AHC: A Different USS Alaska

[Driftless]

We've had all sorts of different configurations put forth, from go with a smaller caliber main battery, to go bigger, do more Iowa's, don't do gun-ships - replace them in the construction queue with more carriers, etc.

My technical knowledge in this field is wimpy, so I'll defer the execution of this next idea to someone with more knowledge.

How about a thread with a 1936 POD (Post London Naval Treaty), starting with a 1937-1938 US Navy mindset, build an alternative fleet for the US. From hindsight, most would say to downplay the capital ships and build more big carriers from the get-go, but much of that line of thought comes from wartime experience. For example, the US was originally limited to 14"/355mm guns by treaty for the North Carolinas, but the US invoked the escalator clause to upgrade to 16"/406mm after they were authorized. What could/should come next? Take a cue from the Peerless Air Ministry thread run by sonofpegasus and perfectgeneral, where in this thread the US Navy gets and optimized fleet, based on knowledge of the time of design and purchase.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Would a American equivalent to Strasbourg(which had better armor than her half sister) using the Quad 14" turret design orginally meant for the North Carolinas be an acceptable Alaska class replacement assuming it was laid down in either 1938 or 1939

 

[jsb]

How about a thread with a 1936 POD (Post London Naval Treaty), starting with a 1937-1938 US Navy mindset, build an alternative fleet for the US. From hindsight, most would say to downplay the capital ships and build more big carriers from the get-go, but much of that line of thought comes from wartime experience. For example, the US was originally limited to 14"/355mm guns by treaty for the North Carolinas, but the US invoked the escalator clause to upgrade to 16"/406mm after they were authorized. What could/should come next? Take a cue from the Peerless Air Ministry thread run by sonofpegasus and perfectgeneral, where in this thread the US Navy gets and optimized fleet, based on knowledge of the time of design and purchase.

Just spam out Ship early what USN had was fine, I would go for,

- a set of 6 14"x9 NC with more speed really early ie all on Jan 37 for completion by Dec 1940
- a set of 6 Yorktowns laid down on Jan 37 for completion by Dec 1940
- a set of 11 Brooklyn class cruiser.....

 

[Driftless]

Just spam out Ship early what USN had was fine, I would go for,

- a set of 6 14"x9 NC with more speed really early ie all on Jan 37 for completion by Dec 1940
(snip)

Are the historic South Dakota class rolled into this alt North Carolina group?

 

[jsb]

Are the historic South Dakota class rolled into this alt North Carolina group?

I think they end up as early (maybe slightly smaller/slower) Iowa's?

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

How many 5"/38 guns could you fit on this hull? A mega AA cruiser to escort fast fleets. Not much belt, but serious torpeo bulkheads rising up to seven inches of deck armour over the huge magazines.

Quite a lot but I suspect a number of smaller, more nimble and expendable ships like the RN Dido class would be useful.

 

[Simon]

The Alaska-class were simply too big for their purpose. For the same tonnage (not a perfect measure of how many replacements you'd get, but a rough estimate) you could build double the number of heavy cruisers or for the tonnage of the 6 proposed six ship class you could build 5 South Dakota-class or 4 Iowa-class battleships. If you were generous, just using the tonnage of the three ships constructed, you could have 6 Baltimore-class cruisers, 2 South Dakota-class battleships or the best part of 2 Iowa-class battleships. Maybe even go backwards and build two more North Carolina-class battleships to have a four ship group?

Moving away from big gun ships each Alaska-class looks to have only displaced roughly 1,000 tons less than an Essex-class carrier. Three extra carriers might be useful, or, ignoring other supply issues, to use the full six-ship tonnage say three carriers and six Baltimore-class cruisers.

 

[Winestu]

Does anybody have accurate costs for them?

Just from a few mins on Google,
USS Alaska $67,053,828 v USS Iowa US$100 million per ship ? Not a good deal IMO Illinois and Kentucky would be far more useful.

So basically, cost-wise, the USN could drop all 6 Alaska’s and build 4 Iowa’s in their place and still have some money left over.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

So basically, cost-wise, the USN could drop all 6 Alaska’s and build 4 Iowa’s in their place and still have some money left over.

Or in terms of ships laid down finish Illinois and Kentucky at the expense of the 3 Alaskas that got laid down

 

[johnboy]

Perhaps something like this may be more useful?

 

[imperial empire]

Just spam out Ship early what USN had was fine, I would go for,

- a set of 6 14"x9 NC with more speed really early ie all on Jan 37 for completion by Dec 1940

Damm, you beat me to it. I was going to suggest that that the navy develop the NC class as the proposed 3x3 "14". Build 4 as a counter to the Kongo's and IJN CA's while keeping up with the carriers. Follow this with an alt-South Dakota class of 4, then either a pair of Iowa's or Montana's. Besides that more Des Moines class, more Baltimore's, and more Essex's

If the Montana's are built, I wonder which class the the Navy would keep though. The heavier hitting Montana's or the faster alt-North Carolina's that can keep up with the carriers?

 

[Crowbar Six]

My simplest idea, build the Alaskas as scaled-down Iowas. That makes them of small battleships, with the aviation arrangements on the stern instead of amidships. A scaled-up Baltimore is another idea. Or, take the original Des Moines-class plans scaled up to take the 12" turrets, and the corresponding belt armor. The original Des Moines plans already had heavy deck armor and bulkheads. Try to get two additional 5"/38 turrets into the design.

