• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Strike Cruiser from the 80s

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
672
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
The constraint wasn't on space so much as on the avilaability of missiles. Remember that at the time, Tomahawk was being thought of primarily as a nuclear strike weapon. Eight nuclear warheads was plenty.

Hm, aren't BGM-109B TASM considered as parallel development almost from the beginning?
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
140
2) The helo pad markings are probably not right. Even on large ships with helo pads, I've rarely seen two side-by-side spots like that; you almost always have a single landing spot on centerline (the only exception I know if is the Newport LSTs, for some reason). See below, for example: (and the link here for more references)
As for the Helideck painting, yes.... even the much wider Independence had a single circle though that carries (according to the wiki) only 1 Helicopter and 2 small Drones....
It should be point out that even thicc San Antonio class who role is to launch and retieve helicopters have inline circles and not side by side.

Its because of safety since you need a certain amount of distance between copters for flight ops. Those circles are a target for landing ops, it helps the pilots judge the distance and angle apperantly from my reading. Likely having them side by side like that fucks up the pilots prespective and well we can guess what happens then...
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
Interesting that modern Russian warships show similar one circle helideck paints while drawings of earlier ships shows two circles like the Udaloy
bpk-proekta-1155.jpg
 

Brickmuppet

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
186
Reaction score
26
Website
brickmuppet.mee.nu
Well, Russians do things differently, just to confuse us. Actually I think that this specific pattern on the Udaloy's has something to do with a hauldown landing system and/or the track for bringing the helicoipter into the hangar. Remember they are intended to work in some of the roughest seas around in icing conditions.
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
206
Reaction score
138
Here is the single gunned and less "tall" version of the Long Beach AEGIS variant:
debnc18-5300ebd0-e460-430c-b0a2-173d8dc2b96d.png
Your superstructure is a bit too far backwards: The aft SPY installation covers the aft reactor access panel.

If you look at the decommissioned hull of the LB, you can see the two circular reactor panels. The main SPY structure cannot be over them, because it will make refueling impossible.
 

Attachments

  • LB.jpg
    LB.jpg
    301.8 KB · Views: 80
  • LB.png
    LB.png
    742.2 KB · Views: 80

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
672
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Well, Russians do things differently, just to confuse us. Actually I think that this specific pattern on the Udaloy's has something to do with a hauldown landing system and/or the track for bringing the helicoipter into the hangar. Remember they are intended to work in some of the roughest seas around in icing conditions.

It was the result on enlargement of helipad, the original one have only one circle in center. Our helos do not use hauldown system, they are more stable during landing & use stretched deck net to avoid sliding. The idea of two circles is simply to simplify the moving of the helicopter into side-mounted hangars; the helo landed into the center of one circle, and immediately moved right forward into the hangar.
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
Well even on the Long Beach they had to deconstruct the decks above the reactors including removing the SPG-55 radars so I don't see a problem with the SPY-1 ones had to be removed partially for a refuel (every 10-15 years or so)
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
206
Reaction score
138
Well even on the Long Beach they had to deconstruct the decks above the reactors including removing the SPG-55 radars so I don't see a problem with the SPY-1 ones had to be removed partially for a refuel (every 10-15 years or so)
The SPY structure is hugely complicated and heavy and would require removing a lot of expensive electronics. Removing half of an Aegis installation is a bit different from removing a few SPG-55. Seriously, the whole reason the proposed Aegis LB conversion has that short superstructure is so it wouldn't fuck up access to the reactor cores.
 

Brickmuppet

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
186
Reaction score
26
Website
brickmuppet.mee.nu
I've always wondered why they didn't use the Talos magazine to store 50 or so Tomahawks, on Long beach and the Albanys. I'd think that the Talos handling equipment could be modded to carry Tomahawks. The rammers would have to be replaced with something that could load the 4 tubes of an ABL. However, assuming a 1-1 replacement of Talos with THawk, then 52 or 104 missiles is a ay better deterrent than the 32 on the BBs.
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
Question both Standard Missile Magazines would be equipped with ASROC Missiles or just one?
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
Well even on the Long Beach they had to deconstruct the decks above the reactors including removing the SPG-55 radars so I don't see a problem with the SPY-1 ones had to be removed partially for a refuel (every 10-15 years or so)
The SPY structure is hugely complicated and heavy and would require removing a lot of expensive electronics. Removing half of an Aegis installation is a bit different from removing a few SPG-55. Seriously, the whole reason the proposed Aegis LB conversion has that short superstructure is so it wouldn't fuck up access to the reactor cores.
What about reactor refuel from the Hanger? Remove the used fuel cells from there rather all the way up?
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
672
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
I've always wondered why they didn't use the Talos magazine to store 50 or so Tomahawks, on Long beach and the Albanys. I'd think that the Talos handling equipment could be modded to carry Tomahawks. The rammers would have to be replaced with something that could load the 4 tubes of an ABL. However, assuming a 1-1 replacement of Talos with THawk, then 52 or 104 missiles is a ay better deterrent than the 32 on the BBs.

