Considering the time that this ship came into service and the decision by the US Navy that they could not maintain the new "high-tech" sensor and weapon suites replacing the old gun-ships, I think that LONG BEACH was the nail in the coffin of the old-style maintenance concepts. In 1963 the US Navy at the Ventura, California, SeaBee Base established the US Naval Ship Missile System Engineering Station (NSMSES or "Nemesis") to figure out how to come up with the training and maintenance tools and documentation that would allow a ship's crew to maintain their systems without having to call on contractors to help them, which was considered totally unacceptable. By the time I started working there in 1973 on the TERRIER Mark 76 GMFCS as a Systems Engineer, later also becoming a Computer Engineer when digital computers started to replace the old electro-mechanical calculators for these missile systems, they had solved much of the problem by adopting the NASA maintenance system methods, including direct communication with the civilian support services, lead by NSMSES, by passing any requirements to go through any officers or other ship personnel not directly involved with the maintenance action being done. NSMSES had to respond to any calls for assistance within 24 hours, either by direct communicati9on with the person needing help or, as I had to do twice, by being sent an expert to the ship ASAP to help them find and fix the problem. This worked.
The US Navy did actually plan to build a class of 8-12 nuclear powered cruisers called the Strike cruisers its basically a Virginia class nuclear cruisers with aegis. The plan originally was to have Long Beach converted to aegis as a prototype and then build the Strike cruisers and have the Ticonderoga as destroyers. I can definitively see these still serving in today if they actually been built and upgraded.
The AEGIS Mk 20 Mod 0 deckhouses were 200 tons each, and were too heavy to put on a Virginia hull (although was originally planned for them). The first AEGIS ship design was DG(N), or DLGN(AEGIS), which was drawn up in the early 1970s alongside the cheaper and smaller conventionally powered DG/AEGIS. This eventually evolved into the Strike Cruiser, although the design changed so much and grew to the point that it was a completely clean sheet design. They still used the Destroyer Nuclear Machinery (two D2G reactors) but they were otherwise designed to meet cruiser survivability standards when it came to redundancy and protection. The Strike Cruisers were cancelled in 1977, and a more austere Nuclear-Powered AEGIS ship called CGN-42 was designed, based upon the earlier DLGN AEGIS Studies, but with the improved layout of the CSGN, the helicopter hangar in the superstructure rather than in the hull, the forward gun forward of the missile launcher rather than abaft it as in DLGN/CGN-38, although CGN-42 did not have the protection or flag facilities of the CSGN.
On the choice of the 5 inch/38, over one of the later design 5 inch mounts - my late uncle was a Gunners Mate Technician, served from 1951 to 1971, with service in Korea and Vietnam, retired with the rank of Senior Chief (E-8) - based on his own experience with the different 5 inch mounts of that period (late 1950's/early 1960's), his opinion was that the 5 inch/38 was the superior version FOR THAT ERA. I had a few discussions with him on this subject over the years, and he had rather a laundry list of items he considered to be problems with the 51 and 54 caliber mounts of that era, as far as both maintenance and operation, from his standpoint as a gunners mate that would be having to maintain and operate the bloody things. Several times he opined that, if you gave him a 5 inch/38 mount and a good gun crew, that he could easily outperform any of the 51 or 54 caliber mounts of that time period. Given that it seems the two 5 inch mounts were "afterthoughts" to deal with close range threats, and to satisfy the concerns of a rather prominent politician - and at that time, the USN still had a plethora of ships in service with that particular mount, and a plentiful supply of ammunition for them, along with many old hands well versed in their operation and maintenance - the USN went with the cheapest, easiest, and most reliable option they had, probably also with a mind to the option that had the least impact as to redesign and alteration of that section of the ship. I also wouldn't rule out Admiral Rickover having some say in the matter, giving his fondness for insisting on making the maximum use of "combat proven" equipment (ie, WWII era), on any ship with a nuclear reactor that Naval Reactors could claim some amount of jurisdiction over. From personal experience, the USN submarine force labored under that restriction, at least as far as the propulsion plant, until after his forced retirement.
Long Beach was designed a built in the late 1950s and early 1960s, before Rickover gained the ability to fully veto or block projects he didn't like. His only influence was over the power plant (and broadly speaking didn't have that much influence over the design of surface ships other than effectively killing off DDG FY67) hence he would not have been behind the selection the 5"/38 mountings (which were likely selected because they were available, had minimal ship impact and did not require the below deck ammunition handling spaces of the 5"/54 Mark 41). The problems of the 5"/54 Mk 41 would not have been apparent at this time, they primarily manifested during the sustained shore bombardments of the Vietnam war, and given when Long Beach was designed and built (from 1956 to 1961) these events had yet to happen.
