AHC: Strong post-war Royal Navy?
- Thread starter King_Arthur
- Start date
Riain
Banned
With OTL jet development you're likely right. However with a different trajectory for jet development, perhaps Rolls Royce takes over from Rover earlier, or the X1 runs much earlier.
If jet engines advanced a a year or two by the late 50s marine GTs might be advanced enough to get rid of steam in the 60s.
Riain
Banned
With the cancellation of the carriers the RN also dropped the 'high - low' mix of escorts (after the Type 21) and settled on a completely 'high' escort force with the Type 42 and Type 22. If the RN carriers survived, either by riding the Eagle and Ark into the ground or by replacing them with 2 CVAs, what happens to the escort force? I personally doubt the Type 22 would get built, although the Type 42 might get built in the early 80s to replace the modernised Counties.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Zen9
Banned
They can't afford or man the 89 ship escort force. 110 for the low end Type 19 isn't do-able they had to raise it to 154!
And that doesn't mean they can work all main capabilities simultaneously.
Type 82 needs too many people.
They had a pool of 103,000.
Arguably the Cruiser represents better capability and value for money than the Type 82. Especially once you scale the CV force down to 3 or less....Assuming one CG per CV.
But they were planning on originally 5 CVs.
which meant 13 Type 82 or a minimum of 6-8 and attendant Type 42 and Type 17 and Type 19...
So....
Low end is ideally a proto-Duke (early Type 23).
High end would field Ikara maybe with Womba anti-ship variant and Sea King.
Networked together they could prosecute contacts effectively. The CV or CG providing the bulk of helicopter ASW.
Similarly for Type 42. Cut out the hanger requirement and you cut some crew and weight and cost. All they need in attendance with a CV is a pad for landing, refuelling and giving the crew a break (heads, coffee and a sandwich).
But if you put AAW on the attendant CG you'd only need local area air defence on the Type 42 DDG. That takes us to PT.428, System C or Orange Nell's evolution.
What makes this work is datalinks, and AEW.
Really if you want a reasonable CV force the needs for helicopter ASW on escorts is inefficient and costly. Better to spend escort budgets on shipboard systems that mesh with the CV's needs not conflict with it as an alternative.
The upside of such is if you cut the CVA you still have to provide ASW CV or CG/CV.....
But once you distribute the Helicopters across the frigate and destroyer forcertain the CV's only reason is AD and Strike. Strike being the key reason.
And that doesn't mean they can work all main capabilities simultaneously.
Type 82 needs too many people.
They had a pool of 103,000.
Arguably the Cruiser represents better capability and value for money than the Type 82. Especially once you scale the CV force down to 3 or less....Assuming one CG per CV.
But they were planning on originally 5 CVs.
which meant 13 Type 82 or a minimum of 6-8 and attendant Type 42 and Type 17 and Type 19...
So....
Low end is ideally a proto-Duke (early Type 23).
High end would field Ikara maybe with Womba anti-ship variant and Sea King.
Networked together they could prosecute contacts effectively. The CV or CG providing the bulk of helicopter ASW.
Similarly for Type 42. Cut out the hanger requirement and you cut some crew and weight and cost. All they need in attendance with a CV is a pad for landing, refuelling and giving the crew a break (heads, coffee and a sandwich).
But if you put AAW on the attendant CG you'd only need local area air defence on the Type 42 DDG. That takes us to PT.428, System C or Orange Nell's evolution.
What makes this work is datalinks, and AEW.
Really if you want a reasonable CV force the needs for helicopter ASW on escorts is inefficient and costly. Better to spend escort budgets on shipboard systems that mesh with the CV's needs not conflict with it as an alternative.
The upside of such is if you cut the CVA you still have to provide ASW CV or CG/CV.....
But once you distribute the Helicopters across the frigate and destroyer forcertain the CV's only reason is AD and Strike. Strike being the key reason.
Due to the slightly larger rate of economic growth ITTL the British Government is able to spend a bit more on everything by the middle of the 1960s and the Royal Navy uses it's "same size slice of a bigger national cake" to order one SSN a year from 1965.
A total of 20 SSN had been ordered by 1981 instead of the 16 that had been ordered IOTL. (That is including 3 ordered before 1965 in both timelines.)
HMS Dreadnought was still paid off in 1980. Therefore the target of 20 SSN was not reached until 1987 when SSN-21 was completed. However, that was still a great improvement on OTL because the target was cut back to 17 SSN by the 1981 Defence Review and the revised target wasn't reached until 1990 when SSN-18 was completed.