They were essentially 7/8th scaled down Iowa's.

 

[jsb]

Damm, you beat me to it. I was going to suggest that that the navy develop the NC class as the proposed 3x3 "14". Build 4 as a counter to the Kongo's and IJN CA's while keeping up with the carriers. Follow this with an alt-South Dakota class of 4, then either a pair of Iowa's or Montana's. Besides that more Des Moines class, more Baltimore's, and more Essex's

If the Montana's are built, I wonder which class the the Navy would keep though. The heavier hitting Montana's or the faster alt-North Carolina's that can keep up with the carriers?

My thinking was just that time is more important than actual quality, so I just want to get the most that the treaties would let US have as I can't see US domestic politics let them scrap them first.

So we go with 6 35,000t 14" (3x3) fast 28-30kn ships as they are the most you can build from 1 JAN 37 until escalators and I think it's better to get them started, they will after all make good Kongo killers.
Then without the rush we can then build 6 more slightly later SDs stretched (post Escalator 16"/45,000t) for the same speed 28-30Kn, the last few Kn of Iowa/Alaska is very expensive and the fast IJN battleline will anyway be limited by Kongo so why go faster?
Later stuff get cancelled as with 12 new battle ships built or building in Dec 41 the need for more is limited and steel can be more useful for LSTs

 

[Draconis]

In retrospect building them as aircraft carriers would have been far more useful to the USN. But I guess that wasn't apparent or compelling at the time.

What would have been the design or cost objections to building them out as carriers. If the hull has already been layed down and the engineering plant is installed but no guns and superstructure yet then would the conversion to an aircraft carrier been difficult?

And by 1939-1940 isn't the WNT and the LNT pretty much abandoned?

 

[jsb]

If the hull has already been layed down and the engineering plant is installed but no guns and superstructure yet then would the conversion to an aircraft carrier been difficult?

They are really late I don't think you need to convert them just cancel and send the steel and workers to better ships..... Laying down ships in late 41-43 is questionable?

Name	Namesake	Pennant	Builder	Ordered	Laid down	Launched	Commissioned	Decommissioned	Fate
Alaska	Territory of Alaska	CB-1	New York Shipbuilding Corporation, Camden	9 September 1940	17 December 1941	15 August 1943	17 June 1944	17 February 1947	Broken up at Newark, 1961
Guam	Territory of Guam	CB-2		9 September 1940	2 February 1942	12 November 1943	17 September 1944	17 February 1947	Broken up at Baltimore, 1961
Hawaii	Territory of Hawaii	CB-3 CBC-1		9 September 1940	20 December 1943	3 November 1945	N/A		Broken up at Baltimore, 1960
Philippines	Commonwealth of the Philippines	CB-4	N/A	N/A					Cancelled June 1943
Puerto Rico	Territory of Puerto Rico	CB-5							Cancelled June 1943
Samoa	Territory of American Samoa	CB-6							Cancelled June 1943

from wiki

 

[richthevet]

I think the design is questionable and certainly by 1943 there probably wasn’t much need to lay down more battleships or battlecruisers, But I don’t think you can criticise the US Navy/govt too much for laying down ships 10 days to 2-3 months after Pearl Harbour.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Want a super cruiser killer on the cheap? Italian style rebuilds of the Wyomings and Utah. That way you even get the dry dock workers some lead in practice, hopefully speeding up the post-Pearl Harbour rebuilds.

edit: actually no, bad idea

 

[Draconis]

They are really late I don't think you need to convert them just cancel and send the steel and workers to better ships..... Laying down ships in late 41-43 is questionable?

Name	Namesake	Pennant	Builder	Ordered	Laid down	Launched	Commissioned	Decommissioned	Fate
Alaska	Territory of Alaska	CB-1	New York Shipbuilding Corporation, Camden	9 September 1940	17 December 1941	15 August 1943	17 June 1944	17 February 1947	Broken up at Newark, 1961
Guam	Territory of Guam	CB-2		9 September 1940	2 February 1942	12 November 1943	17 September 1944	17 February 1947	Broken up at Baltimore, 1961
Hawaii	Territory of Hawaii	CB-3 CBC-1		9 September 1940	20 December 1943	3 November 1945	N/A		Broken up at Baltimore, 1960
Philippines	Commonwealth of the Philippines	CB-4	N/A	N/A					Cancelled June 1943
Puerto Rico	Territory of Puerto Rico	CB-5							Cancelled June 1943
Samoa	Territory of American Samoa	CB-6							Cancelled June 1943

from wiki

Clearly just the first two could have been completed as aircraft carriers and simply cancel the third one. As mentioned by @richthevet it would have required too much foresight to not start construction of the first two ships. The steel and labour for number three could have build a good number of LSTs. Well, 2020 hindsight.

"I think the design is questionable and certainly by 1943 there probably wasn’t much need to lay down more battleships or battlecruisers, But I don’t think you can criticise the US Navy/govt too much for laying down ships 10 days to 2-3 months after Pearl Harbour. " @richthevet

 

[CV(N)-6]

Want a super cruiser killer on the cheap? Italian style rebuilds of the Wyomings and Utah. That way you even get the dry dock workers some lead in practice, hopefully speeding up the post-Pearl Harbour rebuilds.

Uhh that’s not cheap

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Uhh that’s not cheap

Shouldn't working with an existing hull be cheaper than building a whole new one?