AH Challenge: Royal Navy Reigns Supreme

[Hannibal.Caesar]

What is the best POD to keep the Royal Navy (the British one) "in command" of the high seas? Perhaps not at the level where it'd be an omnipotent force, but one where it is still regarded as the best navy in the world? Britwanks not allowed.

[larpsidekick]

Something to entirely cripple the USN without giving a hand up to any other Navy. Something around the Washington treaty?

Or there was a previous idea about countries in NATO becoming 'leads' on each arm (probably a bit ASB)- Britain takes the lead on the Navy, with the RN becoming preeminent in the world with US connivence.

[Mote]

You'd need to either keep the US part of Britain or permanently fragmented.

[MrP]

What is the best POD to keep the Royal Navy (the British one) "in command" of the high seas? Perhaps not at the level where it'd be an omnipotent force, but one where it is still regarded as the best navy in the world? Britwanks not allowed.

It isn't? :confused:

Silly patriotism aside here, honestly. Of course, it doesn't have the ships the USN does, but it has the personnel and training.

[larpsidekick]

It isn't? :confused:

Silly patriotism aside here, honestly. Of course, it doesn't have the ships the USN does, but it has the personnel and training.

In some areas (ASW, MCM) - absolutely class of the world. in other areas, where technology is probably more important to doctrine (AAW?), not quite as good as the USN and those navies that have bought their ships and tech (JMSDF) - although pretty damn hot. Littoral warfare (inc. amphibious) is another department that the RN is getting to the top of the pile.

The problem is that it isn't the preeminent navy in the world - too few ships at too poor a material state thanks to govt. underspending to be that.

[Typo]

Keep the US isolationist with a USN second to the RN. Keeping the World Wars mid-sized wars that doesn't hurt the Empire so much helps.

[zoomar]

(1) Do not abandon the Empire, so a tiny island off he northwest coast of Europe has reason to need a globe-spanning navy
(2) Focus on technological superiority, not raw numbers
(3) Focus of training and morale
(4) Maintain effective alliances with the US and other major naval powers so the RN's smaller fleet can focus in areas of particular concern

[David S Poepoe]

(1) Do not abandon the Empire, so a tiny island off he northwest coast of Europe has reason to need a globe-spanning navy
(2) Focus on technological superiority, not raw numbers
(3) Focus of training and morale
(4) Maintain effective alliances with the US and other major naval powers so the RN's smaller fleet can focus in areas of particular concern

The problem is that in many ways the Empire abandoned Britain. Unless one totally avoids the Second World War - or Britain sits it out in both theaters - there is no financial way for the British to continue.

In most instances technological superiority has to be linked to raw numbers. Its great to build a capable supersonic aircraft, but if nobody buys enough of them how are the companies going to stay in business?

I've heard it mentioned that it was a terrible error that the Luftwaffe wasn't more successful in bombing British industrial centers during the war. These factories survived and were important to the postwar revival but they were quite shortly obsolete and wasteful by the 1950s and became a burden and drain.

[zoomar]

The problem is that in many ways the Empire abandoned Britain. Unless one totally avoids the Second World War - or Britain sits it out in both theaters - there is no financial way for the British to continue.
.

You are correct, of course. This is why I listed this first. A PoD to have the RN remain the "ruler of the seas", has very little to do with the quality of men and ships a nation can assemble. Britain has absolutely no need for a world-class navy once the empire is gone...or was not replaced with a series of economic satellites such as the USA has

[Phoenix]

If the Labour Government of the early 60's wasn't so anti aircraft carriers, Britian would currently have a fleet of real large carriers.

A pair of CVA-01's in the Falklands would have meant no RAF assistance needed at all, and a quicker end to hostilities.

As well, the experience with these carriers in dealing with late colonial problems would probably give the RN a larger role in Whitehall.

An alternative idea would be if the UK provided very little ground forces in Germany, no British Army of the Rhine, for example, and focused on NATO naval matters. A vast amount of money would be freed up for ships and sailors.

[David S Poepoe]

I'll throw out some ideas in a multitude of postings as I think about them.

1. The Royal Navy retains control of the Royal Naval Air Service, rather than that branch being folded into the newly formed Royal Air Force.

2. King George V class completed with 12x14in guns. The decision to change the armour scheme forced designers to drop two 14in guns and then the design and development of a twin turret put the whole project behind schedule. The King George V and Prince of Wales would be completed with 12x14in guns and following Duke of York class mounts 9x16in guns - but the knockdown effect with the KGV class dominoes both the Duke of York and fatally delays the Lions.

3. The Revenge class is scrapped during the 1930s and the Vanguard, which originally was to be built for a revitalized Far East Fleet is fast tracked.

4. I'm a bit split on the British armoured carrier debate since they make sense from the context of their time. Perhaps the British experiment and build a few 'American' type carriers.

These have already been used in countless WIs and ATLs and will at least have the Royal Navy ending the war on a better footing. Newer ships may allow the RN to quickly transfer units to the Pacific so that larger force may be available.

