US double ended Missile Cruiser conversions

[uk 75]

Amongst my favourite warships were the dramatic US Navy Albany class double ended missile ships.
According to the Friedman US Navy cruisers and battleship books more conversions like this were planned.
My favourite Mack conversion would have been the unfinished battleship Kentucky

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/iowa-and-alaska-class-conversion-projects.7220/post-352170

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Looking at these conversions they always looked especially unstable with that very tall superstructure. Why was it felt necessary when the Talos fire control radar sets weren't even mounted on top of it?

 

[TomS]

Looking at these conversions they always looked especially unstable with that very tall superstructure. Why was it felt necessary when the Talos fire control radar sets weren't even mounted on top of it?

Missile fire control electronics were in there, along with, I believe, the flag plot and staff accommodation.

 

[Tzoli]

The superstructure might be tall but also narrow so less weight as one thought. The two other tall things are the macks (mast-stacks (funnels)) which again not that heavy weight. But indeed these conversions had topweight issues due to losing ammo deep in the hull yet the missiles are mostlyabove the waterline.

 

[Dilandu]

Amongst my favourite warships were the dramatic US Navy Albany class double ended missile ships.

Mine too) Their tall, square superstructures, massive antennas are essentially the embodiment of the dawn of missile & nuclear age.

 

[Archibald]

Also the embodiment of ugliness, incidentally...

 

[Dilandu]

Also the embodiment of ugliness, incdentally...

(accusingly) You, sir, have no fascion sence!

 

[Tzoli]

Also the embodiment of ugliness, incdentally...

Then you yet to see the USN Zumwalt the RN Daring (Type 45) or the Swedish Visby classes

 

[SSgtC]

Also the embodiment of ugliness, incdentally...

Then you yet to see the USN Zumwalt the RN Daring (Type 45) or the Swedish Visby classes

You just had to mention the Zumwalt didn't you? I was having a good day. We were all having a good day...

 

[Tzoli]

You just had to mention the Zumwalt didn't you? I was having a good day. We were all having a good day...

I like this comment XD

 

[Moose]

Also the embodiment of ugliness, incdentally...

Then you yet to see the USN Zumwalt the RN Daring (Type 45) or the Swedish Visby classes

You just had to mention the Zumwalt didn't you? I was having a good day. We were all having a good day...

Long Beach?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Long Beach?

Sacrilege!

 

[SSgtC]

Also the embodiment of ugliness, incdentally...

Then you yet to see the USN Zumwalt the RN Daring (Type 45) or the Swedish Visby classes

You just had to mention the Zumwalt didn't you? I was having a good day. We were all having a good day...

Long Beach?

At least Long Beach had a reason to look the way she did! The SCANFAR radar was a bitch to mount. There is literally no reason for Zumwalt to look the way she does. Yes, I know: stealth. They didn't need a damn tumblehome hull for stealth

 

[Archibald]

At least Long Beach had a reason to look the way she did! The SCANFAR radar was a bitch to mount. There is literally no reason for Zumwalt to look the way she does. Yes, I know: stealth. They didn't need a damn tumblehome hull for stealth

The supreme, absolute shame is that tumblehome hull is reminiscent of the late 19th century French battleships... the horror, the horror.

Wait...

Cheaper, smaller combat warships ?

Seemingly build by drunken naval architects ?

With tumblehome hulls ?

OMG...

...it just dawned on me... is Zumwalt Jeune école applied to USN ? OMG...

 

[SSgtC]

At least Long Beach had a reason to look the way she did! The SCANFAR radar was a bitch to mount. There is literally no reason for Zumwalt to look the way she does. Yes, I know: stealth. They didn't need a damn tumblehome hull for stealth

The supreme, absolute shame is that tumblehome hull is reminiscent of the late 19th century French battleships... the horror, the horror.

Wait...

Cheaper, smaller combat warships ?

Seemingly build by drunken naval architects ?

With tumblehome hulls ?

OMG...

...it just dawned on me... is Zumwalt Jeune école applied to USN ? OMG...

No, that's the LCS. Zumwalt is many things. But cheaper and smaller ain't one of em.

 

[Archibald]

Ah dang. I mistook an horror for another horror.

so let me formulate it differently...

Is LCS the jeune école (catastrophic) dogma trying to doom USN ?

