Improve the Alaska class Large Cruisers

[torten]

I can remember reading on wikipedia that several different designs were put forward for the Alaska class cruisers, including 6000t(!) cruisers, or overgrown heavy cruisers. Given that the general consensus on the board is that the Alaska's were a bad design built too late, would a different design solve the problem?

Maybe a super Baltimore with 12 8' inch guns, a smaller Alaska with 10' inch guns and better underwater protection, a enlarged Baltimore with 20 5' inch guns or if you want to be radical, a 35000-ton second-class battleship.

 

[Sanderford]

For a start? Include proper torpedo protection for ships of their size, as well as installing more secondary batteries and AAA guns.

 

[steamboy]

I take it 'Don't build the damn thing.' is counted as cheating? AA and secondaries were fine. I'd surpress the catapult, add more AA there, and try work in a TDS of some kind as they were shocking vulnerable to torpedoes. But still, the best improvement is to simply not build them.

 

[GarethC]

Hmm. Can you get a Baltimore and an Atlanta instead?

 

[AlanJWhite]

I can remember reading on wikipedia that several different designs were put forward for the Alaska class cruisers, including 6000t(!) cruisers, or overgrown heavy cruisers. Given that the general consensus on the board is that the Alaska's were a bad design built too late, would a different design solve the problem?

Maybe a super Baltimore with 12 8' inch guns, a smaller Alaska with 10' inch guns and better underwater protection, a enlarged Baltimore with 20 5' inch guns or if you want to be radical, a 35000-ton second-class battleship.

AIUI the CB design was planned as a counter to the supposed Japanese B-65 design

Though no B-65s were ever built
these would have had 9x12" class guns which rules out Baltimore derivatives
and 33 knot speed which rules out conventional USS "fast" BBs (27 knts).

However the USN was already designing the Iowa class super fast BBs.
The Iowas had both better guns & armour + the same speed as a B-65.
IMHO the obvious answer was to simply accelerate or extend the Iowa program.

Given the high development cost of the Alaska, especially the new 12" guns, I doubt there was much real dollar difference
(~$100M for an Iowa cf $40M for a Baltimore and IIRC 65M + (edit: not $80M+ as originally wrote) for an OTL Alaska, more for an Alaska with improvements)

If time/money was of the essence
then perhaps the "batch 1" Iowas could be built with the same 16"/45 Mark 6 guns as the Sodaks,
This would certainly further simplify production, with no immediate extra logistics cost.

If the Mark 7 16"design was delayed to coincide with the Montanas,
them it should be cancelled along with these ships - another saving.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Build in flag space from the start, rather than plan it for a refit, and use two rudders

AA was adequate for a cruiser, which was the role it was designed for, and unless you make it much larger you won't get an adequate TDS, and that would get rid of some of the cost advantage, namely you could build and operate 5 Alaska's for the cost of 4 Iowa's even with OTL prices. USN plans needed numbers as well as capability, US needed 27 BB and 26 CA for its minimum requirements, 40 and 41 for its max requirements, they got 25 and 24 respectively

If one builds all six costs will go down relative to OTL, plus if one keeps them in reserve, the US will be really happy to have them when 1980 rolls around

 

[jsb]

I cant believe I'm the first to think it but since we are talking about three 29,771 tons (standard) ships ordered on 9 September 1940, why not three more Essex class!!!!!!!!!

Or if you want surface ships then Illinois and Kentucky....

 

[AlanJWhite]

Hmm. Can you get a Baltimore and an Atlanta instead?

Good choice in 1940, with perhaps material left over for a Fletcher or two.

but personally if I have 30K tons and 80M$ in 1942
and a little bit of 20:20 fore/hind sight
I would go for a complete group

• 1 Independence class CVL
• 1 Cleveland CL
• 2 Sumner class DD
• 2 Tacoma DE

substitute a CVE if I have overspent

Unlike the Alaskas, 3 or 4 such groups would have been useful in many places and times.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

I cant believe I'm the first to think it but since we are talking about three 29,771 tons (standard) ships ordered on 9 September 1940, why not three more Essex class!!!!!!!!!

Or if you want surface ships then Illinois and Kentucky....

