 24 May 1955,AD 70 790.

Unfortunately I could not find this document and I am currently working on a Freedom of Information Act request for it. If anyone has further documentation or even this report, that would be appreaciated.

Onto the analysis. It is awfully suspicious that testing for the Angled Arrow program took place right after Zeus got shuttered. Furthermore the Zeus II design was supposed to have a rocket booster. Given that the original Zeus projectile weighed ~70 pounds and the Angled Arrow projectile weighed 105 pounds, this discrepancy could be explained by the inclusion of a rocket booster. If it was indeed launched from a 5"/38 this booster would be necessary to achieve comporable speeds to the 8"/55 launched round.

Because they make specific mention to a base plate, a cup type sabot or a base sabot may be in the cards. These designs may make the installation of a slip-ring to reduce rotation significantly easier over a spindle type sabot.

Finally, in Norman Friedman's British Destroyers and Frigates from the Second World War and After on page 257 makes brief mention to the "T131 Gun-Assisted Rocket" as a possible alternative to the 42mm "Red Queen" anti-missile defensive system. It isn't clear if this is at all related to Zeus or Angled Arrows but the connection is possible.

Update on the FOIA request 21/8/2023:

The Navy doesn't have the document but I've been directed to the National Archives and Record Administration.

 

[Ainen]

One historical irony was that Zeus was not put into service because the USN thought that Talos (which they initially believed would make shorter range AA weapons unnecessary, saving what were in the late 1940s scarce funds) would be in service much sooner, not to mention the school of thought within the navy that held guns were obsolete altogether. Needless to say, fallacy upon fallacy.

Twice as ironic, as it probably could've led to a much more sensible cruiser conversion and development path, compared to the actual historic one.
Probably to the point that modern large ships around the world still would've carried heavier main gun batteries.

 

[Dilandu]

Twice as ironic, as it probably could've led to a much more sensible cruiser conversion and development path, compared to the actual historic one.
Probably to the point that modern large ships around the world still would've carried heavier main gun batteries.

Rather improbable. Zeus/Arrow have a quite limited capabilities against anything more than subsonic cruise missiles. The Soviet Navy have zero interest in fighting gunnery battles with USN by 1960s; the emphasis was on massive salvoes of supersonic cruise missiles. Against them Zeus/Arrow would be of almost no use.

 

[A_Random_Guy]

Twice as ironic, as it probably could've led to a much more sensible cruiser conversion and development path, compared to the actual historic one.
Probably to the point that modern large ships around the world still would've carried heavier main gun batteries.

Not really. The purpose of the gun cruisers very quickly moved to solely the role of shore bombardment and while you could probably make a Zeus shell compatible with a rifled barrel, you'd probably be sacrificing some capability.

Based on its hit probabilities, it would best be used as a point defense weapon whereas Terrier and especially Talos could perform effective defense over escorting ships, namely aircraft carriers which were the principle offensive striking force of the USN. Additionally with only around a 5 degree deflection, at least with a single-stage divert, hitting a crossing target would be especially difficult compared to an aerodynamically steered weapon like the aforementioned missiles.

At the same time SAMs like Terrier, Talos, and later Tartar can be used in a surface-to-surface manner and their guided nature means that you'll be hitting almost all your shots if you can illuminate the target (see the effectiveness of early Israeli Gabriel missiles and the later effectiveness of Standard Missiles in the Surface-to-Surface role).

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Twice as ironic, as it probably could've led to a much more sensible cruiser conversion and development path, compared to the actual historic one.
Probably to the point that modern large ships around the world still would've carried heavier main gun batteries.

Honestly the US cruiser conversions were pretty sensible, the main issue they had was Polaris eating all the funding so the conversion program was cut short.

It's not like the US was ever going to be able to convert their entire fleet of gun cruisers into missile cruisers, they had plenty of hulls in reserve and active service if they wanted something to do bombardment in Limited Wars.

 

[Ainen]

Rather improbable. Zeus/Arrow have a quite limited capabilities against anything more than subsonic cruise missiles. The Soviet Navy have zero interest in fighting gunnery battles with USN by 1960s; the emphasis was on massive salvoes of supersonic cruise missiles. Against them Zeus/Arrow would be of almost no use.

GLM by itself is but a path to take (or not).
It's either we use guns&their magazines as already available universal launcher&handling facilities forward, or we displace them completely.
Due to the terrier, the second option prevailed.

1950s missiles were just as inefficient against later threats even in self-defense; at the same time, self-defense and area defense weapons were at least as annoying to combine on a single converted ship (Albany may serve as an example).
One may indeed say that Zeus/arrow could've kept up better - as, as far as I understand, their deficiencies barely apply against a target(of any reasonable speed) attacking the ship itself - provided FCS can provide the solution&correction.
+if I am right - while it wasn't meant to be that way, zeus should be wastly less affected by relatively lower altitude compared to 1950s SAMs.

As an alternative, all the 1st generation conversions, probably with replacement 2-gun DP turrets instead (Boston to Providence) would've been already there - probably without even the need for that extremely tall superstructure to get away from the blast and oversee the FC radar installation, and all of its associated stability issues.


p.s. while Soviet Navy didn't want to do it - it wasn't the same as it was necessary to ask in the first place; experience of naval combat in general in 1960s has shown, that gun fights are still quite likely to happen, and gun-less side, reliant only on SAMs in DP role, is likely to be in a big disadvantage. +of course all the shore stuff.

 

[Ainen]

Not really. The purpose of the gun cruisers very quickly moved to solely the role of shore bombardment and while you could probably make a Zeus shell compatible with a rifled barrel, you'd probably be sacrificing some capability.

Based on its hit probabilities, it would best be used as a point defense weapon whereas Terrier and especially Talos could perform effective defense over escorting ships, namely aircraft carriers which were the principle offensive striking force of the USN. Additionally with only around a 5 degree deflection, at least with a single-stage divert, hitting a crossing target would be especially difficult compared to an aerodynamically steered weapon like the aforementioned missiles.

At the same time SAMs like Terrier, Talos, and later Tartar can be used in a surface-to-surface manner and their guided nature means that you'll be hitting almost all your shots if you can illuminate the target (see the effectiveness of early Israeli Gabriel missiles and the later effectiveness of Standard Missiles in the Surface-to-Surface role).

The thinking is that Zeus could've allowed to create a better Boston/Canberra - with Talos replacing the rear turret, and heavy DP guns responsible for the inner sphere. This way, Albany variant perhaps would be redundant - and latter development, especially after Vietnam experience, could've continued that line instead.

