Best British interwar fleet?

[173rd LRRP]

The shorter the wavelength the more watts throughput. And like any form of light the effectiveness of radio detection depends on "weather". conditions and "ground" clutter and "noise" and "glare".

Greater frequency is higher resolution

 

[McPherson]

Greater frequency is higher resolution

More easily foxed.

 

[ArtosStark]

I took these notes from a passage called, "Notable Riddles of the Sky," from Night Fighters by Bill Gunston.
However, Gunston also wrote that a 50 centimetre naval radar was suggested by the Admiralty Signals Research Establishment (ASRE) in 1931 and that King George V suggested it in 1931 after hearing about asdic at an Admiralty lecture, but the speaker thought it was not yet possible.

ITTL I want King George V's and the ASRE's suggestions to be taken seriously enough for the British to begin their radar programme in 1931 instead of 1935. There should be enough money available because @Hood has allowed us to spend £50 million a year more on defence 1919-39 with £20 million of it spend on the RAF & Civil Aviation, £15 million on the British Army and £15 million on the Royal Navy.

I think making British radars of 1939 ITTL equal to 1943 IOTL due to the earlier start would be taking it too far. However, I think that making 1939 IOTL equal to 1941 ITTL is reasonable and would increase the effectiveness of the warships the RN had IOTL in the first third of the war.

AIUI the Royal Navy's 50-cm radars were superior to the early radars used by the British Army and RAF because their radars used higher wavelengths.

For example the GL Mk I & II radars used by Anti-Aircraft Command during the Blitz used a 6-metre wavelength. Would they have shot down more aircraft had they been using 50-cm GL radars?

Again, IIRC (and I'm not 100%) sure the Airborne Interception radars Mks I to VI worked on a wavelength of 1.5 metres. Would the RAF's night fighters have shot down more aircraft if they had been fitted with a 50-cm AI radar?

Having done some quick googling, I actually don’t think this would help either. Bells research was an important step, but what really made it practical was the valve invented by Randall and Boot in 1940. However, in the mid thirties Albert Wood did put forward designs which were apparently almost identical to later production versions. But the Admiralty said their designers were too busy to pursue it. Still tracking down details, but this might be an early radar POV. (It should be noted that Hans Hollman, a German scientist actually invented a multi cavity resonant magnetron in 1935 but the German military didn’t like the frequency drift involved and instead went with a more stable system that, as it turned out, didn’t have the potential for increasing power output that cavity magnetrons ultimately did)

View attachment 527171View attachment 527172
This is the reference for the story of A.B Wood that I referenced above. Taken from “Development of Radar Equipments for the Royal Navy:1935-1945”. The author basically lays out a call for a A-H in the last sentence!

So, if we go with a POD of 1931 and KGV lighting a fire under the Signal School, when Wood is looking into the issue in 1935, increased project priority means he gets the interest he needs.
Success would probably not be guaranteed but this being A-H let’s say they have a practical 50 cm (or 27 cm as I understand that was the shortest wavelength they were looking at in the mid 30s) radar set in 1937 or 38. With enough power, and assuming they can account for increased interference at smaller wavelength then better radar for the other services likely would follow. The limitation with Airborne would likely be generation capacity. Does anyone know what output of generator a plane could carry in 1939?
I think VT fuses would have to wait for a suitable battery. I saw on another post that a battery that would work was invented at University of Toronto prior to the Tizard mission but I can’t remember the details. Anyone else know anything about this?