Best British interwar fleet?

[Dorknought]

Mind you said 1000 bombers would be far more expensive to operate and man than a battleship. And said battleship would last a lot longer

IIRC after negotiations and an honest appraisal of the figures they settled on 27 bombers to a battleship.

The USAF tried a similar thing with the B2 vs the aircraft carrier. The Navy responded that carriers have recently been at several flashpoint around the globe while the B2 has appeared at some air shows.

 

[Belisarius II]

The RN had bases all over the world, bar the middle of the Pacific. Nowhere was more than a few days sailing away from a source of fuel and supplies. The USN had bases in the US, Hawaii and the Philippines. If they wanted to go anywhere and fight they had to take their fuel and supplies with them, or rely on RN bases. The RN gets a lot of flak over the lack of a proper fleet train but the fact is until the formation of the British Pacific Fleet they didn't really need one.

Your 100% correct. In 1945 Admiral King didn't want the RN to participate in the Battle of Okinawa, because they'd be dependent on USN logistics. The British Steel deck carriers took a terrible ponding from Kamikaze attacks, but held up well. Unfortunately the armored box created a blast Furness effect for hanger deck fires. No solution is perfect.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Your 100% correct. In 1945 Admiral King didn't want the RN to participate in the Battle of Okinawa, because they'd be dependent on USN logistics. The British Steel deck carriers took a terrible ponding from Kamikaze attacks, but held up well. Unfortunately the armored box created a blast Furness effect for hanger deck fires. No solution is perfect.

Which only really happened the one time and to Illustrious - and to be fair few comparable ships could have taken that many bombs and not have sunk or been TCL

 

[Belisarius II]

IIRC after negotiations and an honest appraisal of the figures they settled on 27 bombers to a battleship.

The USAF tried a similar thing with the B2 vs the aircraft carrier. The Navy responded that carriers have recently been at several flashpoint around the globe while the B2 has appeared at some air shows.

Has a navy man I can say the B-2's been a work horse for the West. They flew 2% of the missions in the Kosovo War, and hit 50% of the targets. On one mission a B-2 would carry 20 GPS guided 2,000lb bombs, and hit, and destroy 20 targets. American heavy bombers have provided the vast majority of bomb strikes in the Middle East Wars, and got little credit for it. The A-10 Warthog gets most of the glory for close air support, because of the 30mm gun, zzzzzz, really only effective against older tanks, while the B-1 Lancer has conducted more CAS missions then any other aircraft. The F-16 comes in second.

In the ME Wars the carriers have had to operate at long range, depending on air force tankers to support their strike missions. They've certainly been doing their part though. An F-18 got the first American air to air kill, since the Kosovo War, shooting down a Syrian SU-22. Go Navy.

 

[CV12Hornet]

The problem here is that Japan can't afford to have a large buildout of heavy cruisers and battlecruisers; there isn't enough Yen for both. Money makes it pretty much an either-or choice. I could see a few heavy cruisers, but in an unrestricted environment, the battlecruisers will ultimately be more useful in overpowering enemy scouts and breaking through screens. The IJN is worse off building CAs in a less restricted environment, let alone an unrestricted one, as their 4-8 bigger heavy cruisers still can't beat 30 USN ships, or even 20 if the USN keeps some in the Atlantic.

*scribbles notes*

But what kind of battlecruisers, though. I'll concede that a mix of battlecruisers and additional small 8" cruisers to counter light cruisers seems to be the more logical path for Japan. What kind of battlecruiser, though, is a problem post-Kanto. Amagi-type ships are too expensive, both in general and to procure in the numbers needed. Anything smaller starts running into the problem of an unrestricted environment meaning Lexingtons running around that'll eat just about anything short of an Amagi for breakfast.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

*scribbles notes*

But what kind of battlecruisers, though. I'll concede that a mix of battlecruisers and additional small 8" cruisers to counter light cruisers seems to be the more logical path for Japan. What kind of battlecruiser, though, is a problem post-Kanto. Amagi-type ships are too expensive, both in general and to procure in the numbers needed. Anything smaller starts running into the problem of an unrestricted environment meaning Lexingtons running around that'll eat just about anything short of an Amagi for breakfast.

That there is the rub- only something Amagi sized is going to be able to deal with a Lexington. Two Amagis aren't a lot though.

A Kongo at night might get lucky, but that's not a good place to be in. I'd suggest that the Kongos get one rebuild instead of two, most importantly so they get increased gun elevation, bulging and lengthening, partial armour reworking, and all oil firing boilers and new geared turbines.