One Vietnam vet I talk to fairly regularly said that with a 5"/54 on something like a Forrest Sherman is more likely to have a burst barrel when a shell gets wedged in the barrel during prolonged shore bombardment missions since they were automatic and with a 38, you had a guy looking down the barrel before he slammed the round home ready for firing. This could just be sea stories but he made the claim that on shore leave on bases, most of the exploded barrels on the pierside were 5"/54's and not the older 38's
The first time I remember reading about US Navy plans for a "Strike Cruiser" was in the mid-70's when I was still in high school (yes, I know, I'm bloody old) - matter of fact, I believe it was in the school library, in some magazine which I can't remember the name of - I can't remember any real details of that particular proposed design, other than it would have been armed with one or more of the Lightweight 8 inch gun mounts that the USN were testing at that time. Edit - I did a Google search for "1970's USN Strike Cruiser design", and quite a bit of info popped up, including a separate Wikipedia page - apparently the 1970's original version was to be on the order of 17,500 tons full load.
Congress would have approved an enlarged LCS haul the size of an LPD with the same reduction gear issues, plenty of opportunities for dissimilar metal interactions, and still no zinc anodes.
I didn't even realize Long Beach HAD 5 inch guns until today. they blended in so well in the superstructure its hard to notice them until you actively look for them. I think its because they're Fletcher mounts and not the Gearing or Battleship twin mounts.
Getting back to nuclear powered carrier escorts makes sense, plus extra power for powerful radar and jamming plus the new directed energy weapons…don’t see it in our current naval build out unfortunately
Slight correction: the Iroquois class of the RCN, aka the second Tribal class, served along side the Halifax class for many years. Huron decommissioned in 2005, Iroquois and Algonquin decommissioned in 2015 and Athabaskan decommissioned in 2017. If they had served just a few years longer, the world could have had Tribals staring down the Russians again With that out of the way, I can see the resemblance, though the AEGIS Long Beach needs more stuff on it. As a further aside, one of the rumours for the CSC is that they could be a 3rd Tribal class
Regarding the comment about the RN's penchant for Sea prefixes on missiles, there were land and aircraft versions of the seacat missile, "tigercat" and "hellcat" respectively. Though admittedly the "hellcat" helicopter missile never found any buyers.
During the 1972 Viet Nam line periods we shot a lot of Talos "49" director radar energy at targets. When we went to track mode the MIGs would dive till they were blocked from the radar by the mountains, which kept them from bothering our strike aircraft. The MIGs, 19s and a few 21s, usually stayed too far away for any Talos shots. We had a 32 repeater in the weapons area of CIC, and we found a number of targets to play with before the ops dept trackers found them. We watched as Hai Phuong was mined, nothing came up for us to even shine one of the 49s at.
Been waiting for this one. As goofy as that sensor array looks, I think it still has that well balanced hull form descended from Brooklyn that gives it a certain elegance.
One of my friends in the Navy got his surface warfare qualification 2 years ago, when they put it in the system they accidentally gave him CGN not CG. He is surface warfare qualified on ships that havent been in the navy in almost 25 years. He's 23 years old
2 years of my life station on her... 1982 / 84 MARDET CGN9... WESTPAC 1-84... 🦅🌐⚓ We left North Island NAS on Friday 13 JAN 84. We were to be in Pearl Harbor for only 3 days. Enroute, saboteurs drained the lube from the #1 prop'/-shaft bearings and needed to be in drydock for repairs. The new bearing was shipped from Norfolk VA thru the Panama Canal to Hawaii. We were there for 3 additional weeks while the battle group steamed onward to Subic Bay. We missed the first "Liberty Call" at PI, we rendezvoused with the USS Kitty Hawk in time to participate in Team Spirit 84... 🦅🌐⚓
Landcat was called Tigercat - probably most famous for being used by Argentines during Falklands. Land Wolf was a thing (particularly the VL), but no one bought them. Land Dart was called Guardian (yep, I'm old enough to remember BAe trying to market those last two) 5"/54 Mk 42 mount is ~60T, the intermediate Mk 39 are listed ~33T, 5"/38 mounts are
IMO, in the modern era, nuclear power is required for ship to be a cruiser, you cannot perform the full spectrum of cruiser missions, especially in wartime, with out it. A conventionally powered ship is too tied to fleet train or a task force to cruise independently, rendering even the largest, most potent, battleship sized, surface combatants mere destroyers, escorts tied to the carrier taskforce. Especially with even higher demand systems like rail guns on the horizon (the gun is absolutely necessary for a peer conflict lasting more than a month) imo nuclear power will be necessary for any surface combatant with an anti-ship mission.