[birdy]

I've heard it mentioned that it was a terrible error that the Luftwaffe wasn't more successful in bombing British industrial centers during the war. These factories survived and were important to the postwar revival but they were quite shortly obsolete and wasteful by the 1950s and became a burden and drain.

The UK did actually recieve about 25% of the entire Marshall Aid program so it should have been possible revamp British industry, however there was a great demand for a welfare state at the end of the war.

[CalBear]

You have to find a way to butterfly away the United States, or at least confine it to 1840 borders. Once you have a U.S. with two Oceans the USN IS going to grow, even under isolationists, simply to keep everyone else at arm's length.

[Phoenix]

You have to find a way to butterfly away the United States, or at least confine it to 1840 borders. Once you have a U.S. with two Oceans the USN IS going to grow, even under isolationists, simply to keep everyone else at arm's length.

Until the late 1890's, it was nothing but a coast defence force, with nothing but old monitors. If Teddy Roosevelt doesn't get to do his Great White Fleet, the USN could be stunted.

Also, if the USN never got a huge case of penis envy, then the RN would have reigned uncontested for a lot longer.

[wkwillis]

Induce the US not to build a navy by preemptively buying up our empire.
Have enough money to afford a navy. Mostly by avoiding WWI.

1. Help out the Chinese in the 1885 war with Japan. Japan doesn't start an empire.
2. Buy Hawaii from one of the native rulers. No US Pacific presence and less US pressure for a navy.
3. Buy Alaska from the Russians during 1865, and then discover gold early. US again has less presence in the Pacific.
4. Don't lend money to Germany to build a navy for WWI. Then you don't need to spend money building up your navy for WWI.
5. Make it clear to the French and Russians that you won't intervene against Germany in WWI. They stay on the defensive and do better in WWI.
6. Be aggressive about shrinking size of your navy by abandoning older ships. They aren't much good in modern war and cost too much money.
7. Persuade Spain to sell the Phillipines to Germany. Germany is less likely to fight a war with more colonies to lose and a smaller navy to protect them.
8. Help the French build an air force big enough to keep the Channel open, keeping Germany from blockading France in WWI.
9. Cut early deals with the French in the Pacific. Grab other colonies before the Germans get there, like Samoa, Polynesia, and NW New Guinea.
10. Buy Danish colonies like the Virgin Islands and Greenland. Greenland has minerals, so explore and find them.
11. Boycott Spanish sugar as an inducement for Spain to free Cuba. Avoiding an American empire and navy is important.
12. Annex Khuzestan from Iran during the Iranian war (1865). Don't drill for oil, though, to avoid other powers looking for oil of their own.
13. Build a railroad across Iran to enable Russia to get supplies through a British controlled port in WWI.
14. Encourage France to buy Italian support in 1914 with colonies. Threaten to cut off money. Early Italian entrance in WWI is key.

[Ward]

What if they had spent there mony better . The Ark Royal and Eagle when scraped were both under 20 years in service amd with a decent midlife rebuild they could of serviced on into the 1990's just like the Forestal class did . Instead they Refited some of the Older CV that had major war damage and they build the Tiger class Crusiers . They scraped CVL that were never finished that could of served for years .

[Advernt]

The easiest POD ( if you quantify Best as the most easy , not the most probable ) would be somewhere in the mid- late 18th or early 19th Century . Infact , simply having a British Empires seeking to integrate the Colonies closely and creating a Centralized Empire built on Federal grounds ( sounds like an oxymoron , but this is a balance) , and forstalling the American Revolution would be a good start . However , you need that POD to generate enough butterflies that the British Mindset actively seeks to integrate it's colonies with the homeland itself .

[Riain]

Immediately post WW2 the RN underwent a defence vs deterrence debate concerning it's strategic policy with regards to the SU and it's huge submarine programme. Defence was to have plenty of ASW ships in commision so that in the early days of WW3 the convoys could be defended. Deterrence was to have carriers and amphibious ships avaiable in numbers to attack these sub bases and deter them. The decision was made to opt for defence, so for about 10 years after WW2 the RN focused on ASW fighting. Over this decade it became clear that deterrence was more appropriate so by the mid 50s the carriers started to come into commision, but by then the damamge had been done. Britain was no longer the world power, not enough ready forces were available to strike at Egypt while the iron was hot in 1956, so Britian lost Suez and its world standing and the will to be a great power.

So my POD would be having deterrence winning that debate in the mid/late 40s. Get those big WW2 carriers and amphibs built, and playing a major role in Korea. Attacking Egypt within weeks of the crisis breaking with overwhelming naval power and keeping Britain a world power for a lot longer. Prolonging the Empire defence scheme of the 50s would help, with Commonwealth countires being partners with Britain in numerous naval projects to spread the cost. Keeping commitments such as with the 'Trucial States' would provide a role outside of NATO ASW for the RN. Cwertainly the RN would be tiny compared with the USN but it could keep abreast of developments and be seen as a most formidable opponent whenever it chose to appear.

