CA-134 Des Moines-Class Heavy Cruisers - 1980's Reactivation Proposals

[uk 75]

The need for big gun ships was mainly a product of limited wars from Korea onward rather than any likely role in a war against the Soviet Union. While China was still militarily weak Seventh Fleet cruisers played a part in supporting Formosa/Taiwan.
The numbers needed were not especially great and the four New Jersey class battleships also offered the best platforms for cruise missiles etc
Even in the 1980s there were limits to the number of crews available to the USN. More CG47s would strike me as a better buy than any fire support ships.
After 1991 the attractions of a ship able to support littoral/shoreline operations against an opponent with degraded (by allied forces and their own weaknesses) defences become greater. After 2001 this seemed even more necessary, though bombarding the Taliban was not a job for big naval guns.
With the return of peer opponents like China and to some extent even Iran the opportunities for big guns seem rather less. Even terrorists and smaller nations will have swarms of drones or even Chinese supplied missiles with which to keep them at bay

 

[Scott Kenny]

What false premise? I think if they had built 32 of them it would be a much more viable platform.

The premise that any surface ship can be within an enemy country's coastal artillery range and survive in a shooting war.

There are two options for littoral combat.
1) You build a crapton of cheap ships and expect to lose a lot of them. That's not particularly viable because of how casualty-averse the US public is.
2) you build expensive well equipped ships that are armed and armored to take hits and keep coming. That's less viable because of how expensive the ships will end up being.
I guess there's a third option: build submarines intended specifically for working close inshore. This is even more expensive than a surface ship intended to get hit and keep coming.

Or you do not, cannot, do littoral combat.

It might be interesting to apply MBT armor technology to warships and see what happens. I'd hate to see just how heavy a ship would get with DU mesh in the armor, though.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The premise that any surface ship can be within an enemy country's coastal artillery range and survive in a shooting war.

That was not the premise under which the Zumwalts were built. For one AGS was supposed to considerably outrange the like of the A-222 Bereg.

The premise under which the Zumwalts were built was "Spruance replacement, with superior AAW and ASW capability, whilst also meeting the shore bombardment requirements of the US Marines as a fig-leaf to the current international situation to ensure that the ships would actually be built in a post-Cold-War world."

Of course even when the international situation changed, the US was still left with useful 13,000 ton hulls, with considerable margins for later life additions and considerable excess power generation capacity,with far greater capability to be modernised in the future than any Burke hull.

 

[Dilandu]

1) You build a crapton of cheap ships and expect to lose a lot of them. That's not particularly viable because of how casualty-averse the US public is.

The solution is simple - use drones. Nobody would be bothered even if a hundred drone ships is sunk, as long as goal is declared to be achieved.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The solution is simple - use drones. Nobody would be bothered even if a hundred drone ships is sunk, as long as goal is declared to be achieved.

Drone ships still require regular maintenance. Oil filters changed weekly, etc. So those drones can only be within the Littorals in the A2AD envelopes, for a short time. 3 days or so, depending on how close you need to get them to shore and how deep the A2AD envelope is (and how fast the LUSVs are).

Otherwise the ship that their maintenance crews are on will have to enter the A2AD envelope as well, and performing maintenance while people are shooting at you is not fun.

 

[Hood]

I agree the DG-21 programme seemed a bit ambitious in expecting destroyers to cruise around in littoral waters facing shore-based artillery and SSMs, aircraft (of all kinds), mines and minisubs.
Yes you needed stealth to reduce the chances of being hit but you also needed excellent SAM and CIWS coverage, a top-notch radar, AGS etc. and then you have a multi-billion dollar ship cruising around in a high threat environment where just one error could end up with a rather expensive "whoops" moment potentially damaging or crippling the ship.