What the IJN will want is a bigger leader for the new Fubuki class destroyers- something like a bigger Yubari or even a Furutaka or Mogami type cruiser, big enough to actually be stable.

 

[CV12Hornet]

That there is the rub- only something Amagi sized is going to be able to deal with a Lexington. Two Amagis aren't a lot though.

A Kongo at night might get lucky, but that's not a good place to be in. I'd suggest that the Kongos get one rebuild instead of two, most importantly so they get increased gun elevation, bulging and lengthening, partial armour reworking, and all oil firing boilers and new geared turbines.

What the IJN will want is a bigger leader for the new Fubuki class destroyers- something like a bigger Yubari or even a Furutaka or Mogami type cruiser, big enough to actually be stable.

They have those, though. Aside from the 14 5500-tonners actually built, there were another 5 Sendais on order, and those were fast enough to act as leaders for the Fubukis, being designed for the 39-knot Minekazes. Firepower isn't great, but they'll brush aside most destroyers well into the 1930s. And while the 5500-tonners had their issues, stability generally wasn't one of them.

You're also misunderstanding the role of the Furutakas and especially the Mogamis. Neither were DLs; the Furutakas were counter-scouts and the Mogamis heavy screen-punchers.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

They have those, though. Aside from the 14 5500-tonners actually built, there were another 5 Sendais on order, and those were fast enough to act as leaders for the Fubukis, being designed for the 39-knot Minekazes. Firepower isn't great, but they'll brush aside most destroyers well into the 1930s. And while the 5500-tonners had their issues, stability generally wasn't one of them.

You're also misunderstanding the role of the Furutakas and especially the Mogamis. Neither were DLs; the Furutakas were counter-scouts and the Mogamis heavy screen-punchers.

I shouldn't phone post past bedtime

I meant like an enlarged Yubari or proto-Agano as a DL, for when the older 4-pipe 5500 tonners need replacing; even a CA stability aside wouldn't be a good buy in an unrestricted/much less restricted environment- they can't do a battlecruiser's job.

 

[Jellico]

That there is the rub- only something Amagi sized is going to be able to deal with a Lexington. Two Amagis aren't a lot though.

A Kongo at night might get lucky, but that's not a good place to be in. I'd suggest that the Kongos get one rebuild instead of two, most importantly so they get increased gun elevation, bulging and lengthening, partial armour reworking, and all oil firing boilers and new geared turbines.

What the IJN will want is a bigger leader for the new Fubuki class destroyers- something like a bigger Yubari or even a Furutaka or Mogami type cruiser, big enough to actually be stable.

The Kongos give them a good head start. Two Kongos hard counter a Lexington as does an Amagi. The US will get superiority in the end but they have to burn more coin than the Japanese.

I must admit that I am interested in the chains of gold side of all this. The English can't and won't spend huge money. See the lack of OTL attempt to match the SoDak/Lexington numbers. The Japanese can't spend the money because they don't have it. The US can spend the money, no real enemies, and have form in screwing themselves over. They are going to have to show real care to get things right.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

The Kongos give them a good head start. Two Kongos hard counter a Lexington as does an Amagi. The US will get superiority in the end but they have to burn more coin than the Japanese.

I must admit that I am interested in the chains of gold side of all this. The English can't and won't spend huge money. See the lack of OTL attempt to match the SoDak/Lexington numbers. The Japanese can't spend the money because they don't have it. The US can spend the money, no real enemies, and have form in screwing themselves over. They are going to have to show real care to get things right.

Pretty accurate IMHO

The only way the UK would be driven to spending the money needed to at least keep pace with the USN is if it felt the US was planning to use force (or the threat of force) to destroy its commercial interests in Latin America and Asia. Which is not OTL, though I suppose plausible PODs for the immediate post WW1 period could be created.

For the 1920s that would mean building the G3s and probably a second set of modified G3s. Cruisers, mostly I think like Leanders and Arethusas, depending on the USN build up. Also try to regain the Alliance with Japan. In Europe, stay close to France .

Financing this would require creativity. Probably stay off the Gold Standard or return at a much lower level than 1914. Default or unilaterally restructure the USD loans. Fund with sterling bonds and buy from the sterling zone.

Not easy or ideal and only to be done under immediate threat from an openly hostile USA.

Which is, I emphasize, NOT OTL.

 

[jsb]

The only way the UK would be driven to spending the money needed to at least keep pace with the USN

I think that depends on just how much US builds, it could be quite easy to "match" USN building by simply counting a few older ships as "modern" ie all the 13x 15" ships and then just building G3s and counting them as BC and BB at the same time so 6 G3s would officially "match" both SD and Lex class (or roughly count deep tonnage and have say 8 G3 ships to match the USN 12).
If the USN then slows down or stops due to Japanese collapse and internal spending cuts then RN can stay officially equal like it did after WNT and look at who actually built the most CAs in the 20s.....

