USS Long Beach Preliminary Studies

[Firefinder]

I will soon finish the preliminary scheme E-3 which seems the first to show the SPS-32/33 radar sets.
Question: do I require the SPS-26 3D Air Search Radar?
What about the SPS-10 Surface and SPS-12 Surface/air search radars?

I suggest you look up the Long Beach Launch fit out for that.

 

[Tzoli]

Not really helps.
The sensor suite at commissioning in 1961:
4x SPS-32
2x SPG-49 / SPW-2
4x SPG-55
SQS-23

In 1963 added:
4x SPS-33
SPS-10

In 1968 added:
SPS-12

In 1979 removed:
2x SPG-49 / SPW-2

In 1983 added:
SPS-48C
SPS-49
SPS-67
4x SPG-55D replacing the SPG-55
SQQ-23
4x SPS-32/33 removed

In 1985 added:
SLQ-25
SLQ-32

 

[Tzoli]

Scheme A-6 in my interpretation:
https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Long-Beach-Preliminary-Scheme-A-6-860589768

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 176,78 (pp) 182,88m (oa) x 17,98 x 6,49m
Displacement: 9.170tons (standard) 9.920tons (full load)
Engines: 80.000shp Westinghouse C1W Nuclear Reactors, 2 shafts
Speed: 59km/h (32knots)
Armaments:
2x1 5"/54 (127mm) Mark 18 Guns,
1x2 RIM-2 Terrier SAM,
1x2 RAT Launchers,
2x3 324mm Torpedo Tubes

Sensors:
SPS-10 - Surface-Search Radar
SPS-12 - Air-Search Radar
SPS-26 - 3D Air-Search Radar
SPS-53 - Surface-Search/Navigational Radar
2x SPQ-5 - Terrier Illumination/tracking radars
TACAN - TACtical Air Navigation System

 

[isayyo2]

Very austere looking @Tzoli. Much more like a Destroyer Leader/Frigate than a true Cruiser.

 

[Tzoli]

It is described in the first post attachment the first designs were "Frigates" so Destroyers or in USN practice Destroyer Leaders.... as DL stood for that....
Scheme D-1 will be a Destroyer too but much better looking appropriate for the USN, but E-3 will be the first cruiser, expect it by thursday.

 

[Tzoli]

Next is Scheme D-1 which seems to be the last Destroyer sized variant:
https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Long-Beach-Preliminary-Scheme-D-1-860816689

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: Unknown, based on the scaling of the drawing: 170,5 (wl) 177,4m (oa) x 17,5m
Displacement: Unknown
Engines: 80.000shp Westinghouse C1W Nuclear Reactors, 2 shafts
Speed: 59km/h (32knots)
Armaments:
2x1 5"/54 (127mm) Mark 18 Guns,
2x2 RIM-2 Terrier SAM,
1x2 RAT Launchers,
2x3 324mm Torpedo Tubes

Sensors:
SPS-10 - Surface-Search Radar
SPS-12 - Surveillance radar
SPS-26 - 3D Air-Search Radar
SPS-53 - Surface-Search/Navigational Radar
4x SPQ-5 - Terrier Illumination/tracking radars
2x Mark 56 - Gun Fire Control System
TACAN - TACtical Air Navigation System

 

[Tzoli]

Question regarding the placement of the SPS-32 / 33 sets:
Which seems to be a better placement? The square arrangement eg on the Long Beach and Enterprise where each pair of sets are on the parallel and perpendicular faces or an octoganal arrangement where the SPS-32 are on the perpendicular and parallel faces and the SPS-33 on the diagonal faces?

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Question regarding the placement of the SPS-32 / 33 sets:
Which seems to be a better placement? The square arrangement eg on the Long Beach and Enterprise where each pair of sets are on the parallel and perpendicular faces or an octoganal arrangement where the SPS-32 are on the perpendicular and parallel faces and the SPS-33 on the diagonal faces?

I suggest using the placement of the designs in question. If the sketch has diagonal SPS-33 faces (or if there is no sketch, if the the design was drawn up around the same time as others with diagonal faces) then use diagonal faces.

