Alaska-class CBs: America's Cruiser-Killers

     The United States Navy has never officially completed any ships under the designation "battlecruiser". There was a class of battlecruiser constructed during the early 1920, the Lexington-class, but none were completed as battlecruisers (two were completed as aircraft carriers). However, during WWII the U.S. commissioned two vessels known as the Alaska and Guam. They were designated "large cruisers", but had some characteristics of battlecruisers. This post will cover the mission for which the Alaskas were designed, their specifications, armament, armor scheme, propulsion, and their operational history.
     At the time the Alaska-class was designed, the Japanese heavy cruisers were becoming a threat to any then-future carrier operations independent from the Battle Force. At the same time, Germany was building the Duetschland-class "pocket battleships" for commerce raiding. France was also rumored to be developing a class of 17,500 ton commerce raiders carrying 12in guns. Thus, a class of ships was needed to be able to escort carriers, and defend the carriers without detracting from the firepower of the Battle Force. At, the same time this class would have to be able to hunt down and kill enemy commerce raiders. This is the niche that was to be filled by the Alaska-class.
      Final design specifications of the Alaska-class are drawn from William Garzke's Battleships: United States Battleships, 1935-1992:

Armor
light ship	25,971 tons
standard	27,000 tons
full load	34,253 tons
Dimensions
length overall	808’ 6” (246.431m)
waterline length	791” 6” (241.249m)
maximum beam	90’ 9.375” (27.670m)
maximum draft	31’ 9.25” (9.684m)
Armament
main battery	9 - 12”/50 (305mm)
secondary	12 - 5”/38 (127mm)
antiaircraft	56 - 40mm/56
	34 - 20mm/76
Armor
main side belt	9.0” tapered to 5.0”, inclined 10 degrees (229mm-127mm)
main deck	1.40” (34mm)
second deck centerline	2.80” + 1.0” (71mm + 25mm)
third deck	0.625” (16mm)
Machinery
shaft horsepower	150,000
maximum speed	33 knots
endurance @ 15 knots	12,000nm

     Armament. The Alaska-class was the last class of ship in the U.S. Navy to carry 12in guns, and probably the last in the world. However, the guns that the Alaskas were equipped with actually outclassed the 14"/45 Marks 1, 2, 3 and 5 guns carried by the New York-class and Pennsylvania-class battleships early in their careers. Specifically the guns carried by the Alaskas had better penetration capabilities than the earlier 14in guns at all ranges*. This was achieved by the use of the Mark 18 "super-heavy" AP shell which weighed in at 1,140lbs (517kg). The main battery turret armor was 325mm on the face, 152-133mm on the sides, and 127mm on the roof. The secondary armament consisted of 12 5"/38 guns in 6 twin mounts. Antiaircraft armament consisted of 56 40mm/56 cannons in 14 quad mounts, and 34 20mm/76 cannons in single mounts.  The massive secondary and anti-aircraft armament carried on the Alaska-class made them immensely valuable for kamikaze defense late in WWII. Had the Alaskas been kept in service after WWII, it is likely their 20mm cannons would have been removed entirely, and their 40mm mounts replaced by the then-new 3"/50 Mark 27 guns.

The Guam in Pearl Harbor in February 1945

     Armor. Armor was as listed above in the specifications. Additional armor numbers are, 280 to 330mm for the barbettes, and 270 mm on the control tower. As to underwater protection, it was almost nonexistent on the Alaska-class. Rather, the Alaskas relied on internal subdivision as protection against torpedo and underwater shell damage.  

      Propulsion. The Alaska-class ships were driven by four sets of General Electric geared turbines. The turbines were driven by eight Babcock & Wilcox Express boilers. The max steam pressure for the boilers was 45kg per square cm. The turbines drove four propellers. Top speed as designed was 33 knots, but the trials showed a top speed of 32.72 knots. Electricity was provided by four generators. Each engine room (there were two) had a single General Electric turbo-generator rested at 1,000kW, 450V AC. At either end of the propulsion spaces were single GE generators each rated at 1,062kW, 450V AC.
      The Alaska-class did suffer from a number of problems. The Alaska-class lacked sufficient space for a CIC, making conditions extremely crowded. The Alaska-class also had relatively thin armor for her displacement, at a time when it was possible to give ships a high speed even with thick armor (see the Iowa-class). The top speed of 32.72 knots achieved during trials lower than what was predicted or designed. Finally, underwater protection aboard the Alaskas was nonexistent. Any conventional side protection scheme was sacrificed to reach higher speeds, and would have left the Alaskas vulnerable to torpedo attack had the Alaska entered the war earlier than they did. This with a displacement approaching that of battleships.
      History. Construction of the Alaska-class was authorized by the Two-Ocean Navy Act in 1940. Six vessels were authorized, of which two were completed, three were cancelled, and one was scrapped before being commissioned. The two vessels that were completed were the Alaska and Guam. The Alaska was laid down on 17 December 1941, and commissioned 17 June 1944. The Guam was laid down on 2 February 1942, and commissioned on 17 September 1944. The third vessel which was constructed, was the Hawaii. She was launched, but never completed (more on the Hawaii later).
        Operational History. The Alaskas both had very short careers. The Alaska first screened aircraft carriers attacking the Japanese Home Islands in March 1945, and destroyed two Japanese aircraft on 18 March. She then participated in shore bombardment of Minami Daito Jima on 27 March, and in late July took part in sweeps of the East China Sea. After the Japanese surrender the Alaska supported minesweeping operations along the Chinese coats, supported Army landings at Inchon on 8 September,  and sailed to Tsingtao to hold the port by force until Marines arrived to take over.  The Guam arrived at Pearl Harbor on 8 February 1945, and sailed for Ulithi on 13 March joining the Alaska. From there the Guam escorted TF 58 on a raid of the Japanese Home Islands, breaking off on 19 March to escort the USS Franklin back to Ulithi. On 27 March the Guam participated in a bombardment of Okinawa. From the Invasion of Okinawa to the end of the war, the Guam participated in a series of raids in the east China Sea and the Chinese coast. After the end of the war the Guam showed the flag along the Chinese coast, and participated in the occupation of Korea.

