The Spruances are all gone, mostly sunk as targets. It's 21 years since the last of them decommissioned - an entire generation.
Given the condition in which many Ticos left service, simply due to their age and fatigue on the vessels structure, it may take a bit more to get them into reasonable condition again. But if you just want VLS, that's maybe not what you'd have to do.
I guess what do you mean by ‘reasonably fast’?
I meant that their main systems could likely be re-activated without the need to completely diassemble and reassemble them, and their their electronics is still up to date enough to not require immediate refit to be useful. They probably would be glitchy and prone to malfunction; but could be restored to somewhat combat condition in several months, not years.
Their propulsion systems would likely need to be completely rebuilt. Sitting around for years they’re likely seized up.
I was under the impression the Ships for Bases deal used newly reactivated four stackers - looking at the wiki entry for Craven/Lewes as an example, it says:
Against a Day 1 fleet, possibly (though I don't think any US fleet commander would turn down an extra Tico and its magazine depth). But against the other guy's surviving fleet at Day 180, or Day 365? A four stacker was far, far behind the mid-WWII state of the art, but you didn't see the RN or USN turning them down when they finally came out of reserve. Or look at Ukraine, for that matter - four years on and there's Russia digging T-55s out of the scrapyards and sending them up to the front.
The PHMs? They've been gone for a third of a century.
With regards to the Wasp class, the CNO announced a service life extension program, to extend the life of the class by five years.
Iowa-class, IIRC.
The surviving pre-WW1 armoured cruisers were kept in reserve until 1930 or so (except for a couple that remained active). Also, I think a few auxiliaries sent periods laid up between the wars
Probably. Might not have been fast enough to chase modern cruisers, but were armed and armored enough to be a threat to just about any modern cruiser of the period.
Yep. Maybe some minor modifications to fit depth charge racks, or k-guns etc.
Per Friedman, there were concrete plans in the late 20's to re-engine them with the same power plant as USS Ranger CV4. They were also to get a new, longer bow. The 6" guns were to be reduced in number and relocated to the upper deck, with replacement of the twin 10" guns by triple 8" turrets was also considered. I don't know if the ships with 4 x 8" main guns were to retain theirs as-is. The bridge and foremast were to be replaced with a new structure and tripod mast similar to the Pensacolas. The fore funnel would also be removed
They were the Pennsylvania- and Tennessee-classes of armoured cruisers. They were initially named after states, reflecting their 'almost battleship' status in the USN. They were later renamed to the state capital of those states (I think...). Their original names were then re-used by new dreadnought battleships
Very unlikely. They were obsolete, slow, and without a major refit - not able to fight even enemy light cruisers, due to lack of gun range and deck protection. They were also manpower-heavy. Most likely they would be disarmed, guns sent to coastal defense, and hulls repurposed as training ships or auxilary units.
Not exactly. USN make calculations in early 1930 about possibility of moderatedly refitted armored cruiser fighting modern heavy cruiser, and results weren't encouraging. The main problem was, that armored cruiser was not designed for long-range combat. Its heavy guns weren't numerous enough to reliably straddle - or hit - a maneuvering enemy at long ranges. Its armored deck was of insufficient thickness to survive long-range plunging hits of 8-inch shells. And armored cruiser speed was not sufficient to prevent enemy cruiser from dictating combat distance.
Only in very rear areas, such as Indian Ocean (like Averof). They can't engage anything more than auxilary cruiser, so North Atlantic is out of question for them. And they are very vulnerable to submarines, with their torpedo defense deemed inadequate even before World War I. So basically they would be a waste of manpower.
One the former USS Seattle was used as an accommodation ship during WW2. Disposal was made in 1946.
Before World War 2 started, such gestures weren't viewed as reasonable.
For Brazil, Argentina and Chile such ships would be of no interest; they already have dreadnoughts (and Argentina - modern medihm cruisers), and they didn't want to spend money on obsolete units. Of other Latin American nations, only Peru and Mexico might be interested (but Peru at this time preferred submarines, and Mexico did not have ocean-capable navy at all).