I have to be grandad to a 4 year old Granddaughter. In Answer to your question dust off the Des Moines cruisers plans like you said. May be review them but would be a good start point
This is the ship that made me take the Pr. 23560 seriously. Not in the sense of "the russians are actually going to build it", but more like "maybe there would've been a chance that it wouldn't tip over the moment it touched the water."
IIRC the land based version of Seaslug was Red Heathen (or Heaven, something religous with H -bit of a difference I know) or such and the RN did try and change the name. Unfortunately for future projects no-one seems to have informed the naming dept that a Seaslug is actually a marine animal and it is not 2 words. Seacat (a member of the otter family) was derived from an army anti-tank round so probably the "sea" was felt necessary.
The 5-in/38-cal were likely chosen as having the guns was a late-decision, the amidships space was going to used first for Regulus and then Polaris, the guns and gun houses likely came from decommissioned/refitted WW2 destroyers. I'm surprised they didn't include twin 3-in/50-cal mounts in the original design for point defense. The new gun in the never done Aegis-rebuild was going to be the 8"/55 Mark 71 that was successfully tested on the USS Hull DD-945. The 8-in/55-cal would have been ideal for the Zumwalts if you could place it on some of the Burkes as well, the Spruance-class was planned to mount some of these guns before the project was canceled along with the strike cruiser concept. I think an Aegis-Strike Cruiser USS Long Beach would have proved useful, and like the 1960s Blue Ridge-class command ships might still be in service, an even more useful ship given the aggression of China and Russia. As for a modern replacement, an enlarge nuclear-powered Zumwalt would be logical, equipped with Aegis radar suite, a dozen hypersonic missiles in a grid-iron VLS, 4 x HELIOS Laser Weapons in a lozenge, a 5-in/62-cal Mark 45 gun forward and aft like the Ticos, and the two wing-mounted Bofors 57mm guns over the hanger. A stretched version of the DDG(X) hull could also work for a nuclear strike cruiser.
I mean, can I argue for everything being nuclear-powered? Then you're getting your fuel from Saskatchewan...and NOBODY can threaten that supply source.
The photos of Long Beach all make her look top-heavy to he'll with that great block superstructure . How do designers allow for this and keep the ship stable at sea. I have often wondered how they kept ships such as the carriers Lexington and Saratoga stable with those 8 inch turrets so high above the water-line. The same goes for the war built Essex's, with those 5"turrets and all the radars etc on and around the island . I once read but I can't remember where that the block superstructure on the Long Beach served as the prototype for the island on Enterprise. Do u think there is any truth to this or just a tale some writer dreamed up because they look similar. Oh how about some RP7 or CRC on the squeaky chair . Loved the vid on Wichita our views coincide almost exactly. Thanks Ray. PS. Beautiful time of year here in Brisbane Queensland Australia 30 degrees centigrade today the real heat is coming January and February
I don't believe that this is almost class destroyer is optimal for a missile cruiser, which is there to defend a carrier. The primary benefits of the Zumwalt hull design were stealth and better acoustics. And both of these are useful, but not at the loss of space necessary for C4I and missiles. I think we would have been forced to look at a proper CG(X) with the same length of beam ratio as the Arleigh Burke for both space and stability. This would have allowed us to have a large number of Mark 41 VLS cells as well as the ability to have larger vertical launch cells for hypersonic missiles and missile defense. And given enough space, we might live looked into AESA S-Band, X-Band, and L-Band arrays.
According to a MCPO of 3rd fleet and later MCPO of 7th fleet. The difference between the heavy vs light cruisers is the size of the main guns, 6inch and smaller were considered light cruisers, larger than 6inch main guns were classified as haevy cruisers. I used to have unlimited access to the Washington Navy Yard in DC drawing room, (the size of a socker pitch). Many of the heavy cruisers shared hulls with light cruisers, length width draft and displacement almost identical with identical powerplant and speed. The big difference is main guns, larger than 6in heavy, 6in or smaller light cruiser.
