AHC: Strong post-war Royal Navy?

Riain

Banned
If the Type 82 was predicted to need 325 with COSAG, going GOGAG could save as many as 25, but might only save 13-14.
But assuming it's 25 for the moment, that 100 per 4 ships, or 150 for 6. Enough to crew a light frigate.

If the availability rate rises as per the all GT ships of later years OTL...this means you only need 10 instead of 13.
Or 975 personnel for the three not needed plus 250 (10 by 25) from each ship. That's a reduction of 1,225....or 4 Type 42's with some spare people left over ....

Have we found that rarest of beasts: a panacea?
 
And the cold-start ability on top of the manning reductions cannot be underestimated either. Being able to surge the fleet out of port with little warning is going to be very attractive to the RN in an all-in Nuclear War scenario with the Soviet Union.
 

Zen9

Banned
What would further help this scenario, is the existence of an extent SAM system superior to Sea Cat and automatic to keep manning requirements down....
That would be Popsy, Mopsy Q-band Tartar and Orange Nell or PT.428 (this latter shared with the Army).

Mopsy or Orange Nell or Q-band Tartar could be entering service well ahead of SIGS and be a known cost. Which could only improve with more orders.....

However they would exert a negative influence on the need for SIGS. In essence you don't need SIGS if you have these alternatives.
Which would concentrate minds on making the ramjet missile a true area defence weapon.
 
Last edited:

Riain

Banned
@Zen9 the stories of these missiles are very confusing to me, is it possible to put together a table of these things?

Name development started development cancelled service date launcher speed range
Sea Cat 1958 1962 quad M 0.8 5km
Sea Dart 1962 1973 twin M 3 70km
Orange Nell 1954 1958? M 1.1? 9km
PT.428 1962?
 

Zen9

Banned
@Zen9 the stories of these missiles are very confusing to me, is it possible to put together a table of these things?

Name development started development cancelled service date launcher speed range
Sea Cat 1958 1962 quad M 0.8 5km
Sea Dart 1962 1973 twin M 3 70km
Orange Nell 1954 1958? M 1.1? 9km
PT.428 1962?
I'm trying to fill that in now. But it's when I can get time to add in bits to the post to make it comprehensive.
 
So I think this all proves that GTs would save not only on crew numbers but due to increased availability perhaps a 10-20% reduction in actual hulls

And given that one of the largest costs for the fleet is wages and cost of keeping them in food and rum etc getting the Navy to go GT earlier definitely fulfills the OPs request to improve the RN in just that respect alone.
 

Zen9

Banned
So I think this all proves that GTs would save not only on crew numbers but due to increased availability perhaps a 10-20% reduction in actual hulls

And given that one of the largest costs for the fleet is wages and cost of keeping them in food and rum etc getting the Navy to go GT earlier definitely fulfills the OPs request to improve the RN in just that respect alone.

During the study phase, it becomes increasingly clear that personnel are key to giving a modern warship capability. That as much as electronics and component accessibility is driving ship size upwards.
 
http://www.ww2.dk/new/navy/aviation divisions.htm

3 divisions of maritime bombers , each with 2 Rgts of ~ 20 jets plus several support EW jets.

5th Division with 924 Regiment & 987 Regiment
25th Division with 49 Regiment & 169 Regiment
143th Division with 568 Regiment & 570 Regiment.

In short the 1970s threat should be 6 x 20 TU-16 MPB each with 1-3 AShM

In short the 1980s threat should be 6 x 20 TU-22M2 'Backfire Bomber' each with 1-3 AShM
 
OTL

Metropolitan Vickers received its first contract for a marine gas turbine in 1943.

MGB2009 was fitted with one Metrovick G.1 Gatric, but it's unclear whether trials began in 1945 or 1947. AFAIK this was based on the Company's F.2 jet engine. According to Navypaedia she now produced 5,200 shp, but it is unclear if that is the G.1 alone or in combination with the 2 Paxman diesels.