[Jason]

Something to entirely cripple the USN without giving a hand up to any other Navy. Something around the Washington treaty?

Or there was a previous idea about countries in NATO becoming 'leads' on each arm (probably a bit ASB)- Britain takes the lead on the Navy, with the RN becoming preeminent in the world with US connivence.

How about a modified version of this where instead of committing three armoured divisions to the defence of Germany, the British army is tasked with acting at the 'rapid reinforced force' for Natos flanks-Norway, Denmark and Turkey. A strong navy with sufficient carriers is maintained to allow indepedent movement of the heavier elements of this force that can't be air-portable through potentially hostile war zones.

Perhaps also a greater perceived threat from Indonesia and a stronger UK desire to commit to the Five Powers Pact.

[Jukra]

How about a modified version of this where instead of committing three armoured divisions to the defence of Germany, the British army is tasked with acting at the 'rapid reinforced force' for Natos flanks-Norway, Denmark and Turkey. A strong navy with sufficient carriers is maintained to allow indepedent movement of the heavier elements of this force that can't be air-portable through potentially hostile war zones.

Perhaps also a greater perceived threat from Indonesia and a stronger UK desire to commit to the Five Powers Pact.

Sounds like the most realistic option as the commitment of light forces for reinforcing flanks has also the double effect of creating an intervention force usable for colonial affaits. This has to be implemented early on. Another problem is RAF and the decision to make the V-bombers the deterrence arm.

What we need is probably Churchill grasping the financial facts that UK cannot have a balanced force anymore and that in forthcoming era of hydrogen bombs deterrence is more important than actual warfighting, small wars excepted. Thus he takes a hint from the USN and decides early on that the RN carriers will be the ones carrying deterrence mission.

I think also a brutal reappraisal of British defense projects is needed. Apparently British armed forces during late 1940's to late 1950's thought they had the R&D budget of Second World War. So instead of hundreds of paper projects there would be a few projects which would be actually carried through.


So, by 1952 a following rough vision is made for British Armed Forces of the future:

RAF:

-Air superiority and air support for expeditionary operations
-Air Defense of United Kingdom using planes and organizations which can be also used in expeditionary warfare. Planes will be of joint type with FAA.
-Air transportation
-Provision of aerial tanker service

Army

-Provision of tripwire force in Germany (BBOR, British Brigade on Rhein)
-Provision of expeditionary corps mostly composed of light forces with mission of reinforcing NATO flanks and taking part in small wars. Strength of this expeditionary corps is one parachute division, two light infantry divisions and one armored division
-Colonial entanglements

RN:

-Carrying deterrence mission with carrier-mounted strike planes
-Provision of air support for expeditionary corps
-Provision of transportation and limited NGFS for expeditionary corps

[Andrew Hudson]

The divergence point would be either 1898 or 1902. In 1898 the Maine's ammunition is stored safely and there is no explosion and no intervention. Teddy Roosevelt never gets to raise the Rough Riders and there is no Great White Fleet and Britain does not exchange Heligoland for Zanzibar.

However there is still the danger of war in Europe so the Kaiser does not try to be build a navy that is seen as a threat by Britain and there is no entente cordiale. Britain remains neutral in World War 1 there is no World War 2 and no massive borrowing by Britain so a powerful navy is still feasible. However the United States and Japan may well build large navies and the two power standard would go as it had by around 1908 anyway. As there would be no naval arms race with Germany there would be a smaller Royal Navy but a sustainable one. Decolonisation would have to come and India would gain Dominion status possibly by force if Britain tried to hang on indefinately.

[Grey Wolf]

The divergence point would be either 1898 or 1902. In 1898 the Maine's ammunition is stored safely and there is no explosion and no intervention. Teddy Roosevelt never gets to raise the Rough Riders and there is no Great White Fleet and Britain does not exchange Heligoland for Zanzibar.

Not sure I follow the logic of the last statement as the treaty (1890) pre-dates the POD date you are suggesting

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Cockroach]

Get Germany to collapse early in WW2 (failed Blitzkrieg into France?) and the British economy isn't that damaged... and hence the poms are in a better position to modernise their fleet. If you can also find some excuse to keep the Japanese from starting a war in the Pacific you can probably also get the US to cut back on naval construction.

This will sucessfully maintain British numerical equality with the yanks for somewhat longer... Factoring in British naval tradition and the general high regard the RN (and affiliated dominon navies) was held in it would be quite possible to claim that the RN 'reigns supreme'.

[Andrew Hudson]

Not sure I follow the logic of the last statement as the treaty (1890) pre-dates the POD date you are suggesting

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

You're right however Britain could probably still remained the premier naval power without Heligoland but it was couldn't have survided the course of events that followed the entente cordialle. Two world war left Britain heavily in debt. No German naval challenge and Britain may have left Germany with a free hand on land

[David S Poepoe]

No German naval challenge and Britain may have left Germany with a free hand on land

Thats not going to work since it will only leave Germany dominate upon the continental and in a better economic position to challenge the British and in particular the Royal Navy.