 

[TomS]

Question regarding the placement of the SPS-32 / 33 sets:
Which seems to be a better placement? The square arrangement eg on the Long Beach and Enterprise where each pair of sets are on the parallel and perpendicular faces or an octoganal arrangement where the SPS-32 are on the perpendicular and parallel faces and the SPS-33 on the diagonal faces?

I suspect that there is a reason SCANFAR put the antennas for both SPS-32 and SPS-33 in the same planes. Passing targets from search to track sets was hard enough. Doing it without a 1:1 relationship between the antenna scan areas would be harder. Why complicate things?

 

[Tzoli]

I know how to place them that isn't the question, my question targeted the efficiency or the difference in efficiency between the two kinds of placement

 

[Yellow Palace]

From a ship arrangement and a system architecture point of view, having the search and track arrays in the same plane would make life much easier. You'd need a pretty compelling reason not to do so, and I can't really see what that reason might be.

 

[Tzoli]

And now the first true nuclear crusier preliminary design, Scheme E-3:
https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Long-Beach-Preliminary-Scheme-E-3-861011372

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 202,4 (pp) 210,0m (oa) x 20,94 x 6,74m
Displacement: 12.450ton (Standard), 13.490tons (Full load)
Engines: 80.000shp Westinghouse C1W Nuclear Reactors, 2 shafts
Speed: 59km/h (32knots)
Armaments:
2x2 RIM-2 Terrier SAM,
1x2 RIM-8 Talos SAM,
1x2 RAT Launchers,
2x3 324mm Torpedo Tubes

Sensors:
4x SPS-32 - Air-Search Radar
4x SPS-33 - Height Finder Radar
1x SPS-53 - Surface-Search/Navigational Radar
4x SPQ-5 - Terrier Illumination/tracking radars
2x SPG-49 - Talos Illumination/tracking radars
2x SPW-2 - Talos guidance radars
4x Illuminator Radars (I've chosen SPG-51 like ones)
1x Radio Star Tracker Dome containing a Transit satellite navigation receiver antenna (Early version of the Global Positioning System)

 

[TomS]

I feel like there are too many radars here.

4x SPQ-5 - Terrier Illumination/tracking radars
2x SPG-49 - Talos Illumination/tracking radars
2x SPW-2 - Talos guidance radars
4x Illuminator Radars (I've chosen SPG-51)
1x TACAN - TACtical Air Navigation System
1x Radio Star Tracker Dome containing a Transit satellite navigation receiver antenna (Early version of the Global Positioning System)

Those four extra illuminators that you have modeled with SPG-51 don't serve any purpose I can see. There's nothing for them to control that doesn't already have another associated radar.

 

[Tzoli]

I feel like there are too many radars here.

4x SPQ-5 - Terrier Illumination/tracking radars
2x SPG-49 - Talos Illumination/tracking radars
2x SPW-2 - Talos guidance radars
4x Illuminator Radars (I've chosen SPG-51)
1x TACAN - TACtical Air Navigation System
1x Radio Star Tracker Dome containing a Transit satellite navigation receiver antenna (Early version of the Global Positioning
Those four extra illuminators that you have modeled with SPG-51 don't serve any purpose I can see. There's nothing for them to control that doesn't already have another associated radar.

Yet they are on the official sketch drawing and subsequent sketches. They are told to be CW illuminators and yes, no associated weapon systems for them to control.

 

[Tzoli]

For later versions which include a Regulus Launcher I can see these Missiles / Cruise Missiles could use such a Continous Wave Illuminators but these earlier versions did not have any such long range anti ship/installation weaponry!

 

[Tzoli]

Next is the J-2 / J-4 variant because Friedman provided the sketch drawing for the J-2 but actual data for the J-4:
https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Long-Beach-Preliminary-Scheme-J-2-J-4-861200036

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: Unknown I've used J-4's data: 202,4 (pp) 210,0m (oa) x 21,17 x 6,8m
Displacement: Unknown probably around 12.710tons (standard) 13.930tons (full load)
Engines: 80.000shp Westinghouse C1W Nuclear Reactors, 2 shafts
Speed: 59km/h (32knots)
Armaments:
2x1 5"/54 Mark 18 DP-Guns,
2x2 RIM-8 Talos SAM,
1x2 RAT Launcher,
2x3 324mm Torpedo Tubes

Sensors:
SPS-10 - Surface-Search Radar
4x SPS-32 - Air-Search Radar
4x SPS-33 - Height Finder Radar
1x SPS-53 - Surface-Search/Navigational Radar
4x SPG-49 - Talos Illumination/tracking radars
6x SPW-2 - Talos guidance radars
4x Illuminator Radars (I've chosen SPG-51 like ones)
1x TACAN - TACtical Air Navigation System
1x ECM (Atop the blockhouse)

 

[isayyo2]

For what purpose were the additional illumination radars considered for? I thought Talos guidance was solely done by the SPW-2's?

