South Dakota (1939) Upgrade/Conversion Projects

[World B4]

I have seen some fascinating claims about proposals to modify the South Dakota (1939) battleships
Sayeth Wiki: In March 1954, a program to equip the four ships with secondary batteries consisting of ten twin 3-inch (76 mm) guns were proposed, but the plan came to nothing. Another plan to convert the ship into a guided missile battleship arose in 1956–1957, but the cost of the conversion proved to be prohibitive. She would have had all three main battery turrets removed and replaced with a twin RIM-8 Talos missile launcher forward, two RIM-24 Tartar launchers aft, anti-submarine weapons, and equipment to handle helicopters. The cost of the project amounted to $120 million.[39]"
Citing Friedman 1985

Wayne Scarpaci depicted the missile conversion, and an armored replenishment ship conversion idea that I've never heard of.

Sayeth Wiki: "On 26 July 1954, a conversion proposal for the South Dakota–class ships was ordered by the Chairman of the Ship Characteristics Board. The request was made for the ships' speed to be increased to at least 31 knots. To do so, the design staff decided to remove the aft turret and use the weight and space gained to install either a set of improved steam turbines or a set of gas turbines. Either system would have to produce at least 256,000 shaft horsepower (190 MW)—the minimum requirement to achieve 31 knots on the South Dakota hull. Unfortunately, this would have necessitated alterations to the hull form, particularly in the rear of the ship. Larger propellers were also required, and all four shafts would have had to have been completely rebuilt to accommodate the changes. Estimates for the project ran as high as $40,000,000 per ship, and this did not include the cost of reactivating the ship and upgrades to its electrical and combat systems. As a result, the conversion program was halted.[36]"

Garzke, William H.; Dulin, Robert O. Jr. (1995). Battleships: United States Battleships 1935–1992 (Rev. and updated ed.). Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-099-0.

So that's:
WW2 era auxillary conversion-CORRECTED to 1950s
1954 secondary battery upgrade
1954 fast battleship conversion/upgrade
1956-57 missile battleship conversion/upgrade

I'd love to know more about the veracity of these projects, and if anyone has depicted the 1954 ideas I'd love to see

 

[Archdude]

I have seen some fascinating claims about proposals to modify the South Dakota (1939) battleships
Sayeth Wiki: In March 1954, a program to equip the four ships with secondary batteries consisting of ten twin 3-inch (76 mm) guns were proposed, but the plan came to nothing. Another plan to convert the ship into a guided missile battleship arose in 1956–1957, but the cost of the conversion proved to be prohibitive. She would have had all three main battery turrets removed and replaced with a twin RIM-8 Talos missile launcher forward, two RIM-24 Tartar launchers aft, anti-submarine weapons, and equipment to handle helicopters. The cost of the project amounted to $120 million.[39]"
Citing Friedman 1985

Wayne Scarpaci depicted the missile conversion, and an armored replenishment ship conversion idea that I've never heard of.

Sayeth Wiki: "On 26 July 1954, a conversion proposal for the South Dakota–class ships was ordered by the Chairman of the Ship Characteristics Board. The request was made for the ships' speed to be increased to at least 31 knots. To do so, the design staff decided to remove the aft turret and use the weight and space gained to install either a set of improved steam turbines or a set of gas turbines. Either system would have to produce at least 256,000 shaft horsepower (190 MW)—the minimum requirement to achieve 31 knots on the South Dakota hull. Unfortunately, this would have necessitated alterations to the hull form, particularly in the rear of the ship. Larger propellers were also required, and all four shafts would have had to have been completely rebuilt to accommodate the changes. Estimates for the project ran as high as $40,000,000 per ship, and this did not include the cost of reactivating the ship and upgrades to its electrical and combat systems. As a result, the conversion program was halted.[36]"

Garzke, William H.; Dulin, Robert O. Jr. (1995). Battleships: United States Battleships 1935–1992 (Rev. and updated ed.). Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-099-0.