As it was in real life, first-generation conversions had to choose between Terrier and Talos; second-generation (Albany) - got Talos and Tartar together, but wasn't a shipbuilding success for that (stability issues).
If the original forward battery could've done the self-defense part of the equation, while retaining the surface&shore capability - it would have led to outright better ships on the first attempt.
Better both originally, and, as time've shown, better in the long run. Delicate SAMs are more vulnerable to electronic advances than mundane explosive charge throwers.

 

[Dilandu]

1950s missiles were just as inefficient against later threats even in self-defense;

Terrier and Talos have actually quite a good chance of downing a supersonic. Their main problem was, that they were limited by number of fire control channels and thus very susseptible to saturation. Zeus have no advantages here; it could be saturated even more easily.

least as annoying to combine on a single converted ship (Albany may serve as an example).

I'm not sure what do you means as "annoying". Albany-class were designed for long-range fleet defense, but they required some self-defense capabilities also. Tartars were optimal solutions, since they were compact and provided anti-missile capabilities as well.

One may indeed say that Zeus/arrow could've kept up better - as, as far as I understand, their deficiencies barely apply against a target(of any reasonable speed) attacking the ship itself - provided FCS can provide the solution&correction.

How exactly? It's a short-range weapon with rather limited maneuvering capabilities. It could be compared with early, beam-riding Terriers, but not with semi-active homing ones.

As an alternative, all the 1st generation conversions, probably with replacement 2-gun DP turrets instead (Boston to Providence) would've been already there - probably without even the need for that extremely tall superstructure to get away from the blast and oversee the FC radar installation, and all of its associated stability issues.

And of what use those reiftted gun cruisers - which would be quite costly, since replacing main turrets is NOT easy - would be by early 1960s? The refitted missile cruisers could just be re-armed on more advanced missiles and continue to serve (Boston-class was the exception, because their missile magazines could not be adapted for longer Terrier missiles of tail controlled versions). Your suggested gun cruisers? Either they would need another costly refit to add missile capabilities, or they would be scrapped.

p.s. while Soviet Navy didn't want to do it - it wasn't the same as it was necessary to ask in the first place; experience of naval combat in general in 1960s has shown, that gun fights are still quite likely to happen, and gun-less side, reliant only on SAMs in DP role, is likely to be in a big disadvantage. +of course all the shore stuff.

USSR have plenty of quite good Sverdlov-class cruisers to provide gunnery support. And missile-armed destroyers to knock out enemy cruisers and battleships from beyond gunnery range.

 

[Firefinder]

Thats before getting to the timing of it.

Sure the soviets didn't want a gun fight amd tried to focus on a missile.

But it took them til the late 60s to get one that actauly worked as they wanted. Leaving bout 15 years of either nothing or gunfighting.

By which point any theoretical Zeus Production in use likely been getting similar upgrades as the Ts did to improve its performance.

Cue the old defense vs offense here as both navies improve their gear.

The big question be if the USN kept the Zeus an 8 inch Sabot and made the Mk71 mount early. Or would have have cut it down to five inch, as is the guided projectile itself was 4 inch, to use out of the standard guns. Maybe even was able to shrink it thanks to going from vacuum tubes to transistor.

Plenty of pros cons there to that we all seen debates for.

In my mind I can see the Zeus havinv a role along side the Ts as the low end/last ditch weapon to the first/seconds/third roles of the Ts. Basically Talos/Terrier, then Tarter, then Zeus, then 3 inch in between the ship and the incoming. That been a hell of a tough nut for a solid chunk of the cold war.

Before getting into the upgrades fun like an Aegis version or similar which aint for this thread sadly.

 

[Dilandu]

But it took them til the late 60s to get one that actauly worked as they wanted. Leaving bout 15 years of either nothing or gunfighting.

Erm.



1958.



1962:

With all respect, but by late 1950s, any gun cruiser could be just blown out of water from beyond the horizon.

 

[Ainen]

Terrier and Talos have actually quite a good chance of downing a supersonic. Their main problem was, that they were limited by number of fire control channels and thus very susseptible to saturation. Zeus have no advantages here; it could be saturated even more easily.

They only gradually got this capability.
Comparing Zeus to mid-1960s state of missiles is outright unfair. Both could've been upgraded.
And, indeed, the comparison is mostly not against terrier/talos; it's against tartar, or rather to lack of it until, Albany.

On the other hand - Zeus(due to its very nature) probably would've been more capable against low-flying targets around 1960. Which could've been a massive advantage, when missiles couldn't still shoot anything even remotely low.

I'm not sure what do you means as "annoying". Albany-class were designed for long-range fleet defense, but they required some self-defense capabilities also. Tartars were optimal solutions, since they were compact and provided anti-missile capabilities as well.

Albany class was top-heavy, not the least because of the need to deal with the blast effects of Tartars&placement of FC radars forward.
With no need to do that (8" gun battery in the original position doing that mission) - end result doesn't require a similar superstructure.
Win.

How exactly? It's a short-range weapon with rather limited maneuvering capabilities. It could be compared with early, beam-riding Terriers, but not with semi-active homing ones.

The same way normal GFCS calculates the solution - just with a higher chance per salvo compared to normal guns.
And yes, I am indeed comparing it as an addition to the Talos/Terrier capability, not the replacement to them.
As the original quote was indeed a lamentation on Talos/Terrier seen as making all closer-range s2a combat outdated - which, mildly speaking, was proven to be wrong.

And of what use those reiftted gun cruisers - which would be quite costly, since replacing main turrets is NOT easy - would be by early 1960s? The refitted missile cruisers could just be re-armed on more advanced missiles and continue to serve (Boston-class was the exception, because their missile magazines could not be adapted for longer Terrier missiles of tail controlled versions). Your suggested gun cruisers? Either they would need another costly refit to add missile capabilities, or they would be scrapped.

New turrets were designed to be fit-ins, not unlike the way tartars were made.
Yes, that's still a lot of work; it's still less than what Albany required.

USSR have plenty of quite good Sverdlov-class cruisers to provide gunnery support. And missile-armed destroyers to knock out enemy cruisers and battleships from beyond gunnery range.

The question is USN.
Soviet missile-armed destroyers relied on theater-level coordinated fires; up close they were either defenseless(5x missile destroyers), or inadequate against gun-armed ship(Kynda, Kashin).
Sverdlov wouldn't stand to an 8" ship in a gun duel, even if the terrier(or talos) FCS would be knocked out.

 

[A_Random_Guy]

The thinking is that Zeus could've allowed to create a better Boston/Canberra - with Talos replacing the rear turret, and heavy DP guns responsible for the inner sphere. This way, Albany variant perhaps would be redundant - and latter development, especially after Vietnam experience, could've continued that line instead.

