Albany-class Aegis refit

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
30 May 2013
Messages
3,426
Reaction score
3,693
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Yes, yes, I fully understood that it's impractical and unrealistic, but I just like "Albany"-class cruisers, and just before New Year I hit the idea "what if Albany-class cruiser would be refitted in 80s to carry Aegis?"

Oh, and a Happy New Year)

Fall River-class.png

So yes, it's CG-18 "Fall River" missile cruiser, refitted in mid-1980s into Aegis ship.

Displacement: 18.000 tons full load
Dimensions: as of "Albany"-class
Weaponry:
* two Mk-12 Mod 3 twin GMLS for RIM-68 SM-2LR "Stalos" (a "Standard"-based solid-fuel ramjet missile with RIM-67 booster, for 200+ km range interceptions) - 104 missiles
* two Goalkeeper CIWS
* two Sea Chaparral Mk.2 GMLS (with both IR-homing and radar-homing AIM-9C derivative capabilities) - 64 misisles
* two four-canister RGM-84 Harpoon launchers - 8 missiles
* two four-canister BGM-109 Tomahawk launchers - 8 missiles
* one Mk-12 ASROC launcher - 8 rockets
* provision for two Mk.105 rocket launchers installation (not fitted)
Sensors & electronics:
* AN/SPY-1 search/tracking radar
* AN/SPS-39 integrated radar/IFF interrogator
* AN/SPS-49 air search radar
* Eight AN/SPG-51F "universal" fire control radar (Aegis-integrated)
* AN/SLQ-32(V)3 ECM set

History:

By early 1980s, USN grew concerned about the situation with the fleet of "Albany"-class missile cruisers. There were eight of them in service, reconstructed in two series (first series consisted of "Albany", "Chicago" and "Columbus", second series consisted of "Fall River", "Macon", "Toledo", "Rochester" and "Los-Angeles") from WW2-era heavy cruiser hulls. Boasting an impressive battery of long-range RIM-8 "Talos" and short-range RIM-24 "Tartar" missiles, those cruisers were considered the backbone of carrier escorts - the USN efficient answer to the growing power of Soviet carrier-based aviation.

All second series ships underwent the major refit in 1970s, replacing their outdated RIM-8 "Talos" missile system with RIM-68 SM-1LR "Stalos" - a long-range missile of "Standard" family, using the RIM-67 booster together with solid-fuel ramjet upper stage (delivered from early 60s experiments with CROW test vechicle). Their fire control system on them was massively overhauled, replacing each clumsy combination of AN/SPG-49 & AN/SPG-51 radar pair with a single AN/SPG-51E radar. This refit provided cruisers with eight integrated fire control channels (counting the ones used for self-defense RIM-24 Terrier/RIM-66 SM-1 missile launchers on broadside), which was quite an impressive capability. Still, those ships were aging, and should be either replaced, or given another major refit soon.

The idea of another major overhaul of "Albany"-class cruiser was born out of realization, that it would be financially and pracitcally impossible to build enough of Aegis Combat System-equipped nuclear missile cruisers to replace all old units in the fleet. Since the concept of Aegis-equipped destroyer was scrapped due to weight and cost concerns, USN started to look around its supply of large, cruiser-size hulls, that could be converted into Aegis units.

The review of the cruiser fleet concluded, that three of "Albany"-class cruisers - CG-18 "Fall River", CG-19 "Toledo" and CG-21 "Macon" - still in good enough condition for at least a decade of useful servie life. While the idea of putting sophisticated digital era Aegis system on World War 2 era hulls caused a lot of raised eyebrows, the proponents of the idea pointed out that those hulls are big, very stable, and could easily hande the massive phased array radars (as well as superstructure extensions, required to house them). And therefore in 1981 the two-years upgrade for three "Albany"-class shups was approved.

On all three ships, the forward superstructure was given a starboard extension, allowing to fit the forward and starboard-facing AN/SPY-1 radar arrays. The aft mast was completely replaced with a new compact superstructure, housing aft and port-facing AN/SPY-1 arrays. Since such arrangement made the use of starboard Mk-11 SM-1MR launchers impossible, both starboard and port launchers were removed, and license-build Goalkeeper CIWS were installed in their place. Such "assymetrical" arrangement wasn't exactly good-looking, but it was perfectly functional.

