Thank you for the compliments guys, I really do appreciate them. Also, a Thanks to Colo for the the layered file, and help understanding what was going on between the funnels were one of the 3"/50 structures were removed and room made for the boats.
|Hood wrote: *||November 14th, 2018, 9:25 am|
That is a great idea! The Worcesters were good looking ships and giving them a rebuild like this would have been expensive and possibly not economically sound given their age, but they would have been potent ships.
|eswube wrote: *||November 14th, 2018, 10:17 pm|
Probably not cost-effective at their age, but impressive!
Some things to keep in mind: The ships in question served for about 10 years, and then were laid up. If kept post 1972, they would have been laid up for about twenty years prior to a 1980s reactivation. These numbers can be considered to be roughly analogous to the time periods for the Iowa class battleships that I'm using them to replace. Expanding from that the Iowa class ships historically had about 2700 crew in the 1950s, and 1800 in the 1980s. With the removal of fully half of the main battery on the Worcesters, I could see a crew compliment in the 1980s in the 12-1300 range, which really helps with operating costs. While they don't have explicit commonality with steam plants in the fleet (The Sacramento class AOEs each had half of an Iowa plant scavenged from the sets built for the Kentucky
and the Illinois
), we are not dealing with anything too out of the ordinary (620 psi boilers and ~30kshp turbines). Also, as I noted above, I really don't see the ships surviving past the end of the cold war, and the arrival of large numbers of VLS cells in refitted Spruances that allow for a distributed Tomahawk load out.
The main advantage to all of this would come from the fact that there were three Salems and two Worcesters, allowing for five platforms vs four Iowas - and the manning between the two options should come out to about the same.