[Calgacus]

Some factors are necessary.

First, that the US does not develop as large a navy - no US involvement in world wars should see to that. The US navy will end up one of the biggest - I think that must be pretty much inevitable, but not as big as OTL.

Second, that Britain remains financially pre-eminent, and industrially at least one of the top three. No World War One would work for this.

Third, that Germany does not constitute a serious threat to Britain's naval strength in home waters.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the best opportunity for ensuring no World War One, and for preventing an Anglo-German naval race is for Britain and Germany to ally in 1890 or 1891. Bismarck wanted an alliance, and saw Anglo-Russian rivalry over central Asia and the Dardanelles as a means to achieve this. Of course Britain instead allied with France and Russia (and subsequently Japan) in order to safeguard her Asian empire.

But it should certainly be possible to envisage an Anglo-German alliance. This would prevent a naval race, and would leave the two strongest industrial powers in a position of strength.

I'd imagine this would lead to war in any event - say Britain, Germany and Japan against France and Russia? The ATL rivalry would endanger India but should enable British naval dominance for at least the first half of the 20th century.

Any thoughts?

[Andrew Hudson]

The combination of the Royal Navy and German Army would dominate Europe. In August 1914 a few members of the Liberal government resigned over the war, it is alledged that John Burns said to another politician whilst on a traffic island that he thought Britain had backed the wrong side. With no naval challenge from the Kaiser Britain may have avoided any alliances with France or Russia. As it was Britain trained and sent naval advisors to Japan in the Russo Japanese war whilst France aided the Russians so it isn't far fetched. Britain and Japan could have come to an arrangement over Asia but India was only governeable through the assistance of Indians once the demand for independence grew, dominion status would have had to have been granted or there would be a long war of independence.

A divergence point may have been that Tirpitz was not made navy minister and Albert Ballin becomes managing director of Cunard

[David S Poepoe]

I think its far more realistic to look at a successful post-WWII British economy than try to work out an Anglo-German agreement which just really short changes Britain.

Perhaps the British keep an 'East of Suez' sort of mentality. They decide to keep an active naval base the strategic choke points of the world - much like the US kept Subic Bay in the Philippines. That should net them a base in: Hong Kong, Singapore, Tricomalee, Aden, Suez, Malta, Capetown, Jamaica, Halifax and Gibralter. Perhaps a regular port of call would be Kuwait.

[Calgacus]

I think its far more realistic to look at a successful post-WWII British economy than try to work out an Anglo-German agreement which just really short changes Britain.

Perhaps the British keep an 'East of Suez' sort of mentality. They decide to keep an active naval base the strategic choke points of the world - much like the US kept Subic Bay in the Philippines. That should net them a base in: Hong Kong, Singapore, Tricomalee, Aden, Suez, Malta, Capetown, Jamaica, Halifax and Gibralter. Perhaps a regular port of call would be Kuwait.

I'd say an Anglo-German agreement which was actually countenanced by statesmen and member of the public in the 1890s is more realistic than Britain performing much better post-WW2. Not to say that economic performance mightn't have been better - just that I doubt it could have been that much better.

Are you presuming a Tory victory in 1945 scenario?

[Jukra]

I'd say an Anglo-German agreement which was actually countenanced by statesmen and member of the public in the 1890s is more realistic than Britain performing much better post-WW2. Not to say that economic performance mightn't have been better - just that I doubt it could have been that much better.

Britain invested massive amounts of money for her defense during the Cold War but much of it was squandered away. I think that with more effective management of R&D projects and procurement plus setting of realistic strategic goals the RN could well stay the No 2 Navy. In any case, the RAF must die.

[abc123]

I think its far more realistic to look at a successful post-WWII British economy than try to work out an Anglo-German agreement which just really short changes Britain.

Perhaps the British keep an 'East of Suez' sort of mentality. They decide to keep an active naval base the strategic choke points of the world - much like the US kept Subic Bay in the Philippines. That should net them a base in: Hong Kong, Singapore, Tricomalee, Aden, Suez, Malta, Capetown, Jamaica, Halifax and Gibralter. Perhaps a regular port of call would be Kuwait.

A sterling idea.
Except that, Britain in 1929. not refuses to give a credit for establishment of oil prospecting company in Saudi Arabia, and all that oil goes to the Britain, not the USA.
:D

[David S Poepoe]

A sterling idea.
Except that, Britain in 1929. not refuses to give a credit for establishment of oil prospecting company in Saudi Arabia, and all that oil goes to the Britain, not the USA.
:D

Necromancer!!!

