Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects

[EwenS]

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.

A couple of points. The USN didn’t want the CVL in the first place. They were the idea of FDR as a fast escort carrier.

But they came into their own because they provided 9 fast carrier decks in the space of 11 months to accompany the 7 Essex completed in 1942/3 and adding to Saratoga and Enterprise. As 1944 went on the USN developed plans to operate carrier groups with 2 CV and 1 CVL. The two Saipans built on Baltimore hulls were meant as attrition replacements and ordered in 1943.

So allowing for night carriers in the fleet and no further losses there would have been enough light carriers to match Essex construction into 1946.

Edit:- by Aug 1945 the plan was to operate them with 100% fighter air group, while increasing the number of dive bombers on the Essex class at the expense of fighters.

 

[Dilandu]

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

Ironically, they were viewed by Stalin mainly as 6-inch and 8-inch cruisers killers)

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

Because there were only four Iowa's, and this wasn't enough to guarantee that they would be available where they may be needed.

 

[Archibald]

The two Saipans built on Baltimore hulls were meant as attrition replacements and ordered in 1943.

The next ships laid down in the yard were a batch of Baltimore class cruisers CL130-133 between Feb and Sept 1943.

or alternatively a mix of Clevelands and Baltimores.

In passing, the shipyard that OTL build the Alaskas and Clevelands before them, also built Baltimore afterwards. So some more Saipans maybe ?
(note: asking this for the sake of alternate history)

 

[CV12Hornet]

Ironically, they were viewed by Stalin mainly as 6-inch and 8-inch cruisers killers)

Because there were only four Iowa's, and this wasn't enough to guarantee that they would be available where they may be needed.

With only four Stalingrads initially planned and three actually allocated, this is basically a repeat of the expected situation that led to the Iowas being built in the first place: four Kongos running around on the open seas threatening SLOCs. The US Navy considered one-to-one matching to be sufficient for the task back then, and they're likely to think the same in the 1950s.

Now, if the Soviets show signs of laying down more, then yes, the Alaskas will be brought up for reactivation. But not before then.

 

[EwenS]

The two Saipans built on Baltimore hulls were meant as attrition replacements and ordered in 1943.

The next ships laid down in the yard were a batch of Baltimore class cruisers CL130-133 between Feb and Sept 1943.

or alternatively a mix of Clevelands and Baltimores.

In passing, the shipyard that OTL build the Alaskas and Clevelands before them, also built Baltimore afterwards. So some more Saipans maybe ?
(note: asking this for the sake of alternate history)

No need for them. Losses of CV and CVL were much less than expected. By March 1945 they were cancelling further Essex and Midway orders.

So unless in your alternate history the US suffers much heavier carrier losses in 1944/45 why do you need them? And by then you can get an Essex in about 2 years give or take. So unless you are losing CV faster than you are completing them there is no advantage to building CVL that took 12-15 months for the last ships where much less tearing down of the structure constructed had to be done.

 

[Conspirator]

ok so the only Russian ship i am familiar with is the Lenningrad. i havent heard of these before. reminds me of a Kronshtadt class battlecruiser

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Well the USN would have liked to get another two Iowas which would have given them six total to the four Kongos. Perhaps some or all of of the Stalingrads being finished would have given enough reason to complete BB-66 Kentucky in some form. Maybe as a guided missile battleship with the rear turret replaced by Talos launchers.

 

[Dilandu]

ok so the only Russian ship i am familiar with is the Lenningrad. i havent heard of these before. reminds me of a Kronshtadt class battlecruiser

Stalingrad-class (Project 82) were actually not related to Kronshtadt-class (Project 69). Initially, they were planned as "heavier" cruisers with 220-mm guns, that should have decisive advantage over 8-inch heavy cruisers of USN and RN. But doubts came about their ability to defeat newest Des Moines-class cruisers. Essentially, it was decided that more powerful guns were required, and ultra-powerful 305-mm/61 SM-31 gun was designed.

Comparing to Kronshtadt's, Stalingrad's have lighter armor (only 7-inch inclined belt), but were much faster (34 knots) and were armed with much more powerful artillery.

 

[Tzoli]

ok so the only Russian ship i am familiar with is the Lenningrad. i havent heard of these before. reminds me of a Kronshtadt class battlecruiser

The Leningrads were destroyers, to be precise Destroyer Flotilla Leaders or Large Destroyers.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Well the USN would have liked to get another two Iowas which would have given them six total to the four Kongos. Perhaps some or all of of the Stalingrads being finished would have given enough reason to complete BB-66 Kentucky in some form. Maybe as a guided missile battleship with the rear turret replaced by Talos launchers.

