a different kind of wank, ships that should have never seen service

I've always wondered why the Worcesters weren't converted to "Tall Lady" missile ships. While being "light" cruisers, their dimensions were nearly the same, and their displacement was larger than the Oregon City class Albany! Decommissioned as gun cruisers around the same time as the Albany, they still have plenty of life left in their hulls and engines.

The same reason I suspect that the heavies were used for the purpose, they had slightly bigger hulls and were designed for bigger loads put on by bigger gun blasts, and as such were heavier built and more easily able to handle the bulky electronics used by 1960s missile cruisers.
 
The same reason I suspect that the heavies were used for the purpose, they had slightly bigger hulls and were designed for bigger loads put on by bigger gun blasts, and as such were heavier built and more easily able to handle the bulky electronics used by 1960s missile cruisers.

There were some design studies to that effect, but from what I've read about the historical cruiser missile conversions in Friedmans, it seems like the USN came to the conclusion that they weren't a very good bargain, as the conversions of WW2 cruisers into missile ships turned out to be something of a PITA because of having to reconfigure lots of stuff and work out stability issues, and just about every single one ran well over budget. Furthermore, the operating costs were probably about the same as they were as gun cruisers- same powerplant, a 10-15 year old hull, and the crews weren't that much smaller- according to the data tables in the back of that book, Albany as a missile cruiser had a crew of 1155, less than 300 than she had as a gun cruiser, similarly one of the Cleveland CLG conversions had a crew of 1132, less than 200 more people than she would have had at the end of World War 2. (In comparasion, Long Beach had a crew of 1027 in her 1962 configuration, or 858 as designed, while the 1960s era missile cruisers [or 'frigates'] had crews of less than 500.) Lack of room for growth for future upgrades was another drawback. Another drawback was that that the age of the hulls meant that they only had another 10-20 years of service life in them, compared to the 25-30 of new construction.

Finally, they didn't save that much over new construction. In the late 1950s, there were a series of studies to rebuild the surviving Atlanta CLAAs & the modified follow-on versions as missile ships, with Terriers, ASROC, & then-current electronics with a new superstructure. A double-ended configuration equivalent to Leahy would have cost an estimated $74 million; a single-ended configuration that retained one 5" mount comprable to Farragut would have been an estimated $43 million, while a new Farragut would have been $46 million- with those figures, a new ship buiilt for the purpose & cheaper to run seemed like a better bargain, particularly since the conversion, based on past experience, would have gone over budget.
 
There were some design studies to that effect, but from what I've read about the historical cruiser missile conversions in Friedmans, it seems like the USN came to the conclusion that they weren't a very good bargain, as the conversions of WW2 cruisers into missile ships turned out to be something of a PITA because of having to reconfigure lots of stuff and work out stability issues, and just about every single one ran well over budget. Furthermore, the operating costs were probably about the same as they were as gun cruisers- same powerplant, a 10-15 year old hull, and the crews weren't that much smaller- according to the data tables in the back of that book, Albany as a missile cruiser had a crew of 1155, less than 300 than she had as a gun cruiser, similarly one of the Cleveland CLG conversions had a crew of 1132, less than 200 more people than she would have had at the end of World War 2. (In comparasion, Long Beach had a crew of 1027 in her 1962 configuration, or 858 as designed, while the 1960s era missile cruisers [or 'frigates'] had crews of less than 500.) Lack of room for growth for future upgrades was another drawback. Another drawback was that that the age of the hulls meant that they only had another 10-20 years of service life in them, compared to the 25-30 of new construction.

Finally, they didn't save that much over new construction. In the late 1950s, there were a series of studies to rebuild the surviving Atlanta CLAAs & the modified follow-on versions as missile ships, with Terriers, ASROC, & then-current electronics with a new superstructure. A double-ended configuration equivalent to Leahy would have cost an estimated $74 million; a single-ended configuration that retained one 5" mount comprable to Farragut would have been an estimated $43 million, while a new Farragut would have been $46 million- with those figures, a new ship buiilt for the purpose & cheaper to run seemed like a better bargain, particularly since the conversion, based on past experience, would have gone over budget.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the three Albany class vessels did have a bunch of money budgeted for major overhauls that wound up diverted to other projects. This would probably have reduced the number of crewmen. And considering that the Talos systems on these things were massive, if you did modernize them with the latest in gear in the early 80s, you'd need considerably smaller crews. What I'm envisioning is the Mk 11 and Mk 12 missile launchers get tossed in favor of the Mk 26 and Mk 29 missile launchers, and use the space behind the second funnel for two ABLs for Tomahawks. That could give a new lease on life for the old monsters, which might be a reason to have a couple more built - knowing that as electronics improve, you'll be able to fit more on a vessel.
 
lastly, it needed the KM engineers drop their horse-blindered quest for Ultra-High-Pressure boilers (which didn't actually become feasible until the advent of nuclear powerplants)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheater#Applications

"The first practical superheater was developed in Germany by Wilhelm Schmidt during the 1880s and 1890s, and the benefits of the invention were demonstrated in the U.K. by the Great Western Railway in 1906."

Like Don Lardo, I am an ex-Navy Nuc (ET). I'd also be VERY interested in the details of "Ultra-High-Pressure" steam generators for use with Naval Nuclear Power Plants.
 
Top