Alternate warships of nations

The QE's were developed at a time where it is likely to early to adopt geared turbines, however small tube oil fired boilers are probably on the cards, and would provide equivalent power compared to the RL boilers, but with significant space and weight savings. I dont know if the RN would be interested in increasing the speed of the ship up to 27 knots, the designers were aiming for 25 knots already as I believe. However the designers may alter the ships hull during the design process to allow higher speeds in future refits if they deemed it necessary. The real question is what you are going to do with the weight and space you save by using small tube boilers? More armor? better crew quarters? More magazine space? A swimming pool for the captain?
We all know I am now lobbying for a swimming pool on this alternate QE.
 
I think aiming at 27 knots might be a bit pointless.

The function of being a fast battleship was to be the fast wing of the battle fleet and 24 or 25 knots was sufficient for that.

If being faster is a goal you either go for 26 (25.8 really) to operate with the invincible and indefatigable class battlecruisers or 28 to operate with the Lion class, Queen Mary and Tiger.

There's no practical reason to aim for a speed of 27.
 
I think aiming at 27 knots might be a bit pointless.

The function of being a fast battleship was to be the fast wing of the battle fleet and 24 or 25 knots was sufficient for that.

If being faster is a goal you either go for 26 (25.8 really) to operate with the invincible and indefatigable class battlecruisers or 28 to operate with the Lion class, Queen Mary and Tiger.

There's no practical reason to aim for a speed of 27.
Bear Logic? "I don't have to outrun the enemy, I just have to outrun the Invincibles!"
 
Bear Logic? "I don't have to outrun the enemy, I just have to outrun the Invincibles!"
25 knots was really more what the average battlecruiser could maintain for any period of time. So in quick jaunts they were slower than a bc. But for sustained speeds they were just as fast. Why make the ships any faster than that? Then you have a battlecruiser? Or so went the logic at the time.
 
There was the original Chinese Type 055 (or 555), which apparently was a 8,000-9,000 ton DDG design from the 1970s.

Second hand accounts on the Internet (unfortunately, I have not been able to locate any primary sources) state that among its problems (if it had been built), was its various electronic systems interfered with one another, to the point that apparently one of the radars (the aerial search one, IIRC) would set off the warhead fuzes of its HQ-61 SAMs.
 
Last edited:

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
There was the original Chinese Type 055 (or 555), which apparently was a 8,000-9,000 ton DDG design from the 1970s.

Second hand accounts on the Internet (unfortunately, I have not been able to locate any primary sources) state that among its problems (if it had been built), was its various electronic systems interfered with one another, to the point that apparently one of the radars (the aerial search one, IIRC) would set off the warhead fuzes of its HQ-61 SAMs.
And the alternate warship is...?
 
And the alternate warship is...?
Well, it was a warship that was never built, due to budgetary reasons and the PLAN rediscovering their sanity.

Its most distinguishing feature was that it had 33 separate radars due to the state of the 1970s Chinese electronics industry (and 20+ separate antennas). It essentially stretched the combat power of a British Type 42 DDG over a hull twice the size.
 
So making the Queen Elizabeth class actually able to make 25 knots, which is what I am aiming for, is realistic with small tube boilers? So I'll throw out the geared turbines since they are just a little too early for that. What about 25 knots with a 10-gun Broadside? Would it be viable if you increase the power output while using the same engineering space and lengthening the ship to fit a Q turret?

The number one issue would be the cost. So like the OTL's QE's, 4 would be ordered in the 1912-1913 program with Malaya paying for a 5th. The next year the RN decides that it needs a battlecruiser variant too and it already has 5 out of the 8 needed to make a battle squadron. So they buy 3 battleships plus a design Y battlecruiser, 30 knots, 11-inch armor, and 8 guns. Then Canada decides to support the RN by buying one battleship as a gift, this is based off of the Canadian plans to buy 3 battleships, but instead as a compromise, they buy just one instead. After the Battle of the Falklands 2 more design Y battlecruisers are bought the same as Renown and Repulse in otl. This would give the RN a total of 9 battleships capable of 25 knots with 10 guns and 3 battlecruisers capable of 30 knots and 8 guns with decent armor.

Or would it make more sense to simply make the OTL QE's capable of 25 knots with small tube boilers, replacing the R class battleships with more QE's for a total of 9 and building 3 battlecruisers of either the Renown class or design Y?
 
Recently the possibilities of the QE class have me intrigued. A video on youtube got me thinking. The QE class design history is kind of murky to say the least. Armour was almost a secondary consideration for many of the designs we know about. The engine design was revolutionary and at the time the QE class was capable of running down any Battlecruiser in the world as the stokers would be exhausted within an hour or two. So the QE class could and should be seen as the first fast Battleships. A second class of QE to an improved design would have been fascinating especially if for example an extra 50 feet given to improve natural speed etc. In at least one fantasy universe i was thinking of replacing the R class with an improved QE class(2 or 3 thousand ton heavier and 70,000 shp normal and 100K shp overload engines. ie 26 kt speed) and the Battlecruisers Repulse and Renown being simply a 3 turret and 15,000 shp increase on the QE class Mk II. For here it is simple to build the Admiral Class as a 4 turret Repulse with 120,000SHP and QE standard armour on a 40,000 ton hull.

