Best warships that should have been built

SsgtC

Banned
The Skywarrior did have one tremendous advantage that allowed it to operate from and be struck down into the hangar of the Essex-class; it's tail folded down....

142400.jpg


Regards,
The S-3 Viking also had that feature. It was designed that way specifically to enable it to operate from Essex class carriers
 
The Skywarrior did have one tremendous advantage that allowed it to operate from and be struck down into the hangar of the Essex-class; its tail folded down....

142400.jpg


Regards,
Very interesting.

What I meant was that as one Skywarrior took up the same amount of floor space as 2 Alizes due to the former's folded wingspan being double the latter's.

However, the reference books say that the hangars of the OTL Clemenceau and Foch were 23feet high. I don't know what the hangar height of PA58 would have been, but it would probably have been at least as tall as her predecessors.

According to Putnams US Navy Aircraft the Skywarrior was 22ft 9½in high and according to the reference books the hangars of the OTL Clemenceau and Foch were 23 feet high. The hangars on the PA58 class would have been at least that high. Therefore, it might be possible to strike the Skywarrior down in the hangar of a PA58 class aircraft carrier without folding the tail.
 
The primary function of ITER and fusion research by the US Dept of Energy is to produce Phdatrons, not electrons I'm my opinion
The primary function is to produce green energy: it brings in money, which is then spent on projects claiming to develop workable fusion 50yr from now (if we're lucky).

So far, after 50yr of research into fusion, not one watt of power has been produced, AFAIK. That much spent on SPS, we'd have them by now, & we'd be exploring the Solar System with it. And the CO2 levels of Earth wouldn't be around 400ppm...
 
The primary function is to produce green energy: it brings in money, which is then spent on projects claiming to develop workable fusion 50yr from now (if we're lucky).

So far, after 50yr of research into fusion, not one watt of power has been produced, AFAIK. That much spent on SPS, we'd have them by now, & we'd be exploring the Solar System with it. And the CO2 levels of Earth wouldn't be around 400ppm...
To be fait containing what's in essence a miniature star is rather hard and we are on my now approaching the material and computational sciences needed to keep the things on for any period of time. Still fusion is very slowly getting there
 
It probably doesn't truly count as a warship but it would have been commissioned into the Royal Navy so I say the Royal Yacht HMS Britannia should have been replaced.
 
It probably doesn't truly count as a warship but it would have been commissioned into the Royal Navy so I say the Royal Yacht HMS Britannia should have been replaced.

IIRC, she had a Hospital Ship function, but was still using bunker oil instead of diesel distillate. A modern replacement with Hospital Ship service in mind would be useful, I'd think. Especially to show good will in some out-of-the-way locals of the Commonwealth....

Regards,
 

McPherson

Banned
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.

1583938675056.png


As I have written before, it is not the volume of the aircraft carrier hull and the tonnage, it is the area of deck park space and the length of the takeoff and trap runs that determines plane carriage ability. The current QEs for example are not really efficient in those qualities, nor should they be, as they have a "hidden" LPH secondary function built into them as quasi "disaster relief" and for Falklands 2.0.

The PA58 could carry a "fat" airwing in an emergency but I seriously question the deckpark hardstand space on that bird farm. Especially aft in the trap run, there is no side parking. I would have scrapped the gun tubes and increased flight deck area and improved float reserve by blistering to improve the overall plane carriage.
 

McPherson

Banned
The primary function is to produce green energy: it brings in money, which is then spent on projects claiming to develop workable fusion 50yr from now (if we're lucky).

So far, after 50yr of research into fusion, not one watt of power has been produced, AFAIK. That much spent on SPS, we'd have them by now, & we'd be exploring the Solar System with it. And the CO2 levels of Earth wouldn't be around 400ppm...

What has not been achieved is Unity... watts out = watts in.

What actually has been produced is "what-the-hells?" by taxpayers and private investors who have been sold a bunch of bee-ess. (I'm looking at you Inertial Confinement Facility.). ITER actually is another WTH just waiting to be switched on as a proof of concept and make work program for a lot of people. The politics behind that fiasco REALLY sucks. Not a case of YMMV either. Just follow the money.
 