As it was in real life, first-generation conversions had to choose between Terrier and Talos; second-generation (Albany) - got Talos and Tartar together, but wasn't a shipbuilding success for that (stability issues).
If the original forward battery could've done the self-defense part of the equation, while retaining the surface&shore capability - it would have led to outright better ships on the first attempt.
Better both originally, and, as time've shown, better in the long run. Delicate SAMs are more vulnerable to electronic advances than mundane explosive charge throwers.

Boston and Canberra and by extension Terrier, were more of a crash program to deploy a missile as soon as possible while Talos still had some bugs to be fixed. Even with Zeus they wouldn't have been deployed with Talos. They were single-ended specifically because the navy didn't know exactly what was the best way to go forward.

Terrier was also easier to work with given its lighter weight and smaller profile and its solid rocket motors over the ramjet of Talos, not to mention the constant problems that cropped up with the SPG-49s that Talos used for guidance. Notice how after the Albanys they went fully over to Terrier ships with even the Typhon program using Terrier/Tartar form factors and the later Standard Missiles being Terrier/Tartar derived.

You're also seeming to forget that this isn't a "mundane explosive charge thrower" this is a command guided shell with at least a tracking radar. It's as much a missile as a Beam-Riding Terrier, its just the propulsion has been replaced with being fired out of a gun. Angle deception jamming, assuming the tracking radar used conical scan, would necessitate significant redesigns and modifications to counter.

Talos had many fundamental flaws and while I think it would've been very cool to have Zeus around (God knows I've spent enough time digging through trying to find tidbits on it) it wouldn't have been a worldbeater.

 

[Ainen]

Erm.

View attachment 724796

1958.

View attachment 724797

1962:

With all respect, but by late 1950s, any gun cruiser could be just blown out of water from beyond the horizon.

Well, in a bright world where all ships of a carrier-less navy have complete knowledge of what exists beyond the horizon - perhaps (though to be fair, I wouldn't overestimate their seekers' ECCM too much).
Soviet navy relied on off-board targeting, mostly in the form of Bear-D; the alternative was from onboard helicopters - but neither of the ships you provided have them. Not just that, but it never really aimed at single ship-to-ship combat - but instead at being a distributed theater-level missile capability, capable of concentrating salvoes against any priority targets(read - CSGs).
Thus, if such targeting is somehow denied, or - more likely - Soviet captains await higher priority targets, - seeking them individually was absolutely the way, as their surface self-defense capability was marginal; for them, Gearings were seen as a deadly menace.
Kildin is defenseless within the horizon, and Kynda only has a relatively light (as against cruiser) dual-purpose SAM, limited to 15 km engagement. Read - in-between horizon and this engagement range, it'll probably be a burning wreck.

In case of OtH engagement - well, bad luck, but a cruiser with Zeus battery and tartar is still capable of defending itself at least against the former(single subsonic ASCMs); cruiser without Zeus battery will be either weaker (RL Boston...Providence - no point-defense capability other than 5"/38) due to lack of them, or simply isn't suitable for independent action at all (Albany - floating missile battery).

 

[Ainen]

Boston and Canberra and by extension Terrier, were more of a crash program to deploy a missile as soon as possible while Talos still had some bugs to be fixed. Even with Zeus they wouldn't have been deployed with Talos. They were single-ended specifically because the navy didn't know exactly what was the best way to go forward.

My take here is that single-ended larger cruisers could've very well been the way to go forward, if Zeus and perhaps its future developments was available.

You're also seeming to forget that this isn't a "mundane explosive charge thrower" this is a command guided shell with at least a tracking radar. It's as much a missile as a Beam-Riding Terrier, its just the propulsion has been replaced with being fired out of a gun. Angle deception jamming, assuming the tracking radar used conical scan, would necessitate significant redesigns and modifications to counter.

But that's the whole point; no need to be a world-beater; it's "just" an addition of one more shell to 8" magazines - which still retain all the other ammo.

It's a very significant leap in self-defense capability, while still maintaining all the advantages of a gun battery(basically a powerful, universal, rapid-firing launcher, capable of accelerating payloads cheaply and precisely).

I see such a solution as being possible much earlier than Albany, yet providing Albany-like self-defense capability (with Terrier or with Talos - doesn't matter; both lack Tartar, i.e. they're much more vulnerable up close). And still maintaining all the multi-tool qualities of the earlier cruisers when compared to the much later, laser-focused air-defense Albany, avoiding its stability issues at the same time.

 

[Firefinder]

Erm.

View attachment 724796

1958.

View attachment 724797

1962:

With all respect, but by late 1950s, any gun cruiser could be just blown out of water from beyond the horizon.

Assuming they could get into the 68km range of the SS-1 and get a decent location lock on the ship while avoiding the Carrier planes and you know the other counter measures. Oh and not get hit by the Talos system onboard it or another ship at 80km.

Those first generation of antiship missiles were good for a first try, but not the best or the most reliable even by the Soviet navy own standards. The later Termite was far more of a threat but by the time that came out the Zeus would have been improve on.

And you thinking having either or.

I saying having both.

Cause Zeus will turn an aim miss into a hit much like the Proxy fuse did. It adds kill reliability to the middle to last line of defense. The gun FCS get it close, while the guidence get it into proxy fuse range.

Throw in the Stand off range of even the early tarters? You looking at 2 hard defensive layers pership. The Tarter at 16km and the Zeus at 8 km will make a better then decent defense for most ships. Which is a step up from the one layer most tarter or even terrier ships had.

And the MK11 GMLS was apparently expected to fit in a twin 5 inch mount, doubtful it worked like that but it was a fairly self contain launcher.

So a rush Baltimore with some of its 5 inchers pulled fir the Mk11 and Zeus capability added Inaddition to Chaff and Jamming? Cause the USN was playing the EWAR game at this time

Will not be easily hit.


Thats before giving into the brain bug of making the Zeus a 5 inch launchable system and upgrading the 600 odd DDs with them and fulling the sky with well aim flak.

 

[apparition13]

What interests me is what Zeus and follow on systems would look like now after 75 years of development. Tartar/Terrier have turned into SM-3 and SM-6. What would gun launched interceptors (with and without rockets) have turned into given the same type of development? What would the effect be on gun development? What would ships look like?

I suspect it would be smaller numbers of missiles for the outer layer and exo-atmospheric defense and very long range strike, with guns and their much deeper magazines and easier unrep dealing with medium and inner defense and attack. And if gun development goes down the electro-thermal chemical, light gas, and electromagnetic development paths leading to hypersonic guided projectiles and much longer ranges you might not need rockets/missiles for anything other than asroc like systems.

This is very much a "paths not taken" question. What might have been if the path was taken?

