Better RN procurement from March 1939

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Time to build up the pressure and temperature on smaller vessels. Destroyers remain Tribal class size or larger, current in-build aside. Maybe something Weapon class size (2,000t standard) only faster. So better fuel economy is going to be really useful. Typically 2 × 3-drum high temperature and pressure boilers (500 psi, 750 ° F) by Parsons Marine Steam Turbines to supply 2 × shafts with 44,000 shp. Alternating boiler and turbine arrangement for two pipes. This has only been done on HMS Acheron so far, so expect some teething problems, but more chief engineers on the case and a larger pool of spare parts can't hurt. Who knows, maybe we can butterfly away her hitting a mine. Decent range for Pacific service.
 
Last edited:
Time to build up the pressure and temperature on smaller vessels. Destroyers remain Tribal class size or larger, current in-build aside. Maybe something Weapon class size only faster. So better fuel economy is going to be really useful. Typically 2 × 3-drum high temperature and pressure boilers (500 psi, 750 ° F) by Parsons Marine Steam Turbines to supply 2 × shafts with 44,000 shp. Alternating boiler and turbine arrangement for two pipes. This has only been done on HMS Acheron so far, so expect some teething problems, but more chief engineers on the case and a larger pool of spare parts can't hurt. Who knows, maybe we can butterfly away her hitting a mine.

I would rather not use an experimental design for mass production on the eve of war - the OTL machinery was more than good enough - agreed on Improved Tribals for all War time DDs - I might even drop my beloved twin 4.7s and go with Twin 4s instead :eek:

Keep a 5 tube Torpedo set always useful if you chance across something bigger than you but massively improve the AAA and also number of DCs.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Reg Henderson has (ATL) left some notes on convoying and aircraft carriers for future Third Sea Lords to read. This might combine with other factors to press the case for escort aircraft carriers.
 
jsb said:
- other things I would cut ?
Flower-class corvette 225 (original), 69 (modified)

I would build instead,
- CVE/MACs.
- Lots of emergency DDs (P class ish)(preferably with 4' twins and lots of 40mm/20mm)
OK, so you're going to leave convoys defenseless for half the war?:eek: The Flowers could be built by yards incapable of building DDs, so until that supply of *P-class arrive, what are you protecting commerce with?:confused:

Better choice IMO is a longer, long-f'oc'sl Flower with a 4"/50cal. Handing over the tech so Canada can build gyroscopes would be good. (This would allow her Flowers to fit Hedgehog on the slip, unlike OTL.)

Building a major repair facility at St. John's would be a good idea, too.
 
14 submarines were planned for the 1938-39 and 1939-40 estimates. Only 3 of the 1938-39 ships were ordered because the sudden increase in arms production after 1936 made the British economy overheat. However, 24 submarines were ordered in the War Emergency Programme. With hindsight 11 of the WEP ships should have been ordered in the normal 39-40 estimates instead of none.

Similarly the number of cruisers planned for the 39-40 Estimates was cut from 7 to 2, but six months later 6 cruisers were ordered in the War Emergency Programme. With hindsight they should have been part of the normal 39-40 estimates.

No destroyers were ordered in the 1938-39 Estimates when 2 flotillas were planned. The first 2 flotillas of Emergency Destroyers were ordered in the War Emergency Programme. With hindsight 4 flotillas should have been ordered in the normal 39-40 estimates instead of 2.

As a result the 11 submarines, 6 cruisers and 16 destroyers might be completed 6 months earlier, which would be useful for the Royal Navy. It also means that the ships built afterwards by the same shipyards can be begun 6 months earlier and in the case of the submarines and cruisers the ships after that.

Though a POD of January 1939, rather than March would help so that these changes could be incorporated in the Estimates as presented to and approved by Parliament. The British financial year runs from April to March.
 
Last edited:
Typically 2 × 3-drum high temperature and pressure boilers (500 psi, 750 ° F) by Parsons Marine Steam Turbines to supply 2 × shafts with 44,000 shp. Alternating boiler and turbine arrangement for two pipes. This has only been done on HMS Acheron so far, so expect some teething problems, but more chief engineers on the case and a larger pool of spare parts can't hurt.
I have to echo Cryhavoc101 in questioning whether using untested experimental designs on warships in the middle of a war is a good idea. Going from memory HMS Acheron's engines had a nasty habit of trying to wreck themselves - I've seen vibration in the blades and rotor of the turbines suggested as the likely culprit, something which wasn't recognised or very well understood at the time - hence why after the first year or so the navy decided to stop investigating higher pressure and temperature steam plants and stick with what they already had for the next decade or two and sent her back into port to be refitted.