The definition of light cruiser and heavy cruiser was was established in the 1930 London Naval Treaty, and yes, the caliber of main battery gun determined the difference. Hull size had nothing to do it. In fact, the hulls for the Baltimore class heavy cruisers , which carried eight inch guns were slightly small than the Roanoke class light cruiser which carried six inch guns.
It wasn't only her age that led to her decommissioning. The 1994 budget ("the Cold War is over and we will never need to fight again") gutted the surface navy, and all of the nuclear powered surface ships (non-carrier) were retired in the mid-1990's because of the costs of continued operations and core refueling: the Californias, Virginias, the Bainbridge and the Truxton.
I attended the christening of the last ship built at Fore River shipyard, and had a model of the Long Beach when I was a little kid. I thought she was really cool looking when I was nine. That's all, nothing relevant to say. Thank you for the lecture
23:57 I recently went through the Art Institute in Chicago. I have been in there many times, but this time I decided to spend the majority of my stay in the modern wing. I use the term modern loosely, as most of the modern art came from the '50s and early '60s, but with some going back even as far 1914. I assume those dates are not an accident. It's difficult to argue that World War I and World War II did not have an impact on art. We're all familiar with the twenties and the disillusionment etc. But what I didn't get from the '50s until I went through, was the sheer abject freaking terror that people must have felt. Images of the sun in a setting. Garbage as art. Splatter art and the loss of meaning. This is what it must have been like after the black plague. These people legitimately thought they would make it through the year and for good reason. Given the fact that the first World War had extensive use of chemical weapons, the second of course limited use of chemical and biological weapons, it obviously the use of the nuclear bomb. It is perfectly reasonable in the '50s to anticipate that the next war will be more or less exclusively nuclear. They have not been through Korea, Vietnam or (Soviet) Afghanistan yet. The nuclear bomb is the best weapon, it would be unreasonable if they didn't try to stick it on everything.
I can't decide if my "favourite" nuclear option is the Genie or the Davy Crockett 🤔 Compared to them nukes on naval missiles is quite sensible. At least they didn't do a nuclear 5" shell!
If the USN is sat watching the army getting news and battle honours all across Vietnam then I'm sure they were only too keen to claim anything as a naval battle to get on the score card
The Sps 32 and 33 radars were Fixed Array Radars.....No moving parts.....3D radars.....many search and track beams all at once.....Huge computer system controlled.......I lived there awhile....
@Patrick Radcliffe no because they're a continuation of the destroyer leaders, it goes Leahy, Belknap, California & finally Virginia... they might be called cruisers, but they're destroyer leaders in hull form & characteristics... the problems this created were what led to the strike cruiser design, as it was found the hull design(the Virginia) they were using wasn't strong enough to take the top weight - which required an internal redesign to make it strong enough, which led to a wholely new hull, and then a total new design, cost runaway and the Aegis nuclear cruiser doesn't happen. This is something I'm going to cover a lot in the nuclear cruiser video coming later this month, basically the USN went with a destroyer build cruiser design to save money & build time due to pressures in Congress & Pentagon, and ended up shooting themselves in the foot. This also makes Long Beach, which was constructed to cruiser build, light cruiser, but cruiser build, the last true cruiser of the USN...
Considering the time that this ship came into service and the decision by the US Navy that they could not maintain the new "high-tech" sensor and weapon suites replacing the old gun-ships, I think that LONG BEACH was the nail in the coffin of the old-style maintenance concepts. In 1963 the US Navy at the Ventura, California, SeaBee Base established the US Naval Ship Missile System Engineering Station (NSMSES or "Nemesis") to figure out how to come up with the training and maintenance tools and documentation that would allow a ship's crew to maintain their systems without having to call on contractors to help them, which was considered totally unacceptable. By the time I started working there in 1973 on the TERRIER Mark 76 GMFCS as a Systems Engineer, later also becoming a Computer Engineer when digital computers started to replace the old electro-mechanical calculators for these missile systems, they had solved much of the problem by adopting the NASA maintenance system methods, including direct communication with the civilian support services, lead by NSMSES, by passing any requirements to go through any officers or other ship personnel not directly involved with the maintenance action being done. NSMSES had to respond to any calls for assistance within 24 hours, either by direct communicati9on with the person needing help or, as I had to do twice, by being sent an expert to the ship ASAP to help them find and fix the problem. This worked.
