Best warships that should have been built

Letters of Last Resort may sound cool, but that's not how nuclear war is actually fought. Because of the severe limits on the availability of launch platforms and warheads, the conduct of nuclear war is very tightly controlled. In the real world, the Soviet first strike is detected by DSP and other satellites designed to spot the thermal bloom of a large rocket launch. National command authorities are alerted and issue orders based on prior contingency planning, so a set of targets and assignments is ready for any order that might he given based on the response deemed appropriate according to civilian political priorities. Orders are then disseminated to launch platforms to inform them of the selected target package and the initiation time; the launch platforms already know their role (which targets they have to hit and what time after initiation) in each target package scenario. The first salvo of the nuclear war unfolds exactly according to plan, at least on the launch side. After that, subsequent operations are planned and conducted based on the results of previous strikes. I am not saying that planning cannot be dynamic, but rather that the initial missile salvos in the first hour of a nuclear war will be very highly orchestrated, especially compared to the missions that nuclear-armed aircraft will fly in the subsequent 6 to 24 hours.

For example, the US has pre-made plans for limited nuclear wars with Iran and North Korea, responding to single digits of missile launches against military targets in foreign countries and overseas territories, and plans for more general nuclear war with China and Russia, which have the ability to lay down large numbers of warheads in the contiguous United States. The point of these plans is to prevent a situation where a civilian politician has to invent a nuclear warfighting strategy in about two minutes. The objective of nuclear utilization planning is to ensure that targets are not hit more than necessary (wasting resources on destroyed targets), and, more importantly, to ensure that important or dangerous targets are not missed. This kind of planning cannot happen when enemy missiles are downbound.

I never said "Letters of Last Resort" we're cool and I never said that is how a nation fights a nuclear war. In fact nothing that you've said in the first paragraph actually connects to the previous points I'd made in earlier posts.

"For example, the US has pre-made plans for limited nuclear wars with Iran and North Korea,"

That's the crux of the problem . . . because the RN also use the Trident D-II you think that the UK's parameters are the same as the US. They're not as we've only got one boat on patrol, not the dozen or so the USN has.

You're either being deliberately obtuse . . . or you're just trolling!
 
AIUI the French originally planned a force of five boats so that two would be on patrol at all times and that the sixth boat was built to make it easier to keep two on patrol at all times.

This is from the entry on L'Inflexible the sixth French SSBN in Jane's Fighting Ships 1986-87.
I always took the 6th French hull as a quiet admitance of the MN that they couldn't maintain 2 boats on patrol 100% of the time with only 5 hulls.
The Jane's entry you cite actually conforts me in that view.
I'm probably wrong and it's a domain where we won't get a definitive answer.
 
That's the crux of the problem . . . because the RN also use the Trident D-II you think that the UK's parameters are the same as the US. They're not as we've only got one boat on patrol, not the dozen or so the USN has.
This is untrue and you would know it if you did even a modicum of research. The US Navy maintains four submarines on patrol, two in the Atlantic and two in the Pacific. All ballistic missile submarines, regardless of country, on deterrent patrols have the same nuclear warfighting role, because all deterrent systems have limited numbers of warheads available. Without reinforcements, deterrent submarines are capable only of countervalue second strikes, even if the increased accuracy of modern missiles allows them to take part in counterforce first strikes. This means that all deterrent submarines have similar target selection criteria, although American and Russian plans will obviously have more depth because of the greater number of deployed warheads.
 
Last edited:
The way British Defence procurement usually works though it's actually fairly likely to be at least partly true. It may not have been the main reason for proposing to buy 5 Polaris boats, but I'd put money on them thinking it'll be handy to have an extra boat we can axe if the Treasury kicks up a fuss again.
 
Part of a Marine Nationale Since 1960 TL
Alternative Submarine Q244/Q251


I've wanked the development of the French nuclear submarine reactor. Therefore, Q251 wasn't cancelled in 1959 and was completed in the first half of the 1960s as an SSN.

Or it was decided to complete her as an SSBN. I'd like her to be built to the same design as Le Redoutable, but it's more likely that she'd be a "super Gymnotte". That is her hull would be cut in half and a new centre section accommodating 16 tubes for M-1 MSBS missiles like the American George Washington class. In common with the OTL Gymnote she'd be completed in 1966, but would not fire the first M-1 missile until 1968 and like Le Redoutable wouldn't be declared operational until the end of 1970.

