Ticondaroga class rear 5 inch turret

[Cjc]

I honestly have no idea if this is the right place for this question, and if this isn't the place would the mods kindly move it to the right forum.

My question is, if the rear 5 inch gun on the ticondaroga was removed how many vls cells could be placed there. It seems like if the deck was raised to the same level as the rear vls cells then another 61 cell battery could be placed there but that may be to much.

And as am already here, I know the ticondaroga class was built during the time in which the usn was really looking to replacing all there 5 inch guns with 8 inch guns, but I don't know if the ticondaroga class was built with that in mind. And if it was how many cells from the forward battery would need to be removed inorder to fit the 8 inch gun in place of the 5 inch gun.

 

[that_person]

My question is, if the rear 5 inch gun on the ticondaroga was removed how many vls cells could be placed there.

None, even self-defense length cells would be to tall. I suspect the steering gear is right underneath the aft gun too.

It seems like if the deck was raised to the same level

Ticos already suffer from weight issues. Raising the fantail will only exacerbate that. If we are to handwave this issue, the shear weight of the Mk41 will prevent installation of a meaningful number of cells.

I know the ticondaroga class was built during the time in which the usn was really looking to replacing all there 5 inch guns with 8 inch guns, but I don't know if the ticondaroga class was built with that in mind.

Incorrect. They wanted to supplement 5” guns with a small number of 8-inchers. Even in the original Spruance design, and hell even some of the fire support ship sketches, Mk45s were retained alongside Mk71s. There is simply too much of a weight disparity between the Mk71 and Mk45. On top of that, the Mk71 installation is a lot bigger, and requires an entire extra deck of space to house the full magazine.

I don’t believe the Navy ever expressed interest in adding a Mk71 to the Ticos. Also note only the forward mount could receive this upgrade, as the aft gun doesn’t have enough deck beneath it.
The Spruance conversions plans called for a 29-cell module in exchange for a Mk71. This should be treated as a bare minimum for the Ticos, as adding AEGIS and the aft VLS mount ate up nearly all the growth potential of the hull. You might need to remove the entire forward VLS block.

I make this claim based off the modular SSES program from the mid-80s, which stated a 61-cell Mk41 and Mk71 would use the same size module.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

As built most Sprunces didn't have any VLS and instead just had an ASROC box launcher up front, I'm not sure what the timeline was of building or upgrading them with the VLS. Was the Mk71 still being considered for integration by that time?

 

[Dilandu]

don’t believe the Navy ever expressed interest in adding a Mk71 to the Ticos

Ironically, it would most likely solve all gun support problems and save a lot of money.

 

[BlackBat242]

As built most Sprunces didn't have any VLS and instead just had an ASROC box launcher up front, I'm not sure what the timeline was of building or upgrading them with the VLS. Was the Mk71 still being considered for integration by that time?

The Spruance design included "provisions for installing a Mk71 in place of the forward Mk45" - they were all built that way, to the point that even the Kidds were built with room available for a Mk71 forward.

In all ships that unallocated space was quickly filled with other equipment during the course of refits, overhauls, and updating of systems etc over their service life.

The last Spruance class DD was commissioned in 1983 - the first VLS installed was in 1986-87.

The Mk71 was canceled in 1978 - the last 3 Spruances were laid down in March 1978, April 1978, and October 1980.

The 4 Kidds were laid down in June & October 1978 and February & May 1979.