There was nothing wrong in replacing Spurance as a DDG. But if you lost a Spurance off the enemy coast you were losing a a relatively lightly armed and cheaply equipped ship (5in, Sea Sparrow, ASROC, no AEGIS, all whirly-antenna radar) not that far from a beefy frigate in capability, whereas DG-21/DDX/Zumwalt is the complete opposite of that.
At best something like a tooled up LCS would be better - LO and fast, but of course something like AGS would never fit and so the vicious circle of escalation of size and cost begins.

Using an old Des Moines was expensive in manpower and reactivation cost, even the Iowas were eye watering when it comes to the manpower bill. But they had armour and gun firepower aplenty and that was never going to be replicable on new-build construction from the 1960s onwards.

 

[Firefinder]

At best something like a tooled up LCS would be better - LO and fast, but of course something like AGS would never fit and so the vicious circle of escalation of size and cost begins

Which was the USN Thinking in real life.

Thus the Freedom and Independence class got made.

...

We all know how THAT went.

Balloon to Destroyer size, some bright idiot thought they be great for use in the EXACTLY OPPOSITE ROLE AS A FRIGATE. And now they have all the problems due to being a littoral hull thats now mainly used for open ocean...

 

[Scott Kenny]

Which was the USN Thinking in real life.

Thus the Freedom and Independence class got made.

...

We all know how THAT went.

Balloon to Destroyer size, some bright idiot thought they be great for use in the EXACTLY OPPOSITE ROLE AS A FRIGATE. And now they have all the problems due to being a littoral hull thats now mainly used for open ocean...

LCS needed open ocean capabilities to deploy to the littorals. Frack, they have a higher sprint speed than any ship short of a carrier!

And you do know that the LCS are a little smaller than a Perry dimensionally, and have a crew that is 57% the size of a Perry, right?

 

[Firefinder]

LCS needed open ocean capabilities to deploy to the littorals. Frack, they have a higher sprint speed than any ship short of a carrier!

And you do know that the LCS are a little smaller than a Perry dimensionally, and have a crew that is 57% the size of a Perry, right?

There is a fairly hefty difference between a short self deployment sprint of a few weeks at most and a few months out in the deep blue. Any vessel can go out to sea for a few weeks, but not all can stay out for a few months.

As for the size?

Perry: Length 445 to 453 feet long. Beam of 45 feet with 22 foot draft.

Freedom, is shorter at 375 feet long but wider at a 57 foot beam with 12 foot of draft.

The Independence class 418 foot long, basically twice the width of the prior two at 104 foot wide with 14 foot draft.

For completion sacks the Burke is 509 foot long, 66 foot wide with 31 foot of draft.

And have an image of a Independence and Burke side by side. Eyeah, not that much smaller is it?

 

[Scott Kenny]

There is a fairly hefty difference between a short self deployment sprint of a few weeks at most and a few months out in the deep blue. Any vessel can go out to sea for a few weeks, but not all can stay out for a few months.

As for the size?

Perry: Length 445 to 453 feet long. Beam of 45 feet with 22 foot draft.

Freedom, is shorter at 375 feet long but wider at a 57 foot beam with 12 foot of draft.

The Independence class 418 foot long, basically twice the width of the prior two at 104 foot wide with 14 foot draft.

For completion sacks the Burke is 509 foot long, 66 foot wide with 31 foot of draft.

And have an image of a Independence and Burke side by side. Eyeah, not that much smaller is it?

Only shorter than the entire clipper bow and helicopter pad on the stern of the Burke.

The Indys look big because almost all their stuff is out of the water, and they have both a 3-helo hangar and a huge vehicle/mission bay. The forward hull has almost no volume, it's ~25ft wide. I suspect that they could fit a 90-day loadout into their mission bay in 3x 40ft containers.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

There was also a double-ended Talos-Terrier-Tartar conversion, and a double-ended Talos-Tartar-Regulus conversion.

View attachment 703436
View attachment 703437

This is where the USN should have gone with these ships. A similar conversion to the Chicago. Dump Regulus for a pair of Tartar missile launchers for short range, and maybe a bit better superstructure conversion. The single stack would have been an advantage, and possibly add by better arrangement, a stern helo launch pad with hanger option.

