Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects

[Hood]

¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¿
Put images please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, because that violates the forum's copyright rules, namely:

• NEVER post images or whole pages from currently available books or magazines without the permission of the copyright holder. This harms revenues and may jeopardise the production of future books and magazines. Aviation publishing isn't a big money maker and we must support the authors and publishers. Posting a summary in your own words is acceptable.

In any case, Wayne's art is fairly well known and for a while he was promoting his works on Facebook with low-rez versions of his paintings. They are not necessarily hard to find.

 

[Julio Garay Terrazas]

¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¿
Put images please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, because that violates the forum's copyright rules, namely:

• NEVER post images or whole pages from currently available books or magazines without the permission of the copyright holder. This harms revenues and may jeopardise the production of future books and magazines. Aviation publishing isn't a big money maker and we must support the authors and publishers. Posting a summary in your own words is acceptable.

In any case, Wayne's art is fairly well known and for a while he was promoting his works on Facebook with low-rez versions of his paintings. They are not necessarily hard to find.

Excuse me. Always I forgot this rule...

 

[Conspirator]

From Global Security:

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 done, and all four ships rejoined the fleet. The initial plan also envisioned a Phase II, under which the aft turret was to be deleted and a hanger and flight deck added in its place. The hanger would accommodate 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.

Line drawing of Iowa-class aviation conversion circa 1981.

Sources:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/bb-61-av.htm
Proceedings July 1981

Chuck Pfaff's Library

View the full album on Photobucket.

i149.photobucket.com

ok so i have never seen this type of conversion. a rear facing catapult you could fit anywhere between 25-35 wildcats/corsairs on that deck if it was crammed it would be interesting to see a carrier/battleship hybrid in action. if these were built earlier and deployed to D-Day action. they would be invalulable providing air support and shore pounding iowa class destruction on gun emplacements. not sure how they would be in ship-ship action in the pacific but they would also be invalulable to the pacific war providing the same power to smaller islands

 

[Tzoli]

ok so i have never seen this type of conversion. a rear facing catapult you could fit anywhere between 25-35 wildcats/corsairs on that deck if it was crammed it would be interesting to see a carrier/battleship hybrid in action. if these were built earlier and deployed to D-Day action. they would be invalulable providing air support and shore pounding iowa class destruction on gun emplacements. not sure how they would be in ship-ship action in the pacific but they would also be invalulable to the pacific war providing the same power to smaller islands

North Carolina Preliminary Scheme F 1934-35 by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

 

[Conspirator]

ok so i have never seen this type of conversion. a rear facing catapult you could fit anywhere between 25-35 wildcats/corsairs on that deck if it was crammed it would be interesting to see a carrier/battleship hybrid in action. if these were built earlier and deployed to D-Day action. they would be invalulable providing air support and shore pounding iowa class destruction on gun emplacements. not sure how they would be in ship-ship action in the pacific but they would also be invalulable to the pacific war providing the same power to smaller islands

North Carolina Preliminary Scheme F 1934-35 by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

i had in fact already seen that drawing. interesting but with limited capability because of the strictly rear-facing guns it will have to give broadside for attack/defense which makes her a bigger target and easier for torpedo-bombers to get a track on her

 

[TomS]

From Global Security:

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 done, and all four ships rejoined the fleet. The initial plan also envisioned a Phase II, under which the aft turret was to be deleted and a hanger and flight deck added in its place. The hanger would accommodate 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.

Line drawing of Iowa-class aviation conversion circa 1981.

Sources:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/bb-61-av.htm
Proceedings July 1981

Chuck Pfaff's Library

View the full album on Photobucket.

i149.photobucket.com

ok so i have never seen this type of conversion. a rear facing catapult you could fit anywhere between 25-35 wildcats/corsairs on that deck if it was crammed it would be interesting to see a carrier/battleship hybrid in action. if these were built earlier and deployed to D-Day action. they would be invalulable providing air support and shore pounding iowa class destruction on gun emplacements. not sure how they would be in ship-ship action in the pacific but they would also be invalulable to the pacific war providing the same power to smaller islands

I don't see the value.