However, it also means that the French would have 3 operational SSBNs in 1973, 4 in 1974, 5 in 1976 and 6 in 1980 compared to 2, 3, 4 and 5 in those years.

The OTL Gymnote was decommissioned in 1986 and I also think that the TTL Gymnote would also have been paid off in 1986. This was because L' Inflexible was still built ITTL. However, rather than being built to bring the SNLE up to a force of 6 ships it was decided that given the age of and non-standard design of Gymnote it was more cost effective to build a new ship armed with the M-4 missile, rather than rearm her with the missile.

Alternative Agosta class Submarines

They were built as SSNs and were additional units of the Rubis class in all but name.

Alternative Clemenceau class Aircraft Carriers

Three ships built to the larger PA58 design. That is two instead of the OTL Clemenceau & Foch. The third was built instead of the OTL PA58 which was cancelled in the late 1950s. They were laid down 1955-59, launched 1957-61 and completed 1961-65. The last ship replaced Arromanches, which became the nuclear testing flagship in 1966 in place of De Grasse.

Each ship operated 20 F-8E(FN) Crusaders and 40 Etendard IVM/P plus a mix of up to 20 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters for AEW, ASW, SAR and VERTREP or a smaller number of more capable aircraft. If it was the former the Aeronavale purchased 252 F-8E(FN), 582 Etendard IVM/P and 192 Zephyr trainers, but not necessarily 480 Alizes.
Edit 08.11.23
The numbers should be 126 F-8E(FN), 291 Etendard IVM/P and 96 Zephyr trainers, but not necessarily 240 Alizes. That is there were 50% more ships and each ship carried double the number of aircraft so 3 times as many aircraft were required. Except, that I multiplied the OTL numbers by 6 instead of by 3.

Alternative Charles de Gaulle class Aircraft Carriers

Note from Page 145 of Jane's Fighting Ships 1982-83 (No note in 1980-81 & I didn't have access to 1981-82)

"On 23rd September 1980 the Defence Council decided to build two nuclear-propelled aircraft carriers of 32-35,000 tons to replace Clememceau in 1990 and Foch some years later. First ship, Bretagne, to be laid down at Brest in 1983. The second to be named Provence. Aircraft complement, 30-40. Funds for preliminary work at Brest in 1981 estimates."

By the time Jane's Fighting Ships 1986-87 was published the first ship (with the provisional name of Richelieu) was to be laid down in 1986. However, her completion had been put back from 1990 to 1995 and the replacement for Foch was to be completed some years after that. The first ship had been ordered (on 4th February 1986) and the second ship was to be ordered in 1990.

However, the first ship wasn't laid down until 1989, launched (as Charles de Gaulle) until 1994 and completed in 2001 after starting sea trials in 1999.

ITTL France was rich enough to afford to build 3 Charles de Gaulle class ships in the 1980s. The first ship was laid down in 1983 and completed in 1990. The other two ships were completed by the end of 1995. 3 nuclear powered versions of the OTL PA2 design will replace them in the 2020s.

Alternative Cruiser De Grasse

IOTL the OTL De Grasse was suspended in 1946, resumed in 1951 and completed in 1956. She was converted into the nuclear testing flagship 1964-66 and according to Wikipaedia was used for six testing campaigns between 1966 and 1972. She was decommissioned in 1973 and was sold for scrap on 25 January 1974.

ITTL she was still suspended in 1946, but by 1951 it was decided that it would be better to build a brand-new ship from the keep up. The Nouveau De Grasse was laid down at Brest in 1951, launched in 1953 and completed in 1956 to the same design as Colbert.

She wasn't converted to a command ship 1964-66 IOTL. Arrmoanches had this refit instead. According to the TTL version of Wikipaedia Arromanches was used for six testing campaigns between 1966 and 1972. She was decommissioned in 1973 and was sold for scrap on 25 January 1974.

Meanwhile, De Grasse continued to operate as a conventional cruiser until she was rebuilt into a guide missile cruiser 1968-70. She was rebuilt along the lines of Colbert in her OTL (and TTL) 1970-72 refit. ITTL De Grasse wasn't paid off in 1973, but continued in service until the end of the Cold War.

Alternative Cruiser Jeanne d' Arc

This was an enlargement of the OTL Jeanne d' Arc. This was to allow for more powerful machinery. SHP was increased from 40,000 IOTL to 80-90,000 ITTL to allow in increase in maximum speed from 26.5 knots to 32-33 knots so she could operate with the aircraft carriers. As planned IOTL she was completed with a Mascura SAM launcher in A position and had 2 DRBR 51 fire control radars. The larger hull might have also allowed a larger hangar & flight deck and the ability to carry more cadets and commandos.

