Frigates, Destroyers, And Cruisers Ideas And Inspirations

[dy031101]

I'm not sure if it's actual R&D or just intellectual exercise in Iran.

[Volkodav]

A thought on Naval Gunfire Support (NGS).  The US initially developed the 8" MCLWG, the Mk65 and Mk66 single and twin high rate of fire 5" to replace the NGS capability provided by the WWII vintage 6" and 8" cruisers but these projects were cancelled in the late 60s early 70s.  My thinking is to fill the gap the USN selected their best remaining all gun heavy cruisers and gave them an intermediate rebuild and modernisation to serve into the 80s and possibly 90s.


This rebuilt would be aimed at economically retaining their 9 x 8" guns, while improving their self defence capability, reducing manning requirements and reducing obsolescence.  The Mk38 5" twins would be replaced with Mk13 fore and aft, and with Mk45 port and starboard, four missile fire control channels, 3D radar, additional power generation and upgraded 8" mounts.

[tankmodeler]

A thought on Naval Gunfire Support (NGS).  The US initially developed the 8" MCLWG, the Mk65 and Mk66 single and twin high rate of fire 5" to replace the NGS capability provided by the WWII vintage 6" and 8" cruisers but these projects were cancelled in the late 60s early 70s.  My thinking is to fill the gap the USN selected their best remaining all gun heavy cruisers and gave them an intermediate rebuild and modernisation to serve into the 80s and possibly 90s.

This rebuilt would be aimed at economically retaining their 9 x 8" guns, while improving their self defence capability, reducing manning requirements and reducing obsolescence.  The Mk38 5" twins would be replaced with Mk13 fore and aft, and with Mk45 port and starboard, four missile fire control channels, 3D radar, additional power generation and upgraded 8" mounts.

So, you're really looking at a more modern version of the Boston-class CAGs?

The Mk 13 was a single arm system and the cruiser conversions all used the twin armed launchers to provide a better PK. The Mk 45 is a submarine based launcher for Tomahawks. Did you mean the Mk 25 BDMS Sea Sparrow box launcher, the Mk 26 twin-armed launcher for Standard Missiles, or the Mk 41 VLS, perhaps?

One of the biggest concerns with the conversions of the old cruisers were the high crew counts translating into brutally high operating costs, even by 1970s standards.

For a nominal 1975 major refit conversion of an American heavy cruiser hull that was meant to retain significant shore bombardment capability (and disregarding cost entirely) might I suggest the following?

A Baltimore hull.
Re-engined to gas turbines - 3 x P&W FT4s would provide the equivalent 120,000 HP needed to retain a 33 kt top speed and greatly reduce the engineering crew required to run the ship
Deletion of all twin 5" mounts
Deletion of the aft and B-turret triple 8" mounts - Modern gunfire support really doesn't need nine 8" guns. Three is more than enough.
Retention of the A turret but modified to use the autoloader of the 8" Mk 71 system for each gun in the old turret.
Addition of two Mk 26 twin-arm launchers aft in X and Y positions with 80 rd magazines for each launcher along with target designation radars on the main mast.
Addition of two Mk 25 Sea Sparrow box launchers amidships firing to each beam and being rearmed from magazines aft in the rear deck house.
Addition of two 5"-54 cal Mk 45 turrets forwards abeam of the bridge in the old forward twin 5" mount spots.
Addition of four Mk 143 quad armoured Tomahawk box launchers right aft
Addition of two Mk 141 Harpoon launchers on the old 8" B-turret mount.

By the late 1980s they would have undoubtedly picked up a CIWS or two, one right aft and one on top of the bridge.

By the early 1990s they would have had the Mk 25 and magazines replaced by a reduced superstructure amidships and probably 32 Mk 41 VLS cells holding VL-Sea Sparrows. The rear Mk 26s would probably be retained as they would already be firing SM-1s and probably SM-2s by the 90s. But any refits in the 90s would possibly change out the Mk 26s for a much simpler 48 cell Mk 41 farm with a selection of SM-2ERs and Tomahawks, replacing the Tomahawk deck box launchers.

