Steel Behemoths

Also, you would need no or a lesser Great Depression so the funds for many of these ships are still there, and also a less expensive WWI. That was the reason many post-war ships were not built, for the lack of money by most of the participants, except Japan and the USA.
 
What about more active CP fleets in WW1? A good part of naval air development in WW1 was to get at CP fleets in port, and the threat of surface action would reduce seaplane activity considerably. The upshot is more focus on making the traditional fleet work better instead of developing new methods.
 
What about more active CP fleets in WW1? A good part of naval air development in WW1 was to get at CP fleets in port, and the threat of surface action would reduce seaplane activity considerably. The upshot is more focus on making the traditional fleet work better instead of developing new methods.

A more decisive Jutland for either side proves that battleships are still the most effective weapon on the waves?
 
Or battleships can always smash the soft skinned ships flying the planes, so we need more battleships and less soft skinned ships.
 
Planes were successful against capital ships in large part because the ships had no effective means to retaliate or protect themselves.

So, perhaps, earlier radar (no real technical issues in having useful radar in the twenties); and some enthusiastic chap, who knows chaps, takes up a certain Mr Goddard .

That, and armoured decks.
 
Battleships refitted with nuclear reactors? Always good for a laugh. A nice long laugh.

It shouldn't be a laugh. USS Enterprise was designed that way, replacing the boilers of steam-fueled designs with nuclear reactors. Remember that here, Indiana loses hear rear 16" turret in favor of Talos launchers, so room is a not a particularly big issue.
 
It shouldn't be a laugh. USS Enterprise was designed that way, replacing the boilers of steam-fueled designs with nuclear reactors. Remember that here, Indiana loses hear rear 16" turret in favor of Talos launchers, so room is a not a particularly big issue.

I'm quite aware of those possible conversions. I just think its overly expensive and doubtful to convert a pre-WWII design battleship, which all except the Montana class would be.
 
I'm quite aware of those possible conversions. I just think its overly expensive and doubtful to convert a pre-WWII design battleship, which all except the Montana class would be.

The Iowas are useful vessels and much more complex than the South Dakota class, and what else is there for big guns before the South Dakotas that wouldn't be positively antiquated? If the Montana class was built I'd say you have a point, but even if WWII puts a lot more emphasis on battleship abilities (and I assumed that land-based aviation progressed at about the same rate as OTL), The Montana class would probably not be constructed, simply because the Iowas can handle Yamato and her sisters.

This is, of course, unless Montana and one of her sisters (Maine or Ohio, in all likelihood) are laid down during the War, and are incomplete after it, and the Navy decides to finish them like they did Kentucky in my case, to a modified design, perhaps including nuclear propulsion.....
 
I'm quite aware of those possible conversions. I just think its overly expensive and doubtful to convert a pre-WWII design battleship, which all except the Montana class would be.

I'm not sure about that. If you're making a BBN to escort your CVNs, you probably want to pack a whole lot of missiles and CIWS on it, and that's what happened here, with the rear turret removed for VLS (I think?). You lose a lot less firepower ripping out the 16/45s of a SoDak then you would by doing the same to an Iowa's 16/50s.
 
I'm not sure about that. If you're making a BBN to escort your CVNs, you probably want to pack a whole lot of missiles and CIWS on it, and that's what happened here, with the rear turret removed for VLS (I think?). You lose a lot less firepower ripping out the 16/45s of a SoDak then you would by doing the same to an Iowa's 16/50s.

Not VLS, not in the 1960s. It has two launchers where the rear 16" turret was, along with the SPG-49 fire control radars. three of the 5" gun mounts on each side were replaced with two per side Tartar missile launchers. The Talos/Tartar system would result in a substantial rear superstructure and part of the magazine being above the deck, so room for it all is a non-issue. Fitting two SPG-49 and four SPG-51 radars for guidance is the bigger issue, but on something the size of a South Dakota-class battleship, it's not too big of one. The Talos systems carry 46 missiles each (Talos missiles are BIG things - 38 feet long and weighs 7000 lbs), the Terrier system is much smaller. Two of them on each side, with the 5" mounts right on the edge of the vessel remaining for a secondary battery. With the nuclear reactors the funnel is unneccessary, so the entire superstructure behind the ship's armored citadel can be replaced, and probably would be. Indiana would be with Enterprise, Long Beach and Wainwright for Operation Sea Orbit, the first all-nuclear task force.

The rebuilding would be a BIG job. But it would give a vessel that would be able to move almost unlimited mileage at speeds of up to 28-29 knots (That is assuming that its reactor design is the 4 C1W reactors, the same design as Enterprise, Long Beach and Wainwright), and carrying both powerful 16" guns and long-ranged Talos missiles and shorter-ranged Terrier missiles.

As time went on, things would change of course. The Talos and Terrier systems would be replaced with the SM-2 Standard, with twin Mk-26 launchers replacing the Talos launchers. The space freed by Terrier launchers would be used for Harpoon and Tomahawk cruise missiles, and perhaps an ASROC launcher as well. The 1980s refit would see these added, as well as at least two (probably four) Phalanx CIWS units.
 
