Alternative Royal Navy for the 1930s

[hipper]

I didn't specify altitude, or that the Ju-88s were diving. If the slipper tanks had little or no effect on performance, they would be the only external tanks to do so.
All Spitfire models were subject to improvements over time, required by increased power and weight.


One of the obstacles to multi-role ship-board aircraft, and aircraft in general, is available power. It's possible that the RN foresaw this when the suggestion of Griffon development was made to Rolls Royce. An aircraft with a 1,000 hp engine can carry only so much, and development of miracle Seafires would still be limited to that allowed by development of suitable Merlin variants. An early Griffon would be quite a game changer. It would certainly benefit the Fulmar.

The 30 gallon slipper tank decreased max speed of a sea fire IIc by 10 mph but it was a drop tank. ..

The development of the LIIc was driven by the inability to catch JU 88's this had a merl in 32 engine and a full throttle height of 5000 ft to enable it to catch 88s

Who's favourite tactic was to leave in a shallow dive

The possibility of early seafires compared to OTL was hardly a miracle, just a minor change in MAP policy.

Earlier griffins would be nice for the Barracuda

Cheers hipper

 

[Just Leo]

Who's favourite tactic was to leave in a shallow dive

This tactic was first noted during the BoB, when the shortest fastest course between between angels 18 over Britain and an air base in France was a shallow dive. It is easily countered by having an intercepter adopting a shallow dive in pursuit. A similar dilemma befell RAF pilots of LFV Spits, (clipped, cropped, clapped) in that diving enemy fighters seemed to be at an advantage despite their improved low-altitude performance. And enemy fighters also had a favorite tactic, the diving attack. Beware of the Hun in the sun.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I didn't specify altitude, or that the Ju-88s were diving. If the slipper tanks had little or no effect on performance, they would be the only external tanks to do so.
All Spitfire models were subject to improvements over time, required by increased power and weight.


One of the obstacles to multi-role ship-board aircraft, and aircraft in general, is available power. It's possible that the RN foresaw this when the suggestion of Griffon development was made to Rolls Royce. An aircraft with a 1,000 hp engine can carry only so much, and development of miracle Seafires would still be limited to that allowed by development of suitable Merlin variants. An early Griffon would be quite a game changer. It would certainly benefit the Fulmar.

Given a more powerful FAA, and given that the FAA was the Griffin's intended customer - and lets assume no invasion panic (ie Sickle cut falls on its face) - then there is no reason to 'Beaverbrook' development and production of the engine - and possibly even see Aircraft powered by the engine in service by late 1940 / Early 41. I cannot see it being any earlier than this (certainly if we want it being more powerful than a Merlin!).

 

[Just Leo]

I cannot see it being any earlier than this (certainly if we want it being more powerful than a Merlin!).

It's funny how vision varies.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

In the real world the Washington Treaty allowed the RN to scrap Argus, Eagle and Hermes at any time because they were experimental.

In 1924 it intended to use this clause of the treaty to order a 17,000 ton aircraft carrier in 1924-25, 1928-29, 1931-32 and 1934-35 Navy Estimates. However, only the 1934 Carrier was actually ordered and became the Ark Royal.

If I could go back in time I would do two things. The first would be to have the 1924, 1928 and 1931 Carriers built. However, these would be 22,000 ton Ark Royal class ships, preferably with single deck lifts instead of the double deck lifts used in the real world.

The 1924 Carrier would replace Argus, which in common with the real world was converted to a target drone depot ship. The 1928 Carrier would replace Eagle, which became an aircraft maintenance ship. The 1931 Carrier would replace Hermes, which was converted to a seaplane carrier and replaced the World War I Ark Royal. As four 22,000 carries come to 88,000 tons it would have been necessary to scrap Furious when the 1934 Carrier was completed. That is until the Second London Treaty abolished the tonnage quotas. Thus the RN would have had 4 Ark Royal class carriers and the 3 converted battle cruisers in 1939.

The second thing I would do would be to double the size of the FAA between the wars. Therefore there would be 324 aircraft in 54 flights in 1933 instead of 162 in 27. In the same year it was reorganised into 24 squadrons and 8 flights, but the number of aircraft was still 324. At the outbreak of war there would be 30 squadrons instead of 15 and twice as many aircraft in the catapult units.

This might lead to a third improvement. Better aircraft.

In the real world the RN wanted more aircraft than it could fit into its aircraft carriers. Therefore it planned to make up the numbers with aircraft operating from flying off platforms fitted to the turrets of battleships and cruisers. Therefore the FAA needed aircraft with excellent STOL characteristics, which is why aircraft like the Swordfish and Albacore were biplanes.