So that's:
WW2 era auxillary conversion
1954 secondary battery upgrade
1954 fast battleship conversion/upgrade
1956-57 missile battleship conversion/upgrade

I'd love to know more about the veracity of these projects, and if anyone has depicted the 1954 ideas I'd love to see

WOW!!!

 

[Tzoli]

That auxiliary fast feet oiler and replenishment ship rebuild proposal was not WW2 but 1950's proposal, the 1954 AA Upgrade was part of the CIP - Class Improvement Plan. There are some info on them in Friedman's US BB book, will post the relevant parts later.

 

[cattalonX]

I have a question: Why does South Dakota have a deck of over 8 inches here

 

[Tzoli]

Total deck armour over 3 decks:

Flat main armour deck was connected with upper edge of belt and was 154 (near sides)-146mm (near center line) over citadel. One level higher there was 38mm upper deck. Its thickness was decreased to 25-19 mm fwd from No1 barbette. One level lower there was flat 19mm splinter deck.

154+38+19=211mm total deck armour thickness

 

[Tzoli]

The relevant parts from Friedman's US BB Book:
The 1954/55 CIP Project:





The 31knot South Dakota Reconstruction proposal:




BBG Conversion:

Multi-Role Oiler:

Fast Oiler / Replenishment Ship:

 

[Foo Fighter]

As far as I know, just half the powerplant for the first two of the class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramento-class_fast_combat_support_ship

 

[Scott Kenny]

The SoDaks are the worst candidate to make any faster.

 

[Yellow Palace]

The SoDaks are the worst candidate to make any faster.

Proposal to make the South Dakota class faster:
1. Construct the locks between the St Lawrence river and Lake Erie with 110 foot wide chambers.
2. Run a ship up the seaway.
3. Run it up to maximum power.
4. Point it at Niagara Falls.
5. Retreat to a safe distance.

 

[M. A. Rozon]

Proposal to make the South Dakota class faster:
1. Construct the locks between the St Lawrence river and Lake Erie with 110 foot wide chambers.
2. Run a ship up the seaway.
3. Run it up to maximum power.
4. Point it at Niagara Falls.
5. Retreat to a safe distance.

Not the worst idea I've seen...................................................

 

[danwild6]

Hmmm did they consider removing the armored conning tower and maybe adding a protrusive (Yamato style) bow.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Hmmm did they consider removing the armored conning tower

Unlikely. If they specifically wanted an armored ship, I doubt that they'd remove the armored conning tower.

and maybe adding a protrusive (Yamato style) bow.

While that would help some, the SoDak has a poor Length:Beam ratio. The SoDaks are 666ft/203m at the waterline and are 108ft abeam, L:B of 6.16667. Iowas are some 860ft at the waterline and still 108ft abeam, L:B of 7.96.

 

[danwild6]

Unlikely. If they specifically wanted an armored ship, I doubt that they'd remove the armored conning tower.




While that would help some, the SoDak has a poor Length:Beam ratio. The SoDaks are 666ft/203m at the waterline and are 108ft abeam, L:B of 6.16667. Iowas are some 860ft at the waterline and still 108ft abeam, L:B of 7.96.

Yamato had a L:B ratio of 6.58 and P:W ratio of 2.06 shp to Metric tonne. South Dakota L:B 6.16 P:W 2.87 shp:MT
Yamato and SD had the same speed I believe 27-28 Knots. I think a similar protrusive bow would have enabled 29-30 knots alone. The armored conning tower was useless as in a gun battle any hit would have killed the crew even if it had not penetrated I saw that on Battleship New Jersey Youtube channel removing it would have add another knot in speed so 30-31 knots.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yamato had a L:B ratio of 6.58 and P:W ratio of 2.06 shp to Metric tonne. South Dakota L:B 6.16 P:W 2.87 shp:MT
Yamato and SD had the same speed I believe 27-28 Knots. I think a similar protrusive bow would have enabled 29-30 knots alone.