The US Navy didn't want two more Iowas when the class was designed, the two were added in the Two Ocean Navy Act to replace what were supposed to be a pair of Montanas, as more Iowas were better suited towards the war the Navy ended up fighting.

Kentucky as a BBG makes very little sense as a counter to the Stalingrads. Talos is an anti-air missile, after all, and the final form of Kentucky as a BBG showed Polaris as her surface to surface weapon.

She also doesn't make sense financially, so that's off the table entirely...

 

[Firefinder]

Kentucky as a BBG makes very little sense as a counter to the Stalingrads. Talos is an anti-air missile, after all, and the final form of Kentucky as a BBG showed Polaris as her surface to surface weapon.

The Talos also had the standard follow the director set up and was shot at ships in test to scary effect in training. They always had that ability to target ships since day two...

The image I'm post is of a post hit picture of a warhead-less Talos hit on a DD in the mid fifties. If this thing hits anything less armor then a battleship it will have a very bad day.

Saying that they are an anti air missile like it was their only job is like doing similar to the Standard missiles. Amusing since the Standards has an as high ship kill tonnage in US service then the Harpoon does...

 

[CV12Hornet]

The Talos also had the standard follow the director set up and was shot at ships in test to scary effect in training. They always had that ability to target ships since day two...

The image I'm post is of a post hit picture of a warhead-less Talos hit on a DD in the mid fifties. If this thing hits anything less armor then a battleship it will have a very bad day.

Saying that they are an anti air missile like it was their only job is like doing similar to the Standard missiles. Amusing since the Standards has an as high ship kill tonnage in US service then the Harpoon does...

While true, this requires the BBG to be within gunnery range of the Stalingrad so the SPG-49s can beam the missile in. I hope it obvious why that's a problem.

 

[awhalen61]

The Talos also had the standard follow the director set up and was shot at ships in test to scary effect in training. They always had that ability to target ships since day two...

The image I'm post is of a post hit picture of a warhead-less Talos hit on a DD in the mid fifties. If this thing hits anything less armor then a battleship it will have a very bad day.

Saying that they are an anti air missile like it was their only job is like doing similar to the Standard missiles. Amusing since the Standards has an as high ship kill tonnage in US service then the Harpoon does...

While true, this requires the BBG to be within gunnery range of the Stalingrad so the SPG-49s can beam the missile in. I hope it obvious why that's a problem.

laughs in 130km long range shell

 

[Firefinder]

The Talos also had the standard follow the director set up and was shot at ships in test to scary effect in training. They always had that ability to target ships since day two...

The image I'm post is of a post hit picture of a warhead-less Talos hit on a DD in the mid fifties. If this thing hits anything less armor then a battleship it will have a very bad day.

Saying that they are an anti air missile like it was their only job is like doing similar to the Standard missiles. Amusing since the Standards has an as high ship kill tonnage in US service then the Harpoon does...

While true, this requires the BBG to be within gunnery range of the Stalingrad so the SPG-49s can beam the missile in. I hope it obvious why that's a problem.

Not really.

The Talos had a 50 KM range for Surface to surface mode, which while IN Range of the 90km guns of Stalingrads. Umm they were 90KM unguided shells... Thats one of those things as an Arty man I will be happy to land in the same neighborhood as the target. Useful for shorebombardment but not anti ship work outside of praying to Lady Luck...

But TaLo's was a very interesting and advance missile all things considering. Kinda Wish that we did end up with the Missile Iowa's cause then we might have seen a Talo's 2.0 size missile.

 

[Dilandu]

IN Range of the 90km guns of Stalingrads. Umm they were 90KM unguided shells... Thats one of those things as an Arty man I will be happy to land in the same neighborhood as the target. Useful for shorebombardment but not anti ship work outside of praying to Lady Luck...

True. Extended range shells were supposed to be used strictly against coastal targets.

 

[that_person]

I doubt anything would change. Look at the NATO reaction to the Soviets commissioning that Italian battleship:
- Vanguard and KGVs are retired
- Richelieus are retired in the 60s
- The entire US fast battleship and large cruiser fleet was struck by 1954
- The Navy cancelled the Des Moines cruises, additional Alaska’s and Iowas

In other words, NATO wasn’t concerned about large Soviet surface raiders. I think it would be interesting to see the USNs reaction to Soviet aircraft carriers though, especially in the 1950s. I think only then could you see Alaska’s and Iowa’s being reactivated and converted to missile barges.