Alternative Suffren class Destroyers

Not really an alternative because the design was the same as OTL. The change is that 6 were built instead of 2. The 4 extra ships were built in place of Anconit and the 3 Tourville class destroyers.

IOTL only 3 Mascura SAM systems were built, that is one system for the rebuilt Colbert and 2 for the Suffrens. ITTL 15 systems were built, that is 6 for the 3 PA class aircraft carriers (2 per ship), 3 for the cruisers and 6 for the Suffren class. That isn't exactly mass production, but the larger production run, should reduce the unit costs so that the total cost of the 15 systems built ITTL was less than five times the total cost of the 3 systems built ITTL.

Alternative T47 Destroyer Rebuilds

IOTL 4 ships of this class were rebuilt into guided missile destroyers in the 1960s. They received a single Mk 13 launcher (fed bay a magazine holding 40 Tatar or Standard MR missiles) and 2 SPG-51B fire control radars and the SENIT naval tactical system.

The OTL Mascura SAM was of similar size to the American Terrier/Standard ER family of missiles. ITTL the French developed a smaller version that was equivalent to the American Tatar/Standard MR family of missiles and it was ready in time to be fitted to all 12 T47 destroyers in the 1960s in place of the 4 Tatar conversions of OTL.

Alternative C70AA Frigate

IOTL the French planned to build 4 ships of this type, which would be fitted with Mk 13 launchers and SPG-51 radars taken from the 4 T47 destroyers. (However, Jane's Fighting Ships 1975-76 says 6 C70AA were planned.) However, it was decided not to build the third and fourth ships after the Americans decided to terminate production of the Standard SM-1MR missile.

ITTL the French planned and built 12 ships of this type, which were be fitted with "Small Mascura" launchers and fire control radars taken from the 12 T47 destroyers. They were also built at a faster rate than OTL. Under Plan Bleu of 1972 all 24 C70 frigates were to have been completed by 1985 and ITTL they were. IOTL only 9 ships of the class (2 AA and 7 AS) were built and the last one was not completed until 1991.

12 ASW version of the C70 were also built by 1985 ITTL, which with the 12 AA versions and 6 Suffren class meant that the French Navy had the 30 destroyers that it was supposed to have in 1985 under Plan Bleu. They also had the 35 avisos planned, which consisted of the 9 E59 class and 26 instead of 17 A69 class.

Alternative Ouragan class TCD

IOTL Arromanches became a helicopter carrier in 1968 and served in that role until 1974, but ITTL she became the nuclear testing flagship in 1966, was paid off in 1973 and was sold for scrapping in 1974. ITTL some of that lost capability was retained by building a third Ouragan class TCD.

However, these ships were twice as big as the OTL class. Displacements were: 11,600 tons, light; 17,000 tons, full load; and 30,000 tons when fully immersed.

The crew as also doubled from 239 to 478, but they could also carry 700 troops normally and 940 for short periods. The capacity of the dock was also doubled to 4 large landing craft of the EDIC type or 36 loaded LCMs plus 3,000 tons of material and equipment handled by four 35 ton cranes (or two 70 ton cranes).

The OTL ships had a platform for four heavy helicopters. The TTL ships had a platform that could accommodate at least eight heavy helicopters.

They were to have been replaced by the Foudre class. The OTL version of Jane's Fighting Ships 1986-87 says that the planned paying off dates were 1990 and 1993, but in the end they weren't retired until 2007. It also says that 3 Foudre class were to be built, but in the end only 2 ships of this class were built.

ITTL 3 Foudre class ships were built to replace the Ouragan class, but in common with OTL the Ouragan class were run on until the middle of the 2000s. The TTL Foudre class ships were much bigger than the OTL and were effectively the Mistral design with 1980s electronics.
 