 

[SSgtC]

Ah dang. I mistook an horror for another horror.

so let me formulate it differently...

Is LCS the jeune école (catastrophic) dogma trying to doom USN ?

That's ok. We're all traumatized by those two. It's ok buddy. They can't hurt you. Seriously, they can't. Their weapons don't work.

 

[M. A. Rozon]

The superstructure might be tall but also narrow so less weight as one thought. The two other tall things are the macks (mast-stacks (funnels)) which again not that heavy weight. But indeed these conversions had topweight issues due to losing ammo deep in the hull yet the missiles are mostlyabove the waterline.

With regards to topweight and Superstructure, much of the new superstructure was constructed from aluminum in order to save weight. In places, the metal was three inches thick. Areas of the structure that were to be subject to blast from rocket motors was constructed of steel. As for placement of the missiles, the Talos magazine was mostly buried in the Hull. This accounted for some of the expense of their conversion. The previous conversions (the CLGs) had their magazines on the weather deck.

Personally, I have always been fascinated by this generation of missile ships and all of the proposed conversions that never took place.

 

[Archibald]

Personally, I have always been fascinated by this generation of missile ships and all of the proposed conversions that never took place.

Me too. It was kind of "big gun ships" last chance to shine. Light cruisers, heavy cruisers, battlecruisers, treaty battleships, full-blown-battleships.
There were plenty of finished, unfinished and mothballed ships that never got a *second* chance - Worcesters, Baltimore, Oregon, Des Moines, Alaska, South Dakota, North Carolina, Iowas... imagine, if some kind of "silver bullet" had them all turned into guided missile ships and put back into service...

...and instead, capital ships shrunk to the tonnage of large destroyers. Try telling that to WWII USN, that destroyer / frigates would kill every single ship class larger than 10 000 tons. Except for aircraft carriers or amphibious, of course.

 

[TomS]

At least Long Beach had a reason to look the way she did! The SCANFAR radar was a bitch to mount. There is literally no reason for Zumwalt to look the way she does. Yes, I know: stealth. They didn't need a damn tumblehome hull for stealth

Yes, they did. It's the only reason they adopted that shape.

 

[SSgtC]

Personally, I have always been fascinated by this generation of missile ships and all of the proposed conversions that never took place.

Me too. It was kind of "big gun ships" last chance to shine. Light cruisers, heavy cruisers, battlecruisers, treaty battleships, full-blown-battleships.
There were plenty of finished, unfinished and mothballed ships that never got a *second* chance - Worcesters, Baltimore, Oregon, Des Moines, Alaska, South Dakota, North Carolina, Iowas... imagine, if some kind of "silver bullet" had them all turned into guided missile ships and put back into service...

...and instead, capital ships shrunk to the tonnage of large destroyers. Try telling that to WWII USN, that destroyer / frigates would kill every single ship class larger than 10 000 tons. Except for aircraft carriers or amphibious, of course.

The problem with converting the big ships is that, given the fire control technology of the day, they couldn't guide any more missiles than the smaller cheaper cruisers. And given you could operate two Albany class with the same manpower as Kentucky, it makes more sense to guide twice as many missiles with two ships than convert a battleship.

 

[Tzoli]

Long Beach?

Sacrilege!

Naah, Long Beach is not ugly she was just unique! The last and first of her kind, and her boxy superstructure what made her unique!

 

[Tzoli]

Personally, I have always been fascinated by this generation of missile ships and all of the proposed conversions that never took place.

Me too. It was kind of "big gun ships" last chance to shine. Light cruisers, heavy cruisers, battlecruisers, treaty battleships, full-blown-battleships.
There were plenty of finished, unfinished and mothballed ships that never got a *second* chance - Worcesters, Baltimore, Oregon, Des Moines, Alaska, South Dakota, North Carolina, Iowas... imagine, if some kind of "silver bullet" had them all turned into guided missile ships and put back into service...

...and instead, capital ships shrunk to the tonnage of large destroyers. Try telling that to WWII USN, that destroyer / frigates would kill every single ship class larger than 10 000 tons. Except for aircraft carriers or amphibious, of course.

Yes.. though nowadays only a handful of ships armoured and those armour were only for vital spaces. Try to sink a Baltimore with standard SAM! I know Harpoons but Standard outrange them by many times!
That is why I prefer the soviet anti ship missiles, now THOSE have range!