 

[Tzoli]

Not known, they are present on all the SPS-32/33 equipped drawings.
If anybody could check somehow the BuShips notes and drawings at NARA, that might provide a clue.

And lastly what do an SPQ-2 Regulus director radar looks like?

 

[TomS]

For what purpose were the additional illumination radars considered for? I thought Talos guidance was solely done by the SPW-2's?

SPW-2 worked in conjunction with the SPG-49 target trackers, transmitting the beam that Talos rides on and receiving tracking data from the missile. I'm not sure SPW-2 is technically a radar; it's more of a datalink because it doesn't actually receive a reflected signal but rather a signal actively transmitted by the missile. That's how it gets away with being so small (much like the SPG-62 for AEGIS is also not technically a radar.)

I wonder if the separate illuminators were planned before they realized they could switch SPG-49 into CW illumination mode for terminal guidance.

 

[isayyo2]

For what purpose were the additional illumination radars considered for? I thought Talos guidance was solely done by the SPW-2's?

SPW-2 worked in conjunction with the SPG-49 target trackers, transmitting the beam that Talos rides on and receiving tracking data from the missile. I'm not sure SPW-2 is technically a radar; it's more of a datalink because it doesn't actually receive a reflected signal but rather a signal actively transmitted by the missile. That's how it gets away with being so small (much like the SPG-62 for AEGIS is also not technically a radar.)

I wonder if the separate illuminators were planned before they realized they could switch SPG-49 into CW illumination mode for terminal guidance.

Perhaps something todo with early computer or vacuum tube limitations?

 

[Tzoli]

I don't know the development history of the RIM-8 Talos but during the land based tests they might tested how would a different illuminator help the missile? But by this time the Galveston was undergoing modernization into CLG and she carried the usual SPG-49/SPW-2 sets.
Maybe these Continuous Wave Illuminators were auxuliary illuminators in case the large SPS-32/33 sets would interfere? On every sketch these illumination radars were above the SPS ones, out of their area of scan.

 

[Tzoli]

Also on this last J-2/J-4 design I've added a Mark 56 GFCS atop the blockhouse just under the forward CW Illuminator because I felt the ship required some forward arc facing Fire System, the official Mark 68 on the aft was blocked by the blockhouse

 

[TomS]

For what purpose were the additional illumination radars considered for? I thought Talos guidance was solely done by the SPW-2's?

SPW-2 worked in conjunction with the SPG-49 target trackers, transmitting the beam that Talos rides on and receiving tracking data from the missile. I'm not sure SPW-2 is technically a radar; it's more of a datalink because it doesn't actually receive a reflected signal but rather a signal actively transmitted by the missile. That's how it gets away with being so small (much like the SPG-62 for AEGIS is also not technically a radar.)

I wonder if the separate illuminators were planned before they realized they could switch SPG-49 into CW illumination mode for terminal guidance.

Perhaps something todo with early computer or vacuum tube limitations?

Or just how much they were willing to pack into one antenna mount. Looking at the Okieboat description of SPG-49, the CW illuminator was an almost entirely separate subsystem. In early development, it might well have made sense to keep it as a stand-alone antenna. The downside is that a separate illuminator would have required another set of controls/computers to keep it tracking correctly. The final solution allowed them to piggyback off the target tracking processes in SPG-49.

https://www.okieboat.com/SPG-49 description.html

 

[Tzoli]

I might found the source of these mysterious CW illumination radars. In the previous article in Friedman's book there is a plan for Cleveland conversion with double ended Terrier installation. The drawing shows 4 radars per launcher and the description:

"Proposal for a double-ended Terrier CLG converted from a Cleveland-class light cruiser, dated 19 October 1956. The Terrier magazines at the ends are the eighty-missile, four-drum type that the Long Beach carried. Each is served by two SPQ-5A beam-rider guidance radars as well as two CW illuminators; the SPG-55 radar of later Terrier ships combined the guidance radar and illumimator functions."

