Alt 60s US Navy

[Scott Kenny]

For the cruiser and battleship refits:

• On Des Moines class cruisers, leave the centerline 5"/38 turrets, and replace the 4x side turrets with Mk13 single arm launchers. Mk13s will fit in the same hole in the deck as a 5"/54 Mk42, which will fit in the same hole as a 5"/38 twin turret. This would give 160x Tartar/Standard spaces(!), and the ability to fire 2x-4x missiles every 8 seconds. (Replace one set of 3"/50cals with Mk25/Mk29 Sea Sparrow, place the Mk115/Mk95 illuminator radar in a second 3"/50 tub once Sea Sparrow is available in the late 1960s/early 1970s). Optionally, replace the centerline twin 5"/38 turrets with single 5"/54 Mk42 for more range and higher rate of fire. Add flag space to support amphibious landings.
• On Baltimore and Oregon City class cruisers, limited conversion of the Boston class, the 8" guns will prove useful for longer than the Terrier missiles. Option to convert some to Albany class, but there are a lot of CLs that could be rebuilt into Galveston- and Providence-classes.
• Cleveland-class CLs, rebuild into Galveston- (Talos) and Providence-classes (Terrier) for carrier AA escorts, though the OKC pattern with 1x 6" turret, 1x 5" turret and flag spaces on the Galveston pattern.
• Worcester-class, leave as pure guns (class was retired by 1958 anyways)
• On Iowa class, leave the forward and aft 5"/38 turrets on each side (possibly replace with Mk42), replacing the three midships 5"/38 turrets with Mk13 (as per Des Moines class). For the 1980s refit, they'll basically look like the Iowas IOTL, just with 5"/54 Mk42 turrets. Not sure if they'd keep one Mk13 launcher per side for point defense or drop a 5" gun turret in place.

 

[PMN1]

Once people figured out submerged launch of missiles, though, it became a lot easier to make an SSGN. The Los Angeles class was originally planned to be SSGNs with roughly A1 sized tubes. 40" diameter or so. That missile program died of bloat, so the LAs were built as pure fast attacks, with the first flight able to carry Tomahawks in the torpedo room and second flight getting 12x21" VLS for Tomahawks.

How different was the original design to what actually ende dup in service?

 

[Scott Kenny]

How different was the original design to what actually ende dup in service?

The original SSGN design was basically a baby Boomer, had a missile compartment amidships with some number of 30-40" tubes. Not sure about the ops compartment setup. Probably somewhat different due to layout efficiency changes. And a much bigger diesel and sail for more airflow. (point of comparison, a 688 or Virginia class has an 18" diameter snorkel mast, an Ohio has a 36" diameter snorkel mast)

 

[Yellow Palace]

How different was the original design to what actually ende dup in service?

That would be APHNAS:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/us-navy-aphnas-ssn-with-ugm-89-perseus-stam-1971.7192/

Significantly bigger submarine than a LOS ANGELES, or even a SEAWOLF, with twenty 30-inch diameter tubes.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

APHNAS post-dated Los Angeles. Design work the the Los Angeles began in the 1960s, with the design for a submarine with D1G being proposed in 1963, a preliminary design being drawn up in 1966, which changes were made to until 1969. The first three boats were ordered in FY70.

A D1W-propelled submarine was compared with the D1G-propelled Los Angeles and the S5G-propelled CONFORM, however the design would not be ready until 1974-75, and hence could not be ordered until the FY77 Program. APHNAS itself was drawn up in 1971, but very quickly died, as it was believed that the UGM-89 Perseus Cruise missiles were being deliberately designed to be too large for torpedo tubes, hence requiring a new submarine, which would ideally be powered by the D1W reactor that Rickover desired.

Another D1W-powered design described as the "Advanced SSN", was drawn up in 1975 and presented alongside a number of alternatives for a new SSN to be built in FY80. However the realtor intended for this new design was not expected to be ready until FY82.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

My ideal is to have 10 Ethan Allen class built (instead of 5 George Washington class and 5 Ethan Allen class) which would have larger missile tubes so they could have been rearmed with Poseidon missiles too. However, I think that could not have been done because Polaris was a crash programme and they were trying to get as many boats as possible in service as soon as possible.

Remember that Regulus and Polaris were literally a battle for survival for the USN.

I'm having one of my blond moments. I can't tell whether you are opposing my comment or supporting it by providing some background information.

For what it's worth, it's impossible for me to have remembered that "Regulus and Polaris were literally a battle for survival for the USN" in the "Real World" because I didn't know that "Regulus and Polaris were literally a battle for survival for the USN" in the first place.