Next were the Bold class fast attack craft, Bold Pioneer and Bold Pathfinder. According to Navypaedia, both were laid down in 1950, launched in 1951 and completed in 1953. They initially they had 2 Metrovick G.2 gas turbines and two Mercedes diesels, but the latter were replaced by a pair of Delitcs. AFAIK the G.2 was also based on the Metrovick F.2 gas turbine. According to Navypaedia the G.2 produced 4,500 shp.

Back in 1946 it appears that English Electric and Rolls Royce were both awarded contracts for marine gas turbines. The resulting EL60 and RM60 seem to have been in the 6,000 shp class.

The RM60 was fitted to the steam gunboat Grey Goose and trials seem to have taken place between 1952 and 1956. Although the trials were successful the RM60 did not become an operational engine.

Meanwhile plans to fit the EL60 to the frigate Hotham were abandoned in 1952 because of problems with the prototype ashore.

2 Brave class fast attack craft were launched in 1958 and completed in 1960. They used 3 Bristol Proteus gas turbines producing 3,500 each.

Next we have the 7 Type 81 frigates laid down 1958-60 and completed 1961-64 and the 8 County class destroyers laid down 1959-66 and completed 1962-70. Both had combined steam and gas (COSAG) machinery. The gas was provided by the G.6 gas turbine producing 7,500 shp, but it was built by AEI, not Metrovick.

The Type 14 frigate Exmouth was taken in hand for gas turbine trials in 1966. She was fitted with an Olympus rated at 15,000 shp and two Proteus engines rated at 3,500 shp each. The arrangement was called Combined Gas on Gas (COGOG) because the Olympus and Proteus engines could not be run at the same time. She rejoined the fleet in 1968.

TTL

The trials of the G.1 aboard MGB2009 and the G.2 aboard the Bold class continue as OTL.

However, Metrovick receives a contract to develop a marine version of its F.9 Sapphire engine in 1946 in place of the OTL contract awarded to Rolls Royce. Trials of the Marine Sapphire take place on Grey Goose 1952-56.

In 1946 Bristol receives contracts to develop marine versions of the Proteus and BE.10 Olympus in place of the contract awarded to English Electric.

A pair of fast attack craft fitted with three Proteus engines is ordered from Vosper at the same time as the Bold class for competitive trials. These ships are effectively the Brave class brought forward about 10 years. The two prototype Proteus boats were successful enough for 18 production boats to be built instead of the OTL Dark class, which had Deltic diesels.

HMS Hotham or another suitable ship was fitted with one Olympus and two Proteus engines. Trials began in 1953. These were effectively the Exmouth trials brought forward 15 years.

By about 1955 the results of the trials being conducted by Grey Goose and Hotham were successful enough for the Admiralty to decide to build a fast frigate with COGOG machinery. Full power was to be provided by either two Olympus or Sapphire engines up-rated to about 25,000shp. The cruising engines were to be marine versions of the Bristol Orion (first run 1956) or Rolls Royce Tyne (first run 1955).

The winners were the Bristol Olympus and RR Tyne. The research and development was paid for with the money spent on the G.6 IOTL.

A grand total of 42 Type 20 frigates were built for the Royal Navy in place of the OTL Rothesay, Tribal and Leander classes. Type 20 was effectively a gas turbine powered Leander because it carried the same armament and sensors. All other things being equal 9 would be exported (2 Chile, 3 SAN and RNZN), while the Dutch and Indians would build 6 each in their own yards. However, I'm not sure if the Australians would build 2 in place of their final pair of Type 12s.

The TTL County class would still have COSAG machinery, but the quartet of G.6 gas turbines would be replaced by a pair of Olympus engines.

Note
Some of the OTL dates may not be 100% accurate.
IOTL the Australians didn't lay down their first Type 12 until 1957.

Therefore ITTL I think that there's time for the Australian Government to cancel the entire class in favour of the British Olympus-Type COGOG frigate.

However, they then decide to build an enlarged version armed with the Tatar missile fired from a 40-round Mk 13 GMLS with 2 SPG-51 radars to guide it.

This is effectively the Australian Light Destroyer (DDL) project of the 1970s brought forward to the 1960s. The main difference apart from the 1960s electronics would be an American 5in Mk 42 or British twin 4.5" Mk 6 in A position instead of the 5" Mk 45 planned IOTL.