McPherson

Banned
For Germany?(
[1) Build/convert more raiders from the merchant fleet.
Easily doable and it's an easy dodge around the WNT/Anglo-German restrictions.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) The historical Fleet of ( nine?) initially available ships caused a calamity within the admiralty as it were.
Imagine this times 3?
(1). You want to take 315,000 DWT out of a very small merchant fleet starting in 1933 (Only have capacity to convert 5 a year.) and deny the Berlin Maniac's criminal regime access to US trade and to HARD CURRENCY for 6 years as Germany re-arms? The USN would notice STUFT actions and pass along that bit of news to LONDON.
(1a.) Lloyds was/IS an intelligence arm of the RN. Think THEY won't notice?
(1b.) Where are the 180 x 15cm/40 cal guns needed to arm these raiders? They have to be MADE. Think someone won't notice Krupp starting up production?
(1c.) Ditto Siemens and the TORPEDOES.
(2) The Berlin Maniac is short of panzers and field artillery. He loses to POLAND.
(3) The Berlin Maniac's regime is even more in the red and is practically bankrupt. No 1939 loans for that bastard as his credit is ZERO. He spent his collateral on "raiders".
(4a) The RN suddenly looks at US gangster films and becomes very excited by a Hollyweird criminal character named RIKKO.
(4b) (RN comments to USN counterparts.) "You can put torpedoes and bombs on a seaplane? Like the IJN does? Like the USN does? Like the MN does. Like we do? Is this the Beginning for RIKKO?" (USN answer) "Uhm… yeah, but the air search for raiders is more interesting, since the Germans seem to not have understood that their unique kingposts are dead giveaway markers and tells you that this ship was made in Bremen and should be torpedoed early and often, whether it is an "innocent freighter" or not."
(5) Why? See (1)-(4).
(6)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
(7)Also the KM struggled to arm and crew them - which is why they were 'drip fed' into the war as raiders
(8)With more ships - 'individually' they are more likely to be found and neutralized.
(9)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.
(10)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
(11)And if the Allies - particularly the British get wind of this plan before 1939.......well it only has one target in mind.
(6) It was 3 at the maximum.
(7) Guns and torpedoes, See (1b) and (1c).
(8) More incentive, more investment in efficient search and sink on sight options and LONGER to get ready. See (1), (4a), (4b).
(9) Morale is 4X at sea as to land. A navy that knows it is crap at sea underperforms with more effect than a crappy land army. Nothing says demorali8zed sailor like a string of sink-exes. At least a foot soldier can run away from defeat. Where is a sailor going to go? STRAIGHT DOWN. His only chance is to strike colors and be taken alive and in modern naval war the chances of that in a "hot" shoot-ex are ZERO.
(10) That is about right. Don't forget that "Berlin" was a 1 and done and "Rhine" was a sink-ex with nothing to show for the KM except a golden BB. Incompetent does not begin to describe the Castex program the KM followed.
(11) Refer to (4b).
Bold 1: Mostly due to the obsessive spending pattern being imposed on the KM from Berlin, "build me big, impressive warships"...
Bold 2: Only due to the fact that they were directing manning requirements on a different tactical axis.
Bold 3: This is the fundamental advantage here. The oceans are HUGE. If the KM have 4 x the historical Hilfskreuzer fleet at sea when things "kick-off" in September of 1939?
Bold 4: This serves to elaborate on my point made in #3. The RN did not have the requisite manpower/assets to go off hunting down vessels like these. Have you any recollection of the "Destroyers for Bases" deal that the UK made with FDR in 1940? This was in large part to provide an immediate "surge" in RN strength on the North Atlantic Convoy routes, due to the U-Boat threat. They were already over-taxed with this commitment at the time.
The RN is going to have it's hands full trying to deal with the threat. There is a huge aspect of diffusion in play here and the advantage lies with the antagonist, not the defender.
Bold 5: The beauty of this plan is that all of this can be done on a clandestine basis. There are no overt moves implicit. They are moving 10,000 ton merchants through the "refit" process.
It's not going to raise an undue level of suspicion at the Admiralty level.)

Until the situation goes HOT.

At that point? All bets are off.

Rebuttals are (1)-(5) so go to those for point to point.... again.
To do this you have

A: Have a really good idea of when the War with Britain starts - like almost to the week - OTL Hitler right up to the declaration believed (or certainly wanted to believe) that the British and French were bluffing - otherwise you might have all of those raiders running around the world - running out of fuel stores and life time between refit.
B: Hope that the British and French are even nearly as dumb as you think they are!
C: Hope that the British and French Admiralty are 'not' even nearly as paranoid as they actually were.
Basically a rehash of (1)-(5). But now in addition there is an angry neutral who has incentive to hunt "pirates".
 
Last edited:
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.