However, the fact that "Regulus and Polaris were literally a battle for survival for the USN" in the "Real World" is irrelevant to the thread because it is effectively a "United States Navy money no object" thread and therefore the USN wasn't fighting a battle for survival in this "version of history".

Furthermore, even if your comment was relevant to the thread, I don't see how it's relevant to my "ideal" of having the first 5 SSBNs built as additional Ethan Allen class boats instead of as George Washington class boats? That is unless your comment was supporting my final sentence i.e. "However, I think that could not have been done because Polaris was a crash programme and they were trying to get as many boats as possible in service as soon as possible."Part of Post 54.

Part of Post 54.

With hindsight, I would have built Greyback, Growler & Halibut as Attack Submarines and converted 3 additional old submarines to Regulus Boats. Similarly, I would have built Sailfish, Salmon & Triton as Attack Submarines and converted 3 additional old Boats to Radar Picket Submarines (SSR).

This fits better in an ALT-1950s US Navy, but here goes.

Sailfish & Salmon were approved in FY52, Greyback & Growler were approved in FY53 & FY55 respectively. I think they should have been built as submarines of the Tang or Darter classes. The former were approved FY47-49 and the latter in FY54. With hindsight, I also think that the 3 Barracuda class SSK (approved FY48 & 49) should have been additional boats of the Tang class and in their place 3 additional old boats converted to SSKs. That would increase the number of Tang & Darter type submarines from 7 to 14.

Halibut & Triton were approved in FY56 and so were the last pair of Skates, Skipjack & the 3 Barbels. I'd like them to be built as additional Skate class SSN (and as this appears to be a "money no object" thread) have another 3 Skipjacks built instead of the Barbels. That would increase the number of Skipjack class from 6 to 11. I'd also like 4 additional Skipjacks to be built instead of the Skates, but the only way (that I know of) to achieve that is build Albacore at least 2 years earlier and I think that's a "wank" too far.

The one-off SSKN Tulibee was approved in FY58. However, Thresher was approved in FY57 and with hindsight I think she should have been an additional Thresher which would increase that class from 14 to 15 boats.

Again, remember that Regulus was literally existential for the USN at the time. There weren't going to be carriers, because "the USAF does that" and no carrier plane of the early 1950s could drop a 10,000lb nuclear bomb.

Again, I'm having one of my blond moments. I can't tell whether you are opposing my comment or supporting it by providing some background information.

Again, for what it's worth, it's impossible for me to have remembered that "Regulus was literally existential for the USN at the time" in the "Real World" because I didn't know that "Regulus was literally existential for the USN at the time" in the first place.

Again, the fact that "Regulus and Polaris were literally a battle for survival for the USN" in the "Real World" is irrelevant to the thread because it is effectively a "United States Navy money no object" thread and therefore the USN wasn't fighting a battle for survival in this "version of history".

Although, by the time Greyback, Growler & Hallibut were built (i.e. the second half of the 1950s) the USN had won its battle for survival and there were going to be aircraft carriers. Super carriers (i.e. the Forrestal class, Constellation, Kitty Hawk & Enterprise) were being laid down at the rate of one per year, the Midways were being refitted to SCB.110 standard and 15 Essex class were having SCB.27 refits and 14 of them would receive angled flight decks under SCB.125.

Again, even if your comment was relevant to the thread, I don't see why it is relevant to what I wrote, because I was suggesting that with hindsight more Tang & Darter class should have been built instead of the Barracuda class SSK & Sailfish class SSR and that more SSNs should have been built instead of the SSKN, SSRN and Barbel class SS.

That was until I re-read my comment and saw that I'd also suggested building more Tang or Darter class SS instead of the SSGs Greyback & Growler and an additional SSN instead of the SSGN Halibut. So fair enough.

However, there was still a Regulus programme in my Alternative 1950s USN. The difference is that not building new SSKs, SSGs & SSRs (including those that were nuclear powered) and building more SS & SSN was offset by converting more World War II built submarines to SSKs, SSGs & SSRs. Therefore, instead of the 3 new (including one nuclear powered) Regulus submarines and 2 World War II boats that were converted to Regulus submarines in the "Real World" there would have been no new Regulaus submarines and 5 conversions of of World War II boats in this "version of history".

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'm having one of my blond moments. I can't tell whether you are opposing my comment or supporting it by providing some background information.

For what it's worth, it's impossible for me to have remembered that "Regulus and Polaris were literally a battle for survival for the USN" in the "Real World" because I didn't know that "Regulus and Polaris were literally a battle for survival for the USN" in the first place.

