What-If modernized USS Des Moines CA-134, USS Salem CA-139 & USS Newport News CA-148

[navydavesof]

If you notice, all the ABLs are facing the same direction - I have a feeling they're double-stacked off the broadside like the midship Iowa position. As to trying to justify it, well, let's just say that Shipbucket's forum is populated with 95% Carrier Humpers, 4.5% Sub humpers, and me as probably the Only Gun Club member when it comes to warships. They all think carriers are the greatest thing since sliced bread, sipping the wrong koolaid. It's gotten to the point I don't even bother posting on half the stuff there, since they can't wrap their heads around the reality of a true, armored gunship in the modern world.

Well, the nature of the Shipbucket post-ers might be aside, who ever made that drawing must have seen the article I have read. It is very accurate to the modernization Configuration 3 that was proposed.

I think the problem was that they were trying to fit the same weapons payload aboard the Des Moines as they did the New Jersey. At this point, they were operating under the belief that they were going to have to have 8 ABLs and 8 Mk141s in addition to everything else. Because the Des Moines only has 57% the deck space of New Jersey, that was a real challenge. Also, because the proposal was before the days of VLS and a knowledge of how to apply VLS to a ship not built around it, this version of the ship was initially and officially proposed. I am sure that as the project evolved, arrangements would have changed, maybe all the way to Mr. Grubb�s concept. The arrangement in the illustration, however, was done by the same guys who came up with New Jersey's arrangement. So, I would cut the Shipbucket guys a little slack on this one. They got the modernization right on the money.

I know there is a belief out there that the Des Moines were going to act as "consort ships" with the Iowas, and that was going to call for an entirely different modernization. It would have still replaced Turret 3 but instead of with Tomahawk ABLs, a massive helicopter hanger to host all kinds of helos both support and attack. She would also have the Sea Sparrow of the date. Beyond that, I don't know what kind of missile armament this version would have had.

A logistical problem with these ship, it seems from this article, is that they were designed without a lot of margin for upgrades. They are near their top-side weight and internal volume (more volume than top-side weight). This coincides with my discussions with NAVSEA about a modernized Des Moines in 2006 and how we arranged the VLS, flag, ECM, and CIWS arrangements. We would have used the hanger instead of making office spaces out of it.

[carr]

I've just recently stumbled onto this thread and the related Boston/Canberra one and I'm struck by several things:

1. The Navy's steadfast refusal over the years to use existing hulls to their fullest potential (WWII cruisers, Spruance's, Perry's, amphibs, etc.). Instead hulls with life left in them are scrapped in favor of ever more expensive new construction.

2. The observation that modern ships are not really designed for combat in terms of weapon fits. Looking at a WWII cruiser or destroyer it's obvious they were packed with weapons. Contrast that to a modernized battleship/cruiser proposal, to say nothing of actual ships (Burke, Tico). For example, two Mk141 quad Harpoon launchers (8 rounds total) does not constitute a serious anti-ship combat capability. Even doubling that doesn't help much. I know people will make the accuracy argument, however, there's still the issue of number of rounds.

3. The Navy seems to believe that none of their ships will ever take a hit. This is evident from the lack of armor, lack of redundancy (1 gun on a Burke!!), clustering of radars and illuminators, etc.

4. In switching from guns (a WWII cruiser) to missles (modernization studies or new construction) we've sacrificed rounds. A WWII cruiser carried hundreds of rounds, each round being the equivalent of a Harpoon for Tomahawk in terms of intended use - the main armament). Now admittedly, the accuracy of 8"/5" guns required many rounds but even so, the notion of a ship that can only achieve 8 hits (8 Harpoons, for instance, even assuming 100% accuracy - an absurd assumption) and then it's out of action due to lack of rounds, is incredible.

5. These cruiser modernization concepts run the risk of trying to do too many things and winding up doing them all poorly. ABL's are useless in that you just can't pack enough aboard to constitute a useful load. If you want to be a ship killer, you need 40+ Harpoon rounds to be a serious design... and so on.

With a little sharpening of the mission focus, these modernization designs could be (could have been) quite useful. Regardless, these threads are fascinating and all the comments and posters are to be commended. Well done, educational, and enjoyable.

Regards,
Bob

[Timmy C]

With enemy ships as fragile as they are these days, I guess there is an assumption on the part of the designers or the Navy that they can just throw some Standards (which have, as I recall, a secondary anti-ship function) in place of the Harpoons and achieve nearly the same thing.
Are there still anti-ship Tomahawks in service (if ever)?