I think it was just too costly to rebuild the hangars & handling equipment for just three ships, of which two were rather old & have little service life left.
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
206
Reaction score
138
Well even on the Long Beach they had to deconstruct the decks above the reactors including removing the SPG-55 radars so I don't see a problem with the SPY-1 ones had to be removed partially for a refuel (every 10-15 years or so)
The SPY structure is hugely complicated and heavy and would require removing a lot of expensive electronics. Removing half of an Aegis installation is a bit different from removing a few SPG-55. Seriously, the whole reason the proposed Aegis LB conversion has that short superstructure is so it wouldn't fuck up access to the reactor cores.
What about reactor refuel from the Hanger? Remove the used fuel cells from there rather all the way up?
The hangar is mostly empty space. Chances are there was a clear path to the roof for refueling, or that whatever equipment was in the way was "easily" removable.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
140
Well even on the Long Beach they had to deconstruct the decks above the reactors including removing the SPG-55 radars so I don't see a problem with the SPY-1 ones had to be removed partially for a refuel (every 10-15 years or so)
The SPY structure is hugely complicated and heavy and would require removing a lot of expensive electronics. Removing half of an Aegis installation is a bit different from removing a few SPG-55. Seriously, the whole reason the proposed Aegis LB conversion has that short superstructure is so it wouldn't fuck up access to the reactor cores.
What about reactor refuel from the Hanger? Remove the used fuel cells from there rather all the way up?
The hangar is mostly empty space. Chances are there was a clear path to the roof for refueling, or that whatever equipment was in the way was "easily" removable.

It should be pointed out that this Conversion be probably the Last Refueling of Long Beach Reactors.

With her going cold 20 years later. Like in real life. The Long Beach was pushing 40 when they did retire her in real life. Plus she did get better reactor cores in real so that she could have serve up 2010 without refueling.

SO I can easily see the Navy being fine with the reactor hatches being covered, they will not be needing them anymore after this refit...
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
Yeah the 2010's especially 2015 would be her end life like USS Enterprise maybe even 2020 if she isn't used that many times.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1,747
The constraint wasn't on space so much as on the avilaability of missiles. Remember that at the time, Tomahawk was being thought of primarily as a nuclear strike weapon. Eight nuclear warheads was plenty.

Hm, aren't BGM-109B TASM considered as parallel development almost from the beginning?

Sort of. They merged the SLCM (TLAM-N) requirement with a requirement for a Submarine-launched Tactical Antiship Missile (STAM) in 1972, but I'm not sure whether a surface-launched TASM was envisaged from the outset.

The main goal was to proliferate nuclear warfighting capability so that the Soviets had to diversify from just worrying about the carriers and SSBNs and also worry about killing surface combatants with Tomahawk tubes. (Or to give SWOs a piece of the nuclear delivery mission and hence budget priority, depending on what theory of organizational behavior you subscribe to.)

I've always wondered why they didn't use the Talos magazine to store 50 or so Tomahawks, on Long beach and the Albanys. I'd think that the Talos handling equipment could be modded to carry Tomahawks. The rammers would have to be replaced with something that could load the 4 tubes of an ABL. However, assuming a 1-1 replacement of Talos with THawk, then 52 or 104 missiles is a ay better deterrent than the 32 on the BBs.

At the time, there probably weren't enough missiles to go around.

Interestingly, before Tomahawk was settled on, there was discussion of a cruise missile that could be launched from otherwise obsolete Polaris missile tubes (multiples per tube, shades of the Trident SSGNs) and also possibly from Terrier launchers.
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
231
The Variant 2 would have freed up a lot of internal space by the looks of it.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
140
Remember reading some where, that the MK41 VLS module was design so that the 61/64 count cell will be be able to fit in the same space as a 44 count MK26 launcher takes up..

So I wonder how many VLS you could fit in the Strike cruisers 64 count MK26 areas...

Probably more then we have USE for but it is an interesting thought for those who like more boom....
 

acelanceloet

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 21, 2012
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Well even on the Long Beach they had to deconstruct the decks above the reactors including removing the SPG-55 radars so I don't see a problem with the SPY-1 ones had to be removed partially for a refuel (every 10-15 years or so)
Any source for the SPG-55's being removed for reactor refueling? they are quite a bit forwards of the forward reactor (which is just in front of the superstructure block) and the second set is on top of the superstructure block.
 

Similar threads

Top