 

[A_Random_Guy]

What interests me is what Zeus and follow on systems would look like now after 75 years of development. Tartar/Terrier have turned into SM-3 and SM-6. What would gun launched interceptors (with and without rockets) have turned into given the same type of development? What would the effect be on gun development? What would ships look like?

I suspect it would be smaller numbers of missiles for the outer layer and exo-atmospheric defense and very long range strike, with guns and their much deeper magazines and easier unrep dealing with medium and inner defense and attack. And if gun development goes down the electro-thermal chemical, light gas, and electromagnetic development paths leading to hypersonic guided projectiles and much longer ranges you might not need rockets/missiles for anything other than asroc like systems.

This is very much a "paths not taken" question. What might have been if the path was taken?

Gun launched projectiles face a far harder kinematic situation so anything beyond point defense is going to be difficult. That being said, yes they do offer greater maganzine depth and possibly higher rate of fire per mount than early arm launchers depending on the exact concessions that need to be made, but they would probably be guidance channel limited so having more than one or two mounts that can fire Zeus or its imediate successor would likely involve severe design concessions.

In such a scenario you may see Zeus type shells adapted to the 5"/54 and as a result we may not have the double-ended cruisers with instead only single-ended designs.

Improvements in command guidance may butterfly off and help the Mauler program but it's hard to tell.

Again the applications are limited due to the kinematic limitations of the shells, meaning that missiles will probably still stay as the main focus with the guided shells adding functionality to the guns to supplement the missile role.

 

[A_Random_Guy]

Thats before giving into the brain bug of making the Zeus a 5 inch launchable system and upgrading the 600 odd DDs with them and fulling the sky with well aim flak.

I've had this as well. The most "workable" solution I came up with was first redoing the fins, either by stretching the shell with a boat-tail and reducing finspan or having some kind of folding arrangement. Second was due to the longer shell was to keep the Zeus shells with the powder casings at least with 5"/38 mounts and using the powder hoist to carry them up to the gunhouse (and then have the hoist bring up a separate poweder charge). Loading would be significantly slowed by the heavier shell weight and the need for two uses of the powder hoist to supply the shell and propellant.

With the 5"/54 Mk 42 style you would have a bit more complex of a problem. The shell and powder are kept in drums, on-top of one-another, but then raised as a unit. There's two possible avenues with this. One would be to increase the height of the shell drum and rework the hoist and loading arm to accept the longer complete round, similar to the modifications to the Mk 45 to accept ERGM type rounds. This would necessitate some significant modifications to the mount itself but probably be more adaptable in the long term.

The second would be to modify the drum only, to carry the shell and powder as a complete unit and then recess part of the Zeus shell in the powder cassing, keeping overall length the same as a normal 5"/54 shell. This would probably reduce performance even more that just having a 5" powder charge, necessitate a new Sabot style, and effectively make one of the two ammunition drums of the MK 42 single purpose. This would be significantly less ideal but might possibly be easier to install without the need to modify the loading arms and the rammer. Ammunition handling would be difficult for extended engagements due to the now excessive weight brought on by the combined powder and shells but the first 20 rounds would be automatic.

This is, of course, ignoring the significant fire-control work that would need to be done.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Sverdlov wouldn't stand to an 8" ship in a gun duel, even if the terrier(or talos) FCS would be knocked out.

A Terrier or Talos ships would knock out a Sverdlov with the first couple of hits, and they would likely score those hits first time, at the very start of the engagement.

Not sure why you're worried about the missile fire control radars getting knocked out when the gun directors are almost as vulnerable.

or simply isn't suitable for independent action at all (Albany - floating missile battery).

The Albany-class are probably the cruiser conversions best suited for independent action. As double-ended Talos ships they have excellent AA and ASuW capabilities, and being equipped with SQS-23, ASROC and DASH control facilities they have good AAW capabilities as well.


Do we know what sort of guidance system Zeus used, beam riding, semi-active radar-homing, radio command guidance?

The main issue with the first generation missile ships is the limited number of fire control channels. Zeus as a system has lower performance, likely has the same requirements for guidance radars.

 

[A_Random_Guy]

Do we know what sort of guidance system Zeus used, beam riding, semi-active radar-homing, radio command guidance?

Everything I’ve seen indicates radio command guidance but I unfortunately have not found the details of exactly how the command guidance system worked.

To clarify the radar tracks the projectile and when it exits a 5 degree cone it triggers the divert charge on the projectile that pushes it back to center. I do not know the details of how the position of the divert charge are tracked and the exact director arrangement.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Albany class was top-heavy, not the least because of the need to deal with the blast effects of Tartars&placement of FC radars forward.
With no need to do that (8" gun battery in the original position doing that mission) - end result doesn't require a similar superstructure.
Win.

You still need the big director radars for Zeus rounds, those are likely to be just as big as the Tartar illuminators (SPG-51), if not Talos illuminator sized (SPG-49).

So you're still stuck dealing with big heavy radar units up high.

 

[Dilandu]

They only gradually got this capability.
Comparing Zeus to mid-1960s state of missiles is outright unfair. Both could've been upgraded.
And, indeed, the comparison is mostly not against terrier/talos; it's against tartar, or rather to lack of it until, Albany.

But Zeus potential for upgrade is much more limited. For example, how would you solve problem of close-flying target discrimination? You can't fit meaningful nuclear warhead in Zeus.

On the other hand - Zeus(due to its very nature) probably would've been more capable against low-flying targets around 1960. Which could've been a massive advantage, when missiles couldn't still shoot anything even remotely low.

Erm... No. It's a beam-rider. The reflection of rotating beam from water surface would completely confuse the guidance. It can't be used against low-flying targets at all.

Albany class was top-heavy, not the least because of the need to deal with the blast effects of Tartars&placement of FC radars forward.
With no need to do that (8" gun battery in the original position doing that mission) - end result doesn't require a similar superstructure.
Win.

It's just plainly wrong. They LOOKED top-heavy, but they were perfectly stable, because the heavy above-deck turrets were replaced with below-deck missile magazines. The aluminum superstructure was relatively lightweight.

The same way normal GFCS calculates the solution - just with a higher chance per salvo compared to normal guns.
And yes, I am indeed comparing it as an addition to the Talos/Terrier capability, not the replacement to them.
As the original quote was indeed a lamentation on Talos/Terrier seen as making all closer-range s2a combat outdated - which, mildly speaking, was proven to be wrong.

Problem is, it have overlapping niche with Terrier/Tartar, while also requiring rather heavy gun mount. Probably the better solution for 1960s would be to make a rocket-propelled Zeus, that could be launched from simple tube launcher.

New turrets were designed to be fit-ins, not unlike the way tartars were made.
Yes, that's still a lot of work; it's still less than what Albany required.

