That would increase the number of Tang & Darter type submarines from 7 to 14. With hindsight, I also think that the 3 Barracuda class SSK (approved FY48 & 49) should have been additional boats of the Tang class and in their place 3 additional old boats converted to SSKs. The former were approved FY47-49 and the latter in FY54. ![]() I think they should have been built as submarines of the Tang or Darter classes. Sailfish & Salmon were approved in FY52, Greyback & Growler were approved in FY53 & FY55 respectively. "However, I think that could not have been done because Polaris was a crash programme and they were trying to get as many boats as possible in service as soon as possible."Part of Post 54.Ĭlick to expand.This fits better in an ALT-1950s US Navy, but here goes. However, the fact that "Regulus and Polaris were literally a battle for survival for the USN" in the "Real World" is irrelevant to the thread because it is effectively a "United States Navy money no object" thread and therefore the USN wasn't fighting a battle for survival in this "version of history".įurthermore, even if your comment was relevant to the thread, I don't see how it's relevant to my "ideal" of having the first 5 SSBNs built as additional Ethan Allen class boats instead of as George Washington class boats? That is unless your comment was supporting my final sentence i.e. I can't tell whether you are opposing my comment or supporting it by providing some background information.įor what it's worth, it's impossible for me to have remembered that "Regulus and Polaris were literally a battle for survival for the USN" in the "Real World" because I didn't know that "Regulus and Polaris were literally a battle for survival for the USN" in the first place. However the realtor intended for this new design was not expected to be ready until FY82.Ĭlick to expand.I'm having one of my blond moments. APHNAS itself was drawn up in 1971, but very quickly died, as it was believed that the UGM-89 Perseus Cruise missiles were being deliberately designed to be too large for torpedo tubes, hence requiring a new submarine, which would ideally be powered by the D1W reactor that Rickover desired.Īnother D1W-powered design described as the "Advanced SSN", was drawn up in 1975 and presented alongside a number of alternatives for a new SSN to be built in FY80. The first three boats were ordered in FY70.Ī D1W-propelled submarine was compared with the D1G-propelled Los Angeles and the S5G-propelled CONFORM, however the design would not be ready until 1974-75, and hence could not be ordered until the FY77 Program. Design work the the Los Angeles began in the 1960s, with the design for a submarine with D1G being proposed in 1963, a preliminary design being drawn up in 1966, which changes were made to until 1969. Not sure if they'd keep one Mk13 launcher per side for point defense or drop a 5" gun turret in place.ĪPHNAS post-dated Los Angeles. For the 1980s refit, they'll basically look like the Iowas IOTL, just with 5"/54 Mk42 turrets. On Iowa class, leave the forward and aft 5"/38 turrets on each side (possibly replace with Mk42), replacing the three midships 5"/38 turrets with Mk13 (as per Des Moines class).Worcester-class, leave as pure guns (class was retired by 1958 anyways).Cleveland-class CLs, rebuild into Galveston- (Talos) and Providence-classes (Terrier) for carrier AA escorts, though the OKC pattern with 1x 6" turret, 1x 5" turret and flag spaces on the Galveston pattern.Option to convert some to Albany class, but there are a lot of CLs that could be rebuilt into Galveston- and Providence-classes. On Baltimore and Oregon City class cruisers, limited conversion of the Boston class, the 8" guns will prove useful for longer than the Terrier missiles.Add flag space to support amphibious landings. ![]() ![]() Optionally, replace the centerline twin 5"/38 turrets with single 5"/54 Mk42 for more range and higher rate of fire. ![]() (Replace one set of 3"/50cals with Mk25/Mk29 Sea Sparrow, place the Mk115/Mk95 illuminator radar in a second 3"/50 tub once Sea Sparrow is available in the late 1960s/early 1970s). This would give 160x Tartar/Standard spaces(!), and the ability to fire 2x-4x missiles every 8 seconds. Mk13s will fit in the same hole in the deck as a 5"/54 Mk42, which will fit in the same hole as a 5"/38 twin turret.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |