You mean like this one?The USS Abraham Lincoln.
Never built, never planned, never named. But the name would be fun to see on a battleship, aircraft carrier, etc.
No battleship, but there was a ballistic missile subThanks - now, I know. But I was more thinking of building it post Civil War... think of it Lincoln is shot and a month later there is a battleship named after him....
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...
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.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.
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
What are the benefits of using an Iowa for that job?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.
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.
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.
Those would have been good for the allies because of the resources they would have tied up!H-44 battleships for Nazi Germany. Would have had capacity to shorten the war. Same goes for A-150 design for Japan.