Battleship carrier hybrid

[Dayton Kitchens]

IIRC, most of the ideas regarding a battleship/carrier hybrid are to give a battleship air cover so it can operate fully independently of support ships.

This was in fact one of the reasons for the Soviet era Kirov. A ship with a massive antiship armament but with the anti air and anti sub capabilities to protect itself all alone

So it has no relevance to a U.S., British or other western fleet where they expect to have air support.

 

[Saphroneth]

Missiles are easier to work with than big guns, and angled decks are easier than straight decks.

So that looks like the best bet - a bigger Kirov.

 

[Gingerdave]

The Royal Navy looked at this during WW2, but decided it was a Bad Idea.

From wiki:

On 8 January 1941, Rear Admiral Bruce Fraser, Third Sea Lord and Controller of the Navy asked the DNC to work up a hybrid aircraft carrier based on the Lion-class hull. Two months later, a sketch design was presented for consideration, but it was not well liked by the participants. This design retained all three main gun turrets and the flight deck was deemed too short to be useful.[19] A revised version with only the two forward turrets retained was requested and was ready in July. In this design, the displacement ranged from 44,750 long tons (45,470 t) at standard load and 51,000 long tons (52,000 t) at deep load. The design's dimensions included a waterline length of 800 feet (243.8 m), a beam of 115 feet (35.1 m) and a draught of 29 feet 6 inches (9.0 m). The flight deck was 500 feet (152.4 m) long and had a width of 73 feet (22.3 m). The machinery was unchanged, but 600 long tons (610 t) of additional oil increased her endurance to 14,750 nautical miles (27,320 km; 16,970 mi) at 10 knots. The hybrid's armament consisted of six 16-inch guns in two triple turrets, sixteen 5.25-inch guns and eight octuple 2-pounder mounts. Twelve fighters and two torpedo bombers could be carried. The Director of Naval Gunnery was particularly pungent in his assessment of the design, "The functions and requirements of carriers and of surface gun platforms are entirely incompatible ...the conceptions of these designs ...is evidently the result of an unresolved contest between a conscious acceptance of aircraft and a subconscious desire for a 1914 Fleet ...these abortions are the results of a psychological maladjustment. The necessary readjustments should result from a proper re-analysis of the whole question, what would be a balanced fleet in 1945, 1950 or 1955?"[20] Not surprisingly, the design was rejected.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Hm, maybe you could build a flattop broadside battleship - stupid as that sounds.

The Japanese did that with the 8" guns fitted to Akagi and Kaga, which like the 8" gun turrets on Lexington and Saratoga were intended for self-defence against attacks by cruisers at night, in bad weather or operating aircraft away from main fleets destroyer screen.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

IIRC, most of the ideas regarding a battleship/carrier hybrid are to give a battleship air cover so it can operate fully independently of support ships.

That's what I read in Friedman when I was doing the research on my earlier post.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Theoretically I suspect you could do it today by arming a conventional carrier with a VLS array. Whether it would be a good idea though...

In the 1970s the USN thought of doing it the other way around, that is fit the Nuclear Strike Cruiser (CSGN) with a hangar and flight deck for helicopters and for Harriers and the XFV-12.

Also in the 1980s there were proposals to remove the aft turret on the Iowa class and fit a hangar and flight deck for Harriers and helicopters. I think it was rejected because it wasn't technically feasible rather than the cost, but if it had been feasible and the money had been available I think the money would have been better spent on 4 Sea Control Ships and keeping the aft turrets on the Iowas.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

IIRC, most of the ideas regarding a battleship/carrier hybrid are to give a battleship air cover so it can operate fully independently of support ships.

This was in fact one of the reasons for the Soviet era Kirov. A ship with a massive antiship armament but with the anti air and anti sub capabilities to protect itself all alone

So it has no relevance to a U.S., British or other western fleet where they expect to have air support.

I agree with the first two paragraphs, but not the third one. I think Kirov type ships did have relevance to the post war Royal and US Navies, but they couldn't afford any.

The CSGN was seen as a ship that could operate independently of support ships in its all missile and aircraft carrier forms making it the American analogue to the Soviet Kirov class. Like the British escort cruiser of the 1960s it could operate some of the main fleets ASW aircraft and fighters freeing space aboard the big aircraft carriers for more attack aircraft Or operate independently in the third world intervention role as a successor to the classic gun cruiser. However, it was also prohibitively expensive, which is why the Spruance based Tincoderoga class was built instead.

As I already wrote in my reply to MattII the Iowa conversions proposed in the 1980s were a similar idea, but in that case the extra money would have been spent on 4 Sea Control Ships to operate with the 4 Iowas.

 

[omnimercurial]

There was a rather novel design drawn up for the Soviet Navy that had guns at each end as normal, and a flight deck in place of the superstructure. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have worked, but watching them try would have been entertaining.

Bottom line is, hybrid ships are useless in the main battle force. Where they may have a role is for cruisers. Out on the trade routes, six to nine 6-inch guns and a dozen Swordfish makes for a really useful ship.