Although a stronger British economy is required for this the total cost of building the 20 SSNs ordered 1958-81 isn't necessarily 25% more than the 16 ordered over the same period IOTL because there might be an economies of scale effect.
Similarly ITTL the British build 5 Polaris SSBNs instead of cutting the programme back to 4. In common with the SSN force, building and maintaining a force of 5 Resolution class might not cost 25% more than the OTL force of 4 SSBNs. E.g. the R&D cost of a force of 21 nuclear submarines (4 SSBN and 17 SSN) should be exactly the same as a force of 25 nuclear submarines (5 SSBN and 20 SSN).
Edit
ITTL the UK would also have build 5 Vanguard class SSBN to replace the 5 Resolution class.
In common with the class that it replaced a force of 5 Trident armed SSBN might not cost 25% more to build and maintain than the OTL force of 4 submarines.
A total of 20 SSN had been ordered by 1981 instead of the 16 that had been ordered IOTL. (That is including 3 ordered before 1965 in both timelines.)
HMS Dreadnought was still paid off in 1980. Therefore the target of 20 SSN was not reached until 1987 when SSN-21 was completed. However, that was still a great improvement on OTL because the target was cut back to 17 SSN by the 1981 Defence Review and the revised target wasn't reached until 1990 when SSN-18 was completed.
Although a stronger British economy is required for this the total cost of building the 20 SSNs ordered 1958-81 isn't necessarily 25% more than the 16 ordered over the same period IOTL because there might be an economies of scale effect.
Similarly ITTL the British build 5 Polaris SSBNs instead of cutting the programme back to 4. In common with the SSN force, building and maintaining a force of 5 Resolution class might not cost 25% more than the OTL force of 4 SSBNs. E.g. the R&D cost of a force of 21 nuclear submarines (4 SSBN and 17 SSN) should be exactly the same as a force of 25 nuclear submarines (5 SSBN and 20 SSN).
Edit
ITTL the UK would also have build 5 Vanguard class SSBN to replace the 5 Resolution class.
In common with the class that it replaced a force of 5 Trident armed SSBN might not cost 25% more to build and maintain than the OTL force of 4 submarines.
Last edited:
This is my workings spreadsheet for Post 388.
Although I have filled in the gaps until 1986 when the OTL SSN-19 was ordered I think that ITTL it's more likely that SSN construction would have halted at SSN-21 in 1982.
At least 4 Upholder class SS would have been ordered 1983-86 instead.
Although I have filled in the gaps until 1986 when the OTL SSN-19 was ordered I think that ITTL it's more likely that SSN construction would have halted at SSN-21 in 1982.
At least 4 Upholder class SS would have been ordered 1983-86 instead.
It has been written that steel is cheap.
Because of this I suspect that the cost of putting the new equipment into the Leander class in their 1970s modernisations would have made up most of the cost of building a new ship with the same standard of equipment. That is regardless of whether it was in comparison to the OTL steam powered Leander or the your TL gas-turbine powered version. (However, where having gas turbine machinery would help is by increasing the availability rates of the class.)
Therefore in my TL the MoD decides to abandons its plans to modernise the Leander in favour or new construction. The decision to do so is made in the late 1960s.
Last edited:
I suggested building more destroyers and frigates instead of modernising the Leander class earlier in the thread.
IOTL 46 new ships were ordered 1968-89 and 20 (out of 26) Leanders were modernised for a grand total of 66 hulls. In my TL 74 ships new ships were ordered and there were no Leander modernisations. With Bristol the sole Type 82 the RN has enough hulls to maintain the 75-Ship Destroyer-Frigate force authorised in 1970 until the middle of the 1990s.
Instead of 8 Type 21, 14 Type 22, the first 10 Type 23, 14 Type 42 and 20 modernised Leanders (66 hulls) there would be 50 Type 22 and 24 Type 42 (74 hulls).
Not modernising the Leanders would not provide all the money required to build 28 extra new ships.
Some of the extra money would come from a stronger UK economy in the 1970s and 1980s which allowed a larger defence budget.
The rest of the money would come from unit-cost reductions.
ITTL two of the reasons why the UK was stronger between 1970 and 1990 were that the shipbuilding and defence electronics industry had sorted themselves out by 1970. Therefore they were able to deliver the equipment closer to time and cost.
