Alternate warships of nations

True or you get a multipurpose ship that can earn its keep even during peacetime ( which will be the vast majority of its service yrs) and have an intimidating presence
Most OPVs and corvettes are capable of 20 plus knots these days. If not high 20s of knots. Most fishing trawlers get around at what 12 to 15 knots? That's a big difference in speed. Further in a modern day navy you need sensors, and even more sensors plus the computing power to make sense of what your sensors are telling you. This is not WWII where you can take a good trawler design and get a good corvette or a frigate for convoy escort out it. Too many weapon advance weapon systems and too many specialist sensors are needed to make a modern warship work.

Even when you do something like the Cubans did with the Rio Damuji Class and strapped a couple of guns and MANPADS on to some old ass trawler you aren't going to be able to use them to turn a profit as the Cubans aren't using these for fishing now as the area in these trawlers are fitted out to serve as a make shift helicopter landing pad. Plus if a shooting war starts up with anyone with a respectful navy they are going to on the bottom in short order.
 

Driftless

Donor
USS Langley – Seaplane Tender/Aircraft Carrier – 1912

(ITTL - The Wright Brothers were only granted patents for their wing-warping control technology, instead of the overly broad interpretation given them in our universe. That change allows for some earlier development of heavier-than-air flight across the board)

On August 12, 1908, Eugene Ely, flying for the US Navy, takes off in his Curtis Pusher plane from a temporary wooden deck built over the bow of the USS Birmingham (at anchor), becoming the first aviator to fly off of a ship. With the slow start off the stationary ship, Ely’s craft barely avoided crashing into the water, but Ely was able to pull out of the dip and flew to the nearby shore.
Photo from Wikipedia:
First_airplane_takeoff_from_a_warship.jpg


After that successful initial flight, Ely was called on again to land on a similarly ad hoc deck on the Armored Cruiser USS Pennsylvania two months later in October 1908. In a bit of inspiration, a tail hook and arresting wire helped to contain the rollout of the landing plane (That tail hook and wire is OTL, by-the-way)

In both instances, Ely and several of the Navy brass come to the common conclusion that having the ship in motion, with additional air flow across the deck would be beneficial for both take offs and landings, in future. More difficult for the pilot lining up for landing, but the speed differential was reduced.

The Navy had also started to purchase a few (8) Curtis floatplanes with the idea that such planes could be useful as fleet scouts, with the USN having far wider ranging commitments on both coasts and the Gulf and points south. It was also determined that some type of Tender ship, or ships were needed to carry and service the planes.

As Congress was being frugal with disbursement of tax funds, the decision was made to convert the obsolescent USS New York (ACR-2), rather than build from keel up. The ship had the two main battery 8”/203mm turrets removed and much of the superstructure removed to allow for the building of a deck and re-trunking of the stacks, and installation of cranes for depositing the planes on the water for launch and later recovery. The conversion process started in 1910 and the revised ship was re-commissioned as the USS Langley.CV-1 in 1912

Following an idea from Glenn Curtis, during the trials phase, a counter-weighted catapult launch system was tested (similar to a rig the Wright Brothers originally used with the Wright Flyer). The idea being that every bit of forward thrust during launch was helpful, in addition to steering the ship into the prevailing wind. The floats of the plane were seated in a cradle, which was attached to the counter-weighted launch cable.

On learning of the counter-weight launch system test, the Wright Brothers sued for patent infringement (even though that system was not covered in their original filing). On learning of the Wright Bros. lawsuit, Glenn Curtis and Eugene Ely, with Navy blessing, threw caution to the winds (literally) and repeatedly and successfully launched and landed the old tried-and-true wheeled Curtis Pusher sans launching cradle and counter-weight catapult. It was decided that both wheeled and floatplanes would be carried aboard the Langley, but the catapult would be removed. The floatplanes (and later flying boats) would be hoisted off the ship by crane and placed on the water for launching as first thought. Much trial and error involved in those early days.