1) stern launching aircraft is a problem, even with a catapult. Ideally, you want more wind over the deck, so you'd need to steam backwards. Ships without turbo electric drive don't do well at this.

2) the cost of such a conversion would surely be higher than just building a CVE, which can (and did) support amphibious landings without compromising the capabilities of a battleship.

 

[Conspirator]

From Global Security:

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 done, and all four ships rejoined the fleet. The initial plan also envisioned a Phase II, under which the aft turret was to be deleted and a hanger and flight deck added in its place. The hanger would accommodate 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.

Line drawing of Iowa-class aviation conversion circa 1981.

Sources:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/bb-61-av.htm
Proceedings July 1981

Chuck Pfaff's Library

View the full album on Photobucket.

i149.photobucket.com

ok so i have never seen this type of conversion. a rear facing catapult you could fit anywhere between 25-35 wildcats/corsairs on that deck if it was crammed it would be interesting to see a carrier/battleship hybrid in action. if these were built earlier and deployed to D-Day action. they would be invalulable providing air support and shore pounding iowa class destruction on gun emplacements. not sure how they would be in ship-ship action in the pacific but they would also be invalulable to the pacific war providing the same power to smaller islands

I don't see the value.

1) stern launching aircraft is a problem, even with a catapult. Ideally, you want more wind over the deck, so you'd need to steam backwards. Ships without turbo electric drive don't do well at this.

2) the cost of such a conversion would surely be higher than just building a CVE, which can (and did) support amphibious landings without compromising the capabilities of a battleship.

i understand the lack of value and practicality but you could raise the deck a bit or lower the citadel. im just saying if they made these work then it would have been amazing

 

[Foo Fighter]

Considering the ships available, the conversion would have taken up valuable dockyard time for little or no tangible benefit. Too many ships and not that much to do with them.

 

[muttly]

Making a hybrid battleship/carrier has always been an unhappy
trade off with them winding up being neither.

 

[dan_inbox]

Especially since when push comes to shove, you don't want them in the same place.

 

[Archibald]

The Alaskas seems to be one of the few aberrations in the USN well oiled large warship building program in WWII. Of course they were started in the first place to face, chase and fight imaginary Japanese super-cruisers.

With 100% hindsight obviously, what would you build in place of those few Alaskas ?
- more Baltimores / Oregon CAs ?
- more battleships?
- or more Essex carriers ?

 

[Dilandu]

more battleships?

Impossible. Not enough 16-inch guns and thick armor plates production for more battleships. One advantage that Alaska's have, was they could be build without affecting resources required for battleship's.

 

[Tzoli]

More like more essexes or improved Essexes or early Midways. There were designs of anti surface capability carriers with either 3x3 8", 4x2 6" or 4x2,8x1 6" guns and 6-8x1 5" AA either Mark 12 or Mark 16 on 38-45.000tons

 

[Archibald]

More Essex would be nice - AFAIK 32 were planned by 1945 of which 8 were canned leaving 24.
-Would it be something like: 1 Alaska = 1 Essex ; so six more carriers, hence 38 in place of 32 ?
-More Midways would be rather appreciable, all the way from 1945 to, what, 1992 ? Wikipedia is telling me that CV- number 44, 56 and 57 were to be Midways; but #44 was canned in January 1943 and the other two at the end of WWII.

At 35 000 tons an Alaska is closer from an Essex than a Midway, at least as far as the raw mass of steel is concerned.

So: does 6*Alaska = 6*more Essex = 3*more Midway ?

 

[Dilandu]

More like more essexes or improved Essexes or early Midways. There were designs of anti surface capability carriers with either 3x3 8", 4x2 6" or 4x2,8x1 6" guns and 6-8x1 5" AA either Mark 12 or Mark 16 on 38-45.000tons

Yep, which could actually be... interesting; carriers, that did not need to pull out in case of surface engagement.