The US Navy did actually plan to build a class of 8-12 nuclear powered cruisers called the Strike cruisers its basically a Virginia class nuclear cruisers with aegis. The plan originally was to have Long Beach converted to aegis as a prototype and then build the Strike cruisers and have the Ticonderoga as destroyers. I can definitively see these still serving in today if they actually been built and upgraded.
The AEGIS Mk 20 Mod 0 deckhouses were 200 tons each, and were too heavy to put on a Virginia hull (although was originally planned for them). The first AEGIS ship design was DG(N), or DLGN(AEGIS), which was drawn up in the early 1970s alongside the cheaper and smaller conventionally powered DG/AEGIS.
This eventually evolved into the Strike Cruiser, although the design changed so much and grew to the point that it was a completely clean sheet design. They still used the Destroyer Nuclear Machinery (two D2G reactors) but they were otherwise designed to meet cruiser survivability standards when it came to redundancy and protection.
The Strike Cruisers were cancelled in 1977, and a more austere Nuclear-Powered AEGIS ship called CGN-42 was designed, based upon the earlier DLGN AEGIS Studies, but with the improved layout of the CSGN, the helicopter hangar in the superstructure rather than in the hull, the forward gun forward of the missile launcher rather than abaft it as in DLGN/CGN-38, although CGN-42 did not have the protection or flag facilities of the CSGN.
Gratitude for covering subject matter where Drachinifel leaves off. Sixty years on, Long Beach is certainly an antique.
On the choice of the 5 inch/38, over one of the later design 5 inch mounts - my late uncle was a Gunners Mate Technician, served from 1951 to 1971, with service in Korea and Vietnam, retired with the rank of Senior Chief (E-8) - based on his own experience with the different 5 inch mounts of that period (late 1950's/early 1960's), his opinion was that the 5 inch/38 was the superior version FOR THAT ERA. I had a few discussions with him on this subject over the years, and he had rather a laundry list of items he considered to be problems with the 51 and 54 caliber mounts of that era, as far as both maintenance and operation, from his standpoint as a gunners mate that would be having to maintain and operate the bloody things.
Several times he opined that, if you gave him a 5 inch/38 mount and a good gun crew, that he could easily outperform any of the 51 or 54 caliber mounts of that time period.
Given that it seems the two 5 inch mounts were "afterthoughts" to deal with close range threats, and to satisfy the concerns of a rather prominent politician - and at that time, the USN still had a plethora of ships in service with that particular mount, and a plentiful supply of ammunition for them, along with many old hands well versed in their operation and maintenance - the USN went with the cheapest, easiest, and most reliable option they had, probably also with a mind to the option that had the least impact as to redesign and alteration of that section of the ship.
I also wouldn't rule out Admiral Rickover having some say in the matter, giving his fondness for insisting on making the maximum use of "combat proven" equipment (ie, WWII era), on any ship with a nuclear reactor that Naval Reactors could claim some amount of jurisdiction over. From personal experience, the USN submarine force labored under that restriction, at least as far as the propulsion plant, until after his forced retirement.
Long Beach was designed a built in the late 1950s and early 1960s, before Rickover gained the ability to fully veto or block projects he didn't like. His only influence was over the power plant (and broadly speaking didn't have that much influence over the design of surface ships other than effectively killing off DDG FY67) hence he would not have been behind the selection the 5"/38 mountings (which were likely selected because they were available, had minimal ship impact and did not require the below deck ammunition handling spaces of the 5"/54 Mark 41).
The problems of the 5"/54 Mk 41 would not have been apparent at this time, they primarily manifested during the sustained shore bombardments of the Vietnam war, and given when Long Beach was designed and built (from 1956 to 1961) these events had yet to happen.
One Vietnam vet I talk to fairly regularly said that with a 5"/54 on something like a Forrest Sherman is more likely to have a burst barrel when a shell gets wedged in the barrel during prolonged shore bombardment missions since they were automatic and with a 38, you had a guy looking down the barrel before he slammed the round home ready for firing. This could just be sea stories but he made the claim that on shore leave on bases, most of the exploded barrels on the pierside were 5"/54's and not the older 38's
The first time I remember reading about US Navy plans for a "Strike Cruiser" was in the mid-70's when I was still in high school (yes, I know, I'm bloody old) - matter of fact, I believe it was in the school library, in some magazine which I can't remember the name of - I can't remember any real details of that particular proposed design, other than it would have been armed with one or more of the Lightweight 8 inch gun mounts that the USN were testing at that time.