Looking at what happened in our timeline it seems to have taken roughly six or seven years from setting up Parsons and Marine Engineering Turbine Research and Development Association (PAMETRADA) in 1945 and Yarrow-Admiralty Research Department (Y-ARD) plus enthusiastically absorbing American knowledge of and experience from operating higher pressure and temperature steam plants to see the first major advancement in British designs with the Y-100 plant in the Whitby-class frigates. In 1939 the US Navy isn't going to be as completely open and forthcoming as 1945, although the British could simply buy in a fair amount of data and knowledge by contracting with the American civil turbine manufacturers like Westinghouse. You do then run into the problem of how long it would take to absorb this new information and make sure that British firms could implement it fully, the domestic manufacturers are also likely to throw a sulk with a major case of not-invented-here and embarrassment at having to accept how far ahead of them the Americans are. The Y-ARD work was also done in peacetime so whilst the war could see the government chucking large amounts of resources at the problem potentially shortening the timeframe it's also counterbalanced by the problems that operating during wartime throws up. Other than the Pacific, which wasn't really a major problem for the British, there's also the question of how vital this would all be for the Royal Navy during the war and if the resources might not be better kept elsewhere.
 
I have changed my mind about the 1944 Programme. Now I want to lay down 2 additional Audacious class carriers in 1944 instead of the 4 Centaurs. On paper the specification for the Audacious at that time is almost exactly the same as 2 Centaurs, in displacement, machinery and gun armament. It might save money because Eagle cost £15 million to build and Ark Royal £21 million, but the first 3 Centaurs cost about £10 million each and Hermes cost £37 million (making the £20 million spent on rebuilding Victorious look like a bargain).

It won't effect the war, but it will give the Royal Navy a much better fleet in the 1950s and 1960s. However, more and better ships require larger crews and the Treasury will find it hard to find the money to pay their wages.

Vanguard is completed in 1946 to Standard D. She is refitted to Standard A 1950-58 instead of rebuilding Victorious.

Eagle is completed in 1951 to Standard D. In common with the real world she is brought up to Standard C in time for the Suez War and was refitted to Standard A 1959-64, but Action Data Automation (ADA) was fitted instead of the CDS.

Ark Royal is completed in 1955 to Standard C and her refit in the late 1960s brought her up to Standard B.

The 1944 Fleet Carrier swaps names with the 1942 Carrier. She is suspended 1946-51 when it is decided to complete her with the money used to finish the Tiger class in the real world. Work does not actually begin until 1954 and Audacious is completed in 1959 to Standard A.

Irresistible, the fleet carrier laid down in 1944 instead of Centaur and Albion is completed in 1953 to Standard D. She is refitted to Standard A in the first half of the 1960s and in common with Eagle receives ADA instead of the CDS.

Africa, the fleet carrier laid down in 1944 instead of Bulwark and Hermes is completed in 1959 to Standard A.

Therefore the Royal Navy has 3 Standard A fleet carriers (Africa, Audacious and Vanguard) and one Standard C ship (Ark Royal) in service at the end of 1960 with the other 2 (Eagle and Irresistible) being refitted to Standard A. At the end of 1965 the Royal Nay has 4 Standard A ships in commission (Audacious, Eagle Irresistible and Vanguard) with Ark Royal and Africa refitting.

Standard A ships had steam catapults and fully angled flight decks. They also have the Type 984 radar, the Comprehensive Display System (CDS) and DPT.
Standard B ships were the same as Standard A, except they didn't have the Type 984 radar, CDS or DPT.
Standard C ships were the same as Standard B, except they had an interim angled flight deck instead of a fully angled one.
Standard D ships were the same as Standard C, except they had hydraulic catapults instead of steam catapults.

Standard A and B ships could operate aircraft in the Sea Vixen and Buccaneer class. That is except for Ark Royal, which could also operate the Phantom.
Standard C and D ships could operate aircraft in the Sea Venom, Sea Hawk and Gannet class.

