AHC: Strong post-war Royal Navy?

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by King_Arthur, Dec 21, 2018.

  1. PSL Information not passed on is lost.

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2017

    Then the situation is worse than hopeless. The American exercises show the bombers getting through to the fleet and hitting up to 1/3 of the ships. CAP could only be expected to 'down' 1/3 of the attacking bombers and escorts ended up 'on their own'. If you can't intercept these bombers -then you have to contend with many more missiles ...a target that's much harder to destroy than a bomber. Worse their maybe just as many missiles launched from SSGN & missile cruisers. Combined , that could mean as many as 100 missiles launched in coordinated strike on any one battle group/convoy.
     
  2. Riain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Straya
    1948 to 1956-57 to re-fight WW2. the strategy was to have a lot of escorts and light carriers for trade protection and the RN was totally reliant on mobilisation to get huge numbers of people and refit a lot of escorts.

    1957 to 1966 conventional tripwire to a nuclear WW3 and fighting limited wars, mostly East of Suez. The strategy was for powerful carrier strike and amphibious forces.

    1966-68 the same as above but with a reduction for the EoS role by 1975.

    1968-1981 more of an effort into fighting a conventional WW3 before it goes nuclear, immediate and rapid withdrawal EoS and rundown of the carrier and amphibious force

    1981-1982 as above, but with more limited focus on ASW and 'administrative' amphibious capability.

    1982-1991 move back to more like the 1968-81 policy/strategy.

    Not with the OTL Defence policy/strategy, particularly with the chopping and changing in 1966-68 and 1981-82. In addition some bad strategic decisions (in terms of long term procurement) and procurement decisions like the rebuilds of Victorious and Tiger.

    For example if the strategy in the 1948-56 WW3 mobilisation period wasn't escorts and light carriers for trade protection but offensive forces like fleet carriers and amphibious force the transition into the tripwire WW3/EoS would be easier. Similarly if the Vic rebuild included new boilers in the first teardown then a 2nd WW2 carrier could have been rebuilt or Ark finished for the same money as was spent on the double Vic teardown.*

    Another example is the transition from EoS to a NATO role, this was done in a particularly damaging way and a one step process could have allowed Britain to do this transition with much more capability that would be useful to NATO.


    *do people know this? That the Vic was torn down to the hangar deck and rebuilt back up to the fight deck and island, then it was discovered that the boilers were screwed so it was torn down to the hangar deck again, new machinery was installed and rebuilt to the new angled deck design, which is why it took 8 years.
     
  3. Zen9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Previouslyyou have suggested that these exercises showed overwhelming of CDS and Type 984 equipped carrier. Which wasn't available until 1959 at the earliest and more plausibly after 1960.

    But you then cited this happening BEFORE any such equipped carrier was available. What is your source of this claim?
     
  4. Zen9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    We are not speaking of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds developing ineffective AAA gun systems that barely saw any service.

    And it is much better to confuse the issue of missile and gun budgets than carrier and missile budgets.
     
  5. Riain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Straya
    A few things in there.

    The exercises that showed that 1/3 of the bombers could get through didn't result in the USN being shut down in favour of buying a white flag. The result was to adopt new technologies, tactics and other things to mitigate against this danger.

    If the Russians can fly missions with 3 missiles on their bombers their bases are within Buccaneer/A6-A7 range, so that is a way to mitigate against the 100 missile bomber attacks. Personally I doubt they'd want to launch attacks at ranges where only 1 missile can be carried, the success rates would be too low with such a weak attack. I think the 2 missile range would be the most likely form of attack: too far for the carriers to attack bases but enough missiles to get good result.

    Close cooperation between bombers and SSGNs would be too difficult, but wider cooperation within say half a day is likely. The USN and RN know this, they have their own SSNs and aircraft to learn the art of the possible, and can again use technologies and tactics to mitigate against this threat.