 

[Julio Garay Terrazas]

Maybe if the Alaska class had never been built, the japanese had come to build his B-65 battlecruisers...

 

[muttly]

I think carriers with cruiser weapons is doa same as battleships with torpedo tubes.
The Alaska's were labeled as large cruisers to get by congress who were leery of
more battleships.

 

[CV12Hornet]

I think carriers with cruiser weapons is doa same as battleships with torpedo tubes.
The Alaska's were labeled as large cruisers to get by congress who were leery of
more battleships.

Nope. They were called cruisers all throughout the design history and show mostly cruiser features in their design.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

more battleships?

Impossible. Not enough 16-inch guns and thick armor plates production for more battleships. One advantage that Alaska's have, was they could be build without affecting resources required for battleship's.

Production of the vast amount of armor plate needed was a limiting factor but for all of the time and money invested in the Alaskas I think at least one if not both of the uncompleted members of the Iowa class (BB-65 Kentucky and BB-66 Illinois) could have been finished.

The Alaskas were originally going to have a torpedo defensive scheme more appropriate for a battleship or battlecruiser sized ship but in an effort to shave some tonnage off this was removed and the armor inclination was reduced somewhat as well I think. Probably a poor decision in retrospect since they still were about as costly to man and operate as a real fast battleship.

 

[muttly]

They were classified as large cruisers by the navy when they were being built
or at least afterwards.

 

[CV12Hornet]

They were. But that was after an entire design history as just... regular cruisers.

 

[David Chessum]

They were. But that was after an entire design history as just... regular cruisers.

I'm not sure it was that cut and dried.
I just had a look at the 21 Feb 1940 General Board hearing that was held to discuss what eventually became the Alaska class.
The were referred to as "12-inch gun ships", but the Officers present tended to call the 6-gun improved Wichita type (c15,000 tons) heavy cruisers, and the larger 9-gun 25,000+ ton ships battle cruisers.
Perhaps Captain Deyo summed it up in the hearing when he said "You can call it anything you like, but it is still a capital ship".

Regards

David

 

[Archibald]

What it is clear is that they blurred the line between CA and BC: cruisers (= raiders) and battlecruisers (capital ships, just like battleships).

Then again, it was the same for the German "pocket battleships" and, to a certain point, for the Dunkerque-class once Richelieu and Jean Bart came in.

I would say that the gap between "8-inch /203 mm guns: it's a cruiser !" and "12 inch / 305 mm: it's a BC or BB" was too tempting.

There was a lot of "historical precedents" and also old gun intermediate calibers (9 inch, 10 inch, 11 inch, 12 inch).

No surprise the Germans tried to fool the world with 280 mm guns. "hey, it has smaller than even 305 mm guns of old BBs and BCs - so it can't be one of them !"
Yeah. Sure dude. And if my grandmother had wheels (guns ?), I would call her a (battle)wagon.

The BC had been some kind of variation on a battleship, related to speed.

Why not try some kind of "CA variation, upwards" or "BC variation, downwards" - stuck right between the two ? right between 203 mm and 305 mm guns ?

List of naval guns by caliber - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

