lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964 
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 21, 2022 17:41:33 GMT
Interesting design i found on USS Long Beach (CGN-9) Wikipedia page which says this: There was originally a plan to fully upgrade Long Beach with an Aegis Combat System in the early 1990s, requiring that her superstructure be completely rebuilt.This planned modernization would have turned USS Long Beach (CGN-9) into a Aegis cruiser. Full Artist's impression of Long Beach following conversion to Aegis cruiser:  Using what Tzoli over at Deviant Art made, called the USS Long Beach AEGIS Variant 1:
 The design had these characteristics: Dimensions: 210,4 (wl) x 219,9 (oa) x 22,3 x 8,8m Displacement: Unknown Engines: 80.000shp Westinghouse C1W Nuclear Reactors, 2 shafts Speed: 56km/h (30knots) Armaments: 2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM capable of launch RUR-5 ASROCK, 4x4 RGM-84 Harpoon ASM, 2x4 RGM-109 Tomahawk CruM, 2x1 8"/55 (203mm/55) Mark 28 Guns, 2x6 20mm/76 Phalanx Mark 72 CIWS, 2x3 324mm Torpedo Tubes 2x SH-2 Seasprite Helicopters Sensors: 1x SPQ-9 - Air/Surface Search Radar 1x SPS-55 - Surface-Search Radar 4x SPG-62 AEGIS Illuminator Radars 4x SPY-1 - AEGIS 3D Air/Surface-Search Radars |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,976
Likes: 5,839
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 21, 2022 17:53:16 GMT
Not worth the cost for a ship at the end of her service life, even if there is an ongoing Cold War.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 21, 2022 17:53:54 GMT
Not worth the cost for a ship at the end of her service life, even if there is an ongoing Cold War. So cheaper to build a new 100 % Aegis cruiser. |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,976
Likes: 5,839
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 22, 2022 16:06:01 GMT
Yes. To push it out to the right number of characters, yes with bells on.
|
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,976
Likes: 5,839
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 23, 2022 4:29:22 GMT
Consider the discussion regarding an Essex for the RAN. One problem with it is that the cost is not offset by a significant service life. The same applies here.
Rebuilding Long Beach in the early 1990s would be a complete waste that would not deliver any substantially increased capacity to merit such expense. New build Ticos delivered 122-128 VLS cells, Aegis and decent command facilities. They are going to be built anyway.
The inclusion of 8” guns puts things firmly in the vapourware category. A CGN is not an asset to use for naval gunfire support, as it is suited to being well out to sea riding shotgun with the CVNs
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 23, 2022 7:55:15 GMT
Rebuilding Long Beach in the early 1990s would be a complete waste that would not deliver any substantially increased capacity to merit such expense. New build Ticos delivered 122-128 VLS cells, Aegis and decent command facilities. They are going to be built anyway. Was thinking about that, but the Ticos only had their VLS added after USS Thomas S. Gates (CG-51), a flight-I Ticonderoga-class cruiser entered into service in 1987. So the CG-47 to CG-51 would have: 2 × Mk 26 missile launchers. 68 × RIM-66 SM-2. 20 × RUR-5 ASROC. 8 × RGM-84 Harpoon missiles. 2 × 5 in (127 mm)/54 caliber Mark 45 lightweight gun. 2–4 × .50 in (12.7 mm) cal. machine gun. 2 × Phalanx CIWS. 2 × Mk 32 12.75 in (324 mm) triple torpedo tubes. While the USS Long Beach (CGN-9) - Aegis cruiser would have: 2x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM capable of launch RUR-5 ASROCK. 4x4 RGM-84 Harpoon ASM. 2x4 RGM-109 Tomahawk CruM. 2x1 8"/55 (203mm/55) Mark 28 Guns. 2x6 20mm/76 Phalanx Mark 72 CIWS. 2x3 324mm Torpedo Tubes. |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,976
Likes: 5,839
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 23, 2022 9:40:54 GMT
And…the first 5 Ticos were followed by 22 with VLS, allowing the first 5 to be discarded early. CG-52 entered service in 1986.