[abc123]

A sterling idea.
Except that, Britain in 1929. not refuses to give a credit for establishment of oil prospecting company in Saudi Arabia, and all that oil goes to the Britain, not the USA.
:D


No, seriosly, I recently took little time, and calculated.
With ONLY 3,5% of GDP for defense, UK could have Royal Navy as a second in world, with 5 carriers, 5 cruisres, 18 SSN, 18 destroyers...
;)

And a relativly strong Army and RAF too.

[TheNordicBrit]

I think it generally comes down to a few things.

Firstly and probably the best one is to have the USA never come into existence. I don't mean the Americans losing the ARW, but I mean afterwards have them split and not form a nation. The main naval American Republic would be New England which couldn't really face off the Royal Navy.

Or if the USA is formed then keep them at their original borders/1812 borders, only give them one coast (and preferably no New Orleans).

Also it'd be helpful if you could somehow keep both 'Germany' and 'Italy' disunited. Thus there's really only France and Russia to watch out for in Europe. While in the East make friends with Japan, this would allow for a decent check on Russian power and also would allow Britain to be allies with another nation that's likely to have a large navy.

Though after 1900 avoid the First World War and keep the US isolationist.

[Atlantic Friend]

How about: no WW1.

Britain keeps building dreadnoughts, then modern battleships, and sees little need for a large Army. The RN is still seen as "the gun" tasked with "shooting" a small expeditionary corps wherever needed.

[stevep]

Guys

It's pretty difficult to see the RN being larger than the USN without something that really buggers the US. Possibly but pretty damned unlikely for a variety of reasons.

However I think that Britain could still have been a viable No. 2. Could have had a lot of ways to change this even after WWI. Could include:

a) As suggested avoiding the RAF and having the RN keep it's experts in aviation.

b) Ideally no Washington Treaty and keep the alliance with Japan. The former should overall improve the position of the navy dramatically and the latter greatly reduces the danger of a Pacific war.

c) With a more modern fleet and economy then if WWII still comes Britain has a better chance of coming out less exhausted.

d) If you can't get any changes before then, post WWII the best bet, although it would be politically impossible would be to drastically reduce the BAOR and put the resources into the RN, enabling it to both maintain multiple roles but also, possibly more importantly, the industrial and technical infrastructure to maintain it.

I think the key points to maintain a properly balanced and more powerful fleet are to have a stronger economy and maintain the will to support the fleet. The latter is possibly the most important factor of all. As such the best single POD might be a much shorter and less costly WWI. Not only would it have a big bonus economically and in human terms but there wouldn't be the loss of self-belief that seems to have done such damage since then.

Steve

[redcoatT]

b) Ideally no Washington Treaty and keep the alliance with Japan. The former should overall improve the position of the navy dramatically and the latter greatly reduces the danger of a Pacific war.

It was the UK which pushed for the Washington treaty as even in this period the British couldn't afford a naval building race with the USA.

[Commissar]

The big problem is racism. Have an enlightened Government that actually develops the Empire, promotes without regard to class or ethnicity, and separates the Monarchy from the Church.

A British Commonwealth with an industrialized Indian Dominion would be the dominant Hyperpower in the World. Not even the U.S. would be able to beat it in a straight up fight.

It is a theoretical possibility and thus not a Britwank, but the devil is in the details.

[Douglas]

I actually think it's possible. The problem isn't in reducing the navies of continental powers; most rulers will eventually realize that an extra couple of divisions is worth more than a battleship, and even those that don't will be succeeded by those who do.

I think the most difficult thing is going to be trying to keep the United States so unaware of its geopolitical power that it doesn't realize that by the midpoint of the century it can build the world's biggest navy without trying very hard.

[archaeogeek]

The big problem is racism. Have an enlightened Government that actually develops the Empire, promotes without regard to class or ethnicity, and separates the Monarchy from the Church.

A British Commonwealth with an industrialized Indian Dominion would be the dominant Hyperpower in the World. Not even the U.S. would be able to beat it in a straight up fight.

It is a theoretical possibility and thus not a Britwank, but the devil is in the details.

No, it's only a theoretical possibility for britwankers. It would require generalized lobotomy of the political and colonial leadership and of part of the indian population for it to even work, or a sudden upsurge in socialism in the empire leading to the United Socialist Soviet Commonwealths and it staying together: retaining India would lead to a situation similar to 18th century Portugal where the effective situation is that the dominant force in the Empire is now the colony. Assuming the Indians don't get fed up first.

[stevep]

It was the UK which pushed for the Washington treaty as even in this period the British couldn't afford a naval building race with the USA.

redcoatT

There were elements in Britain that wanted an agreement to avoid either a naval race or a war. There were even more substantial elements in the US who wanted a deal because they knew the hostility of much of their electors to the existing USN programme.

More to the point, just because some British politicians wanted a naval treaty, one which the details of which the navy objected too strongly, doesn't mean they were right. I admit to having the advantage of hindsight but I would argue that, while nothing is certain with butterflies, Britain would have been better off without the treaty and especially with a continuation of the alliance with Japan.