Last edited:
. Because of the severe limits on the availability of launch platforms and warheads, the conduct of nuclear war is very tightly controlled. In the real world, the Soviet first strike is detected by DSP and other satellites designed to spot the thermal bloom of a large rocket launch. National command authorities are alerted and issue orders based on prior contingency planning, so a set of targets and assignments is ready for any order that might he given based on the response deemed appropriate according to civilian political priorities. Orders are then disseminated to launch platforms to inform them of the selected target package and the initiation time; the launch platforms already know their role (which targets they have to hit and what time after initiation) in each target package scenario. The first salvo of the nuclear war unfolds exactly according to plan, at least on the launch side. After that, subsequent operations are planned and conducted based on the results of previous strikes. I am not saying that planning cannot be dynamic, but rather that the initial missile salvos in the first hour of a nuclear war will be very highly orchestrated, especially compared to the missions that nuclear-armed aircraft will fly in the subsequent 6 to 24 hours.
Without reinforcements, deterrent submarines are capable only of countervalue second strikes, even if the increased accuracy of modern missiles allows them to take part in counterforce first strikes. This means that all deterrent submarines have similar target selection criteria,
But in UK case none of the above is really true, unless they are working with US (and that would be done to US rules/commands) they dont have much of the warning systems and cant ever expect any more weapons (other Subs destroyed by first strike/no land or aircraft weapons) so it just one boat firing to do as much retaliation as its orders tell it to (with the orders having to be pre agreed as UK doesn't have the command network to actually function reliably after being hit)...?

This means they are presumably very simple ie hit Moscow/etc (assuming you can identify who fired at UK and want to retaliate?) with the full salvo?
....the SIOP (or whatever it is now) would have to be continuously recalculated to account for the targets each submarines could hit from its current position. You would have to redevelop your entire nuclear utilization plan every twelve hours, including disseminating the exact location of all of the underway submarines to all of the nuclear planners. ....
I question if its that hard if you are firing at large targets and dont care about exact timings or accuracy etc? Ie in a "just hit Russian cities" they could afford to fire a spread of the warheads in a overlapping circle and still hit even with much reduced accuracy from that required to hit hardened targets?
A SSBN out of the Clyde starts it's 'patrol' as you call it as soon as it leaves port. SSBN's don't go travel around in the same area as it would make them more easier to locate by enemy SSN's.
Would RN not have calculated a back up box that is the dockside and Clyde channel as the chance of a boat being alongside and almost ready is statistically quite high and you might as well use it as well in a worse case?

Not that anybody who really knows would be talking here anyway..... :p
 
Last edited:
But in UK case none of the above is really true, unless they are working with US (and that would be done to US rules/commands) they dont have much of the warning systems and cant ever expect any more weapons (other Subs destroyed by first strike/no land or aircraft weapons) so it just one boat firing to do as much retaliation as its orders tell it to (with the orders having to be pre agreed as UK doesn't have the command network to actually function reliably after being hit)...?

This means they are presumably means they are very simple ie hit Moscow/etc (assuming you can identify who fired at UK and want to retaliate?) with the full salvo?

I question if its that hard if you are firing at large targets and dont care about exact timings or accuracy etc? Ie in a "just hit Russian cities" they could afford to fire a spread of the warheads in a overlapping circle and still hit even with much reduced accuracy from that required to hit hardened targets?

Would RN not have calculated a back up box that is the dockside and Clyde channel as the chance of a boat being alongside and almost ready is statistically quite high and you might as well use it as well in a worse case?

Not that anybody who really knows would be talking here anyway..... :p

That's correct.

The 'Home' team always have a squad on the berthed boats that allows them, although it's debatable how many they could all launch if after getting the 'Four Minute Warning') to launch the missiles.
 
This is untrue and you would know it if you did even a modicum of research. The US Navy maintains four submarines on patrol, two in the Atlantic and two in the Pacific. All ballistic missile submarines, regardless of country, on deterrent patrols have the same nuclear warfighting role, because all deterrent systems have limited numbers of warheads available. Without reinforcements, deterrent submarines are capable only of countervalue second strikes, even if the increased accuracy of modern missiles allows them to take part in counterforce first strikes. This means that all deterrent submarines have similar target selection criteria, although American and Russian plans will obviously have more depth because of the greater number of deployed warheads.

And again you start blithely parroting on about the US, we're not debating the US . . . we're debating the ordering of a 5th or even 6th boat for the RN.

Last time I looked the UK wasn't the 51st state of the US, the USN didn't control the RN, nor is the RN part of the USN only part of NATO.