ITTL 9 Light Destroyers were built in place of the 6 Type 12s built in Australia and the 3 Adams class bought from the Americans IOTL. Another 3 would be built in the first half of the 1970s to replace the 3 Australian Darings.

This would give the RAN a homogenous force of 12 Light Destroyers in 1975.

This would butterfly away the 4 Perry class that the RAN bought from the USA. The money spent on them IOTL might be used to buy a replacement for Melbourne or 4 additional Oberon class submarines.

*************************************************************************************************************************​

Earlier in the thread I suggest that the British build a Terrier/Standard ER armed version of the County class in the 1960s. The missiles, launcher, magazine, radars and electronics would have been built in the UK under licence.

Now I'm going to suggest that the British build a Tatar armed destroyer with Olympus Type COGOG machinery in the 1960s.

It would effectively be the long-hull version of the Type 42 armed with Tatar instead of Sea Dart, a twin 4.5" Mk 6 turret in A position and 1960s electronics. Though the single 4.5" Mk 8 could probably have been invented earlier had there been a requirement for it earlier.

50 would be built for the Royal Navy. These would consist of: 8 instead of the County class; 9 instead of the Rothesay class; 7 instead of the Tribal class; and 26 instead of the Leander class.

Thus the RN of the early 1970s would have had a "frigoyer" force of 76 ships consisting of 50 Light Destroyers and 26 frigates (6 Type 12, 12 Type 14, 4 Type 41 and 4 Type 61).
 
Now I'm going to suggest that the British build a Tatar armed destroyer with Olympus Type COGOG machinery in the 1960s.

...

50 would be built for the Royal Navy. These would consist of: 8 instead of the County class; 9 instead of the Rothesay class; 7 instead of the Tribal class; and 26 instead of the Leander class.

This has implications outside the RN. The Rothesay's and Leanders were popular among other navies too; and operated for quite a while. Does the inclusion of Tartar/Standard put them outside the price range of these other navies? If so, what do they choose instead... and what does that do to HMG's decisions about how many of these to procure and what other potentially exportable projects get funded?
 
This has implications outside the RN. The Rothesay's and Leanders were popular among other navies too; and operated for quite a while. Does the inclusion of Tartar/Standard put them outside the price range of these other navies? If so, what do they choose instead... and what does that do to HMG's decisions about how many of these to procure and what other potentially exportable projects get funded?
Type 12 Exports:

2 Whitby class - India
2 Rothesay class - RNZN
3 Rothesay class - SAN
2 Leander class - RNZN
2 Leander class - Chile

6 Leander class - RNLN - built in the Netherlands
6 Leander class - India - built in India

Edit - I forgot about

4 Yarra class - RAN - built in Australia
2 Swan class - RAN - built in Australia​
 
Last edited:
This has implications outside the RN. The Rothesay's and Leanders were popular among other navies too; and operated for quite a while. Does the inclusion of Tartar/Standard put them outside the price range of these other navies? If so, what do they choose instead... and what does that do to HMG's decisions about how many of these to procure and what other potentially exportable projects get funded?
My guess is that they will be more expensive, but not so expensive that a one-to-one substitution would be impossible.

Also given the sheer number of Tatar/Standard MR systems being built the cost might be brought down. IMHO it would certainly be cheaper to build than Seaslug was. E.g. 8 shipfuls of Seaslug = 240 missiles. 50 shipfuls of Tatar/Standard MR = 2,000 missiles.

The licencing agreement would give the UK the right to sell the system in certain territories.

My guess is that the Indians would still buy 2 Whitbys.

The RNZN and SAN would buy 4 and 3 Light Destroyers instead of their Type 12s. However, the South Africans might find it hard to keep the ships in general and the Tatar system in particular operational after the arms embargo comes into force.

I think the Dutch would build 6 Tatar armed ships in their own yards in place of their Leanders, possibly an early version of their Tromp class destroyer.