However, the fact that "Regulus and Polaris were literally a battle for survival for the USN" in the "Real World" is irrelevant to the thread because it is effectively a "United States Navy money no object" thread and therefore the USN wasn't fighting a battle for survival in this "version of history".

Furthermore, even if your comment was relevant to the thread, I don't see how it's relevant to my "ideal" of having the first 5 SSBNs built as additional Ethan Allen class boats instead of as George Washington class boats? That is unless your comment was supporting my final sentence i.e. "However, I think that could not have been done because Polaris was a crash programme and they were trying to get as many boats as possible in service as soon as possible."

I am supporting that final thought. Could not build the first 5 SSBNs as Ethan Allens, they needed to be in service as fast as possible. Which meant literally cutting a Skipjack in half and installing a missile compartment amidships in the case of GW.

Although, by the time Greyback, Growler & Hallibut were built (i.e. the second half of the 1950s) the USN had won its battle for survival and there were going to be aircraft carriers. Super carriers (i.e. the Forrestal class, Constellation, Kitty Hawk & Enterprise) were being laid down at the rate of one per year, the Midways were being refitted to SCB.110 standard and 15 Essex class were having SCB.27 refits and 14 of them would receive angled flight decks under SCB.125.

Again, even if your comment was relevant to the thread, I don't see why it is relevant to what I wrote, because I was suggesting that with hindsight more Tang & Darter class should have been built instead of the Barracuda class SSK & Sailfish class SSR and that more SSNs should have been built instead of the SSKN, SSRN and Barbel class SS.

That was until I re-read my comment and saw that I'd also suggested building more Tang or Darter class SS instead of the SSGs Greyback & Growler and an additional SSN instead of the SSGN Halibut. So fair enough. However, in my Alternative 1950s USN, not building new SSKs, SSGs & SSRs (including the nuclear powered versions) and building more SS & SSN was offset by converting more World War II built submarines to SSKs, SSGs & SSRs. I specifically wrote so in the case of the Barracuda class SSKs, but not for the SSGs & SSRs, which with hindsight, I should have.

It may be workable to convert more WW2 boats to SSGs than to build a couple new SSG/Ns, though it would have meant something like 6-8 converted boats because they could only carry 2 Regulus instead of the new-build 4. More boats needed to keep the same total number of warheads at sea.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Missile Cruiser Conversions

A third Boston class CAG was tentatively included in the FY55 program, but this was dropped as being a low priority. Galveston was ordered in FY56, and total of three Talos conversions and six Terrier conversions were planned for FY57 (three of the Terrier conversions would be replaced by Terrier Flags).

From May 1956 onwards, it was official SCB policy that all missile ships converted after FY58 should be double-ended, and ion the 12th of October 1957 it was agreed that none of these conversions should have an all-Terrier battery, so whatever was converted after that date would look like an Albany.

In October 1956, tentative plans for the FY58 program were for four Talos conversions (in addition to eight Terrier Frigates, and eight Tartar Guided Missile Destroyers, a second CVAN, two SCB-125A modernisations, four Regulus submarines and one Jupiter submarine, later replaced by a Polaris submarine) and three Talos conversions for FY59 (in addition to six Terrier Frigates, five Tartar destoyers, another CVAN, and four Polaris submarines).

Later plans were for three SCB-173 conversions to be ordered in FY58, followed by another three in FY59, but due to Polaris competing for money this was reduced to three ships, and delayed slightly, with one conversion being ordered in FY58, and the two remaining FY58 ships being delayed to FY59, with the former three FY59 ships being first pushed back to FY60, and then being cancelled altogether.

The fall draft for the FY60 program includes one Talos conversion, and repeat Long Beach with an SCB-173 battery.

The October 1958 summary of the FY61 program includes two Talos conversions, and one new nuclear cruiser (presumably the one dropped from the FY60 program). This FY61 plan also includes one Super Talos (Typhon) DLGN, and twelve Super Tatar (Typhon-MR) DDGs, with seven CGNs being ordered between FY62-66, with one per year being ordered in FY62-64, and two per year being ordered in FY65-66.

In November 1958 the LRO's long range program has three Talos conversion for FY60-62. This plan was deemed unaffordable however, especially when considering it all plans eleven Super-Talos (Typhon) cruisers, six conventional ships, one ordered in FY62, one in FY63, three in FY64, and a final one in FY65, and five nuclear ships, the ordered at a rate of one per year in FY65, 66, 67, 68 and 69. In addition to this eleven nuclear powered and thirty-four conventional Super-Tartar (Typhon-MR) DDGs were to be ordered .

