HMS EAGLE in the Falklands

[Blue cat]

Des Moines and Salem were decommissioned around 1960 but are still sitting around in the reserve fleet until 1991. An Iowa-style modernization might bring the crew down to about 1,200, and a Des Moines's reliable 8-inch automatics can sling two-thirds as much HC per minute as an Iowa. Newport News lasted until 1975, so she might be a source of parts depending on how much she took off the other two to stay in the gunline off Vietnam.

If someone can scrounge up a lot of money, eight remaining turrets on the three cruisers is enough for four big strike cruisers with SHORAD, anti-ship missiles, land attack capability, and fleet flag spaces. A ship with 8-inch RF guns would also be better in a surface engagement against modern (read: unarmored) warships than an Iowa.

Over the last 20 years or so I have followed a number of discussions (and read at least one historical paper) on various boards about reactivating the CA's. My $.02 worth, reactivating the Iowas probably made more sense at the time than re activating the CA's.

New build ships using the old 8" turrets sounds interesting and IMHO probably would have been a good option if the money was available.

 

[Pseudo]

They didn't OTL and the arguments aren't that different here. At most you might get acceptance that only two of the ships should be recommissioned but not much more than that.

Quite true, but the narrative appears to be building up to a turn.

 

[jsb]

My $.02 worth, reactivating the Iowas probably made more sense at the time than re activating the CA's.

Not least from being larger than the KIROV class guided missile cruiser and therefore better politically....

New build ships using the old 8" turrets sounds interesting and IMHO probably would have been a good option if the money was available.

Would just building a set of "fast monitors" with Mark 71 8"/55 gun not be better?

MK 71 v MK 16
-The rate of fire per barrel 12RPM v 10RPM

-Weight per barrel 78,425 kg v (458 mt/3) 152,666 Kg (Mk71 includes the 75 rounds of ready ammunition so -11658 Kg but realistically tehy are so fiffrent its hard to compair weights but the Mk71 will be lighter?)

-The Mk71 will be easier to fit on a smaller ship due to its width (and hight)

-Most importantly crew will be far lower on the Mk71

It should be possible to build something with say 3 Mk71s on a Spruance sized hull if you give up everything else apart from limited AA and a pad, would this not be far cheaper than something for the Mk16?

 

[Triune Kingdom]

Would just building a set of "fast monitors" with Mark 71 8"/55 gun not be better?

Excuse me, but can you explain what you mean by "Fast Monitor"?

 

[jsb]

Excuse me, but can you explain what you mean by "Fast Monitor"?

A warship designed mostly for NGFS (shooting guns at land targets) that is at least as fast as a LPD/LPH (so 22+ Kn probably 24+ to keep up with larger ships that will be slowed down less due to sea sate) with only limited other things fitted so just a light AA to survive (and maybe very limited ASW?) and a landing pad.

 

[Triune Kingdom]

A warship designed mostly for NGFS (shooting guns at land targets) that is at least as fast as a LPD/LPH (so 22+ Kn probably 24+ to keep up with larger ships that will be slowed down less due to sea sate) with only limited other things fitted so just a light AA to survive (and maybe very limited ASW?) and a landing pad.

I am far from an expert, but could the US just fit a bigger gun on the existing ship, instead of building a ship design dedicated solely to naval gunfire support. Maybe something like a modification of the Ticoderonga CG, with a navalized 155mm gun fitted, as sugested before on this thread?

They could really get much more use out of it that way, and probably cheaper, if it is really possible to fit a bigger gun on the Ticoderonga's, in place of one (or even both) of its 127s, while keeping most, if not all of its previous capabilities.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Refit some older Spurances with 2 x 61 Cell MK41s and load them up with Cruise Missiles.

I reckon 122 Cruise missiles would be more effective and more accurate than 1000 odd rounds of 16"

And rely on the 5" MK45 that armed the fleets DDGs and CGs for NGS.

I believe that even with the cost of the missiles it would be cheaper than reactivating and maintaining/crewing the old battlewagons.