Erm, you can't do this with gun turret. You need to handle recoil.

The question is USN.
Soviet missile-armed destroyers relied on theater-level coordinated fires; up close they were either defenseless(5x missile destroyers), or inadequate against gun-armed ship(Kynda, Kashin).

Problem is, they weren't alone.

Sverdlov wouldn't stand to an 8" ship in a gun duel, even if the terrier(or talos) FCS would be knocked out.

Sverdlov could perfectly well stand against 8-inch heavy cruiser due to higher fire volume.

 

[A_Random_Guy]

Erm... No. It's a beam-rider. The reflection of rotating beam from water surface would completely confuse the guidance. It can't be used against low-flying targets at all.

So far I’ve only ever seen it mentioned as a command guided round.


That being said, there is frustratingly little on the weapon and how it functions like what radars are used, the frequencies involved, etc etc.

 

[Dilandu]

Well, in a bright world where all ships of a carrier-less navy have complete knowledge of what exists beyond the horizon - perhaps (though to be fair, I wouldn't overestimate their seekers' ECCM too much).

Actually you better should. The P-35 anti-ship supersonic (on Project 58 cruisers) have man-in-the-loop mode specifically to counter ECM's. Missile transmitted the data from her seeker back to the ship/submarine, where operator discriminated the targets and locked seeker on the real one.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Well, in a bright world where all ships of a carrier-less navy have complete knowledge of what exists beyond the horizon - perhaps (though to be fair, I wouldn't overestimate their seekers' ECCM too much).
Soviet navy relied on off-board targeting, mostly in the form of Bear-D; the alternative was from onboard helicopters - but neither of the ships you provided have them. Not just that, but it never really aimed at single ship-to-ship combat - but instead at being a distributed theater-level missile capability, capable of concentrating salvoes against any priority targets(read - CSGs).

At the time that majority of intelligence would be collected by Krug wullenweber antennas, collated ashore, and then radioed to Soviet warships from headquarters on land.

 

[Dilandu]

At the time that majority of intelligence would be collected by Krug wullenweber antennas, collated ashore, and then radioed to Soviet warships from headquarters on land.

Yep. In 1960s NATO warships didn't bother themselves with EMCON much, and coastal-based stations could track their emissions fairly accruately.

 

[Ainen]

You still need the big director radars for Zeus rounds, those are likely to be just as big as the Tartar illuminators (SPG-51), if not Talos illuminator sized (SPG-49).

So you're still stuck dealing with big heavy radar units up high.

That by itself is not a problem - they can be high up on masts like Boston etc had them. The problem is the cascade effect brought by the Tartar blast - which forced the bridge up, which forced the illuminators down(too much weight too high), and that forced the bridge higher up still (to retain critical view forward over forward illuminators).

If it's the original gun battery, or at least different turrets in the same position - the original layout works no worse than before.

 

[Dilandu]

The realistic scenario for Zeus, is if there is no RIM-2 Terrier. Since this missile was essentially accidental - designed as test vechicle for Talos beam-riding guidance, and worked so fine that admirals decided to make a stopgap weapon out of her - it's perfectly probable that it may never appear (for example, if NPL decided to make liquid-fuel test missile for that purpose).

If there are no Terrier (and no Tartar, and no Standard then), then yes, Zeus became the only realistic opportunity. And early USN missile cruisers would probably be composed with RIM-8 Talos on the stern, and one/two autoloading turret for Zeus on the bow. Smaller ships, like destroyers, would probably be forced to operate rocket-boosted Zeus as alternative for gun-launched.

 

[Ainen]

But Zeus potential for upgrade is much more limited. For example, how would you solve problem of close-flying target discrimination? You can't fit meaningful nuclear warhead in Zeus.

It is a problem for long-range SAM engagements, not for close-in gunfire (even if guided). Like, just fire more shells, the closer the formation, the worse it is going to be for the attackers.
The way to screw up gunfire is maneuvering (breaking the solution and ability of shells to adjust) - formation at best marginalizes that.

Erm... No. It's a beam-rider. The reflection of rotating beam from water surface would completely confuse the guidance. It can't be used against low-flying targets at all.

It's a radio-command system, with shells entering the beam last moment and getting their command accordingly if they're out of the pre-aimed beam.
So, unlike all the 1950s SAMs(which indeed couldn't be used against low-flying targets at all), it probably is at the very least no worse than usual RF fire.

It's just plainly wrong. They LOOKED top-heavy, but they were perfectly stable, because the heavy above-deck turrets were replaced with below-deck missile magazines. The aluminum superstructure was relatively lightweight.

It was a specific complaint, not just a look. See Freedman.
Top heavy, and, I'd dare to say, probably lots of windage & maneuvering restrictions on top.

Problem is, it have overlapping niche with Terrier/Tartar, while also requiring rather heavy gun mount. Probably the better solution for 1960s would be to make a rocket-propelled Zeus, that could be launched from simple tube launcher.

Tartar - yes, but in cruiser form it became available much later. Gun mounts are already here (or at least slots for them), and gun mounts are capable of much more than just launching missiles.
Rocket-propelled Zeus from light tube is trying to repeat the same mistake - reinventing a worse Tartar, when we need a gun with all its functionality.

Erm, you can't do this with gun turret. You need to handle recoil.

Original barbettes&supports of gun cruisers, designed to keep up with 3x8" salvoes, are quite good at just that...

Problem is, they weren't alone.

For a US heavy cruiser, it isn't a big problem, more like an added benefit.
Like, it's fighting with US old strength (massive late-ww2 stock of ships) against readily apparent Soviet weakness (all available Soviet gun combatants are lighter, and they're less numerous in any case).
Frankly speaking, I now think negligence to guns as a rather major reason it took the US so long to sorta solve the Gorshkov navy problem, and not before several quite painful geopolitical mishaps.

Sverdlov could perfectly well stand against 8-inch heavy cruiser due to higher fire volume.

Soviet navy clearly didn't think like this, consistently asking for higher calibers(180 or 220, or even 305/61 from uncle Joe...even if it wasn't exactly navy's idea) until the very missile era.

Higher volume of fire is a pointless argument by 1950s.
Traditional light cruiser anyway only has this advantage at close range, because of fixed loading angle and need to spot (and all Soviet cruisers up tilll that point had traditional WW2 fire control, even if with better radars).
At longer ranges heavier guns always had a massive volume of fire advantage - on top of advantage in actual effect.

Second, the US in fact had modern FCS available. This matters a lot - because modern FCS could in fact ensure an immediate bracket and keep a solution for continuous rapid fire from unstable courses, contesting against missile-armed ships. Note that the new FCS allowed the replacement of old multi-gun batteries with 1-4 guns even before the coming of the missiles. Just a different(and far more effective) way of fire control.