 

[tigercat]

Some earlier developments of marine diesels would have helped .

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Has a navy man I can say the B-2's been a work horse for the West. They flew 2% of the missions in the Kosovo War, and hit 50% of the targets. On one mission a B-2 would carry 20 GPS guided 2,000lb bombs, and hit, and destroy 20 targets. American heavy bombers have provided the vast majority of bomb strikes in the Middle East Wars, and got little credit for it. The A-10 Warthog gets most of the glory for close air support, because of the 30mm gun, zzzzzz, really only effective against older tanks, while the B-1 Lancer has conducted more CAS missions then any other aircraft. The F-16 comes in second.

In the ME Wars the carriers have had to operate at long range, depending on air force tankers to support their strike missions. They've certainly been doing their part though. An F-18 got the first American air to air kill, since the Kosovo War, shooting down a Syrian SU-22. Go Navy.

I watched a US Airforce General a few years back being raked over the coals by congress when he suggested that CAS could be provided by B1s, F16s and the like in the absence of the A10 - they laughed him out of the room - they didn't get it!

 

[marathag]

I watched a US Airforce General a few years back being raked over the coals by congress when he suggested that CAS could be provided by B1s, F16s and the like in the absence of the A10 - they laughed him out of the room - they didn't get it!

CAS like provided by A-10, Apache or even Kiowa is a morale booster for the local troops, while an USAF asset dropping PGMs from 40k+ doesn't give that same effect, even if the target(s) are knocked out.

You need both types of support

 

[Mike D]

I watched a US Airforce General a few years back being raked over the coals by congress when he suggested that CAS could be provided by B1s, F16s and the like in the absence of the A10 - they laughed him out of the room - they didn't get it!

From what I've read a lot of USAF grown ups would quite happily dump the A-10s tomorrow and save the money they have to spend keeping them flying but they can't because too many politicians and soldiers are too easily impressed by "big gun! brrraaaaapppppppp brrrrrraaaaappppppppp".

 

[Jellico]

Time for a new YAL-1. Zap.

 

[SsgtC]

From what I've read a lot of USAF grown ups would quite happily dump the A-10s tomorrow and save the money they have to spend keeping them flying but they can't because too many politicians and soldiers are too easily impressed by "big gun! brrraaaaapppppppp brrrrrraaaaappppppppp".

As someone who is only alive because an A-10 flew a danger close air support mission for my unit, that big gun is well worth the cost of keeping them in service. That warthog driver came in far lower and slower than any F-16 or F-35 would even think about doing and put every single round on target just feet from where I was. So IMVHO, the money spent on the A-10 is worth every single penny.

 

[marathag]

From what I've read a lot of USAF grown ups would quite happily dump the A-10s tomorrow and save the money they have to spend keeping them flying but they can't because too many politicians and soldiers are too easily impressed by "big gun! brrraaaaapppppppp brrrrrraaaaappppppppp".

yeah, stupid soldiers.
Peopll on the pointy end never know what works, and what doesn't

the A-10 which costs around $6,000/hour to run. The F-16 has hourly operating costs of around $8,000.
The F-22 and F-35 are over 5x as much.

EDIT: the B-2 costs between $135k and $175k/hr, and they are staged from CONUS, so that's a lot of hours to strike in Afghanistan

 

[alspug]

Too many people forget that no single weapon has ever won a battle . it takes many different platforms and weapons to win a battle . The M1 Abrams needs the Bradleys and Hummers carrying infantry to do their job . Those guys in turn need to be safe from enemy helo's and aircraft . This means you need AWACS , Tankers and fighters . A strong position that might cost many lives to take can be defeated by a PGM from a B-1 . A company of bad guys 50 yards from good guys can not be engaged by PGM from 40K feet . For that you need either attack helo or CAS and for the USA the A-10 is the bird to use .

 

[McPherson]

That there is the rub- only something Amagi sized is going to be able to deal with a Lexington. Two Amagis aren't a lot though.

A Kongo at night might get lucky, but that's not a good place to be in. I'd suggest that the Kongos get one rebuild instead of two, most importantly so they get increased gun elevation, bulging and lengthening, partial armour reworking, and all oil firing boilers and new geared turbines.

What the IJN will want is a bigger leader for the new Fubuki class destroyers- something like a bigger Yubari or even a Furutaka or Mogami type cruiser, big enough to actually be stable.

You solve your problem in the weapon, not the launch platform. TORPEDOES.