Replacement of the engines, gun turrets and crews and other WW2 era manual systems with the more automatic systems of the mid 70s through 80s would have undoubtedly reduced the crew from the unsupportable 1150 of a wartime heavy cruiser to a much more reasonable 300-400 of the then-new Tico-class cruisers.

These would have been very heavily armed for cruisers in the 70s and 80s and you could save a ton of money if you were to designate them purely as gunfire support vessels. In which case you could get rid of the aft Mk 26 mounts and magazines and radars and electronics as well as the 8" turrets and possibly added another four Mk 143 Tomahawk launchers right aft, possibly freeing up enough space for a helo pad and hangar for a Blackhawk or the like in the aft superstructure/Y-turret space.

You'd keep the two Mk 25 box launchers and their designators as self defense. A 1990s refit could still replace them with a VLS farm, but possibly bigger, say 60 cells adding back the SM-2 missiles and adding area air defence capability for the 90s and beyond.

Big ships provide a big canvas upon which to WHIF...

Paul

[Old Wombat]

Just a note on NGS:

During the Gulf War(s) I remember hearing that US & British soldiers were requesting RAN NGS in preference to either of their own navies because, even with their smaller guns (I think we're talking OHP's with their 76mm guns vs 4.5" & 5" of the RN & USN), they were getting more metal on target faster when required.

This was because the RAN trained for the NGS role as one of their primary functions.

Immediately after the Gulf War(s) the RAN announced that they were reducing the focus on guns & their Weapons Operators were now focusing on missile-based systems training (almost to the exclusion of anything else) in line with their RN & USN counterparts.

With modern gun systems being highly automated (yes, I know the old WW2 systems aren't - but they could be) the crews supporting the guns can be, & are, greatly reduced. With naval gun shells being extremely cheap in comparison to a single missile, NGS is, still, a much more cost-efficient means of effectively supporting ground forces than precision-guided munitions when carried out by properly trained crews.

Gunfire is not only highly effective at breaking things, it also has a much better psychological effect. The scream of salvo after salvo of time-on-target naval gunfire vs one or two guided missiles which are only ever going to be aimed at HVT's? As a troop, gimme the enemy firing missiles any day!

[Volkodav]

A thought on Naval Gunfire Support (NGS).  The US initially developed the 8" MCLWG, the Mk65 and Mk66 single and twin high rate of fire 5" to replace the NGS capability provided by the WWII vintage 6" and 8" cruisers but these projects were cancelled in the late 60s early 70s.  My thinking is to fill the gap the USN selected their best remaining all gun heavy cruisers and gave them an intermediate rebuild and modernisation to serve into the 80s and possibly 90s.

This rebuilt would be aimed at economically retaining their 9 x 8" guns, while improving their self defence capability, reducing manning requirements and reducing obsolescence.  The Mk38 5" twins would be replaced with Mk13 fore and aft, and with Mk45 port and starboard, four missile fire control channels, 3D radar, additional power generation and upgraded 8" mounts.

So, you're really looking at a more modern version of the Boston-class CAGs?

The Mk 13 was a single arm system and the cruiser conversions all used the twin armed launchers to provide a better PK. The Mk 45 is a submarine based launcher for Tomahawks. Did you mean the Mk 25 BDMS Sea Sparrow box launcher, the Mk 26 twin-armed launcher for Standard Missiles, or the Mk 41 VLS, perhaps?

One of the biggest concerns with the conversions of the old cruisers were the high crew counts translating into brutally high operating costs, even by 1970s standards.

For a nominal 1975 major refit conversion of an American heavy cruiser hull that was meant to retain significant shore bombardment capability (and disregarding cost entirely) might I suggest the following?

