Battleships

[sequoiaranger]

If you are as crazy as I am, and I think you are, you might like to look through my "Furashita's Fleet" website, at:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/furamain.htm

I have built several of "my" ships there. Lots of "grist" for future projects!

Craig Burke
AKA sequoiaranger,
AKA Admiral U. Furashita

[dy031101]

I've enjoyed every bit of it for 2+ years! 

And so began a long (very long) process of trying to imagine the hybrids modernised a bit and re-equipped with choppers and A-4/N-156NN/Harrier/Yak-38/MAKO-LCA/F-35B......

[proditor]

I have a couple I just can't seem to finish.

[dy031101]

Here is a Japanese having fun:

http://www.warbirds.jp/kakuki/kakkan/kakukan/suou.htm

It's entirely fictional...... don't ask me if the naming convention is correct, either, since I'm not that knowledgeable about Japanese geography, but I do find the drawing interesting.

[dy031101]

I have a question...... I wonder what your suggestions might be.

Suppose an Iowa class BB and a Montana class BB were compared side-by-side.

If one of them were to be converted into a battleship-carrier (patterned after either Howard Pulver's or Gene Anderson's design), which one would you rather see given to the process?

I know, Montana has bigger space aft (therefore being afforded a bigger hanger and probably a longer angled-flightdeck), but that means the BB would lose six guns as opposed to Iowa's loss of just three......

[proditor]

Kinda depends on what you put on the flight deck.  Iowas are also faster, so that might be a consideration.

[dy031101]

Kinda depends on what you put on the flight deck.

N-156NN (CATOBAR fighter designed for Commencement Bay class CVE) or Harrier.

[sequoiaranger]

I doctored two photos to make a "hybrid" battleship-carrier, but it had a straight deck. You might combine the idea with an angled deck. Anyway, here is the ship on my webpage:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/midway_f.htm

Craig Burke
AKA Admiral U. Furashita

[dy031101]

The way I think about it, despite Montana's bigger size, the current conclusion is that I probably would have chosen Iowa over Montana.

Not for speed although speed probably would've mattered more if we equipped the hybrid with, say, F/A-18 (N-156NN is said to be designed with the existing catapult of Commencement Bay class CVEs, which could make only about 19 knots, in mind; Harrier is STOVL, so no problem there).

Practical or not, like I said, the idea of losing six guns instead of losing just three still kinda bothers me.  Since Montana is a battleship built for more firepower than Iowa, let her have the twelve guns (and the cruise missiles, since we're talking about a modernised conversion). 

Any input/advice/rebuttal?

Is there a way to approximate how many aircraft a conversion like that could support?

[Joe C-P]

I can't (affordably) model my latest idea, so I have to imagine it aloud here. (There is a model I could use, but it's well over $100.  ) I wasn't certain whether to put this in Alternate History or Ship By Topic, so I picked this thread.

April 1958 - North Korea, thinking that the UN won't come to the rescue of South Korea again, invades.

They are mostly right - the UN votes down another intervention (due to the Soviets being present at this vote). But the US, UK, Canada, Japan, and Australia agree that this aggression cannot stand.

Quickly their navies assemble off the Koreas and begin supporting the troops on land, who are managing to slow, though not stop, the North Korean armies.

Big gun support is needed; the excellent records of the Iowas is still remembered by the Marines and Army. But the only ships available are 8" and 6" cruisers, because the Iowas are being converted to BBGs, and two of the South Dakotas are being converted to assault carriers, while the other two had to be stripped of essential parts to support these conversions, and the North Carolinas were similarly stripped of their main guns and other parts.

The only two battleships remaining were the older Colorados and Tennesees. The former were chosen due to their heavier guns, with the same caliber as the more modern battleships, and of those the Maryland and West Virginia were selected over Colorado due to their secondary armament of more recent 5"/38s.

Due to the urgency of the situation, the ships received minimal upgrades, with their communication and navigation equipment being brought up to current requirements. While their main and secondary batteries were both needed for fire support, all the tertiary AA armament was removed other than a pair of 20mm guns, kept to shoot up against floating mines. Aft, the catapults were landed to make room for helos to land, though the cranes were kept.

Maryland was ready first, sailing for Korea in December 1958, arriving just before Christmas and going right into action supporting the Marines just north of Hungnam. West Virginia arrived in late January, and joined her sister supporting Allied troops. During their time off the coats they were accompanied by one of the new CLGs, which served as anti-aircraft escort along with also providing gunfire support with their 6" and 5" guns.