US prewar planning required 18 CV's for the most demanding plan, and 12 for either less demanding plans, the US had 5 already, 1 building, 3 ordered and ordered 8 in September for 17, with 10 more authorized

In terms of BB it had 15 with 8 building 2 more ordered, for a total of 25, plus ordered 2 on September and 5 more authorized for 32, min requirements were 27, max 40

CA US had 18, with none building, 4 ordered for a total of 22 and 4 more ordered in september for 26, min requirements were 26, max 41

US had enough carriers for all but the max requirement ordered by Sep 1940, and was only 1 short of that, it had enough BB ordered for the bare minimum requirements, and enough CA for the bare minimum ordered, and fell short of the max required. In short the USN thought that it had enough CV for all but the most extreme circumstances ordered, and had enough authorized to go rather beyond that, but in terms of ordered units had barely enough BB and CA for best case scenario, and authorized units did not go far beyond that

 

[AlanJWhite]

.... In short the USN thought that it had enough CV for all but the most extreme circumstances ordered, and had enough authorized to go rather beyond that, but in terms of ordered units had barely enough BB and CA for best case scenario, and authorized units did not go far beyond that

all the more reason to order more Iowas and build the first flight ASAP even if they have the Mk 6 gun.
in WW2 an OTL Iowa can do everything an OTL Alaska can do and more
for not much extra money and will probably be readier earlier.

The CB as a counter to the B-65 seems to be planning on fighting "like with like" ... which is a bad move when you have alternatives.

If CAs are also in short supply start with 2 extra Iowas and 2 extra Baltimores and adjust from there.

 

[Andras]

Alaskas were built in shorter slips at a different shipyard (NYSB). The Iowas need longer slips.
Iowas laid down at the same time as an Alaska won't see service by the end of the war, let alone if you had to wait for a 1000ft slip to open.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

all the more reason to order more Iowas and build the first flight ASAP even if they have the Mk 6 gun.
in WW2 an OTL Iowa can do everything an OTL Alaska can do and more
for not much extra money and will probably be readier earlier.

The CB as a counter to the B-65 seems to be planning on fighting "like with like" ... which is a bad move when you have alternatives.

If CAs are also in short supply start with 2 extra Iowas and 2 extra Baltimores and adjust from there.

Except that the Iowa needs 500 more crew and 15,000 tons more steel, the latter is more important given the shortage of Steel, can only get 2 Iowa's for the steel used in the 3 Alaska's, so no extra Baltimore's possible

The Alaska was not AFAIK to counter the B-65 more the end result of design studies of what a treaty unlimited CA would look like, and that 6 12">9 10">12 8" according to USN war gaming for fighting cruisers, B-65 just resulted in them going with one of the larger designs with additional guns. If not for that, probably see a slightly shorter, narrower ship with 3x2 12" guns

Plus as Andras mentioned the slipway issue

 

[AlanJWhite]

Alaskas were built in shorter slips at a different shipyard (NYSB). The Iowas need longer slips.
Iowas laid down at the same time as an Alaska won't see service by the end of the war, let alone if you had to wait for a 1000ft slip to open.

I appreciate that any shipyard has a length limit.
However the difference in length Iowa - Alaska is ~ 50 ft, far less than to Alaska - Sodak ~ 200 ft.
I can see why some slips that can handle a Sodak or NC could not manage an Iowa or even an Alaska but ...

Do you have an actual upper limit figure for the slips used with the Alaskas?

Similarly do you have a definite reason why Iowas laid down in early 42 will be delivered later than Alaskas of the same date?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

↑
Alaskas were built in shorter slips at a different shipyard (NYSB). The Iowas need longer slips.
Iowas laid down at the same time as an Alaska won't see service by the end of the war, let alone if you had to wait for a 1000ft slip to open.

...
Similarly do you have a definite reason why Iowas laid down in early 42 will be delivered later than Alaskas of the same date?

Ya, that confused me too. Accelerating the construction of the existing Iowa class was the proposal. Not altering new construction laid on after 1942.

 

[tigercat]

Update design of HMS Repulse using 25 years of technological improvements. Use weight savings to add extra armour and AAA

You still have something that's neither fish nor fowl but with 15 inch guns

 

[Andras]

I appreciate that any shipyard has a length limit.
However the difference in length Iowa - Alaska is ~ 50 ft, far less than to Alaska - Sodak ~ 200 ft.
I can see why some slips that can handle a Sodak or NC could not manage an Iowa or even an Alaska but ...

Do you have an actual upper limit figure for the slips used with the Alaskas?

Similarly do you have a definite reason why Iowas laid down in early 42 will be delivered later than Alaskas of the same date?

Can you prove a BB can be built in a 900ft slip? (only 13 ft longer then the Iowa class?) None were historically. It is possible the shorter slips did not have the heavy cranes needed for BB turrets and other items that a cruiser doesn't have. The shortest slip I can find for BB const is the 965s at Newport News for Sodak class Indiana (next longest there was 600ft)

CBs took a year and 8-9 months of building slip time for the first two hulls, the last one took far longer, past the end of the war.
BB-63 was in the slips from 1/6/41 to 1/29/44, and BB-64 was in the slips from 1/25/41 to 12/07/43. Roughly three years each, before being launched and starting the completion, fitting out, and trials process. Those ships didn't arrive in the Pacific until Dec44 and Jan45. Roughly 4 years from the time they were first laid down.

