I like that we’ve agreed on the term “battlecarrier” rather than a “hybrid battleship” or an “aircraft carrying battleship.” Sounds way cooler while still conveying the same idea.
Extra bow water ballast might be to accommodate the differing weights of the air groups and their fuel and ammo actually embarked aft. The concrete ballast forward is probably a "place holder" at this early stage of the design indicating that there would be a location for it IF it proved to be required in the final design. One of a designer's favorite phrases is "As Required".
On paper, it sounds like a great idea: you get the missiles of a cruiser + the aircaft of a small carrier + the guns and armour of a battleship and a bunch of marines, just for good measure. In reality, I think they were trying to put too much in/on the ship. Something would break or not fit.
I agree, it ends up being a bit schizophrenic, trying to do all of the missions at once. Weirdly I can see the Battlecarrier version sort of making sense if you want a fire support platform for amphibious assault; the 16” guns can provide fire support out to about 20 miles inland and then the Harriers can extend that, plus add in some helicopters or UAVs for spotting. But you don’t need 128+ VLS and a very expensive radar suite to do that, it just makes the ship far more complicated than it needs to be. However if you want a flagship for a deep see battle group, the flight deck doesn’t make any sense. That’s what carriers are for. But a hard to kill platform with 128-160 VLS (depending on how many 5” mounts you convert), plus another 30-40 SSM in box launchers is a very nice asset. It gives you a Ticonderoga+ capability, probably at Tico- price, but also probably quicker than a brand new ship (which is a factor given that they wanted to expand the fleet quickly in that era).
I hope this video leads to a volunteer that has the equipment that could scan those larger blueprints. I'm glad the more expensive conversion was never attempted
Instead of scanning the blueprints, for now you could consider mounting a camera above them and taking a picture. Probably not as high quality, but it is a way to make something available quickly.
From a completely lay perspective, I get the impression this is a transition design between "destroy big areas and bounce the rubble" and "destroy the commander's office". The amount of civil damage during WWII might also be generating some "if we don't break it we don't have to rebuild it" thinking, along with the transition from superpower v. superpower to regional hotspot engagements.
Well... if it works, it works ^^ Tends to work well for Sci-fiction, but... in the real world, there really is no point since it is better to have specialized ships
The non-Harrier vstol aircraft lookss to be one of the VSTOL-A projects in multiple variants. Both thMcDonnell-Douglas design and the Grumman design were submitted to that program but it never proceded to the prototype stage.
battleship go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt. i wonder what the theoretical maximum size of a gatling weapon is. biggest one i know to exist is the 37mm t250 to replace the bofors, but it was never put into production. i imagine replacing the big guns with huge 105mm rotory howitzers would be interesting. brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt is good. especially if the rounds have a terminal guidence feature.
Looks like they went full pipe dreaming with this. Revived the idea of turning them into missile ships by removing the aft turret from the 50s and then went to town dreaming up other things they could do with the space the hull provides. That reconfigure the entire aft of the ship for aircraft space and hangers probably would have suffered the same disappointments when other ships had tried it. The space for 126 missile cells would have been a game changer. I wonder how the armor around the cells would have been arrange with them being arranged to be all above third deck. Thin armor around the outside with thicker inboard to allow anything that caused a malfunction to blow out and away from the ship? P.S. I wonder what the bill for all this would have been? The yard time to remove the 5" guns and the aft 16" turret wouldn't be a drop in the bucket. Then the cost of adding the new systems and I would think. Maybe even more electrical generating capacity. A lot of power would be freed up with removing the gun mounts but 80s electronics are power hogs.
I think there's some merit to removing all of the 5-in guns and replacing them with missile systems. Also I think that we should have gone with the beefier air defense system.
I am just as glad that the Carrier part of this conversion never happened. We have Carrier's to take care of our Air Strike and defense but only four Battleships with 16" guns and removing the third turret aft would reduce our 16" guns by twelve. These gun's are irreplaceable, and being that all four Battleships would be unlikely available at the same time would be an expensive reduction in firepower for little gain. As far as missles go I would mount most VLS between the funnels and replace the 5" 38's with single mount automated 5" 62 cal. guns - three per side.
Wow, I'm really struggling with the idea of ballasting *forward* when you remove 3,000+ tons *aft*. That's an entire LCS/ Corvette/ Frigate being pulled off.
The only good idea on those plans is the 30mm sea-wiz but even there placement was bad. It almost looks like in those plans they were just trying to make the ship as conventional to other ships of that era vs just using the battleship as a battleship. I'm glad they chose what they did in the end it made a lot more since.
8:48 I was in the shipyard on USS Berkeley (DDG-15) when the Jersey was being refit in '82. '83 as well, maybe? I got out in April of '83. I even got to see Reagan commission her. It was worth putting on my dress whites for, even in the 'yards. In the plans, I found it odd that along with the AN/SLQ-32 antenna on the forward superstructure there should be the AS-899, 571, 616, sword and derby antennae for the AN/WLR-1G on the lower forward mast. I know that they had both the 32 and WLR because we did trainings with them at Point Loma. In these drawings they appeared to have decided to remove the older WLR. Odd, as I know that they kept it.
to the people saying "battlecarrier is a horrible idea" for the cost, yes, and in ww2, yes. however. shore bombardment. these retrofit plans were pretty much just for the marines. and shore bombardment is the one area where *nothing* beats the Mark 7 (and also of course theyre not efficient. they werent built. ever. theyre just fun lol)
FYI the "guy with paddles" is the LSE - Landing Signals Enlisted, and they are still used. Still a guy with paddles on the flight deck doing the actual final landing control. Pri Fly - Flight Control - handles communications and lighting. As for a "battlecarrier", isn't that what the Moskva was? Although it was a helicopter carrier, the forward part of the ship was definitely battlecruiser. It was not very survivable as Ukraine proved.