    The RN assumed that a Type 82 could deal with an attack of 5 closely spaced aircraft. Another assumption was that it would be as effective as a CAP of 8 Phantoms, I assume that means a pair of Phantoms on station 24 hours a day and any pair could take on 5 closely spaced aircraft. That means that a well placed Type 82 could take out 1/4 of an AVMF regimental attack on its own.
     
    Gladsome, Zen9 and Grey Wolf like this.
  6. Riain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Straya
    I once read a paper ages ago, so long ago that I didn't really understand the significance, that the maths of the E1 AEW detection and the F8 time to height, speed and tail-chase attack with sidewinders paradigm meant that interceptions were unlikely.

    However the range of the E2's radar range and the Phantom's time to height, speed and head-on attack with sparrows made interception likely again.
     
    Zen9 likes this.
  7. Zen9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    That's likely against the post '63 anti-ship missiles displayed at Tushino.
    Now they had to intercept at over 100nm. Hence TFX with Pheonix AAMs.

    And that's why the RAN looked at an Essex modernised with F4.
     
    Riain likes this.
  8. PSL Information not passed on is lost.

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2017
    The info comes from Friedman NETWORKCENTRIC WARFARE. This time line here is confusing. The 1970s Sea Dart and CVA-01 are not consistent with 1950s CDS & Type 984 Radar intercept technology. The statement was the new tech didn't solve the basic problem that each controller could barely handle a few targets at a time. Anything more than a dozen threats at once would overwhelm the CAP and the battle group air defence , leaving every one to fend for themselves. The Americans solved this with digital network through NTDS which increased reaction time from analogue with 1-2 targets engaged over several minutes down to 5 digital targets in 1/2 minute.
     
  9. Riain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Straya
    How many consoles and operators are there in a Task Force of 2 carriers and 4 or 5 Type 82 DLGs? My guess is that in those 7 ships there would be close to 40 consoles and operators. Then there's the 4 operators aloft in the 2 Gannet AWE3s.

    I always thought that the bottleneck was illumination channels for the SAMs, rather than how many targets can be tracked.
     
    Zen9 likes this.
  10. Zen9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Riain likes this.
  11. NOMISYRRUC Putting a banging donk on it!

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2014
    I think we might be able to do better than that.

    I think that I have been too prudent with the Marine Sapphire. I had the Sapphire trials on Grey Goose take place at the same time as the trials of the RM60 on Grey Goose. However, the OTL RM60 was a new design, whereas the Sapphire was already under development. Therefore, I think there's a reasonable chance that it would be ready for sea trials a year or two earlier than RM60. I also think that the Bold class would have had one or two Marine Sapphires instead of the pair of G.2 gas turbines fitted IOTL.

    Meanwhile a pair prototype of Marine Proteus engines had been fitted to a sister of MGB2009. Trials began in 1948 or 1949. The trials were early enough and successful enough for a class of 30 boats powered by 3 Marine Proteus engines to be built. That is 18 in place of the Dark class already mentioned and 12 in place of the preceding Gay class.

    However, I think my initial estimate of having sea trial of the Marine Olympus begin in 1953 is about right and that it won't be possible to put an operational warship with Olympus-Tyne machinery into service before 1960.
     
    Zen9 and steamboy like this.
  12. Zen9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    I would suggest that having chosen the marine Sapphire and considering how far that could be developed, it is questionable to fund the marine Olympus.

    I'd also ponder the government funding for the Gyron. Having found the benefits of marine GT's, it's arguable they'd extend the effort behind DH's steel monster.
    This would mate in a logical fashion as Sapphires develop to 20,000shp. An Olympus from 20,000shp to 30,000shp is not much further. While on reflection I'd argue that the Gyron could start closer 30,000shp and reach for 40,000shp.