A converted Long Beach Carrie’s fewer weapons than a Tico, costs more and, by the early 1990s, is at the end of its service life no matter which way you cut it.
There is an argument for a conversion in the 1970s, but not in the 1990s. A CSGN is a ship for the Cold War.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 23, 2022 12:48:38 GMT
And…the first 5 Ticos were followed by 22 with VLS, allowing the first 5 to be discarded early. CG-52 entered service in 1986. A converted Long Beach Carrie’s fewer weapons than a Tico, costs more and, by the early 1990s, is at the end of its service life no matter which way you cut it. There is an argument for a conversion in the 1970s, but not in the 1990s. A CSGN is a ship for the Cold War. A conversion of USS Long Beach (CGN-9) into a Aegis cruiser cost 800 million dollars while the price tag for a Tico class was around 1 billion, so in the long run i think you are right, much cheaper to build the new Tico class than to convert a single Long Beach-class. |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,976
Likes: 5,839
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 23, 2022 13:20:38 GMT
$800 million in the 1970s, which would be worth $1.446 billion in 1986 if we take 1977 as the baseline year.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 23, 2022 13:22:14 GMT
$800 million in the 1970s, which would be worth $1.446 billion in 1986 if we take 1977 as the baseline year. That is a lot of money. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Apr 28, 2022 14:51:20 GMT
The drawing with the two Major Caliber Light Weight Guns is from the mid-1970s as I recall, when such a conversion would have been useful. But I am not aware of any situation where the USN replaced one reloadable missile launcher with another other than replacing the Terrier launchers on a few CVAs with Sea Sparrows, if those would even count. Mk 26 would have been a great improvement over the Mk 10 or the Mk 7 of the Talos. I'm not sure what modifications to Long Beach's internals would have been required; the Terrier launchers were drum-fed as I recall (Perhaps oscssw can comment, but the forward Mk 26 would have been over the forward MK 10 launder's drums. How the MCLWGs or the after Mk 26 magazines would fitted, I don't know. If another 10 years were left to go by, the cost-benefit analysis would have to be made; how likely was Long Beach to serve a longer useful life, how expensive would her modernization with a nuclear refueling be? On the other hand, later brings up the possibility of fitting the Mk 41 VLS instead of the Mk 26 launchers. As it was, I think the New Threat Upgrade (NTU) in the '80s made the older Mk 10 armed ships more effective with the Standard SAMs and as Secretary Lehman said, was 'one step short of Aegis'. That the CGN-42 Aegis cruisers nor a nuclear Aegis cruiser with Mk 41 was never built I think was a missed opportunity. But the Cold War had ended, and there was a false 'peace dividend' to spent on anything but defense! My thoughts, |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,976
Likes: 5,839
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 28, 2022 14:57:02 GMT
I’ll reiterate my earlier point on the peculiarity of putting a large gun on a ship that has no business going near the shore. The utility of the 8” was sticking it on the Sprucans, which are rather more general purpose and expendable than a one of a kind nuclear cruiser.
