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

[HvyCgn9]

On High Bridge design's I'm Biased!! I still think they should rebuild CGN-9 as she was in '95!!! LOL!! Hmmmmm I think the radiation has got 2 me!

Cheers Bruce

P.s this thread has got me considering a WIFF build in 1/72 !! I need a use for my Long Beach's incorrect bow section!(will be building a new bow for Lb! later this year) With some mods the old bow could make a reasonable Des Moines bow the just need a new back half !!!

[carr]

I'd still have the enlarged helicopter hanger I'd make it full hull width and able to hold upto 6 SH-60 sized choppers, I would have 2 HH-60R's and 4 AH-64D's as normal deployment.

Bruce,

Intriguing. What would the role of these helos be and how would that mesh with the ships main mission? I would think that this proposed ship would be too big, costly, and, presumably, focused in its mission to be a viable ASW platform. It would undoubtedly be escorted by Burkes who could easily provide the ASW protection. What do you envision as the role of the Apaches? I've long wondered about the possibility of "strike" helos on ships. How would you see them used?

I don't know much about the Apache. I'm guessing its three biggest weaknesses would be range (what is the range?), corrosion concerns, and weapons compatibility with Navy standards. Of course, the Navy has its own version of the Apache, the Sea Cobra.

Thanks,
Bob

[carr]

... this thread has got me considering a WIFF build in 1/72 !!

If we ever find the evil, twisted maniac who keeps luring true and proper modellers to the dark side, I say we run him off the forum.

[Russ2146]

Bob,
AH-1J SeaCobra
Never exceed speed: 180 knots (207 mph, 333 km/h)
Maximum speed: 180 knots (207 mph, 333 km/h)
Range: 311 nmi (358 mi, 576 km)
Service ceiling: 10,500 ft (3,215 m)
Rate of climb: 1,090 ft/min (5.54 m/s)
Armament
20 mm M197 3-barreled "Gatling-style" cannon in the M97 turret (750 rounds ammo capacity)
2.75 in (70 mm) Mk 40 or Hydra 70 rockets - 14 rockets mounted in a variety of launchers
5 in (127 mm) Zuni rockets - 8 rockets in two 4-round LAU-10D/A launchers
AIM-9 Sidewinder anti-aircraft missiles - 1 mounted on each hardpoint

AH-1W SuperCobra
Maximum speed: 190 knots (218 mph, 352 km/h)
Range: 317 nmi (365 mi, 587 km)
Service ceiling: 12,200 ft (3,720 m)
Rate of climb: 1,620 ft/min (8.2 m/s)
Armament
20 mm M197 3-barreled "Gatling-style" cannon in the A/A49E-7 turret (750 rounds ammo capacity)
2.75 in (70 mm) Hydra 70 rockets - Mounted in LAU-68C/A (7 shot) or LAU-61D/A (19 shot) launchers
5 in (127 mm) Zuni rockets - 8 rockets in two 4-round LAU-10D/A launchers
TOW missiles - Up to 8 missiles mounted in two 4-round XM65 missile launchers, one on each outboard hardpoint
AGM-114 Hellfire missiles - Up to 8 missiles mounted in two 4-round M272 missile launchers, one on each outboard hardpoint
AIM-9 Sidewinder anti-aircraft missiles - 1 mounted on each outboard hardpoint (total of 2)

[navydavesof]

Did some web surfin on the Des Moines class definitely 4 prop shafts (but if you built a new one could go with 2 props n 2 rudders like on USS Long Beach)

My mistake. I will have to work that out.

I'd still have the enlarged helicopter hanger I'd make it full hull width and able to hold upto 6 SH-60 sized choppers, I would have 2 HH-60R's and 4 AH-64D's as normal deployment.

What is the purpose of them?

The higher bridge so ya can see over the Turrets!!, Unless the standard Burke bridge is high e'nuff!

Yes, the O-4 level lets you see over the forward turrets.

I'd still go with the full NTU fitout so the ship is capable of a fully rounded defence.

Okay, but if you are talking about a fully rounded defense, why stop there? Why not have Aegis? The only reason why Long Beach got NTU (if she did, I am not sure on that) is because she was an AAW escort. This heavy cruiser is a centerpiece ship. Long Beach was not a centerpiece but instead a Lego piece. That's the only reason why I suggest one reconsider on better grounds than a "fully rounded defense", because if you really wanted a �fully� rounded defense...

With the rate of fire from just 6 barrels the ship would still empty the magazines very fast at max. rate !

Emptying the magazines is not the point. Being able to provide accurate volume of fire is. If all you have to do to have an entire 1/3 EXTRA ammunition on the ship is to have a third turret, and you have space on the ship for it, then have another turret. Sure 6 barrels is better than 3 and 3 is better than 1 and 1 is better than 0...but if we can have 9, then we need to have 9...UNLESS there is some sort of use for a bunch of helicopters that outweighs the value of a third turret. I am very curious! What is the purpose behind your large fleet of helos?

