The Ukrainian ark

[HMSAnson]

It’s 2005. The Ukrainian government have passed a naval act into law, calling for a major expansion of the fleet.
Meanwhile the uk is in one of its get rid of ships now phases, with rumours that one of the invincible class carriers is on the chopping block. Due to Russias not so subtle eying up of eastern Ukraine and Crimea, the Ukrainian government inquired with the Blair administration about the possibility of purchasing an invincible class ship along with six escorts.
The response was that any of the type 42 batch ones and type 22 batch threes could be purchased along with the suggestion of purchasing the old LPD Fearless and that Ark Royal could also be acquired. All ships would be refit as part of the deal at the cost of £350,000,000. The deal was was signed for Ark Royal Fearless Newcastle Cardiff and the four type 22 batch threes and the refits begun.
The ships would be renamed as follows: Ark Royal became Україна (Ukraine), Fearless became київ (Kyiv), Newcastle was renamed Леонід Макаров Кравчук (Leonid Makarov Kravchuk), Cardiff became михайло сергійович грушевський (Mykhailo Serhiiovych Hrushevsky), Cornwall, Cumberland, Campbeltown and Chatham becoming Дніпро (Dnipro), Дністер (Dniester), Десна (Desna) and Дунай (Danube) respectively.
All ships would enter service between 2006 and 2009….tbc
(This is my first alternate history scenario so sorry if it’s bad)

 

[Catspoke]

So is the question is would such a naval force be able to prevent the 2014 occupation of the Crimea???? Wasn't a lot of that special Russian forces "little green men" kind of stuff anyway (i.e. nothing a naval force could do anything about)????.

 

[lionhead]

its nice to have a navy, but can they maintain it? I doubt it.

Plus NATO is basically arming the Ukraine.

This is bound to go into current politics discussion as well.

 

[jsb]

All ships would be refit as part of the deal at the cost of £350,000,000.

Who is paying....? That would buy a lot of domestic made land stuff that would be far more useful if it's not a gift?

 

[Mike D]

So is the question is would such a naval force be able to prevent the 2014 occupation of the Crimea???? Wasn't a lot of that special Russian forces "little green men" kind of stuff anyway (i.e. nothing a naval force could do anything about)????.

The Ukrainian navy wouldn't be able to man the ships so they'd be useless. From memory the entire Ukrainian army was only somewhere around 5,000 men in 2014, so their entire army barely has enough manpower for them never mind their tiny navy.

 

[Goats-&-Bolts]

its nice to have a navy, but can they maintain it?

Who is paying....?

… and we can end the thread right there.

Just read the tragic-comic history of Zaporizhzhia (Ukraine’s only diesel-electric submarine) to see why OP’s suggestion is infeasible.

So is the question is would such a naval force be able to prevent the 2014 occupation of the Crimea???? Wasn't a lot of that special Russian forces "little green men" kind of stuff anyway (i.e. nothing a naval force could do anything about)????.

Most of the Ukrainian Navy personnel either quit or defected during the 2014 Crimean Crisis. Even Radio Free Europe admits this.

From memory the entire Ukrainian army was only somewhere around 5,000 men in 2014

I think you are mistaking. This 2014 article for example points out that Ukraine’s navy at the time had 15 000 men (10 000 of them in Crimea) and as you yourself say the Ukrainian navy is smaller than the army.

 

[HMSAnson]

its nice to have a navy, but can they maintain it? I doubt it.

Plus NATO is basically arming the Ukraine.

This is bound to go into current politics discussion as well.

Britain is part of nato

 

[HMSAnson]

Who is paying....? That would buy a lot of domestic made land stuff that would be far more useful if it's not a gift?

Probably did overestimate the price. It would probably have been closer to the combined prices each ship was sold for scrap at

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The Ukraine needs a littoral navy not a blue water one

And it did have a littoral Navy but it was basically lost in 2014

And this is not something that the UK can really help with in 2005 as its main focus is Blue water not Littoral ships

 

[jsb]

And this is not something that the UK can really help with in 2005 as its main focus is Blue water not Littoral ships

I would question this, things like Hunt/Sandown small minesweepers are perfectly free adequate gun/patrol boats and harpoons could be supplied and used as shore defence batteries? Also, if RN was really supplying Ark Royal would they not be thinking about supplying harriers that would be very usefully (unless all gone to USMC by then in 2010/11)?

 

[Bernard Woolley]

All ships would be refit as part of the deal at the cost of £350,000,000. The deal was was signed for Ark Royal Fearless Newcastle Cardiff and the four type 22 batch threes and the refits begun.