204 mm (8.0 in)	ML 8 inch shell gun	United Kingdom	1820s - 1860s
206 mm (8.1 in)	68-pounder gun	United Kingdom	1840s - 1900s
210 mm (8.3 in)	21 cm L/35	German Empire	1890-1936
210 mm (8.3 in)	21 cm SK L/40	German Empire	World War I - World War II
210 mm (8.3 in)	21 cm SK L/45	German Empire	World War I - World War II
210 mm (8.3 in)	21 cm kan M/98 (Bofors 21 cm naval gun L/44 model 1898)	Sweden-Norway	1900s - World War II
228.6 mm (9.00 in)	RML 9 inch 12 ton gun	United Kingdom	1860s - 1890s
229 mm (9.0 in)	9"/35 (22.9 cm) Pattern 1877	Russian Empire	1870s - World War I
234 mm (9.2 in)	BL 9.2 inch gun Mk I - VII	United Kingdom	1880s - 1918
234 mm (9.2 in)	BL 9.2 inch Mk VIII 40-caliber	United Kingdom	1890s - 1910s
234 mm (9.2 in)	BL 9.2 inch Mk X 46-caliber	United Kingdom	1900s - World War I
234 mm (9.2 in)	BL 9.2 inch Mk XI 50-caliber	United Kingdom	World War I
240 mm (9.4 in)	240mm/50 Modèle 1902 gun	France	World War I - World War II
240 mm (9.4 in)	24 cm K L/35	German Empire	World War I - World War II
240 mm (9.4 in)	24 cm SK L/40	German Empire	World War I - World War II
240 mm (9.4 in)	Škoda 24 cm L/40 K97	Austria-Hungary	World War I
200–250 mm (7.9–9.8 in)	Paixhans guns	France	1841
254 mm (10.0 in)	10"/31 caliber gun	United States	1890s - 1921
254 mm (10.0 in)	10"/40 caliber gun Mark 3	United States	1890 - 1921
254 mm (10.0 in)	RML 10 inch 18 ton gun	United Kingdom	1868 - 1900s
254 mm (10.0 in)	BL 10 inch Mk II - IV 32-caliber guns	United Kingdom	1885 - 1900s
254 mm (10.0 in)	Cannone da 254/40 A	Kingdom of Italy	1893 - 1940s
254 mm (10.0 in)	EOC 10 inch 40 caliber	United Kingdom	1893 - 1940s
254 mm (10.0 in)	10 in/40 Type 41 naval gun	Japan	1899 - 1945
254 mm (10.0 in)	EOC 10 inch /45 naval gun	United Kingdom	1904 - 1940s
254 mm (10.0 in)	Vickers 10 inch /45 naval gun	United Kingdom	1904 - 1920s
254 mm (10.0 in)	254mm 45 caliber Pattern 1891	Russian Empire	1897 - 1930
254 mm (10.0 in)	Gonzalez Hontoria de 25,4 cm mod 1870	Spain	1870 – 1980s
254 mm (10.0 in)	Bofors 25,4 mm naval gun L/45 model 1932	Sweden	Interwar - Cold War
274 mm (10.8 in)	Canon de 274 modèle 1887/1893	France	World War I - World War II
274 mm (10.8 in)	Canon de 274 modèle 1893/1896	France	World War I - World War II
280 mm (11 in)	RML 11 inch 25 ton gun	United Kingdom	1870s - 1890s
280 mm (11 in)	Gonzalez Hontoria de 28 cm mod 1883	Spain	1883 – 1920s
283 mm (11.1 in)	283 mm kanon M/12 (Bofors 28,3 mm naval gun L/45 model 1912)	Sweden	World War I - World War II
283 mm (11.1 in)	28 cm MRK L/35	German Empire	World War I
283 mm (11.1 in)	28 cm MRK L/40	German Empire	World War I
283 mm (11.1 in)	28 cm SK L/40 gun	German Empire	World War I - World War II
283 mm (11.1 in)	28 cm SK L/50 gun	German Empire	World War I - World War II
283 mm (11.1 in)	28 cm SK C/28 naval gun	Nazi Germany	World War II
283 mm (11.1 in)	28 cm SK C/34 naval gun	Nazi Germany	World War II

 

[EwenS]

The Alaskas seems to be one of the few aberrations in the USN well oiled large warship building program in WWII. Of course they were started in the first place to face, chase and fight imaginary Japanese super-cruisers.

With 100% hindsight obviously, what would you build in place of those few Alaskas ?
- more Baltimores / Oregon CAs ?
- more battleships?
- or more Essex carriers ?

In fact we know, or at least can deduce, what was built in place of the other 4 Alaskas.