The point is to Secondary weapons I would go with a 5"62cal on the stern and a pair of port & stbd 30mm GOALKEEPER CWIS for close in defence, Goalkeeper instead of Phalanx for its extra range and the hull has no problem with the weight of the mount.

No, the weight is not a problem. The US Navy proofed the Goalkeeper on the USS Merrill, a Spruance-class destroyer, so even those could carry it. However, after the entire testing process was finished, we decided not to use Goalkeeper it, because it was not nearly as good as Phalanx. It was not able to engage targets nearly as quickly as Phalanx at either its max range or Phalanx�s. Also, Goalkeeper�s magazine was too small to make it effective.

In a perfect WIF world we could pick all kinds of foregin weapons like, why not the SS-N-22 and make it VLS capable or bring Talos back for ASM use? I am just saying for a logical practice it might be a good idea for a US Navy ship we use systems the US Navy uses.

[navydavesof]

... this thread has got me considering a WIFF build in 1/72 !!

If we ever find the evil, twisted maniac who keeps luring true and proper modellers to the dark side, I say we run him off the forum.

You'll never catch him. He knows how to hide in the bushes.

[navydavesof]

So here I am sketching the CAH and running some Math. It seems that the hanger on the Des Moines-class CAH could only hold 2 CH-53s internally, and they would be side-by-side. While there is a lot of space left over internally there is not enough to have another CH-53 or pair of in there. This is also keeping the flight deck large enough to operate 2 SH-60s at a time instead of having a gianormous hanger that only leaves a landing pad large enough to launch 1 helo at a time. There needs to be at least room on the back deck to operate 1 helo while the second is being worked on outside of the hanger on the flight deck. So the hanger kind of has to be this size or smaller. Thus, unfortunately only 2 CH-53s could be accommodated instead of 4 like I suggested Maybe there is another way to have 4 internally.

But who needs 53s anyway?!

[carr]

What would be the mission of a CAH? And what would the helos contribute to the performance of that mission?

Regards,
Bob

[navydavesof]

What would be the mission of a CAH? And what would the helos contribute to the performance of that mission?

Oh, no. Don�t lump me in here. The CAH is kind of cool but beyond me. I am just on the cool-concept roller coaster for this one. I am looking forward to hearing what HvyCgn9 has in mind for the purpose of this ship and his rebuttle to our earlier posts calling this into question.

However, what I do know is that in the '80s, there were two modernization options for the Des Moines and Salem. One was stripping a LOT of its weaponry in exchange for the Iowa-class missile payload (32 Tomahawks and 16 Harpoons). The second was to provide the CAs with a large helo capability. Since there was so much room, it sounded like they wanted to give it a reasonably large hanger. CH-53s, SH-3s, and SH-60s were thrown around as intended embarked aircraft. They were to be armed with at least 1 Sea Sparrow launcher and probably 2.

The purpose of the CAs in the '80s, though is a little less logical and kind of fuzzy. Now, get ready for this. I did not believe it at first, but the source is the horse's mouth. He was the project manager for the Iowa-class reactivation and the pre-reactivation project manager for the Des Moines-class. So someone at NAVSEA gave him the mission and an order to refine the proposed modernization scheme, a removal of Turret 3 and the addition of a helo hanger and proper placement of electronics and weapons package. So, grab your balls...here�s what the heavy cruisers were supposed to do:

The Des Moines-class heavy cruisers were supposed to be "consort" ships to the battleships. So, you would have a CA rolling around with a BB, with a large number of helos and some Sea Sparros. They were supposed to provide point defense with Sea Sparrows for the BBs and provide a different artillery option instead of the massive difference between 16" and 5" in bombardment missions. Now, this does not make sense to me. If they had reactivated the CAs with the BBs, I think the CAs would wind up being used as 2 more capital ships, and they would almost never operate with the BBs. It's too easy to put Sea Sparrows on BBs or tell a Spruance to hang with the BB than to reactivate a heavy cruiser just to follow around a battleship like a little as a Sea Sparrow and helicopter escort ship.

The idea is cool, however, and is worth a neato model if one can make it. I am going to wind up making one of these for that project manager I referred to above. If anyone wants to offer suggestions as to how the ships might have been configured, let�s get the suggestions and maybe even drawings going!

[carr]

Hmmm. So were the helos intended as ASW, troop transport, or maybe something else entirely?

[navydavesof]

Hmmm. So were the helos intended as ASW, troop transport, or maybe something else entirely?

I think it is a hold over from the assault ship concept of the 1970s. That required about 100 or so marines to be inserted from the ship. I look forward to seeing what HvyLongbeachman has to say about it. I am sure he has some sort of rebuttle to our counter arguments.

