Albany class CG modernization

[chuck4]

In the late 1970s, it was planned to modernize the Alany class CGs for service through the 1980s. The Albany class were full guided missile conversions of WWII era Baltimore and Oregon City class heavy cruisers. Eventually the funds allocated were diverted and the ships were decommissioned instead.

Does any one have any information on what form the modernization would take?

 

[CostasTT]

In late 1979 the two surviving ships (Chicago and Albany) were scheduled for massive overhauls. SM-1 (MR) missiles (which were to replace the Tartar system), as well as 2 Phalanx CIWS and 2 four-cell Harpoon missile launchers were planned to be installed, as well as a major refitting of the ships machinery, structure, and electronics. The funding appropriated for this work was diverted however, to other ships and both cruisers were finally decommissioned in 1980.

source

 

[Dilandu]

In late 1979 the two surviving ships (Chicago and Albany) were scheduled for massive overhauls. SM-1 (MR) missiles (which were to replace the Tartar system), as well as 2 Phalanx CIWS and 2 four-cell Harpoon missile launchers were planned to be installed, as well as a major refitting of the ships machinery, structure, and electronics. The funding appropriated for this work was diverted however, to other ships and both cruisers were finally decommissioned in 1980.

source

Hm. A bit strange; the SM-1MR was a replacement for Tartar, but what about Talos? What it was supposed to be replaced with? SM-1ER missiles seems to be most logical choice, but having both ER and MR missiles on one ship... isn't it a bit too much?

 

[TomS]

In late 1979 the two surviving ships (Chicago and Albany) were scheduled for massive overhauls. SM-1 (MR) missiles (which were to replace the Tartar system), as well as 2 Phalanx CIWS and 2 four-cell Harpoon missile launchers were planned to be installed, as well as a major refitting of the ships machinery, structure, and electronics. The funding appropriated for this work was diverted however, to other ships and both cruisers were finally decommissioned in 1980.

source

Hm. A bit strange; the SM-1MR was a replacement for Tartar, but what about Talos? What it was supposed to be replaced with? SM-1ER missiles seems to be most logical choice, but having both ER and MR missiles on one ship... isn't it a bit too much?

I suspect the intent was for Talos to be removed and the volume used for command and control spaces. These ships were at this point serving as fleet flagships, and more accommodation and work spaces were always wanted.

 

[Dilandu]

I suspect the intent was for Talos to be removed and the volume used for command and control spaces. These ships were at this point serving as fleet flagships, and more accommodation and work spaces were always wanted.

Ah, understood. So they were supposed to be turned into dedicated flagships with limited self-defense (Standards) and anti-ship (Harpoon) capabilities. Hm.

 

[Dilandu]

Were there any actual thoughts about refitting Talos-capable ships for SM-ER?

 

[uk 75]

The ships would have been Albany (Atlantic Fleet) and Chicago (Pacific Fleet).Columbus was already out of service.
In the event the two Blue Ridge class command ships were used from the 80s and the CGs went into reserve with TALOS removed.
Long Beach had its TALOS removed for a planned AEGIS fit but instead served thru the 80s with TALOS replaced by two HARPOON launchers. The Albanys might have received these too if they had served in the 80s.

 

[TomS]

Were there any actual thoughts about refitting Talos-capable ships for SM-ER?

Not that I've ever heard of.

 

[TomS]

I suspect the intent was for Talos to be removed and the volume used for command and control spaces. These ships were at this point serving as fleet flagships, and more accommodation and work spaces were always wanted.

Ah, understood. So they were supposed to be turned into dedicated flagships with limited self-defense (Standards) and anti-ship (Harpoon) capabilities. Hm.

Keep in mind this is just my speculation; I don't have plans in front of me or anything. But it would make sense given that when the cruisers went away, they switched to the Blue Ridge class as fleet command ships, which had much more internal space and very little armament.