It very possibly would have kept Talos in service for an extra 5 to 10 years with upgrades. These ships would certainly have made better command cruisers than the Little Rock Cleveland conversions did.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Des Moines and Worcester conversions were rejected because they were the best gun-armed ships available, and still useful for Limited Wars.

I think the long term viability of Talos has more to do with recieving upgrades like the SPG-56 & SPG-61 radars than on what ship the Talos system is placed.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Des Moines and Worcester conversions were rejected because they were the best gun-armed ships available, and still useful for Limited Wars.

I think the long term viability of Talos has more to do with recieving upgrades like the SPG-56 & SPG-61 radars than on what ship the Talos system is placed.

Talos had lots of potential but was cut short mostly by size. The system required a large ship with considerable magazine space to fit it. I think as a complement to Standard it had far more potential than it was given. At one point, it was considered as a viable alternative to Nike Hercules / Zeus as an ABM system.

That's really pretty amazing considering it's origins lie in WW 2 and the development program beginning in 1944.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The Baltimore- based Albany class were large enough, they each had 104 Talos missiles, more than enough any engagement (the main problem would probably be the number of fire channels available to make multiple engagements, I doubt they had the fire rate to empty their magazines in a single engagement).

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The Baltimore- based Albany class were large enough, they each had 104 Talos missiles, more than enough any engagement (the main problem would probably be the number of fire channels available to make multiple engagements, I doubt they had the fire rate to empty their magazines in a single engagement).

Newer hulls with newer propulsion plants = better ships for conversion

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Newer hulls with newer propulsion plants = better ships for conversion

The Des Moines aren't that much newer, and neither are their propulsion plants. Still the same sort of 600 psi machinery as wartime ships, not the 1200 psi machinery of the Mitschers onwards, nor the new pressure-fired boilers used on the Knox class and intended for the John F. Kennedy, so there aren't really any grounds for that much improvement in propulsion.

 

[Winchester]

Talos had lots of potential but was cut short mostly by size. The system required a large ship with considerable magazine space to fit it. I think as a complement to Standard it had far more potential than it was given. At one point, it was considered as a viable alternative to Nike Hercules / Zeus as an ABM system.

That's really pretty amazing considering it's origins lie in WW 2 and the development program beginning in 1944.

Size was an issue, but I think a bigger issue was that by the time the problems with the Talos FCS were fixable, the Navy had put all their SAM development money into Typhon, seeing that as more promising. When Typhon didn't pan out, there weren't enough Talos ships to make upgrading them economically feasible, so instead the missiles were retired.

In today's environment, even with upgraded electronics Talos has the major problem of terrible reload rates - back in the days when the FCS had to guide the missiles the whole way and flight times were longer than the reload, it didn't matter much, but NTU/Aegis level improvements to the fire control system would mean that the whole system would be waiting on the launchers rather than the FCS. I'm pretty sure that's what killed all the Terrier ships as well - they had a great fire control system that could do shoot-shoot-look, but they couldn't fire fast enough to actually use that because the launchers were so slow.

IIRC there were fun proposals like making a Tomahawk version that could be fired from Talos launchers as way of making the Talos ships relevant into the 80s, but that too fell through...

 

[MadRat]

If they couldn't convert Baltimore-class in a meaningful way then Des Moines-class was even more screwed.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

If they couldn't convert Baltimore-class in a meaningful way then Des Moines-class was even more screwed.

The Albany-class were probably the best of the three-T conversions, certainly the most capable.

Converting the Des Moines would be a waste of the three best gun cruisers, for ships that are not all that much more capable than the Albany-class, having the same number of Talos missiles. With the Talos-Terrier design mid-range and short range armament could be greatly increased with the addition of Terrier, and with the number of Tartar launchers doubling, but the Regulus design has a basically identical armament to that of the Albany-class as designed.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The Albany-class were probably the best of the three-T conversions, certainly the most capable.

