U.S. Navy Typhon Warships

[Grey Havoc]

Thanks for all the information.

So if Typhon had worked, was it planned for deployment in the early 1970s, or was it more being future proofed for jamming? I know jamming was a major issue for the SAGE system that was resolved around the early 1960s, so there would have been a good base of knowledge and practice to work from.

Future proofing.

 

[Delta Force]

So it would have been fielded sometime in the 1960s if things had worked out, and on a class of nuclear powered ships or large conventionally powered cruisers?

Quite ambitious all around, I can see why there were teething problems.

 

[sferrin]

So it would have been fielded sometime in the 1960s if things had worked out, and on a class of nuclear powered ships or large conventionally powered cruisers?

Quite ambitious all around, I can see why there were teething problems.

Consider that Typhon LR would have had kinematic performance the USN didn't have until they got the SM-2 Block IV (original model). Maybe better, as Typhon would have been powered all the way to the target and had larger wings which would help with high altitude maneuvering.

 

[bloody sky]

I just wonder what is the relationship between CB-2 Guam and the USN Typhon system?

 

[that_person]

I don’t think there is any. The Guam was scrapped while the Typhon was still in development, and even before the Norton Sound received her’s.

 

[uk 75]

If like me you are fascinated by Typhon you will enjoy the info contained in this creative thread.

Typhon Warship Challenge - Shipbucket

 

[uk 75]

This nice artwork shows the last configuration of the Typhon DLGN.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

This nice artwork shows the last configuration of the Typhon DLGN.

I don't think this is directly based on a real study, but seems to be a heavily modified version (presumably for the Russian website it appears to be from) of one of erik_t's images from Shipbucket, which in turn appears to have been partially based on the sketch from Friedman's cruisers. As far as I can tell, I don't believe any of the Typhon DLGN designs were going to have twin 5"/38 mountings, only a pair of single 5"/38 mountings, or later, a single 5"/54 lightweight mounting.

Here's the source of the original (un-doctored) image. As a explained by the author himself, it is loosely based on, but does not exactly follow the sketch of SCB 227 in Norman Friedman's US Cruisers.

 

[uk 75]

ATFP thanks for the corrections.

 

[NH 17]

The picture posted by Triton (from Freidman) pretty clearly shows 5/54 Mk 16 singles, not 5/38. It would make sense to some degree; these weapons were surplus (being removed from Midway around this era) and would have been much more effective in surface fire than the 5/38. Further I'd have to expect that backup AA utility was considered somewhat less critical on a ship with (in theory) such superb SAM armament.

Is there any other source that suggests 5/54 instead of 5/38? I'm loathe to assume anything just based on an artist's impression, but the drawing is clearly a careful and informed one.

Agreed. The mountings depicted look like Mk 16s. I have wondered why the USN did not make more use of surplus Mk 16s, such as in lieu of the 5" 38s installed on Garcia/Brooke-class DE/DEGs of 1964-69 (or even Long Beach). A total of 54 Mk 16s were originally installed on Midway-class carriers. By the late 50s, Midway and FDR had each landed 8 mounts, while Coral Sea lost 12. The JMSDF destroyer classes Murasame and Akizuke of 1957-60 would use 15 of these 28 spares. Midway had all remaining mounts removed during her 1966-70 rebuild, while her sisters were whittled down to 3 or 4 mounts, leaving enough to use 27 on the DE/DEGs. Perhaps the 5" 38 was just so handy, reliable and widely used that the Mk16s were seen as a poorer choice.

Getting back to the question about the Typhon ship picture, in all of the data listed in other posts, 5" 54s are mentioned or depicted only for the DDG version, and then in the A position. This image in question is clearly the DLGN version, with waist mounts. If it ever had come to be built, I doubt that Mk 16s would have been employed. Even Mk 42s were on their way out by 1971, which is perhaps a potential commissioning date. See the attached pic of a California model, where Mk 42s are present. She commissioned with Mk 45s.

 

[TomS]

The picture posted by Triton (from Freidman) pretty clearly shows 5/54 Mk 16 singles, not 5/38. It would make sense to some degree; these weapons were surplus (being removed from Midway around this era) and would have been much more effective in surface fire than the 5/38. Further I'd have to expect that backup AA utility was considered somewhat less critical on a ship with (in theory) such superb SAM armament.

Is there any other source that suggests 5/54 instead of 5/38? I'm loathe to assume anything just based on an artist's impression, but the drawing is clearly a careful and informed one.