The cost of the full upgrade was too close to the cost of designing a new ship. Like the big guns the cruise missiles can bombard shore targets but at a much longer range. It is still a WW2 battleship but in a shore bombardment role as opposed to a ship-to-ship role, and the upgrade is cost effective and quick. I think Reagan wanted the battleships as a show of force as much as a modern weapons system.
@@Brian2ndAmendmentnothing is a 100% reliable. And the 30% number people keep throwing around, is only for fully operational. If a single system is having a bad day, the plane is put into a separate pile. And when you look at the actual deployable numbers, they are around the same as 4th gen planes like the eagle and harrier. And this is still while the majority of the maintenance infrastructure still isn't complete(thanks congress!).
It is interesting seeing this, as I have speculated before that replacing turret 3 with a VLS system, and replacing the secondary battery with either a goal keeper system or swapping the twin 5 inch mounts for those automatic single 5 inch mounts, is more or less how a new class of BB would be built. The one issue I could foresee is obviously power. A possible solution I could think of is instead of replacing the original turbo generators, adding a set of diesels outside the armored citadel. From there, reconfigure the electrical system to run the critical stuff off the original installed generators, and all of the non-essential stuff off the new generators. What obviously torpedoed these plans as Ryan mentioned is cost. Would be cheaper to build that as a new class then modify the Iowa's. Would be interesting to see if there was anything like that on the drawing board.
Heck, it might make sense to put in two nuke power plants (like in a carrier). It could cruise all day at max speed. It would only have to carry fuel for emergency/backup diesel generators and for the drones and aircraft. The VLS has the advantage that new ships use it exclusively. The ABL (armored box launch) system takes up space that might well be used for high power laser systems. Again, two nuke plants can power the lasers.
Hewlett Packard does a wide format scanner that is used for scanning large blueprints, and is networkable. Should see if someone has one they can lend you for digitising. It's about the same size as a large format plotter minus the printing and paper handling.
There are a few things that seem to be limitations to the missile armament. The Mk92 missile guidance used by the Perry frigates is limited to four targets simultaneously, if I read the global security information correctly. One aft and one forward means you can only have 8 standard missiles in the air at once. While the Tomahawks don't need it, the Standard missile does need the radar to guide it to an aerial target. The AN/SPG 62 terminal guidance radars on the Burkes are tied to the Aegis system which was not part of these renovations. A question becomes, is it cheaper to add this capability to the battleship or cheaper to assign a frigate to it to provide air defense?
I think removing the main(16") guns is going too far. The ships structural integrity is pretty much based on those turrets. Would they have removed the whole structure extending several decks below? What about modernizing the 16" projectiles? Could their range and effectiveness be substantially enhanced?
I’m trying to figure out the usage of this. Obviously we’re not going for surface to surface gun action but I’d be very nervous closing on the beach for shore bombardment with all that aviation capacity in the back. That seems like a lucky artillery shell away from some problems
Dear Mr. Szimanski, Let me ask you a simple question... If all of the changes described were implemented, within the expected times and costs, once the works were completed, would the new battleships, renamed battlecarriers, be integrated into existing carriers strike groups, or could they be deployed and operate autonomously as needed?....Please, accept my warmest regards.😊
Yeah, those look like MDD 260s in the drawings. It wouldn't surprise me if the various plans alternated back and forth between that and the Grumman 698. They would have never been used in the strike role, that would have been left entirely to the AV-8 airframes. These aircraft were designed to be mululti-role support airframes so some of them would have been AEW, some would have been fitted for EW, and some would have been fitted for the ASW role.
The main blunder I see is the Mk-29s. While you mention the issue of the forward ones Vs blast, they also have their own back-blast to consider as well, but he aft mount is horrible. that would be a nightmare to try to reload. Those systems (unlike later Mk-16 ASROC) only have manual reloading available. It should at least be swapped with the Goalkeeper below it or replaced with a 4th one. In addition, with the VLS, they are fairly redundant, especially now with the VLESSM quad packs. Stripping those off would be a definite improvement I would replace them with Breda 40mm twin gun-mounts as a backup to the goalkeepers and a close-in light anti-surface weapon (good against small craft in harbor or littoral situations). The masts are very awkward and clumsy looking, look more like something to be found on a napkin sketch than a real blueprint. Those would have to be completely redone. I also don't like that they stripped of the existing aft sponsons. These are the ideal place to put a pair of point defense mounts to cover the ships stern, especially during flight-ops, when the other mounts would have to be locked out of firing aft. As to the weight, there is a lot being added aft, with the hanger, flight-deck and aircraft. if these were made of aluminum or composite, they would be relatively light, but, perhaps they were planning to make them out of steel with light armor to protect the flight-deck and hanger spaces from smaller caliber weapons (4"-5"). In that case, they might end up weighing much more than the 16" turret and barbette, plus they would have to add a lot of additional structural members there to compensate structurally for the loss of the barbette.
These days the Iowa class and North Carolina class would have AN/SPY-6 instead of SPS 52 (N). Also AN/SPG-62, AN/SPS-73(V)12 or (V)18 NGSSR, SPQ-9B, Mark 34 GWS, Mark 160 GCS, and Mark 99 FCS instead of the MK 92 CAS (N), SPS 53(E), SPS 67, and MK13 (E).