For a ship with a 108ft beam to have the Yamato's L:B ratio, it'd be 710ft at the waterline. 50ft longer than a SoDak.

The bulbous bow will help, but the whole L:B just sucks. Be better off starting from the North Carolina-class ships, though that's only 2 ships instead of 4. The NorCals weren't scrapped until 1960, so they were still available as well.

The armored conning tower was useless as in a gun battle any hit would have killed the crew even if it had not penetrated I saw that on Battleship New Jersey Youtube channel removing it would have add another knot in speed so 30-31 knots.

Assuming that the Navy of the time knew that the Armored Conning Tower was useless.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Bulbous bows make a difference at the margins. They don't compensate for fundamental differences in hull design. In the case of the South Dakota class, a major limiting factor was the form aft. This was fine for their designed speed, and was part of the tradeoff needed to get the desired armour and armament into a compact package. But going much faster just wasn't going to happen without massive reconstruction.

Adapting the Yamato class form wouldn't just entail 'adding a bulbous bow' - it would require adding about 50 feet to the ship's length, increasing beam somewhat, and would only gain about one knot. In exchange, hull weight would increase by about 10%, requiring a reduction of 2,000 tons elsewhere. For reference, the armament weighed 2,750 tons, its ammunition another 2,000 tons, and the protective scheme about 10,000 tons. So - how much do you want that extra knot?

None of this, incidentally, is even remotely feasible as an upgrade or conversion, except in the sense that the PURITAN was 'upgraded' by building a new ship and sliding it under the old one's nameplate.

 

[Dilandu]

None of this, incidentally, is even remotely feasible as an upgrade or conversion, except in the sense that the PURITAN was 'upgraded' by building a new ship and sliding it under the old one's nameplate.

Well, Italians done a major hull reconstruction on their old battleships in 1930s. But - there was a great difference in priorities. For Italians, reconstruction of old battleships was a way to circumvent the industrial limitations and significantly improve the backbone of their fleet. For post-war Americans to do something similar with South Dakota's simply wasn't justified - the battleships weren't backbone of USN anymore, and they have enough Iowa's to do the job anyway. Arguably, if USN really decided that they need more battleships, it would be more practical to complete "Kentucky" than to refit "South Dakota's".

 

[Tzoli]

Also if they needed fast armoured oilers, the Alaskas had higher speed and better hull form to begin with. Of course again 2+1 hulls were ready.

 

[Dilandu]

Also if they needed fast armoured oilers, the Alaskas had higher speed and better hull form to begin with. Of course again 2+1 hulls were ready.

Frankly, this whole idea seems to be a purposeful waste of hulls.

 

[Yellow Palace]

For post-war Americans to do something similar with South Dakota's simply wasn't justified - the battleships weren't backbone of USN anymore, and they have enough Iowa's to do the job anyway.

Precisely so. The best thing that could have happened to the South Dakotas would have been for all four to have gone directly to the scrapyard after decommissioning in 1947. Admittedly that would have required foresight that wasn't available at the time, but even keeping them in the reserve fleet for 15 years turned out to be a waste of resources - and while museum ships are nice to look at, preserving seven out of ten last-generation battleships is a little excessive.

 

[Dilandu]

Precisely so. The best thing that could have happened to the South Dakotas would have been for all four to have gone directly to the scrapyard after decommissioning in 1947. Admittedly that would have required foresight that wasn't available at the time, but even keeping them in the reserve fleet for 15 years turned out to be a waste of resources - and while museum ships are nice to look at, preserving seven out of ten last-generation battleships is a little excessive.

Well, there I disagree; there were still new & capable units, and it was not exactly impossible from 1947 point of view that they might be needed in the future - for example, to compensate for naval losses in some future warfare. So preserving them make sence; major upgrades, not much.