Wow! We certainly saw them coming!

I seriously doubt we'd have sold Ark Royal in 2005. In @ the RN was planning to run her on until the QE class entered service, IIRC. HMS Fearless was around 40 years old in 2005 & had been awaiting disposal since 2002. AFAIK, she was not in great material condition when decomissioned & around three years of sitting in Fareham Creek will not have done her any good. Newcastle & Cardiff had been, as with most RN vessels, were worked very hard by the time they decomissioned. They are also Batch 1 Type 42s, so the oldest of the bunch. The Type 22 Batch IIIs are the best ships of the bunch. They were very good frigates, but not cheap to operate.

To crew these ships, Ukraine is going to need something like 2,771 sailors, excluding an airgroup for Ark Royal and amphibious complement for Fearless. As of 2022 the Ukranian Navy was 22,000 stong, so, that would be a significant chunk of their personnel.

A couple of questions you need to ask are, firstly, what does Ukraine need these generally ageing ships for, and can it maintain complex warships, including the last steam turbine powered ship in the RN?

£350,000,000 could probably get the Ukrainians some pretty decent modern, new-build warships better suited to the conditions of the Black Sea. Something like corvettes, or frigates.

And this is not something that the UK can really help with in 2005 as its main focus is Blue water not Littoral ships

Pretty sure that for the cost mentioned that British shipbuilders could offer good modern new-build designs. However, the best the RN could offer would be MCMV and patrol vessels.

 

[Vladyslav]

It’s 2005. The Ukrainian government have passed a naval act into law

It should be very alternative Ukrainian government. IOTL even the Tuzla crisis didn't cure the Ukrainian government complacency and its belief in peace in Europe and that the best use of military property is to sell it to the Ethiopians. And five years later, the Ukrainians elected the bloody traitor Yanukovych as president.

invincible class ship

Why does Ukraine need an aircraft carrier? The Black Sea is small enough for the Ukrainian Air Force to operate from bases in Crimea.
With the configuration of the border existed until 2014, it is the land battle for Crimea will be the most important for the struggle for dominance in the Black Sea. Without bases in Crimea, the Russian fleet will not be able to effectively operate in the theater.

Ukrainian government inquired with the Blair administration about the possibility of purchasing

Totally ASB. Any militaristic Ukrainian government that doesn't want to lose elections will pay to Ukrainian tax-payers, not British. Ukraine has military-industrial complex including shipyards to make weapons and it will make it like OTL Turchynov's missiles program that played a role in the battle for Black Sea
First of all, Ukraine will complete the construction of the cruiser "Ukraina" ("Moskva" sistership), and then, depending on funding and needs.

Леонід Макаров Кравчук (Leonid Makarov Kravchuk

I will not dwell on the incorrect spelling of the patronymic "Makarovych", but only point out that Kravchuk was then too alive to something be named after him, and given his role in the fact that the Black Sea Fleet didn't follow the based in Ukraine Soviet Army's and Air Force's path and became Russian, this is a bad name.

the entire Ukrainian army was only somewhere around 5,000 men in 2014

5000 is the number of incapable forces in March 2014. In total, ZSU then had about 200 thousand people.

So is the question is would such a naval force be able to prevent the 2014 occupation of the Crimea???? Wasn't a lot of that special Russian forces "little green men" kind of stuff anyway (i.e. nothing a naval force could do anything about)????.

Point 1. Do not destroy the army because of greed and betrayal and do not infiltrate it with Russian agents.

Most of the Ukrainian Navy personnel either quit or defected during the 2014 Crimean Crisis. Even Radio Free Europe admits this.

For context, ZSU for 10 years after the Tuzla crisis has seriously degraded and been invaded by Russian agents. This is the low point for them, when Ukraine was forced to use volunteer formations to plug holes in the front. Extrapolating March 2014 to the TTL ZSU is the same as extrapolating the Red Army in June 1941 or the French Army in 1940 to the entire Soviet or French military history.

Just read the tragic-comic history of Zaporizhzhia

The coup d'état in Ukraine

Be mindful of the quality of your sources. It helps everyone

 

[lionhead]

Britain is part of nato

exactly. Russia not happy.

 

[Polish Eagle]

The purpose of an aircraft carrier is power projection. For a country whose realistic war plans against Muscovy are going to be entirely defensive, and which already has an extensive Black Sea coast (but also a vulnerable one--as the loss of Crimea shows), an aircraft carrier is a white elephant. What does it give Ukraine that more land-based aircraft and missiles don't? And is what it gives worth the cost? (and what happens if Sevastopol and/or Odessa are rendered unavailable as home ports?)