However all that being said in some situations having 55,000 tons of US Diplomacy sitting 'slab like' just of your coast looking like it was drop forged using a dead sun does have a unique selling point and I imagine to your average tin pot dictator it's a clear and present danger (as opposed to 120 smart missiles fired from over the horizon).

Attempts to utilise land 155mm systems has generally been a failure - the Germans I believe tried it as did BAe more recently

Edit: My understanding was the 2 piece ammo (Shell and bagged charge) used in the land 155s over the single piece used in the existing and subsequent 127mm guns was the main issue.

The then current and subsequent version of the MK45 127mm / 5" gun system and the subsequent water cooled Italian OTO Melara system which can fire at a staggering ROF (IIRC greater than 1 round every 2 seconds) seems to have cornered the market and has a lot of legacy that a 155 system cannot match.

 

[Crowbar Six]

Refit some older Spurances with 2 x 61 Cell MK41s and load them up with Cruise Missiles.

I reckon 122 Cruise missiles would be more effective and more accurate than 1000 odd rounds of 16"

And rely on the 5" MK45 that armed the fleets DDGs and CGs for NGS.

I believe that even with the cost of the missiles it would be cheaper than reactivating and maintaining/crewing the old battlewagons.

However all that being said in some situations having 55,000 tons of US Diplomacy sitting 'slab like' just of your coast looking like it was drop forged using a dead sun does have a unique selling point and I imagine to your average tin pot dictator it's a clear and present danger (as opposed to 120 smart missiles fired from over the horizon).

Attempts to utilise land 155mm systems has generally been a failure - the Germans I believe tried it as did BAe more recently

Edit: My understanding was the 2 piece ammo (Shell and bagged charge) used in the land 155s over the single piece used in the existing and subsequent 127mm guns was the main issue.

The then current and subsequent version of the MK45 127mm / 5" gun system and the subsequent water cooled Italian OTO Melara system which can fire at a staggering ROF (IIRC greater than 1 round every 2 seconds) seems to have cornered the market and has a lot of legacy that a 155 system cannot match.

I'm not sure where you could squeeze in an extra strike length 61 cell Mk41 unless you lost the flight deck.

If you want long range artillery you could buy the OTO Melara Vulcano system

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/oto-melara-vulcano-ammunition-t15341.html

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I'm not sure where you could squeeze in an extra strike length 61 cell Mk41 unless you lost the flight deck.

If you want long range artillery you could buy the OTO Melara Vulcano system

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/oto-melara-vulcano-ammunition-t15341.html

Yes void the flight deck and hanger - it would be a stop gap until either a dedicated platform was built or enough 'standard' Arleigh Burkes existed to provide enough 'missile' for the job

The problem with the Vulcano is it is a 21st C weapon system and the Marines/navy would want it for the 90s at the very latest.

That and while the US Military does seem not to overly suffer from NIH - with the MK45 available and in successful service I cannot see it being adopted.

 

[Blue cat]

It should be possible to build something with say 3 Mk71s on a Spruance sized hull if you give up everything else apart from limited AA and a pad, would this not be far cheaper than something for the Mk16?

I'm not sure, sorry.

I also suspect the USN would have wanted a warship with a wider range of armament.

But yes I can see some benefits to putting the Mk71 into production.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

I'm not sure, sorry.

I also suspect the USN would have wanted a warship with a wider range of armament.

But yes I can see some benefits to putting the Mk71 into production.

Heck the Spruance is designed to replace its guns with the MK71 if needed, it will just take about five months in the yard to do so

 

[Blue cat]

I am far from an expert, but could the US just fit a bigger gun on the existing ship, instead of building a ship design dedicated solely to naval gunfire support. Maybe something like a modification of the Ticoderonga CG, with a navalized 155mm gun fitted, as sugested before on this thread?

They could really get much more use out of it that way, and probably cheaper, if it is really possible to fit a bigger gun on the Ticoderonga's, in place of one (or even both) of its 127s, while keeping most, if not all of its previous capabilities.

To recap a prior post of mine.. My understanding is that the Spruances were designed to carry the Mk71 8" mount.

