Key Points and Summary – The U.S. Navy’s Lexington-class battlecruisers were authorized in 1916 as America’s answer to the global naval arms race.
-These massive ships were designed to combine the 16-inch guns of a battleship with the speed of a cruiser, but at the cost of armor.
Alaska-Class U.S. Navy Cruiser. Image Credit: Creative Commons. Some also consider this a battlecrusier, although debated.
-Before the six-ship class could be completed, the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty was signed, mandating the cancellation of most capital ships under construction.
-The treaty, however, allowed two Lexington hulls (USS Lexington and USS Saratoga) to be converted.
-This forced move marked a pivotal turning point, as they became two of the U.S. Navy’s first and most important fleet aircraft carriers.
Meet the Lexington-Class: The U.S. Navy’s Lost Battlecruisers
The Iowa-class battleships served the U.S. Navy well during WWII. However, even back then, battleships had their fair share of flaws and were vulnerable to airborne attacks. Before the war, the U.S. briefly considered adopting a new class of battlecruisers, the Lexington-class, that could outgun most destroyers but were faster than battleships, making them ideal for most missions. As novel as this concept was, the Lexington-class never completed construction and were eventually transformed into aircraft carriers.
The Battlecruiser Concept
The origins of the Lexington-class battlecruisers can be traced to the Naval Act of 1916, passed by the U.S. Congress during World War I.
This legislation was a direct response to the naval arms race unfolding in Europe, especially between the United Kingdom and Germany—the act called for a significant expansion of the U.S. Navy, including the construction of six battlecruisers.
At the time, the concept of the battlecruiser was still relatively new, having been pioneered by the British Royal Navy with the launch of HMS Invincible in 1908.
Battlecruisers were designed to combine the heavy armament of battleships with the speed of cruisers, sacrificing armor protection to achieve greater velocity.
The U.S. Navy had closely studied the performance of battlecruisers during World War I, particularly at the Battle of Jutland in 1916.
This engagement highlighted both the strengths and weaknesses of the battlecruiser concept. While these ships could deliver devastating firepower and outrun slower opponents, their lighter armor made them vulnerable in prolonged engagements with battleships.
Despite these lessons, the U.S. recognized the strategic value of battlecruisers, especially for operations in the vast Pacific Ocean, where speed and range were essential.
Design and Construction
Design work on the Lexington-class began shortly after the war, and by 1919, the ships had evolved into some of the most formidable battlecruisers ever conceived.
They were designed to displace over 43,000 tons standard and more than 50,000 tons fully loaded. Measuring 874 feet in length, they were to be powered by an innovative turbo-electric propulsion system, which offered superior maneuverability and efficiency compared to traditional steam turbines.
Their armament was equally impressive, featuring eight 16-inch guns in four twin turrets, along with a suite of secondary and anti-aircraft weapons.
However, their armor was relatively light, with a belt thickness of seven inches and turret armor up to eleven inches, which was adequate for cruiser engagements but insufficient against battleship-caliber fire.
Construction of the six ships began in 1920. The ships were laid down at various shipyards, and work progressed steadily.
However, the post-war geopolitical landscape was shifting. The enormous cost of building and maintaining such large capital ships, combined with growing concerns about a renewed arms race, led to diplomatic efforts to curb naval expansion.
The Washington Naval Treaty and the End of the Battlecruiser
The final nail in the coffin came with the Washington Naval Conference of 1921–1922, which culminated in the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty.
This landmark agreement between the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, and Italy aimed to prevent another naval arms race by imposing strict limits on the number and size of capital ships each nation could possess.
The treaty mandated a ten-year moratorium on new battleship construction and required the cancellation of many ships already under construction. It also established tonnage limits for battleships and aircraft carriers, effectively aiming to reshape the future of naval warfare (Japan officially terminated the treaty in 1936).
Under the terms of the treaty, the United States was forced to cancel four of the six Lexington-class battlecruisers. Only Lexington (CC-1) and Saratoga (CC-3) were far enough along in construction to be considered for conversion rather than scrapping.
The treaty included a provision that allowed the conversion of existing hulls into aircraft carriers, a relatively new and untested concept at the time.
The U.S. Navy seized this opportunity, recognizing the potential of naval aviation and the strategic flexibility that aircraft carriers could offer.
From Battle Cruisers to Aircraft Carriers
The conversion of Lexington and Saratoga into aircraft carriers marked a turning point in naval history. The ships were extensively redesigned to support air operations, including the addition of flight decks, hangars, elevators, and aviation fuel storage.
They retained much of their original hull structure and propulsion systems, but their mission and capabilities were fundamentally transformed. The converted ships became USS Lexington (CV-2) and USS Saratoga (CV-3), two of the first fleet carriers in the U.S. Navy.
In retrospect, the Lexington-class battlecruisers were a transitional design, bridging the gap between the battleship-dominated fleets of the early 20th century and the carrier-centric navies of World War II and beyond.
Had they been completed as battlecruisers, they would have been among the most powerful ships of their time, capable of outgunning most cruisers and outrunning most battleships. However, their relatively light armor would have made them vulnerable in direct confrontations with heavily armed opponents, and their utility in a world increasingly dominated by aircraft would have been limited.
Many argue that the U.S. should have pushed for more battlecruisers, which would have performed better than traditional cruisers.
The battlecruisers certainly had a lot of potential, and they likely would have been more valuable and versatile than the Iowa-class battleships (incredible and iconic as they are).
USS Iowa Battleship Guns. Image Credit: National Security Journal.
Iowa-Class Battleship Guns 16-Inch, USS Iowa. Image Credit: National Security Journal.
However, in this case, the U.S. did not really have much of a choice. Under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty, the U.S. legally could not have built more battlecruisers if it wanted to.
By the time the treaty was nullified, aircraft carriers and submarines were a much larger industrial priority.
About the Author: Isaac Seitz
Isaac Seitz, a Defense Columnist, graduated from Patrick Henry College’s Strategic Intelligence and National Security program. He has also studied Russian at Middlebury Language Schools and has worked as an intelligence Analyst in the private sector.
More Military
The Air Force Only Has 19 B-2 Spirit Stealth Bombers
Why the U.S. Navy Needs Lasers for an ‘Infinite Magazine’
U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet Fighter: How Hard Is It To Fly?
Unstoppable: Delta Force Is the Very Best Special Forces Unit on Planet Earth
Could a U.S. Navy Nuclear Aircraft Carrier Tip Over In a Storm?