Converting the Des Moines would be a waste of the three best gun cruisers, for ships that are not all that much more capable than the Albany-class, having the same number of Talos missiles. With the Talos-Terrier design mid-range and short range armament could be greatly increased with the addition of Terrier, and with the number of Tartar launchers doubling, but the Regulus design has a basically identical armament to that of the Albany-class as designed.

But those missile conversions made the gun boats irrelevant and virtually obsolete for every role other than NGFS of amphibious operations, something 5" gun armed destroyers could do better. In a ship fight, the missile armed ships could and almost certainly would have crippled or sunk their opponents out to 20 to 30 NM using their missiles in surface-to-surface mode within two salvos. That performance cannot be matched by using 8" guns. By the 1960's the big gun on ships was an anachronism and completely obsolete with the possible exception of NGFS.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

But those missile conversions made the gun boats irrelevant and virtually obsolete for every role other than NGFS of amphibious operations, something 5" gun armed destroyers could do better. In a ship fight, the missile armed ships could and almost certainly would have crippled or sunk their opponents out to 20 to 30 NM using their missiles in surface-to-surface mode within two salvos. That performance cannot be matched by using 8" guns. By the 1960's the big gun on ships was an anachronism and completely obsolete with the possible exception of NGFS.

The Des Moines were vastly superior to a destroyer for NFGS, and required fewer crew than something like an Iowa.

Talos or Terrier in surface to surface mode were vastly superior to guns, but there significant numbers of war built cruisers on hand to convert, and it made sense to convert some of the less capable ships, which still had sufficient margins for a fairly capable armament.

Having the most modern guns as the reason for Des Moines and Worcester classes being preserved as gun cruisers is the reason put forward by Friedman in US Cruisers. It makes sense, especially the increased emphasis on limited wars by the US Navy from the late 1950s onwards. Unless something like the RGM-59 Taurus entered service, retention of some gun cruisers make sense, and if there isn't much to choose between AAW conversions, then it makes sense to convert the earlier less-capable cruisers, especially given some of the war built cruisers were placed almost immediately into reserve, and so had significant life left, having only 3 years of service, the Des Moines in comparison commissioned between 1948 and 1949, and were used continuously until 1958-62 (with the exception of Newport News, which remained in commission until 1974), so they may have had more wear than earlier ships.

 

[Firefinder]

Of course the most interesting thing that could have happened is the Navy going in on gun launch missiles like the SAM-N-9 Zeus.

Or was it the -7, and there was apparently to be a semi active homing version...

Anyways...


It could have lead to some interesting places, especially if the navy manage to make the directors the right size to fit on the turret.

A Gun ship lobing guiding projects be a very scary thing to deal with till like the 1980s.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Des Moines were vastly superior to a destroyer for NFGS, and required fewer crew than something like an Iowa.

Talos or Terrier in surface to surface mode were vastly superior to guns, but there significant number sof war built cruisers on hand to convert, and it made sense to convert some of the less capable ships, which still had sufficient margins for a fairly capable armament.

Having the most modern guns as the reason for Des Moines and Worcester classes being preserved as gun cruisers is the reason put forward by Friedman in US Cruisers. It makes sense, especially the increased emphasis on limited wars by the US Navy from the late 1950s onwards. Unless something like the RGM-59 Taurus entered service, retention of some gun cruisers make sense, and if there isn't much to choose between AAW conversions, then it makes sense to convert the earlier less-capable cruisers, especially given some of the war built cruisers were placed almost immediately into reserve, and so had significant life left, having only 3 years of service, the Des Moines in comparison commissioned between 1948 and 1949, and were used continuously until 1958-62 (with the exception of Newport News, which remained in commission until 1974, so they may have had more wear than earlier ships.

Fully agree with this.

The Des Memes and Wooster (butchering the names on purpose) classes were the peak of gun armed capabilities, alongside the Iowas. I'd keep them as gun armed ships as long as guns were useful, and concentrate on the older classes with lesser guns to convert into missile armed ships, too!