[Seasick]

The modernization of the Albany, Columbus, and Chicago were way over budget. The USN canceled the other 9 conversions. For the price of the conversion the USN could have built another 10 Leahy class vessels. Also the Albany class vessels material condition on the lower decks declined faster than expected. The Des Moines and her sisters were armed with 8 inch guns which did not produce enough over pressure to dammage components of the NATO Sea Sparrow system. A modernized Des Moines would have the 8 inch guns refit and made fully operational. The 5 inch guns are much less necessary. I think that all of the 5 inch/38 except for the ones superfiring over the 8 inch guns should be removed and the amidships Mk37 fire controls removed with them.

[HvyCgn9]

Just my $1.55 's worth but wouldn't USS Long Beach's hull be a more suitable design for a modern heavy cruiser?? she has great hull shape, Nuclear power for all sorts of lovvvvly new weapons like Rail guns, laser's and still plenty of juice left over for electronic defence systems.
There is even a nice (slightly rusty) test hull waiting for Resurrection..... plus she has had 15 years rest!!
I'm sure I read somewhere that Lb had 4" hull armour not sure if this is true but it would still beat all current hulls for protection if true!

Cheers Bruce

[navydavesof]

So, since the Sea Sparrow is fine for the Des Moines, where would you suggest we put Sea Sparrow launchers? Say if the Newport News was refitted instead of decommissioned or either Des Moines or Salem were reactivated in her place, how would you make the following modifications:

8-16 Harpoons,
2-4 Phalanx
SPS-49
Sea Sparrows

I am curious what such an austere modernization might look like and not the big daddy VLS modernization I did with NAVSEA.

[carr]

What time frame is this intended for? I saw a reference to 2006 in the initial post and the use of Sea Sparrow suggests pre-RAM time frame. I apologize if I missed this somewhere in the earlier posts.

Thanks,
Bob

[Seasick]

I've seen supposing 1981 to 1983 for the reactivation.

For the NATO Sea Sparrow, the following would be needed:
1. A primary search radar -- AN/SPS-49
2. The Mk23 Target acquisition system (a smaller 2D radar)
3. Illumination Radar sets -- 2 Mk91/95 pairs.
4. Two Mk29 guided missile launch systems.
5. Magazine for 16 additional NATO Sea Sparrows

Probably the stern pair of wing 5"/38 guns should be removed for the NATO Sea Sparrow systems.

[navydavesof]

What time frame is this intended for? I saw a reference to 2006 in the initial post and the use of Sea Sparrow suggests pre-RAM time frame. I apologize if I missed this somewhere in the earlier posts.

Thanks,
Bob

I apologize for not having put the time frame in there. The idea is in the early 1980s how would you postulate such an austere modernization be arranged on the ship?

[Seasick]

Switching from guns to missiles was done because it became clear that guns couldn't perform the missions required. The hit probability per gun round, and later per missile round are different. Effectivly its the same amount of fire power.

Modernization of older hulls proved to not be cost effective.
1. The Albany class modernizations ran far over the original budget, and the ship operating cost were higher than planned.
2. DD FRAM modernizations were far less extensive and were cost effective.
3. The Iowa class modernizations were fairly modest compared to the Albany's and Cleveland class CG conversions.

[navydavesof]

Switching from guns to missiles was done because it became clear that guns couldn't perform the missions required. The hit probability per gun round, and later per missile round are different. Effectivly its the same amount of fire power.

Modernization of older hulls proved to not be cost effective.
1. The Albany class modernizations ran far over the original budget, and the ship operating cost were higher than planned.
2. DD FRAM modernizations were far less extensive and were cost effective.
3. The Iowa class modernizations were fairly modest compared to the Albany's and Cleveland class CG conversions.

Missiles are the most expensive way about accomplishing the same goal, especially at the time. Talos was a remarkably powerfly anti-ship weapon, but not so much for support. So, in the case that the Newport News was kept around or one of her sisters was reactivated to take her place like the USMC demanded (very loudly), where would the above systems be installed on the ship? Was either of the existing masts good enough to take the SPS-49? I imagine so, but doesn't it reason a new mast would be fabricated? Would the GFCS possibly be upgraded with SPQ-9 or perhaps and entirely new Mk86?

[Seasick]