Edit - I did a Google search for "1970's USN Strike Cruiser design", and quite a bit of info popped up, including a separate Wikipedia page - apparently the 1970's original version was to be on the order of 17,500 tons full load.
My uncle was a Mechanical Engineer with Westinghouse Nuclear refueling surface ships and did a lot of work on core design of Long Beach’s C1W reactors
She was homeported at NAS North Island at one point…I’ve stood on the pier next to her…She was BIG.
Congress would have approved an enlarged LCS haul the size of an LPD with the same reduction gear issues, plenty of opportunities for dissimilar metal interactions, and still no zinc anodes.
I didn't even realize Long Beach HAD 5 inch guns until today. they blended in so well in the superstructure its hard to notice them until you actively look for them. I think its because they're Fletcher mounts and not the Gearing or Battleship twin mounts.
All the nuke cruisers had 5 unch guns nuclear torpedoes asroc launchers
That concept drawing looks like stealth before stealth was cool.
Getting back to nuclear powered carrier escorts makes sense, plus extra power for powerful radar and jamming plus the new directed energy weapons…don’t see it in our current naval build out unfortunately
That picture of the aegis long beach was drawn with the experimental light weight 8" gun
"Oh‐ayye! The missiles missed us- *BOOM* -oh lord... were all gone."
An accurate description of the US in the 50 to 80s.
Slight correction: the Iroquois class of the RCN, aka the second Tribal class, served along side the Halifax class for many years. Huron decommissioned in 2005, Iroquois and Algonquin decommissioned in 2015 and Athabaskan decommissioned in 2017. If they had served just a few years longer, the world could have had Tribals staring down the Russians again
With that out of the way, I can see the resemblance, though the AEGIS Long Beach needs more stuff on it.
As a further aside, one of the rumours for the CSC is that they could be a 3rd Tribal class
Regarding the comment about the RN's penchant for Sea prefixes on missiles, there were land and aircraft versions of the seacat missile, "tigercat" and "hellcat" respectively. Though admittedly the "hellcat" helicopter missile never found any buyers.
During the 1972 Viet Nam line periods we shot a lot of Talos "49" director radar energy at targets. When we went to track mode the MIGs would dive till they were blocked from the radar by the mountains, which kept them from bothering our strike aircraft. The MIGs, 19s and a few 21s, usually stayed too far away for any Talos shots. We had a 32 repeater in the weapons area of CIC, and we found a number of targets to play with before the ops dept trackers found them. We watched as Hai Phuong was mined, nothing came up for us to even shine one of the 49s at.
Part of her hull is still at PSNS. They still haven't scrapped her for whatever reason.
Parts still radioactive, perhaps? 😁
@@iskandartaib She was defueled 25 years ago, don't think that's the issue.
If it was me, it'd been base on either the Alaska's or the Missouri's, but knowing the USCon, it would probably been an up-sized ArlyB.
Been waiting for this one. As goofy as that sensor array looks, I think it still has that well balanced hull form descended from Brooklyn that gives it a certain elegance.
One of my friends in the Navy got his surface warfare qualification 2 years ago, when they put it in the system they accidentally gave him CGN not CG. He is surface warfare qualified on ships that havent been in the navy in almost 25 years. He's 23 years old
2 years of my life station on her... 1982 / 84
MARDET CGN9... WESTPAC 1-84... 🦅🌐⚓
We left North Island NAS on Friday 13 JAN 84. We were to be in Pearl Harbor for only 3 days. Enroute, saboteurs drained the lube from the #1 prop'/-shaft bearings and needed to be in drydock for repairs. The new bearing was shipped from Norfolk VA thru the Panama Canal to Hawaii. We were there for 3 additional weeks while the battle group steamed onward to Subic Bay. We missed the first "Liberty Call" at PI, we rendezvoused with the USS Kitty Hawk in time to participate in Team Spirit 84... 🦅🌐⚓
Landcat was called Tigercat - probably most famous for being used by Argentines during Falklands. Land Wolf was a thing (particularly the VL), but no one bought them. Land Dart was called Guardian (yep, I'm old enough to remember BAe trying to market those last two)
5"/54 Mk 42 mount is ~60T, the intermediate Mk 39 are listed ~33T, 5"/38 mounts are
IMO, in the modern era, nuclear power is required for ship to be a cruiser, you cannot perform the full spectrum of cruiser missions, especially in wartime, with out it. A conventionally powered ship is too tied to fleet train or a task force to cruise independently, rendering even the largest, most potent, battleship sized, surface combatants mere destroyers, escorts tied to the carrier taskforce.