Last edited:
Not VLS, not in the 1960s. It has two launchers where the rear 16" turret was, along with the SPG-49 fire control radars. three of the 5" gun mounts on each side were replaced with two per side Tartar missile launchers. The Talos/Tartar system would result in a substantial rear superstructure and part of the magazine being above the deck, so room for it all is a non-issue. Fitting two SPG-49 and four SPG-51 radars for guidance is the bigger issue, but on something the size of a South Dakota-class battleship, it's not too big of one. The Talos systems carry 46 missiles each (Talos missiles are BIG things - 38 feet long and weighs 7000 lbs), the Terrier system is much smaller. Two of them on each side, with the 5" mounts right on the edge of the vessel remaining for a secondary battery. With the nuclear reactors the funnel is unneccessary, so the entire superstructure behind the ship's armored citadel can be replaced, and probably would be. Indiana would be with Enterprise, Long Beach and Wainwright for Operation Sea Orbit, the first all-nuclear task force.

The rebuilding would be a BIG job. But it would give a vessel that would be able to move almost unlimited mileage at speeds of up to 28-29 knots (That is assuming that its reactor design is the 4 C1W reactors, the same design as Enterprise, Long Beach and Wainwright), and carrying both powerful 16" guns and long-ranged Talos missiles and shorter-ranged Terrier missiles.

As time went on, things would change of course. The Talos and Terrier systems would be replaced with the SM-2 Standard, with twin Mk-26 launchers replacing the Talos launchers. The space freed by Terrier launchers would be used for Harpoon and Tomahawk cruise missiles, and perhaps an ASROC launcher as well. The 1980s refit would see these added, as well as at least two (probably four) Phalanx CIWS units.

Not to spoil your party, but you probably wouldn't have SM-2 without AEGIS, would you?

I'm a bit sceptic about the possibility of combining the AEGIS system with the blast and shock of the main battery.
Didn't you and CalBear discuss this some time ago already:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=107884
 
Not to spoil your party, but you probably wouldn't have SM-2 without AEGIS, would you?

I'm a bit sceptic about the possibility of combining the AEGIS system with the blast and shock of the main battery.
Didn't you and CalBear discuss this some time ago already:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=107884

Lots of ships had SM-2 missiles without AEGIS - all of the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates, Kidd and Charles F. Adams class destroyers and California and Virginia class Cruisers.

I also know that one variant of the AEGIS Combat System was developed with double shielded electronics, which I would assume would make it capable of being installed on something which has big overpressure blasts. Here, I have Kentucky fitted with the AEGIS system - and in this case, it's at the expense of knocking a couple knots off of the top speed to improve the electrical generation abilities and a major overhaul of the superstructure.
 
I also know that one variant of the AEGIS Combat System was developed with double shielded electronics, which I would assume would make it capable of being installed on something which has big overpressure blasts. Here, I have Kentucky fitted with the AEGIS system - and in this case, it's at the expense of knocking a couple knots off of the top speed to improve the electrical generation abilities and a major overhaul of the superstructure.

Shielded against what would appear to be the million dollar question. :)

edit: my google-fu is strong tonight.
Did you mean double shielded cables for the SPS-49?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPS-49
I doubt that this kind of shielding would make a AEGIS system, especially it's radars, more capable against shocks/blasts whatever.


I vaguely remember the Nimitz-class never got SPY-1 because, amongst others, it wouldn't be able to work good enough with the other systems aboard a carrier, although that would be shocks of a different kind then on a battleship.

If I understand it correctly, the Ford-class will receive some form/part of AEGIS.
Maybe, because in your timeline there's a need for it, it'd be possible to invest more resources into making these systems (battleship and AEGIS) compatible.

Rereading your post I saw this:
Lots of ships had SM-2 missiles without AEGIS - all of the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates
AFAIK Perry's were first built with SM-1 in mind. A few AFAIK (the Australian ones IIRC) were later on in their service lives upgraded to SM-2, but AFAIK it's a big stretch to assume all Perry's had SM-2's.
I don't doubt Taiwan would be pleasantly suprised if their Perry's suddenly had SM-2's.

The same I think goes for the Charles F. Adams class; I thought only some got SM-1's.
AFAIK again a stretch to assume all got SM-2.
 
Last edited:
The SM-2 can be installed on any ship that has the SM-1, with the NTU upgrades. Lots did get this, including not just the Australian Perrys but also the French Cassard class frigates and several types of cruisers the USN developed.

And yes, It is safe to assume that in this case, the BBs might warrant an AEGIS system which is tough enough to handle the overpressure from the big guns. This was why the ships didn't get the Sea Sparrow launchers planned for them, the overpressure blast was too much for the launchers. Now, on Kentucky and Indiana the guns are at the other end of the ship, and the overpressure blast dissipates fairly quickly, hence I think they could get the AEGIS/Mk-26/SM-2MR combination.
 
Top