Trying to compare the RN's & USN's systems, attack protocols etc is like comparing Rugby League with Rugby Union, Formula 1 with IndyCar
 
Just some basic research shows that U.K. SSBNs are under the command of SACEUR and that the U.K. coordinates its targeting with the US. SECEUR has always been an American. I’ve never served on a U.K. SSBN but I did serve on 5 US ones. I’ve also toured and drunk beer on a U.K. SSN and SSBN. SSBNs do not have a “squad” on board to launch missiles in port. Just the minor detail that the CO and several Officers would have to be onboard 24/7/365 to authenticate orders and give the launch command makes that impossible. When an SSBN is in port it’s there for maintenance. Systems get turned off. Lock out tags are hung. There is only about 1/3 of the crew onboard after working hours. Missiles need to know where they are at launch. SINS is turned off in port. Then there’s the problem of actually launching the missile. Only one surface launch has ever been performed. USS Henry Clay launched one missile. When it ignited it basically melted all the other hatches shut. It’s tilted to port in case the missile didn’t ignite.
1583086791166.jpeg
 
And again you start blithely parroting on about the US, we're not debating the US . . . we're debating the ordering of a 5th or even 6th boat for the RN.

Last time I looked the UK wasn't the 51st state of the US, the USN didn't control the RN, nor is the RN part of the USN only part of NATO.

Trying to compare the RN's & USN's systems, attack protocols etc is like comparing Rugby League with Rugby Union, Formula 1 with IndyCar
I would like to point out that not james stocked has given numerous sources and explanations to back up his claims. All you seem to have done is say he is incorrect and fail to back it up with any reasons. And while yes he has spoke of USN doctrine, the RN has similar mission requirements and for a long time the same missiles. If your aim is to discredit him then perhaps back up your statements with sources or personal experience. Otherwise it is hard to take you seriously.
Also this argument is starting to distract from the main thread. Perhaps its time move on?
 
And again you start blithely parroting on about the US, we're not debating the US . . . we're debating the ordering of a 5th or even 6th boat for the RN.

Last time I looked the UK wasn't the 51st state of the US, the USN didn't control the RN, nor is the RN part of the USN only part of NATO.

Trying to compare the RN's & USN's systems, attack protocols etc is like comparing Rugby League with Rugby Union, Formula 1 with IndyCar

Though ironically enough one of the supposed options of the "Letters of last resort" is that if the UK has been completely destroyed but the US still exists in some form for the RN submarine to sail to the US and put itself under the command of the USN.
 
Each ship operated 20 F-8E(FN) Crusaders and 40 Etendard IVM/P plus a mix of up to 20 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters for AEW, ASW, SAR and VERTREP or a smaller number of more capable aircraft. If it was the former the Aeronavale purchased 252 F-8E(FN), 582 Etendard IVM/P and 192 Zephyr trainers, but not necessarily 480 Alizes.
I don't think you can fit an air wing this size on the PA 58 design. This is, smaller aircraft aside, a Midway-sized air wing on a much smaller ship.
 

SsgtC

Banned
It's the equivalent of the 1960s Essex CVA air wing on an Essex size ship.
Yeah, a lot of people don't realize just how big an Essex class airwing was when they were serving as a CVA. They would go to sea with 2xF-8 squadrons, 3xA-4 or A-7 squadrons, 1xE-1 Squadron, 1xC-1 detachment, 1xEKA-3 detachment and 1 helicopter squadron. All together, they'd go to sea with around 70 aircraft embarked.
 
Last edited:
For Germany?
Build/convert more raiders from the merchant fleet.
Easily doable and it's an easy dodge around the WNT/Anglo-German restrictions.
If Hitler went to war in September 1939 with an operational fleet of 30+ ships, (all at sea) in this classification, it would put the RN in a world of hurt.
Way more so than in the OTL.
And in terms of cost? Maybe 10% of the historical shipbuilding program. This, in conjunction with the historical U-boat offensive, could have proved a decisive influence on England's determination to carry on alone after the fall of France.
This would have overtaxed the Royal Navy's ability to be "everywhere" and might have had an impact on the operations in the North Atlantic as a result.
The historical Fleet of ( nine?) initially available ships caused a calamity within the admiralty as it were.
Imagine this times 3?
 
Part of a Marine Nationale Since 1960 TL
Alternative Submarine Q244/Q251


I've wanked the development of the French nuclear submarine reactor. Therefore, Q251 wasn't cancelled in 1959 and was completed in the first half of the 1960s as an SSN.

Or it was decided to complete her as an SSBN. I'd like her to be built to the same design as Le Redoutable, but it's more likely that she'd be a "super Gymnotte". That is her hull would be cut in half and a new centre section accommodating 16 tubes for M-1 MSBS missiles like the American George Washington class. In common with the OTL Gymnote she'd be completed in 1966, but would not fire the first M-1 missile until 1968 and like Le Redoutable wouldn't be declared operational until the end of 1970.

