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

[Cliffy B]

According to the internets the SH-60 is about 40-41' long with its tail folded. So...

[carr]

Another possible issue is weight. What is the elevator rated for? The Seahawk is around 15-16,000 lbs.

[navydavesof]

Thanks so much so far guys! It's really weird that when I was working with a group of people from NavSea that the size nor weight rating of the hanger came up. They simply stated two SH-60s could be fitted.

The only issue with cutting through armor is the risk of compromising it. That's normally only a problem when cutting holes where a solid piece once was or trying to cut through surface treated material, then the treatment in that area has been destroyed. That is a very difficult issue to fix.

Upon only minimal examination it's pretty easy to see where about everything but a large battery of Tomahawk armored box launchers would go. A 1980s variant would be pretty slick looking I think!

[carr]

The SC-1 weight is around 7,000 lbs vs. the SH-60B which is around 16,000 lbs.

[Cliffy B]

When did they get elevators? Weren't the floatplanes handled only by the stern crane?

[carr]

When did they get elevators? Weren't the floatplanes handled only by the stern crane?

Good catch. I assumed they had elevators and as usual when making an assumption ...

If they never had an elevator, how would a helo be raised and lowered? Add an elevator? Use the crane?

Thanks,
Bob

[Russ2146]

So you add the weight of the elevator machinery to the weight of the chopper(s)??????????
So then what?

[carr]

So, if they didn't have elevators (were they ever retrofitted?) then Dave needs to make a WIF decision whether to add elevators or use the crane.

Can the crane lift more than twice the weight it was intended to? And, does it have the horizontal extension to provide sufficient clearance for a helo that's several feet longer (even with tail folded) than the float plane?

[Cliffy B]

I would say for ease of movement and for simplicity, just install the elevator and call it quites. I believe in the 60's that they MAY of had them installed but I don't know. Even if they did, they'd still more than likely need to be reinforced in the 1980s to handle the heavier helos and equipment.

[Seasick]

The Virginia class CGN had an elevator for a SH-2F helecoptor. It didn't work, and the USN is unlikely to ever attempt it again. The Des Moines class had a hanger for seaplanes that had a hatch over it that had to be opened by chains pulling it along tracks. It locked down like the hatch on a cargo ship. The Virginia's hanger was serviced by an elevator that was flush with the helopad when it was raised up. The system of gaskets to keep water from going down the elevator shaft when the elevator was up leaked badly. The hanger on the Spruance class and Long hull and short hull Perry classes worked much better.

[Russ2146]

Dave,
There are two types of elevator, hydraulic and wire rope on winch. In this application, hydraulic wouldn't work because of the downward projection of the hydraulic piston. Wire rope on winch would probably leave you with a maneuvering issue with the birds below deck. The crane approach would require a crane with the lift capacity for the chopper weight and the reach, at that weight, to place the lift point of the chopper, which is the rotor shaft, where you need it to be in the deck opening. Then, of course, the crane becomes a flight hazard. Crane in one direction and superstructure in the opposite. Pilots will love that.

Question, if nothing else on the ship is armored above the hull, why do the Tomahawk launchers have to be armored?? There are loads of missiles out there that launch from un-armored boxes.

[navydavesof]

Dave,
Question, if nothing else on the ship is armored above the hull, why do the Tomahawk launchers have to be armored?? There are loads of missiles out there that launch from un-armored boxes.

The Mk134 Tomahawk Box Lauchers came armored from the manufacterer.

As for the elevator, the ships had them already in the stern.

[Russ2146]

Ok, so who told the manufacturer to armor them and what was the rationale behind doing so?

[navydavesof]

Ok, so who told the manufacturer to armor them and what was the rationale behind doing so?

I don't know who told them to armor the launchers, but I am pretty sure it was a manufacturer decision. The rational was that they wanted fragmentation protection. The manufactures of the launchers wanted the missiles to be protected from fragmentation...and thus they included armor into the design.

Also, there was a 20 round armored box tomahawk launcher that could have been ordered as well. The USN just never did.

[Russ2146]

I just did some searching on-line.
There are actually two Harpoon launchers, the Mk 140 light weight and the MK 141 shock hardened. The MK 141 weighs 1.8 tons more than the Mk 140, which was designed for the Pegasus class.