The whole idea of a "battle carrier" is absurd to me. I like the modifications they did make in the 80's, but for them to even consider chopping up a battleship to add a flight deck was stupid considering the capability of our fleet carriers and the smaller amphibious helicopter carriers at the time. There was no need to reinvent the wheel, so to speak.
I imagine it would be more akin to an escort carrier rather than a fleet carrier. Perhaps the idea was to carry a defensive air wing to protect it while carrying out shore bombardment operations.
I wish alls the battleships left, would be just left alone. And put back in WW2 configuration only or as near as can possibly be, like alls the guns or as many as possible, and show spots for all the others, and gear. People like myself really want to see it preserved in WW2 configurations only. And not see spaces changed for dumb museum modifications like other battleships I seen. Or a bunch of food courts for tourists or other crap, people can go off ship for food. I don't even care for the modern upgrades, and would have them removed also, and fixed to original WW2 configurations and paint only. WW2 was of great importance. Ryan does great job on these information videos. Good Days USMC Combat Veteran
Pretty unrelated, but I have a question about the battle of Santa Cruz: Do the Japanese destroyers Akigumo and Makigumo deserve credit for sinking USS Hornet, or was the carrier already fatally damaged by air attacks and would have sank regardless of any further damage, and the destroyer torpedoes just made her sink faster.
As mentioned I don't understand their reasoning for not recessing the VLS into the 5" locations. A catastrophic hit blowing up inside the ship? Is that not an equal risk for the existing 5" magazines? Building three story blocks seems like more work, then again, maybe who cares if you already building a flight deck?
Would it be possible to obtain a copy of those plans for a conversion ito a sort of carrier. If so, I would like a copy, they will go well with my copies of US Navy Monitors
I would vote to remove propellers, to better preserve the rest of the battleship from damages as mentioned in other video.. I would keep propellers in a very secure place so not to get stolen. Id perhaps have one on display very close to battleship also, although secured well from thieves, cause they will steal everything. !! Removal is a common sense thing to do, it not like they will be used again. Good Days USMC Veteran
OK suppose we made the BattleCarrierCruiserShip New Jersey. Something that would never run out of bubblegum or asskicking. What do you do with a ship like that? You only have one of them. You have this gold plated target. When things get hot, it's going to be saturation bombed. It'll be the American version of "sink the Bismarck" with her silhouette in every enemy navy briefing room. At least a submarine has the advantage of stealth. Everyone with a spy satellite will know where she is. That's in time of war. In peacetime, she can't project as much as a carrier, since V/STOL aircraft are inherently range/payload-limited. She ends up jack of all trades, master of none.
Battlecarrier... What a horribly bad idea :D You don't want to have air operations on deck within shooting range of the enemy! Either you're too close for air operations, or you're too far for the guns. Pick one of them to have on your ship.
Listen, spot the army guy if you like, but the casual "2.5 million gallons of fuel" just about made my jaw hit the floor. Battleship on top, oil tanker below?
So, the ship has broken turret rotation pins, tomakawk launch keys, harpoon racks and now plans for air superiority. How long until Ryan annexes Philadelphia as part of New Jersey state? 😂
Ryan, New Jersey, and the BS New Jersey is not bad enough to annex the City of Brotherly Love because I have yet to see a "Curator" measurement for "Evil." Height, length, width, volume yes, Evil no. 😊
So, I’m not sure if this series is even still a thing or if you take suggestions for it, but I have a suggestion for the ‘Would An Iowa-Class Battle Have Survived (x)’ series: Would An Iowa-Class Battleship Have Survived What Sank Scharnhorst? Of course, if you haven’t answered that already, though I couldn’t find anything.
The Iowa class would be less likely to have the Duke of York shells get stuck in the turret mechanism as the Iowa was designed to take on ships with 16" guns (unlike North Carolina). Although deck splinters would still be of some concern. Any Iowa class would likely be able to hightail it out of the initial part of the situation more easily than Scharnhorst. Though the Iowa class would receive serious damage if they didn't outrun the destroyers with Duke of York. It's likely the Iowa class would be able to scare off any King George V battleships hours later, but the destroyers are the real threat. The Achilles heel in this situation would be the lack of turbo-electric. The Iowa class instead had the more vulnerable direct-drive system. The destroyers likely ensure there's good chances of any Iowa ship perishing. Though any Iowa no doubt would be fighting for longer than Scharnhorst. The unbuilt Montana however may be able to survive this situation due to the stronger 5"/54-caliber Mark 16 secondary battery being able to more so easily take out the destroyers. Not to mention the engine space being more subdivided.
Very much ' blue sky' thinking , looks like they've been asked for the absolute max you might fit to the ship from all the available systems . I couldn't see all of them combined being practical or workable . Some of the alterations probably try to resolve some of the interference between systems not intended for the ship . Don't forget it would also be powered by 1940s generation and propulsion machinery with all the maintenance requirements . The facilities to maintain that number of Harriers and the Air personnel looks very cramped . It's not a surprise most of these proposals never came to anything . I don't think these would ever have been practical and would have turned a beautiful swan into an ugly duckling .
I think the idea of a "battle carrier" makes no sense. Carriers like to stay a long way from their targets, while battleships have to get very close. If you want a big ship with lots of missiles, build a big ship with lots of missiles. Don't bother with big guns, too, which probably won't be useful in modern war at sea.