 

[Dilandu]

As late as 1974 Bendix proposed a Super-Talos, an all-solid state Talos (no related to the earlier SAM-N-8 Super-Talos to-be RIM-50A Typhon-LR) , and AN/SPG-51T, for TALOS-ships modernisation, as the AN/SPG-49 - AN/SPW-2 guidance radars combination was the main reliability and performance issue of the TALOS system (and previous attempts to replace them with AN/SPG-56 and AN/SPG-61 having failed) (AW&ST).

Hm! Extremely interesting! Could you please provide more data or sources that I should investigate?

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/ioaxsu

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/ioaxsu/an_interesting_view_of_the_uss_columbus_cg12_an/

 

[Tzoli]

Would this refit was the part of the NTU - New Threat Upgrade programme? Which included a large amount of ships including the Long Beach and would had been applied to the Boston class as well? (Not sure about the Galvestons)

 

[whatismoo]

Would this refit was the part of the NTU - New Threat Upgrade programme? Which included a large amount of ships including the Long Beach and would had been applied to the Boston class as well? (Not sure about the Galvestons)

Which refit? NTU (AIUI) never really extended to Talos, and I can't find anything from JHU/APL (the technical direction agent and systems integration agent on NTU) regarding Talos/NTU.

 

[Sferrin]

Which refit? NTU (AIUI) never really extended to Talos, and I can't find anything from JHU/APL (the technical direction agent and systems integration agent on NTU) regarding Talos/NTU.

I think Talos was long gone before NTU was around. There was an old Leahy/Belknap XO who'd said NTU had some things even Aegis didn't at the time. (Though I'm sure that's changed by now.)

 

[Scott Kenny]

Were there any actual thoughts about refitting Talos-capable ships for SM-ER?

I don't believe it would be easy. Talos has a horizontal storage magazine, while Standards have a vertical magazine. Maybe if the gun barbettes were still present it'd be doable. Obviously you'd need to clear out whatever had been installed into the barbettes and put that into the Talos magazines.

 

[whatismoo]

I think Talos was long gone before NTU was around. There was an old Leahy/Belknap XO who'd said NTU had some things even Aegis didn't at the time. (Though I'm sure that's changed by now.)

The programs that would lead to NTU started in the 70s, but as SM-1/Terrier-Tartar upgrades, per JHU APL technical digest, mentioned here.

https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/content/techdigest/pdf/V02-N04/02-04-Betzer.pdf

The JHU/APL Technical Digest Talos issue makes no mention of NTU involvement either, at least not that I saw https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/Home/Detail?Journal=J&VolumeID=3&IssueID=2

 

[whatismoo]

I don't believe it would be easy. Talos has a horizontal storage magazine, while Standards have a vertical magazine. Maybe if the gun barbettes were still present it'd be doable. Obviously you'd need to clear out whatever had been installed into the barbettes and put that into the Talos magazines.

Mk.10 GMLS is horizontal storage. The only Terrier/SM-ER vertical storage GMLS were the Mk.1 and Mk.4, which were out of service by the 70s. There was no vertical launched or stored SM-ER until RIM-156, AFAIK.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Mk.10 GMLS is horizontal storage. The only Terrier/SM-ER vertical storage GMLS were the Mk.1 and Mk.4, which were out of service by the 70s. There was no vertical launched or stored SM-ER until RIM-156, AFAIK.

Huh, I stand corrected then. I thought all of them were vertical.

That makes a hypothetical Talos-for-SM1ER replacement a lot easier. Gut the old Talos magazines and replace with SM1ERs on Mk.10 GLMS

 

[whatismoo]

Huh, I stand corrected then. I thought all of them were vertical.

That makes a hypothetical Talos-for-SM1ER replacement a lot easier. Gut the old Talos magazines and replace with SM1ERs on Mk.10 GLMS

Mk.10 was out of production for a while at that point, which would make it somewhat problematic to do. It was also pretty old at that point.

 

[Dilandu]

Talos has a horizontal storage magazine, while Standards have a vertical magazine.

Erm. SM-ER - the RIM-67 one - was a direct replacement of RIM-2 Terrier, which was stored horizontally.