The Hawaii just prior to the suspension of her construction.

      The Hawaii. The Hawaii was never completed, and she was scrapped in 1959. However, before her scrapping there were two proposals to convert her. One proposal was a conversion to a command ship similar to the Northampton, but larger. This proposal was nixed when it was shown that an escort carrier, the Wright, could the same thing for cheaper. The second proposal was a conversion to a guided missile cruiser, carrying an ASROC launcher, twin Talos SAM launchers, and twin Tartar SAM launchers. Other variants of the missile proposal included fitting the Hawaii with 12 U.S.-built V-2 missiles, or later 20 Polaris ICBMs. In the end the missile proposal was scrapped as being too costly.
      The Alaska-class cruisers were neither battlecruisers or battleships, regardless of their appearance. They were designed from the beginning as a counter to perceived threats from hostile cruisers. Their main armament was meant not for slugging it out with enemy battlewagons (though it is possible the 12/50 Mark 7 may have been better than the 14" guns carried by the Kongo-class battlecruisers), it was meant to overwhelm an enemy heavy cruiser. The mission the Alaskas were designed was by 1944, non-existent, and in hindsight they were unnecessary. They were anachronisms born from the lifting of the Washington Treaty restrictions on cruisers. Regardless of that fact, they served well and were not inherently bad ships.
   


*Unfortunately, I cannot link directly to penetration tables for the 12in/50 and 14in/45 guns. If you wish to compare the penetrations for the guns, the requisite tables are on the NavWeaps pages for each gun.  The NavWeaps pages are linked to in the post.

Nuclear Reactors In The Navy, CGs And Up

     What with Sequestration and all, the Navy has been forced to cut numbers of CGs and cut back on CVN deployments. This post is written for a hypothetical just world where Sequestration won't happen, and the Navy is focused on fighting conventional opponents. Several decades ago the Navy wanted a totally nuclear Navy with every ship powered by a nuclear reactor. This fell through about the 1970s when reactors started to be demonized, and also the high costs associated with running reactors. However, a return is needed to the reactor for large surface warships, cruisers, and the hypothetical BBG.

     1. DDGs, FFGs, and smaller. These vessels are small by definition and have to built in large quantities, and thus have to powered using conventional powerplants. Nuclear reactors simply aren't feasible because of the large numbers needed. 

     2. CVNs. Carrier have to nuclear powered because they have to maintain high speeds for long periods of time to launch and recover aircraft. Thus, they require nuclear reactors to supply the power needed for long sprints. Conventional propulsion is feasible, see the Midway-class, but it not the best for  current CVs.

     3. CGs. This is where things get a bit hypothetical. I would like to see a class of "heavy cruisers" of Long Beach size (hypothetical designation CSGN, yes the old Strike Cruiser), massive ships meant for missile warfare equipped with large numbers of VLS cells. These ships would be nuclear powered, not to keep up with the carriers, but rather for the much increased endurance and higher average speed over conventional power plants. At the same time a class of "light cruisers" about the size of the Ticonderoga-class (hypothetical designation CLGN) to provide striking power to SAGs while the CSGNs escort the carriers. These would be essentially the same as the Tico-class, but armed perhaps with a Mk 71 MCLWG for gunfire support. 

     Like I said this is for a just world, but this could go a long way to beefing up the Navy's AAW and ASuW capability. 

China Admits What The West Already Knew: Yes, We Are Building An Aircraft Carrier

Well, its official, Defense News reports that General Chen Bingde (whom I have discussed before) admitted the existence of the Varyag (now known as the Shi Lang) along with the fact that they are overhauling it.
     Personally, I am surprised that China has not admitted the existence of the Varyag prior to yesterday as almost every defense enthusiast knows of the Varyag's existence and overhaul. I have written quite a bit about the Varyag (I can't bring myself to call it the Shi Lang), covering everything from the Varyag's weapon systems to the J-15.
     With the Chinese finally admitting that the Varyag exists, it's interesting to see that the Chinese military is similar to the Soviet military in that they both are and were extremely secretive.
   