 

[EwenS]

I doubt anything would change. Look at the NATO reaction to the Soviets commissioning that Italian battleship:
- Vanguard and KGVs are retiree
- Richelieus are retired in the 60s
- The entire US fast battleship and large cruiser fleet was Cannes by 1954
- The Navy cancelled the Des Moines cruises, additional Alaska’s and Iowa’s

In other words, NATO wasn’t concerned about large Soviet surface raiders. I think it would be interesting to see the USNs reaction to Soviet aircraft carriers though, especially in the 1950s. I think only then could you see Alaska’s and Iowa’s being reactivated and converted to missile barges.

Why would they worry about an old ship dating back to WW1 and reconstructed in the mid 1930s and which had been laid up for nearly 5 years prior to transfer to the USSR? Between her handover to the Soviets in 1949 and her being sunk by a mine in 1955 she was used as a training ship in between her 8 refits.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Well the USN would have liked to get another two Iowas which would have given them six total to the four Kongos. Perhaps some or all of of the Stalingrads being finished would have given enough reason to complete BB-66 Kentucky in some form. Maybe as a guided missile battleship with the rear turret replaced by Talos launchers.

The US Navy didn't want two more Iowas when the class was designed, the two were added in the Two Ocean Navy Act to replace what were supposed to be a pair of Montanas, as more Iowas were better suited towards the war the Navy ended up fighting.

Kentucky as a BBG makes very little sense as a counter to the Stalingrads. Talos is an anti-air missile, after all, and the final form of Kentucky as a BBG showed Polaris as her surface to surface weapon.

She also doesn't make sense financially, so that's off the table entirely...

Kentucky as a BBG wouldn't entirely make sense solely to counter the Stalingrads but would provide an excuse to build a very capable capital ship capable of nuclear strikes against Soviet targets and aid in protecting the battlegroup against bombers. The six 16" guns retained would just be insurance against any surface threats.

Was there ever a definite BBG conversion for Kentucky decided upon? I know they looked at many variants and the final ones were basically an armored Polaris carrier. I'm fond of the versions with Talos and Regulus II while retaining the fore 16" gun turrets.

 

[Tzoli]

No definitive choice was chosen as the missile technology was still rapidly evolving at that time.
For example in 1954-55 the strike missile was the Regulus II
By 1956 this was changed to Polaris A1
By 1958 there was still debate on Polaris or Regulus, though by this time Kentucky was no more.

Maybe looking into the papers of SCB - Ship Characteristics Board and LROG - Long Range Objectives Group (if they still exists...) could provide more insight which proposal was preferred more. Rear Admiral William Kavanaugh Mendenhall

80-G-445486 Rear Admiral William K. Mendenhall, U.S. Navy

Portrait photograph, received 4 September 1952.

www.history.navy.mil

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/33082871/william-kavanaugh-mendenhall
was the promoter for the conversion Kentucky into BBG

 

[Conspirator]

just some ideas to float around and modify. but its kinda like a Japanese Ise class. there are three ways of doing this from what i can find. one is to have the deck angled off to the side for better landing capabilities and less gun/citadel restrictions. the second is to take a carrier and shorten the deck slightly and add two guns under the flight path and an aircraft catapult of course. the third is to make it above everything which is quite impractical. and now that i think of it. a frigate with an upscaled arlegh burke class main gun on the front as well as missile boxes and a flight deck now would actually be kinda smart.

 

[Hood]

ust some ideas to float around and modify.

I'd hate to be a killjoy, but I think you'll find most if not all of the real hybrid conversion proposals in this thread already.
Exploration of alternative concepts belongs in the theoretical concepts or alternate history sections of the forum.

 

[that_person]

ust some ideas to float around and modify.

I'd hate to be a killjoy, but I think you'll find most if not all of the real hybrid conversion proposals in this thread already.
Exploration of alternative concepts belongs in the theoretical concepts or alternate history sections of the forum.

The only studies we really have no information about are the Fireworks studies from the 1970s. All we know is that they includes the removal of all the main guns and called for the installation of 412 VLS cells. What’s even odder is the fact study 4A called for the installation of SPY-1 and AEGIS. On second thought, I really want to learn more about the satellite launch ship conversion.