After WWII, the role of the battleship was never surface combat. From the 50s to the 90s the Iowas only ever did shore bombardment, mostly in support of amphibious operations. This design was really a way to combine the two things most needed during a projected amphibious invasion: Naval Gunfire Support and Close Air Support. The 16" guns provided immense power for about 20 miles inland, and that's the furthest NGS can go without extremely specialized shells that were never realized. CAS is able to be utilized in a much more versatile manner, and for further into the operation. While a bit silly, it does make sense when you consider the roll of the battleship in the second half of the 20th century. Side note: And in any case, the Iowas as we got them were arguably even more useless in a modern war at sea, with the plans here offering at least a modicum of situational awareness and striking power.
@@scotthillman9134 Getting is a very bad thing for an aircraft carrier. If there is a bad guy tossing 76 mm shells at you from five km away, you can't conduct flight ops, and flight ops are the reason for an aircraft carrier's being.
To put a point on it-a Battleship is a very good thing to have when you don't want a bad guy tossing shells anymore from you 5km A Battleship is maybe the best wepion on the planet when you don't want anything bothering you from 20 miles away. Now 20 miles ain't that big a distance in the scope of things, but its good for most conventional things.
@@luked7525 To begin with, the day of the opposed amphibious landing is long over. In the face of modern weapons, such an assault it suicide. Just look at the fiasco at Koh Tang Island. And that was in the face of a fifth-rate opponent. Also, look at what happened to _Moskva,_ against a power with no navy. These days, you can't get within 20 miles of the coast without being hit by multiple cruise missiles. If you want NGFS, a dedicated gun ship is better than a hybrid. And if you want air power, a dedicated carrier is better then a hybrid.
see this design they have for VSTOL/vertical launch tubes would be much better suited for converting/build new Essex class carriers to missile carriers. you would completely remove the flight deck and island and install a new shallow angled deck with two elevators on the starboard side close to where they are now. forward of the island on the center line would be at massive battery of VLS covering almost a 3rd of where the old flight deck was. I bet you could probably fit over 500 missiles of varying types in the bow with sea sparrow and that British phalanx guns scattered around the entire hull providing 360 degree coverage from any air threats. you could also probably add fuel storage for both the escorts so had they been paired up with an Iowa class or even one of the South Dakotas had they decided to reactivate them; they would provide a significant punch to what ever landing force or hot spot they were going up against. Heck I think a purpose built missile carrier roughly 100 ft longer than say LHD-1 with an angled deck would be a pretty hefty carrier. a mix of F-35's. F/A-18 , or Typhoon's would make a pretty formidable air group.
I wish alls the battleships left, would be just left alone. And put back in WW2 configuration only or as near as can possibly be, like alls the guns or as many as possible, and show spots for all the others, and gear. People like myself really want to see it preserved in WW2 configurations only. And not see spaces changed for dumb museum modifications like other battleships I seen. Or a bunch of food courts for tourists or other crap, people can go off ship for food. I don't even care for the modern upgrades, and would have them removed also, and fixed to original WW2 configurations and paint only. WW2 was of great importance. Ryan does great job on these information videos. Good Days USMC Combat Veteran
I would vote to remove propellers, to better preserve the rest of the battleship from damages as mentioned in other video.. I would keep propellers in a very secure place so not to get stolen. Id perhaps have one on display very close to battleship also, although secured well from thieves, cause they will steal everything. !! Removal is a common sense thing to do, it not like they will be used again. Good Days USMC Veteran
I like that we’ve agreed on the term “battlecarrier” rather than a “hybrid battleship” or an “aircraft carrying battleship.” Sounds way cooler while still conveying the same idea.
We didn't need to make a new name for this idea. We already have one.
"BattleStar"
abrev "BV" Battle-Carrier not BC ot CB, V is Carrier :)
Extra bow water ballast might be to accommodate the differing weights of the air groups and their fuel and ammo actually embarked aft. The concrete ballast forward is probably a "place holder" at this early stage of the design indicating that there would be a location for it IF it proved to be required in the final design. One of a designer's favorite phrases is "As Required".
On paper, it sounds like a great idea: you get the missiles of a cruiser + the aircaft of a small carrier + the guns and armour of a battleship and a bunch of marines, just for good measure. In reality, I think they were trying to put too much in/on the ship. Something would break or not fit.
I agree, it ends up being a bit schizophrenic, trying to do all of the missions at once. Weirdly I can see the Battlecarrier version sort of making sense if you want a fire support platform for amphibious assault; the 16” guns can provide fire support out to about 20 miles inland and then the Harriers can extend that, plus add in some helicopters or UAVs for spotting. But you don’t need 128+ VLS and a very expensive radar suite to do that, it just makes the ship far more complicated than it needs to be. However if you want a flagship for a deep see battle group, the flight deck doesn’t make any sense. That’s what carriers are for. But a hard to kill platform with 128-160 VLS (depending on how many 5” mounts you convert), plus another 30-40 SSM in box launchers is a very nice asset. It gives you a Ticonderoga+ capability, probably at Tico- price, but also probably quicker than a brand new ship (which is a factor given that they wanted to expand the fleet quickly in that era).
i love ryan's little confession that all planes look teh same to him....
I hope this video leads to a volunteer that has the equipment that could scan those larger blueprints.
I'm glad the more expensive conversion was never attempted
They need to make a high detailed book with them... the books would sell like hot cakes!
Instead of scanning the blueprints, for now you could consider mounting a camera above them and taking a picture. Probably not as high quality, but it is a way to make something available quickly.