 

[danwild6]

Bulbous bows make a difference at the margins. They don't compensate for fundamental differences in hull design. In the case of the South Dakota class, a major limiting factor was the form aft. This was fine for their designed speed, and was part of the tradeoff needed to get the desired armour and armament into a compact package. But going much faster just wasn't going to happen without massive reconstruction.

Adapting the Yamato class form wouldn't just entail 'adding a bulbous bow' - it would require adding about 50 feet to the ship's length, increasing beam somewhat, and would only gain about one knot. In exchange, hull weight would increase by about 10%, requiring a reduction of 2,000 tons elsewhere. For reference, the armament weighed 2,750 tons, its ammunition another 2,000 tons, and the protective scheme about 10,000 tons. So - how much do you want that extra knot?

None of this, incidentally, is even remotely feasible as an upgrade or conversion, except in the sense that the PURITAN was 'upgraded' by building a new ship and sliding it under the old one's nameplate.

USS New Jersey

The Brits had already found it out interwar that the armored conning tower was ineffective. and the weight saved from this alone I believe about 3000 tons would could have been used elsewhere of course.

 

[Tzoli]

The US considered the Armoured Conning Tower useful and essential at least from the early war:

 

[Tzoli]

A drawing on the armed/armoured fast oiler/replenishment ship?

From:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1978755955488633261

View: https://x.com/Kalyu6kaMUjYf3Q/status/1978755955488633261

 

[danwild6]

The US considered the Armoured Conning Tower useful and essential at least from the early war:
View attachment 788266
View attachment 788267
View attachment 788268

Looks to me that those hits were small caliber rounds so a much lighter 4" STS would probably have been similarly effective than a full 17" armored tower

 

[Dilandu]

Impressive! But I'm not sure about the viability of 3-inch guals on stern, with the Terriers being launched over them.

 

[blackstar]

I'm finding this thread interesting, but also a bit puzzling. On the one hand, they never upgraded the SDs to carry missiles, so obviously the proposal was rejected. What confuses me is why it was ever entertained at all. There were still a number of all-gun cruisers in the Navy, in service and reserve. If somebody wanted more missile ships, cruisers would have been easier to convert and cheaper to operate. It just seems odd to propose upgrading battleships.

 

[Dilandu]

I'm finding this thread interesting, but also a bit puzzling. On the one hand, they never upgraded the SDs to carry missiles, so obviously the proposal was rejected. What confuses me is why it was ever entertained at all. There were still a number of all-gun cruisers in the Navy, in service and reserve. If somebody wanted more missile ships, cruisers would have been easier to convert and cheaper to operate. It just seems odd to propose upgrading battleships.

Battleships hulls were bigger and more stable. The problem with cruiser hulls - as USN find out with Galveston-class and Providence-class refits - was, that they didn't really react well on major weight redistribution. The missile systems were significantly different from guns in both mass, size and placement; they were much bulkier, took more space, a lot of components were placed higher (for example, on Galveston and Providence classes, almost all missile system was put into big hangar on deck), a very heavy radars needed to be installed, and superstructure enlarged to fit all the computers and electronics. All this could seriously affect both stability and structural rigidness of refitted ships.

The battleships were much simpler in that matter. Their wide, broad hulls were much more stable, and could tolerate much greater scale of reconstruction with ease. That's why their reconstruction was at least considered - they could be given major refits without constant headance about "they would either turn upside down, or break in half".

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'm finding this thread interesting, but also a bit puzzling. On the one hand, they never upgraded the SDs to carry missiles, so obviously the proposal was rejected. What confuses me is why it was ever entertained at all. There were still a number of all-gun cruisers in the Navy, in service and reserve. If somebody wanted more missile ships, cruisers would have been easier to convert and cheaper to operate. It just seems odd to propose upgrading battleships.

There weren't actually all that many cruisers to convert.