Agreed. The mountings depicted look like Mk 16s. I have wondered why the USN did not make more use of surplus Mk 16s, such as in lieu of the 5" 38s installed on Garcia/Brooke-class DE/DEGs of 1964-69 (or even Long Beach). A total of 54 Mk 16s were originally installed on Midway-class carriers. By the late 50s, Midway and FDR had each landed 8 mounts, while Coral Sea lost 12. The JMSDF destroyer classes Murasame and Akizuke of 1957-60 would use 15 of these 28 spares. Midway had all remaining mounts removed during her 1966-70 rebuild, while her sisters were whittled down to 3 or 4 mounts, leaving enough to use 27 on the DE/DEGs. Perhaps the 5" 38 was just so handy, reliable and widely used that the Mk16s were seen as a poorer choice.

Getting back to the question about the Typhon ship picture, in all of the data listed in other posts, 5" 54s are mentioned or depicted only for the DDG version, and then in the A position. This image in question is clearly the DLGN version, with waist mounts. If it ever had come to be built, I doubt that Mk 16s would have been employed. Even Mk 42s were on their way out by 1971, which is perhaps a potential commissioning date. See the attached pic of a California model, where Mk 42s are present. She commissioned with Mk 45s.

View attachment 693293

Be careful of confusing gun designations (Mk 16) with mount designations; up until the Mk 43, these were different. The Mk 16 was a semi-automatic 5-inch/54 gun found in both the Mk 39 single mount (Midways and some Japanese ships) and in the abortive Mk 41 twin mount (Montana, etc.)

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

From Norman Friedman's US Cruisers, caption the sketch of Scheme F-2, p418:

Typhon DLGN SCB 227, scheme F-2 of 10 October 1961: 590 X 61 x 30 feet (including an SQS-26 sonar done), with a full-load displacement of 9,900 tons, and capable of a sustained speed of 28 knots. She had a long-range Typhon forward and a medium-range Typhon fore and aft in the small cylindrical Mk 14 launchers. The open circles port and starboard aft in the plan view represent single 5-in/38 mounts.

From Norman Friedman's US Destroyers, p338:

By January 1962, the 5-inch battery had been shaved to a single centerline 5-inch/38 or one lightweight 5-in./54, then in the discussion stage.

I'm not sure how close to reality the painting is. For one, the ship in the painting has a forecastle, whereas the only official sketch design that is publicly available is that of Design F-2 from October 1961, which is flush-decked (the original Scheme F it is based upon was drawn up in August of the same year, so I doubt the design changed that rapidly). The Typhon MR missiles are atop the Mk 14 launch rails, rather than underneath (the Mk 14 does seem to be a nuclear-compatible version of the Mk 13, judging by other conversations on this site).

See the two images for comparison:

 

[NH 17]

The picture posted by Triton (from Freidman) pretty clearly shows 5/54 Mk 16 singles, not 5/38. It would make sense to some degree; these weapons were surplus (being removed from Midway around this era) and would have been much more effective in surface fire than the 5/38. Further I'd have to expect that backup AA utility was considered somewhat less critical on a ship with (in theory) such superb SAM armament.

Is there any other source that suggests 5/54 instead of 5/38? I'm loathe to assume anything just based on an artist's impression, but the drawing is clearly a careful and informed one.

Agreed. The mountings depicted look like Mk 16s. I have wondered why the USN did not make more use of surplus Mk 16s, such as in lieu of the 5" 38s installed on Garcia/Brooke-class DE/DEGs of 1964-69 (or even Long Beach). A total of 54 Mk 16s were originally installed on Midway-class carriers. By the late 50s, Midway and FDR had each landed 8 mounts, while Coral Sea lost 12. The JMSDF destroyer classes Murasame and Akizuke of 1957-60 would use 15 of these 28 spares. Midway had all remaining mounts removed during her 1966-70 rebuild, while her sisters were whittled down to 3 or 4 mounts, leaving enough to use 27 on the DE/DEGs. Perhaps the 5" 38 was just so handy, reliable and widely used that the Mk16s were seen as a poorer choice.

Getting back to the question about the Typhon ship picture, in all of the data listed in other posts, 5" 54s are mentioned or depicted only for the DDG version, and then in the A position. This image in question is clearly the DLGN version, with waist mounts. If it ever had come to be built, I doubt that Mk 16s would have been employed. Even Mk 42s were on their way out by 1971, which is perhaps a potential commissioning date. See the attached pic of a California model, where Mk 42s are present. She commissioned with Mk 45s.