In a Des Moines class reactivation fitting an AN/SPS-49 would be fairly simple as the mast for the AN/SPS-37 and the AN/SPS-39 were easily capable of supporting the much lighter radar. I suspect that the AN/SPS-49(V)5 from the Oliver Hazard Perry class and some others would be fit. The fire control for the 8"/55 guns could still be controlled by the Mk29 and Mk37 fire control systems on the ships superstructure above the bridge. Attacking targets ashore isn't as taxing on the fire control system as attacking a moving ship thats firing back at you. A stand alone AN/SPQ-9A would provide a good map of the target area and be used to locate where the shells land ashore in order to help the gunner in the Mk29 to correct his aim, integrating it into the Mk29 probably wouldn't be practical other than providing the gunner a feed on a monitor. The USN didn't switch from guns to missiles because they thought it was neat. Guns in the 1940s proved increasingly inadquate in defeating arial targets. The Mk42 127mm/54 gun was designed specifically to accomplish the anti-air and anti-surface missions. But as was seen in exercises that the capabilities of the 127mm/54, 127mm/38, and 76mm/55 guns against aircraft diminished as aircraft became faster and faster. The 76mm Mk75 gun on the Perry class is completely automated and still retains a decent capability against low flying aircraft, but not against aircraft at medium and high altitudes.
Operations in the Arabian Gulf would require that some 5"/38 guns be retained and the Mk37 fire control on top of the bridge would be sufficient.

[carr]

Operations in the Arabian Gulf would require that some 5"/38 guns be retained and the Mk37 fire control on top of the bridge would be sufficient.

Just curious... what operations/roles/missions do you see that the 5"/38 would be a good fit for?

[Seasick]

For the time of the reactivation put forward earlier anti-surface combat against light vessels. The combat conditions from Operation Praying Mantis come to mind.

[Seasick]

The problems with the AN/SPS-48E have persisted since the late 1990s.

The Navy's measure of effectiveness for Equipment Operational Capability (availability) is classified in the following manner: Operable = Greater than 0.8; Minor problems = 0.7 - 0.8; Limited capability = 0.5 - 0.6; Major problems = 0.3 - 0.4; Inoperative = 0 - 0.2.

Equipment type and version: SPS-48E Radar System
Availability rate


FY 97 FY 98 FY 99
0.73 0.81 0.77

Impediments to availability:

Inadequate training of shipboard technicians, lack of technical
schematics, and no parts support for sub-modules.

The problems became worse after 2000. The AN/SPS-48G is an upgrade kit go get the avalibility of the system back up to better than 0.8. Added support for the Evolved Sea Sparrow missile has been added. Any improvement in range is classified.

[navydavesof]

Impediments to availability:

Inadequate training of shipboard technicians, lack of technical
schematics, and no parts support for sub-modules.

This is strictly the negligence of the United States Navy. Lack of training. Lack of training.....lack of training, what the hell? Stupid, retarded Navy. Lack of training. Lack of technical schematics...negligence. You fix that with a shipyard's reproduction facilities or Kinko's. No Parts for sub-modules...negligence. These are all fixable problems....very, very fixable. The fact that this is an "issue" illustrates how absolutely retarded the Navy is. There is no excuse. I'm just saying.

So, I will make it easy: the solution is to train people and buy more parts.
"Oh, well, they're not made any more."
Make them again. It's like Phalanx. The Navy decided that Phalanx was not needed any more, so the production line was shut down. We decided Phalanx was indeed needed, so the production line was started back up, and we made more. What a concept.

Any improvement in range is classified.

There are published indications to its increased abilities. The SPS-48G is 50% more powerful and can track an additional 128 targets.

[navydavesof]

For a 1980s fit...

I see where the Harpoons, Sea Sparrow and illuminators, SPS-49, and Phalanx could go aboard the Des Moines-class, but what about the aft hanger? I know the hangers were poo-pooed on the Virginia-class cruisers, is there any reason to the knowledge of the posters here why they could not be used aboard the Des Moines?

Also, specifically for Seasick, to your knowledge, would any kind of 3D radar be needed in order to que the Sea Sparrows?

Thanks, guys!

[carr]

...what about the aft hanger?

Do you know the size of the hangar opening? Remember, the Seahawk is 65ft long and those hangars may have been designed for a smaller helo. Just a thought...

[Cliffy B]

The hangars on the heavy cruisers were designed to accommodate the float planes of the time; OS2U Kingfishers and SC-1 Seahawks. Both were 33' 10" and 34' 5" in length respectively. The SC-1s could fold their wings and by the time the Des Moines class commissioned were the only floatplanes still in service for the newer CAs. Each CA was designed for 2 cats and at least 2 if not 4 floatplanes. Whether or not the hangars were designed to accommodate 1, 2, or 4 is the big question. Do any photos of the interiors of the hangars exist? Did they extend the full width of the fantail or were they only wide enough for one floatplane? I'd guess though if you wanted to fit an SH-60 inside they would have to enlarge the hangar hatch and possible the hangar itself. That means cutting through deck armor, not always a good thing to do but definitely not impossible. You just have to know what you're doing. Even an SH-2 Seasprite is 52' long so I don't know if one of those would fit either. Just my 2 cents. Hope that made some sort of sense.

[navydavesof]

I'd guess though if you wanted to fit an SH-60 inside they would have to enlarge the hangar hatch and possible the hangar itself.

so what about the SH60 with its tail folded?