For the effectiveness of traditional spotting-based FCS for 6" fire beyond 20k yards - see Java Sea or Commandorski islands.
It's negligible, a few hits per the entire war, of which exactly one was consequential (against a British destroyer).

 

[Ainen]

Actually you better should. The P-35 anti-ship supersonic (on Project 58 cruisers) have man-in-the-loop mode specifically to counter ECM's. Missile transmitted the data from her seeker back to the ship/submarine, where operator discriminated the targets and locked seeker on the real one.

P-35 is ca. late 1962, first cruiser was still on trials during the Cuban crisis(and even got itself into a small accident with West German TBs). It stands so far away from the basic Zeus it's making it unfair: both Talos and Terrier already gone through their almost complete development cycle by then, and Standard is already in development.

Back to P-35. Nan-in-the-loop helped things a lot - but it ultimately was limited by the tech and seeker itself; it isn't a 100% solution. In certain recent events we already saw attempts to use similar(better) man-in-the-loop Kh-22 against large ground targets - discrimination wasn't at its best.

Add here a very limited ammo and the impossibility of reloading them outside of port - and from the Soviet perspective, few available theater-level ASCMs( "ON" ones in Soviet classification) are better left for carriers threatening the Soviet Union.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

It was a specific complaint, not just a look. See Freedman.
Top heavy, and, I'd dare to say, probably lots of windage & maneuvering restrictions on top.

That by itself is not a problem - they can be high up on masts like Boston etc had them. The problem is the cascade effect brought by the Tartar blast - which forced the bridge up, which forced the illuminators down(too much weight too high), and that forced the bridge higher up still (to retain critical view forward over forward illuminators).

I've got a copy of Friedman's US Cruisers, and there aren't any complaints about topweight. Tartar did limit the width of the superstructure, the additional height of the superstructure was mainly a means of getting more volume.

The main problems people seem to have with the Albany-class is that they look ungainly, there weren't any major technical issues as far as I can tell.

 

[Ainen]

A Terrier or Talos ships would knock out a Sverdlov with the first couple of hits, and they would likely score those hits first time, at the very start of the engagement.

Not sure why you're worried about the missile fire control radars getting knocked out when the gun directors are almost as vulnerable.

GFCS tends to have lots of secondary stations - in the case of Sverdlov, it's 5 positions spread around the ship, of which two are heavily armored, and 2 more are at least splinter-proof, and will still feed some data even if their radars are out of action.
Also, I am not as optimistic about knocking out an armored ship of 15'000t with SAM warheads that fast. At least, when Tartar was considered as a specialized DP tool(instead of secondary capability) by the Germans - they wanted a HEAT bullpup warhead on it.

With all those caveats - yes, a WW2 6" gun cruiser, even if with postwar radars, doesn't look good against missile ships that can simply outrange it.
But it doesn't seem like a guarantee. 8" cruiser is a guarantee - 6" one will lose against it with almost any reasonable amount of luck.

The Albany-class are probably the cruiser conversions best suited for independent action. As double-ended Talos ships they have excellent AA and ASuW capabilities, and being equipped with SQS-23, ASROC and DASH control facilities they have good AAW capabilities as well.


Do we know what sort of guidance system Zeus used, beam riding, semi-active radar-homing, radio command guidance?

The main issue with the first generation missile ships is the limited number of fire control channels. Zeus as a system has lower performance, likely has the same requirements for guidance radars.

But they weren't meant to. Having checkboxes isn't the same here - first USN ships of missile age, that the USN themselves saw as fit for independent surface action, were aegis ships - that's whole 2 decades into the future.
Capabilities you've listed are all good by themselves(or when working in the interests of a large carrier TF) - but they're essentially unemployable by a silent, fast-moving ship, seeking a surface engagement by itself or as a head of a surface action group.
Independent action assumes that there is always a possibility to go into action on a moment's notice - all 1st gen missiles, even Tartars are just not meant to do that(as well as the listed ASW means).
A more traditional ship(forward part of it) can go into action immediately (as it happened many times during WW2) - and means of its defense from air and subsurface targets must be provided in a different way. It's too loud(below) and too silent(above), and probably lacks any forewarning to do things the way Albany can do them.

 

[Dilandu]

It is a problem for long-range SAM engagements, not for close-in gunfire (even if guided). Like, just fire more shells, the closer the formation, the worse it is going to be for the attackers.
The way to screw up gunfire is maneuvering (breaking the solution and ability of shells to adjust) - formation at best marginalizes that.

Well, Zeus efficient range wasn't significant.

It's a radio-command system, with shells entering the beam last moment and getting their command accordingly if they're out of the pre-aimed beam.

I'm not sure. Beam-rider approach seems to be more probable than command guidance one. You see, there is one problem:

* With command guidance, you need to track every shell precisely to feed data to onboard computer that would send commands.
* With beam-riding guidance, you just need to maintain the beam for the shells to orient themselves.

I.e. if Zeus was command-guided, it means that each shell needed to be individually tracked in radar beam. Considering the need for system to reboot itself after each shell, it would drastically affect the rate of fire. The beam-riding approach, in which shells were making decisions for themselves, seems just more practical.

It was a specific complaint, not just a look. See Freedman.
Top heavy, and, I'd dare to say, probably lots of windage & maneuvering restrictions on top.

I can't recall anything from Freedman about Albany-class being top-heavy. Could you quote, please?

Tartar - yes, but in cruiser form it became available much later. Gun mounts are already here (or at least slots for them), and gun mounts are capable of much more than just launching missiles.
Rocket-propelled Zeus from light tube is trying to repeat the same mistake - reinventing a worse Tartar, when we need a gun with all its functionality.

But you need not just gun mount, but a specific smoothbore autoloader mount with fast train and elevation. You can't just use existing mounts; you would need to completely replace them with a new ones.

Original barbettes&supports of gun cruisers, designed to keep up with 3x8" salvoes, are quite good at just that...

They are not designed to handle high-angle fire.

For a US heavy cruiser, it isn't a big problem, more like an added benefit.
Like, it's fighting with US old strength (massive late-ww2 stock of ships) against readily apparent Soviet weakness (all available Soviet gun combatants are lighter, and they're less numerous in any case).
Frankly speaking, I now think negligence to guns as a rather major reason it took the US so long to sorta solve the Gorshkov navy problem, and not before several quite painful geopolitical mishaps.

The "old strenght" of USN was considered so useless, that FRAM and GUPPY refits were implemented just to maintain more or less modern fleet. Even assuming that those rows of outdated warships would survive the initial nuclear exchange, it would took many months to just make them able to move and fire. And without refits at least in air defense and ECM's - what exactly was the value of those old 8-inch cruisers? To catch the missiles thus protecting more valuable units?