From a completely lay perspective, I get the impression this is a transition design between "destroy big areas and bounce the rubble" and "destroy the commander's office". The amount of civil damage during WWII might also be generating some "if we don't break it we don't have to rebuild it" thinking, along with the transition from superpower v. superpower to regional hotspot engagements.
Ah, the battlecarrier- the spork of naval warfare…
Well... if it works, it works ^^
Tends to work well for Sci-fiction, but... in the real world, there really is no point since it is better to have specialized ships
The non-Harrier vstol aircraft lookss to be one of the VSTOL-A projects in multiple variants. Both thMcDonnell-Douglas design and the Grumman design were submitted to that program but it never proceded to the prototype stage.
battleship go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt.
i wonder what the theoretical maximum size of a gatling weapon is. biggest one i know to exist is the 37mm t250 to replace the bofors, but it was never put into production. i imagine replacing the big guns with huge 105mm rotory howitzers would be interesting. brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt is good. especially if the rounds have a terminal guidence feature.
Looks like they went full pipe dreaming with this. Revived the idea of turning them into missile ships by removing the aft turret from the 50s and then went to town dreaming up other things they could do with the space the hull provides. That reconfigure the entire aft of the ship for aircraft space and hangers probably would have suffered the same disappointments when other ships had tried it. The space for 126 missile cells would have been a game changer. I wonder how the armor around the cells would have been arrange with them being arranged to be all above third deck. Thin armor around the outside with thicker inboard to allow anything that caused a malfunction to blow out and away from the ship?
P.S. I wonder what the bill for all this would have been? The yard time to remove the 5" guns and the aft 16" turret wouldn't be a drop in the bucket. Then the cost of adding the new systems and I would think. Maybe even more electrical generating capacity. A lot of power would be freed up with removing the gun mounts but 80s electronics are power hogs.
I think there's some merit to removing all of the 5-in guns and replacing them with missile systems. Also I think that we should have gone with the beefier air defense system.
I am just as glad that the Carrier part of this conversion never happened. We have Carrier's to take care of our Air Strike and defense but only four Battleships with 16" guns and removing the third turret aft would reduce our 16" guns by twelve. These gun's are irreplaceable, and being that all four Battleships would be unlikely available at the same time would be an expensive reduction in firepower for little gain. As far as missles go I would mount most VLS between the funnels and replace the 5" 38's with single mount automated 5" 62 cal. guns - three per side.
Wish I was closer, I have access to a large format scanner and could scan those for you.
Agreed. I'd love to do a tour to see these in person, but I'm half a continent away from Camden.
It would be cool to have a “what if?” model section of the museum. Modelers, get on it.
Wow, I'm really struggling with the idea of ballasting *forward* when you remove 3,000+ tons *aft*. That's an entire LCS/ Corvette/ Frigate being pulled off.
The only good idea on those plans is the 30mm sea-wiz but even there placement was bad. It almost looks like in those plans they were just trying to make the ship as conventional to other ships of that era vs just using the battleship as a battleship. I'm glad they chose what they did in the end it made a lot more since.
8:48 I was in the shipyard on USS Berkeley (DDG-15) when the Jersey was being refit in '82. '83 as well, maybe? I got out in April of '83. I even got to see Reagan commission her. It was worth putting on my dress whites for, even in the 'yards. In the plans, I found it odd that along with the AN/SLQ-32 antenna on the forward superstructure there should be the AS-899, 571, 616, sword and derby antennae for the AN/WLR-1G on the lower forward mast. I know that they had both the 32 and WLR because we did trainings with them at Point Loma. In these drawings they appeared to have decided to remove the older WLR. Odd, as I know that they kept it.
Glad they decided on the current configuration.
to the people saying "battlecarrier is a horrible idea"
for the cost, yes, and in ww2, yes.
however. shore bombardment. these retrofit plans were pretty much just for the marines. and shore bombardment is the one area where *nothing* beats the Mark 7
(and also of course theyre not efficient. they werent built. ever. theyre just fun lol)
FYI the "guy with paddles" is the LSE - Landing Signals Enlisted, and they are still used. Still a guy with paddles on the flight deck doing the actual final landing control. Pri Fly - Flight Control - handles communications and lighting.
As for a "battlecarrier", isn't that what the Moskva was? Although it was a helicopter carrier, the forward part of the ship was definitely battlecruiser. It was not very survivable as Ukraine proved.
The cost of the full upgrade was too close to the cost of designing a new ship. Like the big guns the cruise missiles can bombard shore targets but at a much longer range. It is still a WW2 battleship but in a shore bombardment role as opposed to a ship-to-ship role, and the upgrade is cost effective and quick. I think Reagan wanted the battleships as a show of force as much as a modern weapons system.
It not only "shows" force, in a not WWIII situation, it has force. The guns were quite useful in VN.
This is so cool to see all these plans. 🇺🇲
Hmm... the F-35 could replace the Harrier today..
Nonsense. We shall have a CATOBAR Iowa and it shall be glorious.
Most of the F35 entire platforms aren't even 100% ready for service or reliable...maybe 30% of our inventory
@@Brian2ndAmendmentnothing is a 100% reliable. And the 30% number people keep throwing around, is only for fully operational. If a single system is having a bad day, the plane is put into a separate pile. And when you look at the actual deployable numbers, they are around the same as 4th gen planes like the eagle and harrier. And this is still while the majority of the maintenance infrastructure still isn't complete(thanks congress!).
Do you have anything covering the proposed amphibious assault ship conversion from the 1950's?
