Shipbucket

Having such a big cruiser to convert was why I wanted to end up with something like the CAG-1 Boston drawing in the archive, but I knew it needed the additional illuminators, 1 per missile, and a lot of other changes.

So if I go Mk-10 I can only have the ability to have one launcher or can I 'modify' the installation to have 2? What about using the Mk.4 with rotary loading? Would that make it easier to have two launchers?

Erik_t, if I am copying a production cruiser layout which do you think I am trying to achieve?

if you go Mk 10, you go a bit later in date (1960 as earliest, 1962 likely) but you might be able to fit 2 in an installation similar to long beach, so what you had (altough you have to check the dimensions as the long beach drawing the archive is old..... and it had this arrangement forward, some things might be different in the arrangement if you have it aft)

Mk 4 would also be possible, but note that these were really quite experimental systems. it really depends on the type of magazine you want: limited on deck (Mk 9), in the original barbette and magazine spaces mostly (if you have enough space for that, Mk 4) or production system but requires a rebuild of most of your stern (Mk 10)

seeing that your cruiser is not flush deck and you would have to rebuild a lot for it already, the Mk 9 seems an bad idea. Mk 10 and Mk 4 both are options then, depending on the date operational and the role.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

I'm not sure if this is a snarky answer to a question I didn't mean as snarky.

Truly, the USN (and for that matter, everyone else) had no real idea what the hell they were doing on the very earliest of missile ships. Especially on something larger like a cruiser, every effort was made to treat missiles as units of ordinance the same way gun ammunition had been treated: heavy, compact, to be located below the waterline if at all possible, with sufficient rounds on board for many successive engagements. It had not yet dawned on shipwrights that the fundamental nature of the game had changed: from now on, designs were generally going to be more volume-limited instead of weight-limited.

So in US parlance, first you see systems like Mk 4 on Boston and Canberra, which required gutting the rear of a big CA for a system that, in a single brief engagement, was actually less effective than what would be shipped on a Leahy half its size. Seventy two missiles per director (they only had two of the latter), on a system with a range of maybe ten miles! Sure, you could probably fight through five or ten engagements before taking on reloads, but it wasn't yet realized that missile UNREP was much easier and cheaper in practice than colossal Terrier cruisers.

Something like Albany shows what could be achieved after these initial, hesitant steps into the missile age. Same size, mostly the same search electronics, but an abandonment of some of the more traditional weapons-handling traditions. Missiles were as low as they could go, but ready Talos rounds (a much bigger, more capable, and more dangerous to ownship system!) still sat on the main deck, below only splinter armor. Tartar was sitting right out in the open, expected to explode and vent damage outwards rather than be defended in a traditional cruiser sense. Fewer, bigger missiles with more attention to director/missile ratio made for a vastly superior CG.

Ships like Oklahoma City, Providence, these represented an intermediate step. Perhaps not much more effective than Boston or Canberra, but smaller and much cheaper to convert, with the entire GMLS sitting on the main deck.

It took a decade for the USN to figure out what made sense and what didn't (and there were even crazier unbuilt ideas, like the British missile-CVs and this horrid Alaska creature). It was a big mental adjustment, and intermediate designs reflected the lessons still in the process of being learned.

Ok, I have fitted a Mk.10 Mod-7 outfit into the area I had the mk-9, which as can be seen fits alright. Good thing about a 700+ foot cruiser, lots of space.




Erik_t, thank you for that information, one of the reasons I am trying to use US systems is that I do not have much knowledge of them. Only way to learn, is step-by-step, what goes with what. What works and what does not. I am quite happy ending up with an 'intermediate' step cruiser, as long as I have got the bits and pieces in the right place, and the best systems for the type of ship.

I take it that the Terrier system, while being an early system, will be superseded fairly quickly through technology improvements. Which where converting older cruisers does not make as much of a loss as might be expected. A system that is very second class 5-10 years after it is installed is not so bad on a cruiser that was not meant to last much longer than maybe 10-15 years after conversion. Much easier at that stage to just scrap the old cruiser than worry about the expense of a second rebuilding. The newer systems would go on your new cruisers that would be expected to last 25+ years in service, and while the GMLS systems may not be able to be upgraded on the new ships without the huge cost of rebuilding - the missile itself can be upgraded to improve its performance. A cheaper alternative.

you have mod 8's
you could go for an diagonal loading mod 7 on the forwardmost though, so both magazines are at the same level in the hull.
I would have to check this, but it might be that if you can use Mk 10, the SPG-55 is also available.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Looking at the SPG-55 on the sheets it is tied to the Standard missile?

Could the Standard missile fit in the Terrier reload system?

you can also see it on the sheet next to terrier

this is the redrawn version btw.
the Mk 10 GMLS was later upgraded to fit standard missiles, indeed, the other systems were decomissioned before that became an issue.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

So I upgrade the 49's with 55's (which version?) and that will run the original Terriers fitted. Then however many years later the Terriers can be ditched for Standard's, give a few more years before obsolete.

the A version most likely. and yeah, that makes sense.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Ace - can you tell me when the SPG-55's enter service?

From Wiki:
Variants[edit]
An SPG-55 - Original version supported Beam riding Terrier missiles.
AN/SPG 55A - Supported Beam-riding and homing Terrier missiles
AN/SPG 55B - Supported Beam-riding and homing Terrier missiles as well as newer Standard missiles.

I take it each version would need a refit of the Command systems to run each version. So best to be able to have 'B' if possible within timeline. Otherwise just have to go through the refits till had enough of the cruiser which gets scrapped. If Standard missile does not enter service till 1981, then upgrade 1989 - cruiser could serve till 2000 or more. Nearly 60 years.