 

[Tzoli]

ust some ideas to float around and modify.

I'd hate to be a killjoy, but I think you'll find most if not all of the real hybrid conversion proposals in this thread already.
Exploration of alternative concepts belongs in the theoretical concepts or alternate history sections of the forum.

The only studies we really have no information about are the Fireworks studies from the 1970s. All we know is that they includes the removal of all the main guns and called for the installation of 412 VLS cells. What’s even odder is the fact study 4A called for the installation of SPY-1 and AEGIS. On second thought, I really want to learn more about the satellite launch ship conversion.

I thought I've posted the relevant data about them!
Yep I've posted them here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/iowa-and-alaska-class-conversion-projects.7220/post-360356

There were 9+1 schemes for consideration after the Phase I modernization all fro 1983:
Scheme 1 - VSTOL
Scheme 2 - Big Helo
Scheme 3 and 3A -Small Helo (Difference being: three instead of two 16" turrets, instead of four 46 cells, there were to be two 16 and two 32 VLS Tomahawk cells and six rather four 5" turrets)
Scheme 4 - Fireworks w/o Guns (424 Tomahawk VLS tubes with a likely arrangement of four 82 and six 16 cells or three 88, two 32, and six 16 cells, or three 102, two 32, and six 9 cells or some other combination)
Scheme 4A - Fireworks AEGIS (324 Tomahawk VLS tubes with a likely arrangement of four 81 cells )
Scheme 5 - Sonar AEGIS
Scheme 6 - TACTAS LAMPS
Scheme 7 - Cost Constraint

And the likely chosen variant the Modest Upgrade which might be from 1993

 

[Conspirator]

apologies i did not see this info. wouldnt the conversion be more dificult because of size when it comes to the alaska class versus the iowa class, which has quite a bit of open rear deck space, unless you would want to take the risk and stick it out that far? you would have a limited capability

 

[Tzoli]

apologies i did not see this info. wouldnt the conversion be more dificult because of size when it comes to the alaska class versus the iowa class, which has quite a bit of open rear deck space, unless you would want to take the risk and stick it out that far? you would have a limited capability

Here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/iowa-and-alaska-class-conversion-projects.7220/#post-102355

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/iowa-and-alaska-class-conversion-projects.7220/page-2#post-102359

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/iowa-and-alaska-class-conversion-projects.7220/page-3#post-354281

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/iowa-and-alaska-class-conversion-projects.7220/page-3#post-354409

 

[that_person]

ust some ideas to float around and modify.

I'd hate to be a killjoy, but I think you'll find most if not all of the real hybrid conversion proposals in this thread already.
Exploration of alternative concepts belongs in the theoretical concepts or alternate history sections of the forum.

The only studies we really have no information about are the Fireworks studies from the 1970s. All we know is that they includes the removal of all the main guns and called for the installation of 412 VLS cells. What’s even odder is the fact study 4A called for the installation of SPY-1 and AEGIS. On second thought, I really want to learn more about the satellite launch ship conversion.

I thought I've posted the relevant data about them!
Yep I've posted them here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/iowa-and-alaska-class-conversion-projects.7220/post-360356

There were 9+1 schemes for consideration after the Phase I modernization all fro 1983:
Scheme 1 - VSTOL
Scheme 2 - Big Helo
Scheme 3 and 3A -Small Helo (Difference being: three instead of two 16" turrets, instead of four 46 cells, there were to be two 16 and two 32 VLS Tomahawk cells and six rather four 5" turrets)
Scheme 4 - Fireworks w/o Guns (424 Tomahawk VLS tubes with a likely arrangement of four 82 and six 16 cells or three 88, two 32, and six 16 cells, or three 102, two 32, and six 9 cells or some other combination)
Scheme 4A - Fireworks AEGIS (324 Tomahawk VLS tubes with a likely arrangement of four 81 cells )
Scheme 5 - Sonar AEGIS
Scheme 6 - TACTAS LAMPS
Scheme 7 - Cost Constraint

And the likely chosen variant the Modest Upgrade which might be from 1993

I did a Shipbucket drawing for the AEGIS conversion a while back. I even downloaded a totally legal copy of the Dulin and Garzke book to get more info on the projects.

The Iowa Fireworks Family - The Gunless Iowa - Shipbucket

 

[Tzoli]

Aforementioned designs from the book

 

[Julio Garay Terrazas]

I put these old articles with more information about Iowas conversions. The two first pages are from Proceedings July 1981, and have mentions of others articles about Iowas in another Proceedings editions. The other are from Aviazione e Marina Internazionale from April 1981.