Especially with even higher demand systems like rail guns on the horizon (the gun is absolutely necessary for a peer conflict lasting more than a month) imo nuclear power will be necessary for any surface combatant with an anti-ship mission.
I have to be grandad to a 4 year old Granddaughter.
In Answer to your question dust off the Des Moines cruisers plans like you said. May be review them but would be a good start point
This is the ship that made me take the Pr. 23560 seriously.
Not in the sense of "the russians are actually going to build it", but more like "maybe there would've been a chance that it wouldn't tip over the moment it touched the water."
IIRC the land based version of Seaslug was Red Heathen (or Heaven, something religous with H -bit of a difference I know) or such and the RN did try and change the name. Unfortunately for future projects no-one seems to have informed the naming dept that a Seaslug is actually a marine animal and it is not 2 words.
Seacat (a member of the otter family) was derived from an army anti-tank round so probably the "sea" was felt necessary.
Thank you for covering nuclear cruiser history!
The nuclear option was a good one for Talos - the expected attack was a formation of long range bombers so aim at the bomber in the middle.......
The 5-in/38-cal were likely chosen as having the guns was a late-decision, the amidships space was going to used first for Regulus and then Polaris, the guns and gun houses likely came from decommissioned/refitted WW2 destroyers. I'm surprised they didn't include twin 3-in/50-cal mounts in the original design for point defense. The new gun in the never done Aegis-rebuild was going to be the 8"/55 Mark 71 that was successfully tested on the USS Hull DD-945. The 8-in/55-cal would have been ideal for the Zumwalts if you could place it on some of the Burkes as well, the Spruance-class was planned to mount some of these guns before the project was canceled along with the strike cruiser concept.
I think an Aegis-Strike Cruiser USS Long Beach would have proved useful, and like the 1960s Blue Ridge-class command ships might still be in service, an even more useful ship given the aggression of China and Russia. As for a modern replacement, an enlarge nuclear-powered Zumwalt would be logical, equipped with Aegis radar suite, a dozen hypersonic missiles in a grid-iron VLS, 4 x HELIOS Laser Weapons in a lozenge, a 5-in/62-cal Mark 45 gun forward and aft like the Ticos, and the two wing-mounted Bofors 57mm guns over the hanger. A stretched version of the DDG(X) hull could also work for a nuclear strike cruiser.
I mean, can I argue for everything being nuclear-powered? Then you're getting your fuel from Saskatchewan...and NOBODY can threaten that supply source.
The photos of Long Beach all make her look top-heavy to he'll with that great block superstructure . How do designers allow for this and keep the ship stable at sea. I have often wondered how they kept ships such as the carriers Lexington and Saratoga stable with those 8 inch turrets so high above the water-line. The same goes for the war built Essex's, with those 5"turrets and all the radars etc on and around the island . I once read but I can't remember where that the block superstructure on the Long Beach served as the prototype for the island on Enterprise. Do u think there is any truth to this or just a tale some writer dreamed up because they look similar. Oh how about some RP7 or CRC on the squeaky chair . Loved the vid on Wichita our views coincide almost exactly. Thanks Ray.
PS. Beautiful time of year here in Brisbane Queensland Australia 30 degrees centigrade today the real heat is coming January and February
I don't believe that this is almost class destroyer is optimal for a missile cruiser, which is there to defend a carrier. The primary benefits of the Zumwalt hull design were stealth and better acoustics. And both of these are useful, but not at the loss of space necessary for C4I and missiles. I think we would have been forced to look at a proper CG(X) with the same length of beam ratio as the Arleigh Burke for both space and stability. This would have allowed us to have a large number of Mark 41 VLS cells as well as the ability to have larger vertical launch cells for hypersonic missiles and missile defense. And given enough space, we might live looked into AESA S-Band, X-Band, and L-Band arrays.
According to a MCPO of 3rd fleet and later MCPO of 7th fleet. The difference between the heavy vs light cruisers is the size of the main guns, 6inch and smaller were considered light cruisers, larger than 6inch main guns were classified as haevy cruisers. I used to have unlimited access to the Washington Navy Yard in DC drawing room, (the size of a socker pitch). Many of the heavy cruisers shared hulls with light cruisers, length width draft and displacement almost identical with identical powerplant and speed. The big difference is main guns, larger than 6in heavy, 6in or smaller light cruiser.
