Montana class battleships

I remember reading in a navy time mag in the 1980's about building a fire support ship using one of the Turrets form a New Jersey Class BB when they were talking about taking the Rear turrets of the BB and adding a Sq of Harriers to them .

It was to be about 14,000 tons and have the weapons of a long beach Class CG along with the Turret with 3 x 16 in .


In 1979 the Navy proposed reactivating the Iowa Class under a two-phase program. Under Phase I the battleships would be brought back into service quickly with a minimum of new modifications. This was doen, and all four ships rejoined the fleet. The initial plan also envisioned a Phase II, under which the aft turrent was to be deleted and a hanger and flight deck added in its place. The hanger would accomodate 12 AV-8B Harrier STOVL jumpjets. The Martin Marietta version for Phase II had a V-shaped flight deck with two ski jumps on the forward edges, on either side of the main superstructure. The flight decks would measure 330 feet by 150 feet. However, by 1984 the plans for these "Battlecarriers" had been dropped.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/bb-61-av.htm

Now, THAT would have been something to see...

We might even still see the Iowas still active today if they had done that.
 
In 1979 the Navy proposed reactivating the Iowa Class under a two-phase program. Under Phase I the battleships would be brought back into service quickly with a minimum of new modifications. This was doen, and all four ships rejoined the fleet. The initial plan also envisioned a Phase II, under which the aft turrent was to be deleted and a hanger and flight deck added in its place. The hanger would accomodate 12 AV-8B Harrier STOVL jumpjets. The Martin Marietta version for Phase II had a V-shaped flight deck with two ski jumps on the forward edges, on either side of the main superstructure. The flight decks would measure 330 feet by 150 feet. However, by 1984 the plans for these "Battlecarriers" had been dropped.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/bb-61-av.htm


Converting a battleship to a hybrid battleship-carrier was a bad idea in WWII when the Japanese mutilated Ise and Hyuga to do so, it's even a worse idea 50 years later... :p
 
Converting a battleship to a hybrid battleship-carrier was a bad idea in WWII when the Japanese mutilated Ise and Hyuga to do so, it's even a worse idea 50 years later... :p

Why? 50 years later we actually have V/STOL aircraft and helicopters that allow such a ship to be useful.
 
One reason for Montana cancellation was that the Navy underestimated the need for escorts: Destroyer Escorts, subchasers, etc, along with landing craft of all types from LSTs on down. The material needed for the battleships was tied up with the above programs. The other reason, of course, was that enough battleships were on hand to meet the Navy's needs, and so FDR cancelled them in 1943. (Interesting enough, the IJN about a month before the actual ax fell on the Montanas, predicted that the ships would be canceled and additional carrier construction would take their place)

I could see two Montanas being built if Pearl Harbor had been more destructive than it was. If West Virginia and California were total losses, similar to Arizona and Oklahoma, then the first two Montanas could very well have been built. At the very least, the last two Iowas (Illinois and Kentucky) would've been finished prior to war's end, along with the first two Montanas.
 
Why? 50 years later we actually have V/STOL aircraft and helicopters that allow such a ship to be useful.

Gridley

The basic philosophy behind the battleships is a big, heavily armoured slugger that dukes it out at relatively close range. This doesn't fit in well with a carrier which operates at long range, requires easy access between the deck and the inner hangers [hence making deck armour awkward] and carries large amounts of highly flammable fuel and munitions.

Modern technology means that guns can fire a bit further, increasing the distances from the target a bit but also enables a lot of new counter-weapons, most noticably anti-ship missiles and methods of locating a target close in to shore. Therefore it's better having relatively unarmoured a/c operating ships based further out. Which negates the purpose of having big guns, unless you're going up against a fairly backward enemy.

Steve
 
Gridley

The basic philosophy behind the battleships is a big, heavily armoured slugger that dukes it out at relatively close range. This doesn't fit in well with a carrier which operates at long range, requires easy access between the deck and the inner hangers [hence making deck armour awkward] and carries large amounts of highly flammable fuel and munitions.

Modern technology means that guns can fire a bit further, increasing the distances from the target a bit but also enables a lot of new counter-weapons, most noticably anti-ship missiles and methods of locating a target close in to shore. Therefore it's better having relatively unarmoured a/c operating ships based further out. Which negates the purpose of having big guns, unless you're going up against a fairly backward enemy.