Of course, in a "money is no object world", Typhon should have more more resources thrown at it to ensure it will work, so the first Typhon ships should be ordered from FY63 onwards, FY65 at the latest, although early plans had Typhon ships ordered as early as FY61 and FY62

Perhaps on the repeat Enterprises SCANFAR can be can be replaced by SPG-59, various preliminary designs (both conventional and nuclear) for the Kennedy had this radar, along with Typhon LR or MR launchers (depending on the design study). However SCB-250, a repeat Enterprise hull with four A3W reactors replacing the eight A2Ws, had four Sea Mauler mountings.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Of course, in a "money is no object world", Typhon should have more more resources thrown at it to ensure it will work, so the first Typhon ships should be ordered from FY63 onwards, FY65 at the latest, although early plans had Typhon ships ordered as early as FY61 and FY62

I don't know that there is enough money to get Typhon to work in the 1960s with vacuum tubes. Remember that it took until the 1980s with the Ticonderoga class to get most of what Typhon was supposed to be working!

Perhaps on the repeat Enterprises SCANFAR can be can be replaced by SPG-59, various preliminary designs (both conventional and nuclear) for the Kennedy had this radar, along with Typhon LR or MR launchers (depending on the design study). However SCB-250, a repeat Enterprise hull with four A3W reactors replacing the eight A2Ws, had four Sea Mauler mountings.

Dumping enough money to get Mauler built would have been worth doing.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I am supporting that final thought. Could not build the first 5 SSBNs as Ethan Allens, they needed to be in service as fast as possible. Which meant literally cutting a Skipjack in half and installing a missile compartment amidships in the case of GW.

Thank you and fair enough. For what it's worth I'm aware that the GW class were Skipjacks with a missile compartment inserted.

The final paragraphs of Post 126 as originally posted (but since amended).

Again, even if your comment was relevant to the thread, I don't see why it is relevant to what I wrote, because I was suggesting that with hindsight more Tang & Darter class should have been built instead of the Barracuda class SSK & Sailfish class SSR and that more SSNs should have been built instead of the SSKN, SSRN and Barbel class SS.

That was until I re-read my comment and saw that I'd also suggested building more Tang or Darter class SS instead of the SSGs Greyback & Growler and an additional SSN instead of the SSGN Halibut. So fair enough. However, in my Alternative 1950s USN, not building new SSKs, SSGs & SSRs (including the nuclear powered versions) and building more SS & SSN was offset by converting more World War II built submarines to SSKs, SSGs & SSRs. I specifically wrote so in the case of the Barracuda class SSKs, but not for the SSGs & SSRs, which with hindsight, I should have.

Actually I did specifically write that building more SS & SSN in the 1950s instead of the 2 SSG, one SSGN, 2 SSR & one SSRN was offset by more conversions of WW2 boats to SSG & SSR. However, the paragraph that said so wasn't carried forward into Post 120 and I didn't notice that until after I uploaded the original version of Post 126, which has since been amended.

It may be workable to convert more WW2 boats to SSGs than to build a couple new SSG/Ns, though it would have meant something like 6-8 converted boats because they could only carry 2 Regulus instead of the new-build 4. More boats needed to keep the same total number of warheads at sea.

For what it's worth I'm aware that the converted boats carried fewer missiles than the new boats. However, as this is a "money no object thread" the extra cost converting 6 WW2 boats instead of 3 to fire Regulus missiles isn't a problem and the extra operating costs aren't a problem either.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

I don't know that there is enough money to get Typhon to work in the 1960s with vacuum tubes. Remember that it took until the 1980s with the Ticonderoga class to get most of what Typhon was supposed to be working!

Typhon was a digital system, not surprising since it post-dated NTDS, which was also a digital system.

Aegis could probably have entered service by the mid-1970s at the latest if there hadn't been a decade of wasted time constantly changing what type of ship it would have been fitted to.

 

[JFC Fuller]

A view of the guided missile ships that would be available to support carrier strike groups in FY61 was given to the Subcommittee on the Air Force of the Senate Committee on Armed Services in May 1956, this plan obviously didn't come to fruition. It takes a bit of unpicking as the original slide being discussed does not appear to be available online. However, I think the below is a fair representation of what is being described in terms of the planned/hoped for availability of guided missile ships, note that I have used financial years rather than calendar years as that is what Rear Admiral John E. Clark states they were and I have plotted ships and/or ship tyeps against some of the proposed units for reference:

Talos Ships:
FY58: 1 (JFC assumes CLG-3 Galveston)
FY59: 2 (JFC assumes CLG-4 Little Rock and CLG-5 Oklahoma City though in reality they didn't commission until FY60)
FY60: 2
FY61: 2

This produces a 1961 total of seven completed conversions but a cumulative total of eight Talos ships is given, which presumably would have included CGN-9 Long Beach.