Iowa launches 8/42 and New Jersey launches 12/42. Add 4 years to that date for ships laid after that date in those slips and you get shiny new BBs in 1946. Kentucky was Laid 3/42 and suspended 6/42. Add 4 years to the 3/42 date and you still are in 1946 before the ships see action. BB-65 was laid even later in Dec42.

As for acceleration, the second two Iowa hulls took 9mo to a year longer in the yards then the first two hulls, It does not appear that there was any way to accelerate the program, or it would have been used historically.

 

[Simon]

Given that the general consensus on the board is that the Alaska's were a bad design built too late, would a different design solve the problem?

IIRC the designers were silly enough to only give them a single, albeit enlarged, rudder so it had bugger all manoeuvrability and a turning circle that was absolutely atrocious. Twin rudders would be a distinct improvement.

Or if you want surface ships then Illinois and Kentucky....

Well that has a certain appeal, mainly because I think it would be cool to have the Illinois tied up alongside Navy Pier in Chicago or somewhere nearby as a tourist attraction.

 

[AJE]

I cant believe I'm the first to think it but since we are talking about three 29,771 tons (standard) ships ordered on 9 September 1940, why not three more Essex class!!!!!!!!!

Or if you want surface ships then Illinois and Kentucky....

The Alaskas were considered for conversion to aircraft carriers while under construction, and it's a pity they didn't do so, because they likely would have made fine carriers, given their similarities to an Essex.

Of course, if you need a 25-30,000 ton cruiser and have a clean sheet design, just copy the Dunkerque class- they completely outclass the Alaskas in every respect but speed, and they're true battleships.

 

[johnboy]

Can you prove a BB can be built in a 900ft slip? (only 13 ft longer then the Iowa class?) None were historically. It is possible the shorter slips did not have the heavy cranes needed for BB turrets and other items that a cruiser doesn't have. The shortest slip I can find for BB const is the 965s at Newport News for Sodak class Indiana (next longest there was 600ft)

CBs took a year and 8-9 months of building slip time for the first two hulls, the last one took far longer, past the end of the war.
BB-63 was in the slips from 1/6/41 to 1/29/44, and BB-64 was in the slips from 1/25/41 to 12/07/43. Roughly three years each, before being launched and starting the completion, fitting out, and trials process. Those ships didn't arrive in the Pacific until Dec44 and Jan45. Roughly 4 years from the time they were first laid down.

Iowa launches 8/42 and New Jersey launches 12/42. Add 4 years to that date for ships laid after that date in those slips and you get shiny new BBs in 1946. Kentucky was Laid 3/42 and suspended 6/42. Add 4 years to the 3/42 date and you still are in 1946 before the ships see action. BB-65 was laid even later in Dec42.

As for acceleration, the last two Iowa hulls took a year longer in the yards then the first two hulls, It does not appear that there was any way to accelerate the program, or it would have been used historically.

I think you are both partially right. It's not just the length of the slip but also the breadth. The Alaska's have a beam of 91ft. Iowa's 108. It also the width of a slip that goes a long way towards what weight it can withstand as well. There is a considerable tonnage disparity between the two.

 

[CalBear]

Several options actually

1. Sneak in BuShips. Find ALL the plans for the Alaska Class. Burn them. Flush the ashes into the DC sewer system. Wait for your Silver Star to come in the mail.

2. Sneak in BuShips. Find ALL the plans for the Alaska Class. Burn them. Flush them down the toilet. Replace them with plans for a North Carolina class BB with only two main gun turrets. That will save around 4,000 tons standard load. You now have a 30+ knot fast BB that will cost LESS than the Alaska class per hull. Don't worry about getting caught. Any project manager idiotic enough to oversee the CB program will never notice the change.

3. Sneak in BuShips. Find ALL the plans for the Alaska Class. Burn them. Flush them down the toilet. Enter budget office, transfer funding and materials from CB project to (choose one):

A) Expedited construction of BB 65 & 66

OR​

B) Construction of 18 additional Oakland sub-class CLAA

OR
​

C) Expedited construction of CV 45 and 46 (IMO this is the best option, followed by Item "B")

Once this has been completed, locate all the planners who actually thought that an 882 foot long, 30,000 ton warship with ONE rudder and the underwater protection of a 14,000 ton CA was good idea. Have them transferred to Adak, Alaska to complete a comprehensive report on the mating and social habits of the Aleutians penguin population (yes, I know there are no penguins in the Arctic, that's rather the point). In 1943 send these same personnel on a comprehensive survey of all latrines in the South Pacific. When they finish send the on a survey mission to locate the New Guinea snipe. Do NOT allow them to return without live samples before the end of the War.