However, it also means that the French would have 3 operational SSBNs in 1973, 4 in 1974, 5 in 1976 and 6 in 1980 compared to 2, 3, 4 and 5 in those years.

The OTL Gymnote was decommissioned in 1986 and I also think that the TTL Gymnote would also have been paid off in 1986. This was because L' Inflexible was still built ITTL. However, rather than being built to bring the SNLE up to a force of 6 ships it was decided that given the age of and non-standard design of Gymnote it was more cost effective to build a new ship armed with the M-4 missile, rather than rearm her with the missile.

Alternative Agosta class Submarines

They were built as SSNs and were additional units of the Rubis class in all but name.

Alternative Clemenceau class Aircraft Carriers

Three ships built to the larger PA58 design. That is two instead of the OTL Clemenceau & Foch. The third was built instead of the OTL PA58 which was cancelled in the late 1950s. They were laid down 1955-59, launched 1957-61 and completed 1961-65. The last ship replaced Arromanches, which became the nuclear testing flagship in 1966 in place of De Grasse.

Each ship operated 20 F-8E(FN) Crusaders and 40 Etendard IVM/P plus a mix of up to 20 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters for AEW, ASW, SAR and VERTREP or a smaller number of more capable aircraft. If it was the former the Aeronavale purchased 252 F-8E(FN), 582 Etendard IVM/P and 192 Zephyr trainers, but not necessarily 480 Alizes.

Alternative Charles de Gaulle class Aircraft Carriers

Note from Page 145 of Jane's Fighting Ships 1982-83 (No note in 1980-81 & I didn't have access to 1981-82)

"On 23rd September 1980 the Defence Council decided to build two nuclear-propelled aircraft carriers of 32-35,000 tons to replace Clememceau in 1990 and Foch some years later. First ship, Bretagne, to be laid down at Brest in 1983. The second to be named Provence. Aircraft complement, 30-40. Funds for preliminary work at Brest in 1981 estimates."

By the time Jane's Fighting Ships was published the first ship (with the provisional name of Richelieu) was to be laid down in 1986. However, her completion had been put back from 1990 to 1995 and the replacement for Foch was to be completed some years after that. The first ship had been ordered (on 4th February 1986) and the second ship was to be ordered in 1990.

However, the first ship wasn't laid down until 1989, launched (as Charles de Gaulle) until 1994 and completed in 2001 after starting sea trials in 1999.

ITTL France was rich enough to afford to build 3 Charles de Gaulle class ships in the 1980s. The first ship was laid down in 1983 and completed in 1990. The other two ships were completed by the end of 1995. 3 nuclear powered versions of the OTL PA2 design will replace them in the 2020s.

Alternative Cruiser De Grasse

IOTL the OTL De Grasse was suspended in 1946, resumed in 1951 and completed in 1956. She was converted into the nuclear testing flagship 1964-66 and according to Wikipaedia was used for six testing campaigns between 1966 and 1972. She was decommissioned in 1973 and was sold for scrap on 25 January 1974.

ITTL she was still suspended in 1946, but by 1951 it was decided that it would be better to build a brand-new ship from the keep up. The Nouveau De Grasse was laid down at Brest in 1951, launched in 1953 and completed in 1956 to the same design as Colbert.

She wasn't converted to a command ship 1964-66 IOTL. Arrmoanches had this refit instead. According to the TTL version Wikipaedia Arromanches was used for six testing campaigns between 1966 and 1972. She was decommissioned in 1973 and was sold for scrap on 25 January 1974.

Meanwhile, De Grasse continued to operate as a conventional cruiser until she was rebuilt into a guide missile cruiser 1968-70. She was rebuilt along the lines of Colbert in her OTL (and TTL) 1970-72 refit. ITTL De Grasse wasn't paid off in 1973, but continued in service until the end of the Cold War.

Alternative Cruiser Jeanne d' Arc

This was an enlargement of the OTL Jeanne d' Arc. This was to allow for more powerful machinery. SHP was increased from 40,000 IOTL to 80-90,000 ITTL to allow in increase in maximum speed from 26.5 knots to 32-33 knots so she could operate with the aircraft carriers. As planned IOTL she was completed with a Mascura SAM launcher in A position and had 2 DRBR 51 fire control radars. The larger hull might have also allowed a larger hangar & flight deck and the ability to carry more cadets and commandos.