I agree that CGN-42 was a missed opportunity and indeed like the CSGN from a 1970s perspective with caveats.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Apr 28, 2022 15:26:45 GMT
I’ll reiterate my earlier point on the peculiarity of putting a large gun on a ship that has no business going near the shore. The utility of the 8” was sticking it on the Sprucans, which are rather more general purpose and expendable than a one of a kind nuclear cruiser. I agree that CGN-42 was a missed opportunity and indeed like the CSGN from a 1970s perspective with caveats. I agree, any CGN is going to be covering carriers, and opportunities to use an 8in gun are going to be limited in that employment. A 5in/54 Mk 45 would have been more useful. Regards, |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 28, 2022 17:51:33 GMT
I’ll reiterate my earlier point on the peculiarity of putting a large gun on a ship that has no business going near the shore. The utility of the 8” was sticking it on the Sprucans, which are rather more general purpose and expendable than a one of a kind nuclear cruiser. I agree that CGN-42 was a missed opportunity and indeed like the CSGN from a 1970s perspective with caveats. I agree, any CGN is going to be covering carriers, and opportunities to use an 8in gun are going to be limited in that employment. A 5in/54 Mk 45 would have been more useful. Regards, So what if she did not have here 2x1 8"/55 (203mm/55) Mark 28 Guns and instead have 4x2 RIM-66 Standard MR SAM capable of launch RUR-5 ASROCKs. |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Apr 28, 2022 22:00:58 GMT
The drawing with the two Major Caliber Light Weight Guns is from the mid-1970s as I recall, when such a conversion would have been useful. But I am not aware of any situation where the USN replaced one reloadable missile launcher with another other than replacing the Terrier launchers on a few CVAs with Sea Sparrows, if those would even count. Mk 26 would have been a great improvement over the Mk 10 or the Mk 7 of the Talos. I'm not sure what modifications to Long Beach's internals would have been required; the Terrier launchers were drum-fed as I recall (Perhaps oscssw can comment, but the forward Mk 26 would have been over the forward MK 10 launder's drums. How the MCLWGs or the after Mk 26 magazines would fitted, I don't know. If another 10 years were left to go by, the cost-benefit analysis would have to be made; how likely was Long Beach to serve a longer useful life, how expensive would her modernization with a nuclear refueling be? On the other hand, later brings up the possibility of fitting the Mk 41 VLS instead of the Mk 26 launchers. As it was, I think the New Threat Upgrade (NTU) in the '80s made the older Mk 10 armed ships more effective with the Standard SAMs and as Secretary Lehman said, was 'one step short of Aegis'. That the CGN-42 Aegis cruisers nor a nuclear Aegis cruiser with Mk 41 was never built I think was a missed opportunity. But the Cold War had ended, and there was a false 'peace dividend' to spent on anything but defense! My thoughts, Sorry 1Bigrich I just road them. Have no idea what was required to do such a major upgrade. Yes the Terrier did use a vertical drum for the Mk-26. I was told once by a GMMC that the 26 was just two Mk-13s "spliced" together.
This provides some pretty good pictures of the MK-26 and one even shows the drums.
" The Mk 26 Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS) was a US Navy fully automated system that stows, handles, and launches a variety of missiles. The system supported RIM-66 Standard, RUR-5 ASROC, and potentially other weapons. The Mk 26 had the shortest reaction time and the fastest firing rate of any comparable dual arm shipboard launching system at the time. With only one man at the control console, a weapon can be selected, hoisted to the guide arm, and launched. Several mods (0 to 5) provided magazine capabilities of 24 to 64 missiles.
Mk26 mod 0 - 24 missiles, forward Virginia class cruiser
Mk26 mod 1 - 44 missiles, aft Virginia class cruiser
Mk26 mod 2 - 64 missiles, Strike cruiser, not deployed
Mk26 mod 3 - 24 missiles, updated mod 0 systems, forward Kidd class destroyer
Mk26 mod 4 - 44 missiles, updated mod 1 systems, aft Kidd class destroyer
Mk26 mod 5 - 44 missiles, modified mod 4 system for early Ticonderoga class cruiser
As you can see the earlier DLG's of the Belknap & Leahy class, the one I served on,along with the Farragut class DDG did not have the MK-26 with their rotary magazines. We had the Mk-10 Mod 5 twin missile launcher forward and the Mk-10 Mod 6 twin missile launcher aft for for RIM-2 Terrier SAM (80 missiles in total) later modified in AAW upgrade to fire RIM-67A Standard SM-1ER missiles (thank God) and modified again to fire RIM-67B Standard SM-2ER missiles in early 1980’ long after I shipped back to the Tin Can Navy and my real home in the SBUs 
Note the Deck house aft of the launcher and the fact the arms had to be horizontal for the reload. As best I can remember the birds were stored in horizontal racks and required manual "Finning" and a few other steps before being placed on the rails.
|
|
