USS Washington BB-47 completed as carrier?

[Foo Fighter]

Is there a scenario where the Washington could have been completed as a carrier rather than expended as a target, or scrapped on the slips?

 

[Dilandu]

Is there a scenario where the Washington could have been completed as a carrier rather than expended as a target, or scrapped on the slips?

Hardly. Her construction moved too far to make reconstruction financially practical. Also, it was pretty obvious that Lexington-class hulls are more suitable for carrier conversion. USN already decided that they wanted big FAST fleet carriers - capable of operating with cruiser vanguard - and wasn't interested in another slow carrier with short flight deck.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Hardly. Her construction moved too far to make reconstruction financially practical. Also, it was pretty obvious that Lexington-class hulls are more suitable for carrier conversion. USN already decided that they wanted big FAST fleet carriers - capable of operating with cruiser vanguard - and wasn't interested in another slow carrier with short flight deck.

Thank you, Sir.

She could have been scrapped on the slips and recycled though.

 

[EwenS]

Washington was launched on 1 Sept 1921. The Washington Conference began on 12 Nov 1921 and continued until 6 Feb 1922. The relevant clausesin relation to your query are

Article II
"In addition to the capital ships specified in Chapter II, Part 1, the United States may complete and retain two ships of the West Virginia class now under construction. On the completion of these two ships, the North Dakota and Delaware, shall be disposed of as prescribed in Chapter II, Part 2."
Maryland had alreaady been completed and was listed in Chapter II Part I, so giving them 3 x 16in gunned battleships. I can't immediately recall the reason for the USN choosing to retain West Virginia over Washington. At that time the IJN already had the two 16in armed Nagato class in service. The same Article also allowed Britain to construct the two Nelrods.



As far as conversion to a carrier is concerned see Article IX
"However, any of the Contracting Powers may, provided that its total tonnage allowance of aircraft carriers is not thereby exceeded, build not more than two aircraft carriers, each of a tonnage of not more than 33,000 tons (33,528 metric tons) standard displacement, and in order to effect economy any of the Contracting Powers may use for this purpose any two of their ships, whether constructed or in course of construction, which would otherwise be scrapped under the provisions of Article II. The armament of any aircraft carriers exceeding 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) standard displacement shall be in accordance with the requirements of Article X, except that the total number of guns to be carried in case any of such guns be of a calibre exceeding 6 inches (152 millimetres), except anti-aircraft guns and guns not exceeding 5 inches (127 millimetres), shall not exceed eight."

When the USA went to the Conference the USN had already been working on carrier designs of vessels up to 36,000 tons. So the Lexington hulls as a starting point came far nearer their plans. They combined size, not only tonnage but length, with speed, seen as essential to the carrier requirement, and allowing the largest possible size of air group. They surpassed the Washington in every way. Added to which they were a pair against the limit of only 2 conversions being possible.

http://ww2ships.com/documents/doc0003-wash1922.shtml
The whole Treaty was one of compromise between the signitories. The carrier clause is to my mind one of the best examples trying to meet the needs of both Britain & the USA going into the Conference.

 

[Dilandu]

She could have been scrapped on the slips and recycled though.

Yeah, but it wasn't practical. USN didn't need more scrap metal. But the possibility of testing their concepts about survivability and damage control on actual hull of most modern superdreadnought was extremely valuable.

You see, most of USN battleships by 1920s were build on theoretical assumptions about how warships need to be designed to survive combat damage. They weren't actually tested in battle, unlike, for example, British or German ones. While USN theoretical research were sound, admirals weren't exactly sure that their theory would work on practice.

Using hull of "Washington" as target, admirals could actually test how good their doctrines were - test for potential problems and overlooked details, figure out what is working right and what is working wrong. The value of such experience vastly outpaced the mere cost of several thousands tons of steel.

 

[Archibald]

BB-47 ? oh, wait, the fourth Colorado, I had completed forgotten that one. It was 76% complete, way too late. Plus it was slow, 21 kt. Unlike the converted Lexington and Saratoga.

It seems they had a very hard time sinking the damn thing, throwing bombs and shells and the kitchen sink at it.

Now if you are interested, France had five Normandie class battleship hulls, all of them unfinished. And there was enough "room" in the WNT for France to try their hand at a second Béarn, hopefully better - that's a pretty low bar. (23 000 tons twice is 46 000 tons, WNT allowed France 60 000 tons of carriers).