Now the question arises that on ships which carried the SPQ-5 radars what sensor provided the CW Illumination?
USS Farragut, Dewey, Preble,
USS Boston, Canberra
USS Providence, Springfield, Topeka

 

[Archibald]

Excellent thread - as usual. I've been long intrigued by USS Long Beach. Hell of a terrific and powerful ship. Except the very ugly big squared superstructure.

 

[Tzoli]

I think the cube shaped bridge that gives her the unique look and thus captures the eyes of people. Plain cube bridge seems to be a last minute change as the other preliminaries shows octogonal shaped ones

 

[TomS]

I might found the source of these mysterious CW illumination radars. In the previous article in Friedman's book there is a plan for Cleveland conversion with double ended Terrier installation. The drawing shows 4 radars per launcher and the description:

"Proposal for a double-ended Terrier CLG converted from a Cleveland-class light cruiser, dated 19 October 1956. The Terrier magazines at the ends are the eighty-missile, four-drum type that the Long Beach carried. Each is served by two SPQ-5A beam-rider guidance radars as well as two CW illuminators; the SPG-55 radar of later Terrier ships combined the guidance radar and illumimator functions."

Now the question arises that on ships which carried the SPQ-5 radars what sensor provided the CW Illumination?
USS Farragut, Dewey, Preble,
USS Boston, Canberra
USS Providence, Springfield, Topeka

Possibly there wasn't one. When Terrier was initially fielded it was a beam-rider, which SPQ-5 provided on its own. When it switched to semi-active homing, CW illumination was added to SPG-55 (making it SPG-55B) and at least some ships with SPQ-5 were retrofitted with SPG-55.

This article mentions the standardization of Terrier ships on a standard Fire Control System. It doesn't mention specifically replacing SPQ-5 with SPG-55, but I know that happened on the DLGs. Not sure about the cruiser conversions.
https://www.jhuapl.edu/Content/techdigest/pdf/V02-N04/02-04-Oliver_Pacing.pdf

TERRIER MODERNIZATION PROGRAM In the early 1960's, there were two versions of the TERRIER Fire Control System. One, the Mk 73, was characterized by a large AN/ SPQ-S Fire Control Radar that used a zone-plate lens antenna structure that was an adaptation of the TALOS AN/SPG-49. The other was the Mk 76 Fire Control System with a lightweight AN/SPG-SSB Fire Control Radar. When the semi active homing version of the TERRIER Missile was introduced, it was decided to standardize the fire control systems in 31 TERRIER ships. In 1968, the TERRIER Modernization Program saw its first ship, USS LEAHY, recommissioned. Concomitant with the standardization of the fire control system was the replacement of the three-dimensional search radar with the newer, more capable AN/ SPS-48 and the inclusion of the digital Naval Tactical Data System and its integral Mk 11 Weapon Direction System. By 1974, all TERRIER ships had a modernized, standard combat system configuration (Fig. 3).

 

[Tzoli]

But one question still remains that on the double Talos version the CW illuminators still remained...

 

[TomS]

But one question still remains that on the double Talos version the CW illuminators still remained...

The info I posted about SPS-49 on Oklahoma City was about CW illumination for Talos. As I said, I suspect the CW illumination for Talos was initially separate but later rolled into the SPS-49 unit. Terrier initially didn't have CW, but it was added in the switch to SPG-55B.

 

[Tzoli]

I see, I'm not familiar with radar. I know there are beam Rider missiles and none beam riders and the beam rider was not used nowadays?

Regarding the CW illum radars, does an SPG-51 sized dish could provide the range for the Talos?