The building plan called for 3 Alaskas to be laid down at New York Shipbuilding yard in Camden, NY at the end of 1941 / early 1942 followed by another 3 a year later. So they would have had 6 slips tied up producing Alaskas at peak. NYSB was a yard fully employed in cruiser construction and which at the start of Dec 1941 had orders for 13 Cleveland class of which 9 had already been laid down of which 8 were still on the slips. A total of 5 had been launched by the end of June 1942 and the remaining 8 became CVL and were all launched by Sept 1943.

Alaska & Guam were laid down in Dec 1941 and Jan 1942 on schedule. Hawaii was suspended in April 1942.

Sometime between Dec 1941 and April 1942 another Cleveland class order was transferred to NYSB from Federal. It was laid down as the Fargo on 11 April 1942 and subsequently became the CVL Langley launched in May 1943. Federal lost 3 cruiser orders to other yards to allow it to concentrate on destroyer production.

Then in Dec 1942, Jan 1943 and March 1943 three wartime ordered Cleveland class were laid down, being Cl-103 Wilkes-Barre, CL-104 Atlanta and CL-105 Dayton. The next ships laid down in the yard were a batch of Baltimore class cruisers CL130-133 between Feb and Sept 1943.

So unless someone can produce some other evidence I believe that the Alaskas were replaced by those 4 Cleveland class cruisers as being the ships that most readily fit the previous plan or alternatively a mix of Clevelands and Baltimores.

If you want to do something else then you need to fathom out if the slips earmarked to build the Alaskas were big enough for anything else as the Alaskas were probably the longest ships built in the yard until the post WW2 years. You need another 80 feet in length to build an Essex. Of the 10 fast BB only 3 were built outwith the Navy Yards and all the Montanas were to be built in Navy Yards, so I don't see BB being allocated to NYSB even though they had built South Dakota.

 

[muttly]

How would the Alaska's faired against the Scharnhorst sisters?

 

[Dilandu]

How would the Alaska's faired against the Scharnhorst sisters?

On long distances? Very good; her heavy shells, more advanced fire control and thick deck armor would give Alaska the decisive advantage. German battleship's deck protection was notoriously weak, not fit to receive super-heavy 12-inch shells.

On the shorter distances, though, the advantage would shift to Germans. Their horizontal armor protection, while far from perfect, protected vitals much better than Alaska's. And their high-velocity guns have quite good deck penetration.

So essentially, Alaska would most likely knock Scharnhorst out with long-distance shots, but if Scharnhorst managed to close distance, the Alaska would be in trouble.

 

[muttly]

So at close range they would beat each other to death. The 12's penetrating
their armor, the 11's penetrating ours.

 

[Archibald]

The Alaskas seems to be one of the few aberrations in the USN well oiled large warship building program in WWII. Of course they were started in the first place to face, chase and fight imaginary Japanese super-cruisers.

With 100% hindsight obviously, what would you build in place of those few Alaskas ?
- more Baltimores / Oregon CAs ?
- more battleships?
- or more Essex carriers ?

In fact we know, or at least can deduce, what was built in place of the other 4 Alaskas.

The building plan called for 3 Alaskas to be laid down at New York Shipbuilding yard in Camden, NY at the end of 1941 / early 1942 followed by another 3 a year later. So they would have had 6 slips tied up producing Alaskas at peak. NYSB was a yard fully employed in cruiser construction and which at the start of Dec 1941 had orders for 13 Cleveland class of which 9 had already been laid down of which 8 were still on the slips. A total of 5 had been launched by the end of June 1942 and the remaining 8 became CVL and were all launched by Sept 1943.

Alaska & Guam were laid down in Dec 1941 and Jan 1942 on schedule. Hawaii was suspended in April 1942.

Sometime between Dec 1941 and April 1942 another Cleveland class order was transferred to NYSB from Federal. It was laid down as the Fargo on 11 April 1942 and subsequently became the CVL Langley launched in May 1943. Federal lost 3 cruiser orders to other yards to allow it to concentrate on destroyer production.

Then in Dec 1942, Jan 1943 and March 1943 three wartime ordered Cleveland class were laid down, being Cl-103 Wilkes-Barre, CL-104 Atlanta and CL-105 Dayton. The next ships laid down in the yard were a batch of Baltimore class cruisers CL130-133 between Feb and Sept 1943.