But by the 1980s, upgrading a Des Moines was nearly as costly as upgrading an Iowa per ship, and would cost more once you got to doing the plans of the conversion.

A fun thought would be dropping some Mk13 single arm launchers into the 5"/38 turret mounts in the 1960s or 70s, though it'd probably end up one Mk13 per every 2x 5"/38 turrets so that a guidance radar could take that other spot. So maybe 4x Mk13 in place of 6x 5"/38 turrets on the cruisers?

 

[CV12Hornet]

Fully agree with this.

The Des Memes and Wooster (butchering the names on purpose) classes were the peak of gun armed capabilities, alongside the Iowas. I'd keep them as gun armed ships as long as guns were useful, and concentrate on the older classes with lesser guns to convert into missile armed ships, too!

But by the 1980s, upgrading a Des Moines was nearly as costly as upgrading an Iowa per ship, and would cost more once you got to doing the plans of the conversion.

A fun thought would be dropping some Mk13 single arm launchers into the 5"/38 turret mounts in the 1960s or 70s, though it'd probably end up one Mk13 per every 2x 5"/38 turrets so that a guidance radar could take that other spot. So maybe 4x Mk13 in place of 6x 5"/38 turrets on the cruisers?

That's actually correct, as the Des Moines conversions called for four Mark 11 missile launchers.

 

[Scott Kenny]

A fun thought would be dropping some Mk13 single arm launchers into the 5"/38 turret mounts in the 1960s or 70s, though it'd probably end up one Mk13 per every 2x 5"/38 turrets so that a guidance radar could take that other spot. So maybe 4x Mk13 in place of 6x 5"/38 turrets on the cruisers?

That's actually correct, as the Des Moines conversions called for four Mark 11 missile launchers.

Was that two on each side, or bow/stern/port/starboard?

If it was possible I would have wanted to keep the bow/stern 5" turrets, even if they got swapped to a single 5"/54 Mk42.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The more I think about it, the more I think that a missile mount that could have replaced the twin 3"/50 or quad Bofors mounts would have been a really good idea. Something like the basic Sea Sparrow, but the need for guidance radars complicates that issue.

 

[Dilandu]

A fun thought would be dropping some Mk13 single arm launchers into the 5"/38 turret mounts in the 1960s or 70s, though it'd probably end up one Mk13 per every 2x 5"/38 turrets so that a guidance radar could take that other spot. So maybe 4x Mk13 in place of 6x 5"/38 turrets on the cruisers?

Sea Sparrow plus Sea Chaparral would most likely be a better idea.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Sea Sparrow plus Sea Chaparral would most likely be a better idea.

Sea Sparrow seems more of a fit for a drop in to the twin 3"/50 or quad Bofors 40 mount, but only one per side.

 

[MadRat]

For the crew's sake you probably do not want Chapparal when those motor caps fly off like metal frisbees. At least on land you had space for protecting people, but its a bit confined on a ship. Conversions just didn't have the electrical systems to handle heavy radars, fire control equipment, and modern computers of purpose-built ships. But they were great gun platforms.

Was there ever a ship-mounted Skysweeper version? Cost per round is much more reasonable than SAM's for defending an area. The rate of fire for the 75mm can be as high as 100 rounds per minute. Or you could go bigger guns. The modern 90mm can be as high as 50 rounds per minute in a burst mode. The 130mm can be as high as 30 rounds per minute in a burst mode. Of course you only fire a quick barrage at a target. You could deal with sustained saturation attacks much better than with SAM's. And the best part about it, everything could be automated to best handle the popup threats.

Ironic to refer to them as cruisers after a conversion considering they could have no hope operating independently. A modernized gun cruiser was perhaps a gun frigate even if it had missiles.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

For the crew's sake you probably do not want Chapparal when those motor caps fly off like metal frisbees. At least on land you had space for protecting people, but its a bit confined on a ship. Conversions just didn't have the electrical systems to handle heavy radars, fire control equipment, and modern computers of purpose-built ships. But they were great gun platforms.