Steve

[stevep]

No, seriosly, I recently took little time, and calculated.
With ONLY 3,5% of GDP for defense, UK could have Royal Navy as a second in world, with 5 carriers, 5 cruisres, 18 SSN, 18 destroyers...
;)

And a relativly strong Army and RAF too.

abc123

Missed this initially but interesting. I would prefer a few more DDs but that's a hell of a force compared to what we have now. Does the SSN's include any SSBNs?

Is that on basically OTL spending and organisation or presuming some clear out of the dead-wood and waste that infects Britain, both governmental and in our private 'industries'?

Steve

[abc123]

abc123

Missed this initially but interesting. I would prefer a few more DDs but that's a hell of a force compared to what we have now. Does the SSN's include any SSBNs?

Is that on basically OTL spending and organisation or presuming some clear out of the dead-wood and waste that infects Britain, both governmental and in our private 'industries'?

Steve

Well, I and a friend ( both fans of military stuff ) were working on a project of RN and a RAF for UK, with current GDP, and a 3,5 % defence spending. And it shows that UK has not enogug money, they have more than enough money.

SSN does not include 7 SSBN-s.

So:
- 5 70 000 tons aircraft carriers
- 6 15 000 tons light cruisers
- 18 Astute class SSN
- 7 Vanguard class SSBN
- 18 Arleigh Burke class destroyers
- 30 Valour class frigates
- 5 Mistral class LHD
- 10 Foudre class LPD
etc...

Perfectly possible.
If you dont trust me, do your math alone, so you will see.
;)

[archaeogeek]

Well, I and a friend ( both fans of military stuff ) were working on a project of RN and a RAF for UK, with current GDP, and a 3,5 % defence spending. And it shows that UK has not enogug money, they have more than enough money.

SSN does not include 7 SSBN-s.

So:
- 5 70 000 tons aircraft carriers
- 6 15 000 tons light cruisers
- 18 Astute class SSN
- 7 Vanguard class SSBN
- 18 Arleigh Burke class destroyers
- 30 Valour class frigates
- 5 Mistral class LHD
- 10 Foudre class LPD
etc...

Perfectly possible.
If you dont trust me, do your math alone, so you will see.
;)

Looks lovely (nowhere near hegemonic but still imposing; of course with that kind of buildup I suspect the other major powers would also ramp up), but do operating costs include costs to effectively operate bases and auxiliary naval services in your math? (Did you also sacrifice the army and airforce for that fleet? :p )

[abc123]

Looks lovely (nowhere near hegemonic but still imposing; of course with that kind of buildup I suspect the other major powers would also ramp up), but do operating costs include costs to effectively operate bases and auxiliary naval services in your math? (Did you also sacrifice the army and airforce for that fleet? :p )

Yes, evreything is more-less included, bases, operating expenses etc.

Army and RAF are OTL or even a slightly stronger than OTL.
;)

Just take this number: GDP of UK is about 2200 billion USD.
3,5% of that is about 77 billion USD of defense budget per year.
Let's say that for new equipment goes about 22% of 77 billions. That's about 17 billion USD per year. Lets multiply that with about 30 years of duration of equipment on average, that is about 510 billion USD for neq equipment.
Then you can calculate.
;)

[KillerT]

5 70 000 tons aircraft carriers
- 6 15 000 tons light cruisers
- 18 Astute class SSN
- 7 Vanguard class SSBN
- 18 Arleigh Burke class destroyers
- 30 Valour class frigates
- 5 Mistral class LHD
- 10 Foudre class LPD

err a few points if I may. 70KT carriers-well nice but where to base and how to man them? That assumes a Fleet Air Arm with around 1000 aircraft (around 400 strike fighters would be needed, couple hundred trainers, 100 or so AEW and so on). Thats just not feasible-plus no port faciilities are currently big enough-however lets go with what you're working with.

Each Astute is around a billion plus and they take time to build and you've not shown the legacy systems either-in this navy you would have had around 14 Trafalgar class built in the 80s and 90s, perhaps a small batch of W class-these were the initially proposed and then cancelled subs replaced by the Astutes. You would also still have the Upholder class of SSK (12 were planned only 4 built and then sold to Canada).

Why build Arleigh Burkes? The Sampson radar is first class and the D class had they been given the Mk141 VLS (which they have scope for) would have further enhanced them possibly with Cruise and other systems), Valour frigates-fine ships for what they do-but NOT what the RN does, Foudre class-why? Even the Froggies are getting shot of them. Mistral class are sexy enough but I do wonder...


