I have the same wish, a CF-23Oh well I was hoping to foster some sort of Canadair-Northrop strategic partnership (to appease my fantasy of a CF-23)
I have the same wish, a CF-23Oh well I was hoping to foster some sort of Canadair-Northrop strategic partnership (to appease my fantasy of a CF-23)
Ha! Good one!
One reason I think that 65 Kaiserreich would have fleet carriers is because they would develop them in the 20s and 30s and by the 60s would come to the conclusion like everyone else that a prolonged world war is impossible. The the role of carriers is a climactic convoy battle like the Malta convoys in a WW3 scenario or supporting limited wars, and in these scenarios a fleet carrier is better than an ASW carrier.
There are probably some Alpine valleys that are deep enough to keep RVs entirely out. They would still need a self-digout mechanism in case rock gets blasted all over the bottom of the valley.There is a german-land irbm basing option - superhard silos. If I have read correctly, this tl takes place in 1965, so the issue of improved accuracy offsetting the advantage of a superhard silo is essentially nulified, as I assume icbm accuracy would still be quite poor.
The inherent difficulty with Germany's position on the continent is that there's no good dispersal area. Because access to the ocean could be easily blocked, the racetracks would have to be over Germany itself. If the racetracks are known and constant, it might be possible to hit them with airbursts and knock the planes out of the air, although this would require a lot of warheadsOf course, there is the option of airmobile basing - in several forms. Large aircraft carrying large amounts of long range cruise missiles on patrol could survive a first strike mostly intact, however the cost be massive. Still worth mentioning though.
The US Minuteman fields would require more than a thousand warheads to fully neutralize, which is about two-thirds of the allowed strategic weapons deployment under New START and half of the allowance under START II. The role of the missile field is to act offensively as a first-strike weapon or defensively as a missile sponge; NCA would have to make an instant decision to either launch-on-warning or let the missiles be destroyed. US SLBMs are the second-strike weapon that can survive a nuclear strike and wait for NCA to respond before launching. Because the Germans wouldn't be able to effectively utilize SLBMs, they would need a different second-strike mechanism, if they decide to even invest in one and not maintain a launch-on-warning policy.Also, while I very much like your idea of basing missiles in South Africa, with it being a enjoyable and unique idea, I really don't see why there would be large missile dispersal fields - while I suppose it could act as a limited missile sponge, the enemy knows where these missiles are, and could target them, and as I assume these dispersal fields are meant to act as deterrence, not a first strike weapon, It usually isn't good for the enemy to know where your main form of defensive deterrence is located - you may as well stick with slbm.
But I might be arguing this wrong, or just missing something in logic or facts, please let me know.
There is a german-land irbm basing option - superhard silos. If I have read correctly, this tl takes place in 1965, so the issue of improved accuracy offsetting the advantage of a superhard silo is essentially nulified, as I assume icbm accuracy would still be quite poor.
Of course, there is the option of airmobile basing - in several forms. Large aircraft carrying large amounts of long range cruise missiles on patrol could survive a first strike mostly intact, however the cost be massive. Still worth mentioning though.
Also, while I very much like your idea of basing missiles in South Africa, with it being a enjoyable and unique idea, I really don't see why there would be large missile dispersal fields - while I suppose it could act as a limited missile sponge, the enemy knows where these missiles are, and could target them, and as I assume these dispersal fields are meant to act as deterrence, not a first strike weapon, It usually isn't good for the enemy to know where your main form of defensive deterrence is located - you may as well stick with slbm.
But I might be arguing this wrong, or just missing something in logic or facts, please let me know.
There are probably some Alpine valleys that are deep enough to keep RVs entirely out. They would still need a self-digout mechanism in case rock gets blasted all over the bottom of the valley.
The inherent difficulty with Germany's position on the continent is that there's no good dispersal area. Because access to the ocean could be easily blocked, the racetracks would have to be over Germany itself. If the racetracks are known and constant, it might be possible to hit them with airbursts and knock the planes out of the air, although this would require a lot of warheads
The US Minuteman fields would require more than a thousand warheads to fully neutralize, which is about two-thirds of the allowed strategic weapons deployment under New START and half of the allowance under START II. The role of the missile field is to act offensively as a first-strike weapon or defensively as a missile sponge; NCA would have to make an instant decision to either launch-on-warning or let the missiles be destroyed. US SLBMs are the second-strike weapon that can survive a nuclear strike and wait for NCA to respond before launching. Because the Germans wouldn't be able to effectively utilize SLBMs, they would need a different second-strike mechanism, if they decide to even invest in one and not maintain a launch-on-warning policy.
.
A couple of points.
I doubt the Kaiser Reich would have trouble with familiarity of the USSR that the US had in the 50s because they have been in the neighbourhood forever whereas the US was looking for the first time.The Germans would accurately know where Moscow is on a map.
While Imperial Germany is small compared to the USA and USSR its hardly Britain and is much bigger than France sp Germany could find a spot or two for ballistic missiles if needed. In addition while the USA and USSR put their ICBMs out in the missile of nowhere there were plenty of other first stike nuclear targets close to populated areas, Germany could simply accept the risk as on par with these sites.
The US forward based SSBNs at Holy Loch Scotland and Rota Spain in the Polaris/Poseidon era, I imagine the KM could come up with something similar for its SSBN fleet to mitigate having home bases in the North and Adriatic seas. Perhaps SSBNs could do 'shuttle' missions; start the patrol from home, transit to a German colony or ally, change crews and replenish then start the patrol from this forward base and finish it at home.
There are probably some Alpine valleys that are deep enough to keep RVs entirely out. They would still need a self-digout mechanism in case rock gets blasted all over the bottom of the valley.
The inherent difficulty with Germany's position on the continent is that there's no good dispersal area. Because access to the ocean could be easily blocked, the racetracks would have to be over Germany itself. If the racetracks are known and constant, it might be possible to hit them with airbursts and knock the planes out of the air, although this would require a lot of warheads
The US Minuteman fields would require more than a thousand warheads to fully neutralize, which is about two-thirds of the allowed strategic weapons deployment under New START and half of the allowance under START II. The role of the missile field is to act offensively as a first-strike weapon or defensively as a missile sponge; NCA would have to make an instant decision to either launch-on-warning or let the missiles be destroyed. US SLBMs are the second-strike weapon that can survive a nuclear strike and wait for NCA to respond before launching. Because the Germans wouldn't be able to effectively utilize SLBMs, they would need a different second-strike mechanism, if they decide to even invest in one and not maintain a launch-on-warning policy.
.
And this is the challenge speculating 50 years after the POD where one has yet to pin in place all the butterflies. First one cannot be certain Germany pursues missiles, they were an alternative to super heavy/long-range artillery under Versailles, but if they do then missiles are more tactical and intermediate strategic given the inaccuracy and vulnerability. Again, assuming as I have that a USSR still evolves, then its closed secretive nature makes missiles far from reliable to hit anything less than area targets like cities. Thus I tend to see the manned bomber having an edge longer, missiles are for closer targets that can be targeted or cities, superhard silos closer together deployed roughly around Hannover and towards Berlin from the West appears the best field but far smaller than anything like the SRF or SAC deployed. I think air basing is too costly for the vulnerability, German airspace is small and croeded, instead I fall back to rail then road basing, that gives dispersal on the dense rail and road net. And as far as basing in SWA I am not yet certain Germany gets that from SA but if it did I fear it is far away and hard to defend without draining off manpower needed for the conventional deterrence versus the USSR. For me it is interesting to construct the multi-polar world, instead of two camps and the non-aligned, it is more Mexican stand-off, the only saving grace in this more armed and less certain world.
And gratitude for indulging my sub-thread herein.
To deviate from timeline
Which fighter strike planes from the 50s 60s you see surviving well into the 80s if they were modified
I'll give some examples and you guys see if it was possible to extend their useful life
Glos Javelin
Sup scimitar
F11 tiger
Sukhoi Su 11
To deviate from timeline
Which fighter strike planes from the 50s 60s you see surviving well into the 80s if they were modified
I'll give some examples and you guys see if it was possible to extend their useful life
Glos Javelin
Sup scimitar
F11 tiger
Sukhoi Su 11
MiG-21 as historically, Draken, F-104... Practically any Mach 2 plane could be kept flying forever with modifications. At some point the EE Lightning Mk XII would not have a single interchangeable part with the original, or the maintenance of EE Lightning from original tranches would get sky high, but the development of smaller electronics and weapons would play powerfully into logic of just upgrading older planes.
That does raise the question of which version of the F-117. The different variants that have been proposed over the years are something of a mess, IIRC two separate ones from different time periods having the same designation, and based on estimates so it's hard to keep track of the performance figures. If the UK had gone ahead, and personally I can't really see it due to the large cost and limited/specialised role they performed, then assuming that it was one of the later variants - enlarged and reduced sweep wings, tailerons, improved engines, bulged bomb bay etc. - it might have actually prompted a new US order as well due to politicians not wanting someone else to have a better version.I'd be entertained by ... the British F-117 Nighthawk ... which would've been an interesting concept.
I know you're talking comparatively but 'higher performance' is not something I normally expect to see written about the Jaguar - certainly not in its favour. The standard joke after all was that it relied more on long takeoff runs and the curvature of the earth to get airborne, although in fairness that was the earlier marks. It was a rather decent aircraft and if they'd actually gone ahead with the improved version with the enlarged wings, referred to as 'tin wing' IIRC, and engines with more power it would have been even better.Jaguar is higher performance...
That's half of it but you don't mention design capability. That's a highly specialised field that if not kept in work will deteriorate quite quickly, the state of the art keeps advancing, and disappear. Once that's gone you're pretty much locked into buying foreign aircraft, either directly or by licensed production, as rebuilding the capacity is often seen as too expensive and long-term.Also license production doesn't cost the UK any production capability...
Err, I don't want to sound pessimistic, but the avionics of Typhoon are kinda outdated. Even CAPTOR-E, if it comes one day in actual operational service, isn't really something you'd want for a future fighter jet: while barely getting out of the prototype stage its design is very similar to radars that have been operational for roughly a decade (AN/APG-77, 79, 81 for the US, J/APG-1 for Japan or RBE-2AA for France), and by the time it gets operational, all the models I listed will be on their way out as newer versions with much, much more effective GaN antennas are being produced now for these radars while CAPTOR-E will be stuck with GaAs ones. Avionics is pretty much the big weak point of Typhoon, these days, which explains its rankings when it comes to official procurement competitions (the Swiss one comes to mind prominently), with British officials acknowledging a couple years ago, IIRC, that the EW suite was in dire need of being upgraded to stay competitive with the two other NATO frontline multirole fighters. So, if Tempest ever gets done - which is a big IF, considering the loss of know-how from the British aerospace industry over the past two decades by not doing an entire project by itself due to political reasons - it will definitely need brand new avionics rather than Typhoon ones.Which is why projects like Typhoon continued after the Cold War ended. Plus BAE Replica, and now Tempest.
I actually think Tempest is a really good idea if the the avionics from Typhoon can be updated and pulled through, since the most risky part of development isn’t the airframe, it’s the avionics and systems integration.
With continued development of items such as CAPTOR-E there is no reason why a competitive aircraft couldn’t be developed at a fraction of the cost of F-35 (or even F-35 divided by 3).
can you turn the Javelin into a strike fighter /CAS platform to be used by commonwealth states after retired from RAFEE Lighting, a prerequisite for any Cold War Britwank.