 

[that_person]

Aforementioned designs from the book

In Study 5 (the last picture), is that a hanger that replaced the aft turret?

 

[Archibald]

If Jack Sparrow saw that he would say, in a state of (drunken ?) shock "But why... ? why are the guns gone ?"

 

[SSgtC]

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

Ironically, they were viewed by Stalin mainly as 6-inch and 8-inch cruisers killers)

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

Because there were only four Iowa's, and this wasn't enough to guarantee that they would be available where they may be needed.

In that time frame though, it still would have been possible to complete at least Kentucky and possibly Illinois as well. Giving the US up to 6 Iowa class. To say nothing of the 4 South Dakotas and 2 North Carolinas they had in reserve. All of those could have been recalled as well. Hell, the USN kept the Colorado and Tennessee classes in reserve until 1959 as well.

 

[Coiler]

Hell, the USN kept the Colorado and Tennessee classes in reserve until 1959 as well.

Friedman, IIRC, gave the explanation that since they were intended to mostly just putter around for shore bombardment anyway, the theory was that you might as well use an older battleship because they didn't need to go fast.

 

[SSgtC]

Friedman, IIRC, gave the explanation that since they were intended to mostly just putter around for shore bombardment anyway, the theory was that you might as well use an older battleship because they didn't need to go fast.

Pretty much, yeah. But those 5 ships were also considered the most capable of the standards. And in the case of the Colorados, they mounted 16" guns. Not the fastest ships out there, but even having an old battleship like that present would be one hell of a deterrent to what was essentially an upjumped heavy cruiser.

 

[isayyo2]

Friedman, IIRC, gave the explanation that since they were intended to mostly just putter around for shore bombardment anyway, the theory was that you might as well use an older battleship because they didn't need to go fast.

Pretty much, yeah. But those 5 ships were also considered the most capable of the standards. And in the case of the Colorados, they mounted 16" guns. Not the fastest ships out there, but even having an old battleship like that present would be one hell of a deterrent to what was essentially an upjumped heavy cruiser.

Did Freeman also mention a perceived service life of the Standards? Most of them went through a massive reconstruction after PH, to serve two years tops?

 

[Archibald]

Now that would be one bizarre alternate history "Colorado class in Korean and Vietnam war..."

More seriously: Google books had bits of a Gerald Bull biography (30 years old); where it is mentionned that circa 1969 he made contact with future CIA boss Admiral Stansfield Turner and also Zumwalt.

Together they wanted to upgrade (Iowa) battleships 16-inch guns (and also destroyers 5-inch artillery) with long range - think what Bull did to South Africa M-109s.
to
a) beat the crap out of that Soviet M-46, 130 mm artillery that threatened shore bombardment destroyers and
b) bombard the Ho Chi Minh trail from the sea

Bull's Eye

"In this stunning work of investigative journalism, James Adams combines the excitement and drama of a thriller with a cast of extraordiinary characters from the worlds of intelligence, govenment, and the arms business. This is the story of the most talented designer of artillery this century; a...

www.google.fr

https://books.google.fr/books/content?id=OQshAQAAIAAJ&hl=fr&pg=PA119&img=1&pgis=1&dq=%22Gerald+Bull%22%22ho+chi+minh+trail%22&bul=1&sig=ACfU3U3FYM23rfy-W8RPwzY871wntvnygA&edge=0

https://books.google.fr/books/content?id=OQshAQAAIAAJ&hl=fr&pg=PA119&img=1&pgis=1&dq=%22which+was+the+Vietcong%27s+main+supply+route+,+were+being+carried+out+entirely+%22&bul=1&sig=ACfU3U2BL9e6Za3NMHcSEZjwjzFHoDhJiQ&edge=0

https://books.google.fr/books/content?id=OQshAQAAIAAJ&hl=fr&pg=PA119&img=1&pgis=1&dq=%22with+their+giant+gun+in+World+War+I.+Nothing+came+of+this+idea+,+however+.%22&bul=1&sig=ACfU3U0iK0MJ3KyoQ9dq3mmRKuGfNftZzw&edge=0

 

[SSgtC]

Friedman, IIRC, gave the explanation that since they were intended to mostly just putter around for shore bombardment anyway, the theory was that you might as well use an older battleship because they didn't need to go fast.