 

[Tzoli]

Next is Design N-1 a rather large proposal with 3 missiles launchers and 2 guns!
https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Long-Beach-Preliminary-Scheme-N-1-861580762

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: Unknown, based on the scaling of the sketch: 228,4 (wl) x 235,75 (oa) x 21,2 x 6,75m
Displacement: Unknown
Engines: 80.000shp Westinghouse C1W Nuclear Reactors, 2 shafts
Speed: 59km/h (32knots)
Armaments:
2x1 5"/54 Mark 18 DP-Guns,
1x2 RIM-8 Talos SAM,
2x2 RIM-2 Terrier SAM,
1x2 RAT Launcher,
2x3 324mm Torpedo Tubes

Sensors:
SPS-10 - Surface-Search Radar
4x SPS-32 - Air-Search Radar
4x SPS-33 - Height Finder Radar
1x SPS-53 - Surface-Search/Navigational Radar
4x SPQ-5 - Terrier Illumination/tracking radars
2x SPG-49 - Talos Illumination/tracking radars
5x SPW-2 - Talos guidance radars
2x Illuminator Radars (I've chosen SPG-51 like ones)
1x Mark 68 GFCS
1x Mark 56 GFCS
1x TACAN - TACtical Air Navigation System
1x ECM (Atop the blockhouse)

 

[Tzoli]

Next is the O variant introducing the RIM-24 Tartar into the missile mix:
https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Long-Beach-Preliminary-Scheme-O-1-861851625

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: Unknown, based on the scaling of the sketch: 213,85 (wl) x 221,75 (oa) x 22,3 x 6,75m
Displacement: Unknown
Engines: 80.000shp Westinghouse C1W Nuclear Reactors, 2 shafts
Speed: 59km/h (32knots)
Armaments:
2x1 5"/54 Mark 18 DP-Guns,
1x2 RIM-8 Talos SAM,
1x2 RIM-2 Terrier SAM,
2x2 RIM-24 Tartar SAM,
1x2 RAT Launcher,
2x3 324mm Torpedo Tubes

Sensors:
SPS-10 - Surface-Search Radar
4x SPS-32 - Air-Search Radar
4x SPS-33 - Height Finder Radar
1x SPS-53 - Surface-Search/Navigational Radar
2x SPQ-5 - Terrier Illumination/tracking radars
3x SPG-49 - Talos Illumination/tracking radars
4x SPG-51 - Tartar Illumination/tracking radars
6x SPW-2 - Talos guidance radars
2x Illuminator Radars (I've chosen SPG-51 like ones)
1x Mark 68 GFCS
1x TACAN - TACtical Air Navigation System
1x ECM (Atop the blockhouse)

 

[isayyo2]

Heh, the missile it's missing is Regulus. Is the 5"/56 gun another paper project as well?

 

[Tzoli]

Not missing, Regulus only envisioned for the U series and beyond.
Why should it be a never-were design gun???
The 5"/56 Mark 18 guns was used extensively by the USN, the West German Navy, Royal Australian Navy, Spanish Navy and the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force, with some of them still in service today!
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk42.php

 

[isayyo2]

You're saying 5"/56 but linking me a 5"/54 gun, two different barrel lengths.

 

[Tzoli]

A typo error, nobody seems to notice.
Fixed them in the previous posts.

 

[isayyo2]

Thanks, looking forward to next design!

 

[Tzoli]

Check the first post to see the what is coming

 

[Tzoli]

And now the second Tartar equipped version, P-1:
https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Long-Beach-Preliminary-Scheme-P-1-862056034

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 202,4 (pp) 210,0m (oa) x 20,94 x 6,74m
Displacement: 12.450ton (Standard), 13.490tons (Full load)
Engines: 80.000shp Westinghouse C1W Nuclear Reactors, 2 shafts
Speed: 59km/h (32knots)
Armaments:
2x2 RIM-8 Talos SAM,
2x2 RIM-24 Tartar SAM,
1x2 RAT Launcher,
2x3 324mm Torpedo Tubes

Sensors:
4x SPS-32 - Air-Search Radar
4x SPS-33 - Height Finder Radar
1x SPS-53 - Surface-Search/Navigational Radar
4x SPG-49 - Talos Illumination/tracking radars
4x SPG-51 - Tartar Illumination/tracking radars
4x SPW-2 - Talos guidance radars
2x Illuminator Radars (I've chosen SPG-51 like ones)
1x TACAN - TACtical Air Navigation System
1x Radio Star Tracker Dome containing a Transit satellite navigation receiver antenna (Early version of the Global Positioning System)

 

[Tzoli]

I've once found the image showing that WW2 paint scheme of the Long Beach variant on the entire hull:
http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x390/navydavesof/iphone092_zps4a82a3a4.jpg