It is interesting seeing this, as I have speculated before that replacing turret 3 with a VLS system, and replacing the secondary battery with either a goal keeper system or swapping the twin 5 inch mounts for those automatic single 5 inch mounts, is more or less how a new class of BB would be built.
The one issue I could foresee is obviously power. A possible solution I could think of is instead of replacing the original turbo generators, adding a set of diesels outside the armored citadel. From there, reconfigure the electrical system to run the critical stuff off the original installed generators, and all of the non-essential stuff off the new generators.
What obviously torpedoed these plans as Ryan mentioned is cost. Would be cheaper to build that as a new class then modify the Iowa's. Would be interesting to see if there was anything like that on the drawing board.
Heck, it might make sense to put in two nuke power plants (like in a carrier). It could cruise all day at max speed. It would only have to carry fuel for emergency/backup diesel generators and for the drones and aircraft.
The VLS has the advantage that new ships use it exclusively. The ABL (armored box launch) system takes up space that might well be used for high power laser systems. Again, two nuke plants can power the lasers.
Hewlett Packard does a wide format scanner that is used for scanning large blueprints, and is networkable. Should see if someone has one they can lend you for digitising. It's about the same size as a large format plotter minus the printing and paper handling.
The SPS-67 was the replacement to SPS-10 surface search radar.
Concrete ballast in the bow? Seems like that would create a major corrosion problem.
Especially as the concrete dam the Mikasa was placed in has caused a major decrease in the bottom hull durability due to acidity.
Again, I commend "The Hybrid Warship" as an excellent reference
Good Stuff 👍
There are a few things that seem to be limitations to the missile armament. The Mk92 missile guidance used by the Perry frigates is limited to four targets simultaneously, if I read the global security information correctly. One aft and one forward means you can only have 8 standard missiles in the air at once. While the Tomahawks don't need it, the Standard missile does need the radar to guide it to an aerial target. The AN/SPG 62 terminal guidance radars on the Burkes are tied to the Aegis system which was not part of these renovations. A question becomes, is it cheaper to add this capability to the battleship or cheaper to assign a frigate to it to provide air defense?
I think removing the main(16") guns is going too far. The ships structural integrity is pretty much based on those turrets. Would they have removed the whole structure extending several decks below? What about modernizing the 16" projectiles? Could their range and effectiveness be substantially enhanced?
I’m trying to figure out the usage of this. Obviously we’re not going for surface to surface gun action but I’d be very nervous closing on the beach for shore bombardment with all that aviation capacity in the back. That seems like a lucky artillery shell away from some problems
Dear Mr. Szimanski, Let me ask you a simple question... If all of the changes described were implemented, within the expected times and costs, once the works were completed, would the new battleships, renamed battlecarriers, be integrated into existing carriers strike groups, or could they be deployed and operate autonomously as needed?....Please, accept my warmest regards.😊
Yeah, those look like MDD 260s in the drawings. It wouldn't surprise me if the various plans alternated back and forth between that and the Grumman 698. They would have never been used in the strike role, that would have been left entirely to the AV-8 airframes. These aircraft were designed to be mululti-role support airframes so some of them would have been AEW, some would have been fitted for EW, and some would have been fitted for the ASW role.
The main blunder I see is the Mk-29s. While you mention the issue of the forward ones Vs blast, they also have their own back-blast to consider as well, but he aft mount is horrible. that would be a nightmare to try to reload. Those systems (unlike later Mk-16 ASROC) only have manual reloading available. It should at least be swapped with the Goalkeeper below it or replaced with a 4th one. In addition, with the VLS, they are fairly redundant, especially now with the VLESSM quad packs. Stripping those off would be a definite improvement I would replace them with Breda 40mm twin gun-mounts as a backup to the goalkeepers and a close-in light anti-surface weapon (good against small craft in harbor or littoral situations). The masts are very awkward and clumsy looking, look more like something to be found on a napkin sketch than a real blueprint. Those would have to be completely redone. I also don't like that they stripped of the existing aft sponsons. These are the ideal place to put a pair of point defense mounts to cover the ships stern, especially during flight-ops, when the other mounts would have to be locked out of firing aft.
As to the weight, there is a lot being added aft, with the hanger, flight-deck and aircraft. if these were made of aluminum or composite, they would be relatively light, but, perhaps they were planning to make them out of steel with light armor to protect the flight-deck and hanger spaces from smaller caliber weapons (4"-5"). In that case, they might end up weighing much more than the 16" turret and barbette, plus they would have to add a lot of additional structural members there to compensate structurally for the loss of the barbette.
These days the Iowa class and North Carolina class would have AN/SPY-6 instead of SPS 52 (N).
Also AN/SPG-62, AN/SPS-73(V)12 or (V)18 NGSSR, SPQ-9B, Mark 34 GWS, Mark 160 GCS, and Mark 99 FCS instead of the MK 92 CAS (N), SPS 53(E), SPS 67, and MK13 (E).
Shock proofing the AESA array would be an interesting exercise.
I can see someone who wants to build a model of the aviation option getting those blueprints.
The whole idea of a "battle carrier" is absurd to me. I like the modifications they did make in the 80's, but for them to even consider chopping up a battleship to add a flight deck was stupid considering the capability of our fleet carriers and the smaller amphibious helicopter carriers at the time. There was no need to reinvent the wheel, so to speak.
I imagine it would be more akin to an escort carrier rather than a fleet carrier. Perhaps the idea was to carry a defensive air wing to protect it while carrying out shore bombardment operations.
I think a more realistic term is 'self escorting carrier, with ancient shore bombardment abilities'
You need to make a high detailed book out of them.... you would make a fortune!
