Why Doesn't the Navy Have Battle Cruisers?

Naval Sea Systems Command ^ | May 16, 2018 | Kelley Stirling

[2ndDivisionVet]

WEST BETHESDA, Md. — If the battle cruiser has all the best elements of a battleship and a cruiser, why doesn't the Navy have a fleet of them?

James Harrison, division director for the Expeditionary Warfare Ships Division at Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA 05D3), set out to explain why some ships just didn't make it in to the Navy fleet, during his history presentation May 9 at Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division in West Bethesda, Maryland.

"Not Even Once!" was about ships or ship programs that were initially supported by Navy leadership, but were ultimately cancelled before being built or launched, and the battle cruiser was in that line-up.

"Battle cruisers have the fighting power of a battleship with the speed of a cruiser," Harrison said in his eighth talk at Carderock.

The Navy did make an attempt to build its own battle cruiser in response to the Soviet nuclear battle cruiser of the 1970s. Harrison said the Soviet battle cruiser was considered a ship killer, and the U.S. Navy had nothing like it. So, the Navy initiated a model test program of a nuclear-powered strike cruiser in 1976. By 1977, Congress didn't authorize the Navy's request for funding for this strike cruiser and instead funded the new version of the Virginia-class nuclear guided-missile cruiser, CGN 42, which ironically, also didn't get built.

"You can't just build cool stuff. You have to build military equipment that supports your overall national strategy," said Capt. Mark Vandroff, Carderock's commanding officer. It was Vandroff who invited Harrison more than a year ago to give these somewhat humorous historical presentations at Carderock.

USS Virginia (CGN 38) was built, and there were four of that class of ship built with state-of-the-art combat systems. However, newer combat systems were quickly changing what "state-of-the-art" was, specifically the AEGIS weapon system and vertical launching systems. According to Harrison, the also-planned DDG 47, or what was at the time to be the Spruance-class destroyers, was cheaper and more modular, meaning it could retrofit newer systems as they became available, unlike the cruiser.

The 20 new CGN 42-classes of cruisers were scrapped to make way for 27 new DDG 47-class of destroyers, which also didn't get built. Well, they were built, but not as destroyers. Harrison said Congress was concerned because cancelling the CGN 42 meant the Navy would have no cruisers being built at all.

"So, a simple solution was found for that. They took DDG 47 and rebranded it as CG 47, and voila, you don't have 27 new destroyers, you have 27 new cruisers," Harrison said.

While the CGN 42 program was halted in the late 1970s in favor of the Ticonderoga-class cruiser (CG 47), it was brought back in the 1980s in support of the buildup of the 600-ship Navy, but again halted before one was built.

Back to battle cruisers. The Navy's first attempt at a battle cruiser was actually in 1920. USS Lexington (CC-1) didn't have quite the fighting power of a battleship at the time, but was going to be a lot faster at 34 knots. The Navy's plan was to build six of them at the same time in four different shipyards. Keels were laid in 1920 and by March 1922, all work stopped, very short of completion, as a result of the Washington Naval Treaty.

"After World War I, there was a lot of angst in the U.S. about all the money being spent to build the fleet," Harrison said. "The world powers got together in 1922 and decided to place limits on the size of their navies and stopped building further battleships."

But Lexington and Saratoga (CC-3) did survive in a different form. The battle cruisers were redesigned to be aircraft carriers on the same keel. So, USS Lexington became CV 2 and USS Saratoga became CV 3.

Ultimately, aircraft carriers really became the U.S. Navy's answer to the battle cruiser.

"Since WWII, the Navy has not used ships to kill capital ships," Harrison said, defining capital ships as key assets of any navy. "We use carriers, we use aircraft, which fly out hundreds of miles and kill your capital ships way out there, not letting you get close enough where you can shoot at our key asset."

But the Navy almost lost even its ability to build carriers. At the end of World War II, the Navy wanted to build USS United States (CV 58), which was a carrier designed with the mission of delivering nuclear-armed bombers. The design had no island to make room for these bombers, as well as fighters. A model was even built and tested for seakeeping at Carderock's David Taylor Model Basin in 1947.

"The idea was the fighters would protect the carrier to get in close enough to launch the bombers that were thought to be needed to carry the heavy nuclear weapons to deliver a nuclear strike against your adversary," Harrison said.