 

[Blue cat]

Heck the Spruance is designed to replace its guns with the MK71 if needed, it will just take about five months in the yard to do so

Yes that would seem to be a simple way to proceed. I seem to recall only one of the 5" guns on the Spruances could be replaced by an 8", but I may be mis remembering this.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

It's important to remember that the LCS was supposed to replace the OHPs in all roles including ASW. The Arleigh Burke was supposed to replace all the NTU fleet air defense ships, not the Spruances which did fleet ASW. Developments in submarine capabilities mean that surface ships playing tag with attack subs is basically suicidal, so helicopters and ASROC are the best weapons, which means Arleigh Burkes can do as much ASW as a Spruance. Because the ASW role was deemphasized in the 90s, the Zumwalt was supposed to replace the Spruance's land attack role with less ASW capability. The Zumwalt's stealth was supposed to allow it to get close to shore against the AShM threat. In light of what we know now about the Zumwalt's development, the Sprucan arsenal boat is definitely a better option in any denied environment, but guns are still a more cost-efficient solution when AShMs aren't a serious issue. A Newport News-sized ship with AGS (with unguided shells instead of LRLAP) and a flight deck could probably get about 40 paid for instead with the Zumwalt program funds.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

It's important to remember that the LCS was supposed to replace the OHPs in all roles including ASW. The Arleigh Burke was supposed to replace all the NTU fleet air defense ships, not the Spruances which did fleet ASW. Developments in submarine capabilities mean that surface ships playing tag with attack subs is basically suicidal, so helicopters and ASROC are the best weapons, which means Arleigh Burkes can do as much ASW as a Spruance. Because the ASW role was deemphasized in the 90s, the Zumwalt was supposed to replace the Spruance's land attack role with less ASW capability. The Zumwalt's stealth was supposed to allow it to get close to shore against the AShM threat. In light of what we know now about the Zumwalt's development, the Sprucan arsenal boat is definitely a better option in any denied environment, but guns are still a more cost-efficient solution when AShMs aren't a serious issue. A Newport News-sized ship with AGS (with unguided shells instead of LRLAP) and a flight deck could probably get about 40 paid for instead with the Zumwalt program funds.

And you could mount quite the decent AA suite and very good command facilities on something the displacement of a Des Moines class ship

 

[pjmidd]

Refit some older Spurances with 2 x 61 Cell MK41s and load them up with Cruise Missiles.

I reckon 122 Cruise missiles would be more effective and more accurate than 1000 odd rounds of 16"

And rely on the 5" MK45 that armed the fleets DDGs and CGs for NGS.

I believe that even with the cost of the missiles it would be cheaper than reactivating and maintaining/crewing the old battlewagons.
.

Battleships yes but not an 8" Spruance, plus guns can be pointedly aimed to miss if all you want to do is to visibly sit off the coast and demonstrate intimidate by making big splashes.

 

[CV12Hornet]

J

Heck the Spruance is designed to replace its guns with the MK71 if needed, it will just take about five months in the yard to do so

To recap a prior post of mine.. My understanding is that the Spruances were designed to carry the Mk71 8" mount.

Only the forward mount is sufficiently reinforced to handle 8”.

 

[Blue cat]

J


Only the forward mount is sufficiently reinforced to handle 8”.

Thanks. I thought that was the case.

 

[jsb]

Yes that would seem to be a simple way to proceed. I seem to recall only one of the 5" guns on the Spruances could be replaced by an 8", but I may be mis remembering this.

Only the forward mount is sufficiently reinforced to handle 8”.

That does rise the question of what the USN would do with its 5", with going for a full deployment of 8" would it want to keep 5" as well or just drop it for lighter guns or missiles using 3" on everything else?

 

[CV12Hornet]

That does rise the question of what the USN would do with its 5", with going for a full deployment of 8" would it want to keep 5" as well or just drop it for lighter guns or missiles using 3" on everything else?

Oh, the 5” is sticking around. Still need the aft guns on the Spruances; there were no plans to fit the gun to the Ticonderogas; and it was studied and deemed undesirably on the Burkes.