Best warships that should have been built

QE class CVs with catapults instead of ski jumps.
Indeed. I've read the brief flirtation with a conventional layout and F-35C ended because the ships were designed with steam catapults in mind, but they did not have wiring/generating for EMALs catapults.
Maybe at the mid-life refit, or on the successor class in 45 or so years...;)

AIGF,
 
Indeed. I've read the brief flirtation with a conventional layout and F-35C ended because the ships were designed with steam catapults in mind, but they did not have wiring/generating for EMALs catapults.
Maybe at the mid-life refit, or on the successor class in 45 or so years...;)

AIGF,
AIUI, the shipbuilder kinda lied when they said the ships could be "easily converted" to cats and traps. They can be converted. It's just not easy. Or cheap.
 
OP WW-II..... the German KM invested in two dozen medium-/large sized warships built through early 1930s into the early 1940s, but half were never completed and became" pipe dreams" for bigger monster battleships to feed Hitler's ego. The gun tonnage/ armor tonnage /engine tonnage etc invested in the historical program could instead build a dozen improved PBB by wartime - with hull form/transom stern sufficient for 28 knots at max displacement and investing in improved diesel instead of improved turbines promise higher speeds.

A follow on dozen enlarged Panzerschiffe -big enough to mount better main batteries and more armor and radars etc. These could then be also completed , early in the war . This force should be sufficient to disrupt transatlantic shipping through cooperation with B-Dienst code breaking and the growing wolf pact fleet to find and target allied convoy routes more effectively. Combined this should slow allied combat operations in Europe by 6-12 months. The main stumbling point would be the Krupp big gun industry through out this time frame.
Doing this however means no Anglo-German Naval Agreement, part of which was explicitly to prevent Germany from doing this. That means the UK is less inclined to cut Germany slack anywhere else, which is bad for Germany. Germany's OTL fleet was a political statement that they were going to follow international norms, thus they were given more slcak than they otherwise would. A more militarily effective fleet that prevents one of Hitler's political victories is worse than a less effective fleet that does not. If the UK decides to start rearming in earnest 6-12 months earlier that outweighs anything these surface raiders could achieve, much less if a low probability outcome (backing France over Rhineland, retention of the Stresa Front) occurs
 
AIUI, the shipbuilder kinda lied when they said the ships could be "easily converted" to cats and traps. They can be converted. It's just not easy. Or cheap.
All for the low low price of 1 billion pounds and at least 2 years in the yard per ship and making all those new F-35 Bs useless for the ship and thus RAF only planes and making the UK buy another 60 or so F-35 Cs
 
AIUI, the shipbuilder kinda lied when they said the ships could be "easily converted" to cats and traps. They can be converted. It's just not easy. Or cheap.
My understanding is that the initial design could have gone either way, but once the RN/Government decided on STOVL there stopped being any consideration for CATOBAR operations in the design process. As it stands, I think that converting to CATOBAR would involve a fairly substantial and costly refurbishment.
 
Doing this however means no Anglo-German Naval Agreement, part of which was explicitly to prevent Germany from doing this. That means the UK is less inclined to cut Germany slack anywhere else, which is bad for Germany. Germany's OTL fleet was a political statement that they were going to follow international norms, thus they were given more slcak than they otherwise would. A more militarily effective fleet that prevents one of Hitler's political victories is worse than a less effective fleet that does not. If the UK decides to start rearming in earnest 6-12 months earlier that outweighs anything these surface raiders could achieve, much less if a low probability outcome (backing France over Rhineland, retention of the Stresa Front) occurs

Yes well first step in any NAZI WW-II AH ; is to get ride of Hitler or else NOTHING CAN CHANGE.

Anyway these treaties were of political value, and easily ignored through procrastination. etc since KM never even approached any allowable treaty limits AGNA, would not have change that.. The original 1932 naval plan called for an aircraft carrier plus 6 new surface raiders and 6 new Kreuzers. At that time their was a push to build a dozen improved Panzerschiffe to support the U-Boat war; but all these programs were based on the war starting in the mid to late 1940s....in other words more time.
 
Yes well first step in any NAZI WW-II AH ; is to get ride of Hitler or else NOTHING CAN CHANGE.