The definition of light cruiser and heavy cruiser was was established in the 1930 London Naval Treaty, and yes, the caliber of main battery gun determined the difference. Hull size had nothing to do it. In fact, the hulls for the Baltimore class heavy cruisers , which carried eight inch guns were slightly small than the Roanoke class light cruiser which carried six inch guns.
I was on USS Long Beach from 1991-1994 first a Boatswain mate than cross rated to Postal clerk.
My dad served on the uss long beach he worked on the mk 10 terrier launcher she could transfer her missles from one luncher to the other
Imagine if they would have used a hull along the lines of the lexington battlecruiser design instead of a light cruiser hull
It wasn't only her age that led to her decommissioning. The 1994 budget ("the Cold War is over and we will never need to fight again") gutted the surface navy, and all of the nuclear powered surface ships (non-carrier) were retired in the mid-1990's because of the costs of continued operations and core refueling: the Californias, Virginias, the Bainbridge and the Truxton.
I attended the christening of the last ship built at Fore River shipyard, and had a model of the Long Beach when I was a little kid. I thought she was really cool looking when I was nine. That's all, nothing relevant to say. Thank you for the lecture
23:57 I recently went through the Art Institute in Chicago. I have been in there many times, but this time I decided to spend the majority of my stay in the modern wing. I use the term modern loosely, as most of the modern art came from the '50s and early '60s, but with some going back even as far 1914.
I assume those dates are not an accident. It's difficult to argue that World War I and World War II did not have an impact on art. We're all familiar with the twenties and the disillusionment etc. But what I didn't get from the '50s until I went through, was the sheer abject freaking terror that people must have felt. Images of the sun in a setting. Garbage as art. Splatter art and the loss of meaning. This is what it must have been like after the black plague. These people legitimately thought they would make it through the year and for good reason.
Given the fact that the first World War had extensive use of chemical weapons, the second of course limited use of chemical and biological weapons, it obviously the use of the nuclear bomb. It is perfectly reasonable in the '50s to anticipate that the next war will be more or less exclusively nuclear. They have not been through Korea, Vietnam or (Soviet) Afghanistan yet. The nuclear bomb is the best weapon, it would be unreasonable if they didn't try to stick it on everything.
loved that bumblebee part 😂🤣
I can't decide if my "favourite" nuclear option is the Genie or the Davy Crockett 🤔
Compared to them nukes on naval missiles is quite sensible.
At least they didn't do a nuclear 5" shell!
Adding a gun is a good idea for those occasions when you need to take out a cheap missile boat and don't want to use one of your expensive missiles.
The thing looked like a bad idea from Ikea.
If the USN is sat watching the army getting news and battle honours all across Vietnam then I'm sure they were only too keen to claim anything as a naval battle to get on the score card
The navy was getting honors left and right if u consider the carrier aviation component.
Christmas I usually end up Facetiming with the Aussie branch of the family as they meet up for their beach bbq. I am not jealous at all 😫
Please sir could you record a little louder . Move the mike Closer? You are worth listening too
The Sps 32 and 33 radars were Fixed Array Radars.....No moving parts.....3D radars.....many search and track beams all at once.....Huge computer system controlled.......I lived there awhile....
38:20 Except for helicopter fuel.....
USS Long Beach the last cruiser!
Yeah, but no.
She was last US cruiser built cruisers, all the rest have been destroyer leaders or rerated for mission destroyer hulls
@@DrAlexClarke I would say the Virginia class would disagree with you.
@Patrick Radcliffe no because they're a continuation of the destroyer leaders, it goes Leahy, Belknap, California & finally Virginia... they might be called cruisers, but they're destroyer leaders in hull form & characteristics... the problems this created were what led to the strike cruiser design, as it was found the hull design(the Virginia) they were using wasn't strong enough to take the top weight - which required an internal redesign to make it strong enough, which led to a wholely new hull, and then a total new design, cost runaway and the Aegis nuclear cruiser doesn't happen. This is something I'm going to cover a lot in the nuclear cruiser video coming later this month, basically the USN went with a destroyer build cruiser design to save money & build time due to pressures in Congress & Pentagon, and ended up shooting themselves in the foot. This also makes Long Beach, which was constructed to cruiser build, light cruiser, but cruiser build, the last true cruiser of the USN...