A Baltimore hull.
Re-engined to gas turbines - 3 x P&W FT4s would provide the equivalent 120,000 HP needed to retain a 33 kt top speed and greatly reduce the engineering crew required to run the ship
Deletion of all twin 5" mounts
Deletion of the aft and B-turret triple 8" mounts - Modern gunfire support really doesn't need nine 8" guns. Three is more than enough.
Retention of the A turret but modified to use the autoloader of the 8" Mk 71 system for each gun in the old turret.
Addition of two Mk 26 twin-arm launchers aft in X and Y positions with 80 rd magazines for each launcher along with target designation radars on the main mast.
Addition of two Mk 25 Sea Sparrow box launchers amidships firing to each beam and being rearmed from magazines aft in the rear deck house.
Addition of two 5"-54 cal Mk 45 turrets forwards abeam of the bridge in the old forward twin 5" mount spots.
Addition of four Mk 143 quad armoured Tomahawk box launchers right aft
Addition of two Mk 141 Harpoon launchers on the old 8" B-turret mount.

By the late 1980s they would have undoubtedly picked up a CIWS or two, one right aft and one on top of the bridge.

By the early 1990s they would have had the Mk 25 and magazines replaced by a reduced superstructure amidships and probably 32 Mk 41 VLS cells holding VL-Sea Sparrows. The rear Mk 26s would probably be retained as they would already be firing SM-1s and probably SM-2s by the 90s. But any refits in the 90s would possibly change out the Mk 26s for a much simpler 48 cell Mk 41 farm with a selection of SM-2ERs and Tomahawks, replacing the Tomahawk deck box launchers.

Replacement of the engines, gun turrets and crews and other WW2 era manual systems with the more automatic systems of the mid 70s through 80s would have undoubtedly reduced the crew from the unsupportable 1150 of a wartime heavy cruiser to a much more reasonable 300-400 of the then-new Tico-class cruisers.

These would have been very heavily armed for cruisers in the 70s and 80s and you could save a ton of money if you were to designate them purely as gunfire support vessels. In which case you could get rid of the aft Mk 26 mounts and magazines and radars and electronics as well as the 8" turrets and possibly added another four Mk 143 Tomahawk launchers right aft, possibly freeing up enough space for a helo pad and hangar for a Blackhawk or the like in the aft superstructure/Y-turret space.

You'd keep the two Mk 25 box launchers and their designators as self defense. A 1990s refit could still replace them with a VLS farm, but possibly bigger, say 60 cells adding back the SM-2 missiles and adding area air defence capability for the 90s and beyond.

Big ships provide a big canvas upon which to WHIF...

Paul

Umm no, not really what I was thinking.
 
Mk13 40 round launcher as it (and the Mk11 that preceded it) were designed to fit in the same footprint as the Mk38 5" twin, this make it ideal for for replacing the centreline Mk38s on a USN standard cruiser type.

The Mk45 I refered to is the 5" naval gun.

The thinking behind keeping all three 8" gun houses is to permit two to be used for NGS with the third in reserve / maintenance.  This is how HMAS Vendetta conducted NGS off Vietnam, providing greater avaialbility and redundancy than the Charles F Adams DDGs.

My selection of the Mk 13 and Mk 45 (or possibly one 5" and a Mk75 3" on each beam) was for their reliability, supportability, commonality and lower manning.  Increased power generation is a no brainer, but the large hulls of the USN standard cruisers would mean volume for the new sytems wouldn't be an issue.  In addition the Mk13 permits the deployment of Harpoon and SM-2MR at a later date without any major structural canges being required.  The systems I could see being used would be those in production for the Oliver Hazard Perrys and Spruances during the 70s and 80s.


Modern (well 70s current) secondary and teritary weapons, sensors, generators, switchboards etc. would reduce manning requirements, improve reliability etc. The object would be to upgrade several cruisers for the same capital outlay as a dozen FFGs, the hit would be in manning as the steam plants and 8" armament would still require more than modern ships.