Do you have any pics or sketches?

 

[CalBear]

The Russians sort of pulled it off with the KIEV class carriers but those could only operate crappy V/STOL fighters.

Johnboy has the Russians make a 1930s version of the KIEVs in "Consequences of an Errant Shell."

I guess it is also worth noting that the eight inch guns on LEX and SARA were removed early in WWII.

The Kiev class was from a different era. The ship made no pretense of being able to survive a slugging match with a peer using non interceptable ship killing munitions. When the USN recommissioned the Iowas in the 1980s it was estimated that even the Kirov would sink after a maximum two hits from a 16" AP shell.

To the OP:

It is worth noting that even on specifically designed battleships, without delicate things like flight decks, huge elevators, and TONS of gasoline around the main guns would routinely cause blast damage to the ship (including setting their own float planes afire).

There is also the not insignificant matter of stability. Carriers, especially the WW II versions, were compromises. Too much topside weight and they were in serious danger of capsizing in heavy seas (one reason USN carriers had wooden decks was available space and weight).

 

[HMS Warspite]

There is a book about this topic:
The Hybrid Warship: The Amalgamation of Big Guns and Aircraft

ISBN-10: 1557503745
ISBN-13: 978-1557503749



In all the mix was a bad compromise resulting in a vessel not good at anything, as the ship was vulnerable to damage, no matter how it was protected, while in sheer gunpower it lacked behind smaller pure gunboats, having to share weight with aiviation accomodations.

In the OTL onl;y two pure Hybrid Warhips ever had been created, one as a rebuild and one as a purpose constructed one.
HMS Furious as completed with a singel 18 inch gun aft and a flightdeck and hangar forward wa the first. HMS Gotland of Sweden the last, a small light cruiser with a purposely build in aviationrole, larger than other cruisers of her time and later in the WW2.

Historically the partly reconstructed Ise and Hyuga also can fall in this role, though these were never deplyed as such, where Furios and Gottland were. The Soviet period Moskva and Kiev type cruisers are somelines called Hybrids too, but are merely fulfilling a cruiserrole for ASW primarily with a larger than normal aviation complement for either extended ASW purposes, or self defense.

 

[Perkeo]

Does a large Battleship with a small reconnaissance air wing count? We had some of that IOTL.

 

[jsb]

The Tone class (IJN CAs) are already well past just carrying a big air group on a surface combatant with the dual role emphasis on providing the long range reconnaissance needed for Japan's carrier air fleets.

 

[warlock]

A carrier/battleship hybrid ? Oh ,yes I believe its called a battlestar.

 

[Athelstane]

It is worth noting that even on specifically designed battleships, without delicate things like flight decks, huge elevators, and TONS of gasoline around the main guns would routinely cause blast damage to the ship (including setting their own float planes afire).

If I recall correctly, the Lexington class carriers could not even fire their 8"/55 cal guns over the deck without damaging it. (The 8" guns came off in 1942 anyway.)

P.S. We have had some threads on this very topic in the past, most notable this one: AHC - Battlecarriers?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

See also
The Flying Deck Cruiser (Multi-page thread 1 2 3)
Colonel Grubb

Aha
AHC - Battlecarriers? (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 4)
Alternate History Geek

I think there has been more discussion, but I can't find it at the moment.

'Through deck cruisers' or 'flying deck cruisers' or 'flight deck cruisers' seem to be the most common labels used.

 

[Athelstane]

The Soviet period Moskva and Kiev type cruisers are somelines called Hybrids too, but are merely fulfilling a cruiserrole for ASW primarily with a larger than normal aviation complement for either extended ASW purposes, or self defense.

Indeed. I think of them more as big guided missile cruisers that happened to have a limited air operation capability, and that seems to be how Soviet doctrine treated them as well.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Best battleship-carrier hybrid is one that launches one-way guided aircraft to strike enemy ships outside the effective range of the main guns.

This could be a dozen Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka type suicide aircraft, or Henschel Hs 293 guided missiles.

 

[Green Painting]

The worst of both worlds a bad carrier, and an awful battleship. See the Hyuga, and Ise conversions.

The advantage of carriers was therir long range strike and reconnaissance capabilities that allowed them to attack an enemy without themselves being in contact.
By definition a battleship must close to visual range to engage with artillery, entirely negating this advantage.

But nobody knew it for sure in the 1920s and 1930s. It was perfectly plausible to assume that the CVs still needed guns to defend themselves.

Both USS Lexington and USS Saratoga carried firepower equivalent to heavy cruisers, all you need was for those guns to prove useful, and more guns proved necessary in one of the Fleet Problems (maneuvers around Panama Canal).

 

[BlueTrousers]

Do you have any pics or sketches?

Best depiction & information is here:
http://www.steelnavy.com/1250AnkerOlsen.htm

 

[Admiral Beez]

We've certainly had hybrid battlecruiser-carriers.