Anyway these treaties were of political value, and easily ignored through procrastination. etc since KM never even approached any allowable treaty limits AGNA, would not have change that.. The original 1932 naval plan called for an aircraft carrier plus 6 new surface raiders and 6 new Kreuzers. At that time their was a push to build a dozen improved Panzerschiffe to support the U-Boat war; but all these programs were based on the war starting in the mid to late 1940s....in other words more time.
Yes it would have to change, Part 2D of the AGNA said Germany was limited in what she could build by categories (ie 35% BB, 35% CV, 35%CA etc.), and that this would apply to a future Naval Limitation Treaty. Article 4 of the 2LNT signed 10 months later defined Panzerschiffe as a category, with an allowance of 0, ergo Germany could not build any new ones without violating the treaty except with the consent of the UK, who would say no, as 35% of 0 is 0

Edit: Mid to late 40's those PB are useless, by 1944 5 KGV, 2-4 Lions, Vanguard, 2-3 Richelieus exist that can catch them and destroy them with ease, with more on the way, rather than 1939 where there were merely Hood, 2 Renown, 2 Dunkerques that could do it and will still be around, so 17+ PB killers as opposed to 5, not good odds

Edit: Also getting rid of Hitler isn't necessarily going to make things better for Germany, no one else is going to get the concessions he did at the same time to be able to get the same correlation of forces he managed
 
Last edited:
The Royal Navy's Type 42 built from the outset with the Dutch 'broomstick' 3D radar

or

Both Type 43's & 44's being built?
Yeah, there'd be no point building the T44 if the T42's are all batch 3-esque with the Type 988 radar. Though, I think that without big flat tops the T43 probably lacked a mission and with CVA-01 you end up with enough Type 82's to make the T43 unnecessary.
 
AIUI, the shipbuilder kinda lied when they said the ships could be "easily converted" to cats and traps. They can be converted. It's just not easy. Or cheap.
It relied on EMALS as the ships produce no steam and at the time the construction was halted with a view to doing this it turned out that EMALS was well behind schedule and the usual cost overruns.

This would have delayed the QEs even more.
 
A 15in armed King George V, which is what the Royal Navy wanted.
It would have been somewhat cheaper to develop only having triple turrets Sono needed time and expense designing quadruple and twin turrets for the same ship.
that would have caught the development time down.
Which would have ment four fully worked up and combat-ready King George V class battleships available to hunt down the Bismarck
 
My understanding is that the initial design could have gone either way, but once the RN/Government decided on STOVL there stopped being any consideration for CATOBAR operations in the design process. As it stands, I think that converting to CATOBAR would involve a fairly substantial and costly refurbishment.
I wonder how bad they would have turned out if the initial choice had been for them to be STOBAR carriers so the government could hedge its bets over aircraft choice.
 
I wonder how bad they would have turned out if the initial choice had been for them to be STOBAR carriers so the government could hedge its bets over aircraft choice.
Probably would have been easier to convert them to full CATOBAR since they'd already have an angled deck and arrester gear. It's adding EMALS or a steam generator for steam catapults that'll be expensive.
 
I wonder how bad they would have turned out if the initial choice had been for them to be STOBAR carriers so the government could hedge its bets over aircraft choice.
I'd expect that it wouldn't save that much same since it's fitting the catapult equipment that's the big bit, but STOBAR is a bit of a worst of both worlds. Aircraft have the same take-off weight restrictions as short take-off but lacks the flexibility and ease of vertical landing. Also, AFAIK the only western fighters that are optimised for short take-off are also designed for vertical and unarrested landings. I expect that the F-35B could be modified for arrested landing, but why would you bother? Given the weight difference and lack of a lift-fan I imagine that an F-35C would be far from ideal for short take-off launch and at best wouldn't be able to carry much in the way of stores or fuel.
 
Last edited:
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.
I agree with most of what you have said except the bit about needing 4 NGS mounts. I could see a need for a single twin 8 inch mount using a very similar design to the 155mm AGS . My main problem with AGS was poor range for ballistic projectiles and insufficient magazine capacity of 100nm range land attack projectiles. The ship itself was under equipped with self defence so I agree entirely on a 2 version ship with same electronics. 1 Missile ship and one NGS ship. Benefit is that both ships can defend themselves and a fleet and one can then help Amphibs. Also large calibre NGS really stops aggressive posturing. Just look at Beirut when the 16 inch started falling. 6 inch is too small and 8 inch is very good at making big craters to be remembered by.

The Nuc power is also very much needed as the future Railguns will need the power.
Displacement is probably right also as it will make future mods easier.
 
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 plans didn't involve removing all three turrets. Either small (32-cell VLS units) replacing the 5" mounts or multiple 64-cell systems and/or aviation facilities replacing the aft turret.
 
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.
There were numerous proposals back to the BBG and assault ship concepts of the '50s.
 
Pulling off Iowa's B turret and removing the entire barbette could help with the bow weight driving issue. That would probably be about 3,000 tons of weight. You would then have a large open area on the foredeck. The best option would probably be the 8 x 8 VLS that went on the Spruances, but quite a few ABLs could be fitted there.
 
Top