    However in this GT effort might parallel the process of getting Brakemine GAP into service. In fact it seems the decision to take missiles away from artillery is fairly questionable and centers on one individual. Prior to that there was a process to develop a Guided Artillery Projectile Directorate and focused at Westcott Arsenal as the Royal Projectile Factory.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2019
    Schlock likes this.
  13. Schlock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2018
    A CVA-01 with a COSAG plant built around Gyron/YARD type machinery would mean that the carrier would be able to make full speed on the Gas Turbines alone while using the steam from the four YARD boilers to generate the steam for the catapults.

    There would also be the temptation for the design to grow a bit to make use of that excess power as well, maybe ending up a bit bigger than the OTL CVA-01 design.
     
    Zen9 likes this.
  14. Riain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Straya
    They could have gone to 58,000t but above 54,000t they needed 4 shafts which drove up costs considerably for little operational benefit. If sufficient trunking could be found for 8 GTs then the RN might have a big carrier on the cheap.
     
    Zen9 likes this.
  15. Zen9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    4 Gyron? Say reaching 40,000shp for a total of 160,000shp. Tynes for a total of 20,000shp?
    Or Steam either Y100 or YEAD 1 for 10,000shp or 30,000shp each.
    4 sets for Y300 or just 2 for YEAD1.

    But pulling steam out of propulsion ought to save 50-100 personnel.

    Shafts and props are fine for such figures.
    A ship between 40-60,000tons is reasonable. Drydock limitations still apply.

    Self defence SAM Brakemine or Brakemine successor.

    Search set based on electro-mechanical scanning, ADA CMS.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2019
  16. PMN1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    If you use the approach used by the current QE class then trunking becomes less of an issue.
     
    Zen9 likes this.
  17. StevoJH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Location:
    Newcastle, NSW
    Is there any difference between IEP and Turbo-Electric? Because i’m Failing to see one.

    That could definitely be an option as long as powerful enough turbines can be designed and built. If not, then the turbines themselves will take up a lot of space.
     
  18. NOMISYRRUC Putting a banging donk on it!

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2014
    I think the British aerospace companies should have been forced to merge into larger units at the end of the 1940s instead of the end of the 1950s. So, for example, Armstrong-Siddeley and Bristol Aero Engines would have become Bristol Siddeley Engines (BSE) in 1949 instead of 1959.

    In that situation and with what you wrote about the development potential of the Sapphire in mind, would it have been better to cancel the Olympus completely in 1950 and concentrate the resources released on developing the Sapphire?

    It might help the RAF logistically if the Vulcan Mk 1 and Victor Mk 1 had Sapphire engines instead of only the Victor.

    Might more powerful versions of the Sapphire be available for aviation and marine applications in the late 1950s ITTL? E.g. could all the Mk 1 Victors and Vulcans be built to Mk 2 standard ITTL?

    However, later on it means no Olympus for the TSR2 and Concorde. Could the Sapphire be developed that far?
     
    Finbarr the Fair and Zen9 like this.
  19. Zen9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    No I think they are complimentary engines, Bristol never got much traction with any conceptual competitor to the Avon. Merging with AS would give them a wider spectrum of engines.....though it would also give them Orpheus and Adder, which means dominance over small jet engines.
     
  20. Riain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Straya
    Leaving aside carriers for the moment, if the Type 82 and not the T21 was the RNs first class of warship without steam, and thus without the long and expensive refits would that change the equation enough during the 1965 defence review? The numbers of ships required was arrived at by starting with 2 carriers as the standard tactical unit, what it took to defend such ships at sea, a few other odd jobs such as sub hunts and refuelling and then adding 1/3 for the steam power-plant driven long refit schedule. If you only have to add 1/4 or even 1/5 more ships because GTs are repair by replacement and removing those fixed big spending decision points around the steam overhauls then the Treasury can't say that the real cost of CVA01 is actually 500 million pounds for a 2nd carrier and 8 Type 82s because the requirement is only 5 or 6 Type 82s making at 450 million or whatever.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2019
    Zen9 likes this.