Pretty much, yeah. But those 5 ships were also considered the most capable of the standards. And in the case of the Colorados, they mounted 16" guns. Not the fastest ships out there, but even having an old battleship like that present would be one hell of a deterrent to what was essentially an upjumped heavy cruiser.

Did Freeman also mention a perceived service life of the Standards? Most of them went through a massive reconstruction after PH, to serve two years tops?

I would say somewhere between 10 and 15 years. That would put their hulls at around 40-50 years old at decommissioning

 

[isayyo2]

Now that would be one bizarre alternate history "Colorado class in Korean and Vietnam war..."

More seriously: Google books had bits of a Gerald Bull biography (30 years old); where it is mentionned that circa 1969 he made contact with future CIA boss Admiral Stansfield Turner and also Zumwalt.

Together they wanted to upgrade (Iowa) battleships 16-inch guns with long range (think what Bull did to South Africa M-109)
to
a) beat the crap out of that Soviet M-46, 130 mm artillery that threatened shore bombardment destroyers and
b) bombard the Ho Chi Minh trail from the sea

Bull's Eye

"In this stunning work of investigative journalism, James Adams combines the excitement and drama of a thriller with a cast of extraordiinary characters from the worlds of intelligence, govenment, and the arms business. This is the story of the most talented designer of artillery this century; a...

www.google.fr

If the US hadn't so massively demobilized after the War, I bet at least the North Carolinas and South Dakotas would have stuck around.

 

[SSgtC]

If the US hadn't so massively demobilized after the War, I bet at

The North Carolinas over the SoDaks. The 2 NC class were bigger and less cramped.

 

[isayyo2]

If the US hadn't so massively demobilized after the War, I bet at

The North Carolinas over the SoDaks. The 2 NC class were bigger and less cramped.

Better looking too

 

[Tzoli]

I was debating whether this should go elsewhere, but it is vaguely related to the Iowa Phase II plans.

In November 1982, when the Iowa reactivations were just starting and the elaborate Phase II conversions still seemed possible, a naval architect by the name of Gene Anderson wrote a short article for the US Naval Institute Proceedings proposing a class of "light battleships" built around the four turrets that would be removed from the Iowas in the Phase II process. As far as I know, this was strictly a private notion, not ever seriously considered, but it's interesting to look at.

The proposed design is ~9000 tons displacement, 400 ft length (oa), 84 ft beam, 22 ft draft. Hull shape is largely inspired by contemporary merchant ships (cruise ship bow above water and bulbous bow underwater), with protection consisting of an unspecified armored box above decks around the machinery and command and control spaces and the usual torpedo blisters, voids/fuel, and a triple bottom below the water.

Propulsion would be 4-6 medium-speed diesels, for 20-25,000 bhp, giving a speed of up to 25 knots (consistent with the need to escort 20+ knot amphibs of the era).

Armament obviously gets the most attention. As described:

• One triple 16"/50 turret, sited so it could traverse 270 degrees (blast overpressure on the superstructure would be fierce with the turret traversed fully aft...)
• Three to five Mk 45 5-inch guns, with some possibly replaced by Mk 48 8-inch guns or 155mm/50 Vertical Load Gun Mounts firing standard Army/Marine 155mm ammunition. (The drawing has three mounts that look like VLGM, which is probably the most "reasonable" choice here. Edit: Mk 48 is a mistake -- the author probably meant the Mk 71 8-inch lightweight gun.)
• Two Mk 26 launchers (which would certainly have been replaced by VLS if the design had been seriously considered)
• Two Phalanx CIWS. (As with other drawings from the era, the shape of Phalanx was not yet known, and an igloo-like structure can be seen standing in for it here).

Sensors are mostly unmentioned, and the drawing shows a fairly basic radar fit. (Taking full advantage of the Standard Missiles in the Mk 26 would call for at least New Threat Upgrade, I would think.) There is supposedly hangar space (in the hull, I assume) for two helicopters as spotters and for other duties as required, including ASW.

Manning is optimistically pegged at about 100 more than an OH Perry frigate (so about 320, of which about 25-30% would be required to operate the 16-inch gun turret.)

The letters that followed this article were not kind...

I notice from that letter that there seems to have been another February 1982 article about a different (?) BB(L) concept in February 1982, but Google Books is being stubborn and won't find it for me.

I wonder if Gene Anderson drew inspiration from the late 1967 Fire Support Ship (Monitor) proposals of he Naval Ship Engineering Center: