Deleted member 94680
I did say within the next three decades ie by 1950
You did indeed. A fair point. It depends if a Cold War analogue develops and the need for a Strategic Bomber Command is discovered, I suppose.
I did say within the next three decades ie by 1950
Of course if WWII plays out anywhere near like otl technologically speaking much like the US the UK will recognize the need for an independent air force. Mind you let's hope that the RAF doesn't treat the Army like peasants that it begrudgingly must support unlike the USAFYou did indeed. A fair point. It depends if a Cold War analogue develops and the need for a Strategic Bomber Command is discovered, I suppose.
OTL the Americans got through WWII without an independent Air Force just fine. No reason the British can’t do the same.
Hopefully the rebuild of Cavendish would produce an alternate solution – a ‘flat top’ cruiser with both guns and aircraft, and therefore capable of working in all weathers.
Mind you let's hope that the RAF doesn't treat the Army like peasants that it begrudgingly must support unlike the USAF
If anything the RAF has historically been even less keen on helpings Pongo's ((RAF nickname for the Army because when they leave the pong* goes.) *unpleasant smell) than the USAF.
Another thirty years being dependent on the army might change that of courseHopefully the Cavendish will teach the RN that that is a very bad idea and hybrid are the worst of both worlds.
I think the odds of that are near zero. If anything the RAF has historically been even less keen on helpings Pongo's ((RAF nickname for the Army because when they leave the pong* goes.) *unpleasant smell) than the USAF.
Hey sts-200, what are the possibilities of getting this type of rebuilt for the Queens and Royals down the line ?:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-italian-style-rebuild-of-qe-class.480976/
Take the ship's bell and stern plate and put them on a 60k 18" ship, technically still the same shipsIf you have either no treaty or a less restrictive/shorter treaty (and that seems to be the direction sts is going) then you are going to get 18" armed, 28 knot, 60k ships (i.e. a Furious done right) and there is no rebuild that can make a QE competitive with something like that.
Minimal, those deep rebuilds were a function of the treaty environment where the definition of a top of line battleship was essentially frozen for twenty years. In that context rebuilding old ships could keep them competitive as first rate ships.
If you have either no treaty or a less restrictive/shorter treaty (and that seems to be the direction sts is going) then you are going to get 18" armed, 28 knot, 60k ships (i.e. a Furious done right) and there is no rebuild that can make a QE competitive with something like that.
A poster on another board once made the point that ships like Hermes were expected to spend a lot of the first half of their lives acting as depot ships for float planes. The 6" aren't so much for dueling with cruisers but for when some raider rumbles you at anchor supporting flight ops in a Pacific atoll.heavy anti-surface armament to help her defend herself against hostile cruisers and destroyers (so too did the Eagle) and this sounds like the RN might be going down this route again, they've got one of the Follies to use if they
Well, you never know when you need one of those. I was thinking actually on make them faster, at least so they could reach the 25kn mark as designed.
2) the Royal Air Force (formerly the Independent Air Force): Bomber Command, Fighter Command & long-range aerial recon; and
3) the Army Air Corp (formerly the Royal Flying Corps): Tactical Air Command (fighter-bombers, aerial recon and artillery spotters)*.
The problem is a deep, Italian style refit costs a meaningful percentage of a new build of similar size. Even for the RN, which in this tl as on OTL will almost certainly have the largest naval budget in the world, I just can't see enough money left over to do deep refits on second/third line ships. Because while this tl's RN is going to be better funded it's probably not going to be proportionally better funded, not with a larger, less damaged, non-Versailles restricted Germany around.
So when it comes to the RN's budget meeting paying for a quarter of a new first rate ship is going to win out over making the flagship of the South America Squadron* that little bit better.
*And that's the fate of the 15" ships in a generations time. They won't have the speed or the armament to be anything other than a burden in the high priority fleets.
The "Italian-style rebuilds" still didn't make the Conte di Cavours and the Andrea Dorias competitive with the Queen Elizabeth battleships and each cost as much as a new Littorio, give or take.
"These modernizations have been criticized by some naval historians because these ships would eventually prove to be inferior to the British battleships they were meant to face (namely the Queen Elizabeth class, since by the time the decision to proceed was taken a war between Italy and the United Kingdom seemed more likely). In addition, the cost of the reconstruction would be not much less than the cost of building a brand new Littorio-class battleship; moreover, the reconstruction work caused bottlenecks in the providing of steel plates, that caused substantial delays in the construction of the modern battleships, which otherwise might have been completed at an earlier date." wiki
Somehow, I can't see the Royal Navy spending that much money and resources on older ships when they have the infrastructure to build new with relatively little problem. The Exchequer will be the problem for the RN, not fleet size or relative modernity of Capital Ships.
South Dakota managed this at 35k tons, though it was a 1938 design.armour against 16" guns, 16" or larger guns and 27 knots and you can't manage that on less than 45k tons