If Ukraine wanted to prepare for naval war against Muscovy, investing in Harpoons, Exocets, or post-Soviet equivalents like the Neptune they ended up fielding IOTL.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I would question this, things like Hunt/Sandown small minesweepers are perfectly free adequate gun/patrol boats and harpoons could be supplied and used as shore defence batteries? Also, if RN was really supplying Ark Royal would they not be thinking about supplying harriers that would be very usefully (unless all gone to USMC by then in 2010/11)?

Hunts and Sandown's have a day job in 2005 for the Grey Funnel line - and there are better gun / patrol boats (they are perfectly adequate as a gun boat but it would be like using a range rover as a tractor)

Also the Sandowns were built and commissioned between 1992 and 2001 - so are not going to be up for sale in 2005 (2 have recently been given to the Ukrainian navy)

The Hunts are older but all were in use at the time

Ark Royal was kept in service till 2011 - I cannot see it being up for sale in 2005

Sea Harrier II estate was clapped out and the type retired in 2006 - so there remains a possibility that if the Ukraine wanted them and were prepared to pay for the upkeep of them but this was expected to be expensive and slow which is why HMG did not.

The only advantage I can see in the Ukraine having them is its blue vixen radar and AIM 120 capability and possibly Sea Eagle?

Harrier GR7/9 equipped the Joint Harrier force till the type was retired in 2010

 

[CalBear]

Even at fire sale prices the Ukrainians could never afford that sort of fleet.

Hell, they wouldn't be able to keep the ships maintained (which BTW, tends to be stupid expensive and only get worse as ships age, what with the constant pounding the take in the open water and the salt air).

Lastly, without a similar increase in both ground based air defenses AND substantial air force upgrades, especially in the area of EW and AWACS, any fleet is going to face a very exciting, albeit brief, existence if the balloon ever went up.

 

[Goats-&-Bolts]

For context, ZSU for 10 years after the Tuzla crisis has seriously degraded and been invaded by Russian agents. This is the low point for them, when Ukraine was forced to use volunteer formations to plug holes in the front. Extrapolating March 2014 to the TTL ZSU is the same as extrapolating the Red Army in June 1941 or the French Army in 1940 to the entire Soviet or French military history.

EVEN IF this is true (and I have my doubts) why would it change in an ATL where Ukraine gets a bunch of white elephant ships (that the nation can’t pay for or maintain)?

Be mindful of the quality of your sources. It helps everyone

Huh? Since when did Zaporizhzhia’s story become “controversial”? I thought it’s misfortunes were well known even pre-2014.

Here, a 2011 article from the Ukrainian Navy about the troubled submarine, the lack funds to maintain it and the 15 years it spend in limbo:

ПІДВОДНИЙ ЧОВЕН “ЗАПОРІЖЖЯ”: КРІЗЬ ПРИЗМУ ЧАСУ Й СПОДІВАНЬ

ПІДВОДНИЙ ЧОВЕН “ЗАПОРІЖЖЯ”: КРІЗЬ ПРИЗМУ ЧАСУ Й СПОДІВАНЬ | Чесні новини про армію, війну та оборонку.

mil.in.ua

 

[Vladyslav]

why would it change in an ATL

It should be very alternative Ukrainian government. IOTL even the Tuzla crisis didn't cure the Ukrainian government complacency

Militaristic Ukraine means not the buying of the white elephants but other actions to strengthen ZSU. IOTL ZSU already in the spring and summer of 2014 showed themselves much better than in Crimea. IOTL Ukraine built an army that stopped the Russians and sent the Black Sea Fleet flagship to the bottom in 8 years. What level the ZSU will achieve in 8 years without 9 years of degradation is a good question, but it is obvious that the TTL ZSU of 2013 will be closer to the OTL ZSU-2022 than to the OTL ZSU-2014

IF this is true (and I have my doubts

There is a reason why we all should use better sources even if in this particular case it is a part of the proverbial 40% of truth

 

[Goats-&-Bolts]

Militaristic Ukraine means not the buying of the white elephants but other actions to strengthen ZSU.

So you’re just ignoring the OP?

There is a reason why we all should use better sources even if in this particular case it is a part of the proverbial 40% of truth

Thanks, but I’d rather not limit myself to NAFO pre-approved sources.

 

[Vladyslav]

So you’re just ignoring the OP?

Is it legal on AH.com?