You have a link to that article? I'd like to see it, if that's possible. I was thinking pretty much right along those lines in terms of problems.
I don't have the link, but I could set one up if you're aware of any free file-hosting sites, or I could e-mail it to you if you could PM me an e-mail address- the file's somewhat over 5MB, IIRC.
I'm not sure about that one. The size would have been good, but the Alaskas had maneuverability issues, which is rather bad if you are trying to accurately plot fire from heavy-caliber guns, particularly if the enemy is shooting back. (Think the duel between South African Table Mountain artillery positions and USS Wisconsin doing NGFS duty in Vortex.) I'm thinking perhaps if we're going with the Baltimores - the Iowas are great ships, but too big and expensive to operate to be able to survive in times of lower budgets - perhaps replacing the superstructure, like what was done with the Albany class CGs, may be a solution. I don't honestly understand the point of 5" mount right behind the 8" guns - useful to kill kamikazes, perhaps, but in a modern rebuild of these ships, I'd ditch that thing and build a new bridge in its place. I also suggested the Oregon City class vessels, because they are single funnels, which makes reconstruction less complicated. Perhaps in the days of CIWS systems and the extensive compartmentalization of the cruisers, maybe using an aluminum superstructure is possible here. (Yes, I am aware of what happened to USS Belknap and HMS Sheffield.) I would also say that they would be wise to figure out how to mount some form of SAM on the ship. That was planned for the Iowas, but the overpressure from the guns was to much for the Sea Sparrow system.
Calbear has mentioned most of the problems pretty well. Such a vessel is not much use if you are haven't got the skilled manpower for it to work properly. I think we are thinking here if the USN was not in threat of having its size chopped.
In suggesting the
Alaskas were 'just right' for the sort of modernization like what was done to the Iowas, I think they were looking at size, manning requirements and operating costs as the primary considerations (would be a problem regardless of the platform, however nice they'd be to have around), with available electrical generating capacity as a close second (
Des Moines would have required several extra diesel generators to be installed to make the conversion work, and the same would apply to a
Baltimore/Oregon City).
The centerline 5" mounts were a standard part of late US cruiser design practice, and part of the logic was 360-deg coverage, useful for a large screening element which is what cruisers spent much of their time as, although I think the bigger part was the abilitiy to get an 8-gun secondary battery broadside with only having to add 4 guns to a very tight design.
As for the range & manuveribility issues, I suppose a specialized shore-bombardment round could be used to compensate- according to the info at Navweaps, the heavy cruiser
St. Paul successfully bombarded a VC position at 35 miles using an experimental long-range bombardment round in 1970.
Perhaps one could try doing an updated version of the
Boston &
Canberra conversions if one wanted to try using a CA, assuming getting something along those lines with 1980s stuff crammed into a WW2 hull could work, although the
Oregon City class had similar compartmentilization as the
Des Moines, as that was part of the war experience cited in the design modifications done to the
Oregon City (although that particular ship may have been defective somehow, as it was decommissioned right away, and the only
Baltimore-type hull never considered for reactivation or missile conversion in the 50s & early 60s)