 

[Archibald]

Personally, I have always been fascinated by this generation of missile ships and all of the proposed conversions that never took place.

Me too. It was kind of "big gun ships" last chance to shine. Light cruisers, heavy cruisers, battlecruisers, treaty battleships, full-blown-battleships.
There were plenty of finished, unfinished and mothballed ships that never got a *second* chance - Worcesters, Baltimore, Oregon, Des Moines, Alaska, South Dakota, North Carolina, Iowas... imagine, if some kind of "silver bullet" had them all turned into guided missile ships and put back into service...

...and instead, capital ships shrunk to the tonnage of large destroyers. Try telling that to WWII USN, that destroyer / frigates would kill every single ship class larger than 10 000 tons. Except for aircraft carriers or amphibious, of course.

The problem with converting the big ships is that, given the fire control technology of the day, they couldn't guide any more missiles than the smaller cheaper cruisers. And given you could operate two Albany class with the same manpower as Kentucky, it makes more sense to guide twice as many missiles with two ships than convert a battleship.

That's why we needed a successfull "proto AEGIS" Typhoon system. Of course late 50's state-of-the-art would not allow it (just like the Arrow and Skylancer Sparrow II "proto AMRAAM".

Where is the "Moore law" when you need it ?

 

[Tzoli]

As of USS Albany:

 

[sferrin]

Also the embodiment of ugliness, incdentally...

Then you yet to see the USN Zumwalt the RN Daring (Type 45) or the Swedish Visby classes

This reminds me of people who think the 5th gen aircraft are ugly because they don't look like F-104s or Mirages. I'll take "more effective" over "looks pretty" all day long.

 

[SSgtC]

Also the embodiment of ugliness, incdentally...

Then you yet to see the USN Zumwalt the RN Daring (Type 45) or the Swedish Visby classes

This reminds me of people who think the 5th gen aircraft are ugly because they don't look like F-104s or Mirages. I'll take "more effective" over "looks pretty" all day long.

Honestly, I think the F-22 looks damn good. Sexy even. The F-35 OTOH...

 

[Tzoli]

Yes, F-14, F-15, F-16, F-22 are all great looking ones, F-35 is like a one engined chubby F-22.
F-18 is so-so, good plane, effective but retired my favourite carrier plane the F-14.
Gripen, EF-2000, MiG-29, Su-27,35,37,47 PAK-FA are all great looking planes

 

[SSgtC]

I'd say that the Viggen is a pretty good looking plane too

 

[uk 75]

As of USS Albany:

I think these ships just looked impressive and futuristic with their huge TALOS systems and the Macks and massive bridges. Elegant, no. Svelt, no. Pretty, no. The RN Countys (even with the Seaslug scaffold launcher) were elegant.

 

[sferrin]

Also the embodiment of ugliness, incdentally...

Then you yet to see the USN Zumwalt the RN Daring (Type 45) or the Swedish Visby classes

This reminds me of people who think the 5th gen aircraft are ugly because they don't look like F-104s or Mirages. I'll take "more effective" over "looks pretty" all day long.

Honestly, I think the F-22 looks damn good. Sexy even. The F-35 OTOH...

 

[SSgtC]

Also the embodiment of ugliness, incdentally...

Then you yet to see the USN Zumwalt the RN Daring (Type 45) or the Swedish Visby classes

This reminds me of people who think the 5th gen aircraft are ugly because they don't look like F-104s or Mirages. I'll take "more effective" over "looks pretty" all day long.

Honestly, I think the F-22 looks damn good. Sexy even. The F-35 OTOH...

View attachment 637893

Ok, the X-32 just looks happy to see me

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/xiw084

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/xiw084/uss_chicago_cg11_off_the_solomon_islands_28/

 

[bobtdwarf]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/xiw084

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/xiw084/uss_chicago_cg11_off_the_solomon_islands_28/

I actually saw her in the mothball fleet when I lived in Seattle, we took the ferry to Bremerton to do the BB tour

 

[chuck4]

Looking at these conversions they always looked especially unstable with that very tall superstructure. Why was it felt necessary when the Talos fire control radar sets weren't even mounted on top of it?