For example in the late 1960s HMS Amazon the first Type 21 was expected to cost £8 million and be delivered in May 1972. She was actually cost £16.8 million to build and was delivered in May 1974. Similarly in the late 1960s HMS Sheffield the first Type 42 was expected to cost £17 million and be delivered in July 1973. She actually cost £23.2 million to build and was delivered in January 1975. ITTL both ships would be delivered closer to the projected time and nearer to the projected cost.
I'm hoping that further cost reductions would be possible through ordering the equipment in greater quantities. For example 24 Sea Dart systems instead of 14. Plus all the Type 42s built ITTL had the larger missile with a capacity of 40 missiles, resulting in a combined capacity of 960 missiles instead of 400. Furthermore Land Dart isn't cancelled in the 1974 Defence Review. It replaces Thunderbird in the British Army and Bloodhound in the RAF. Hopefully that would help to reduce the production costs further.
IOTL 46 new ships were ordered 1968-89 and 20 (out of 26) Leanders were modernised for a grand total of 66 hulls. In my TL 74 ships new ships were ordered and there were no Leander modernisations. With Bristol the sole Type 82 the RN has enough hulls to maintain the 75-Ship Destroyer-Frigate force authorised in 1970 until the middle of the 1990s.
Instead of 8 Type 21, 14 Type 22, the first 10 Type 23, 14 Type 42 and 20 modernised Leanders (66 hulls) there would be 50 Type 22 and 24 Type 42 (74 hulls).
Not modernising the Leanders would not provide all the money required to build 28 extra new ships.
Some of the extra money would come from a stronger UK economy in the 1970s and 1980s which allowed a larger defence budget.
The rest of the money would come from unit-cost reductions.
ITTL two of the reasons why the UK was stronger between 1970 and 1990 were that the shipbuilding and defence electronics industry had sorted themselves out by 1970. Therefore they were able to deliver the equipment closer to time and cost.
For example in the late 1960s HMS Amazon the first Type 21 was expected to cost £8 million and be delivered in May 1972. She was actually cost £16.8 million to build and was delivered in May 1974. Similarly in the late 1960s HMS Sheffield the first Type 42 was expected to cost £17 million and be delivered in July 1973. She actually cost £23.2 million to build and was delivered in January 1975. ITTL both ships would be delivered closer to the projected time and nearer to the projected cost.
I'm hoping that further cost reductions would be possible through ordering the equipment in greater quantities. For example 24 Sea Dart systems instead of 14. Plus all the Type 42s built ITTL had the larger missile with a capacity of 40 missiles, resulting in a combined capacity of 960 missiles instead of 400. Furthermore Land Dart isn't cancelled in the 1974 Defence Review. It replaces Thunderbird in the British Army and Bloodhound in the RAF. Hopefully that would help to reduce the production costs further.
IOTL construction of SSN's was terminated about that time to make way for Trident submarines. This was similar to the gap between the Valiant and Churchill classes that was created by building the Polaris submarines.
However, I happen to have my copy of Conway's 1947-95 out...
It says that design studies for a successor to the Trafalgar class began in 1987. It was known officially as SSN-20 and unofficially as the "W" class. The book says that up to 7 were planned, using a modified version of the PWR 2 reactor plant. Project definition started late in 1989, but by 1990 it was clear that costs were spiralling (in excess of £400 million per hull, excluding R&D). The programme fell foul of Treasury expenditure cuts in 1991, and a cheaper cost-effective design it to replace it in the mid-1990s.
The cheaper cost-effective design was the Trafalgar class Batch 2 which evolved into the Astute class.
Edit
IIRC IOTL it was planned to lay down the Vanguard class at the rate of one per year, which would have been 1986-89, with SSN-20 presumably being laid down in 1990.
As usual plans did not survive contact with financial reality and the Vanguard class was laid down 1986, 1987, 1991 and 1993. Astute wasn't laid down until 2001.
However, some of that was also due to the end of the Cold War. E.g. the SSN force being cut back to 12 boats (the 7 Trafalgars and 5 newest Swiftsures), which eliminated the requirement to replace the 6 oldest SSNs then in service.
Last edited:
From what I've read and been told by people from the RN I've spoken to, the RN has essentially zero interest in having nuclear ships (outside of the subs). They have a lot of advantages but they're also a massive pain in the arse to run and the RN struggles to retain the relatively small number of nuclear trained personnel they have now without adding the manpower liability of (presumably) two or more carriers to the equation.