I think the Americans might block the sale of 2 Standard MR armed destroyers to Chile in place of their Leanders. That is unless it is balanced by sales of Standard armed ships to Argentina and Brazil. However, when the Dutch sold their two cruisers to Peru, they had to remove the Terrier system from the ship that had been so fitted.

Again I think the Americans would stop the British selling Standard MR to India in the 1970s to fit to the ships they would build instead of the Leanders.
 
This has implications outside the RN. The Rothesay's and Leanders were popular among other navies too; and operated for quite a while. Does the inclusion of Tartar/Standard put them outside the price range of these other navies? If so, what do they choose instead... and what does that do to HMG's decisions about how many of these to procure and what other potentially exportable projects get funded?
My guess is that Thornycroft, Vickers and Yarrow would try to fill the gap.

IOTL Thornycroft and Yarrow designed light frigates that they sold to Iran, Libya, Malaysia and Thailand. The later Type 21 was a Thornycroft design and there was also the Vosper Thornycroft Mk 10 frigate which was sold to Brazil.
 

Riain

Banned
http://www.ww2.dk/new/navy/aviation divisions.htm

3 divisions of maritime bombers , each with 2 Rgts of ~ 20 jets plus several support EW jets.

5th Division with 924 Regiment & 987 Regiment
25th Division with 49 Regiment & 169 Regiment
143th Division with 568 Regiment & 570 Regiment.

In short the 1970s threat should be 6 x 20 TU-16 MPB each with 1-3 AShM

In short the 1980s threat should be 6 x 20 TU-22M2 'Backfire Bomber' each with 1-3 AShM

A very good site. The basing shows the threat, each Tu22M division covering a different part of the world: NE Atlantic, NW Pacific and Eastern Mediterranean with 40 or so jets with heavy EW support. The further away a CBG is from the bases the less missiles the bombers can carry. These bases would have the specific gear needed to support AVMF planes, including missile loaders as well as the missiles themselves. A redeployment would be no small thing, perhaps a squadron or even a regiment might move from one basing area to another: but the risk of all 3 divisions deploying to say Vietnam in 1985 to put 120 Tu22m against a single RN CVA01 is vanishingly low.

I noticed that there are no Tu95s in those missile divisions, drastically limits the range of the threat until the Tu22m enters service.
 

Zen9

Banned
Again?
The RN viewed Tartar as a consequence of their pushing for a self defence SAM.

But every time they looked at getting it, they ended up not.
Every time.
Every time.
Think about that.
It's not just the limitation of dollar reserves.
They didn't like the guidance band and preferred Q-band based on the work done in the UK.
But a mixture of licence and domestic technology isn't what others here are discussing.
You are talking about a straight uk produced Tartar system.
The System the RN didn't want.
Couldn't justify buying.
Again and again.
Not for cost reasons.
But for military reasons.

As for the idea the US would allow a licensee export.....Did they do that for any other Tartar user?
 
As for the idea the US would allow a licensee export.....Did they do that for any other Tartar user?
Did anyone build any of the 3-T missiles or Standard under licence IOTL? I think not, but am prepared to be contradicted.

Westland's licences on Sikorsky helicopters allowed exports to other countries. E.g. the Wessexes and Sea Kings sold to Australia.

De Havillands licence on the GE T-58 allowed it to export the engines. It was also able to sub-licence the Gnome to Alpha Romeo.
 
It's not just the limitation of dollar reserves.
Building under licence uses fewer Dollars than buying complete systems.

AFAIK/IIRC one of the reasons why Sea Dart was developed in the first place was because the Treasury wouldn't allow the RN to buy Tatar direct from the USA, but ITTL I'm talking about buying it in larger numbers to allow licence production to be financially feasible.
 
Think about that.
I have thought about that and I still think it's a reasonable idea.

The main drawback that I can think of is timescale. The first Rothesays were laid down in 1956 and the first Adams wasn't laid down until 1958. It might not be possible to lay down Tatar armed destroyers instead of the Rothesays and Tribals because Tatar wasn't ready.
 

Riain

Banned
The British were very unimpressed with the Tartar's 30 reaction time, Sea Dart had a 12 second reaction time from the get go.
 
Top