Some of the Albany-class were fitted with NTDS, and had many more fire channels than the purpose built Terrier frigates. The main purpose of the conversions was to put the new missile systems to sea as quickly as possible, something which new builds couldn't do.

Was there ever a ship-mounted Skysweeper version? Cost per round is much more reasonable than SAM's for defending an area. The rate of fire for the 75mm can be as high as 100 rounds per minute. Or you could go bigger guns. The modern 90mm can be as high as 50 rounds per minute in a burst mode. The 130mm can be as high as 30 rounds per minute in a burst mode. Of course you only fire a quick barrage at a target. You could deal with sustained saturation attacks much better than with SAM's. And the best part about it, everything could be automated to best handle the popup threats.

The US Navy had the unsuccessful 3"/70 which was planned to have a rate of fire of 120rpm per minute per barrel, later downgraded to 90.

130mm guns were Soviet, and they manage circa 60 rpm from the A-217, and 40 rpm per minute per barrel from the AK-130. The 5"/54 Mk42 was capable of 40rpm and the British 5"/70 & 5"/62 QF Mk N1 was intended to achieve 60 rounds per minute.

Even early SAMs could probably deal with saturation attacks bette than guns, the maximum accurate range of naval anti-aircraft gunnery was 7000yds, RIM-8A could reach out to 50 miles, later versions in excess of 100, with Tartar to deal with the pop-up targets at close range.

Ironic to refer to them as cruisers after a conversion considering they could have no hope operating independently. A modernized gun cruiser was perhaps a gun frigate even if it had missiles.

The Albany-class were more capable than any other surface-combatant, other than Long Beach, of independent action. Not only were their SAMs capable of dealing with air and surface threats, they also had SQS-23 and ASROC to deal with sub-surface threats. Certainly superior to any gun cruiser in a Hot War, although the latter were still useful for Limited Wars.

 

[TomS]

For the crew's sake you probably do not want Chapparal when those motor caps fly off like metal frisbees. At least on land you had space for protecting people, but its a bit confined on a ship.

Sea Chaparral was a thing -- very briefly for the USN (just eight installations on FRAM DDs going to Vietnam in 1972 and 1973) but for decades in Taiwan. At General Quarters, the crew would be pretty much all inside the skin of the ship, so small bits flying off is a manageable risk. Look where the frangible cell covers go when Sea Sparrow, RAM, or just about any VLS lets fly.

Was there ever a ship-mounted Skysweeper version?

No, but the naval 3-inch/70 twin was even punchier (3400 fps, vs only 2800 for Skysweeper). It was also huge, and desperately unreliable at its designed ROF. And even that beast just really wasn't up to the task. As weird as it seems, even the early, very sketchy SAMs were clearly superior against jets by the 1950s.

 

[apparition13]

Of course the most interesting thing that could have happened is the Navy going in on gun launch missiles like the SAM-N-9 Zeus.

Or was it the -7, and there was apparently to be a semi active homing version...

Anyways...


It could have lead to some interesting places, especially if the navy manage to make the directors the right size to fit on the turret.

A Gun ship lobing guiding projects be a very scary thing to deal with till like the 1980s.

It's SAM-N-8. This would be my idea, use them to keep the development of guided AA shells active. When transistors arrive a decade or so later real progress would become possible. Were that the case, something like DART (and Vulcano) might occur much earlier. Basically I'd like to see what the gun launched guided shell "tech tree" would look like if development hadn't stalled.

 

[Archibald]

It's SAM-N-8. This would be my idea, use them to keep the development of guided AA shells active. When transistors arrive a decade or so later real progress would become possible. Were that the case, something like DART (and Vulcano) might occur much earlier. Basically I'd like to see what the gun launched guided shell "tech tree" would look like if development hadn't stalled.