View attachment 693293

Be careful of confusing gun designations (Mk 16) with mount designations; up until the Mk 43, these were different. The Mk 16 was a semi-automatic 5-inch/54 gun found in both the Mk 39 single mount (Midways and some Japanese ships) and in the abortive Mk 41 twin mount (Montana, etc.)

Indeed they were, but in practice they were referred to by the gun designation. The references that I am familiar with refer to the gun and Mount as Mk 16, as does the original post that I am replying to.

 

[NH 17]

From Norman Friedman's US Cruisers, caption the sketch of Scheme F-2, p418:

Typhon DLGN SCB 227, scheme F-2 of 10 October 1961: 590 X 61 x 30 feet (including an SQS-26 sonar done), with a full-load displacement of 9,900 tons, and capable of a sustained speed of 28 knots. She had a long-range Typhon forward and a medium-range Typhon fore and aft in the small cylindrical Mk 14 launchers. The open circles port and starboard aft in the plan view represent single 5-in/38 mounts.

From Norman Friedman's US Destroyers, p338:

By January 1962, the 5-inch battery had been shaved to a single centerline 5-inch/38 or one lightweight 5-in./54, then in the discussion stage.

I'm not sure how close to reality the painting is. For one, the ship in the painting has a forecastle, whereas the only official sketch design that is publicly available is that of Design F-2 from October 1961, which is flush-decked (the original Scheme F it is based upon was drawn up in August of the same year, so I doubt the design changed that rapidly). The Typhon MR missiles are atop the Mk 14 launch rails, rather than underneath (the Mk 14 does seem to be a nuclear-compatible version of the Mk 13, judging by other conversations on this site).

See the two images for comparison:

View attachment 693310

View attachment 693311

The painting is dated September 25, 1961. What you refer to as the official sketch is dated 2 weeks later. Neither the painting, or the sketch reflect reality, as the Typhon DLGN never went beyond the painting/sketch stage. The original poster thought that the 5" mounts in the painting looked like Mk 16s. I agreed with him. See the pic at the bottom of this post. The Mk 16/39 gun/mount has sharper angles than the 5"38, and has what I take to be the gun mount captain's hatch. That is something I have not seen on a 5"38, and seems clear in the painting.

I have spent time in the National Archives, and guess that is where the bulk of Friedman's data comes from. He obviously is a fine researcher and annotator. However, the files on ships that I have investigated are filled with sketches of varying quality and detail. Placing undue value on one could be misleading, as there may be others at odds with those that came before or after. Some are clearly official data being laid down, while others are more casual notes made during conceptual meetings. I may be wrong, but scheme F-2 seems more like the latter.

The lightweight 5"/54 referred to in January of 1962 may be in reference to the Mk 16. I am not sure just when the Mk 45 development began, but January of '62 seems a bit early (It was tested on Norton Sound in 1968).

Since originally posting, I did learn that 61 5"/54 Mk 16/39s were built. One survives at White Sands Missile Range Museum.

 

[TomS]

Indeed they were, but in practice they were referred to by the gun designation. The references that I am familiar with refer to the gun and Mount as Mk 16, as does the original post that I am replying to.

Hmm. That seems very confusing, but perhaps they refer only to the Mk 39 mount this way since the various iterations of Mk 41 never reached production?

 

[Roodbaard1958!]

From Norman Friedman's US Cruisers, caption the sketch of Scheme F-2, p418:

Typhon DLGN SCB 227, scheme F-2 of 10 October 1961: 590 X 61 x 30 feet (including an SQS-26 sonar done), with a full-load displacement of 9,900 tons, and capable of a sustained speed of 28 knots. She had a long-range Typhon forward and a medium-range Typhon fore and aft in the small cylindrical Mk 14 launchers. The open circles port and starboard aft in the plan view represent single 5-in/38 mounts.

From Norman Friedman's US Destroyers, p338:

By January 1962, the 5-inch battery had been shaved to a single centerline 5-inch/38 or one lightweight 5-in./54, then in the discussion stage.

I'm not sure how close to reality the painting is. For one, the ship in the painting has a forecastle, whereas the only official sketch design that is publicly available is that of Design F-2 from October 1961, which is flush-decked (the original Scheme F it is based upon was drawn up in August of the same year, so I doubt the design changed that rapidly). The Typhon MR missiles are atop the Mk 14 launch rails, rather than underneath (the Mk 14 does seem to be a nuclear-compatible version of the Mk 13, judging by other conversations on this site).