[tankmodeler]

Mk13 40 round launcher as it (and the Mk11 that preceded it) were designed to fit in the same footprint as the Mk38 5" twin, this make it ideal for for replacing the centreline Mk38s on a USN standard cruiser type.

Very true, but the PK on the early missiles was pretty dismal. The Yank cruiser conversions went for the twin mounting in the M k 38 positions for that reason. The Mk 26s were upgraded to handle the SM-1s and -2s but it then left the ships with no short range SAMs, which is why I suggested the BDSM box launchers for Sea Sparrows with the Tartar, then SM-2 launchers to the rear for greater range.

The Mk45 I refered to is the 5" naval gun.

I actually wondered that after I posted... Oops... 

The thinking behind keeping all three 8" gun houses is to permit two to be used for NGS with the third in reserve / maintenance.  This is how HMAS Vendetta conducted NGS off Vietnam, providing greater availability and redundancy than the Charles F Adams DDGs.

Three gun houses is a LOT of crew both in the turret and in the magazines and provides a huge amount of gunfire. More, in my opinion, to be sure, than would ever be necessary. Switching the systems in one remaining gun-house to the autoloader from the 8" Mk 71 still allows one turret to put as many as 36 rounds a minute down range. for several minutes until the magazines are exhausted. That's waaaay ore firepower than pretty much any post Vietnam deployment has ever called for. And the situations you can use it are pretty limited. Range is only 27 klicks, so you're looking at providing that sort of support for only those limited engagements that are near the sea and where your forces are faced by a truly numerous enemy. 2 gun houses, manned by fresh crews would double that for at least the first minute, but then would fall off that 10-12/minute rate as crews tired,. The autoloaders don't tire so, after the first minute or so, the max output from one autoloader turret would actually exceed the sustained rate from a manned turret. And, if there's no real reason to ever push the manned turrets so hard that they tire, then the need for multiple turrets is even less.

My selection of the Mk 13 and Mk 45 (or possibly one 5" and a Mk75 3" on each beam) was for their reliability, supportability, commonality and lower manning.  Increased power generation is a no brainer, but the large hulls of the USN standard cruisers would mean volume for the new sytems wouldn't be an issue.  In addition the Mk13 permits the deployment of Harpoon and SM-2MR at a later date without any major structural canges being required.  The systems I could see being used would be those in production for the Oliver Hazard Perrys and Spruances during the 70s and 80s.

The Mk 26s switched over to the SM-1 and 2 as well, so that part is roughly equal, but it leaves you without short ranged AAD. The Sea Sparrows provide that inner layer until the early 90s at least.

Modern (well 70s current) secondary and tertiary weapons, sensors, generators, switchboards etc. would reduce manning requirements, improve reliability etc. The object would be to upgrade several cruisers for the same capital outlay as a dozen FFGs, the hit would be in manning as the steam plants and 8" armament would still require more than modern ships.

But, for modern navies, it's the manning costs that are absolutely key to reduce.  Barring conscription, where you can pay the troops peanuts and provide minimal benefits, a volunteer navy is super expensive in personnel costs. Maintaining a ship with even 600-700 crew versus the 1150 of the WW2 versions, would be prohibitive and likely to cause the idea to never see the light of day. By the Mid 1970s, crew costs were the key expense to reduce in all volunteer navies. Notwithstanding how useful the Yanks found their BBs, it was crew costs that finally caused them to decommission them. They never got the crew numbers down low enough to make them viable.

But, of course, these are just my reasons for my WHIF on your idea. It's certainly your idea, I'm just watching and kibitzing. 

Paul

[Volkodav]

The Mk 13 had the same rate of fire as the Mk11 twin arm but required lower manning (fewer maintainers) and was much more reliable. 

Tartar was designed as a point defence weapon, the advent of Standard MR made the Tartar launchers compatible with the area defence role.