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!
I've revised the above as follows:

Alternative Submarine Q244 "République"

This wasn't suspended in 1959 and was completed in 1964 as a SSN displacing circa 3,000 tons and was comparable to the American Skipjack class and British one-off Dreadnought. Power was provided by a PWR producing 15,000shp and was of the same type that was fitted to the Le Redoutable class SSBNs of OTL.

Alternative Submarine Q251 "Le Formidable"

IOTL Q251 Gymnote and Q252 Le Redoutable were ordered from Cherbourg Naval Dockyard on 6th December 1960. The last two Daphne class Q253 Psyché and Q254 Sirène were ordered from Brest Naval Dockyard in 1964. Q255 Le Terrible and Q257 Le Foudroyant were ordered from Cherbourg Naval Dockyard in December 1964. The three SSBNs became operational on 1st December 1971, 1st December 1973 and 6th June 1974.

ITTL Q251 was still ordered on 6th December 1960. However, she was ordered as a Le Redoutable class SSBN named Le Formidable from Brest Naval Dockyard. Q253 and Q254 were still ordered from Brest Naval Dockyard in 1964, but they were built as additional Le Redoutable class SSBNs. The 3 Brest built SSBNs became operational between 1971 and the end of 1974.

As a result France had a force of 6 SSBN at the end of 1974 (instead of 3). IOTL France didn't have 6 operational SSBNs until 1st April 1985.

The SSBNs Q258 L'Indomptable, Q263Le Tonnant and Q264 L'Inflexible weren't built ITTL. Neither were the 4 Agosta class patrol submarines (Q259 to Q262). Instead the hull numbers Q258 to Q263 were allocated to 6 SSNs that were built under the third five-year new construction plan 1971-75. Q264 was an additional Rubis class SSN.
 
Last edited:
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.

Nice, so nice. My mind is blown.

You only need better aircraft. My favorite air group from the 70's onwards consists of

- Mirage F1M (M for Marine + M53 turbofan, pick your choice).
A naval F1 very nearly happened, the Aéronavale very badly wanted it between '70 and 78', when the S.E finally settled in

- Vought A-7E
SNIAS Aérospatiale (the big public company that later merged into EADS, 1970-2000) wanted to kick Dassault butt away from combat aircraft again. They thus tried whatever trick they could think off. Including taking a licence from Vought - an old accointance of France since the 1939 V-156F, Indochina and Suez Corsairs, and 1963 Crusaders.
- Possible alternatives
- >Harriers (also for Jeanne d'Arc, TCDs, Arromanches !)
- >A-4 Skyhawk
- >Forget Jaguar M, it was a piece of junk. And Super Etendard, please burn in hell.

- Breguet 941S for COD (could land in 120 m and liftoff in 190 m, plenty enough for carriers)
 
Nice, so nice. My mind is blown.

You only need better aircraft. My favorite air group from the 70's onwards consists of

- Mirage F1M (M for Marine + M53 turbofan, pick your choice).
A naval F1 very nearly happened, the Aéronavale very badly wanted it between '70 and 78', when the S.E finally settled in

- Vought A-7E
SNIAS Aérospatiale (the big public company that later merged into EADS, 1970-2000) wanted to kick Dassault butt away from combat aircraft again. They thus tried whatever trick they could think off. Including taking a licence from Vought - an old accointance of France since the 1939 V-156F, Indochina and Suez Corsairs, and 1963 Crusaders.
- Possible alternatives
- >Harriers (also for Jeanne d'Arc, TCDs, Arromanches !)
- >A-4 Skyhawk
- >Forget Jaguar M, it was a piece of junk. And Super Etendard, please burn in hell.

- Breguet 941S for COD (could land in 120 m and liftoff in 190 m, plenty enough for carriers)
The Breguet Br.120 or Mirage G would have replaced the Crusader in this TL. AIUI Mirage G didn't go into production IOTL because the production run of 40-50 aircraft was too small. ITTL it would be 240-300.

Another AIUI is that the Jaguar M couldn't operate from Clemenceau and Foch without expensive modifications to the ships or an expensive upgrade of the aircraft. OTOH as the PA58 design is larger and has more powerful catapults than the PA54 the Jaguar M might be able to operate from it. However, France ITTL has the money to pay for the developed Jaguar M and the unit cost would be less than OTL due to it being built in six times the numbers.

I was going to have the Aeronavale buy the E-2C Hawkeye and C-2A Greyhound. They have two 3,000hp engines but the Breguet Br.941 has four 1,500hp engines. Could it be modified for AEW? There was a Br.123 project for an AEW aircraft. The website I found the information on said that ASW and COD versions were probably considered. I guess that Dassault, Nord and Sud produced similar "paper planes" at the same time.
Edit 08.11.23
It should be 120-150 Mirage G. 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.
 