See the two images for comparison:

View attachment 693310

View attachment 693311

The painting is dated September 25, 1961. What you refer to as the official sketch is dated 2 weeks later. Neither the painting, or the sketch reflect reality, as the Typhon DLGN never went beyond the painting/sketch stage. The original poster thought that the 5" mounts in the painting looked like Mk 16s. I agreed with him. See the pic at the bottom of this post. The Mk 16/39 gun/mount has sharper angles than the 5"38, and has what I take to be the gun mount captain's hatch. That is something I have not seen on a 5"38, and seems clear in the painting.

I have spent time in the National Archives, and guess that is where the bulk of Friedman's data comes from. He obviously is a fine researcher and annotator. However, the files on ships that I have investigated are filled with sketches of varying quality and detail. Placing undue value on one could be misleading, as there may be others at odds with those that came before or after. Some are clearly official data being laid down, while others are more casual notes made during conceptual meetings. I may be wrong, but scheme F-2 seems more like the latter.

The lightweight 5"/54 referred to in January of 1962 may be in reference to the Mk 16. I am not sure just when the Mk 45 development began, but January of '62 seems a bit early (It was tested on Norton Sound in 1968).

Since originally posting, I did learn that 61 5"/54 Mk 16/39s were built. One survives at White Sands Missile Range Museum.

View attachment 693349

The sketches you refer to are those of details or of 'hulls with superstructure and so on' and if so with or without technical characteristics like dimensions

 

[that_person]

From Norman Friedman's US Cruisers, caption the sketch of Scheme F-2, p418:

Typhon DLGN SCB 227, scheme F-2 of 10 October 1961: 590 X 61 x 30 feet (including an SQS-26 sonar done), with a full-load displacement of 9,900 tons, and capable of a sustained speed of 28 knots. She had a long-range Typhon forward and a medium-range Typhon fore and aft in the small cylindrical Mk 14 launchers. The open circles port and starboard aft in the plan view represent single 5-in/38 mounts.

From Norman Friedman's US Destroyers, p338:

By January 1962, the 5-inch battery had been shaved to a single centerline 5-inch/38 or one lightweight 5-in./54, then in the discussion stage.

I'm not sure how close to reality the painting is. For one, the ship in the painting has a forecastle, whereas the only official sketch design that is publicly available is that of Design F-2 from October 1961, which is flush-decked (the original Scheme F it is based upon was drawn up in August of the same year, so I doubt the design changed that rapidly). The Typhon MR missiles are atop the Mk 14 launch rails, rather than underneath (the Mk 14 does seem to be a nuclear-compatible version of the Mk 13, judging by other conversations on this site).

See the two images for comparison:

View attachment 693310

View attachment 693311

Noticed something odd here. Look at the single-arm launcher. At first glance, it's a Mk13, but it's upside down. The drawing calls it a "Mk14". Does anyone know anything else about it?

 

[NH 17]

Indeed they were, but in practice they were referred to by the gun designation. The references that I am familiar with refer to the gun and Mount as Mk 16, as does the original post that I am replying to.

Hmm. That seems very confusing, but perhaps they refer only to the Mk 39 mount this way since the various iterations of Mk 41 never reached production?

You will be interested in this link: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Gun_Nomenclature.php

 

[TomS]

Indeed they were, but in practice they were referred to by the gun designation. The references that I am familiar with refer to the gun and Mount as Mk 16, as does the original post that I am replying to.

Hmm. That seems very confusing, but perhaps they refer only to the Mk 39 mount this way since the various iterations of Mk 41 never reached production?

You will be interested in this link: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Gun_Nomenclature.php

Quite familiar with this (and Friedman's US Naval Weapons, which seems to be the main source.) Tony D. and I have exchanged info a few times over the years, and once upon a time I also did some work with Dr. Friedman (mostly digging out references for his revised US Destroyers). My interests are mainly later, so I had not seen the use of Mk 16 as you describe but I don't doubt it.

 

[NH 17]

From Norman Friedman's US Cruisers, caption the sketch of Scheme F-2, p418:

Typhon DLGN SCB 227, scheme F-2 of 10 October 1961: 590 X 61 x 30 feet (including an SQS-26 sonar done), with a full-load displacement of 9,900 tons, and capable of a sustained speed of 28 knots. She had a long-range Typhon forward and a medium-range Typhon fore and aft in the small cylindrical Mk 14 launchers. The open circles port and starboard aft in the plan view represent single 5-in/38 mounts.

