Shipbucket

This is my take on the many proposals to actually fully convert the converted Cleveland-class cruisers to double-ended, pure missile cruisers. It should be regard as a synchretic effort to blend the proposals into one, functioning design. Hence why I've settled to use the flagship configurated version, in this case the USS Oklahoma City as the testbed.

As can be seen, the Talos-system forward essentially duplicates the aft one: the same two-storied missile house, for instance. However, the bridge structure is now situated atop this missile 'house', and since the space removed from flag facilities, now how to be compensated, I've added additional superstructure. There's a pair of Mk 32 A/S triples beneath the bridge, since early proposal suggested the ships to be armed with torpedoes. I did reject the 21" ASuW twin mounting as being too heavy, so, again, this is a compromise.

For those who think this design is top heavy, I can only concur. That's, in fact, the one compelling reason why no double-ended conversions were carried out. Inclination tests with the Okie Boat in 1964, did, however, reveal that, although settling deeper in the bow than when in a gun-only config. there was still a reserve displacement available. Suggestions as to blistering the ships were rejected, also the removal of the six-inch gun turret. The ship would pitch quite vividly in anything but calm seas, but with her metacentric height lowered she probably would've turned out to be a fairly stable vessel, with a deep, long roll.
The prominent FAST-crane forward would not normally be shipped. As a matter of fact, though most plans and drawings show them in place, the FAST-cranes (or masts) were far from a permanent fixture on these ships, the Talos-armed ones. And they were heartidly detested for their tendency to always break down.

Anyway, this is how the USS Oklahoma City might have looked like with two Talos installations:

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

As usual , few critics
- Your full conversion LACK even a handfull of GUNS. You need to maintain one twin 127 or one twin 76mm on each side
- A pure Talos SAM was +/- strange, maybe you need to replace one launcher with a Terrier or a Tartar launcher... ???
- Your ship look to have maybe too numerous utility-boats in the center of the ship....
- I am not sure about the Radars complement, but your ship look very "radars loaded"...
But very interesting FULL CLEVELAND MISSILE CONVERSION

While I agree that, depending on the timing, there would quite a bit of pressure to fit guns on her (Depends on whether the conversion starts before or after JFK ordered the Long Beach to be fitted with a set of 5"/38s) there's still the issue of where you're going to put them. It's not exactly as if they're swimming in free cubage.
As for the boats, it carries the same complement as the RL Little Rocks so that's hardly out of place.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

while I like this, I have a few notes to make
- this ship will not be so much top heavy, as it will be bottom light. the magazines and other heavy systems are all moved to abovedeck, making the need for ballast in the hull very urgent. I should check this, but I think the missile systems are lighter then the original turrets, and they will be especially when you count in the gun magazines. this gives you some additional displacement to play with..... which all will go to ballast, which isn't that good an thing.
- take note that due to strength problems, you will not only remove the gun magazines but also rebuild that entire hull section from the keel up. this is needed because the pressure of the weapon weight is moved from the magazine and the barbette to the main deck, which is not designed to take this load (this is exactly why the real CLG's suffered from hogging problems)
- I would not like to serve on this ship. why not? because the bridge is on top of literally tons of flammable rocket fuel, not to speak of the warhead storage deeper down. so, when this ship is hit in that space, you will loose your command facilities almost instantly, which makes that an secondary command centre (CIC) is necessary to be placed somewhere in the ship..... and near the engine room or below the missile magazines is not an good place. what spaces do you have left for this?
- crew spacing seems to be going an issue on this ship.....
- an twin-terrier set up seems more likely, due to the lesser weight.
- due to the above mentioned rebuild needed, I think you have now reached or even bypassed the line where an new ship would be cheaper and simpler
- keep in mind that these ships were experimental in every sense. this is shown by the fact that there were 4 types within 6 ships and that the terrier and talos installations could be swapped to the one that would be the 'winner' in the end.
- while I have no good insight in the machinery installations of these ships, I think that 2 additional diesel generators should be placed to power the additional missile system and directors.

_________________
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, for once I do agree with you on the whole. Thanks first of all for your appreciation of my attempt! Secondly, I do agree with you about the curious way the bridge structure is right above the entire missile magazine, but this picture is inspired by one of the many sketches that shows this - with the Talos! There's even a sketch that, in its outline can be interpreted as, exactly a flagship conversion.
As for the weights, you're right. One reason why the flagship conversions were "dipping" their bows deeper than their gun-armed equivalents, was the combination of the extended bridge and retention of a comprehensive artillery system. Both the Talos and Terrier did weigh less, especially in this, rather austere form. As for the CIC, I appreciate the problem, and it was, in fact, never satisfactorily solved for a double-ender. The ships did have several CIC and, at least three flag plotting stations, so, while a tricky thing to achieve it is feasible still. But you're right about having reached what can be considered the limit of these hulls' ability to sustain load pressure. But then again, I didn't set out to actually claim this would be realistic within engineering benchmarks.
One last remark: while your supposition regarding the advisability to use, instead, the Terrier, most sketches appear to, oddly enough, show a preference for the Talos, hence my choice.
As for the guns, it's correct that there ought to be something, but like it has been pointed out, the issue would be, where to put it! These ships never received any sort of last-ditch defense guns IRL, due to the space critical condition. There remained one 5" gun turret forward and that was considered satisfactory, since it could put up a barrage together with the ship's 6" triple mounting. As Kennedy did order the arming of the three Albanys in early 1962, this ship, in this configuration surely would've been affected. However, the conversions were done by the summer of 1960, I e well before President Kennedy assumed office.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

I highly doubt that you'll be able to have the large command bridge with forward Talos anyway, based on my own research when I tried to draw some Talos ships. The magazine loaders need a certain amount of clearance.

That's true, but, like I've said, I have based it on actual sketches showing an extended bridge version, so I think I trust that more...

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

Looks great!

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

Thank you! I don't know if she looks that great, but it is approximately how the unfinished sketches might have turned out. I am considering raising the bridge structure one deck, on level with Galveston's, albeit it being a considerably larger structure. Any thoughts on that?

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

Do you want me to get you the scans for CLG 2/54?

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