The Navy was pretty serious about building it, even laying the keel April 18, 1949, at Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia. Then, on April 23, 1949, the secretary of defense cancelled the program, sparking the secretary of the Navy to resign. Harrison said the secretary of defense's actions against the U.S. Navy at the time ultimately led to what's called the "Revolt of the Admirals."

President Harry S. Truman and Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson decided on a defense strategy that basically eliminated the U.S. Navy and the Marine Corps, believing that all wars of the future would be solved with nuclear weapons, which the Air Force's bombers could deliver. The secretary of the Navy and several other admirals went behind Johnson's back to Congress to ask for funding and this led to the CNO's resignation.

"In 1949 the ship gets cancelled," Harrison said. "Then in 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea."

When Truman wanted to blockade North Korea, the Navy said they didn't have the ships and the naval forces necessary to conduct a blockade of a nation so large as North Korea. Also in 1950, the Navy demonstrated it could use smaller aircraft to deliver nuclear weapons using a Midway-class carrier.

"There was a sea change and a realization that not every war was going to be nuclear exchange, that we were going to need forces across the full range of options," Harrison said. "So, in 1951, USS Forrestal, CV 49, the first of our super carriers, was ordered and delivered in 1959."

[OldMissileer]

I’m not saying that we should. But we could. One BB could support Marine amphibious operations at a fraction of the cost of a Carrier.

Even with massive, modern, upgrades the design of older ships of almost any kind requires a much larger number of sailors to operate than newer ships. The Navy does not have the manpower to bring back and refurbish/modernize old BBs or other types.

[sarge83]

A 20,000 ton heavy cruiser with nine 8 inch guns, armor and missile batteries, Sam and ciws could be built for a fraction of a carrier or battleship. You get heavy guns, tlam, and reasonable armored protect. Think a souped up Baltimore class or New Port News type ship.

[minnesota_bound]

Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson decided on a defense strategy that basically eliminated the U.S. Navy and the Marine Corps

Whoa!

[Pelham]

During the battle of the Philippine Sea, Willis Lee’s fast battleships and heavy cruisers provided a primary anti-aircraft screen for the carriers operating behind him. There was certainly a whole lot of American aircraft involved but their role was to hunt the Japanese rather than to protect Lee’s ships.

And in that resulting air battle, the Mariana’s Turkey Shoot, Navy planes basically eliminated Japan’s carrier air power for the rest of the war.

[Snickering Hound]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_(D80)

That was exactly what did in Sheffield at the Falklands.

[jim_trent]

Both the Lexington and Saratoga took damage (and survived) that would have sunk other carriers that did NOT have armored hulls.

[philman_36]

But who is winning the war if a $50,000.00 missile is fired from a 150 million dollar jet at a 500.00 dollar pickup truck carrying a machine gun?

False premise. You send out a Cobra/Viper and blast it with the Gatling.
Armament: 1 x 20 mm M197 3-barreled Gatling cannon

Missiles are for hardened targets/armor/ships.
Here's New Viper Attack Helicopters Pack a Huge Hellfire Punch10:18
16 Hellfire missiles.

HELLFIRE® Rocket Motor

The HELLFIRE is a multi-mode weapon system used by the U.S. Army as an anti-tank and anti-bunker missile, by the U.S. Navy as an anti-ship missile and by the U.S. Air Force on unmanned aircraft.
Don't go wasting my missiles, boys, use yer guns. Close support means close.
/General impression

[Mariner]

In a real fight that Swedish sub would have never made it out of harbor.

And even if it did, it’s full load of torpedoes would not sink a carrier.

[philman_36]

Do the same thing as with the Warthog...build the aircraft around the weapon.

For shore battery powder guns are going bye bye, IMO.
Railguns as the weapon system and build the ship around that.
Forward and aft battery, close support (Vulcan, BPDMS or similar)
It could be done smaller than 20,000 ton and be more effective/destructive.

[crosdaddy]

Keep firing them HellFires boys, every single one of ‘em ever fired has a Crosdaddy part in there, PaveWays too. Let ‘ em rip

[philman_36]

The Navy's Railgun Is About to Get Faster and More PowerfulThe railgun works by using extremely high electrical currents to generate magnetic fields capable of accelerating a projectile to speeds of up to Mach 6, more than twice as fast as existing projectiles. The railgun has a range of more than 100 miles. It fires projectiles that destroy targets not with high explosive, but by smashing into them at hypersonic speeds.

[philman_36]

A vested interest, I see.

[Phlyer]

Propeller planes sank the largest warship ever built.

