Northampton Class 1952 Modernization Proposal

[Tzoli]

I wish to ask if anybody heard more about this proposed modernization of these aging cruisers by 1952?
Both Norman Friedman, the hazegray.org and globalsecurity.org sites mention this proposal but nothing concrete is written.

I can only think of them as part of the CIP (Class Improvement Plan) with 3"/50 RF Mark 22 guns and new radars but not found anything about them.

Quote from Norman Friedman's U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History page 343

Although the Northamptons and the Portland were placed on the disposal list in 1946, they were restored to the navy list in 1952. Although modernization plans were drawn up as part of the general compilation of class improvement plans in 1952, it does not appear that reactivation was ever a serious possibility. All of these ships were at the limit of their stability, and the older heavy cruisers were considered power critical as early as August 1945. The Wichita, however, came close to reactivation as a missile ship.

Though Friedman's text implies that even the USS Portland was considered for such modernization...

quote from the hazegrey.org site:

US Cruisers List: Light/Heavy/Antiaircraft Cruisers, Part 1

These ships were scheduled for disposal in 1946 but were retained, modernizations were considered in 1952.

quote from the globalsecurity.org site:

CA-26 Northampton

www.globalsecurity.org

The remaining three were scheduled for disposal in 1946 but were decommissioned in June-July 1946 and retained in reserve. Modernizations were considered in 1952. Chester, Louisville, and Augusta were stricken 1 March 1959 and sold for scrap thereafter.

 

[Firefinder]

Imagine most of the work would have been basically a carrier SLEPR.

Cause those cruisers where hard used by the start of WW2 let alone post plus a decade. Plus most of them be pushing 30 years old by the time any refit was finish. Throw in how lightly built they were? Their hulls likely needed a whole lot of work to maintain sea worthiness.

And if not the addition of 3/50s and likely new 5 inchers, they may have also gotten looked at for a CG refit. Since this was around the time those were being looked at for all the vessels. Cause the work needed to be done for the CG rebuilds was cover ALOT of what they needed for that life extension/hull repair.

Basically was going to get torn all the way down to the keel anyways, may as well rebuild them as modern missile ships to get the most out of them.

Honestly from the Sound of it the Northampton Modernize plan likely was the navy doing the old cover all bases routine incase congress asked. Especially since they had basically triple the number of new built heavy cruisers in the Baltimore to Des Moines Classes.

Or it was as a back up plan to do the old, scrap-everything-but-name-plates-and-build-a-new-hull around-those-and-call-it-the-same-ship trick.

 

[Tzoli]

I disagree on the possible missile cruiser conversion idea. At this the CIP's idea was to bring up the AA defence of the ships in the fleet after WW2 experience and by 1949-52 I think the relations with the Soviet Union severly detoriated, not to mention the Korean War was ongoing and military leaders seen this as a possible flashpoint for the next war.

 

[southwestforests]

Quote from Norman Friedman's U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History page 343

All of these ships were at the limit of their stability, and the older heavy cruisers were considered power critical as early as August 1945.

Bit of a tangent maybe, but it does point out the, what I'm going to term, Critical Need to design warships with some allowance remaining for updates and additions.

 

[Tzoli]

Bit of a tangent maybe, but it does point out the, what I'm going to term, Critical Need to design warships with some allowance remaining for updates and additions.

Well much could be regained by removing the oerlikons and the crew manning them or the usual replacement of two singles by one twin.
By the end of WW2 the remaining 3 ships had these armaments:

1/1946, Chester: 3 x 3 - 203/55 Mk 14, 8 x 1 - 127/25 Mk 19, 5 x 4 - 40/60 Mk 2, 2 x 2 - 40/560 Mk 1, 13 x 2 - 20/70 Mk 24, 1 catapult, 4 seaplanes, SG, SK, SP, Mk 3, Mk 4 radars

1/1946, Louisville, Augusta: 3 x 3 - 203/55 Mk 14, 8 x 1 - 127/25 Mk 19, 4 x 4 - 40/60 Mk 2, 4 x 2 - 40/60 Mk 1, 20 x 1 - 20/70 Mk 10, 1 catapult, 4 seaplanes, SG, SK, SP, Mk 3, Mk 4 radars

I can see the new armament being 6-8x1 5"/38, 4-5x2 3"/50, 10-12x2 20mm, or the 5"/25's retained.

 

[Pirate Pete]

Bit of a tangent maybe, but it does point out the, what I'm going to term, Critical Need to design warships with some allowance remaining for updates and additions.

Whilst I might be inclined to agree ‘off the bat’ so to speak.
Don’t forget that these classes were built to quite tight Treaty limitations and the Designers were endeavouring to get as much ‘bang for their buck’ as they could squeeze into tge design at the time.
It was only WW2 that made it abundantly clear that MANY more A/A weapons were required…