Alternative Suffren class Destroyers

Not really an alternative because the design was the same as OTL. The change is that 6 were built instead of 2. The 4 extra ships were built in place of Anconit and the 3 Tourville class destroyers.

IOTL only 3 Mascura SAM systems were built, that is one system for the rebuilt Colbert and 2 for the Suffrens. ITTL 15 systems were built, that is 6 for the 3 PA class aircraft carriers (2 per ship), 3 for the cruisers and 6 for the Suffren class. That isn't exactly mass production, but the larger production run, should reduce the unit costs so that the total cost of the 15 systems built ITTL was less than five times the total cost of the 3 systems built ITTL.

Alternative T47 Destroyer Rebuilds

IOTL 4 ships of this class were rebuilt into guided missile destroyers in the 1960s. They received a single Mk 13 launcher (fed bay a magazine holding 40 Tatar or Standard MR missiles) and 2 SPG-51B fire control radars and the SENIT naval tactical system.

The OTL Mascura SAM was of similar size to the American Terrier/Standard ER family of missiles. ITTL the French developed a smaller version that was equivalent to the American Tatar/Standard MR family of missiles and it was ready in time to be fitted to all 12 T47 destroyers in the 1960s in place of the 4 Tatar conversions of OTL.

Alternative C70AA Frigate

IOTL the French planned to build 4 ships of this type, which would be fitted with Mk 13 launchers and SPG-51 radars taken from the 4 T47 destroyers. (However, Jane's Fighting Ships 1975-76 says 6 C70AA were planned.) However, it was decided not to build the third and fourth ships after the Americans decided to terminate production of the Standard SM-1MR missile.

ITTL the French planned and built 12 ships of this type, which were be fitted with "Small Mascura" launchers and fire control radars taken from the 12 T47 destroyers. They were also built at a faster rate than OTL. Under Plan Bleu of 1972 all 24 C70 frigates were to have been completed by 1985 and ITTL they were. IOTL only 9 ships of the class (2 AA and 7 AS) were built and the last one was not completed until 1991.

12 ASW version of the C70 were also built by 1985 ITTL, which with the 12 AA versions and 6 Suffren class meant that the French Navy had the 30 destroyers that it was supposed to have in 1985 under Plan Bleu. They also had the 35 avisos planned, which consisted of the 9 E59 class and 26 instead of 17 A69 class.

Alternative Ouragan class TCD

IOTL Arromanches became a helicopter carrier in 1968 and served in that role until 1974, but ITTL she became the nuclear testing flagship in 1966, was paid off in 1973 and was sold for scrapping in 1974. ITTL some of that lost capability was retained by building a third Ouragan class TCD.

However, these ships were twice as big as the OTL class. Displacements were: 11,600 tons, light; 17,000 tons, full load; and 30,000 tons when fully immersed.

The crew as also doubled from 239 to 478, but they could also carry 700 troops normally and 940 for short periods. The capacity of the dock was also doubled to 4 large landing craft of the EDIC type or 36 loaded LCMs plus 3,000 tons of material and equipment handled by four 35 ton cranes (or two 70 ton cranes).

The OTL ships had a platform for four heavy helicopters. The TTL ships had a platform that could accommodate at least eight heavy helicopters.

They were to have been replaced by the Foudre class. The OTL version of Jane's Fighting Ships 1986-87 says that the planned paying off dates were 1990 and 1993, but in the end they weren't retired until 2007. It also says that 3 Foudre class were to be built, but in the end only 2 ships of this class were built.

ITTL 3 Foudre class ships were built to replace the Ouragan class, but in common with OTL the Ouragan class were run on until the middle of the 2000s. The TTL Foudre class ships were much bigger than the OTL and were effectively the Mistral design with 1980s electronics.

Interesting proposal @NOMISYRRUC !
I understand this an unified timeline ? The French have really potent and powerful fleet, more than the UK OTL !

1. Gymnote :
From what I gather Gymnote was constructed as the hull Q251, using some elements from the cancelled hull Q244.
I don't know if she will become as operational as Le Redoutable (notably on the capacity to stay on long patrols), but I can see the French trying !

2. Agusta :
Constructing the Agusta as Rubis is possible (I think), but, as you said, we need a nuclear reactor operational early (5 years ?)