So unless someone can produce some other evidence I believe that the Alaskas were replaced by those 4 Cleveland class cruisers as being the ships that most readily fit the previous plan or alternatively a mix of Clevelands and Baltimores.

If you want to do something else then you need to fathom out if the slips earmarked to build the Alaskas were big enough for anything else as the Alaskas were probably the longest ships built in the yard until the post WW2 years. You need another 80 feet in length to build an Essex. Of the 10 fast BB only 3 were built outwith the Navy Yards and all the Montanas were to be built in Navy Yards, so I don't see BB being allocated to NYSB even though they had built South Dakota.

Many thanks !

So down the road in the mid-50's, some more CL or CA hulls to be turned into guided missile ships ?

 

[1Big Rich]

Then in Dec 1942,

The key date. November 1942 had just witnessed the end of the Guadalcanal campaign with Second Guadalcanal and Tassafaronga. Of the 15 USN heavy cruisers in the Pacific, ten were sunk or damaged. As Guadalcanal becomes the Solomons campaign, USN light cruisers are destined for the surface actions in the theatre. Given the USN's cruiser losses around Guadalcanal, the likely thinking at the time was there would additional losses up the Solomons chain, and those losses would need to be replaced.

Regards.

 

[EwenS]

The Alaskas seems to be one of the few aberrations in the USN well oiled large warship building program in WWII. Of course they were started in the first place to face, chase and fight imaginary Japanese super-cruisers.

With 100% hindsight obviously, what would you build in place of those few Alaskas ?
- more Baltimores / Oregon CAs ?
- more battleships?
- or more Essex carriers ?

In fact we know, or at least can deduce, what was built in place of the other 4 Alaskas.

The building plan called for 3 Alaskas to be laid down at New York Shipbuilding yard in Camden, NY at the end of 1941 / early 1942 followed by another 3 a year later. So they would have had 6 slips tied up producing Alaskas at peak. NYSB was a yard fully employed in cruiser construction and which at the start of Dec 1941 had orders for 13 Cleveland class of which 9 had already been laid down of which 8 were still on the slips. A total of 5 had been launched by the end of June 1942 and the remaining 8 became CVL and were all launched by Sept 1943.

Alaska & Guam were laid down in Dec 1941 and Jan 1942 on schedule. Hawaii was suspended in April 1942.

Sometime between Dec 1941 and April 1942 another Cleveland class order was transferred to NYSB from Federal. It was laid down as the Fargo on 11 April 1942 and subsequently became the CVL Langley launched in May 1943. Federal lost 3 cruiser orders to other yards to allow it to concentrate on destroyer production.

Then in Dec 1942, Jan 1943 and March 1943 three wartime ordered Cleveland class were laid down, being Cl-103 Wilkes-Barre, CL-104 Atlanta and CL-105 Dayton. The next ships laid down in the yard were a batch of Baltimore class cruisers CL130-133 between Feb and Sept 1943.

So unless someone can produce some other evidence I believe that the Alaskas were replaced by those 4 Cleveland class cruisers as being the ships that most readily fit the previous plan or alternatively a mix of Clevelands and Baltimores.

If you want to do something else then you need to fathom out if the slips earmarked to build the Alaskas were big enough for anything else as the Alaskas were probably the longest ships built in the yard until the post WW2 years. You need another 80 feet in length to build an Essex. Of the 10 fast BB only 3 were built outwith the Navy Yards and all the Montanas were to be built in Navy Yards, so I don't see BB being allocated to NYSB even though they had built South Dakota.

Many thanks !

So down the road in the mid-50's, some more CL or CA hulls to be turned into guided missile ships ?

Not following you.
28 Cleveland / Fargo completed as cruisers + Galveston as a CLG in 1958. 5 of the original 28 were converted to CLG from 1957 entering service 1959/60.