Soviet navy clearly didn't think like this, consistently asking for higher calibers(180 or 220, or even 305/61 from uncle Joe...even if it wasn't exactly navy's idea) until the very missile era.

Soviet Navy was perfectly fine with 152-mm guns. Everything larger than that was mainly the attempts to create "supercruiser" from above.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

But they weren't meant to. Having checkboxes isn't the same here - first USN ships of missile age, that the USN themselves saw as fit for independent surface action, were aegis ships - that's whole 2 decades into the future.

The Albany-class were cruisers, independent action (i.e. operating alone) was literally something they were designed to do. Independent action does not mean surface engagements, it means operating without support from other vessels, something the Albany-class were absolutely capable of doing, and indeed were designed to do.

Capabilities you've listed are all good by themselves(or when working in the interests of a large carrier TF) - but they're essentially unemployable by a silent, fast-moving ship, seeking a surface engagement by itself or as a head of a surface action group.
Independent action assumes that there is always a possibility to go into action on a moment's notice - all 1st gen missiles, even Tartars are just not meant to do that(as well as the listed ASW means).

The ship wouldn't be radio silent, and if seeking a surface actions would be cued by other means before getting in position. Shore-based DF sights would detect the enemy, and the position of the enemy SAG would be on the ship's surface plot.

Missiles and radar sets would obviously be fully warmed up, even if not emitting.

A more traditional ship(forward part of it) can go into action immediately (as it happened many times during WW2) - and means of its defense from air and subsurface targets must be provided in a different way.

Missile ships are designed to go into action immediately, especially dealing with air threats, which develop far faster than surface threats. Certainly a gun-armed ship is not going into action immediately unless it's armament is manned, in which case it has no advantage over an all-missile ship in the same situation.

It's too loud(below) and too silent(above), and probably lacks any forewarning to do things the way Albany can do them.

As opposed to air raids, which I assume are the type of engagement that takes hours to develop, and can be responded to at the ship's leisure, and are definitely not the sort of engagements that can appear out of the blue and are over in minutes or even seconds.

The Albany will be actively using its SQS-23, ASW in the 1950s and 60s is different to that of the 1980s, advanced passive towed-arrays don't exist.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Soviet Navy was perfectly fine with 152-mm guns. Everything larger than that was mainly the attempts to create "supercruiser" from above.

Kuznetsov at least wanted Project 82 and later Project 66 to have 220mm guns. 305mm guns were definitely Stalin's doing though.

 

[Ainen]

Well, Zeus efficient range wasn't significant.

it isn't a long-range system, nothing wrong with that. It's a shorter-range addition to the main SAM system, using functionality of existing multi-purpose gun battery.
What good is a 100-mile SAM, when a bomber(or cruise missile) coming low simply sticks payload into the side, leaving us alone with burning jet fuel. Not the nicest kind of fire to deal with, it's very impolite and requires attention.

I'm not sure. Beam-rider approach seems to be more probable than command guidance one. You see, there is one problem:

* With command guidance, you need to track every shell precisely to feed data to onboard computer that would send commands.
* With beam-riding guidance, you just need to maintain the beam for the shells to orient themselves.

I.e. if Zeus was command-guided, it means that each shell needed to be individually tracked in radar beam. Considering the need for system to reboot itself after each shell, it would drastically affect the rate of fire. The beam-riding approach, in which shells were making decisions for themselves, seems just more practical.

Shells fly ballistic arc, and in the 1940s it was clearly beyond the realm of doable to do active trajectory corrections along the whole trajectory(and we it didn't have enough corrections to adjust to model trajectory anyway).
The simplest explanation is that radar saw them only at the last moment(tracking target, not shells), giving one general adjustment not long before the interception plane.

The added advantage is that it doesn't limit the volume of fire against a single target - only the number of targets that can be engaged simultaneously.
I.e. it's a basic advantage of all guided AA shells - I don't see why Zeus should've done it differently...unless specifically proven wrong.

But you need not just gun mount, but a specific smoothbore autoloader mount with fast train and elevation. You can't just use existing mounts; you would need to completely replace them with a new ones.

Smoothbore wasn't a specific requirement, as we see from this thread; only Zeus I test articles used that.
Arrows were tested from riffles.
New turrets (automatic 6" and 8" twins) were indeed desirable, however - as they also allowed to significantly offset the loss of volume of fire due to the removal of rear turret(s).

They are not designed to handle high-angle fire.

Up to 45 deg they did, which isn't exactly low, especially for a self-defense system. Whether higher angles would've required it is up to debate - but in any case, degree of changes is below the complete reconstruction path actually taken - so there is still merit here.

The "old strenght" of USN was considered so useless, that FRAM and GUPPY refits were implemented just to maintain more or less modern fleet. Even assuming that those rows of outdated warships would survive the initial nuclear exchange, it would took many months to just make them able to move and fire. And without refits at least in air defense and ECM's - what exactly was the value of those old 8-inch cruisers? To catch the missiles thus protecting more valuable units?

Old strength was considered perfectly useful before ca. 1954-57; they were part of active fleet, and dominated the whole global ocean. They were useless only to the degree that there was literally no worthy opponent at sea - as the only surface fleets worth the name before the late 1950s were the USN and RN.

Units upgraded with missiles were perfectly useful for one more decade - and, as (rather predictable, to be frank) practice has shown, the more heavy guns those ships retained, the more useful they actually were.

The problem is, smaller ships got reasonable upgrade path both for their gun batteries(new FC and evolving 5"/54 mounts) and their new missile part.
Heavier units and heavier guns, which strictly speaking were both more valuable and more perspective - did not, and as a result at some point lost guns at all - only to get their emergency reinstatement in a pretty... pathetic form of single side 5"/38 mounts(open for Albany, back to 1930s) - and ultimately were left with destroyer/light cruiser 5" guns, still without any AA guided ammo even 80 years later.
Without bringing politics in - while it was sorta ironic to watch Russian warships sailing along Ukrainian coast not even able to do anything (4" "bombardment"? SMS Panther is proud), it's clear that something in this path was and still is wrong.

Soviet Navy was perfectly fine with 152-mm guns. Everything larger than that was mainly the attempts to create "supercruiser" from above.

Soviet Navy first requested that 180mm guns could be installed in pr.68 bis, that specifically asked for them and them only for new cruiser designs(project 65, project 84) - until missiles taken over. No way around the fact, that 6" guns, however powerful for this caliber, are just not suitable for longer-range fights, nor can deal with armored targets other than point-blank.
If someone was perfectly fine with 152mm guns - it was the shipbuilding industry: don't mess with the plan, comrade.