Steve

Except the modern use for a BB is NGS - which puts you close to shore, and most likely supporting Marines. Having the ability to carry some of the air component of a Marine force is a good thing. The Iowas had the armor to stand up to many anti-ship missiles, not to mention their countermeasures and the CIWS. Harriers operating from a defensible ship close to shore have longer loiter time, shorter reaction time, and less distance to go if they're damaged.

Iowas served on the gun-line in Korea, Vietnam, Beruit, and Iraq I, putting a lot of ordnance on target and somehow failing to fall victim to enemy action - more than several more modern US ships can say after similar or even smaller conflicts.

I've never seen a reliable budget number for what it would have taken to make the conversion to remove the aft turret and install support for a dozen Harriers, but I'm willing to bet it was less than another Tarawa-class LHA would have been.
 

Bearcat

Banned
A gunfire support ship often might operate within the range of shore-based guns and missiles. It still needs to be robust, if not armored, to handle that threat.

A "Harrier Carrier" should operate offshore, over the horizon, where it can use its longer reach and not be targeted.

Putting STOVL fighters on a BB means also putting aviation fuel and ordnance aboard. It means creating a large internal space for a hangar with all the structural issues inherent.

These are tow related, but different missions, requiring different things. trying to produce a "Jack of All trades" will only produce a ship which does neither one so well and is vulnerable.
 
Except the modern use for a BB is NGS - which puts you close to shore, and most likely supporting Marines. Having the ability to carry some of the air component of a Marine force is a good thing. The Iowas had the armor to stand up to many anti-ship missiles, not to mention their countermeasures and the CIWS. Harriers operating from a defensible ship close to shore have longer loiter time, shorter reaction time, and less distance to go if they're damaged.

Iowas served on the gun-line in Korea, Vietnam, Beruit, and Iraq I, putting a lot of ordnance on target and somehow failing to fall victim to enemy action - more than several more modern US ships can say after similar or even smaller conflicts.

I've never seen a reliable budget number for what it would have taken to make the conversion to remove the aft turret and install support for a dozen Harriers, but I'm willing to bet it was less than another Tarawa-class LHA would have been.

Gridley

The point is they are battleships, with weapons [and hence munitions] under fairly thick armour. If they have a large deck area with a number of Harriers operating from it laden with fuel and explosives then you are likely to be at risk if you have an enemy who can hit you. Don't forget a lot of the carriers lost in WWII were because they were vulnerable to destruction of their cargo. Like the Japanese losses at Midway, stacked to the gills with laden planes.

No doubt a large scale conversion of an old battle-wagon could be done but it could be expensive and is less likely I suspect to be as effective as a purpose built new ship.

Steve
 
Why? 50 years later we actually have V/STOL aircraft and helicopters that allow such a ship to be useful.

Amongst others because of the reasons Stevep already mentioned.

Another reason he didn't mention was that the Iowa had a complement of 1800 (this is the number for the Gulf War reduced manning, if you add aircraft you're going to need more crew).
A Tarawa class LHA could carry more aircraft and more munitions/supplies for them and only needs 960 crew.
Ofcourse the Iowa still has a pair of turrets to provide NGS in that plan, but the LHA can carry 1900 marines around...

With that additional manning needed, within a few years of having an Iowa activated you'd have paid for an additional Tarawa.

Except the modern use for a BB is NGS - which puts you close to shore, and most likely supporting Marines. Having the ability to carry some of the air component of a Marine force is a good thing. The Iowas had the armor to stand up to many anti-ship missiles, not to mention their countermeasures and the CIWS. Harriers operating from a defensible ship close to shore have longer loiter time, shorter reaction time, and less distance to go if they're damaged.

Iowas served on the gun-line in Korea, Vietnam, Beruit, and Iraq I, putting a lot of ordnance on target and somehow failing to fall victim to enemy action - more than several more modern US ships can say after similar or even smaller conflicts.

I've never seen a reliable budget number for what it would have taken to make the conversion to remove the aft turret and install support for a dozen Harriers, but I'm willing to bet it was less than another Tarawa-class LHA would have been.

Except that to have somewhat decent range further land inward the BB would have to be 30ish KM from shore at most. That is, unless more modern ammunition is developed for this white elephant (which is certainly possible).
If you look at what distance a carrier usually will remain from shore, you're looking at much further away, beyond the horizon.

Technically you're right in sofar that the obsolete armor on a BB would be impervious to a lot any enemy can hurl at it. An Exocet or Harpoon hitting the armored belt of an Iowa would possibly only chip the paint.