With the BBs I think it was for utility, but that is an awfully lot of utility, and like I said, there is no number of helos that can equal the effect of an 8" turret in an assault role.

[navydavesof]

How do you guys think this kind of ship would actually engage enemy surface ships? How many anti-ship missiles should it actually have? How would it work against the enemy?

[HvyCgn9]

I had always intended for my version 2 be able 2 provide its own Helo support 2 forces ashore in the event that a carrier or LHA/LHD is not around 2 provide close air support( hey it could happen!!), coupled with the firepower of the cruiser using laser guided rd's and improved firecontrol.
The other mission would be independent ops in support of SPEC forces units always handy 2 have your own air assets 2 play with! And the Hvy cruiser would not be restricted 2 the 20ish knots of the Amphibs'
I would go with 8 Harpoons, but the primary antiship weapon would be the 8" guns, they would shred any modern warship they ran into.

cheers Bruce

[HvyCgn9]

On a different site we discussed using Talos as an ASM (in my USS Long Beach build on RCGroups) It would be a very nasty weapon coming in on a ballistic path at Mach 3+ with only some mod's for laser&TV guidance it would be awesome (assuming it could get past the defences of the target!!) but you would need alot of space for it or a special VLS setup.

Bruce

I may have a crack at drawing something up tonight!

[navydavesof]

On a different site we discussed using Talos as an ASM (in my USS Long Beach build on RCGroups) It would be a very nasty weapon coming in on a ballistic path at Mach 3+ with only some mod's for laser&TV guidance it would be awesome (assuming it could get past the defences of the target!!) but you would need alot of space for it or a special VLS setup.

I mentioned this earlier. I am pretty sure Talos is too big for any of our ships to carry, especially in a VLS form. It's 38 feet long. The missile seems to be so large that it has to be store horizonatally. Ships that were already fitted to fire it, yes absolutely, but trying to employ that missile today is pretty far out. Maybe canister launchers like what the Russians have, but you see what space has to be committed to it. It does not seem to be too reasonable for a VLS set up.

The newest version of the Talos is called the Sea Snake and is specifically geared toward being an ASM. There is a picture out there I cannot open so I cannot save it and post it here, but a DE was struck by a Talos way back in the day, and the missile did do significant damage. So, utilization of the weapon is sound, the question now is: How do you actually put it on ships?

I may have a crack at drawing something up tonight!

We look forwrad to it.

[navydavesof]

...2 provide its own Helo support 2 forces ashore in the event that a carrier or LHA/LHD is not around 2 provide close air support( hey it could happen!!)

Indeed it does. In fact it happens so often all DDGs and CGs need to abandon the 5" and adopt the 8" at their next overhaul period.

...coupled with the firepower of the cruiser using laser guided rd's and improved firecontrol.

So you must be talking about this strictly being a landing ship whose customsers range from hosting special forces (SOF), arriving on station to support forces that are already there, or being coupled with an amphibious ready group. Does that sound right?

The other mission would be independent ops in support of SPEC forces units always handy 2 have your own air assets 2 play with!

Unfortunately in order to provide any kind of reliable TACAIR like you describe you need an entire air wing like a big-deck amphib has. Otherwise the helicopters are just underperforming that turret you lost.

I would go with 8 Harpoons, but the primary antiship weapon would be the 8" guns, they would shred any modern warship they ran into.

The reason to have Harpoons is to perform long range strikes against enemy ships. Do you expect enemy ships to get close enough to engage with your 8" guns?

I like the concept, but unlike the other WIFs around here, this one was actually proposed for real, and it was abandoned, because it was not going to provide enough benefit for the cost. Every time the heavy cruisers were up for reactivation people would come up with ideas like this, and the conversions would be deemed so expensive the ships stayed in the mothball fleet. Because people decided to bite off too much the ground forces were robbed of the critical gunfire support (NSFS) they were just about to get back.

I think it would be a cool looking model though.

[SumGui]

Now ya see, I think the idea of replacing the aft turret with a MASSIVE helo hangar is a valid one, providing you used the vessel for the proper missions.

I�ve already well established myself as a gun-nut, but in this case, I can see the utility of trading the aft 8� mount. That still leaves 6 barrels at 7 rounds a minute. If the vessel is encountering more problems than 42 rnds/min of 8� can solve, then a SAG(BB)/ARG or CVBG should be called in.

Thinking in the 1980�s terms (when re-activation was most likely), this assumes a few things:

1. All the BBs are already back in commission (modification and crew costs make the BB a better deal, so you wouldn�t get to the CAs until after them).

2. The unit is intended to be a semi-independent unit; taking on what was called �low intensity conflicts� during the 80�s-90�s, or can be seen as a �first responder� type of vessel. Essentially, problems that don�t need a whole CVBG and/or ARG. Naturally, they could be used with a larger force when need, but the true strength would be in semi-independent operations. I say semi-independent because she should have a FF/FFG consort.