With the Langley being a first of sorts for the USN, there were a number of deficiencies uncovered, which would be addressed on later tender/carriers. Still, this Langley was included in the US Navy’s Veracruz operations in 1914, and would provide good service as test bed until decommissioning and scrapping in 1922.

*Edit* Anyone care to take a whack at how this version of the Langley might be rigged up? I have no Springsharp skills and I'm not sure if you could even run such a thorough going overhaul through Springsharp. My initial thought was having the stack and bridge off center, but maybe not on the beam as we have seen most carrier development, leaving enough decking for transfer of aircraft from the landing side to the launching side. Apart from that, I haven't a clue how far down a 1911-ish teardown and buildup would go. (The main battery has to go of course, but do the casement guns and that deck too? Probably partially so, if you're going to have some kind of workshop area. Elevator?
 
Last edited:
Most OPVs and corvettes are capable of 20 plus knots these days. If not high 20s of knots. Most fishing trawlers get around at what 12 to 15 knots? That's a big difference in speed. Further in a modern day navy you need sensors, and even more sensors plus the computing power to make sense of what your sensors are telling you. This is not WWII where you can take a good trawler design and get a good corvette or a frigate for convoy escort out it. Too many weapon advance weapon systems and too many specialist sensors are needed to make a modern warship work.

Even when you do something like the Cubans did with the Rio Damuji Class and strapped a couple of guns and MANPADS on to some old ass trawler you aren't going to be able to use them to turn a profit as the Cubans aren't using these for fishing now as the area in these trawlers are fitted out to serve as a make shift helicopter landing pad. Plus if a shooting war starts up with anyone with a respectful navy they are going to on the bottom in short order.
Rio Damuji if I recall had the P-15 termit launchers too ?
It’s probably sufficient when trying to bully their weak neighbors, Ofcourse against USN even if they had a flotilla of Udaloys it would be sunk in an afternoon so why bother with such an investment
 
The British and Germans lack reliable access to abundant supplies of oil...
They could use coal tar oil in boilers and the slower diesel engines. (Germany may have had better access to it than to coal, as many of their warships ran on a stockpile of high-grade Welsh anthracite).
 
Were Soviets trained to fight enemy subs ? Esp their SSN / SS SSK fleet
The Soviets build various classes with different primary missions in mind. E.g. the Alfa was meant for fast strikes into the Atlantic against convoys, one part of the Akula Mission was to be protection for the Soviet boomers against enemy subs, while the Sierra was meant for search and destroy missions against US subs. So while the importance varied by class, the Soviets had the ASW role very much in mind.
 
Quoting my post since it got entirely passed over by other discussion.

What would a carrier conversion of Brazilian Battleship Riachuelo look like?

For context, imagine that WW1 starts a year later for reasons so Riachuelo has actually been started and worked on for some time, the two Ottoman dreadnoughts have been delivered (thought they have a third one under construction), Latorre and Cochrane (Canada and Eagle, respectively) would also be further along.

Is there potential for the Brazilian ship to be converted to a carrier ala Eagle? While both Chilean ships serve in the Royal Navy as battleships for some time. (I was thinking Fatih Sultan Mehmed (Erin/Reshadiye's sister) is simply cancelled and scrapped, but I guess it is possible she might get commissioned as either a carrier or battleship for the Royal Navy as well)
 
The Soviets build various classes with different primary missions in mind. E.g. the Alfa was meant for fast strikes into the Atlantic against convoys, one part of the Akula Mission was to be protection for the Soviet boomers against enemy subs, while the Sierra was meant for search and destroy missions against US subs. So while the importance varied by class, the Soviets had the ASW role very much in mind.
Weren’t the Alfa too short ranged and noisy to operate in mid Atlantic ?
 
Short range and nuclear are not two phrases that usually go together

Noisy yes especially at max speed
I agree but my impression was that even a short voyage would tax their engines so much that long distance deployment was not possible
Again happy to be corrected
 
I agree but my impression was that even a short voyage would tax their engines so much that long distance deployment was not possible
Again happy to be corrected
If thete is a restriction its how long the crew of 42 iirc can sustain operations
 
Weren’t the Alfa too short ranged and noisy to operate in mid Atlantic ?