From Norman Friedman's US Destroyers, p338:

By January 1962, the 5-inch battery had been shaved to a single centerline 5-inch/38 or one lightweight 5-in./54, then in the discussion stage.

I'm not sure how close to reality the painting is. For one, the ship in the painting has a forecastle, whereas the only official sketch design that is publicly available is that of Design F-2 from October 1961, which is flush-decked (the original Scheme F it is based upon was drawn up in August of the same year, so I doubt the design changed that rapidly). The Typhon MR missiles are atop the Mk 14 launch rails, rather than underneath (the Mk 14 does seem to be a nuclear-compatible version of the Mk 13, judging by other conversations on this site).

See the two images for comparison:

View attachment 693310

View attachment 693311

Noticed something odd here. Look at the single-arm launcher. At first glance, it's a Mk13, but it's upside down. The drawing calls it a "Mk14". Does anyone know anything else about it?

The Mk 14 designation appears to have been a placeholder for a projected Medium Range launcher that was never built (or designed). The drawing of the launcher does appear to have it upside down. I don't know why (artistic license?). The plan was for a MR missile to be compatible with the Mk 13 launcher, with connecting shoes as in Tarter missile rounds. That doesn't jive with the painting.

Here is a picture of the Long Range launcher. It has a single arm and appears to be more of a job shop configuration just for test purposes rather than any kind of ship board installation. It is not upside down!

 

[TomS]

Friedman has Mk 14 as a modified Mk 13 with nuclear weapon safety provisions. I think I saw the same in a JHU APL pub but I can't find it again right now.

If this is accurate, I assume the modifications would include nuke locks on at least some of the storage rails and a way to access those locks from the outside when needed.

 

[NH 17]

Friedman has Mk 14 as a modified Mk 13 with nuclear weapon provisions. I think I saw the same in a JHU APL pub but I can't find it again right now.

If so, I assume those modifications would include nuke locks on at least some of the rails and a way to access those locks from the outside when needed.

The Mk 14 was for the MR (RIM-55A), which, as for as I know, was not to be nuclear capable. Got that from a Norman Polmar article, if not elsewhere.

 

[TomS]

Friedman has Mk 14 as a modified Mk 13 with nuclear weapon provisions. I think I saw the same in a JHU APL pub but I can't find it again right now.

If so, I assume those modifications would include nuke locks on at least some of the rails and a way to access those locks from the outside when needed.

The Mk 14 was for the MR (RIM-55A), which, as for as I know, was not to be nuclear capable. Got that from a Norman Polmar article, if not elsewhere.

Polmar is mistaken on this one.

Attachment is a Naval Weapons pub from 1962. Around page 23 (29 in the PDF) is a description of the Typhon MR ordnance section, which says it had a nuclear option.

Same in the Gussow JHU APL article, TYPHON - A WEAPON SYSTEM AHEAD OF ITS TIME.

 

[NH 17]

Friedman has Mk 14 as a modified Mk 13 with nuclear weapon provisions. I think I saw the same in a JHU APL pub but I can't find it again right now.

If so, I assume those modifications would include nuke locks on at least some of the rails and a way to access those locks from the outside when needed.

The Mk 14 was for the MR (RIM-55A), which, as for as I know, was not to be nuclear capable. Got that from a Norman Polmar article, if not elsewhere.

Polmar is mistaken on this one.

Attachment is a Naval Weapons pub from 1962. Around page 23 (29 in the PDF) is a description of the Typhon MR ordnance section, which says it had a nuclear option.

Same in the Gussow JHU APL article, TYPHON - A WEAPON SYSTEM AHEAD OF ITS TIME.

Thanks for this. Will check it out later.

 

[uk 75]

I have always been fascinated by this DLGN. It is odd that so little information about the ship or ships exists.
Its armament seems to correspond to Long Beach with two MR systems and one ER plus guns (fitted on ships newer than Leahy/Bainbridge). No ASROC pepper box so was the MR launcher also intended for ASROC (which had a nuke head on some).
Were drawings ever produced by or for the shipyard?
Truxtun was the nuclear version of Belknap and was the.last Terrier equipped DLGN.
The Californias suggest that two Typhon DLGN might have been ordered initially. But there is no similarity between the ships.

 

[TomS]

No ASROC pepper box so was the MR launcher also intended for ASROC

More likely the LR launcher, since it was apparently related to the Mk 10, which could also handle ASROC in some versions.

Thanks for this. Will check it out later.