17 Baltimore / Oregon City class completed as cruisers + Northampton as a Command ship in 1953. 2 of those 17 became CAG from 1952 and another three as CG from 1959/60. Conversion of another pair to CG was cancelled around 1960.

So, even without those extra 4 ships in 1942, there would have been plenty of available hulls for a much bigger missile cruiser role had the USN wished. But from the late 1950s the design and build effort went into purpose built missile ships like the Leahy and Belknap classes and their nuclear derivatives and the nuclear Long Beach and its successors.

 

[Archibald]

I was just trying to find them a role post-war but as you said, there are just too many hulls available.

 

[EwenS]

Then in Dec 1942,

The key date. November 1942 had just witnessed the end of the Guadalcanal campaign with Second Guadalcanal and Tassafaronga. Of the 15 USN heavy cruisers in the Pacific, ten were sunk or damaged. As Guadalcanal becomes the Solomons campaign, USN light cruisers are destined for the surface actions in the theatre. Given the USN's cruiser losses around Guadalcanal, the likely thinking at the time was there would additional losses up the Solomons chain, and those losses would need to be replaced.

Regards.

There was more planning and less reaction than your comments suggest. Plans for these ships predate the losses of Nov 1942.

On the outbreak of war with Japan a Maximum Effort Programme was planned (as a successor to the 1940 Two Ocean Navy Programme) which evolved over coming months. In its final form, authorised by FDR in Aug 1942, it included 17 CA (CA122-138), 16 CL ( CL103-118) and 3x5”CL (CL119-121). This was largely meant as an expansion of the fleet. It is ships from this Programme that NYSB was laying down from Dec 1942.

 

[Tzoli]

It's not that the USN lacked hulls to convert to missile ships, it was the costs of these conversions were much more than anticipated especially the full conversions like the Albany type

 

[EwenS]

It wasn’t just the cost of the conversions. The Cleveland class Talos conversions in particular, lost much more stability than had been anticipated which required the addition of ballast to fix. Their size was also not so well suited to the extensive flag facilities deemed necessary by the time they were entering service.

 

[Archibald]

Bouncing off that conversation: since that shipyard was building Clevelands before the Alaskas... how about four more CVL carriers then ?

Sometime between Dec 1941 and April 1942 another Cleveland class order was transferred to NYSB from Federal. It was laid down as the Fargo on 11 April 1942 and subsequently became the CVL Langley launched in May 1943. Federal lost 3 cruiser orders to other yards to allow it to concentrate on destroyer production.

OTL were nine Independance: among them - one sunk, one nuked, two for France, one for Spain.
So how about 13 Independance decks ? they had flaws and were small but they were also rather fast - 31 kt vs 24 for a Majestic / Colossus and 19 kt for Escort carriers.

 

[Tzoli]

But the colossus/Majestic were more capable classes. They were CVL from start and not based on the Cleveland and Baltimore hulls. I think there was a reason none of the sold Independences were modified the way the Colusses. Angled flight deck jet aircraft capability. The USN were no use for them. Most likely postwar mission was as ASW (as shown by 2 conversions in the SCB-54 plan) and helicopter carriers but even in that role they were adequate only, hence the Essex conversions.

 

[Dilandu]

I was just trying to find them a role post-war but as you said, there are just too many hulls available.

Most practical would probably be to sell them to some neutrals, like South America.

 

[Dilandu]

I was just trying to find them a role post-war but as you said, there are just too many hulls available.

P.S. I could bet, that if USSR actually commissioned a pair of Stalingrad-class heavy cruisers in 1950s, USN would most likely put a very serious thought about reactivating the Alaska's.

 

[Tzoli]

Well...
Ages ago when I started getting into warships. The first thing I've read about the Stalingrad class as:
The Soviet Alaska Killers.

 

[CV12Hornet]

P.S. I could bet, that if USSR actually commissioned a pair of Stalingrad-class heavy cruisers in 1950s, USN would most likely put a very serious thought about reactivating the Alaska's.

Why? The Iowas still exist and are an overmatch for the Stalingrads.