Both ships served off Korea (with trips to Japan and Guam to rearm and repair) until early 1960, when New Jersey, BBG-62 and, Alabama, BBH-60, arrived in theater. Both of the old ships were sent home to a well-deserved retirement. Some suggested they be upgraded and sent back into the fight, and plans were even drawn up to replace the after main turrets with Terriers and their 5" twins with more modern single mounts, but their age and the availability of 6 more modern converted battleships precluded that option.

Maryland was granted to her name state, and is now anchored near Baltimore as a floating museum. West Virginia would be destined for the scrap yard, but several parts of her - masts, anchors, wheel, props, and one main gun - were saved and are on display in various locations around her name state.


If anyone ever makes a plastic WeeVee or Maryland in their mid- to late-war guises I'm going to model this.

JoeP

[gooberliberation]

I've been wanting to buy a a dragon or trumpeter Kirov class but as cool as it looks, it doesn't have big whopping guns like a proper warship should.

...hey now there's an idea.

[Joe C-P]

You could keep the VLS forward and replace the 130mm twin aft with bigger guns - 155mm or 208mm. Maybe even a triple, and two turrets if you use the flight deck. Put a helo landing spot forward of the VLS section, where the twin SS-N-14 launcher is.
I like this idea.

[gooberliberation]

I was thinking of also updating the superstructure with "stealth slopes," cleaning up all those antennae, and putting on multiple coil and railgun turrets

[Joe C-P]

Going back my 1950s theme, what if the performance of the Iowas off the Koreas convinced other nations to keep their remaining battleships? They'd need major upgrades, of course, primarily in reducing manning requirements. So, what BBs were left by the Korean War?

For the US, the Iowas. Strip all the AA guns, replace with just 4 twin 3", relying on the escorts for anti-air. Automate what can be. Replace the ten 5" twins with six more modern 5" singles. During peacetime only man one or at most two of the main turrets. Use for cadet training. Keep only one in active service, with another being worked on and the other two in reserve.

For the RN, there's HMS Vanguard. Do the same - remove the AA armament, upgrade the secondary, minimal manning during peacetime.

The French kept Richelieu and Jean Bart. Leave as it.

Here it gets interesting, and farther from OTL.

Turkey has the WW1 battlecruiser Yavuz. She would need a lot of modernization, but maybe NATO will support it, to have a battleship-class vessel in the eastern Med and Black Sea.

That would impel the Soviets to restore one of their remaining, ancient Ganguts. (Let's say this happened after they returned the former Giulio Cesare to Italy). Perhaps they could piece together enough parts from the various remaining ships to get one to at least _appear_ to work. Sevastopol was in the "least bad" shape by then. I can see the Soviets sending her on one training cruise down the European coast to the Med, then back to the Baltic. And they continue building the Stalingrad battlecruisers.

Italy adds to the Med battleship force by keeping one of the Dorias, using the other and the Cesare for parts.

Chile still had the Almirante Latorre, which had been refurbished in 1950, though suffered a machinery problem a year later. Chile could have had her fixed up by the British.
This in turn would have caused the Argentinians to have one of the Rivadavia's modernized in the US, though at rather considerable cost.
And that in turn would have caused the other big S.A. power, Brasil, to purchase the two most modern, 16"-armed members of the USN's Big Five - Maryland and West Virginia - including similar upgrades as were made to the Iowas - tertiary armament stripped, modern communications and electronic outfits, and going the USN one better by removing the aft crane for a helo landing pad.

Someday, when I have the spare cash, I'll build WeeVee in Brasilian service, Yavuz with 1960s tech, HMS Vanguard upgraded like the 1980s Iowas.

[pyro-manic]

The RN also had the four surviving KGVs knocking about, as well as Vanguard. They were decommissioned around 1951, and not scrapped until 1957/58, so they could be upgraded as well. Vanguard was almost a new ship in 1950 (not commissioned until '46), so I think the KGVs are more likely candidates, particularly Anson and Howe, the later ships of the class. As you say, remove all the manpower-intensive AAA, the cramped 5.25" secondary turrets, and replace them with a smaller number of the larger turrets used on Vanguard (alternatively, delay these upgrades for a few years and then install some twin 3"/70 automatic turrets, and a pair of 6" QF Mk.V turrets, as mounted by the post-war Tiger class cruisers).