3. Clemenceau as PA58 :
Why not ? I love it.
I think the air groups are slightly too large and the total number of aircraft is way too big. We are closing on the size of the Armée de l'Air here. Outside of the USN, basically everybody had manning problems at the time.
So, to compensate, the French will probably limit themselves to 2 carriers manned at all time (the third being in refit). They will probably also limit the air group to 10 F-8(FN), 30 Etandard IV and 10 support aircraft (Alizé and helicopters) during a normal deployment. It limit the carrier crew to around 2,200 or 2,400 on a normal cruise. You can also limit the number of aircraft to 80 or 90 F-8(FN) (4-5 squadrons plus reserves) and 160 to 180 Etandard IV (8 to 10 squadrons plus reserves).
If the Arromanches is transformed in the nuclear testing flagship, it will probably loose it's fixed wing capacity. So probably no need for more Alizé and the training role will probably rotate between the 3 PA58 a little earlier than OTL.

Side note : Does the French need the FN variant of the F-8 with the PA58 ?

4. Charles de Gaulle :
OTL CdG's hull was based on the Clemenceau's because the dry dock in Toulon couldn't support anything larger without an expensive reconstruction. As far as I'm aware, Brest has similar problems but to a lesser extent (the growth potential of the dry dock is less constraint).
ITTL, the MN has already made the infrastructure investment to support the 3 P58 carriers, so wouldn't the ITTL CdG based on their hulls?

Side note : There were many PA2 designs OTL. The most known (and almost constructed) is the one derived from the British QE class, but it was hardly the preferred or the best, specially if the MN keep the nuclear power. OTL, they only (almost) accepted to save money with the commonality with the QE (as it was, the differences were important and I'm not convince that the MN would have saved that much money).

5. Jeanne d'Arc :
Is this transformation necessary ? The Jeanne d'Arc is the traditional training cruiser of the MN. It's secondary roles were command ship in a convoy war or a amphibious operation.

6. The rest is pretty cool :cool:
 
Last edited:
For Germany?
Build/convert more raiders from the merchant fleet.
Easily doable and it's an easy dodge around the WNT/Anglo-German restrictions.
If Hitler went to war in September 1939 with an operational fleet of 30+ ships, (all at sea) in this classification, it would put the RN in a world of hurt.
Way more so than in the OTL.
And in terms of cost? Maybe 10% of the historical shipbuilding program. This, in conjunction with the historical U-boat offensive, could have proved a decisive influence on England's determination to carry on alone after the fall of France.
This would have overtaxed the Royal Navy's ability to be "everywhere" and might have had an impact on the operations in the North Atlantic as a result.
The historical Fleet of ( nine?) initially available ships caused a calamity within the admiralty as it were.
Imagine this times 3?

It was never 9 at the same time but over several years with only a couple of ships active at a given time - this is why they were so hard to find

Also the KM struggled to arm and crew them - which is why they were 'drip fed' into the war as raiders

With more ships - 'individually' they are more likely to be found and neutralized.

Certainly they would have a bigger impact but with multiple Raiders being discovered and sunk / scuttled - each one becomes a propaganda boost to the Allies.

OTL in 1939 - I think the British sank a dozen or so Uboats and the Graf Spee (and hounded German Merchant shipping from the high seas) - here more victories are added with little extra effort from the 100+ Allied Cruisers hunting them

And if the Allies - particularly the British get wind of this plan before 1939.......well it only has one target in mind.
 
But in UK case none of the above is really true, unless they are working with US (and that would be done to US rules/commands) they dont have much of the warning systems and cant ever expect any more weapons (other Subs destroyed by first strike/no land or aircraft weapons) so it just one boat firing to do as much retaliation as its orders tell it to (with the orders having to be pre agreed as UK doesn't have the command network to actually function reliably after being hit)...?

This means they are presumably very simple ie hit Moscow/etc (assuming you can identify who fired at UK and want to retaliate?) with the full salvo?

Would RN not have calculated a back up box that is the dockside and Clyde channel as the chance of a boat being alongside and almost ready is statistically quite high and you might as well use it as well in a worse case?
I have see proposed plans showing a coordinated Anglo-French retaliatory strike using both SSBMs and their respective aircraft as well as the then in service French IRBMs. I believe it was offered as coordinated to but also independent of the US SIOP. I can not speak to its veracity but it focused upon Moscow and its environs. That would offer a lot of damage from the "other" nuclear powers despite fielding a small force.

I always assumed any ready boat would try to launch, be it pierside or in transit. My guess is the "letters" may address the possibility and offer targets assuming this is a makeshift strike. I would imagine Soviet planners had to worst case those warheads into the mix.
 
Top