If a Battleship and a Aircraft Carrier Had a Baby, This Would Have Been It

[tn1911]

https://news.yahoo.com/battleship-aircraft-carrier-had-baby-064500895.html

In the early 1980s, the Reagan Administration began an ambitious shipbuilding program. It was decided to yet again bring back the four Iowas. In phase one, the ships were modernized with the addition of Tomahawk land attack missiles, Harpoon anti-ship missiles and Phalanx defense guns. By the mid-1980s, all four had returned to duty.

There was a phase two that was never executed, and it was more interesting.

This phase again involved removing the rear 16-inch gun turret. In its place would be built an overhanging flight deck and two forward-facing ski jumps that would hurl Marine Corps Harrier jump jets into the air. The ship would carry up to 20 Harriers, as well as a hangar and an aircraft elevator.

The firepower of the battleships—and their destructive range—would have increased substantially. Trading one turret for 20 Harrier jets was a pretty good deal. Add the Tomahawks and their ability to strike with precision at a thousand miles and the improvements looked even better. The resulting warship would have equaled the firepower of a Nimitz-class supercarrier.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Sounds stupid, but what an amphib operation platform. Run Ospreys on it now and have ultimate over-the-horizon over-the-beach door knocker.

[Alpha-17]

The battle-carrier concept has been around for a while, and it never seems to work out. I believe the Ruskies tried it at least once and found it lacking. Being neither fish nor fowl leaves it in an odd spot.

[HardToHandle]

Japanese did it. Mostly rusting on the bottom of the Pacific presently.

The Soviet Navy had the Kiev Class. They are mostly rusting too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev-class_aircraft_carrier

The Italian, Spanish and Thai navies all used small V/STOL carriers. They are/were lightly armed, but had Harriers, which are short legged.

The issues with Iowas were mostly the way beyond end of life on the steam systems. It always seemed a pity that they were retired, but then the SSGN cruise missile boats ended up being unbelievably effective, more survivable and much better suited to the post Cold War.

[Pacific5th]

I’m having a hard time imagining a hanger on the back of a Iowa big enough to hold 20 Harriers.

[Grand58742]

The issues with Iowas were mostly the way beyond end of life on the steam systems. It always seemed a pity that they were retired, but then the SSGN cruise missile boats ended up being unbelievably effective, more survivable and much better suited to the post Cold War.

I think it was just something psychological about having a ship lurking off the coast ready to send in 18,000 pounds of high explosives.

The converted Ohios were more effective, yeah. But a battlewagon was good for the troop's morale, not so good for the enemy's.

[Tx_Aggie]

I’m having a hard time imagining a hanger on the back of a Iowa big enough to hold 20 Harriers.

Harrier Carrier:

https://miro.medium.com/max/766/1*Zh_m78YEiA6k3Aws5JXJQQ.png

Heli-Carrier:

https://miro.medium.com/max/813/1*Qg75qREf8eJG1PbiqhsGZg.jpeg

[glocktogo]

I've always felt we left a hole in our capabilities when we decommissioned the last battleships. Sure, as a navy vs. navy implement it was outdated. Not all belligerents have a modern navy, or even a navy at all for that matter. The same goes for air-power.

As a concept, a modernized battleship makes a lot of sense. As a force projection tool against a 3rd world up to lower class 2nd world belligerent, there's no replacement for displacement. A battleship off their coast means stop your nonsense. If you do have to strike, nothing's going to match the ordinance delivery potential of 9 modernized 16" guns. Especially when you consider cost vs. battle damage.

A modern battleship would have Tomahawks for precision strikes, ERAM, ESSM and SM2 missiles for extended range defense and multiple CIWS pods for close range. Heck, maybe even throw on an SM3 launcher in case you want to take out a ballistic missile or low orbit satellite. You know, just for giggles.

You'd only need 4-6 of them worldwide to seriously disrupt localized threats. In any case where they have a coastline and the USN can establish air dominance, they would be useful tools for regional stability and diplomacy. Not every threat requires a carrier strike group and any expeditionary strike group would be awfully happy to have a modernized battleship along for backup.

[Coal Dragger]

.... and they’d still be easy targets for fast attack nuclear subs.

[sgtrock82]

.... and they’d still be easy targets for fast attack nuclear subs.This

I think BBs are waay cool but their time has unfortunately past. Id rather have a few smaller ships chock full of various missiles. I think our carriers are too juicy of a target but not sure they could be smaller and do what they need to do. One of these days someones going to knock one of them off when we're not paying attention and it will be a huge blow.

Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk

[chuckman]

I love battleships, but they retired for the right reasons.

Reagan wanted a 600-ship Navy. THAT would have been awesome. But it would have also economically ended us.

[glocktogo]

.... and they’d still be easy targets for fast attack nuclear subs.

Sure, but isn't every ship these days? We haven't battled a serious navy since WWII in the Pacific. For most of the engagements we actually have, they wouldn't have a submersible adversary. The biggest threats would come from large land based missiles and ASM's off fast movers. The key is to only bring them to bear at gun range once there are none of those threats in range. In most cases (Somalia, Yemen, an already hammered Iraq or Iran...) the threats would be no more serious to a BB than a frigate.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The problem is that they tried to re-imagine the BB and they ended up with the Zumwalt, which is too expensive to load out. Really cool tech. Put in remote sensing like drones for real time targeting and you have 'air support' and interdiction with a much smaller flipper-print than a carrier.

[sundance435]

This is in no way feasible, but a BB(G) could be interesting as its own force projection, with a small combi-helo/STOVL wing, SPY-6 radar, and optionally-manned sub hunters and/or radar ships escorting it. Remove all but one of the 16" turrets and all of the smaller guns and it could carry an insane amount of VLS cells. Could be really useful in situations where you want force projection without the expense of a carrier group. It would almost certainly have to be nuclear powered.

If we ever get around to replacing the Ticos, the minimum displacement of a new CG(X) is probably going to be at least 12,000 tons, so to say that merely the size of the ship makes it a bigger target isn't really in line with naval thinking. There are a lot more variables to it than that. You still need larger ships in certain roles,.

[T2C]

Space is at a premium on a US Navy vessel. Battleships and Aircraft Carriers serve two different roles. I just don't see the feasibility of one vessel carrying 16" guns and support equipment along with aircraft and the necessary support equipment and personnel.

It would be interesting to learn how the carrier would launch and land aircraft while providing ground fire support to troops with 10" or 16" guns. It would also be interesting to learn how the carrier would fight a surface battle with guns while trying to deal with launching and landing aircraft.