Last edited:
That much spent on SPS, we'd have them by now, & we'd be exploring the Solar System with it. And the CO2 levels of Earth wouldn't be around 400ppm...
The actual amount invested in fusion energy is not as large as you think, and certainly less than NASA and other space agencies have received. If you have invested it all in SPS you'd...have some glossy artist's renderings and maybe a flight testing some key concepts, and that's about it. Especially since launch costs were higher than anticipated in the 1970s and so SPS wouldn't have been economically feasible compared to fossil generation (which was why it hasn't gotten anywhere to begin with).
 
The Breguet Br.120 or Mirage G would have replaced the Crusader in this TL. AIUI Mirage G didn't go into production IOTL because the production run of 40-50 aircraft was too small. ITTL it would be 240-300.

Another AIUI is that the Jaguar M couldn't operate from Clemenceau and Foch without expensive modifications to the ships or an expensive upgrade of the aircraft. OTOH as the PA58 design is larger and has more powerful catapults than the PA54 the Jaguar M might be able to operate from it. However, France ITTL has the money to pay for the developed Jaguar M and the unit cost would be less than OTL due to it being built in six times the numbers.

I was going to have the Aeronavale buy the E-2C Hawkeye and C-2A Greyhound. They have two 3,000hp engines but the Breguet Br.941 has four 1,500hp engines. Could it be modified for AEW? There was a Br.123 project for an AEW aircraft. The website I found the information on said that ASW and COD versions were probably considered. I guess that Dassault, Nord and Sud produced similar "paper planes" at the same time.

Well if the Gannet or Skyraider could get an AEW radar, the Breguet 941 certainly could. Also the Tracker. Which brings me to another of my pet peeve (forgot this one).
Tracker AEW for the aéronavale, also known as E-1B or "Stoof with a roof".
E-1B were retired in 1977 and I have found some tantalizing tidbits that AEW Trackers with Thomson CSF radars were considered for Foch and CdG in the late 80's, before E-2C was picked.
Note that OTL the French flying firemen, La sécurité civile, have operated Trackers firebombers since the early 90's, turbotrackers included. And ARA Trackers landed on Foch / Sao Paolo in 2006.
And since Tracker AEW were TRACERs and turboprop Trackers were TURBO-, then it would be a Turbotracer. E-1C.
 
Last edited:
Another AIUI is that the Jaguar M couldn't operate from Clemenceau and Foch without expensive modifications to the ships or an expensive upgrade of the aircraft. OTOH as the PA58 design is larger and has more powerful catapults than the PA54 the Jaguar M might be able to operate from it. However, France ITTL has the money to pay for the developed Jaguar M and the unit cost would be less than OTL due to it being built in six times the numbers.
Saddly, the Jaguar M is still a stretch, even ITTL. The aircraft need extensive structural reinforcement (OTL during the testing, the experimental aircraft almost broke in two at landing). Plus, even with a bigger aircraft carrier and more powerful catapults, the Jaguar reactors need far more power than they give as you have basically no power margin. A common joke in the Armée de l'Air was that the Jaguar only took off because the Earth was round.
 
Sadly, the Jaguar M is still a stretch, even ITTL. The aircraft need extensive structural reinforcement (OTL during the testing, the experimental aircraft almost broke in two at landing). Plus, even with a bigger aircraft carrier and more powerful catapults, the Jaguar reactors need far more power than they give as you have basically no power margin. A common joke in the Armée de l'Air was that the Jaguar only took off because the Earth was round.
I now think that the Aéronavale would want a strike version of the aircraft built to satisfy the DAFNE requirement (that is the Breguet Br.120 or Mirage G) rather than Jaguar M. In addition to its superior performance it might be better to have one aircraft to replace the Crusader and Etendard instead of two because standardisation might reduce the R&D, procurement and operating costs.

ITTL the Armée de l'Air would receive 200 Mirage F1D/E instead of Jaguar A/E.
 
All the warships that were in the Admiralty's 10-Year Programme of 1924 that weren't built IOTL. In particular the 3 aircraft carriers that weren't built.

IOTL the plan was to build four 17,000 ton aircraft carriers to replace Argus, Eagle, Hermes and Vindictive. The following might not be 100% accurate, but from memory they were to be ordered in the 1924-25, 1928-29, 1931-32 and 1934-35 Navy Estimates; laid down in 1925, 1929, 1932 and 1935; and be completed in 1928, 1932, 1935 and 1938 respectively.