3. Newport News was short a turret anyway. She had a major issue with mount 82, and it was essentially permanently closed without repair. I�d start with her, moving mount 83 to Mount 82�s position. Money saver by not having to recapitalize the construction for these turrets. The after barbette provided a protected area for the stowage of avgas (or JP-5) and armament for the embarked helos.

4. Not a primary AAW vessel. No Aegis. I do not want a turd foot stealing the unit away to guard his friggin bird farm.

5. Not a flagship. This unit is not intended to sit pier side. Nor is it intended to be put into a flag role where its specific strengths would be wiped out.

6. The helo hanger should dominate the after portion of the vessel, not be for 2 helos. I�m talking from aft of the stack to about the end of the superstructure, almost the full beam of the ship. LCVP davits? Probably not.

As for the fit:

Two Mk 29 Sea Sparrow launchers for ship�s self defense � one forward, one aft, for 360 coverage. (I envision aft on top of the helo hangar, and forward in place of mount 51).
Two Mk 75 76mm/62 in place of mount 52 and 53 Mounts 54-56 removed as part of refit.
Four Mk 15 CIWS if possible, two more likely.
Four Mk 143 ABL amidships, along the stack pointed forward, two to a side.
16 Harpoon if possible, 8 if not.
Current aft hangar becomes troop berthing and hospital.

I removed all 5� as a concession to keep crew size down, and provide for ease of refit, hopefully keeping cost of the refit down as well. This also leaves the extant armor arrangement more or less intact. Yes the hangar will cost, but not nearly as much as weapons systems like the Mk 26, all the needed fire control and modifictions.

What would this ship do? Presence where entire groups are not appropriate. The intent is to control the littorals, the sea-land interface, and have the ability to put Marines ashore (or deploy Special Forces) in sudden, but not long-term, operations.

-Sea Control (against an embargoed nations, enforcing Law of the Sea and freedom of navigation at chokepoints like Suez, Malacca, and Straits of Hormuz).

-Rescuing personnel from an embassy where the country just became hostile.

-Hunt and recover of US personnel held against their will, or without the ability to extricate themselves from an area (See above, but also events like the Scott O�Grady recovery). This platform can be closer to land that any other platform used for this today.

-Taking of lesser defended targets as part of larger operations (oil platforms being used for military purposes, for example)

- Act as adjunct Helo carrier in the event of need: such as operating Mine-hunting Helos, Utility helos in the event of disaster, ASW helos when needed by a larger group. Clearly, an LPH/LHA/CVN could do these things, but do we need something that big every time? No.

The presence and facilities of such a vessel are perfect for �showing the flag� on port visits and operations with lesser economic powers. Mere presence could discourage destabilization of a region because it would be known that not an entire CVBG/ARG would have to respond for the US to be involved.

When not involved in �warm� conflicts, the hospital facilities can easily provide an avenue to winning hearts and minds when visiting the third world. I would also use her to train other Navies and for midshipmen cruises.

She would really be a perfect fit for the 80�s operations where we were trying to prevent the �domino effect� in the Third World. Now we are trying to prevent the �domino effect� of Islamic fundamentalism�

This ship could clearly dominate the surface (both sea and land) within its area of influence � the littorals � while having the longevity through passive armor to hold a deteriorating position until a larger force can be brought to bear. While I wrote this thinking of reactivation in the 80�s, each of the missions are still just as valid today.

[HvyCgn9]

With apologies 2 the guys at shipbucket!! I cut n pasted (ie. Butchered) a couple of images of USS Salem with the superstructure of USS Pinckney !! Its a bit rough but gives an idea of what a modern Heavy Cruiser could look like.

Cheers Bruce

[HvyCgn9]

SumGai said exactly what I was envisioning for mission types but could'nt think how 2 put it !! Although I would go with VLS instead of separate launchers!!

Bruce (Nuke Nut....there is only one HVY CRSR Hull left!! guess which!! HAAAAAAAAHAAA)

[SumGui]

SumGai said exactly what I was envisioning for mission types but could'nt think how 2 put it !! Although I would go with VLS instead of separate launchers!!

Bruce (Nuke Nut....there is only one HVY CRSR Hull left!! guess which!! HAAAAAAAAHAAA)

Of course, you know why that is: I manned the rails on the O-11 on Long Beach on my first cruise. Same Radiation.....

I didn't go VLS because the BBs didn't get it, and i thought it more plausible that the Mk 143s (just like the ones which were place aft of the Talos house, then the gym, when I was on CGN-9...) would be fit. Cheaper, and it fit with Lehmans's philosophy of having as many Tomahawk shooters out there as posible to piss off the Russians....