No problem. This one was new to me today, apparently declassified under FOIA back in 2000 but never showed up before.

Worth noting that this late 1962 bulletin also has an item about the new lightweight 5-inch/54 then under development. It's clearly the gun that became the Mk 45.

 

[NH 17]

No ASROC pepper box so was the MR launcher also intended for ASROC

More likely the LR launcher, since it was apparently related to the Mk 10, which could also handle ASROC in some versions.

Thanks for this. Will check it out later.

No problem. This one was new to me today, apparently declassified under FOIA back in 2000 but never showed up before.

Worth noting that this late 1962 bulletin also has an item about the new lightweight 5-inch/54 then under development. It's clearly the gun that became the Mk 45.

Well, that was definitive. Then, as you point out, the pub goes on to answer the Mk 45 question. So much of what we post here is speculation and opinion, then something like this comes along with complete clarity.

The JHU APL article should be read by everyone with an interest in the Typhon story

 

[uk 75]

The Typhon ER round is more like Talos than the Terrier/Standard ER round carried by the Belknap/Leahy and the Italian Veneto ASROC launchers. Remembering the problems with using a Seadart launcher fo Ikara ASW rounds I plumped for the Typhon MR as it was the same size and shape as Tartar/Standard?

 

[TomS]

The Typhon ER round is more like Talos than the Terrier/Standard ER round carried by the Belknap/Leahy and the Italian Veneto ASROC launchers. Remembering the problems with using a Seadart launcher fo Ikara ASW rounds I plumped for the Typhon MR as it was the same size and shape as Tartar/Standard?

Typhon LR was closer in size to Terrier than Talos. The production booster would have been a half-inch fatter but the overall missile was just about 100-lbs heavier. Also, the Typhon LR launcher was related to/derived from the Terrier Mk 10 launcher. In the drawing, you can see that the magazine is deep, probably three rings with the upper rings holding a mix of Typhon LR and ASROC the same way the Mk 10 did.

Dimensions of the missile are discussed here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...-general-dynamics-typhon-sam.7028/post-523029

 

[uk 75]

Do we have any information on the DLGN vessel itself? How would it have compared with Truxtun and California? The drawing and artist's impression show a very different looking ship.

 

[Tzoli]

Yes, here is the general look of them:

The Medium Range looks very similar to the SM-1 Standard Missiles

Note the compability "shoes" for the Mark 10 and 13 launchers

 

[Tzoli]

There were a number of Typhon designs:
Super Talos Design Sketch from 1958: (Basically CG or CGN)
Dimensions: 193,55 (wl) x 19,5m
Engines: Likely 60.000shp Steam Turbines or CONAS/CONAD (funnels seems too small on the sketch)
Speed: 59km/h (32knots)
Armament:
2x1 RIM-50 Typhon LR
4x1 RIM-55 Typhon MR
1x8 RUR-5 ASROC
2x1 or 2x3 324mm Torpedo Tubes
1x QH-50 Dash Helicopter
Radars:
4x SPS-32
4x SPS-33
4x SPG-59 receivers
4x SPG-59 transmitter
1x SQS-26

Super Tartar Design Sketch from 1958: (Basically CGN)
Dimensions: 163,07 (wl) x 16,15 x 5,33m
Engines: Likely 60.000shp Nuclear Reactors likely D2G
Speed: 58km/h (31,5knots)
Armament:
1x1 5"/54 Mark 18
2x1 RIM-55 Typhon MR
1x8 RUR-5 ASROC
2x1 or 2x3 324mm Torpedo Tubes
1x QH-50 Dash Helicopter
Radars:
1x SPS-13
1x SPS-26
4x Advanced Dish antennas for Typhon Guidance, not SPG-59 type
1x SQS-26



Typhon Spcetrum Study 1 from 1960: (Basically CG)
Dimensions: 213,36 (wl) x 21,95 x 5,33m
Displacement: 16.800tons full load
Engines: 120.000shp Steam Turbines
Range: 14.800km (8.000nm)
Speed: 57km/h (31knots)
Armament:
1x8 UGM-27 Polaris
2x1 RIM-50 Typhon LR
4x1 RIM-55 Typhon MR
1x1 RUR-5 ASROC
1x QH-50 Dash Helicopter
Radars:
1x SPS-43
1x SPG-59
1x SQS-26