The main weaponry now consisted of Aegis-compatible RIM-68D/E/F SM-2LR missiles. The RIM-68D version was a semi-active radar homing version, capable of 250+ km interception range. The RIM-68E was the nuclear-capable version of RIM-68D, fitted with sub-kiloton warhead. Finally, the RIM-68F was a highly specific "autonomous Stalos" - equipped with active radar seeker, developed from AIM-54 AAM, and capable of autonomous search of low-altitude targets (that could not be illuminated by ship's own radar). The capability of fitting the supersonic RGM-68 "Spearfish" missile - the anti-ship "Stalos" derivative with radar altimeter for low-altitude flight and RGM-66F delivered radar seeker - was also retained. Eight new AN/SPG-51F Aegis-compatible fire control radars were fitted, four of them moved from broadside position to the top of forward and aft superstructure.

The old artillery mounts on sides of second funnel were also removed - their efficiency was in doubt even in 1960s, to be fair - and a trusted RIM-72C "Sea Chaparral" was installed instead. The mount have fire control system integration, and compact tracking/illuminating radar for RIM-72J semi-active homing missiles (developed from AIM-9C AAM). Finally, the strike weapon package - eight "Harpoon" anti-ship missiles and eight "Tomahawk" land attack missiles were installed on the top of missile housing (old cranes for missile reload in sea were removed).

The refitted cruisers entered service in 1985-1988, together with the first of second-generation Aegis nuclear cruisers of "Montana"-class.
 
Why Sea Chaparral? Those had poor head-on interception capability. Sea Sparrows have a much better capability to attack incoming targets.
 
Why Sea Chaparral? Those had poor head-on interception capability. Sea Sparrows have a much better capability to attack incoming targets.
Well, it's refitted version, based on AIM-9C "Sidewinder" model - the semi-active homing version of "Sidewinder", designed for F-8 "Crusader". Basically this version of "Sea Chaparral" is equipped with a very small tracking/illumination radar, that allow it to lock on target (either manually, by operator, or under guidance of ship's fire control system), and illuminate target for semi-active "Sidewinder"'s to make a head-on attack.
 
a "Standard"-based solid-fuel ramjet missile with RIM-67 booster,
Sounds like Typhon MR. Alternatively, Terrier and Sea Dart had a torrid love affair but failed to use protection, and this was the result?

Also - in the 1980s you will want a surface-surface gun armament, even if it's nothing more than a couple of OTO-Melara super-rapids.
 
Have only just seen this. I love the distinctive shape of the Albany conversions.
A Typhon variant would be fun too.

Looking at the armament my only thoughts are:

Phalanx instead of Goalkeeper and Sea Chap.

Keep the side missile launchers but replace with Single Arm Standard/Harpoom launchers like the Perrys.

As you then have these and the ASROC Pepperbox for Harpoon you can put the Tomahawk boxes where you have the two Harpoon launchers.

A single or pair of 76mm (llike the Perrys) goes where you have the Tomahawjk boxes or if you need magazine space exchange with the Phalanx where you have Sea Chap.

Otherwise I still love it.
 
Have only just seen this. I love the distinctive shape of the Albany conversions.
Thank you)


Phalanx instead of Goalkeeper and Sea Chap.
Well, my version of Sea Chaparral have head-on interception capability (due to integration of AIM-9C missiles with SARH guidance), so its arguably better than Phalanx.


Keep the side missile launchers but replace with Single Arm Standard/Harpoom launchers like the Perrys.
I doubt it would be practical; the firing angle of port launcher is too limited.


A single or pair of 76mm (llike the Perrys) goes where you have the Tomahawjk boxes or if you need magazine space exchange with the Phalanx where you have Sea Chap.
A good idea!
 
Sea Chapparal.did serve in the Taiwanrse navy, I may have misread it but I am sure they had it.
It would be available earlier than Phalanx too.
I do miss the Tartar side launchers (they were a nice touch on the original) but take your point.
 