However, that armor wouldn't be covering the hangar needed for aircraft on a hybrid carrier/BB.
Not to mention that there's plenty of modern weaponry which can hit a BB in ways it was never designed to be possibly hit. Even a Harpoon or Exocet can heavily damage a battleship that way, let alone a truly large and/or fast missile.

Furthermore you wouldn't need to sink the BB, a mission kill would suffice.
Plenty of important, modern systems/electronics are outside of the armoured citadel.

Lastly there's another problem with having only one or two BB's in the USN. I have been told that in the '80s the following happened:
Nobody in the USN wanted to get stationed on them, since they were a dead end career-wise. Eventually they got crewed - for a larger part then on the rest of the fleet - by the misfits and the uncapable.
 
An AV-8B has a tactical radius of 300nm.

If you put it on an LHA, you need to keep that ship well offshore, because it is highly vulnerable to attack. Let's say you're worried about Silkworms (picking a missile out of the air). That means you need to be about 120nm offshore to be out of reach. That gives you a radius of 180nm inland.

If you put in on a BB, you're going to be close inshore - often within 10nm. That gives you a radius of 290nm inland.

You get even more of a boost if you base attack helis on the BB. SeaCobras have fairly short legs.

As for the vulnerabilities of aircraft and ordnance, yes, they exist. The Iowas, however, were designed to carry aircraft from the keel up. Floatplanes in WWII, and drones remained aboard even after the refit. Bear in mind also that most USN surface combatants are fitted to carry at least one helicopter. In terms of a percentage of their displacement, the Perry's had a larger aviation displacement fraction than the refitted Iowa's would have.

In terms of manpower, you're pulling the aft turret, over and above the modernization reductions. Again, the Iowas were designed from the keel up to handle nearly 3,000 crew. Putting the deck echelon of a Harrier squadron on board isn't going to overload the plumbing.

All that said, a gunnery fan like me is never happy to see a ship get a third of its main battery chopped off. Would the refit have been the best possible use of resources? I don't know. Was it a vital capability the US needed? Certainly not. Would it have been a massive waste like, oh, half of the Navy's new ship programs in the last two decades? No.
 
Putting the deck echelon of a Harrier squadron on board isn't going to overload the plumbing.

It won't overload the plumbing, but you might run into trouble finding enough crew to run the ship properly. Manpower for the various armed services is a constant problem, and even the USN has limits on how many sailors they have available. Putting nearly 2000 of them into a vessel like this is going to pull them away from other ships and tasks. Would it be worthwhile to have this instead of the crews of 10-20 frigates? I don't know, but it's the sort of question that's going to be asked.
 
It won't overload the plumbing, but you might run into trouble finding enough crew to run the ship properly. Manpower for the various armed services is a constant problem, and even the USN has limits on how many sailors they have available. Putting nearly 2000 of them into a vessel like this is going to pull them away from other ships and tasks. Would it be worthwhile to have this instead of the crews of 10-20 frigates? I don't know, but it's the sort of question that's going to be asked.

Umm... we're not talking about building new ships, nor (that I noticed) extending the service life of any of the Iowas, just further modifying them in their 1980's refits. Deck echelon personnel wouldn't amount to anything close to 2,000.
 
Umm... we're not talking about building new ships, nor (that I noticed) extending the service life of any of the Iowas, just further modifying them in their 1980's refits. Deck echelon personnel wouldn't amount to anything close to 2,000.

I was really talking about all-up crew, not just the requirements for the air group. If you've already got the crew for the ship lined up, then I agree that adding the numbers for aircrew and their support won't add much. If you have to find the crew for the ship from scratch, though, it could be an issue. Someone else said there were problems manning the US BB's IOTL, and I don't see how this would improve matters.
Anyway, just a passing thought.
 
Note that the Montana's couldn't fit through the Panama Canal due to their wide beam.
In the late 30's when the Montanas where designed, the US was in the process of Digging a 3rd set of locks, that were to be 50% wider than the old two.
They never dreamed that the final completion wouldn't be till 2015.
Replacing engines is also difficult, but can be done. But would you get a faster ship out of it? Or would the reactors just result in a ship with a long endurance? (Oh--and putting a nuclear reactor in a ship that's expected to swap armor piercing shells seems very foolish...)
Some of the Design team for the new Boilers, for the 1950's upgrade wanted to use the new Nuclear reactors, instead of Oil fired Boilers.
Unfortunately Admiral Rickover managed to keep control of then for his new Nuke Subs.
 
Top