Were there any proposals to add a sonar dome and torpedo tubes?
Why not use the toy Transformers as a battleship concept? Seriously, missiles and lots of them are a good idea. Removing 16" main guns, not good!
"BattleCarrier, operational!"
I wish alls the battleships left, would be just left alone. And put back in WW2 configuration only or as near as can possibly be, like alls the guns or as many as possible, and show spots for all the others, and gear. People like myself really want to see it preserved in WW2 configurations only. And not see spaces changed for dumb museum modifications like other battleships I seen. Or a bunch of food courts for tourists or other crap, people can go off ship for food. I don't even care for the modern upgrades, and would have them removed also, and fixed to original WW2 configurations and paint only. WW2 was of great importance.
Ryan does great job on these information videos.
Good Days
USMC Combat Veteran
I've been on 3 Battleships, which ones have a food court, that sounds awesome.
Pretty unrelated, but I have a question about the battle of Santa Cruz: Do the Japanese destroyers Akigumo and Makigumo deserve credit for sinking USS Hornet, or was the carrier already fatally damaged by air attacks and would have sank regardless of any further damage, and the destroyer torpedoes just made her sink faster.
I like to think they just put up a suggestion box. We're just looking at crew suggestions.
Design engineers for battleships are intense . Imagine designing and blueprinting the new USS NJ Now-A-Days .
WE COULD HAVE HAD A NEW JERSEY WITH BIG BRRRRTS??
Nrrrrrts would work too 😂
Having GAU-8 in front of the ship is really questionable.
I think we can agree this was not a good idea. When we wonder why they chose specific changes, just remember it was a bad idea altogether 😂
As mentioned I don't understand their reasoning for not recessing the VLS into the 5" locations. A catastrophic hit blowing up inside the ship? Is that not an equal risk for the existing 5" magazines? Building three story blocks seems like more work, then again, maybe who cares if you already building a flight deck?
Seems clear they intended something heavy aft. Also, fresh water is not as dense as seawater.
Looks like one version had 160 VLS cells, 16 cells in each of the ten original 5" 38 mounts. See 16 minutes 30 seconds of the video for this drawing.
Would it be possible to obtain a copy of those plans for a conversion ito a sort of carrier. If so, I would like a copy, they will go well with my copies of US Navy Monitors
Milllion's of naval enthusianst's and historian's suddenly cried out in pain and terror at the word...BattleCarrier.
Those unbuilt super tall towers with all the stuff on them makes me feel like those towers would've felt like Jenga.
While this would have been interesting, this definitely would have been pricey
(N) is New, (E) is Existing, and (P/S) is Port/Starboard meaning the item is mirrored on both sides. This design is fascinatingly bad, IMO.
on the top of the aft-mast, URD = universal radome
Who do these designers think they are, Jaguar ?
I would vote to remove propellers, to better preserve the rest of the battleship from damages as mentioned in other video.. I would keep propellers in a very secure place so not to get stolen. Id perhaps have one on display very close to battleship also, although secured well from thieves, cause they will steal everything. !! Removal is a common sense thing to do, it not like they will be used again.
Good Days
USMC Veteran
make a series of good quality pictures, and fit tougather!! ita bit work, but less stress for the paper.
OK suppose we made the BattleCarrierCruiserShip New Jersey. Something that would never run out of bubblegum or asskicking. What do you do with a ship like that? You only have one of them. You have this gold plated target. When things get hot, it's going to be saturation bombed. It'll be the American version of "sink the Bismarck" with her silhouette in every enemy navy briefing room. At least a submarine has the advantage of stealth. Everyone with a spy satellite will know where she is. That's in time of war. In peacetime, she can't project as much as a carrier, since V/STOL aircraft are inherently range/payload-limited. She ends up jack of all trades, master of none.
Battlecarrier... What a horribly bad idea :D
You don't want to have air operations on deck within shooting range of the enemy!
Either you're too close for air operations, or you're too far for the guns. Pick one of them to have on your ship.
Turning a Iowa class into a mini aircraft carrier. Bad idea.
You,need a DSLR and copy stand.
Listen, spot the army guy if you like, but the casual "2.5 million gallons of fuel" just about made my jaw hit the floor. Battleship on top, oil tanker below?
So, the ship has broken turret rotation pins, tomakawk launch keys, harpoon racks and now plans for air superiority. How long until Ryan annexes Philadelphia as part of New Jersey state? 😂
Ryan, New Jersey, and the BS New Jersey is not bad enough to annex the City of Brotherly Love because I have yet to see a "Curator" measurement for "Evil." Height, length, width, volume yes, Evil no. 😊
@@mbterabytesjc2036 check the Video on the Nuclear PTF Keys :P
5:41 Dutch
Probably would have been better to put money into old decommissioned carriers, then to try and convert the battleships.
Instead of scanning the plans, use a document camera to photograph them.
Untethered Dead Reckoning UDR ...
So, I’m not sure if this series is even still a thing or if you take suggestions for it, but I have a suggestion for the ‘Would An Iowa-Class Battle Have Survived (x)’ series:
Would An Iowa-Class Battleship Have Survived What Sank Scharnhorst?
Of course, if you haven’t answered that already, though I couldn’t find anything.
The Iowa class would be less likely to have the Duke of York shells get stuck in the turret mechanism as the Iowa was designed to take on ships with 16" guns (unlike North Carolina). Although deck splinters would still be of some concern.
Any Iowa class would likely be able to hightail it out of the initial part of the situation more easily than Scharnhorst. Though the Iowa class would receive serious damage if they didn't outrun the destroyers with Duke of York.