Typhon Spcetrum Study 2 from 1960: (Basically CG)
Dimensions: 188,97 (wl) x 20,42m
Displacement: 13.800tons full load
Engines: 110.000shp Steam Turbines
Range: 12.900km (7.000nm)
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armament:
2x1 RIM-50 Typhon LR
4x1 RIM-55 Typhon MR
1x1 RUR-5 ASROC
1x QH-50 Dash Helicopter
Radars:
1x SPS-43
1x SPG-59
1x SQS-26

Typhon Spcetrum Study 3 from 1960: (Basically CG)
Dimensions: 176,78 (wl) x 19,20m
Displacement: 11.900tons full load
Engines: 110.000shp Steam Turbines
Range: 12.900km (7.000nm)
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armament:
1x1 RIM-50 Typhon LR
2x1 RIM-55 Typhon MR
1x1 RUR-5 ASROC
1x QH-50 Dash Helicopter
Radars:
1x SPS-43
1x SPG-59
1x SQS-26

Typhon Spcetrum Study 4 from 1960: (Basically CG)
Dimensions: 164,6m (wl)
Displacement: 8.400tons full load
Engines: 85.000shp Steam Turbines
Range: 12.900km (7.000nm)
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armament:
1x1 RIM-50 Typhon LR
2x1 RIM-55 Typhon MR
1x1 RUR-5 ASROC
1x QH-50 Dash Helicopter
Radars:
1x SPS-43
1x SPG-59
1x SQS-26


DLGN Scheme A from 1961: (Basically CG)
Dimensions: 170,7 (wl) x 17,68m
Displacement: 9.160tons full load
Engines: 90.000shp Steam Turbines
Range: 12.900km (7.000nm)
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armament:
2x1 5"/38 Mark 12
1x1 RIM-50 Typhon LR
2x1 RIM-55 Typhon MR
1x1 RUR-5 ASROC
Radars:
1x SPS-43
1x SPG-59
1x SQS-26

DLGN Scheme D-1 from 1961: (Basically CG)
Dimensions: 164,6 (wl) x 17,68m
Displacement: 8.720tons full load
Engines: 90.000shp Steam Turbines
Range: 12.900km (7.000nm)
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armament:
2x1 5"/38 Mark 12
2x1 RIM-55 Typhon MR
2x1 or 1x8 RUR-5 ASROC
Radars:
1x SPS-43
1x SPG-59
1x SQS-26

DLGN Scheme F-1 from 1961: (Basically CGN)
Dimensions: 176,78 (wl) x 18,59 x 9,14m
Displacement: 9.700tons full load
Engines: 60.000shp Nuclear Reactors, D2G
Speed: 52km/h (28knots)
Armament:
2x1 5"/38 Mark 12
1x1 RIM-50 Typhon LR
2x1 RIM-55 Typhon MR
1x1 RUR-5 ASROC
2x1 533mm, 2x3 324mm Torpedo Tubes
3x QH-50 Dash Helicopter
Radars:
1x SPS-43
1x SPG-59
1x SQS-26

DLGN Scheme F-2 from 1961: (Basically CGN)
Dimensions: 179,83 (wl) x 18,59 x 9,14m
Displacement: 9.900tons full load
Engines: 60.000shp Nuclear Reactors, D2G
Speed: 52km/h (28knots)
Armament:
2x1 5"/38 Mark 12
1x1 RIM-50 Typhon LR
2x1 RIM-55 Typhon MR
1x1 RUR-5 ASROC
3x QH-50 Dash Helicopter
Radars:
1x SPS-43
1x SPG-59
1x SQS-26

DLGN Scheme G from 1961: (Basically CGN)
Dimensions: 190,8 (wl) x 18,59 x 9,14m
Displacement: 11.500tons full load
Engines: 90.000shp CONAG, D2G Reactors and maybe FT4 Gas Turbines
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armament:
2x1 5"/38 Mark 12
1x1 RIM-50 Typhon LR
2x1 RIM-55 Typhon MR
1x1 RUR-5 ASROC
Radars:
1x SPS-43
1x SPG-59
1x SQS-26

DLGN Scheme H from 1961: (Basically CGN)
Dimensions: 205,748 (wl) x 22,55 x 9,14m
Displacement: 16.100tons full load
Engines: 90.000shp Nuclear Reactors, D2G
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armament:
2x1 5"/38 Mark 12
1x1 RIM-50 Typhon LR
3x1 RIM-55 Typhon MR
1x1 RUR-5 ASROC
Radars:
1x SPS-43
1x SPG-59
1x SQS-26