In the early 1930s the RN of this version of history expected to have 6 aircraft carriers capable of 30 knots, with a combined capacity of 384 aircraft in 1938, which would increase to 408 aircraft in 1941 and 432 aircraft in 1944, when the replacements for Courageous and Glorious were competed. This meant that there would be no need for aircraft capable of flying off turret platforms and it would be possible to design an aircraft with equivalent performance to the Douglas Devastator and the Japanese Kate in place of the Swordfish.

A secondary reason for the poor performance of FAA aircraft was that they were multi-purpose, jacks of all trades, but masters of none types. This was made necessary by the small aircraft capacities of the aircraft carriers. However, if the RN had carriers with greater capacities as it does here, then more specialised aircraft could be developed. Therefore there could also be equivalents to the Douglas Dauntless and Japanese Val dive bombers as well as the Devastator and Kate torpedo bombers.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Alternative Royal Navy in 1930s

Related to the third point in my earlier post (improved naval aircraft) the third thing I would change if I could go back in time would be to rationalise the British Aircraft industry between the wars, particularly the engine firms.

I would have Bristol Aero Engines and Armstrong Siddeley Motors merge in 1920 instead of 1960 to create Bristol Siddeley Engines Mk I. Meanwhile Rolls Royce takes over Napier in the 1920s instead of 1961, which is the change that has the most relevance to this thread.

I did that so that the Napier design team can be consolidated with the Rolls Royce design team. Therefore the engineers that designed the Napier Rapier are used to make the Peregrine work, the engineers that designed the Napier Dagger are used to accelerate the development of the Merlin and the engineers that designed the Napier Sabre are used to make the Vulture work.

The only post 1930 Napier engines that are developed are its diesels, the Culverin and Cutlass, which go into production as marine engines to power the Royal Navy's fast attack craft and the RAF's air sea rescue launches in place of the petrol engines used in the real world.

In the real world the Rolls Royce did start a high powered engine called the Griffon at the same time as the Merlin, but development was suspended for several years while Rolls Royce concentrated on the Merlin. Here Rolls Royce could give Griffon to the ex-Napier engineers instead of using them to bolster the Merlin, Peregrine and Vulture design teams.

The advantage of all that is that it can be done without spending more money.

If the Griffon wasn't suspended for several years it might have been ready in time to power the Fairey Battle. According to Bill Gunston in his book Aircraft for the Few the Battle was originally to have been powered by the this Griffon and after that was cancelled Fairey tried to develop their own high-power engine, which did not pass the Type Test early enough forcing the switch to the Merlin.

The Griffon would certainly have been ready in time to power the Fulmar, which was based on the Battle via the Fairey P.4/34.

The availability of a 1,700hp class engine in the early 1940s would allow Fairey to build an equivalent to the Avenger instead of the Albacore and the Merlin powered Barracudas.

The Hawker Typhoon and Tempest would have been powered by Griffons instead of the Sabre.

 

[Zheng He]

In the real world the Washington Treaty allowed the RN to scrap Argus, Eagle and Hermes at any time because they were experimental.

In 1924 it intended to use this clause of the treaty to order a 17,000 ton aircraft carrier in 1924-25, 1928-29, 1931-32 and 1934-35 Navy Estimates. However, only the 1934 Carrier was actually ordered and became the Ark Royal.

If I could go back in time I would do two things. The first would be to have the 1924, 1928 and 1931 Carriers built. However, these would be 22,000 ton Ark Royal class ships, preferably with single deck lifts instead of the double deck lifts used in the real world.

The 1924 Carrier would replace Argus, which in common with the real world was converted to a target drone depot ship. The 1928 Carrier would replace Eagle, which became an aircraft maintenance ship. The 1931 Carrier would replace Hermes, which was converted to a seaplane carrier and replaced the World War I Ark Royal. As four 22,000 carries come to 88,000 tons it would have been necessary to scrap Furious when the 1934 Carrier was completed. That is until the Second London Treaty abolished the tonnage quotas. Thus the RN would have had 4 Ark Royal class carriers and the 3 converted battle cruisers in 1939.

The second thing I would do would be to double the size of the FAA between the wars. Therefore there would be 324 aircraft in 54 flights in 1933 instead of 162 in 27. In the same year it was reorganised into 24 squadrons and 8 flights, but the number of aircraft was still 324. At the outbreak of war there would be 30 squadrons instead of 15 and twice as many aircraft in the catapult units.

This might lead to a third improvement. Better aircraft.

In the real world the RN wanted more aircraft than it could fit into its aircraft carriers. Therefore it planned to make up the numbers with aircraft operating from flying off platforms fitted to the turrets of battleships and cruisers. Therefore the FAA needed aircraft with excellent STOL characteristics, which is why aircraft like the Swordfish and Albacore were biplanes.