It's likely the Iowa class would be able to scare off any King George V battleships hours later, but the destroyers are the real threat. The Achilles heel in this situation would be the lack of turbo-electric. The Iowa class instead had the more vulnerable direct-drive system. The destroyers likely ensure there's good chances of any Iowa ship perishing. Though any Iowa no doubt would be fighting for longer than Scharnhorst.
The unbuilt Montana however may be able to survive this situation due to the stronger 5"/54-caliber Mark 16 secondary battery being able to more so easily take out the destroyers. Not to mention the engine space being more subdivided.
So cool get these to trumps desk now. We wanted her back.
Very much ' blue sky' thinking , looks like they've been asked for the absolute max you might fit to the ship from all the available systems . I couldn't see all of them combined being practical or workable . Some of the alterations probably try to resolve some of the interference between systems not intended for the ship . Don't forget it would also be powered by 1940s generation and propulsion machinery with all the maintenance requirements . The facilities to maintain that number of Harriers and the Air personnel looks very cramped . It's not a surprise most of these proposals never came to anything . I don't think these would ever have been practical and would have turned a beautiful swan into an ugly duckling .
Good Lord, A-10 guns for missile defense?! Suck it, Russia!
I think the idea of a "battle carrier" makes no sense. Carriers like to stay a long way from their targets, while battleships have to get very close. If you want a big ship with lots of missiles, build a big ship with lots of missiles. Don't bother with big guns, too, which probably won't be useful in modern war at sea.
A big Part of the reason of that is-Air Craft Carriers are very lightly armored. Like they can not get close. And Getting Close isn't a bad thing.
After WWII, the role of the battleship was never surface combat. From the 50s to the 90s the Iowas only ever did shore bombardment, mostly in support of amphibious operations.
This design was really a way to combine the two things most needed during a projected amphibious invasion: Naval Gunfire Support and Close Air Support. The 16" guns provided immense power for about 20 miles inland, and that's the furthest NGS can go without extremely specialized shells that were never realized. CAS is able to be utilized in a much more versatile manner, and for further into the operation.
While a bit silly, it does make sense when you consider the roll of the battleship in the second half of the 20th century.
Side note: And in any case, the Iowas as we got them were arguably even more useless in a modern war at sea, with the plans here offering at least a modicum of situational awareness and striking power.
@@scotthillman9134 Getting is a very bad thing for an aircraft carrier. If there is a bad guy tossing 76 mm shells at you from five km away, you can't conduct flight ops, and flight ops are the reason for an aircraft carrier's being.
To put a point on it-a Battleship is a very good thing to have when you don't want a bad guy tossing shells anymore from you 5km
A Battleship is maybe the best wepion on the planet when you don't want anything bothering you from 20 miles away. Now 20 miles ain't that big a distance in the scope of things, but its good for most conventional things.
@@luked7525 To begin with, the day of the opposed amphibious landing is long over. In the face of modern weapons, such an assault it suicide. Just look at the fiasco at Koh Tang Island. And that was in the face of a fifth-rate opponent.
Also, look at what happened to _Moskva,_ against a power with no navy. These days, you can't get within 20 miles of the coast without being hit by multiple cruise missiles.
If you want NGFS, a dedicated gun ship is better than a hybrid. And if you want air power, a dedicated carrier is better then a hybrid.
Glad this wasn't done
She's a Battleship NOT an aircraftcarrier..................
see this design they have for VSTOL/vertical launch tubes would be much better suited for converting/build new Essex class carriers to missile carriers. you would completely remove the flight deck and island and install a new shallow angled deck with two elevators on the starboard side close to where they are now. forward of the island on the center line would be at massive battery of VLS covering almost a 3rd of where the old flight deck was. I bet you could probably fit over 500 missiles of varying types in the bow with sea sparrow and that British phalanx guns scattered around the entire hull providing 360 degree coverage from any air threats. you could also probably add fuel storage for both the escorts so had they been paired up with an Iowa class or even one of the South Dakotas had they decided to reactivate them; they would provide a significant punch to what ever landing force or hot spot they were going up against. Heck I think a purpose built missile carrier roughly 100 ft longer than say LHD-1 with an angled deck would be a pretty hefty carrier. a mix of F-35's. F/A-18 , or Typhoon's would make a pretty formidable air group.
The basic idea of a battlecarrier is a horrible idea
Agreed, the floating VLS array is a much better idea.
The only use case I see for this thing is taking back the Falklands from Argentina.
2nd, 21 November 2024
Dutch Goalkeepers. Not British!
I wish alls the battleships left, would be just left alone. And put back in WW2 configuration only or as near as can possibly be, like alls the guns or as many as possible, and show spots for all the others, and gear. People like myself really want to see it preserved in WW2 configurations only. And not see spaces changed for dumb museum modifications like other battleships I seen. Or a bunch of food courts for tourists or other crap, people can go off ship for food. I don't even care for the modern upgrades, and would have them removed also, and fixed to original WW2 configurations and paint only. WW2 was of great importance.
Ryan does great job on these information videos.
Good Days
USMC Combat Veteran
The Cold War modifications were also important in their own right.
I would vote to remove propellers, to better preserve the rest of the battleship from damages as mentioned in other video.. I would keep propellers in a very secure place so not to get stolen. Id perhaps have one on display very close to battleship also, although secured well from thieves, cause they will steal everything. !! Removal is a common sense thing to do, it not like they will be used again.
Good Days
USMC Veteran