Raytheon developed an adaptor permitting the Sea Sparrow to be handled and fired by the Mk-13, though no navy adopted the arrangement (probably because the Mk-41 VLS was just around the corner).

The role of the modernised cruisers would be NGS, Flagships and cooperative defence, i.e. contributing sensors and missiles to a larger force through NTDS.

[tankmodeler]

The Mk 13 had the same rate of fire as the Mk11 twin arm but required lower manning (fewer maintainers) and was much more reliable. 

Did not know that. Thanks! Mk 13 it is, then. :)

Paul

[perttime]

Finland is getting some corvettes built. Some say you might as well call them frigates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pohjanmaa-class_corvette

"The class incorporates some major features including an ice class 1A-design. The flight deck, with its telescopic hangar can house either helicopters or UAVs.

The overall length of the Pohjanmaa-class corvettes is 105 m (344 ft), and the beam spans 15 m (49 ft). The ships displace about 3,000 tonnes (3,000 long tons; 3,300 short tons) at standard load and 3,300 tonnes (3,200 long tons; 3,600 short tons) when fully loaded. Each ship compliments a crew of 66–120.]

The corvettes are going to be armed with Bofors 57 mm guns, ESSM surface-to-air missiles, Gabriel surface-to-surface missiles, Torped 47 anti-submarine torpedoes, as well as sea mines.

The combat management system is going to be provided by either by Saab Electronic Defence Systems (9LV CMS), Atlas Elektronik (ANCS) or Lockheed Martin (CMS 330). Saab's system was shortlisted in April 2019."

Ministry of Defence rendering:

[dy031101]

An imagination of the fictional JS Isokaze from Japanese novel "Aimless Aegis".

The live-action movie adaptation uses the Kongo class destroyer Myoko, but the original is based on the Hatakaze class destroyer with a fictional impression of the FCS-3 system and Mk.41 VLS (in place of the ASROC launcher and ostensibly for RIM-156B capability; the novel was published in 1999) for theater ballistic missile defense role.

Questions:

The Isokaze's fictional FCS-3 is centered around the SPY-1D set, but I don't think the SPY-1D can be accommodated in that tower...... or can it?

And if not, what are the alternative for a BMD-mission-capable main radar?

(I was thinking of the combination of the SPY-1F and SMART-L, but the SPY-1F tower is probably large enough to get in the way of the SMART-L's forward search arc, too......)

[apophenia]

The weight and mechanical complexity of a rotating base seems an odd choice for mounting a phased-array radar. Why bother when that array can be electronically steered?

You're also asking that one phased-array panel to do the work of the four antennae of an Arleigh Burke class DDG. On the other hand, if that mount also 'wobbles', you could slightly increase the radar horizon of the AN/SPY-1.

[dy031101]

The weight and mechanical complexity of a rotating base seems an odd choice for mounting a phased-array radar. Why bother when that array can be electronically steered?

You're also asking that one phased-array panel to do the work of the four antennae of an Arleigh Burke class DDG. On the other hand, if that mount also 'wobbles', you could slightly increase the radar horizon of the AN/SPY-1.

I think the the picture was warped due to being on different pages of a book.

The rotating radar is actually the OPS-24.

The four SPY-1D panels are on the tower structure below the lattice mast...... with the forward-facing panel directly behind the second SPG-51......

[apophenia]

The four SPY-1D panels are on the tower structure below the lattice mast...... with the forward-facing panel directly behind the second SPG-51......

Doh! Of course they are 

[Old Wombat]

Wouldn't having the AN/SPG-51 in front of the forward-facing SPY-1D panel interfere with the performance of either or both?

[dy031101]

Wouldn't having the AN/SPG-51 in front of the forward-facing SPY-1D panel interfere with the performance of either or both?