I think the problem is the distribution of weight in the hills of these ships were designed for the considerable top weight of armored turrets above the hull. Once these were removed, the hull would have too much weight low down and would become far too stable, which is actually a very bad thing, because it cause the ship to experience very quick and sharp rolls.

so the high superstructure is required to reduce the the stability to the desired range.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Looking at these conversions they always looked especially unstable with that very tall superstructure. Why was it felt necessary when the Talos fire control radar sets weren't even mounted on top of it?

I think the problem is the distribution of weight in the hills of these ships were designed for the considerable top weight of armored turrets above the hull. Once these were removed, the hull would have too much weight low down and would become far too stable, which is actually a very bad thing, because it cause the ship to experience very quick and sharp rolls.

so the high superstructure is required to reduce the the stability to the desired range.

I suspect that is partly the case but Talos and Terrier systems were pretty heavy and the Tartar wasn't exactly light either; and all the conversions were known to "hog" or "calve" to some degree.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Personally, I have always been fascinated by this generation of missile ships and all of the proposed conversions that never took place.

Me too. It was kind of "big gun ships" last chance to shine. Light cruisers, heavy cruisers, battlecruisers, treaty battleships, full-blown-battleships.
There were plenty of finished, unfinished and mothballed ships that never got a *second* chance - Worcesters, Baltimore, Oregon, Des Moines, Alaska, South Dakota, North Carolina, Iowas... imagine, if some kind of "silver bullet" had them all turned into guided missile ships and put back into service...

...and instead, capital ships shrunk to the tonnage of large destroyers. Try telling that to WWII USN, that destroyer / frigates would kill every single ship class larger than 10 000 tons. Except for aircraft carriers or amphibious, of course.

The problem with converting the big ships is that, given the fire control technology of the day, they couldn't guide any more missiles than the smaller cheaper cruisers. And given you could operate two Albany class with the same manpower as Kentucky, it makes more sense to guide twice as many missiles with two ships than convert a battleship.

Not all the conversions were similar. Albany & the other 2 had iirc 4 guidance radars just for Talos. Oklahoma City had 2.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Also the embodiment of ugliness, incdentally...

Then you yet to see the USN Zumwalt the RN Daring (Type 45) or the Swedish Visby classes

This reminds me of people who think the 5th gen aircraft are ugly because they don't look like F-104s or Mirages. I'll take "more effective" over "looks pretty" all day long.

5th Gen aircraft look great. Who said otherwise?

 

[Firefinder]

Looking at these conversions they always looked especially unstable with that very tall superstructure. Why was it felt necessary when the Talos fire control radar sets weren't even mounted on top of it?

I think the problem is the distribution of weight in the hills of these ships were designed for the considerable top weight of armored turrets above the hull. Once these were removed, the hull would have too much weight low down and would become far too stable, which is actually a very bad thing, because it cause the ship to experience very quick and sharp rolls.

so the high superstructure is required to reduce the the stability to the desired range.

I suspect that is partly the case but Talos and Terrier systems were pretty heavy and the Tartar wasn't exactly light either; and all the conversions were known to "hog" or "calve" to some degree.

The actual reason for the high Bridge is simple.

VISUAL Clearance.

Basically the missile directors needed to be in. a certain spot, well in distance of launcher, for it to work.

That distance Basically block the bridge veiw.

So thet made the bridge taller to see over them.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Looking at these conversions they always looked especially unstable with that very tall superstructure. Why was it felt necessary when the Talos fire control radar sets weren't even mounted on top of it?

I think the problem is the distribution of weight in the hills of these ships were designed for the considerable top weight of armored turrets above the hull. Once these were removed, the hull would have too much weight low down and would become far too stable, which is actually a very bad thing, because it cause the ship to experience very quick and sharp rolls.

so the high superstructure is required to reduce the the stability to the desired range.

I suspect that is partly the case but Talos and Terrier systems were pretty heavy and the Tartar wasn't exactly light either; and all the conversions were known to "hog" or "calve" to some degree.

The actual reason for the high Bridge is simple.

VISUAL Clearance.

Basically the missile directors needed to be in. a certain spot, well in distance of launcher, for it to work.

That distance Basically block the bridge veiw.

So thet made the bridge taller to see over them.

don't doubt that either. Like I said all of them tending to bend oddly in the middle, some the keel would bend down and others it would bend up because the weights were off.. think there may be reference to stress cracks forming at certain frames in one or two of the ships histories online.