USS Wichita (CA-45) Missile Conversion

[Charlie 11]

On Page 129 of Cruisers of the US Navy 1922-1962, Terzibaschitsch mentions that the USN briefly considered converting the USS Wichita into its first missile cruiser but instead chose Boston (CA-69) and Canberra (CA-70) because they were projected to have longer service lives. Friedman also mentions this on Pages 377-378 of his book US Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History, further adding that the proposed CAG was added to the FY 50 shipbuilding program in July 1948, but as funding was restricted it was postponed to the FY 51 program in March 1949. Friedman adds that this was accompanied by a decrease in funding, which caused a reduction of the ship's missile battery from 4-6 launchers to one. He then outlines that the conversion would occur in two stages, the first would add a single launcher for the Terrier missile (most likely aft), and the second would add more launchers. He states that ultimately the ship would have a missile capacity of 300 terriers. The ship would initially have an SPS-6 air search radar, a modified MK25 for interim guidance, and an SX radar for target acquisition. After the second stage, the ship would also have an SPS-2 and a SPG-49. The CAG was dropped from the FY51 program due to funding issues, but the success of the Lark missile was used to justify the addition of cruiser conversion to the FY52 program. The navy then decides against converting Wichita and instead chooses Boston and Canberra. Does anyone have any more information about the proposed conversion of Wichita? Line drawings would also be greatly appreciated.

 

[that_person]

I'm not familiar with the project, but 300 Terriers does not sound right.

 

[Christopher Wang]

I'm not familiar with the project, but 300 Terriers does not sound right.

If USS Wichita (CA-45) was expected to use the same Mark 4 GMLS as USS Boston (CA-69 / CAG-1) and USS Canberra (CA-70 / CAG-2), each Mark 4 GMLS could carry 74 Terrier missiles.

 

[drwells42]

Since the Wichita was about the size of the Brooklyn and Cleveland class CLs, I'm wondering if the final design might have been more like CLG-6 through 8. That might also be consistent with a single launcher that the original poster mentioned.

That said, it is might have been possible to make something more like the CAG-1 and CAG-2 conversion.

DRW

 

[Scott Kenny]

If USS Wichita (CA-45) was expected to use the same Mark 4 GMLS as USS Boston (CA-69 / CAG-1) and USS Canberra (CA-70 / CAG-2), each Mark 4 GMLS could carry 74 Terrier missiles.

Which would take 4x Mk4 GMLS to get 300 rounds onboard. 3x Mk4s I could believe, replacing the 8" turrets. But where are you sticking the 4th?

 

[Tzoli]

Or 2x2 Terrier and 2x2 or 4x1 Tartar

 

[Dilandu]

I'm not familiar with the project, but 300 Terriers does not sound right.

Well, it was early in development, and Terrier magazine storage capacity was probably still merely approximated. Technically, Mk-2 GMLS have a 74 missile capacity, so four of Mk-2 launchers (two stern, two bow) could give you 296 missiles.

 

[Dilandu]

Which would take 4x Mk4 GMLS to get 300 rounds onboard. 3x Mk4s I could believe, replacing the 8" turrets. But where are you sticking the 4th?

I presume the idea was two on stern, two on bow. Do not forget, Terrier GMLS did not merely "replace" turrets; the whole structure was rebuild around them. Two rear launchers on Boston and Canberra replaced a single 8-inch stern turret.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Well, it was early in development, and Terrier magazine storage capacity was probably still merely approximated. Technically, Mk-2 GMLS have a 74 missile capacity, so four of Mk-2 launchers (two stern, two bow) could give you 296 missiles.

That was, AFAIK, the general idea of the CAG-1/2 rebuilds - they were prototypes, so only half the missile battery was installed, leaving them with a gun battery that (while obsolescent) was known to work. A full conversion would have replaced the forward 8-inch turrets as well, but was never carried out.

One of the things learnt from the conversions was that they didn't have enough channels of fire. The additional illuminators were needed, the additional launchers weren't. Which gives the more-or-less standard USN missile ship, with a launcher and two illuminators at each end.

 

[Dilandu]

One of the things learnt from the conversions was that they didn't have enough channels of fire. The additional illuminators were needed, the additional launchers weren't. Which gives the more-or-less standard USN missile ship, with a launcher and two illuminators at each end.

Apparently, both military and engineers tended to be more cautious about performance of early SAM's, and assumed that numbers of ready-to-launch missiles would be more important.

 

[Charlie 11]

Apparently, both military and engineers tended to be more cautious about performance of early SAM's, and assumed that numbers of ready-to-launch missiles would be more important.

Friedman said that 20% if missiles would be ready to launch.

 

[Archibald]

Well, it was early in development, and Terrier magazine storage capacity was probably still merely approximated. Technically, Mk-2 GMLS have a 74 missile capacity, so four of Mk-2 launchers (two stern, two bow) could give you 296 missiles.

Hell of a firepower.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I presume the idea was two on stern, two on bow. Do not forget, Terrier GMLS did not merely "replace" turrets; the whole structure was rebuild around them. Two rear launchers on Boston and Canberra replaced a single 8-inch stern turret.

Good point, I'd forgotten that! (where's the embarrassed emoji?)

 

[Phantom Fanatic]

A very interesting idea. Are there any existing design sketches on this proposed conversion?