That is another reason why I am not particularly convinced of the idea that the CG being in a workable state, in addition to me having doubts if the whole thing can be accommodated within that tower.  I'm not an expert on this, but even the installation used on the Spanish F100 class seems bigger.

There appears to be an AESA version of the SPY-1 called the SPY-1E that, according to Wikipedia, has the weight of antennae remaining the same (with, I think, the SPY-1D?) but weight below deck greatly reduced.  I think the attachment shows a single-faced demonstration unit.  I have no idea how it translates into size on an operational setup, however.

[Volkodav]

The weight and mechanical complexity of a rotating base seems an odd choice for mounting a phased-array radar. Why bother when that array can be electronically steered?

You're also asking that one phased-array panel to do the work of the four antennae of an Arleigh Burke class DDG. On the other hand, if that mount also 'wobbles', you could slightly increase the radar horizon of the AN/SPY-1.

Actually a few ships do have rotating phased arrays, usually either single arrays, or paired back to back arrays.  An example is Raytheon's SPY-6 which will be deployed in fixed arrays on Flight III Burkes, Ford Class CVNs, the New FFGs and retrofitted earlier Burkes but in a rotating version for the Flight II San Antonios.

[Volkodav]

SPY-1F is significantly smaller and lighter than SPY-1D.

[dy031101]

SPY-1F is significantly smaller and lighter than SPY-1D.

Well...... but the SPY-1F can't do BMD. 

(I reckon that it might still be able to provide uplink/downlink to the SM-2ER but would need a volume search radar capable of detecting and tracking the TBM, like the SMART-L.  While the SPY-1F installation aboard the Fridtjof Nansen class seems a bit on the big side, the planned configuration intended for MEKO 200 might lend itself a bit better for the combo on a larger ship.)

[Volkodav]

BDM is where a rotating Phased Array would be good, for a given weight you can have a much larger single array.

[dy031101]

BDM is where a rotating Phased Array would be good, for a given weight you can have a much larger single array.

Speaking of rotating phased array, I'm currently having an intellectual exercise involving the SAMPSON radar: pre-Aegis missile illumination sets have a limited search capability to make up for the lower resolution and target refresh rate of ship-borne primary search radars whereas the SPG-62 illumination sets for the Aegis system are purely devoted to terminal illumination due to the capability and the constant 360-degree coverage of the SPY-1.

Outside of the SPY-1, the SAMPSON is the only multi-function radar I can think of with some degree of demonstrated BMD capability, and the SAMPSON also does midcourse data uplink and operates on S-band.  But back to anti-aircraft role- if the Aegis combat system is to have a variant using the SAMPSON radar, would an illuminator with limited search capability be desirable?  Or would having no part of the sky lacking coverage for "more than one half second on average" (according to Wikipedia) be good enough for still using the SPG-62 illuminator?

[dy031101]

GQM-163 Coyote supersonic sea-skimming target drone.

Posted here because the launcher...... looks like a Talos launcher.

So- a warhead, a guidance package, on a Talos ship.

[ysi_maniac]

What if a HMS Belfast equipped with 2x2 14 inch torrets (KGV's narrow turret). A kind of British pocket/compact Battleship

[Volkodav]

When Dudley Pound was replaced by Andrew Cunningham, plans for a 5.25" future cruiser were replaced with a larger 6" future cruiser.  In th end, neither were built and the already under way Tigers became the last such ship completed for the RN, after an extensive redesign and very long delay.

What it the 5.25" design was continued and ordered?  There was a new mount (used on Vanguard), with full remote power control and a roomier gun house improving reliability and rate of fire (available from Shapeways). 

The smaller 5.25" design had the advantage of being cheaper, with a smaller crew, and closer to being ready to order than the Neptune and Minotaur 6" designs that followed, meaning it could have been laid down sooner and would have been more likely to have continued through to completion post war.  The 5.25" was also the basis for post war RN 5" guns designs, which evolved into 5" L70 designs intended to share ammunition with the USN (neither ended up adopting 5"L70) as the RN had adopted the USN 3" L70 calibre for the Vickers Mk6 twin mount. It is quite conceivable that the RN could adopt the 5" L54 as a replacement for the 5.25", 4.5" and 4.7" calibres, in twin and single mounts depending on application.