 

[TomS]

The programs that would lead to NTU started in the 70s, but as SM-1/Terrier-Tartar upgrades, per JHU APL technical digest, mentioned here.

https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/content/techdigest/pdf/V02-N04/02-04-Betzer.pdf

The JHU/APL Technical Digest Talos issue makes no mention of NTU involvement either, at least not that I saw https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/Home/Detail?Journal=J&VolumeID=3&IssueID=2

And note the timing: NTU conceptual work began around 1976 and the actual testing of system elements around 1980. Talos was already being drawn down in 1974 and left service in 1979 or 1980 (when Oklahoma City decommissioned).

NTU and SM-2ER effectively replaced Talos in a much smaller footprint. The SM-2ER Block II missile, with its vastly improved Mk 70 booster, almost exactly matched the kinematic range of Talos. NTU allowed ships to actually exploit that range.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Mk.10 was out of production for a while at that point, which would make it somewhat problematic to do. It was also pretty old at that point.

You could snag the Mk10 launchers off the retired ships. That's what I'd do. Old but still usable for long range AAMs.

The other option is a much bigger rebuild to install new Mk26 launchers with their vertical storage in the old barbettes. And that is a crapton more money to do.

 

[Dilandu]

The other option is a much bigger rebuild to install new Mk26 launchers with their vertical storage in the old barbettes. And that is a crapton more money to do.

I'm a bit puzzled what barbettes you are talking about. Could you clarify, please? AFAIK, all turret barbettes on Albany-class were completely removed during their reconstruction.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'm a bit puzzled what barbettes you are talking about. Could you clarify, please? AFAIK, all turret barbettes on Albany-class were completely removed during their reconstruction.

I'd thought that they were left in place and the ships were "only" razed to the weather deck.

It's easy enough removing ~6" steel, of course, but that then removes weight low in the hull and further screws up your metacentric height. And the Albanies already had trouble with topweight to the extent that their whole superstructure was aluminum not steel!

But in any case, replacing the original horizontal-storage missile system with a vertical-storage missile system would be a very expensive refit.

 

[Dilandu]

I'd thought that they were left in place and the ships were "only" razed to the weather deck.

No, old barbettes and magazines completely removed. The missile magazines were quite bulky; they required a lot of space inside hull. That's why reconstruction was so long & costly.

But in any case, replacing the original horizontal-storage missile system with a vertical-storage missile system would be a very expensive refit.

Yep, and most importantly - Albany-class cruisers were already equipped with two Mk-11 GMLS's for Tartar missiles, which could handle Standards. It wasn't as good as Mk-26, of course, but it was already in place and could be retro-fitted with much less efforts.

 

[whatismoo]

but it was already in place and could be retro-fitted with much less efforts.

You'd probably want to drop Mk.13s in there. I think the big question would be the expense and benefits of an NTU Albany even with Mk.10 vs the gaggles of Leahy, Farragut, and Belknap classes, plus Long Beach, Bainbridge and Truxton. Mk.10 GMLS and RIM-67 still had a pretty geriatric rate of fire and with the threats moving down (and the horizon problem unsolved until the 90s) spending on NTU Albanies vs more CG-47 or DDG-51 seems like it would have been an odd priority.

 

[Dilandu]

You'd probably want to drop Mk.13s in there. I think the big question would be the expense and benefits of an NTU Albany even with Mk.10 vs the gaggles of Leahy, Farragut, and Belknap classes, plus Long Beach, Bainbridge and Truxton. Mk.10 GMLS and RIM-67 still had a pretty geriatric rate of fire and with the threats moving down (and the horizon problem unsolved until the 90s) spending on NTU Albanies vs more CG-47 or DDG-51 seems like it would have been an odd priority.

Nah, it would require too much work. The Mk-11 and Mk-13 magazines weren;t compatible. For RIM-66 SM-MR missiles, it's simpler to just stuck with existing Mk-11.

