US New Construction Testbed Capital Ship

This is an idea that I've been knocking around in my mind for a while now...

BLUF - to have either an Alaska design that makes sense and have one hull built as a technology testbed or to do the same with the Iowa class Kentucky....the overall idea is to have a capital ship that is economic to operate (particularly in peacetime) and can be used to integrate new propulsion and gun systems...

that all being said, here are my modest proposals (as I pull out my steel pot and earplugs and dive into my very deep foxhole :) )

Couple of different PODs could be used:

Potential POD 1: early on in the design of the Alaska class, some modeling tests are done over at David Taylor and the problems with the single rudder design surface and a redesign is ordered...

In the meantime, common sense comes to bear and the decision that designing a new 12 inch gun is a waste of money and three twin 16 inch mounts are selected for main battery...and the 5in 54 single mounts as secondaries (initially MK 16's, but replaced later by the MK 42)

however, a lot of thought is put into automating as much of the ammunition process as possible...therefore the first two aren't ready until late in 1944...with the third kind of slowly coming together on the ways...

two ships are built with steam turbine propulsion however Hawaii sits at about 50% completion

then the decision is made to use her as an "economy" testbed ship, electric drive is chosen for the propulsion system, with a combined diesel/steam power system...the idea is to test ideas for new technologies that can reduce manning requirements...

Potential POD 2: Kentucky is chosen for the same testbed role vice Hawaii
 
and have one hull built as a technology testbed
Meanwhile in a different universe,
CNO orders that USS Camden (AOE-2) is fitted with,
electric drive is chosen for the propulsion system, with a combined diesel/steam power system...the idea is to test ideas for new technologies that can reduce manning requirements...
to compare with her sisters AOE1 build at the same time.....
 
I was hoping this was aimed at a PoD of 1990-2010 & for 21st Century capitol ships.

The hulls are too old at that point for what I was aiming at...the issue with keeping an Iowa on active duty is that they cost too much...what I’m trying to do is reduce the crew size to well under 1000....
 
I meant a entirely new ship. A dreadnaught redux a century later. New hulls, new systems, new protection, new weapons.
They did this and ended up with LCS, Zumwalt, and Ford, and not one ship the Navy has come up with in the past two decades is remotely combat-capable. Transformationalism is almost always a disaster. Dreadnought just got lucky.
 

Riain

Banned
The hulls are too old at that point for what I was aiming at...the issue with keeping an Iowa on active duty is that they cost too much...what I’m trying to do is reduce the crew size to well under 1000....

Its not that the Iowas cost too much, rather that they do too little for the money.

I'd prefer that the USN put the 8" Mk71 gun into widespread service.
 
They did this and ended up with LCS, Zumwalt, and Ford, and not one ship the Navy has come up with in the past two decades is remotely combat-capable. Transformationalism is almost always a disaster. Dreadnought just got lucky.

That was aimed at littoral combat. Not a general purpose sea control ship. The Soviet cruisers were a step in that direction, tho they represented 1960s-70s technology.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Transformationalism is almost always a disaster. Dreadnought just got lucky.
The difference is, Dreadnaught was only transformational when taken as the sum of her parts. None of her individual systems or weapons were revolutionary or even new. What was new, was combining all of these proven systems into a single hull
 
Top