Several improved 5.25" light cruisers are laid down in the last years of the war and completed through the late 40s and early 50s.  A further improved design is developed for the proposed 5" L70 but receives a redesigned 5.25" twin mount, modified for the USN 5" L54 munition. The end result is a continual production of a light cruiser that approximates a USN DL (Destroyer Leader / Frigate) in size, this evolves into the RN Cruiser / Destroyer, then the RN DLG (SeaSlug), with earlier gun cruiser variants being converted into Tartar armed DLGs through the replacement of one or two of their four (or five) 5" twin mounts.  No effort is wasted on the gigantic guided missile cruisers, or even the Escort Cruisers, the Darings and Battles are sold off to other navies and the RN concentrates on building light cruisers / DLGs and ASW frigates to support their new build (modest) carrier fleet.

Flyhawk Dido, Shapeways Vanguard 5.25" gun houses (turned 5"54 brass barrels), PE radars and Mk13 from some of my Dragon 1/700 ship kits.  Cold War RN Tartar DLG, mix and match 1970s evolution with a 5" Vickers Mk8, Sea Dart, Ikara etc.

[Volkodav]

Came across some interesting info when I was researching the US Army jet fighter competition in the Nav Weapons Forums, I normally avoid that place as anyone not to the right of Genghis Khan is perceived to be an Leftard, but couldn't help myself and started reading other topics.  Anyway, while bypassing the white supremacist ranting of some posters, I came a cross a piece of delusional idiocy that I actually liked as a hypothetical or whiff, as opposed to the reimagining of history I think it was intended as, the DAC or Dreadnought Armoured Cruiser.

The poster was arguing that the DAC (actually existed as a classification and) was a separate and distinct type of warship to the Battlecruiser, and as such was not limited by the Washington Naval Treaty, therefore, any ship that fitted that category could be retained if desired.  What is a DAC, well apparently its the first generation Battlecruisers with their turbines and uniform main batterys of up to 12" calibre, i.e. the Invincible and Indefatigable classes as well as every completed German Battlecruiser, that was not a threat to Battlelines made up of Super Dreadnoughts and Fast Battleships, due to their thin(ner) armour.

Now lets slip into wiff as opposed to historical mode and say that when the Splendid Cats (the Lions) and the Fast Battleships (the Queen Elizabeth's) were ordered the RN reclassified the first two classes of Battlecruisers as DACs or even Armoured Cruisers, even just Large, or Heavy Cruisers.  This sort of makes sense as the Lions and Indefatigables were built concurrently, Australia and New Zealand actually being laid down after Lion and Princess Royal. 

The posters argument was that these ships obviously weren't a threat to battleships so should have been counted as cruisers and not required to be scrapped, irrelevant as they were seen as obsolete and would have disposed of, with or without the treaty.  However, extrapolating the reclassification of existing ships and the concurrent construction of the Indefatigables and the Lions, logically a follow on class or classes could have been built.  Oil fired, small tube boilers (32kt +), three or four 12" ( or 9.2", maybe 10" or 11") twin mounts super-firing fore and aft on the centerline, in effect mini Renown and Repluse or Hood.

As for the Washington Naval Treaty, it is decided that signatories decide if they want Battleships (and Cruisers up to 10k and 8" guns) or Armoured Cruisers (12" guns), they can't have both.  This is to enable smaller powers to adequately protect their trade routes from raiders (including the treaty compliant Heavy Cruisers of the Treaty Power), without them becoming a threat to the battle fleets of said powers.  The UK favours this change as it protects their shipbuilders, who can still sell their wares around the globe.