Yes. But those planes were equipped with weapons no longer in any nation's inventory. When navies moved away from armored ships, nations quit stocking armor-piercing weapons. That's the point, as I mentioned several times.

It's not the delivery system (propeller or jet or warp drive), it's the weapon. There are, for example, no air-delivered heavy torpedoes any more and it's a lot easier to sink ships by letting water in the bottom than by letting air out the top.

In point of fact, the Musashi sank after receiving 13 heavy torpedo hits. The Mk46 (or newer Mk 50) weighs less than a third of what the standard US WWII torpedo weighed, and the warhead is even smaller in proportion.

So, to answer your question directly: If well handled, with reasonable US-standard damage control, then no, an Exocet or Harpoon would not sink an alert US WWII-era battleship. In fact, two Exocets hit the Stark (a frigate with 1/20 of the displacement of a WWII US BB, and no armor) and didn't sink it.

Armored warships, when they were still state-of-the-art, used a 'citadel' design where all the vitals were protected by heavy armor. So Exocets or Harpoons or standard light-case bombs (e.g. Mk 82) or air-launched torpedoes (e.g Mk 50) could damage the ship, but not penetrate enough to cause mortal damage. The most significant risk would be for multiple torpedoes each to take out a shaft and propeller (of which there are four, and separated well enough that one torpedo won't take out more than one). Even then the BB wouldn't sink, but it would be unable to move.

The greatest danger - aside from developing new armor-piercing weapons - would be from submarine launched heavy torpedoes (e.g. Mk 48) . . . and then it would take a lot (Musashi took 13). With reasonable escorts, there aren't many submarines who could stay close to a BB for long enough to get a dozen or more hits.

Any ship can be sunk. The question is whether it would be easier to sink an Iowa-class BB with current inventory weapons than an equivalent cost in other surface ships. I don't advocate building more battleships because new ones would be very expensive, but when they are inventory, it would be much more expensive for adversary nations to develop the weapons to counter them.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Oh, it is many more than just the British ships at Falklands - although every destroyer-style ship hit there was put out of action (or sunk) even if only hit by a dud. Some 36 other ships all around the world have been knocked out as well.

[crosdaddy]

Well, yes of course. But very proud also, almost 35 years, as the sole supplier for this part.

[philman_36]

Sprockets and widgets. LOL

[Does so]

What kind of ship would they want to call a battle cruiser?

'Sounds too much like an "assault cruiser".

[Does so]

the Japanese Navy had bigger ships and more of them, plus the world's best (at that time) torpedoes.

We should have entered WWII with WWI's torpedoes. They were more reliable!

[Phlyer]

I would agree the destroyers and destroyer escorts were on picket duty....but not the battleships.

There is a difference between 'picket duty', which was indeed comprised primarily of destroyers, and the 'Gun Line' which was comprised of heavier ships with extensive anti-aircraft capabilities. After the attacking planes overflew the pickets, they had to pass the gauntlet of battleships and cruisers to get to the carriers. And yes, there were combat air patrols overhead, but some Japanese planes still got through to attack, and the bottom line was that no alert, maneuvering US battleships were sunk.

The key point I made - again and again - was not about the ability of aircraft to attack a battleship. They could. The key point is that with no armor-piercing bombs or heavy air-launched torpedoes, they couldn't sink the battleships. I guess an analogy would be that you could shoot at one thousands of times with a .50BMG and break a lot of glass, knock out some secondary items (e.g. fire directors for smaller weapons, ships boats), but you wouldn't sink the ship. In terms of ability to penetrate the armor on an Iowa-class BB and deliver mortal damage, a Mk82 light-case bomb, or an Exocet, or a Harpoon is closer to a .50BMG than to a 2700-lb 16-in armor-piercing shell.

To assume that just because an attacker could get a hit means that the target ship would sink just begs the question - it presumes no value for the armor. If aircraft were still launching 2500-lb torpedoes (instead of 900 lb), and if BLU-109s were in widespread inventory, then the BBs would be at significant risk (which is why no one built any after WWII), but with a few exceptions (not in widespread inventory) or anti-tank shells, armor-piercing weapons went away as soon as ships stopped using a lot of armor. (Note: BB armor is heavier than tanks, so you can't just mount a tank gun on an aircraft and declare success.)

That's what makes it so hard to take out an armored ship today.

[crosdaddy]

Ha, in another 8 days, it will be our 123rd Anniversary of proud “sprockets & widgets” :-)