I think the big question would be the expense and benefits of an NTU Albany even with Mk.10 vs the gaggles of Leahy, Farragut, and Belknap classes, plus Long Beach, Bainbridge and Truxton. Mk.10 GMLS and RIM-67 still had a pretty geriatric rate of fire and with the threats moving down (and the horizon problem unsolved until the 90s) spending on NTU Albanies vs more CG-47 or DDG-51 seems like it would have been an odd priority.

The main headache would be to reconstruct the magazines to accomodate Terrier-style missile drums. The Mk-12 GMLS magazines are tall and narrow:



While the Mk-10 style missile drums are rather wide:



My point is, that without widening magazines (which would likely require a MASSIVE hull reconstruction - not worthy of efforts) there wouldn't be much space for standard Mk-10 rings. They are just too wide; at most, one ring would fit inside former Talos magazine. And just twenty missiles per launcher is no-go.

So basically there are two alternatives:

* Somehow fit the SM-1ER missiles onto Talos missile racks (and SM-1ER is longer than Talos);
* Develope a new, smaller-diameter ring, that would allow to fit at least two into available space;

Both solutions are problematic, frankly.

 

[Firefinder]

Issue is that once the Soviets suffer critical economic existence failure.

That removes ANY need for the NTU ships when you have the better Aegis ships coming off the slips.

The Big thing with NTU was that it allowed the USN to upgrade a MASSIVE Chunk of its fleet, like north of 100 ships easy, at a decent price pretty fast to near Aegis levels.

Still it was nearly the cost of a new hull, to say nothing of the Nuke boats needing to refuel, like USS Texas, which was a new ship in cost in of itself.

But still was slightly cheaper then saying adding a dozen more Ticos or fast tracking the Burkes. Plus, at far faster speed of a year for a "slow" refit compare for 2 plus for a newbuild. With most of those ships being around 10 to 15 years old of a 30 year design lifespan, 50 for nukes, it was a solid bargain to use up that last half till the new Aegis ships can replace them.

However once the Soviets basically drop dead suddenly the need for that number of high end gear and hulls vanish.

And since biggest thing Aegis lack at this time was a long range ADA weapon, RIM67 wasn't able to fit on the MK26 arms nor in the VLS, that version got cancel for more optimized RIM156 which didn't see service till 1999. With Aegis being the straight up the better system once the early teething issues got iron out and they got upgrade from the UKY7s to very same UKY43s that the NTU hulls did to allow full use of the system in the late 80s early 90s.

The Choice was obvious.

With the Ablanys being a 50 year old hull? Their time was short even with NTU.

 

[whatismoo]

Nah, it would require too much work. The Mk-11 and Mk-13 magazines weren;t compatible. For RIM-66 SM-MR missiles, it's simpler to just stuck with existing Mk-11.

Mk.11 was being retired and has a significantly worse rate of fire, which eliminates the utility of SM-2MR/ NTU (much of which was to enable a higher rate of fire)

Regarding Mk.10 vs Mk.12, you should look at the hull dimensions and space claim. You'd need to gut it, yes, but Mk.10 isn't terribly wide and Mk.12 is huge. Farragut fits a Mk.10 on a 52 foot beam, while the smallest beam Talos ship were the Galveston CLGs at 66' and most were 70'.

 

[Dilandu]

Mk.11 was being retired and has a significantly worse rate of fire, which eliminates the utility of SM-2MR/ NTU (much of which was to enable a higher rate of fire)

The Mk-13 isn't compatible with Mk-11 magazines, so the whole GMLS would need to be replaced - hardly a reasonable proposal, when Mk-11 could work with RIM-66 missiles perfdctly well.

Regarding Mk.10 vs Mk.12, you should look at the hull dimensions and space claim. You'd need to gut it, yes, but Mk.10 isn't terribly wide and Mk.12 is huge. Farragut fits a Mk.10 on a 52 foot beam, while the smallest beam Talos ship were the Galveston CLGs at 66' and most were 70'.