Missiles out of guns ? sounds like a job for Gerald Bull... provided his pig of a character could be handled by anybody... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull

 

[Dilandu]

Sea Chaparral was a thing -- very briefly for the USN (just eight installations on FRAM DDs going to Vietnam in 1972 and 1973) but for decades in Taiwan. At General Quarters, the crew would be pretty much all inside the skin of the ship, so small bits flying off is a manageable risk. Look where the frangible cell covers go when Sea Sparrow, RAM, or just about any VLS lets fly.

I wonder: could Sea Chaparral launcher be also used to fire "Sea Sparrow"? Or at least modified AIM-9C missiles (semi-active homing Sidewinders)

 

[CV12Hornet]

Was that two on each side, or bow/stern/port/starboard?

If it was possible I would have wanted to keep the bow/stern 5" turrets, even if they got swapped to a single 5"/54 Mk42.

Two each side.

I wonder: could Sea Chaparral launcher be also used to fire "Sea Sparrow"? Or at least modified AIM-9C missiles (semi-active homing Sidewinders)

I doubt it, both because Sparrow is so much bigger than Sidewinder and because you need to fit some sort of guidance.

 

[Firefinder]

It might be able to later fit the AIM120 to make a SEA-SLAMRAAD.

But as far as I recall the USN never looked to the Sea Chaparral since they already had the Sea Sparrow and Phalanx.

 

[TomS]

It might be able to later fit the AIM120 to make a SEA-SLAMRAAD.

But as far as I recall the USN never looked to the Sea Chaparral since they already had the Sea Sparrow and Phalanx.

Sea Chaparral came first -- it was part of Hip Pocket, the interim systems tested before Phalanx and Sea Sparrow. And it wasn't great, because IR seekers of its generation could only really target jet engines from the rear. Which is not very useful for ship self-defense.

Later generations with front-quarter seekers, might have been useful, but by that point the USN was already working on RAM, which was basically Sidewinder plus a specialized ASMD seeker. Phalanx was actually supposed to be an interim fix before RAM was ready, but we know how that worked out...

 

[Brickmuppet]

Sea Chaparral came first -- it was part of Hip Pocket, the interim systems tested before Phalanx and Sea Sparrow. And it wasn't great, because IR seekers of its generation could only really target jet engines from the rear. Which is not very useful for ship self-defense.

Later generations with front-quarter seekers, might have been useful, but by that point the USN was already working on RAM, which was basically Sidewinder plus a specialized ASMD seeker. Phalanx was actually supposed to be an interim fix before RAM was ready, but we know how that worked out...

So...Sea Chaparral did not have the option of the SARH Sidewinders? It was a late '60s tailchaser as a point defense missile? Oh. I always wondered why it didn't get used more. That would explain it.

I would assume the Taiwanese versions used much better missiles later. Is that correct?

 

[TomS]

So...Sea Chaparral did not have the option of the SARH Sidewinders? It was a late '60s tailchaser as a point defense missile? Oh. I always wondered why it didn't get used more. That would explain it.

I would assume the Taiwanese versions used much better missiles later. Is that correct?

Yeah, they got the Chaparral RIM-72C* version with an all-aspect seeker, I think. There was eventually a version with the Stinger-POST IR/UV seeker as well, that I assume also went to Taiwan.

* It's not obvious to me why Chaparral/Sea Chaparral got a different numbering sequence from Sidewinder. It's not that different.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Sea Sparrow plus Sea Chaparral would most likely be a better idea.

Sea Chaparral was basically a non-starter, as the IR Sidewinders available at the time were tail chase only. Maybe if they used the AIM-9C SARH versions, but then that would require an illuminating radar same as Sea Sparrow...

Wait.

Did the AIM-9C use the same radar frequencies as the Sparrow? Because if they don't that means you could have a Sea Chaparral and Sea Sparrow covering each arc and not conflicting with each other. Which would be a worthwhile improvement over being stuck with a single launcher per side and only able to engage a single target per side. Trick would be setting up the systems so that the Sea Sparrow would engage the longer targets and the Sea Chaparral the ones that got past the Sea Sparrow. Radar range gating, maybe?