Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Uncategorized

Battlecarrier: The Navy Wanted to Merge a Battleship and Aircraft Carrier

Battlecarrier
A tug boat nudges the bow of the battleship USS Wisconsin (BB 64) as the ship is pushed from the Norfolk Naval Shipyard to the Nauticus Museum in Norfolk, Va., on Dec. 7, 2000. The Wisconsin will be the centerpiece of a four-part exhibit on the battleship's role in Naval history.

Battlecarrier would have certainly been historic: The U.S. Navy often showcased its Iowa-class battleships, and these went in and out of service depending on the nature of the wars America was fighting. There was usually a movement in Navy circles to make them more relevant. Proposals included making them missile carriers, giving them nuclear-tipped shells, or allowing the Iowa-class ships to haul marines and boats for amphibious missions. 

One of the more noteworthy concepts was to create a battlecarrier. This called for removing the guns from the aft of an Iowa-class battleship, and replacing them with ski jump ramps for Harrier jump jets.

Battlecarrier – A New Carrier Concept

In the early 1980s, when the Reagan administration oversaw a significant build-up in ships to keep the Soviet Union on its heels, the four Iowa-class battleships got a complete overhaul in weaponry. They received Tomahawk cruise missiles, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and the Phalanx close-in weapons systems.  

The USS Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey, and Wisconsin were back in business, and this upgrade was only part of the plan. A second update phase called for converting the ships to pseudo-aircraft carriers, hosting 20 Harrier vertical or short takeoff and landing (VSTOL) airplanes. VSTOL technology was improving, and by 1985 the AV-8B Harrier II was introduced to serve with the U.S. Marine Corps.

Under this carrier concept, each Iowa-class battleship would trade its 16-inch gun turret for two ski jumps, a hangar, and an elevator. Between each ski jump would be missile tubes holding Tomahawks and surface-to-air missiles.  

Battlecarrier – Too Ambitious

This all sounded great, but it was not feasible. Skeptics harkened back to World War II, when the Japanese tried to convert some of their battleships to aircraft carriers; the conversion did not turn out well. Japan’s navy never used the two battleships that had flight decks.

The battleships would have needed 2,000 sailors to operate. The demand for that much specialized manpower increased their cost. An expensive refit would also have been unavoidable

The Harriers could already fly from other ships, and the missile tubes in question were already being used on destroyers and cruisers, making them redundant on the Iowa class. Plus, the Navy determined that flat-top aircraft carriers were superior to ski-jumps. The Navy went back to its basic plan for the battleships, which was to use their main guns for massive firepower to support ground troops and amphibious landings. 

The Battlecarrier Was a Neat Idea

Perhaps the Navy should have focused on a smaller deck that would have equipped the Iowas to launch anti-submarine-warfare helicopters. This idea was considered during the Vietnam War, but it was rejected in favor of maximizing the battleships’ shore bombardment capability. In fact, the New Jersey hit Lebanon hard, and the Wisconsin and Missouri shelled Iraqi targets during Operation Desert Storm. 

The Navy never executed the carrier option, and the Iowa class faded into retirement. But the battlecarrier was a neat idea. It showed how naval battle planners wanted to maximize firepower and deliver Harriers into battle. It would have granted the Navy another option to project power around the globe, and it would have given the Soviets more to worry about. But after the first Gulf War, the Iowa class was on its way out. The ships would not have been needed after the Cold War, anyway. 

Now serving as 1945’s Defense and National Security Editor, Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare. He is an Emerging Threats expert and former U.S. Army Infantry officer. You can follow him on Twitter @BMEastwood.

Written By

Now serving as 1945s New Defense and National Security Editor, Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare. He is an Emerging Threats expert and former U.S. Army Infantry officer.

5 Comments

5 Comments

  1. David

    May 23, 2022 at 6:01 pm

    “Neat ideas” can be redundant and expensive……

  2. Jeff Capo

    May 23, 2022 at 6:58 pm

    The Japanese did it during World War II. The convert the Battleships Ise into a hybrid battleship-carrier.

  3. Exnavynuke

    May 23, 2022 at 9:37 pm

    It was not a neat idea, it was – and is – utterly stupid.

    The battleships are incredibly old and cantankerous ladies. They were able to get a good turn of speed, but were unable to maintain them for long. They were tough as all get-out, especially with the 1980s modernization giving them effective ECM and active missile defense; and they had a hell of a punch if they could get into range. However, the very concept would strip them of that punch and replace the big guns with a handful of relatively ineffective aircraft.

    There may come a day when the BBs return to dominate the seas, a day when missile and aircraft defense is just too dominant to overwhelm. Perhaps with the various directed energy weapons programs under development, that day will be soon. A day when force projection relies of sending tons of screaming steel at ships because they’re effectively impervious to lasers burning through them. However, that day very well might have spotter UAVs for the initial engagements, but it would be far too dangerous an environment for any expensive and effective combat aircraft.

    Yet, that day is not here yet; and the American super-carrier still rules the waves. We shall see what the upcoming Sino-American war will do that balance of power…

    • GiveMeaFastShip

      May 27, 2022 at 6:17 pm

      Spoken like a true nuke carrier (CVN) sailor! The CVN Commanders only wish they had half as much armor around their 2 × Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and their 4 × steam turbines…as the IOWA’s have, or maybe an anti-torpedo belt protection system?

      It all depends on the roll that they would serve. It you want a ship that can go in close and slug in out with the enemies in the Black Sea or the Taiwan Straits or on shore anywhere, you better have Battleships or Battlecarriers.

      Why don’t we have any Nuke Cruisers left in the Fleet? Not because they required 100 more sailors to man, but because they were Chernobyls disasters waiting to happen in Norfolk or San Diego or Pearl or Guam or Yokasuka. I’d take a heavily armored Babcox & Wilcox Steam boiler powered, long range Tomahawk equipped IOWA-X battlecarrier into harms way any day – over any other surface combatant we’ve had in the Navy since…Long Beach, Bainbridge, Virginia, Texas, Arkansas, So Carolina, Sprucan’s, Ticonderoga’s or Arleigh-Burkes. Just saying. USN Vet.

  4. GiveMeaFastShip

    May 27, 2022 at 6:31 pm

    Depending on the purpose and the need, a few refurbished IOWA-X Battlecarriers, could yet again provide immediate close-in firepower and motivated shore, port support & control to and for friends of the US.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Advertisement