However, in this version of history the British develop a heavy fighter in the Phantom class in the 1950s in place of the Lighting and Sea Vixen. Therefore the Standard A and B ships have steam catapults and arrester gear strong enough to operate it.
 
I have changed my mind about the 1944 Programme. Now I want to lay down 2 additional Audacious class carriers in 1944 instead of the 4 Centaurs. On paper the specification for the Audacious at that time is almost exactly the same as 2 Centaurs, in displacement, machinery and gun armament. It might save money because Eagle cost £15 million to build and Ark Royal £21 million, but the first 3 Centaurs cost about £10 million each and Hermes cost £37 million (making the £20 million spent on rebuilding Victorious look like a bargain).

It won't effect the war, but it will give the Royal Navy a much better fleet in the 1950s and 1960s. However, more and better ships require larger crews and the Treasury will find it hard to find the money to pay their wages.

Vanguard is completed in 1946 to Standard D. She is refitted to Standard A 1950-58 instead of rebuilding Victorious.

Eagle is completed in 1951 to Standard D. In common with the real world she is brought up to Standard C in time for the Suez War and was refitted to Standard A 1959-64, but Action Data Automation (ADA) was fitted instead of the CDS.

Ark Royal is completed in 1955 to Standard C and her refit in the late 1960s brought her up to Standard B.

The 1944 Fleet Carrier swaps names with the 1942 Carrier. She is suspended 1946-51 when it is decided to complete her with the money used to finish the Tiger class in the real world. Work does not actually begin until 1954 and Audacious is completed in 1959 to Standard A.

Irresistible, the fleet carrier laid down in 1944 instead of Centaur and Albion is completed in 1953 to Standard D. She is refitted to Standard A in the first half of the 1960s and in common with Eagle receives ADA instead of the CDS.

Africa, the fleet carrier laid down in 1944 instead of Bulwark and Hermes is completed in 1959 to Standard A.

Therefore the Royal Navy has 3 Standard A fleet carriers (Africa, Audacious and Vanguard) and one Standard C ship (Ark Royal) in service at the end of 1960 with the other 2 (Eagle and Irresistible) being refitted to Standard A. At the end of 1965 the Royal Nay has 4 Standard A ships in commission (Audacious, Eagle Irresistible and Vanguard) with Ark Royal and Africa refitting.

Standard A ships had steam catapults and fully angled flight decks. They also have the Type 984 radar, the Comprehensive Display System (CDS) and DPT.
Standard B ships were the same as Standard A, except they didn't have the Type 984 radar, CDS or DPT.
Standard C ships were the same as Standard B, except they had an interim angled flight deck instead of a fully angled one.
Standard D ships were the same as Standard C, except they had hydraulic catapults instead of steam catapults.

Standard A and B ships could operate aircraft in the Sea Vixen and Buccaneer class. That is except for Ark Royal, which could also operate the Phantom.
Standard C and D ships could operate aircraft in the Sea Venom, Sea Hawk and Gannet class.

However, in this version of history the British develop a heavy fighter in the Phantom class in the 1950s in place of the Lighting and Sea Vixen. Therefore the Standard A and B ships have steam catapults and arrester gear strong enough to operate it.

There was a thread a month or so back where we had Canadair making a licenced version of the Phantom II with British Involvement
 
There was a thread a month or so back where we had Canadair making a licenced version of the Phantom II with British Involvement

I remember it.

The British heavy fighter is part of my earlier consolidation of the British aircraft industry PLUS better procurement by the services and airlines scenario.

In that the Canadians might build the British heavy fighter under licence, but they have to increase their defence spending in the 1960s to do it.

More likely is that the Canadians build the Mirage III class light fighter that is built to compliment the heavy fighter. That is they build it instead of the Starfighter and Freedom Fighter.

I want the light fighter to be a development of the Hunter, that can be built with the Hunter tooling. That is so that the Belgians and Dutch build it under licence instead of the Starfighter. Then the Belgians build some more in place of their Mirage 5s and the Dutch buy more from Canada instead of the Freedom Fighter or build them in their own factories.
 
Get Corvette production underway a little faster, and convince the Canadians to start building their own before the war officially starts. (First Canadian Corvette was apparently laid down in like Feb '40. Should be able to get several months headstart on that)
 
Frigates, Corvettes and Minesweepers - Longer Slipways - Amphibious Ships

Would this work?

