We’ve been discussing guns versus missiles and concluded, unsurprisingly, that both are needed. With that in mind, let’s recall a ship that pioneered the combined use of missiles and guns!
The Boston class missile cruiser (CAG-1) was originally a Baltimore class heavy cruiser (CA-68) built during WWII. After the war, in the early 1950’s, Boston was converted to launch RIM-2 Terrier missiles by removing the aft 8” gun mount and adding two twin-arm Terrier missile launchers (144 missiles in 2x 72 missile magazines).
|
| USS Boston, CAG-1 |
|
| One of Boston’s Two Terrier Launchers |
|
| Boston’s Stern Showing Both Missile Launchers |
In its original configuration, Boston was well armed and armored. From Wikipedia[1],
Armament
3x triple 8”/55-caliber guns
6x twin 5”/38-caliber guns
12x quad Bofors 40 mm guns
24x single Oerlikon 20 mm guns
Armor
Belt armor: 4–6 in (102–152 mm)
Deck: 2.5 in (64 mm)
Turrets: 1.5–8 in (38–203 mm)
Barbettes: 6.3 in (160 mm)
Conning tower: 6.5 in (165 mm)
Bulkheads: 6 in (152 mm)
Let’s now consider a modern cruiser built along those lines with the Terrier launchers being replaced by two VLS units, each perhaps 16-32 cells for a total of 32-64 missile cells (speculatively, 40 quad packed ESSM plus the remaining 22-54 cells filled with Tomahawk cruise missiles?). With armor and two triple 8” mounts it would be a formidable ship, able to conduct anti-air, cruise missile strikes, and close range, heavy caliber gun strikes while its armor made it resistant (not immune) and resilient to combat damage. It would be the best protected, toughest ship in the world! It’s interesting that the original missile version of Boston had more nominal missiles than our hypothetical, modern version (144 vs. 64)
Boston was 673 ft long and around 15,000 tons displacement, nearly the same size as a Zumwalt. Imagine if the Zumwalt had, instead, been built as a modern Boston heavy missile cruiser. It would have been a much more combat-effective and useful vessel !
Oh, what could have been …
Armament
3x triple 8”/55-caliber guns
6x twin 5”/38-caliber guns
12x quad Bofors 40 mm guns
24x single Oerlikon 20 mm guns
Armor
Belt armor: 4–6 in (102–152 mm)
Deck: 2.5 in (64 mm)
Turrets: 1.5–8 in (38–203 mm)
Barbettes: 6.3 in (160 mm)
Conning tower: 6.5 in (165 mm)
Bulkheads: 6 in (152 mm)
Let’s now consider a modern cruiser built along those lines with the Terrier launchers being replaced by two VLS units, each perhaps 16-32 cells for a total of 32-64 missile cells (speculatively, 40 quad packed ESSM plus the remaining 22-54 cells filled with Tomahawk cruise missiles?). With armor and two triple 8” mounts it would be a formidable ship, able to conduct anti-air, cruise missile strikes, and close range, heavy caliber gun strikes while its armor made it resistant (not immune) and resilient to combat damage. It would be the best protected, toughest ship in the world! It’s interesting that the original missile version of Boston had more nominal missiles than our hypothetical, modern version (144 vs. 64)
Boston was 673 ft long and around 15,000 tons displacement, nearly the same size as a Zumwalt. Imagine if the Zumwalt had, instead, been built as a modern Boston heavy missile cruiser. It would have been a much more combat-effective and useful vessel !
Oh, what could have been …
[1]Wikipedia, “USS Boston (CA-69)”, retrieved 12-May-2023,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Boston_(CA-69)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Boston_(CA-69)
from JC’s Naval, Maritime and Military News https://ift.tt/Tw7dMpD
via IFTTT