The Ship Model Forum

It has been at least 20 years since I looked at the blueprints for the Baltimore hulls, and I don't remember any details of the plating. The blueprints in the National Archives would show this.

The cruisers didn't always have simple over/under plating as often seen in freighters and such. I am very familiar with the plating on the Cleveland class cruisers, more or less scaled down Baltimores. The Cleveland plating was VERY complex, with horizontal and vertical strakes, and quite a few non-rectangular plates. Take a look at this link to see what I am talking about:

https://www.okieboat.com/CAD%20hull.html

Some strakes overlapped only the strakes below them, some were overlapped by both higher and lower strakes, some overlapped only the strakes above them, and some overlapped both higher and lower strakes. The vertical strakes at the bow were welded together with no overlaps. Plating at the bow and stern was welded, but midships it was riveted. Above the waterline rivet backing plates were external, but below the waterline they were all internal.

I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this in the Baltimore hull plating.

Phil

One source: <NavSource.org> page for USS Canberra (CA 70) has several photographs of her underwater hull.

FFG-7

publisher Avangard 1/200

what scale is your model?

Hello everyone


Does anyone have a photos of the underwater part of the hull of this type of cruiser (Baltimore and sisterships). I would like to do an imitation of the plating in my model.

Thanks
Best regards

Remember, models are only a minor part of Trumpeter's business. Their main product is industrial plastic molding. Think of the plastic body of toasters, auto interior panels, body of disc players, etc.

Trumpeter listed a 1/32 TBD as "Coming Soon!" for about 20 years before it finally materialized. The 1:350 Baltimores (and Nelsons, for that matter) haven't been on the list for quite so long (yet), but Trumpeter has a pretty decent track record of eventually getting around to the things they said they'd do. With many other shiny objects cutting in line ahead of them in the meantime, of course!
Not that I don't feel your pain... I've been looking forward to it myself. I plan to get a Model Monkey late-fit USS Los Angeles bridge set once the kit finally materializes, to build my hometown (more or less) cruiser!

- Sean F.

Not a rumour - Trumpeter still advertises 1/350 Baltimores as forthcoming in their catalogues. You can see them in the 2023/2024 one, a copy of the page being available in the first post of the Upcoming Releases thread in the Main Forum.

Can't tell you why they haven't put them to market though.

I seem to remember a few years back that there was talk of Trumpeter putting out a 1:350 scale Baltimore, possibly a Pittsburg subvariant as well. Was this just my imagination? If not, does anybody know why those plans never came to fruition?

Regarding the USS Boston and Canberra as Guided Missile Heavy Cruisers ( CAG ) does anybody know how were their radar suite changed in the various years/refits? They seem to be changed quite often.

" ... they are still around in the navy ... " ???? Which the twin arm launchers or Terrier missiles?

All of the ships so equipped have been decommissioned and scrapped or made into museum pieces. Even the first few TICONDEROGA class CG's were decommissioned rather than upgrade them to vertical launchers.

The "replacement" missile "Standard" (now several versions) exist as vertical launch missiles.

Upgrading the first "operational" Anti-Air missile cruisers in the USN would have taken much more than simply replacement of missiles. The launchers were the first mod versions, and would need to be modified to launch the Standard missiles or be replaced with a newer launcher. The stowage and handling of the new missiles would require mods. Sensors would all need to be upgraded. All in all a very expensive proposal. Building of new CG's/DDG's in large numbers made more sense.

It could be argued that they were useful as gunfire ships and served multiple tours as such off Vietnam. But, with budget pressures from new construction and paying for ground fighting, somethings had to give.

Boston still had her launchers late 1960's early 70's but likely the missiles themselves got removed.

Rick,

Beancounter, OF COURSE!!! How could I forget??? Where are they now?????

Hank

Hank,

The decommissioning of a large number old ships in 1969 wasn't really about "pacifying" anyone except "beancounters". Decommissioning USS NEW JERSEY was part of "Peace Talks", but the real reason so many "Old-WWII era" ships were retired, was to free up funds for cost-overrun projects. The older ships were already being decommissioned in the early 1960s to make way for the Missile Conversions and New-Built Missile ships. By 1964 ALL of the Fletcher's in the Atlantic Fleet had been removed from Active Fleet duty with only NRT units and the DDE conversions remaining. Many destroyers and the few remaining "gun-cruisers" were kept in commission as Vietnam heated up for Gunfire support.

USS BOSTON (CAG-1) and CANBERRA (CAG-2) were reassigned as "gun support" off Vietnam in the mid-1960's rather than recommission any Heavy Cruisers from mothballs. BOSTON had her old - obsolete - Terrier missile launchers "decommissioned" in 1968 and she was reclassified as CA-69 again on 1 May 1968. She went on one last Gun-Line tour and was decommissioned in 1970.

USS CANBERRA was similarly reclassified as CA-70 on 1 May 1968. Her Terrier missile launchers were removed, but she was decommissioned before any additional work was done.

I doubt that either unit was going to get an "UPGRADE" to their missile systems. The cost involved and limited capability of those systems and the age of the two cruisers, made it unlikely. A study to determine the cost of upgrading the missile systems on these two cruisers, was likely done to justify decommissioning them as "not cost effective".

I'm unsure of when either ship last actually had "operational" Terrier missile systems functioning. Other than minor sensors upgrades, and removal of the outdated missile guidance systems, not much would have changed if they had not been decommissioned when they were.

Tzoli,

CANBERRA was being refitted in Long Beach in late 1969. I was serving in USS NEW JERSEY as we prepared to take her to Bremerton, WA for decommissioning. I have a couple photos of NEW JERSEY at pier side with CANBERRA in the background - she was already undergoing a refit to her RADAR suite when I made this photo in Sept. '69 -

What exactly was being replaced or with I have no idea. Shortly after I took this photo we departed and I later heard that she was subsequently taken from Long Beach for decommissioning as well, without ever being put back into service. Part of the 1969 Nixon 50 ship cutback that took place to pacify the commies in North Vietnam.

Hank

would probably be similar radars to a Leahy or Belknap class CG.

SPS48C, SPS43 with SPG55B's for missile fire control

Wiki mentions:



That the two Bostons would had been refitted with the new RIM-67 Standard ER missiles and associated guidance radars and likely updated other sensors as well.
Does somebody know what other changes might had been included? What radars would had been fitted or considered?

When I was in grad school I lived in an old house with a couple of other climbers and sailors, we called the house 'Tumblehome". Yes the Tumblehome brings back images of sailing ships of the line with decks of canons and towering masts.

Tom

As I recall the Baltimores didn't have tumblehome along the sides, but there was some from the "corners" of the square stern at the waterline and the founded main deck level.

However the Clevelands were (re)designed with tumblehome. After the Navy increased anti-aircraft guns and armor protection the ship was unstable. The contractor (New York Shipyards) proposed widening the hull at the waterline, producing tumblehome, and improving stability. Tumblehome was unusual in US Navy ships.

I always thought it gave the Clevelands a "nostalgic" appearance hailing back to the days of wooden ships and broadsides of smooth-bore cannons.

Phil

This rounded deck configuration is unusual in that it (for a USN ship) incorporates a degree of tumblehome. I hadn't noticed this before but the aircraft handling considerations with the single crane make sense, this would have also reduced top weight a little. But then of course the light AA considerations in the final event overrode the aircraft handling niceties.

When needs must, the Devil drives!