The Mk 141 was introduced in 1976

....................... Mk 140 ....................Mk 141
Missiles ............4 Harpoon .................4 Harpoon
Weight (in tons) ....4,1........... ............5,9
Number of tubes .4 or 2 or 1... .............4 (usually) or 2 or 1
Installed aboard... PEGASUS-class PHMs..CG, DD, DDG
Introduced ..........1976........................ 1976


So the missile has been improved but the launcher hasn't.

I also see where a Harpoon can be launched from the SM launchers on Perry class.

All the pictures of the launchers show the exhaust pointed over the side. This suggests that if you place the launchers on the 01 deck or higher, the deck will have to be extended to the side of the hull or figure out some sort of diverter to protect the deck. (I have a picture of what the old Talos did to the deck and deckhouse of the first CGs)

[navydavesof]

Unfortunately for those who would like them back, the Mk13 single armed launcher on the Perrys is gone and won't likely return . However, if the Navy would invest in VL kits for the Harpoon, we should be on our way to a high Harpoon capacity on our ships.

All the pictures of the launchers show the exhaust pointed over the side. This suggests that if you place the launchers on the 01 deck or higher, the deck will have to be extended to the side of the hull or figure out some sort of diverter to protect the deck. (I have a picture of what the old Talos did to the deck and deckhouse of the first CGs)[/

Maybe just the pictures you saw, because only a few do that. Diverting the exhaust over the side is not necessary. It's only preferable. Take a look at the entire Arleigh Burke-class and the launchers on the Ticonderogas. All of the Burke's missiles exhaust directly onto the deck, and four of the eight missiles on the Ticos fire directly onto the deck. It's a matter of cleaning the deck, chipping the burned non-skid and re-nonskiding the deck (which by the way is a real f-ing problem. Chipping up non-skid is damn near dangerous. People stab themselves with chissles and attract submarines with needle guns all the time when removing no-skid.

If you look at the Korean KDXIII ships you will see they have enormous diverters so they can have 16 Harpoons without a problem.

Other nations put the Harpoons in tubs and blast all of that exhaust inside the tub. What a HORRIBLE job it must be to clean those out.

[carr]

Unfortunately for those who would like them back ...

Did I hear somebody call my name?

[Russ2146]

How about covering the pertinent portions of deck with ablative tiles, suitably colored, from whoever manufactures them for the space shuttles? They should be looking for work. That would save some paint chipping.

Keep the below deck hanger as there appear to be VTOL (Non-rotor) UAVs, with sufficient payloads for armament, coming along.

[navydavesof]

How about covering the pertinent portions of deck with ablative tiles, suitably colored, from whoever manufactures them for the space shuttles?

Just so you know, ablative tiles are shockingly delicate. If you drop one from table top level onto the floor it breaks. They are not good for anything. Also, "ablative" means they burn away so you would have to replace them anyway...

The exhaust blasting onto the surface of the deck is not that much of a problem, it's just a pain in the ass. Left behind is an enormous scorch mark that has to be cleaned, chipped, and relaid with non-skid. The best thing would be if the exhaust was not toxic and came off with a power-washer, then it could be left there for a while without problem.

[Seasick]

The Mk13 launchers on the Perry class were deactivated but the launcher is still in service with many countries and is supported by BAe systems. There is a contingency plan for fitting harpoon Mk141 launchers and SeaRAM if required. Harpoon has some limitations that makes it difficult to use in the post Cold War rules of engagement, while the Standard missile in surface mode has a significantly faster reaction rate and can seriously dammage a vessel it hits. The Perry class also has MH-60R helecoptors which can fire Penguin anti-ship missiles and Hellfire missiles along with Mk50/54 ASW torpedos. Hellfire missiles from Cobra helecoptors were used with great sucess in Operation Praying Mantis.

There are ceramic tiles avalible that can resist the heat of the exhaust from the launch of a missile, and are strong enough to be walked on. The problem is their weight and the fact that non-skid doesn't adhere to them and their surface can't be scored for traction.

The armor on the Armored box launchers was a requirement since they were conceived. They needed protection for the Tomahawk missiles which were nuclear land attack at the time of the box launcher's conception. Conventional land attack and anti-ship tomahawks were developed after the design work was started on the armored box launchers.

The 20 round ABL launcher was a study and the USN rejected it for various reasons.