I agree but my impression was that even a short voyage would tax their engines so much that long distance deployment was not possible
Again happy to be corrected

If thete is a restriction its how long the crew of 42 iirc can sustain operations

I think the Soviets design assumptions about Alfas was similar to their approach to tanks. i.e let's min-max the hell out of this thing and give it the speed to outrun NATO torps and a deep diving capability that means many torps couldn't reach it even if they could catch it. We'll sacrifice everything else for this including crew comfort, ease of maintainence, and make it as quiet and subtle as a freight train because they won't be able to do anything about it. Who knows if it'd have worked, I suspect like the T-72 it wouldn't have.
 
Last edited:
Who knows if it'd have worked, I suspect like the T-72 it wouldn't have.
Its probably one of those designs that could work in niche circumstances against certain opponent forces but would be unable to deal with most opposition task groups.

I want to say that a sufficiently fast submarine probably need to be tackled with airbourne asw to close the net.
 
I think the Soviets design assumptions about Alfas was similar to their approach to tanks. i.e let's min-max the hell out of this thing and give it the speed to outrun NATO torps and a deep diving capability that means many torps couldn't reach it even if they could catch it. We'll sacrifice everything else for this including crew comfort, ease of maintainence, and make it as quiet and subtle as a freight train because they won't be able to do anything about it. Who knows if it'd have worked, I suspect like the T-72 it wouldn't have.

Maybe it would have have the forward section going off like the turrets seem to on T-72's........
 
Last edited:
I suspect like the T-72 it wouldn't have.
The idea that the 72 would not have been a serious, formidable enemy when it entered service in massive numbers is maybe a foolish thing? It's now over 49 years old..... everything becomes obsolescent and then obsolete, but in the late 70s it would not have been fun for NATO to meet them in Northern Germany?
 
Last edited:
Honestly I feel the Alfa would've been an interesting opponent that would've found new and interesting ways to die horribly.

It's too loud and in the North Atlantic, that's the last thing you want when 20 nations fleets are looking for you.

Part of me wonders if they were designed this way to draw NATO ships and subs to them and away from quieter missile subs
 
The idea that the 72 would not have been a serious, formidable enemy when it entered service in massive numbers is maybe a foolish thing? It's now over 49 years old..... everything becomes obsolescent and then obsolete, but in the late 70s it would not have been fun for NATO to meet them in Northern Germany?

The T-72 entered service in 1974 while the Leopard II and the M1 Abrams, the two premier Western tanks both entered service in 1979. All three tanks have seen continuous investment and iterative improvement meaning the latest models have relatively little in common bar a mould line with the initial versions but the fundamental design principles remain. In the case of the T-72 this was an emphasis on low height and small forward cross section by having an turret autoloader. A design decision which has resulted in a lot of headless tanks in Iraq and now Ukraine.
 
The T-72 entered service in 1974 while the Leopard II and the M1 Abrams, the two premier Western tanks both entered service in 1979. All three tanks have seen continuous investment and iterative improvement meaning the latest models have relatively little in common bar a mould line with the initial versions but the fundamental design principles remain. In the case of the T-72 this was an emphasis on low height and small forward cross section by having an turret autoloader. A design decision which has resulted in a lot of headless tanks in Iraq and now Ukraine.
But is this not normal development for each generation from opposing powers? It's just that the Soviets stopped really developing and fielding any new systems in the 80s as they ran out of money due to Afghanistan and then the fall of USSR ended the race completely..... (until magic T14/T90M....attempts much later?)

The problem isnt T72 It's that T72 is still in serve now 49 years later.... not its replacement (ie a real T90 not a T72 with a name badge...) and that they are working on a replacement for that already (T14 with domestic computers.....;)?).
 
Last edited:
Top