At its tech/strength peak in the 60s the RN had following:
2 Ark class fleet carriers (each with 12 Sea Vixen and 14 Buccaneer, 4 Gannet AEW, 1 Gannet COD, 6 helicopters)
2 Centaur class carriers (each with 9 Sea Vixen, 9 Buccaneer, 3 Gannet, 6 helicopters)
1 Victorious class (similiar to Centaur airgroup)
2 Commando carriers (Albion and Bulwark each with 20 helicopters and a RM Commando)

3 Tiger class cruisers (under mod to carry 4 helicopters)
several older armoured cruisers (by 1968 only Belfast left)
1 minelayer cruiser (Manxman)

100 escorts (County class are only ones with long range guided missiles -Sea Slug, rest have mainly gun and torpedo armament, plus Limbo AS mortars, Sea Cat SAM on many frigates), Leander class is building, Type 21 and 22 on drawing board with the cancelllation of the Type 19 frigate.

100 mine warfare-several converted to other uses such as survey and training.

2 brand new LPD's (Fearless and Intrepid)

6 brand new LSL's in the RFA (although operated for the Army)

6 Fleet submarines (Dreadnought, Valiant class (2 boats), Churchill class (3 boats) -Swiftsure class in drawing office.)

over 30 patrol submarines- Oberon class (newest and very capable boats), Porpoise class and the older A and T classes.

IF we had continued with that kind of level, and IF there had been no sterling crisis and IF there had been no problems such as Suez, Duncan Sandys and the Wilson government then lets assume RN in the 1980s could have been,

5x 50KT carriers (CVA01 and variants) each with up to 40 fixed wing strike fighters, half dozen helicopters.
6x15KT light ASW carriers (as was planned) each with up to a dozen helicopters-although with arms reduction from 1991 perhaps these get axed.
24 AD ships (call them destroyers or cruisers if you want) -mix of Type 43 and 44 ships that replaced the Bristol and County class ships.
70 plus AS and GP frigates (Type 22's, 23's and 24's)-with Defence cuts ineviatbly lose some of these
40 plus patrol and training vessels
50 plus MW vessels (Hunts, Sandowns and others)
40 subs (4 SSBN, 24 SSN (Swiftsures, Trafalgars, new Astutes, 12 SSK (Upholders)
3 commando carriers (enhanced Ocean style ships)
3 LPD's -the Albion class-very capable ships
6 LSD -the Bay class but given to the RN
20 plus survey ships and vessels

RM have 2 brigades (there were to have been 2 brigades and at one point we did have 5 RM commando units-41 Commando went in 1981-in my scenario there are 6 commandos, 2 HQ units, 2 assault regts, 2 logistics regts, and 95 Commando RA never went), SBS is also larger.

Fleet Air Arm operates 12 fast jet squadrons including training and trials units each with around 12-16 aircraft, training larger. also 4 fast jet trainer squadrons (as they had up to 1970), several AEW sqdns , several helicopter squadrons and the like. So thats around 140 Merlin ASW, 35 Merlin combat rescue (3 squadrons), 75 Merlin Commando (6 squadrons), 155 Lynx, 150 Sea Hawk (Hawk 100/T45 hybrid), 100 AEW, 300 strike fighter (Typhoon?), 100 other aircraft (basic trainers and utility types). (Oh and there's a heck of a problem crewing that lot)

RFA would need around 60 ships (1 air training, 4 casualty reception shios, 4 damage repair, 12 fleet tankers, 12 support tankers, 12 multi role cargo and tanker ships, 12 small fleet support ships, a good half dozen cargo ships)

My RN however does reasonably match what we did have in the 60s but with a quantum leap in capability.

[abc123]

5 70 000 tons aircraft carriers
- 6 15 000 tons light cruisers
- 18 Astute class SSN
- 7 Vanguard class SSBN
- 18 Arleigh Burke class destroyers
- 30 Valour class frigates
- 5 Mistral class LHD
- 10 Foudre class LPD

err a few points if I may. 70KT carriers-well nice but where to base and how to man them? That assumes a Fleet Air Arm with around 1000 aircraft (around 400 strike fighters would be needed, couple hundred trainers, 100 or so AEW and so on). Thats just not feasible-plus no port faciilities are currently big enough-however lets go with what you're working with.

Each Astute is around a billion plus and they take time to build and you've not shown the legacy systems either-in this navy you would have had around 14 Trafalgar class built in the 80s and 90s, perhaps a small batch of W class-these were the initially proposed and then cancelled subs replaced by the Astutes. You would also still have the Upholder class of SSK (12 were planned only 4 built and then sold to Canada).

Why build Arleigh Burkes? The Sampson radar is first class and the D class had they been given the Mk141 VLS (which they have scope for) would have further enhanced them possibly with Cruise and other systems), Valour frigates-fine ships for what they do-but NOT what the RN does, Foudre class-why? Even the Froggies are getting shot of them. Mistral class are sexy enough but I do wonder...