Terrier Ships:
FY56: 2 x heavy cruiser conversions to CAG (CAG-1 Boston and CAG-2 Canberra)
FY57: 1 x destroyer conversion to DDG (the Gyatt DDG-1 conversion)
FY58: N/A
FY59: 1 x CLG (JFC assumes CLG-6 Providence)
FY60: 3 x CLG (JFC assumes CLG-7 Springfield and CLG-8 Topeka + 1 not pursued) + 6 x DLG (JFC assumes SCB.142 Farragut class)
FY61: 3 x CLG (JFC assumes 3 not pursued) + 6 x DLG (JFC assumes SCB.142 Farragut class)

This produces a cumulative total of 22 consisting of 1 DDG, 2 CAGs, 7 CLGs and 12 DLGs.

Tartar Ships:
FY60: 8 x DDGs (JFC assumes SCB.155 Charles F Adams class)
FY61: 9 x DDGs (JFC assumes SCB.155 Charles F Adams class)

The cumulative 1961 total would be 17 ships. Note that Tartar was stated to be intended as the secondary battery of new construction Talos and Terrier cruisers too.

One way of deploying this force of missile ships is given as dividing them across three carrier strike groups, each with two to four carriers. Each of those three groups would have 16 guided missile escorts consisting of three Talos, seven Terrier and six Tartar ships. However, this requires 48 ships against the 47 expected to be available with the shortfall being one Talos ship.

 

[uk 75]

JFC Fascinating to see such a clear breakdown of the three Ts force.
The Typhon programme then kicks in (SuperTalos). Had it been technically and financially possible, a Typhon DLGN with long and medium range missiles would have been the next step in carrier escort ships.
It is tantalising to imagine the California/Virginia class ships being built as Typhon DLGN and escorting Nimitz and Eisenhower in the 70s.
Sadly it was not possible and we have to wait until the 80s for Aegis. The Aegis nuclear ships are still too expensive and it is a stroke of luck that the Spruance design has an AAW version from the outset which can be expanded to take Aegis.

For me the 60s USN with its mix of converted and new build cruisers is a golden age of excitement. The artwork in books and magazines of the time conveys the bold ships.

As we know, reality was somewhat different and the 3Ts took a lot of money and effort to get working effectively. Only the RN in NATO with the oddly named and Heath Robinson missile and launcher that was Seaslug was able to put a good number of systems to sea in the same timeframe. The elegance and powerful appearance of the County class impressed even US Admirals.

 

[isayyo2]

Wanted to circle back to the 1958 study by Admiral Burke...

The called for "18 Guided Missile Cruisers (12 with Nuclear Power)" were Talos equipped, or did they get muddled by Typhon?

Were there planned sister-ships of Long Beach or something else?

 

[SSgtC]

Wanted to circle back to the 1958 study by Admiral Burke...

The called for "18 Guided Missile Cruisers (12 with Nuclear Power)" were Talos equipped, or did they get muddled by Typhon?

Were there planned sister-ships of Long Beach or something else?

IIRC, the original plan was to build one Long Beach to serve as an escort to each of the Enterprise class nuclear carriers. Since the original plan was to build 5 additional Enterprise class, it follows that 5 additional Long Beach class cruisers would have been built as well. But both ships were so astronomically expensive that they were cut short at a single ship each.

 

[Scott Kenny]

IIRC, the original plan was to build one Long Beach to serve as an escort to each of the Enterprise class nuclear carriers. Since the original plan was to build 5 additional Enterprise class, it follows that 5 additional Long Beach class cruisers would have been built as well. But both ships were so astronomically expensive that they were cut short at a single ship each.

Doesn't help that the first ship of a new class gets stuck with all the development costs for that class. Example: Say we're building a new submarine. The first in class costs $5bn, the second in class costs less than $2bn.

 

[SSgtC]

Doesn't help that the first ship of a new class gets stuck with all the development costs for that class. Example: Say we're building a new submarine. The first in class costs $5bn, the second in class costs less than $2bn.

In this case, it was the fact that Enterprise was projected to cost $150 million dollars, and ended up over $300 million. In today's dollars, that's a projected cost $1.5 billion and an actual cost of $3 billion.