DLGN Scheme L from 1961: (Basically CGN)
Dimensions: 170,7 (wl) x 18,29m
Displacement: 9.260tons full load
Engines: 60.000shp Nuclear Reactors, D2G
Speed: 52km/h (28knots)
Armament:
2x1 5"/38 Mark 12
2x1 RIM-55 Typhon MR
2x1 or 1x8 RUR-5 ASROC
Radars:
1x SPS-43
1x SPG-59
1x SQS-26



Typhon Design 1 / SCB-227 1962: (Basically CGN)
Dimensions: 182,88 (wl) x 18,9 x 6,25m
Displacement: 9.951tons standard, 10.902tons full load
Engines: 100.000shp Nuclear Reactors, D2G
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armament:
1x1 5"/54 Mark 18
1x1 RIM-50 Typhon LR
2x1 RIM-55 Typhon MR
2x1 RUR-5 ASROC
1x QH-50 Dash Helicopter
2x1 533mm, 2x3 324mm Torpedo Tubes
Radars:
1x SPS-43
1x SPG-59
1x SQS-26

Typhon Design 1 / SCB-240.65 1962: (Basically CGN)
Dimensions: 198,12 (wl) x 19,2 x 6,4m
Displacement: 10.000tons standard, 12.000tons full load
Engines: 100.000shp Nuclear Reactors, D2G
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armament:
1x1 5"/54 Mark 18
1x1 RIM-50 Typhon LR
1x1 RIM-55 Typhon MR
1x1 RUR-5 ASROC
2x1 533mm, 2x3 324mm Torpedo Tubes
Radars:
1x SPS-43
1x SPG-59
1x SQS-26





Des Moines (Conversion Proposal) from 1962 (Basically CAG)
Dimensions: 213,4 (wl) x 218,4 (oa) 23 x 7,92m
Displacement: Unknown, around 17.255tons
Engines: 120.000shp Steam Turbines
Range: 19.400km (10.500nm)
Speed: 61km/h (33knots)
Armour: 152mm Belt, 95mm Deck
Armament:
1x3 8"/55 RF Mark 16
1x1 5"/54 Mark 18
2x2 5"/38 Mark 12
2x1 RIM-50 Typhon LR
2x1 RIM-55 Typhon MR
2x1 RUR-5 ASROC
2x1 or 2x3 324mm Torpedo Tubes
2x HU-2K Helicopters
Radars:
1x SPS-43
1x SPG-59
1x SQS-26




Design SCB-211A Fleet Carrier from 1961
Dimensions: 310,9 (wl or oa)
Displacement: 90.530tons full load
Engines: 180.000shp Nuclear Reactors, A3W
Speed: 54km/h (29knots)
Armament:
2x1 RIM-55 Typhon MR
Radars:
1x SPG-59

 

[Tzoli]

Does anybody knows the dimensions of the SPG-59 systems? How large would be the radomes and the Pyramidal structure supporting them?

 

[Firefinder]

Does anybody knows the dimensions of the SPG-59 systems? How large would be the radomes and the Pyramidal structure supporting them?

which one?

There was two.

A big one for cruiser plus size ships and a Small one for destroyers.

And shipbucket wiki has a good break down for it there a PDF somewhere here that lists the size.

 

[Tzoli]

Actually there were 3:
10.000 element one
7.000 element one
3.400 element one

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

TYPHON's AN/SPG-59 Radar

An artist's rendering of the TYPHON radar dome similar to the one on Norton Sound in 1964. The radar proper consisted of the conical top with five spherical Luneberg arrays, one at the top for transmitting and four around the sides for receiving. "Inside the many microwave connections of waveguides, feedhorns, switches, and other components give the appearance of 'microwave spaghetti.'" (Gussow)

Photo No. None
Source: "USS Norton Sound Ship's Log" brochure in the NHHC Ships Histories files

Source

 

[Tzoli]

Very nice find! I think this is the big, 10.000 element variant?

 

[TomS]

Amazing image. I've never seen it in years of looking at Typhon stuff. It really helps understand what the whole computing Luneberg lens was about. It's the sphere buried down in the hull of the ship. I'm sure that if Typhon had been deployed, it would have been called the Crystal Ball.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Very nice find! I think this is the big, 10.000 element variant?

No, apparently the original source (cited on the website where I found the image) is Norton Sound's Log Book, so I assume it was the 3400-element design that was fitted to her.

 

[Tzoli]

Indeed that should be the case, though the description likely be for the larger 7 or10.000element one as to my knowledge the small version was the 4 dome one and the description tells of a 5 dome one.