My point wasn't the size of launchers; my point was the size of magazines. The Mk-12 GMLS magazines are tall but relatively narrow. The Mk-10 GMLS drums are low but wide. It would be a headache trying to fit the second into the space from the first.

while the smallest beam Talos ship were the Galveston CLGs at 66' and most were 70

Galveston have Mk-7 GMLS, a significantly different from Mk-12 GMLS. Mk-7 Talos GMLS was basically designed to be interchangeable with Mk-9 Terrier GMLS (in case one of them would fail, so the ships could be quickly re-armed to other). Mk-9 Terrier GMLS did not use rotating drums, but rather the storage cells, from which missiles were extracted by special mobile trolleys.

 

[TomS]

The Mk-13 isn't compatible with Mk-11 magazines, so the whole GMLS would need to be replaced - hardly a reasonable proposal, when Mk-11 could work with RIM-66 missiles perfdctly well.

The Mk 11 managed a salvo speed of two rounds every 20 seconds, compared to one round every 10 seconds for Mk 13 firing the same versions of SM-1MR. It was larger, less reliable, and more complex, but not really slower.

 

[Dilandu]

The Mk 11 managed a salvo speed of two rounds every 20 seconds, compared to one round every 10 seconds for Mk 13 firing the same versions of SM-1MR. It was larger, less reliable, and more complex, but not really slower.

Exactly. From the practical point of view, replacing Mk-11 on such old cruisers as Albany would not be reasonable.

 

[Firefinder]

Needs to be pointed out that the MK11 stay in service till like 1989 on the first 13 Charles Adam Class DDGs as well. With those being decommissioned to feed the Aegis ships. Before that they were slated to get the NTU as a whole.

So it was a known system with parts for a long minute after the Albany class left in 78. Which off sets it's reliability issues somewhat.

 

[Dilandu]

So it was a known system with parts for a long minute after the Albany class left in 78. Which off sets it's reliability issues somewhat.

Exactly. And 42 missiles per launcher actually would gave refitted Albany-class a decent ammo of 84 RIM-66 SM-MR missiles; same as on California-class cruisers, for example.

 

[whatismoo]

The Mk 11 managed a salvo speed of two rounds every 20 seconds, compared to one round every 10 seconds for Mk 13 firing the same versions of SM-1MR. It was larger, less reliable, and more complex, but not really slower.

On paper, sure, but you're also saving 30 tonnes of top weight if you switch to Mk.13 Mod 4, and you're more likely to practically achieve that RoF due to the reliability. You also can find videos of Mk.13 doing ±8 seconds. Replacing the Mk.12 Mod.1 F/A with Mk.10 Mod.2 saves 250 tons as well, though this is all back of the napkin. Figures from Here

In terms of spares, Mk.11 was only used on 14 ships (12 CFA and 2 Albany) with 16 total produced, vs like... ±44 Mk.13 (at end of 1980) (±55 counting the Mk.22) with ±63 more on order/ on ships not yet commissioned. So while it's not an orphan system, it's not a growing fleet, unlike Mk.13.

And to be clear, while I think Albany NTU is a silly idea, I think something like a 'Leahy-Baltimore' with wing Mk.13s amidships and LAMPS aft would have been quite an excellent ship. Especially if you can remove the need to fin the missiles to speed up the Mk.10 RoF and use a larger number of common illuminators.

 

[Firefinder]

On paper, sure, but you're also saving 30 tonnes of top weight if you switch to Mk.13 Mod 4, and you're more likely to practically achieve that RoF due to the reliability. You also can find videos of Mk.13 doing ±8 seconds. Replacing the Mk.12 Mod.1 F/A with Mk.10 Mod.2 saves 250 tons as well, though this is all back of the napkin.

You also doubling the already expensive NTU refit with honestly unnecessary weapon change out.

Especially since the CFAs mk11s already had the work set up and ready for them to upgrade them.

At the end of the day it just make no sense to change out a weapon that works, you already balance for and the hull can take with a new one that will see you REDOING ALL THAT MATH. Which will prolong the refit time, bloat the cost and the like.

And get basically nothing out of it.