At its tech/strength peak in the 60s the RN had following:
2 Ark class fleet carriers (each with 12 Sea Vixen and 14 Buccaneer, 4 Gannet AEW, 1 Gannet COD, 6 helicopters)
2 Centaur class carriers (each with 9 Sea Vixen, 9 Buccaneer, 3 Gannet, 6 helicopters)
1 Victorious class (similiar to Centaur airgroup)
2 Commando carriers (Albion and Bulwark each with 20 helicopters and a RM Commando)

3 Tiger class cruisers (under mod to carry 4 helicopters)
several older armoured cruisers (by 1968 only Belfast left)
1 minelayer cruiser (Manxman)

100 escorts (County class are only ones with long range guided missiles -Sea Slug, rest have mainly gun and torpedo armament, plus Limbo AS mortars, Sea Cat SAM on many frigates), Leander class is building, Type 21 and 22 on drawing board with the cancelllation of the Type 19 frigate.

100 mine warfare-several converted to other uses such as survey and training.

2 brand new LPD's (Fearless and Intrepid)

6 brand new LSL's in the RFA (although operated for the Army)

6 Fleet submarines (Dreadnought, Valiant class (2 boats), Churchill class (3 boats) -Swiftsure class in drawing office.)

over 30 patrol submarines- Oberon class (newest and very capable boats), Porpoise class and the older A and T classes.

IF we had continued with that kind of level, and IF there had been no sterling crisis and IF there had been no problems such as Suez, Duncan Sandys and the Wilson government then lets assume RN in the 1980s could have been,

5x 50KT carriers (CVA01 and variants) each with up to 40 fixed wing strike fighters, half dozen helicopters.
6x15KT light ASW carriers (as was planned) each with up to a dozen helicopters-although with arms reduction from 1991 perhaps these get axed.
24 AD ships (call them destroyers or cruisers if you want) -mix of Type 43 and 44 ships that replaced the Bristol and County class ships.
70 plus AS and GP frigates (Type 22's, 23's and 24's)-with Defence cuts ineviatbly lose some of these
40 plus patrol and training vessels
50 plus MW vessels (Hunts, Sandowns and others)
40 subs (4 SSBN, 24 SSN (Swiftsures, Trafalgars, new Astutes, 12 SSK (Upholders)
3 commando carriers (enhanced Ocean style ships)
3 LPD's -the Albion class-very capable ships
6 LSD -the Bay class but given to the RN
20 plus survey ships and vessels

RM have 2 brigades (there were to have been 2 brigades and at one point we did have 5 RM commando units-41 Commando went in 1981-in my scenario there are 6 commandos, 2 HQ units, 2 assault regts, 2 logistics regts, and 95 Commando RA never went), SBS is also larger.

Fleet Air Arm operates 12 fast jet squadrons including training and trials units each with around 12-16 aircraft, training larger. also 4 fast jet trainer squadrons (as they had up to 1970), several AEW sqdns , several helicopter squadrons and the like. So thats around 140 Merlin ASW, 35 Merlin combat rescue (3 squadrons), 75 Merlin Commando (6 squadrons), 155 Lynx, 150 Sea Hawk (Hawk 100/T45 hybrid), 100 AEW, 300 strike fighter (Typhoon?), 100 other aircraft (basic trainers and utility types). (Oh and there's a heck of a problem crewing that lot)

RFA would need around 60 ships (1 air training, 4 casualty reception shios, 4 damage repair, 12 fleet tankers, 12 support tankers, 12 multi role cargo and tanker ships, 12 small fleet support ships, a good half dozen cargo ships)

My RN however does reasonably match what we did have in the 60s but with a quantum leap in capability.


Look, my English isn't good enough to debate here with you, but be sure, we counted evreything.
Example, we counted price of 1 Astute as 2 billions USD. We counted price of 1 CVN as 6 billion USD. We counted that one CBG has about 36- 48 fighter aircraft ( 100 millions USD per piece ), 4 AEW ( Hawkeye, 300 millions per piece ), 1 Greyhound and 3 ASW Merlin and 3 SAR Merlin.
;)

[KillerT]

the trouble is that when you 'buy' an aircraft you aren't just acquiring an individual aircraft. You're also buying spare systems and engines, any training needed and lots of other infrastructure-thats why it always works out that US aircraft are cheaper as they get the economies of scale. This economy of scale is why the D class are as expensive as they are-and believe me they are world beating which is why I wouldn't bother with the Arleigh Burke class.

[abc123]

the trouble is that when you 'buy' an aircraft you aren't just acquiring an individual aircraft. You're also buying spare systems and engines, any training needed and lots of other infrastructure-thats why it always works out that US aircraft are cheaper as they get the economies of scale. This economy of scale is why the D class are as expensive as they are-and believe me they are world beating which is why I wouldn't bother with the Arleigh Burke class.

Sorry my friend, Daring class is not a world beater, except as a epic fail...

About aircraft, wich modern aircraft ( except 5. generation ) costs more than 100 milions USD with all the support needed?

F-18 E/F?
EF-2000?
Rafale?
Su-33?

And, if they ( UK aerospace industry ) can not make same fighter aircraft for FAA 8 about 250- 300 aircrafts ) and RAF ( about 250- 300 aircrafts ) with overall price lower than 100 million USD/piece, they should be closed, and Super Hornet ordered.
;)