AHC: Different name for anti-aircraft ships

IOTL, specialized anti-aircraft ships often carry names and classifications similar to those of other ships their size.

Your challenge is to come up with a term or set of terms, preferably along with a two-digit hull code for the USN not already used by 1941 (see the "designation" column here: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/USN-ships.html ), for specialized anti-aircraft ships such as the USN's Atlanta class.

Said term(s) would eventually be used for ships such as the Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke classes.
 
The minimum-change designation: DLAA; Destroyer Leader, Anti-Aircraft.
The Atlantas had torpedoes, depth charge racks, destroyer-based machinery, 127mm dual purpose guns, no embarked floatplane or catapult, and the detail design work was done by Gibbs & Cox, Naval architects who specialized in destroyers.
The CLAA designation did not become a formal one, until after the War though, as I recall.
 
The CLAA designation did not become a formal one, until after the War though, as I recall.

Correct; Atlanta and her sisters were classed as light cruisers during the war. Reasonable based on their displacement, but it meant they were treated like Brooklyns on several occasions, which resulted in two of them being sunk in actions they should never have been involved in.

DLAA might work - any other thoughts? Sloop? Frigate?
 
You could also have DDAA (anti-aircraft destroyers) and DEAA.

How about SSAA (anti-aircraft submarines)? Hey, weirder things have been tried! These wouldn't be feasible with WWII technology, and would have to wait until the 1960s at the earliest.

If we're getting truly ridiculous, we could even have BCAAs or even BBAAs :eek::eek::eek: IIRC, the Japanese tested anti-aircraft battleship shells, but the tests went poorly and they weren't deployed.
 
You could also have DDAA (anti-aircraft destroyers) and DEAA.

How about SSAA (anti-aircraft submarines)? Hey, weirder things have been tried! These wouldn't be feasible with WWII technology, and would have to wait until the 1960s at the earliest.

If we're getting truly ridiculous, we could even have BCAAs or even BBAAs :eek::eek::eek: IIRC, the Japanese tested anti-aircraft battleship shells, but the tests went poorly and they weren't deployed.

I believe that the AA shells for battleship guns were in fact deployed. As I remember (and since I am at work, I don't have access to my references, so please forgive the lack of a cite), the shells were used at Leyte Gulf, and their distinctive appearance (of the bursts, not the shells themselves...grin) were noted by numerous pilots off Samar.
 
The support ships would be good for AA ships. Converting an assault transport or landing craft for AA work would be along the lines. They would sail with the regular ships and provide AA and other support that would free up regular units for other duty, like fire support and in some cases still be able to perform their designed for functions in a reduced role.

Examples would be: AKA(AA), assault transport AA; AO(AA) fleet oiler AA; LST(AA) landing ship tank(AA).
 
The BBAA was mooted post-WWII as a plan for completing Kentucky and possibly Illinois. 12 semi-automatic 20.3 cm guns, in 3 quad turrets. A rocket-assisted shell, dubbed Zeus was envisaged for them.
More plausibly, it was proposed (c.1940) to convert the Omahas to CLAA's, but between the hulls being generally cramped+tired and production bottlenecks in guns and directors it wasn't thought worthwhile.
 

Art

Monthly Donor
LORD. . .

Just investigating the 20s Japanese cruisers. . .


2 medium machine guns?


maybe 5 anti-aircraft dual-purpose cannons?


GOD! ! !


The Wake garrison had 20 times as many machine guns!

Where were their SWIVELS!


Their dual purpose cannons!

2 100 pound bombs that knocked out 2 168 man DESTROYERs! ! !

Heavy Cruisers my FOOT!

Damn M. A. S. boats with 6 inch cannons!

Damn Kilrathi/ Black Celt mentality! ! !

A heavy infantryman will DIE when faced with a light infantryman who uses his weapons. . .
 

NothingNow

Banned
How about SSAA (anti-aircraft submarines)? Hey, weirder things have been tried! These wouldn't be feasible with WWII technology, and would have to wait until the 1960s at the earliest.

They're quite possibly the stupidest thing to do with a Sub. Sorry, but giving up the only advatage a sub has, to attack things which really don't often bother it unless something is going very, very wrong is an indescribably bad idea.
 
They're quite possibly the stupidest thing to do with a Sub. Sorry, but giving up the only advatage a sub has, to attack things which really don't often bother it unless something is going very, very wrong is an indescribably bad idea.

Of course, but that doesn't mean someone wouldn't try it at some point.
 
How about SSAA (anti-aircraft submarines)? Hey, weirder things have been tried! These wouldn't be feasible with WWII technology, and would have to wait until the 1960s at the earliest.
I heard the USN was trying Stinger mast launchers on subs at one time. The Brits tried using Blowpipe in tests- though it was never adopted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Aeneas_(P427)
The Typhoons have a SAM on board.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_class_submarine
 

And it failed. Not only was it dangerous as hell to stay on the surface, but submarines made poor gun platforms.

With SAMs, though, it's certainly a possibility. It would probably be reserved for launch against ASW helicopters because those are a threat to submarines. If a submarine-launched SAM could be fired from below the surface, that could be a useful weapons system.
 
Yep - one of the stupidest ideas of Doenitz... Is way better to have some flak ships or long range fighters in the area.... they only get subs damaged / sunk.
 
Yep - one of the stupidest ideas of Doenitz... Is way better to have some flak ships or long range fighters in the area.... they only get subs damaged / sunk.

Fighters could never have reached far enough into the U-boats operating range, and flak ships would be sunk. There's no real use for them. Besides, after unsuccessful trials, Doenitz ordered that no more submarines be fitted with the "Wintergarten" AA structure.
 
Top