You'd need to make changes that would mean that the UK's military budget was considerably larger than it is today (to allow pay to be at least in the same town as what's available from the civil nuclear industry, if not quite in the same ballpark and to allow enough nuclear trained personnel to be held on strength to make sure they're not spending their entire lives at sea missing their families and thinking about signing off). Finding a way to give the UK more nuclear trained personnel (to make civil industry less interested in poaching military personnel) wouldn't hurt either.
There are probably PODs out there that would do that but most of them are probably pushing close to making the 20th Century as much of a Britwank as the 19th IMO.
At least for the other frigates of the period like the Type 41 Leopard-class and Type 61 Salisbury-class the decision to go for Diesel engines was due to range issues. My solution from another thread was to modify the Type 12 Whitby-class by expanding their dimensions by a few feet and their displacement a couple of hundred tons to increase the amount of fuel carried, combined with fixing the cruising turbine it would give them the range required. You could build twelve of these Broader Beam Whitby-class in place of the Leopard- and Salisbury-class frigates and possibly the Battle-class destroyer Fast Air Detection Escort (FADE) conversions, although speed issues might make that a non-starter, and it would cost you broadly the same.
The Type 14 Blackwood-class were laid down at roughly the same time so if you wanted to get creative find some way to replace them with Broader Beam Whitby-class. They would be around £1.3 million more per ship but for that you'd get twenty or twenty-four similar ships which might see the cost drop slightly due to experience curve, and the Navy could argue that commonality and increased capabilities was worth it even if not. You'd probably have to build a couple with Diesel engines just to test the idea in light of the proposed Broken Back plans but they could later be converted to test gas turbines like HMS Exmouth was in our timeline, still leaving eighteen or twenty-two ships left. Another advantage is that if you start with a slightly larger design they might go straight to a Broad Beam Leander-class type ship and skip the smaller and Rothesay-class ones.
I think the decision to build Types 41 and 61 with diesels was because it would be easier to mass produce diesels in wartime than steam turbine machinery.
Also, IIRC what became the Type 12 Whitby class was also to have had diesel engines, but a diesel powered A/S frigate couldn't be made fast enough to catch a submerged Fast Battery Drive submarine.
Furthermore, IIRC the Type 14 wasn't built because it was cheaper than the Type 12. It was built because it could be built faster and in larger numbers in wartime.
However, I had the idea of building the Type 12 with twelve Deltic diesel engines producing 2,500hp each for a total of 30,000hp instead of the steam plant of OTL. A grand total of 60 A/S and GP versions would be built in place of the 6 Type 12 Whitby, 9 Type 12 Rothesay, 26 Type 12 Leander, 12 Type 14 and 7 Type 81 frigates.
There would also be a combined AA/AD version because the larger hull of a Type 12 should be big enough to combine the AA armament with the AD radars in one hull. The TTL AA/AD frigate was fast enough to meet the FADE requirement. Therefore 12 were built. That is 4 instead of the Type 41, 4 instead of the Type 61 and 4 instead of the Battle class fleet picket conversions.
Last edited:
However, I usually go the other way and concentrate on steam engines as follows:
- 18 Type 12 Whitby class vice the 6 of OTL and the 12 Type 14
- 16 Type 12 Rothesay class vice the 9 of OTL and the 7 Type 81
- 26 Type 12 Leander class as OTL
- 12 Type 41 "Fast AA/AD" Frigate version vice the 4 Type 41, 4 Type 61 and 4 Battle Fleet Picket conversions
IOTL the UK exported 17 examples of Types 12, 14 and 41 as follows:
- 2 Type 12 Whitby to India of 4 planned
- 2 Type 12 Rothesay to New Zealand
- 3 Type 12 Rothesay to South Africa
- 2 Type 12 Leander to New Zealand
- 2 Type 12 Leander to Chile
- 3 Type 14 to India of 4 planned
- 3 Type 41 to India of 4 planned
ITTL all 18 ships would either have the OTL "steam" Type 12 hull and machinery or the ALT "diesel" Type 12 hull and machinery.
Therefore instead of a grand total of 86 frigates spread among 4 types of hull and machinery (T12, T14, T41/61 and T81) and the 4 converted Battle class destroyers of OTL there would have been 90 sharing the same hull and machinery.