The QE class Battleships are probably in terms of ability the most useful ever. (The Iowa class really redefine usefulness when given Strategic capability.)
 
My next idea is that the Battle of Jutland is a bit more decisive, the prestige of the Royal Navy is even higher and this affects the Washington Naval Treaty. After confirming they are the best navy in the world, why would they only want parity with the USN, especially when they have 3 major areas of operation? So instead of their bottom line being parity the British aim for a small quantitative lead of the USN. Instead of it being 15-15-9 in terms of capital ships it's instead 18(RN)-15 (USN)-11 (IJN). The RN gets to make 3 G3's plus 3 35,000 to battleships. The USN keeps 12 standards plus 3 Lexington's, and the Japanese add 2 Amagi's to the IJN.
 
My next idea is that the Battle of Jutland is a bit more decisive, the prestige of the Royal Navy is even higher and this affects the Washington Naval Treaty. After confirming they are the best navy in the world, why would they only want parity with the USN, especially when they have 3 major areas of operation? So instead of their bottom line being parity the British aim for a small quantitative lead of the USN. Instead of it being 15-15-9 in terms of capital ships it's instead 18(RN)-15 (USN)-11 (IJN). The RN gets to make 3 G3's plus 3 35,000 to battleships. The USN keeps 12 standards plus 3 Lexington's, and the Japanese add 2 Amagi's to the IJN.
I mean the reason the Brits (although not neccesarily the RN themselves) were willing to settle for parity because they really really couldn't afford to actually build much more and definitely couldn't afford a arms race. The US definitely could have afforded to beat the RN in a arms race but Congress really didn't want to.

The relative prestige of the RN doesn't really matter in this matter. The state of British finances after WW1 does.
 
There was the original Chinese Type 055 (or 555), which apparently was a 8,000-9,000 ton DDG design from the 1970s.

Second hand accounts on the Internet (unfortunately, I have not been able to locate any primary sources) state that among its problems (if it had been built), was its various electronic systems interfered with one another, to the point that apparently one of the radars (the aerial search one, IIRC) would set off the warhead fuzes of its HQ-61 SAMs.
The irony of a ship getting sunk because it's own air search radar sets off it's own SAMs before their launched is stunning.
 
My next idea is that the Battle of Jutland is a bit more decisive, the prestige of the Royal Navy is even higher and this affects the Washington Naval Treaty. After confirming they are the best navy in the world, why would they only want parity with the USN, especially when they have 3 major areas of operation? So instead of their bottom line being parity the British aim for a small quantitative lead of the USN. Instead of it being 15-15-9 in terms of capital ships it's instead 18(RN)-15 (USN)-11 (IJN). The RN gets to make 3 G3's plus 3 35,000 to battleships. The USN keeps 12 standards plus 3 Lexington's, and the Japanese add 2 Amagi's to the IJN.
The RN wants parity because they cannot afford to win a building race to the USN and the US just laid down 15 capital ships in 26 months in a time when the RN laid down none. The Treasury told the RN that no matter what happened they were not getting all 4 G3's even if the treaty failed totally, whereas the USN was a lot closer to getting all of the 1916 program, if they aren't cancelled within a matter of months it would cost less to finish them than to cancel them. Generally put the US could afford them, the Coolidge tax cuts were until Trump's the most unpopular ever, so the US could afford a much bigger navy by avoiding those cuts, not sure what Britain could do

Also the USN would get SoDaks before Lexingtons as they were more complete, not to mention Maryland as the 13th Standard before those, the same with Japan and the Tosas as opposed to Amagis
 
Generally put the US could afford them, the Coolidge tax cuts were until Trump's the most unpopular ever, so the US could afford a much bigger navy by avoiding those cuts, not sure what Britain could do
Britain could try selling Canada to the US at a ridiculously inflated rate. Then after the US pay's and realizes the UK has no legal ability to actually sell Canada anymore the UK could fake it's death and construct an enormous false mustache across the Kent and assume the new false identity of "Breat Gritain".
 
The RN wants parity because they cannot afford to win a building race to the USN and the US just laid down 15 capital ships in 26 months in a time when the RN laid down none. The Treasury told the RN that no matter what happened they were not getting all 4 G3's even if the treaty failed totally, whereas the USN was a lot closer to getting all of the 1916 program, if they aren't cancelled within a matter of months it would cost less to finish them than to cancel them. Generally put the US could afford them, the Coolidge tax cuts were until Trump's the most unpopular ever, so the US could afford a much bigger navy by avoiding those cuts, not sure what Britain could do

Also the USN would get SoDaks before Lexingtons as they were more complete, not to mention Maryland as the 13th Standard before those, the same with Japan and the Tosas as opposed to Amagis
1. I hate the SoDaks.
2. I can see 6 Lexingtons forming the "First Air Fleet" and a raid on Yokusuka in the IJNs dim future.
 
1. I hate the SoDaks.
2. I can see 6 Lexingtons forming the "First Air Fleet" and a raid on Yokusuka in the IJNs dim future.
And? They are already contracted and under construction, the USN takes what they can get and when the commission there isn't anything that can match them in a gun duel. Battlecruisers do not launch carrier raids, absent the WNT that is what they will be as the USN needs heavy scouts and Kongo Killers
 
Top