Best warships that should have been built

Fisher's HMS Incomparable.
Only a concept, not a full design like others mentioned here, but 20" guns and 35 knots ... you want to see it, don't you.
(I would never argue this was 'the best warship' concept, but I note use of the descriptor 'cool' in the OP).

Returning to a more sane world, I'd nominate 'X4' of 1905.
A 'fusion battleship' (i.e. fast battleship) with 10-12" (or 8-13.5"), 25 knots, armour as Bellerophon but with better torpedo protection.
 
For the US 1913 Scheme #3, originally planned as a possible design for New Mexico, it would have mounted 10 16" guns on a hull of 35,700 tons. It is unfortunate that the New Mexico's were not of this type, a shame the Tennessee's were not, and a crying shame that the Colorado's were not. Yet another thing to blame on Josephus Daniels. Admittedly the USN having 5 16" Battleships completed in 1921 would have really screwed with the WNT, but that's not necessarily a bad thing

Also the Virginia Battleship design A rather than the Design B that was built OTL, all but one member of the original board endorsed design A, but that one guy was so strenous that they convened a second board. This second board unlike the first included line officers with combat experience, these new officers chose B, the version with the 8" turrets stacked on top of the 12" rather than the conventional mounting of A.
 

Driftless

Donor
The often requested, often delayed by budget: USCG heavy Icebreaker/ aka Polar Security Cutter in it's current form. The US has one heavyweight Icebreaker, the Polar Star, a high-mileage 1976 model. When that ship is in for repairs, the US has to rely on the Canadians to fill the role in the far North. With the Artic Ocean partially open for much more of the year, that ocean and it's seabed have become more of a bone of international contention than in earlier decades and US presence has been limited.
 
H-44 battleships for Nazi Germany. Would have had capacity to shorten the war. Same goes for A-150 design for Japan.

Realistically the only way any battleship is shortening the war for Germany or Japan is by taking so many resources away from things like U-boats, the Heer and fuel reserves so making the war slightly easier for the Allies.

Battleships are fascinating ships but even by 1940 they're not war winners. No German battleship is going to survive for long against the Fleet Air Arm and RAF while the Japanese already had ridiculously huge battleships they couldn't afford to fuel that required escorting by most of the rest of the IJN to keep USN torpedo bombers off them.
 

Riain

Banned
The USS America as a nuke follow-up of the USS Enterprise, and the USS JFK as a nuke with 4 x A3W reactors.
 
The often requested, often delayed by budget: USCG heavy Icebreaker/ aka Polar Security Cutter in it's current form. The US has one heavyweight Icebreaker, the Polar Star, a high-mileage 1976 model. When that ship is in for repairs, the US has to rely on the Canadians to fill the role in the far North. With the Artic Ocean partially open for much more of the year, that ocean and it's seabed have become more of a bone of international contention than in earlier decades and US presence has been limited.
No, they just figure that if they build them they'll get blamed for building unneeded ships when global warming melts the icecaps. So they are actually thinking ahead!
 
The METCALF class cruiser (Popular Mechanics, July 1988):

1579554691069.png
 

nbcman

Donor
Being that they used marine diesels, were designed with snorkels, and were to be armed with 28 cm naval guns, a whole series of Ratte would have been a great waste of German naval resources.
 
The Lions have always looked hugely impressive to me. The firepower is on par with the Iowas, given the British shell's large burster charge and optimisation for belt penetration, as opposed to the US's 16" guns' optimisation for higher-obliquity hits, despite the lighter shell, but Lion was really a contemporary of South Dakota, given that both were laid down in summer 1939.

But not building them was the correct decision. They weren't needed - the KGVs had already done the job. But if you can remove the push for 2LNT, then you could have the KGVs built as Lions. But I guess this requires considerable mid-1930s butterflies... maybe a naval conflict with Italy over Abyssinia?
 
The Malta class Carriers would have been useful. Push for them to be built by not building the colossus and majestic class light Carriers along with the huge number of escort carriers.
 
The Malta class Carriers would have been useful. Push for them to be built by not building the colossus and majestic class light Carriers along with the huge number of escort carriers.
Britain converted almost no escort carriers, less than 10 if I remember right. The vast majority of RN CVE's were lend lease.
 
Having just read the excellent Grand Fleet by D.K. Brown, I would have loved to see the G3 and N3 class ships built, even in small numbers. If the British managed to get just two vessels, lets assume named Nelson and Rodney as the OTL vessels. they could have been incredibly useful ships with upgrades into WWI. If these ships were knocking about then Hood could have easily been refitted, and made into a much improved vessel by WWII, not being sunk by Bismarck. As well as other things being different.

HMS Incomparable, a planned follow on to the Furious, Glorious and Courageous, with enormous 20' guns. I in no way see this ship being built as designed, but as converted to a carrier she could have been very useful in WWII. Giving the British a ship roughly equivalent to the American Lexington and Saratoga.
 
The Audacious class aircraft carrier HMS Eagle.

The one laid down at Vickers-Armstrong (Tyne) in April 1944 and cancelled in 1946.

IOTL Hermes was suspended at the end of the war, resumed in 1952 and completed in 1959 at a cost of £37,500,000, which is about four times the unit cost of her 3 half-sisters and double the cost of rebuilding Victorious.

With hindsight it should have been the other way around with Hermes cancelled at the end of the war and Eagle suspended.

For convenience she'd be renamed Audacious in 1946, resumed in 1952, launched in 1953 and completed towards the end of 1959. She'd resemble the OTL Eagle after her 1959-64 refit. Internally she'd have the CDS instead of ADA and an AC electrical system instead of Eagle's DC system.

Her first major refit would be in 1964-66 and would include Phantomisation.
 
View attachment 517452

A fine ship but a waste of resources better used on an extra Audacious class carrier.
What he said.

Then rebuild it 1950-58 instead of the OTL rebuild of Victorious. In common with the Audacious (ex-Eagle) completed instead of Hermes, the rebuilt aircraft carrier Vanguard would resemble Eagle (ex-Audacious) after her 1959-64 refit, but internally she'd have the CDS instead of ADA and an AC electrical system instead of Eagle's DC system.

IOTL Victorious went into refit after Hermes competed her 1964-66 refit so it would be logical for Vanguard to have a Phantomisation refit after Audacious completed her 1964-66 refit.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Some of my top choices have already been mentioned but one class that not only should gave been constructed, but STILL needs to be resurrected in a hurry is the CG(N)-X.

25,000 tons, 512 VLS tubes, BMD capable, nuclear powered so it can operate current and forcast 2nd and 3rd Generation Rail Guns and Directed Energy systems.. Plan was for 19, I'd argue for at least 26, two per CV(N)BG and three for independent SBG use as floating THAAD with two-three DDG-51 Block III/IV. The world is still a very unfriendly place and the U.S. is riding too hard on 1990s tech into the third decade of the 21st Century.

Another gaping hole in the USN inventory is shore bombardment. The fleet needs to come up with at least a 155mm armed design, although a 208mm would be better that can provide useful naval gunfire support, not just with the gee-wizz 100 mile deep strike but with conventional rounds as well. Ideally a variant of the CG(N)-X but with a much smaller VLS, say 96 compartments, four 155mm/208mm guns and space/weight saved for both rail guns and directed energy. Need at least one of these, ideally two+ for each 'Phib group.
 
Top