Therefore, the Royal Navy would have had seven aircraft carriers at the end of 1938 consisting of the four 17,000 ton ships and the "Three Follies."

However, the only aircraft carrier built in this period was Ark Royal, ordered in the 1934-35 Navy Estimates, laid down in 1935 and completed in 1938. The Royal Navy only had six aircraft carriers at the end of 1938, which consisted of Ark Royal, Eagle, Hermes and the "Three Follies". I haven't included Argus because my copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 1939 doesn't have her in the aircraft carriers section. Instead she's in the depot ships section because she had been converted into a depot ship for the Queen Bee target drone.

Except, ITTL I would change the plan to four 22,500 ton aircraft carriers. The fourth ship would replace Furious, which would be 21 years old in 1938. Therefore, there would be six aircraft carriers at the end of 1938 consisting of the four 22,500 ton ships, Courageous and Glorious. The 22,500 ton ships would be similar to the OTL Ark Royal, but have single deck lifts instead of the unsatisfactory double-deck lifts of OTL and sixteen 4.7" in the single AA mountings that Adventure, Courageous, Glorious, Nelson and Rodney instead of the sixteen 4.5" in eight twin mountings that Ark Royal had.

The abolition of the 135,000 tonnage quota at the end of 1936 meant that there was no need to scrap Furious when the 1934 Carrier completed in 1938. Therefore, the Royal Navy would have had seven aircraft carriers at the end of 1938 consisting of the four 22,500 ton ships and the "Three Follies."

In common with OTL Argus would be converted into a depot ship for target drones and Vindictive would become the cadet training ship. Eagle would be converted into an aircraft maintenance ship. Hermes would be converted into a seaplane carrier to replace the Ark Royal (1914).
 
Last edited:
I now think that the Aéronavale would want a strike version of the aircraft built to satisfy the DAFNE requirement (that is the Breguet Br.120 or Mirage G) rather than Jaguar M. In addition to its superior performance it might be better to have one aircraft to replace the Crusader and Etendard instead of two because standardisation might reduce the R&D, procurement and operating costs.

ITTL the Armée de l'Air would receive 200 Mirage F1D/E instead of Jaguar A/E.
Seems good! I think the Mirage G has the most chances. Dassault simply has far better personal connections inside the the French military and political apparatus. There is also the fact that Dassault bought Bréguet around that time
I suppose it will be a mix of G4 (strike, RAGEL program) and G8 (fighter) for a total of around 80 to 100 aircrafts. There will probably choose the same aircraft for the Aéronavale and the Armée de l'Air to share the costs. The AdA want to replace their Mirage IV and want bi-motor heavy fighter for a total of around 120 to 160 aircrafts.

I suppose all those Mirage G will use SNECMA M53, the all French reactor in development at the time. Since a Mirage F1 variant was developed around the M53 (for the tests of the reactor) and proposed to Belgium, the AdA might ask for it, to simplify logistics and maintenance.
 
Seems good! I think the Mirage G has the most chances. Dassault simply has far better personal connections inside the the French military and political apparatus. There is also the fact that Dassault bought Bréguet around that time
I suppose it will be a mix of G4 (strike, RAGEL program) and G8 (fighter) for a total of around 80 to 100 aircrafts. There will probably choose the same aircraft for the Aéronavale and the Armée de l'Air to share the costs. The AdA want to replace their Mirage IV and want bi-motor heavy fighter for a total of around 120 to 160 aircrafts.

I suppose all those Mirage G will use SNECMA M53, the all French reactor in development at the time. Since a Mirage F1 variant was developed around the M53 (for the tests of the reactor) and proposed to Belgium, the AdA might ask for it, to simplify logistics and maintenance.
OTOH Br.120 had two Spey engines from the beginning so it's likely to be ready for production sooner than the M53 powered versions of Mirage G. Also the British are paying for the R&D of the engine via the Spey-Phantom.

As I've mentioned the Phantom, the French aircraft carriers of TTL would be capable of operating the Spey-Phantom and should be able to operate the standard Phantom with GE J79 engines. Therefore, ITTL France might have bought F-4B Phantoms in 1962 instead of the F-8E(FN) Crusader. This aircraft, designated F-4B(FN), might be good enough to fill the FANE requirement in which case the MN wouldn't need the Br.120 or Mirage G and the French Phantoms would remain in service ITTL for as long as the French Crusaders did IOTL.
 
Top