In the early 1930s the RN of this version of history expected to have 6 aircraft carriers capable of 30 knots, with a combined capacity of 384 aircraft in 1938, which would increase to 408 aircraft in 1941 and 432 aircraft in 1944, when the replacements for Courageous and Glorious were competed. This meant that there would be no need for aircraft capable of flying off turret platforms and it would be possible to design an aircraft with equivalent performance to the Douglas Devastator and the Japanese Kate in place of the Swordfish.

A secondary reason for the poor performance of FAA aircraft was that they were multi-purpose, jacks of all trades, but masters of none types. This was made necessary by the small aircraft capacities of the aircraft carriers. However, if the RN had carriers with greater capacities as it does here, then more specialised aircraft could be developed. Therefore there could also be equivalents to the Douglas Dauntless and Japanese Val dive bombers as well as the Devastator and Kate torpedo bombers.

WRT better aircraft, even if you go with a "worst case" scenario and the FAA is stuck with OTL aircraft you can still make improvements. I've posted on this thread and others that for all of the grief the Skua gets, by 1939 standards it was a good naval dive bomber when you consider what the US and Japan were flying at the time. Now, don't make it a fighter and modify to be strictly a dive bomber and you probably have a pretty decent machine that can see the RN through 1941 and still be serviceable through 1943. Maybe not quite as effective as the Dauntless but it is also two years ahead of the Dauntless.

Same thing with fighters. If a more robust carrier force and a FAA with more clout gets the FAA enough Sea Hurricanes to start the war on even half of its carriers then you are doing pretty well. Again, look at what the US and Japan were flying in 1939.

TBR - the Swordfish and Albacore were pretty effective and versatile machines (having a torpedo that works helps).

IMWO i f you have FAA carriers that start with war with air groups that are along the lines of USN air groups with a VF squadron (Sea Hurricanes), VB/VS squadrons (Modified Skuas) and VT squadrons (Swordfish or Albacores) then arguably the RN carrier force in 1939 is the most effective in the world.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Alternative Royal Navy in 1930s

WRT better aircraft, even if you go with a "worst case" scenario and the FAA is stuck with OTL aircraft you can still make improvements. I've posted on this thread and others that for all of the grief the Skua gets, by 1939 standards it was a good naval dive bomber when you consider what the US and Japan were flying at the time. Now, don't make it a fighter and modify to be strictly a dive bomber and you probably have a pretty decent machine that can see the RN through 1941 and still be serviceable through 1943. Maybe not quite as effective as the Dauntless but it is also two years ahead of the Dauntless.

Same thing with fighters. If a more robust carrier force and a FAA with more clout gets the FAA enough Sea Hurricanes to start the war on even half of its carriers then you are doing pretty well. Again, look at what the US and Japan were flying in 1939.

TBR - the Swordfish and Albacore were pretty effective and versatile machines (having a torpedo that works helps).

IMWO i f you have FAA carriers that start with war with air groups that are along the lines of USN air groups with a VF squadron (Sea Hurricanes), VB/VS squadrons (Modified Skuas) and VT squadrons (Swordfish or Albacores) then arguably the RN carrier force in 1939 is the most effective in the world.

I don't disagree with any of that. The Sworfish and Albacore did sterling work at Taranto, Matapan and against the Bismarck. However, they were attacking at night and the targets they attacked had no fighter cover. I'm not sure that they would have done so well against a Japanese carrier group in daylight.

I usually express the improvements in the quality of British naval aircraft that accrued by the late 1930s by bringing forward the aircraft forward a generation.

Therefore with strike aircraft: Albacore built instead of the Swordfish; Griffon-Barracuda instead of the Albacore; and Spearfish instead of the Barracuda.

Meanwhile Hawker Siddeley is able to get the Hurricane ready in time for more to be built instead of the Gladiator. Therefore we get the Sea Hurricane instead of the Sea Gladiator. I've nothing against the Roc/Skua, but I usually have Fulmars built by Blackburn and Boulton Paul in their place. Then the Firefly Mk 1 instead of the Fulmar. Subsequent marks of Firefly are a generation ahead of the real world. So Firefly Mk 4 instead of the real world's Firefly Mk 1, Mk 5 instead of the Mk 4 and so on.

In the real world the Blackburn Firebrand was developed alongside the Firefly to prove that it was the RN's range requirement that was the cause of the poor performance of British naval fighters, not the second crewman. As expected it was a failure as a fighter, but it could carry heavy loads so it was put into production as a "torpedo-fighter."

In my version of history it as still developed in parallel to the Firefly so the prototype which had a Griffon engine instead of Sabre flew early enough for it to be put into service as a strike aircraft in the second half of 1941.