USS Wichita (CA-45) Missile Conversion

Charlie 11

Charlie 11

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
27 January 2024
Messages
7
Reaction score
12
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.
 
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
 
Christopher Wang said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Or 2x2 Terrier and 2x2 or 4x1 Tartar
 
that_person said:
I'm not familiar with the project, but 300 Terriers does not sound right.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Scott Kenny said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dilandu said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Yellow Palace said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dilandu said:
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.
Click to expand...
Good point, I'd forgotten that! (where's the embarrassed emoji?)
 
A very interesting idea. Are there any existing design sketches on this proposed conversion?
 
Yep, CA-45 Wichita was a one-shot and "missing link" between the older cruisers and the WWII Baltimore / Oregon. I'm surprised it was considered, with its age and long service in WWII. Then again, it seems to have escaped major damage, quite a feat considering Guadalcanal carnage (and beyond). See the CA class before it, the New Orleans (shudders) they paid the price in blood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans-class_cruiser#Ships_in_classMaybe the reason was precisely the fact it was a one-shot, it could be tweaked at will without creating a class inside a class - since it already was a class, all by itself.
 
Or more likely due to the fact that at most...

It was 3 years older then the classes converted.

By all accounts even WITH war service.

It was still a fairly new ship design for 30 years of service with a 15 year major docking to re-up it that was coming up in the plans

Why not take said time to ensure could service another 15 years or more?

Be better then getting rid of a Brand new ship.
 
Well in 1952 even one of the Portlands were considered for modernization in the CIP (Class Improvement Project) New radars, likely 3"/50 Mark 22 guns, twin oerlikons etc
 
And speaking of missile ship conversions, I found these images in my files...

In Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mississippi_(BB-41) ) said: " In April 1947 she effectively replaced Wyoming as an anti-aircraft training ship, with Wyoming mooring at a pier across from Mississippi and the bulk of Wyoming's crew "cross-decking" to Mississippi.[19] After emerging from the reconstruction, she served in the operational development force, carrying out gunnery tests and helping evaluate new weapon systems.[5] The ship had two new RIM-2 Terrier missile launchers installed in 1952 with No. 4 turret removed, the work being completed on 9 August at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. The first test firings of a ship-borne Terrier missile took place on 28–29 January 1953 off Cape Cod.[20] Mississippi later tested the Petrel missile, a radar-homing weapon, in February 1956. On 17 September, Mississippi was decommissioned at Norfolk, sold for scrap to Bethlehem Steel on 28 November, and subsequently broken up.[5] A single 14-inch/50-caliber gun from the ship remains and is located in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.[21]".
 

Attachments

  • Missisipi BB 1949 .jpg
    Missisipi BB 1949 .jpg
    61.7 KB · Views: 115
  • Missisipi BBG 1955.jpg
    Missisipi BBG 1955.jpg
    62.9 KB · Views: 119
Last edited:
Julio Garay Terrazas said:
And speaking of missile ship conversions, I found these images in my files...

In wikipedia said: " In April 1947 she effectively replaced Wyoming as an anti-aircraft training ship, with Wyoming mooring at a pier across from Mississippi and the bulk of Wyoming's crew "cross-decking" to Mississippi.[19] After emerging from the reconstruction, she served in the operational development force, carrying out gunnery tests and helping evaluate new weapon systems.[5] The ship had two new RIM-2 Terrier missile launchers installed in 1952 with No. 4 turret removed, the work being completed on 9 August at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. The first test firings of a ship-borne Terrier missile took place on 28–29 January 1953 off Cape Cod.[20] Mississippi later tested the Petrel missile, a radar-homing weapon, in February 1956. On 17 September, Mississippi was decommissioned at Norfolk, sold for scrap to Bethlehem Steel on 28 November, and subsequently broken up.[5] A single 14-inch/50-caliber gun from the ship remains and is located in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.[21]".
Click to expand...
Thx for this.
 
Archibald said:
The number of large warships preserved in mothballs until June 1959 was impressive. I think they kept all the Colorado battleships, that is the last standards with the 406 mm guns. We need a TL where the Colorados return to service in Korea for naval gunfire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado-class_battleship#Ships_in_classhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee-class_battleship#Ships_in_class
Click to expand...

I considered what it would take to bring back the Tennessees for Korea, given the number of faster 16" armed ships.
One could posit a cost-saving measure, with a minimized crew serving only two 14" turrets and half the 5" mounts, and using up the supply of 14" shells. Add in some Soviet battleships and battlecruisers to tie up the fast battleships, plus the various planned upgrades like missile battleships and helicopter carriers.
 
