Best warships that should have been built

G3s, although recently I've been considering a K2 or K3 with 16 inch guns, which would surely allow for thicker armour and a more conventional layout
 
Additional QE Battleships being laid down and completed

Certainly the 6th Unit HMS Agincourt

And there was some talk of Canada financing another 3 via the Naval Aid Bill - Acadia, Quebec and Ontario

Although that was highly unlikely that the Canadian Government would have been able to go through with it - it would have provided the RN with 9 QEs by 1916 - possibly butterflying away the Revenges and possibly resulting in more than 2 Renown BCs

9 QEs would have been very useful for the RN
 

Driftless

Donor
If you read Jules Verne, the USS Abraham Lincoln shows up in 20'000 Leagues under the Sea as the ship that hunts the Nemo's boat never knowing it is a U-boat. It does not go well for the USS Abraham Lincoln...

Disclaimer: unrealistic to ever be built, as it has no purpose other than way-too-cool....

A functioning, full-size version of Nemo's Nautilus, loosely based on the 1954 movie version. (There are also many other artist versions of Verne's ship out there too)
 
There was a new carrier design to replace the Essex class based on the lessons learned up thru 1944. None were ever built because there were so many 'low time' Essex class around. It is covered in Friedman's Illustrated Design History volume on Aircraft Carriers. I'll pull out my copy and scan it in when i get a chance. Several innovative features including a split island and a waist catapult.
 
The Malta Class is probably the best example of a really good design (unlike Graf Spee or CVA-01) that would have been really useful (unlike Montana or Lion) and would have had a long service career. The RN was originally hoping for four and I think there is minimal chance of keeping four RN carriers in service throughout the Cold War but they certainly could have run two through to 1990.
 

SsgtC

Banned
The Malta Class is probably the best example of a really good design (unlike Graf Spee or CVA-01) that would have been really useful (unlike Montana or Lion) and would have had a long service career. The RN was originally hoping for four and I think there is minimal chance of keeping four RN carriers in service throughout the Cold War but they certainly could have run two through to 1990.
Had they been built, I could see the RN running all 4 through to about 1970 give or take a few years. Then placing two "in reserve." In actuality, they'd probably be used as parts hulks to keep the other two going.
 
G3s, although recently I've been considering a K2 or K3 with 16 inch guns, which would surely allow for thicker armour and a more conventional layout

Of all the capital ships that were designed for the Royal Navy, those which, without doubt, would have been regarded as the best were never built. --John Roberts

Regards,
 
Any thoughts on a conversion of the Iowa class to cruise missile platforms? Tomahawks are much less glamorous than 16” guns, but they could carry a lot of them. The proposal included a 320-cell VLS, a flight deck for Harriers and Ospreys, and short-term accommodations for 800 Marines. It would be fantastically expensive, but it’d offer a lot of force projection in a form adapted to the post-Cold War era.
What are the benefits of using an Iowa for that job?
Without guns, this ship wouldn’t need to get close to shore to provide fire support and thus put itself at risk (which was the argument to use the well armored Iowa for that role). I do not see any benefit in refitting the Iowa for that. You could rather adapt an existing Tarawa-like-design, keep away from battle and send out cruise missiles and aircraft/choppers.
 
The Hood style Lexington that Goodall inspired. Why? Unlike say, the G3 it could have been completed in time to wreck the WNT. The Japanese aren't going to let a Kongo eater like that stand. Amagi please. The Brits aren't going to accept even more 16" ships. G3 please.

I must admit I have a soft spot for the original spec Pensacola. That would have put the cat among the pigeons. God awful ship, but with the size and guns the responses would have been interesting.
 
H-44 battleships for Nazi Germany. Would have had capacity to shorten the war. Same goes for A-150 design for Japan.
 
An arsenal ship would've actually been perfect if build in the mid-90s, for the sort of low-threat, constant-bombardment naval environments that have dominated U.S. combat operations for the past 25 years. A ship with 500-1000+ TLAMs that couldn't protect itself from peer threats but also didn't need to, and could just be parked in the necessary theater to spam missiles. Three of them at a billion apiece would've been great to have starting in the late 90s. In addition to converting SSBNs into SSGNs, of course, as well as loading up Burkes and Ticos with VLS, but with the benefit of lower manpower needs and being able to just sit them on station for months, without having to rotate and reload. And the added benefit of not having to use up other surface combatants on that mission, reducing their wear-and-tear and keeping a lot more of them available for other tasks.

People say the arsenal ships put too many eggs in one basket, but that's a lesser downside than all the upsides.
 
Had they been built, I could see the RN running all 4 through to about 1970 give or take a few years. Then placing two "in reserve." In actuality, they'd probably be used as parts hulks to keep the other two going.

Let's say instead of the Audacious Class the RN decides to get hulls into the water as fast as possible by building more light aircraft carriers in the early wars years while continuing to work on a true fleet carrier. Something equivalent to the X1 design is then approved and the order placed in spring 1943 with construction proceeding at a rapid pace. With all four well underway by 1945 you would probably have them join the fleet slowly throughout the late 40's before almost immediately going into refit in the 50's to be fitted with angled flight decks using the money that in OTL was spent rebuilding the Victorious and modifying the Audacious Class.
They then serve through the late 50's and early 60's but with 3rd generation jets on the horizon it the RN recognises the need to update it's carrier force. It would probably initially push for 4 new carriers but it would soon get redirected by the Treasury to updating the Malta's. Knowing the RN they would come up with a boutique and extremely expensive proposal but with 3rd generation jets on order something has to be done and the refit program is approved with the first carrier going into a 4 year rebuild in 1969 and the second going into refit in 1971. Then comes 1973 and the refit for the last two is cancelled as the UK economy heads down the tubes. Ships 3 and 4 are placed into reserve in the mid-1970's to wait until money becomes available to refit them so they can join the fleet. In the meantime the now two carrier force carries on with two reasonably fresh ships that can accommodate Phantoms with reasonable ease.
Reality is finally recognised in 1980 and ships 3 and 4 go the breakers and the replacement process for 1 and 2 is started with an aimed in service date of 1990. If it goes fast enough they might get built before the end of the Cold War sees the budget disappear, if not.....
 
H-44 battleships for Nazi Germany. Would have had capacity to shorten the war. Same goes for A-150 design for Japan.

They were terrible designs and completely impractical. I don't think they can be regarded as "best warships that should have been built"
 
An arsenal ship would've actually been perfect if build in the mid-90s, for the sort of low-threat, constant-bombardment naval environments that have dominated U.S. combat operations for the past 25 years. A ship with 500-1000+ TLAMs that couldn't protect itself from peer threats but also didn't need to, and could just be parked in the necessary theater to spam missiles. Three of them at a billion apiece would've been great to have starting in the late 90s. In addition to converting SSBNs into SSGNs, of course, as well as loading up Burkes and Ticos with VLS, but with the benefit of lower manpower needs and being able to just sit them on station for months, without having to rotate and reload. And the added benefit of not having to use up other surface combatants on that mission, reducing their wear-and-tear and keeping a lot more of them available for other tasks.

People say the arsenal ships put too many eggs in one basket, but that's a lesser downside than all the upsides.

Instead of an arsenal ship I would guess just Boeing 747 Cruise Missile Carrier would have been better. One CMCA could carry 100 cruise missiles and could be based in CONUS. So, instead of being deployed for months it could just lay idle in an AF base. Surface ships and subs could launch strikes needing shorter reaction time.

Additionally, one could just load with JDAM's for supporting interventions in permissive environments
 
Last edited:
Top