[p.s. for Albany quote - let me get home, I'll check where I've taken it from]

 

[Ainen]

The Albany-class were cruisers, independent action (i.e. operating alone) was literally something they were designed to do. Independent action does not mean surface engagements, it means operating without support from other vessels, something the Albany-class were absolutely capable of doing, and indeed were designed to do.

Independent action assumes being able to deal with situations brought in by such action(cruising). Surface action is of course not a requirement, but it's one of the kind. Given the scenario(early 1960s) we in fact can encounter 3:
-surface action, probably quite sudden;
-coastal bombardment;
-sudden short-range encounter with a surfaced submarine

Albany is not well suited to those; Albany can't really protect itself from a low-altitude attack, and is rather easily saturable even at the moment of its introduction, because a single tartar per side isn't a lot.
Much smaller and lighter contemporary Soviet ships had more, much faster channels of fire for self-defense.

The ship wouldn't be radio silent, and if seeking a surface actions would be cued by other means before getting in position. Shore-based DF sights would detect the enemy, and the position of the enemy SAG would be on the ship's surface plot.

Missiles and radar sets would obviously be fully warmed up, even if not emitting.

Seeking surface engagement against an opponent(often faster) not seeking surface engagement while happily emitting is at best a questionable approach, as it'll warn the (usually faster and lighter) Soviet forces of surface presence.
At worst it'll invite Soviet naval aviation with a combined ARM and ASCM salvo. Unlike Soviet ships at sea, aviation is always happy to bring more from its airfield within a few hours; launching at cruiser for them is not a problem, but an opportunity.
Or awaken Soviet SSGNs, which at this point already exist in serious numbers.

Missile ships are designed to go into action immediately, especially dealing with air threats, which develop far faster than surface threats. Certainly a gun-armed ship is not going into action immediately unless it's armament is manned, in which case it has no advantage over an all-missile ship in the same situation.

Talos, except for missiles immediately on the launchers, requires fuelling, and its missiles have a big dead zone. It's really an Area denial weapon at its purest.
Terier is better, but still has the same restrictions.
Tartar is much better - but until Albany it isn't a cruiser weapon, and on Albany, it's again only a single mark 11 per side.

Manned guns(we're operating at wartime, 1 mount is probably manned 24/7; and if we expect action - all are, if there is more than 1) can open fire immediately - as they often did during ww2, even when the action begins as a confused ambush. Like during Savo, for example. Their whole supply system is built this way, and the shell is always ready to fire, whether it's good or bad(Jutland style). Finally, they can at least somewhat effectively fire even before centralized FC kicks in(also Savo).

As opposed to air raids, which I assume are the type of engagement that takes hours to develop, and can be responded to at the ship's leisure, and are definitely not the sort of engagements that can appear out of the blue and are over in minutes or even seconds.

The Albany will be actively using its SQS-23, ASW in the 1950s and 60s is different to that of the 1980s, advanced passive towed-arrays don't exist.

One of the most likely kinds of surface action since ww2 is always exactly a violent and rather sudden event(often in heavy weather or at night - or, since we're talking about Soviet Union - both together in a nice winter arctic ice storm at a sea state 999), not a lazy exchange of fire. There is no such thing in missile era, especially in late 1950s-early 60s. Missiles will work even if someone will for some reason decide to not immediately put out their shiny tactical nuclear warheads, which literally every US/Soviet missile ship has onboard.

It's in fact the predictable surface fights that are far less likely since the development of aviation age, because from 1944 onwards they happen only Leyte-style(one side is dead on committed, another one is tied to something it can't leave).

Thus, IMHO, while Albany and Long Beach are indeed optimal CSG screen linchpins for the era - they are most definitely not built for independent cruising operations in high threat environment - they require screen and some forewarning.
Zeus-carrying Boston/Galveston/Providence class ships are. Or RN Counties.

 

[Dilandu]

What good is a 100-mile SAM, when a bomber(or cruise missile) coming low simply sticks payload into the side, leaving us alone with burning jet fuel. Not the nicest kind of fire to deal with, it's very impolite and requires attention.

Problem is, that USSR favored the standoff solutions. Even Il-28T and Tu-16T torpedo bombers were supposed to make high-altitude attacks using RAT-52 rocket torpedoes. RAT-52 could be dropped from more than 10.000 meters - essentially outside the Zeus efficient range (still within max range, of course)

Shells fly ballistic arc, and in the 1940s it was clearly beyond the realm of doable to do active trajectory corrections along the whole trajectory(and we it didn't have enough corrections to adjust to model trajectory anyway).

For the anti-air purposes, the shell trajectory is considered as close to straight line as possible.

The simplest explanation is that radar saw them only at the last moment(tracking target, not shells), giving one general adjustment not long before the interception plane.

It simply wouldn't work on 1950s tech. The probability of radar even detecting something as small as shell was far too low. It would require conical scan radar to make several revolutions just to reliably be sure where exactly shell is.

I.e. it's a basic advantage of all guided AA shells - I don't see why Zeus should've done it differently...unless specifically proven wrong.

Because it wouldn't work with early 1950s radars, which were of conical scan type.

Up to 45 deg they did, which isn't exactly low, especially for a self-defense system. Whether higher angles would've required it is up to debate - but in any case, degree of changes is below the complete reconstruction path actually taken - so there is still merit here.

Are you serious?

 

[Ainen]

Problem is, that USSR favored the standoff solutions. Even Il-28T and Tu-16T torpedo bombers were supposed to make high-altitude attacks using RAT-52 rocket torpedoes. RAT-52 could be dropped from more than 10.000 meters - essentially outside the Zeus efficient range (still within max range, of course)

Well, the right to suicide against Terrier/Talos is everyone's inalienable right.
The problem of course was that it's a right, not obligation. Soviet Naval Aviation stopped using both around 1960-61, because in the missile era it was just pointless.

For the anti-air purposes, the shell trajectory is considered as close to straight line as possible.

For any purposes, it isn't straight outside of direct shot range. No GFCS can function while doing so.
Also, where does this come from?

It simply wouldn't work on 1950s tech. The probability of radar even detecting something as small as shell was far too low. It would require conical scan radar to make several revolutions just to reliably be sure where exactly shell is.

Maybe, though by no means obvious - shell's rear RCS isn't smaller than the missile's.
It's hard to guess without knowing - there are too many options to realize it - some are as simple as simply blindly adjusting the aim if the predicted point changed between time of firing and the time of predicted intercept - based on a timer. It's rather simple to achieve, and explains quite well rather low Pk per shot.

Are you serious?

Does it require some magic mind to assume that scale of changes for a drop-in turret design is lower when compared to a ship completely rebuilt from the main armored deck up?