If the Albany class guided-missile cruisers had been fitted with eight Polaris SLBM launch tubes as originally planned, those launch tubes could have been modified later on to carry the 5-tube Tomahawk missile modules that were planned for the Polaris SSBNs.
SSGN Conversion Polaris.png
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/agm-109-bgm-109-tomahawk-gryphon.8698/post-587040

The Albany class CGs could also have their bow and stern Mark 12 Talos twin-arm launchers removed and replaced with two pairs of Mark 143 Armored Box Launchers. This refit was done with the USS Long Beach CGN-9 by replacing its stern Mark 12 launcher with two Mark 143 ABLs.
image021.jpg

USS Long Beach CGN-9 (June 21, 1989)

Thus, the Albany class CGs could have carried 40 Tomahawks amidships (8 x 5) plus 16 more at the bow and stern (4 x 4) for a total of 56 Tomahawks.
 
Last edited:
Sea Chapparal.did serve in the Taiwanrse navy, I may have misread it but I am sure they had it.
It would be available earlier than Phalanx too.
Yep, and it was installed on several FRAM destroyers during Vietnam War (to give them at least some degree of air defense capability).

But specifically this "Sea Chaparral" - on this what-if cruiser) - is one of my other alternate history ideas. You see, I toyed with idea of giving "Chaparral" a head-on engagement capability by utilizing AIM-9C version of Sidewinder (the one with SARH guidance, made for F-8) for quite a while. The main change of the "Chaparral" mount itself is the addition of very simple illumination-only (no search, no track) radar, aimed with the optical sight. Essentially like AN/VPS-2 rangefinder on the Vulcan air defense system. So the operator still track the target visually, using the optical sight, and the radar is used only to get the distance and illuminate target for AIM-9C seekers.

Such system, I presume, could be much more useful than real-world "Chaparral" - and from the Navy's point of view, actually preferrable to the "Sea Sparrow" (which, in its original appearance, was also visually-tracked - radar for illumination only).
I do miss the Tartar side launchers (they were a nice touch on the original) but take your point.
Quite agree. I thought about retaining them, but... they basically get on the way of Aegis radar side sponsone, so I was forced to delete them.
 
If the Albany class guided-missile cruisers had been fitted with eight Polaris SLBM launch tubes as originally planned, those launch tubes could have been modified later on to carry the 5-tube Tomahawk missile modules that were planned for the Polaris SSBNs.
Hm! Never thought about that capability, must admit! A quite good idea!
 
View attachment 715433

Displacement: 18.000 tons full load
Dimensions: as of "Albany"-class
Weaponry:
* two Mk-12 Mod 3 twin GMLS for RIM-68 SM-2LR "Stalos" (a "Standard"-based solid-fuel ramjet missile with RIM-67 booster, for 200+ km range interceptions) - 104 missiles
* two Goalkeeper CIWS
* two Sea Chaparral Mk.2 GMLS (with both IR-homing and radar-homing AIM-9C derivative capabilities) - 64 misisles
* two four-canister RGM-84 Harpoon launchers - 8 missiles
* two four-canister BGM-109 Tomahawk launchers - 8 missiles
* one Mk-12 ASROC launcher - 8 rockets
* provision for two Mk.105 rocket launchers installation (not fitted)
Sensors & electronics:
* AN/SPY-1 search/tracking radar
* AN/SPS-39 integrated radar/IFF interrogator
* AN/SPS-49 air search radar
* Eight AN/SPG-51F "universal" fire control radar (Aegis-integrated)
* AN/SLQ-32(V)3 ECM set
As listed on Gunter's Space Page, NASA has used various sounding rockets which combined the Talos booster with a Terrier stage.

SOURCE: Krebs, G. D. (2023, December 11). Talos Terrier combinations. Gunter's Space Page. Retrieved from https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/talos_terrier.htm

Has there ever been any actual U.S. Navy proposals to combine the Talos rocket booster with the Terrier or Standard missile?

Can the Albany class guided-missile cruisers' Mark 12 Talos GMLS be adapted for a Talos-Terrier/Standard missile combo?
 
Has there ever been any actual U.S. Navy proposals to combine the Talos rocket booster with the Terrier or Standard missile?
Not as far as I knew. Talos booster was... not exactly the most modern or useful piece of equipment. It was 1950s rocketry in its best and worst. As far as I knew, the late version Terrier booster was considered much more reliable and safer to use.

Can the Albany class guided-missile cruisers' Mark 12 Talos GMLS be adapted for a Talos-Terrier/Standard missile combo?
Hm. I need to calculate that, but I'm not sure.
 
Back
Top Bottom