     

China vs. Taiwan Update

Since the Nationalist forces pulled out of mainland China in 1949 the Communist and Nationalist China's have been at each others throats. In the last 15 years this not so friendly rivalry has been intensifying, I have covered some of China's recent actions as seen in "Chengdu J-20: Carrier Killer?", "DF-21D: Is It a Threat?" and "Chinese Naval Aviation Update" with all the coverage going to the "People's" (read communist) Republic of China, I have yet to cover any of the Republic of China's (Taiwan) recent moves.
     In the past few months Taiwan's president Ma Ying-Jeou has urged the U.S. to allow Taiwan to purchase more F-16C/D Block 50/52 Falcons and to allow upgrades to Taiwan's existing F-16A/B Block 20 fleet. President Ma says that these purchases would allow Taiwan to negotiate with the PRC on an equal footing. One of the reasons used to explain the delay in this purchase is that the PRC would retaliate economically if we did so (they hold 1+ trillion dollars of our dept courtesy of the politicians in D.C.). At the same time the Taiwanese have built a homegrown fighter that looks like a cross between an F/A-18 and an F-16.
     Moving on to the world of air defense, the Taiwanese held a drill back in January to test the effectiveness of their I-Hawk surface-to-air missile systems but, 5 out of 19 missiles missed (roughly 25%). Because so many missiles were off target there is speculation that the test will score Taiwan some new American-made surface-to-air missiles, like more MIM-104 Patriot batteries, maybe some MEADS units if and/or when the U.S. reenters the program.
     China in the last 10 years has been rapidly expanding it's navy from a coastal defense fleet to a true blue water navy capable of competing with the U.S. and other countries on the high seas. To answer this threat Taiwan recently fielded the Hsiung Feng III or Brave Wind anti-ship missile on it's warships and, possibly on mobile land launchers as well. The Hsiung Feng III is reported to have a range of 300km, enough to reach mainland China and, a warhead which is rumored to be in the 225kg range. On top of this Taiwan has said that it plans to build a "stealth" warship that will be armed with 8 Hsiung Feng III missiles and 8 Hsiung Feng II missiles. On top of this Taiwan in the last 6 months has added at least 2 frigates and 10 new missile boats to it's naval forces.
     Last, but by no means least is the news that Taiwan has developed an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile capable of reaching Beijing. Taiwan has not said if the IRBM is nuclear capable though it probably is not nuclear capable and more likely is meant as a deterrent to show the PRC that Taiwan can hurt them. 
     With the ROC (Taiwan) and the PRC (mainland China) both rapidly building up their military's it is almost inevitable that in the next 20 years there will be a clash between the two nations. When this war begins it is almost certain the U.S. will pulled into the war and will at some point lose an aircraft carrier and multiple surface ships. In the present situation there is no real solution that will appease both sides, in this situation there is only one path to take if you wish to remain free, deterrence. Taiwan has up to this point denied having any nuclear, biological or chemical weapons while the PRC has all of these weapons in large quantities and the necessary delivery systems for these weapons. Taiwan must either engage in a massive build up of it's conventional forces or begin a clandestine nuclear weapons program similar to the early Israeli nuclear program. Whatever the ROC does it must do quickly because the U.S. is moving farther and farther away from Taiwan and more and more towards the PRC and will soon not support Taiwan as we have in previous decades.   


   
Photo Credit: CIA

What Happend To the 600-Ship Navy?

     During the 1980s at the height of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan pushed a massive military modernization and expansion plan that for the Navy would have resulted in a 600-Ship Navy. My question is what happened to that idea?
     When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, governments around the world began to make massive budget cuts to their military's, one example is the so called Royal Navy and British Army, both of which are skeletons of their former selves. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union most governments have begun rearming (Britain hasn't) and putting their military's back together. Since 1991 the U.S. has expanded it's military but, the 600-Ship Navy idea is nowhere to be seen. The 600-Ship Navy has become a victim of several groups, socialists/communists who want to redistribute wealth and want a larger government, cost cutters who think now the the USSR is gone we can put the money into other programs, peace groups who think there should be no military at all and the list goes on.
      Few poeple outside the military realize how dire the situation really is, since 1987 the Navy has gone from the 1980s high of 594 ships to about 290 ships in service in 2011. Since 1987 our Navy has been more than halved and almost nobody in the media, the government or the people realizes it. Our Navy has been second to none since the end of WWII when we had over 6,000 ships and still are larger that the next seven navies combined but, China is rabidly increasing the size of their Navy and as of 2011 are second in size to only to the U.S. and climbing.
     The Navy is starting to begin building ships a higher rate in the last couple of years but, as I said a couple of articles ago the Navy is crumbling before our very eyes. And if we do not correct this situation, the cosequences could be extremly bad to say the least.



Photo credit: New Wars