The problem with building more frigates instead of the corvettes is that some of the slipways weren't long enough. The Castle class corvette was designed to be built in shipyards that were too small to build the Lochs and Bays.

Is it feasible to build River class frigates, "optimised for mass production on dispersed sites," from 1939? That is to start building Loch class frigates in 1939 instead of 1943.

According to Leo Mariott in Royal Navy Frigates 1945-1983, "The average time taken to complete a conventionally constructed "River" class frigate was in the order of 15-18 months, a prefabricated "Loch" class frigate was completed in an average time of 10 or 11 months. Had the war continued past 1945, building times would probably have fallen even more as the tempo of production increased."

I have already suggested bringing some of the submarines, all the cruisers and all the fleet destroyers in the War Emergency Programme forward to the normal 1939-40 Estimates. Why not order 120 Lochs in the 1939 programme instead of 56 Flowers in the 1939-40 Programme, 60 Flowers in the WEP and the 4 ordered by France from British yards? With a bulk order for 120 instead of 60+60 it might be easier for the shipyards to organise themselves for mass production.

The above might allow a one-to-one substitution of the Flower class for the Loch class. If it can be done it would free up the shipyards that were too small to build frigates for other ships. I was thinking of more large minesweepers, but the space could also be used for more amphibious warfare vessels if the slipways were long enough.

And it might be possilbe to build the large minesweepers using "Loch" prefabrication methods as well.

The problem with the above is that building more frigates and less corvettes requires more steel. However, if that problem can be overcome the Royal Navy gets better convoy escorts for the same or possibly less labour.

Also if I had been on the Admiralty Board in 1939 I would try to increase the length of the destroyer slipways so that more Tribal and Battle size ships could be built in place of the Emergency and Weapon classes. However, I don't know if the resources to do this were available.

My previous post about building 2 Audacious class fleet carriers instead of the Centaur class got me thinking, "Why didn't the Admiralty think of that?It looks too good to be true on paper." One reason could be that they had vacant slipways to build light fleet carriers, but none big enough for full-size fleet carriers. IIRC one reason why none of the 4 Malta class fleet carriers were laid down was a shortage of suitable slipways to build them on.

Therefore in 1939 I would instruct the shipyards that built the Centaur class to extend their slipways so that they were large enough to build Audacious class fleet carriers. If that wasn't possible I would find money to pay them to build new slipways that were large enough. It might take a long time (due to all the other demands on the British economy) but they won't be needed until 1944.

Finally 3 Landing Ships Dock (LSD) are built in British yards in place of the 3 Landing Ships Tank (LST) Mk 1 of OTL.

IIRC from Friedman the British wanted 10 LST Mk 1, but a lack of yard capacity meant they had to order 7 in America. The limitations of the LST Mk 1 were discovered early enough for the American order to be changed to 7 LSD, which was also a British idea. So ITTL the Admiralty finds out that the LST Mk 1 can't be used on French beaches (because their slopes are too shallow) in time for the order to be amended to 3 LSD.
 
Last edited:
You (as Fraser) could put more resources into Coastal Command, but the RAF isn't your service, let alone department.

Also the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force is not transferred to the Royal Navy until May 1939.

It would not be up to the Third Sea Lord, but the Inskip Award could be altered so that the shore-based portion of the maritime RAF is transferred to the Royal Navy in May 1939 as well. That would in effect bring the RNAS back. But the Inskip Award was in 1937.

However, it's too late to do anything that will improve the quality of the shore based naval aircraft before September 1939. And in spite of the Air Marshals more squadrons were transferred from Bomber Command to Coastal Command during the war than the other way around. If Coastal Command is part of the RN the transfer requires a change of Service as well as a change of role.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Some very useful ideas here. Thank you and by all means continue.

I can see (and concede) that higher steam temperatures and pressures can't go as high as I'd hoped, but can they increase at all? Even a small increase would save a huge amount in fuel oil.

https://thrustvector.wordpress.com/...steam-turbine-plant-and-engineering-cultures/

I think so, by switching to procuring turbines from specialist manufacturers.

The comments below that blog include this interesting snippet:
In 1937 HMS Warspite’s 3 year reconstruction was completed. She re-entered service with a 400psi/700f steam plant, that achieved better efficiency (.748/lb/SHP/hr) than any other naval power plant in the world.
Yes please.
 
Last edited:
Top