18 total between Baltimores and Oregon Cities (no older cruisers and none of the CLs were really big enough to support an effective conversion, and the Des Moines were reserved for shore bombardment). 5 were converted into missile ships, 3 Albanies and 2 Bostons; and that leaves 13 hulls. IIRC at least 4 of the CAs were also reserved for shore bombardment, and maybe up to 7. Now we're down to 6-9 possibly available to convert.

 

[Dilandu]

18 total between Baltimores and Oregon Cities (no older cruisers and none of the CLs were really big enough to support an effective conversion, and the Des Moines were reserved for shore bombardment). 5 were converted into missile ships, 3 Albanies and 2 Bostons; and that leaves 13 hulls. IIRC at least 4 of the CAs were also reserved for shore bombardment, and maybe up to 7. Now we're down to 6-9 possibly available to convert.

Also, initially five Albany-type conversions were planned. Which would brought the number of remaining hulls to 4-7.

 

[blackstar]

Also, initially five Albany-type conversions were planned. Which would brought the number of remaining hulls to 4-7.

That's circular logic--if they converted five, then that's five that were converted, and 4-7 left to convert.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That's circular logic--if they converted five, then that's five that were converted, and 4-7 left to convert.

Only 3 Albanies were built.

 

[drwells42]

The answers are in Friedman's "US Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History", pg 398. There were to be three additional Albany conversions in the FY 59 (later FY 60) program. The first two would almost certainly been the Rochester and the Bremerton. The third might have been the Fall River.

Obviously, the conversions were cancelled.

DRW

 

[drwells42]

That said, a Talos conversion of a South Dakota would have been interesting. I'm curious to know what book these drawings came from.

DRW

 

[M. A. Rozon]

That said, a Talos conversion of a South Dakota would have been interesting. I'm curious to know what book these drawings came from.

DRW

"US Battleships Conversion Projects 1942-1965: an Illustrated Technical Reference" by Wayne Scarpaci. In my opinion, the book is nicely done and worth acquiring if you can find it (yes, I have a copy, myself)

 

[Archibald]

That said, a Talos conversion of a South Dakota would have been interesting. I'm curious to know what book these drawings came from.

DRW

Talos for battleships and Alaskas;
Terrier for the heavy cruisers;
Tartar for the light cruisers.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Talos for battleships and Alaskas;
Terrier for the heavy cruisers;
Tartar for the light cruisers.

No, the Albanies did pretty well with Talos on the CA hulls. But that is absolutely the smallest ship I'd want to mount them on.

 

[BROF]

Talos for battleships and Alaskas;
Terrier for the heavy cruisers;
Tartar for the light cruisers.

There were of course CA-68 (Baltimore / Oregon City) heavy-cruisers converted with Talos, and also CL-55 (Cleveland / Fargo) light cruisers converted with Talos. Even the small CL-51 (Atlanta) AA light cruisers were considered in 1957 for Terrier conversion. USS Gyatt DD-712, a Gearing-class destroyer, was converted with Terrier.

 

[Tzoli]

Talos for battleships and Alaskas;
Terrier for the heavy cruisers;
Tartar for the light cruisers.

I disagree:
USS Little Rock ex Cleveland class, launching a Talos:

By the way even the Atlantas were considered for CLG Conversion with Terrier in mind
Your list should look like this:
BB/BC: Talos or Terrier AND Tartar
CAG: Talos or Terrier
CG from CL or CA: Talos or Terrier AND Tartar
DDG: Tartar
Unique:
CLGN / CGN Long Beach: Talos AND double Terrier but preliminaries shown versions with all 3: Talos AND Terrier AND Tartar

Also don't forget the provision for Regulus I and II or Polaris

 

[Dilandu]

BB/BC: Talos or Terrier AND Tartar

Aren't they Talos AND Terrier or Tartar?

 

[Tzoli]

Aren't they Talos AND Terrier or Tartar?

Tartar was small the Terrier and Talos were the large ones, requiring large magazines. And the range too was in increasing values:
Tartar - short, Terrier - medium, Talos - long