Julio Garay Terrazas said:
And speaking of missile ship conversions, I found these images in my files...

In Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mississippi_(BB-41) ) said: " In April 1947 she effectively replaced Wyoming as an anti-aircraft training ship, with Wyoming mooring at a pier across from Mississippi and the bulk of Wyoming's crew "cross-decking" to Mississippi.[19] After emerging from the reconstruction, she served in the operational development force, carrying out gunnery tests and helping evaluate new weapon systems.[5] The ship had two new RIM-2 Terrier missile launchers installed in 1952 with No. 4 turret removed, the work being completed on 9 August at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. The first test firings of a ship-borne Terrier missile took place on 28–29 January 1953 off Cape Cod.[20] Mississippi later tested the Petrel missile, a radar-homing weapon, in February 1956. On 17 September, Mississippi was decommissioned at Norfolk, sold for scrap to Bethlehem Steel on 28 November, and subsequently broken up.[5] A single 14-inch/50-caliber gun from the ship remains and is located in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.[21]".
Click to expand...
I know they allocated a test ship number to her and took away her BB classification; but since she retained much of her main armament, to me she will always be BBG-41.
 
Dilandu said:
All her 14-inch turrets were removed by 1950s, and only test weapons installed.
Click to expand...
My mistake. I could swear that I saw her retain her forward turrets in a number of Youtube vids where she's shown with her Terrier fit, but the video was grainy (the source was not great), so I can see how I might have been misled.
 
pathology_doc said:
My mistake. I could swear that I saw her retain her forward turrets in a number of Youtube vids where she's shown with her Terrier fit, but the video was grainy (the source was not great), so I can see how I might have been misled.
Click to expand...
Quite possible, true - especially with experimental 6-inch DP turret fitted in "A" turret place, which on low-quality video could me mistaken for one of her original 14-inch turrets.
 
Odd that they'd considered a pre-war treaty cruiser when there were plenty of Baltimores available. Fall River went to the scrapper with only two and a half years of service, Quincy only had five and a half years of service.
 
funkychinaman said:
Odd that they'd considered a pre-war treaty cruiser when there were plenty of Baltimores available. Fall River went to the scrapper with only two and a half years of service, Quincy only had five and a half years of service.
Click to expand...
Look at the dates man before talking.

This was looked at in the 1950s to early 60s.

Fall River and Quincy wasn't scrap til 72 and 73.

And was looked at for ALL THE CRUISERS still in mothballs. With the older ones being priority first due to being seen as less useful in future conficts while also coming up on their Mid-life refit dry docking.
 
Firefinder said:
Look at the dates man before talking.

This was looked at in the 1950s to early 60s.

Fall River and Quincy wasn't scrap til 72 and 73.

And was looked at for ALL THE CRUISERS still in mothballs. With the older ones being priority first due to being seen as less useful in future conficts while also coming up on their Mid-life refit dry docking.
Click to expand...
Fall River went into mothballs in 1947 and never left. Oregon City also went into mothballs in 1947, only after a year and half of service.
 
funkychinaman said:
Fall River went into mothballs in 1947 and never left. Oregon City also went into mothballs in 1947, only after a year and half of service.
Click to expand...
And both were modern cruisers design for 30 years of service with the expection of being still useful in another 20 years. Wichita also went into mothballs in 1947 after a refit and also didn't leave.

The time the refits were looked at was not even 5 years later when the debate on conversion started in 1950 with being decide in 1952 and started in 53 for the Boston and Canberra. Hell the Des Moines class, Newport News commission in 1949 was also looked at the time and those were active serving ships. To say nothing of the Hawaii sitting sadly at 90 percent completed. 3/4s of the fleet was younger then a decade, and all where prime for conversion if it was cheaper.

Finding that out was part of the whole point. The Navy would have prefer a dedicated ship design over conversion, but well we had a hoard of new build ships all less then 10 year old at the time literally Rusting infront of Congress windows so that wasn't happening.

And add in that this entire missile program was looked at with skepticism at the time?

Cause what if it fail was also considered and need to be factor into the decision process.

Well why break the two more modern ships when a slightly older one will do just as well for the testing?
 
Firefinder said:
Well why break the two more modern ships when a slightly older one will do just as well for the testing?
Click to expand...
As the OP said, "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." If service life was a consideration, then it'd be more than just a mere test ship.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom