The Union Forever: A TL

[Mac Gregor]

2001? Hopefully no such thing as 9/11 coming up?

Hard-line Islamism is butterflied away so at least there shouldn't be Islamic terrorism. And it seems that even generally any kind of terrorism not be very common.

One question: Has separatist movements gained nuclear weapons on IEF Civil War? Fate of these might be intresting if IEF collapses.

We will have to see what happens in 2001. Lalli, is correct in that radical Islam is significantly weaker ITTL. It is still around to a small degree but the Hashemites in the Sultanate of Arabia have done a decent job keeping their Wahhabi opponents in check.

Regarding nuclear weapons in the IEF, I keep forgetting to cover them but will do so in the next update dealing with the IEF Civil War.

Cheers!

 

[Veranius]

Mac Gregor, have nuclear weapons been used in anger ITTL? I remember about the plan to use them in the Asia-Pacific War, but that thankfully didn't happen.

 

[Kaiser Chris]

Emperor Norton I (1818-1882)

Joshua Abraham Norton, better known by his self-declared title of “His Imperial Majesty Emperor of the United States, Lord of San Francisco, and Protector of Mexico” was born in London, England in 1818. His family would immigrate to South Africa in 1820 where Norton spent 29 years of his life. In 1849, Norton immigrated to the United States after claiming a sizable inheritance from his father. Looking to strike a fortune Norton settled in San Francisco and spent his first years successfully dealing in real estate. However, all of his fortunes was soon lost when a scheme to invest in Peruvian rice backfired and Norton had to sell almost all of his belongings to repay his debts.

On September 17, 1859, Emperor Norton's fanciful 23-year Imperial reign began when he declared himself Emperor of the United States, allegedly due to being disgruntled by the current state of politics in Washington. News of Norton's coronation spread all over San Francisco through the San Francisco Bulletin, which added the title “Protector of Mexico.” Many of Emperor Norton's early "decrees" consisted of farcical measures to usurp control of the national government. The following series of edicts included: the abolition of congress, resignation of Abraham Lincoln, ordering the construction of a bridge to Oakland, dissolution of the Democratic and Republican parties, and naming San Francisco the new capital of the United States. While the federal government ignored or mocked Norton's efforts, his self-stylized manner of rule earned him the love of many of San Francisco's populace. Spending his days inspecting the streets in an elaborate Union officer uniform, Norton gained many privileges in return for his "benevolent reign" of the city. These privileges often included: free meals at any restaurant (including for his dogs Bummer and Lazarus), local stores accepted his own self-issued currency, and all performance venues reserved a seat just for the Emperor. It was reported that Norton twice intervened to stop riots in order to protect Chinese immigrants

The Emperor Norton is most remembered today due to his connection with the author Mark Twain who in later years penned a series of novels called "The Adventures of an American Emperor." The series of adventure novels was based around Norton's life as ruler of America and detailed his many fabled accomplishments, including: saving Queen Victoria from assassination, crashing the wedding of Napoleon IV, preventing a war between Italy and Austria, building the Continental railroad, helping Edison invent the lightbulb, etc. Though completely fictitious and outlandish the novels became a bestselling hit across America and is revered today as an example of classic American literature. On July 5, 1882 Emperor Norton died in his sleep at his "Imperial" apartment. He was given a "state funeral" the following day where tens of thousands of the city’s population gathered to pay their respects. Decades later, when a bridge finally connecting San Francisco to Oakland was completed in 1932 it was named the Emperor Norton Bridge. A fitting tribute to the City by the Bay’s favorite son.

 

[Kirook]

Decades later, when a bridge finally connecting San Francisco to Oakland was completed in 1932 it was named the Emperor Norton Bridge. A fitting tribute to the City by the Bay’s favorite son.

As a Bay Area native who drives over the Bay Bridge all the time, I officially love you.

 

[RyderWest]

Ship Class Profile
United States Navy Battleships​

USS Arizona (BB-70) in a painting by Halleckville, Arizona artist Kenneth Warner circa 1977, before the Asian-Pacific War.​

Class Name: Arizona-class battleship

In Service: 1972 - present (as of 2000)

Ship List: 6 ships

• USS Arizona (BB-70) [1]
• USS Virginia (BB-71) [2]
  
• USS Minnesota (BB-72) [3] [4]
  
• USS New Hampshire (BB-73) [5]
  
• USS Santo Domingo (BB-74) [6]
• USS Maine (BB-75) [7]

Armament:

• 12 x 16"/55 calibre Mark 11 naval guns in four triple turrets
• 16 x 5"/61RF calibre Mark 16 naval guns in eight twin turrets
• 8 x 25mm Skylance CIWS batteries
• 24 x SGM-71 Seahawk anti-ship missiles
• 36 x BGM-91 Atlatl cruise missiles

Displacement: 68,764 long tons (69,867 t)

Speed: 33 knots (61 km/h; 37 mph)

Range: 16,500 nautical miles (30,558 km; 18,987 mi) at 16 knots (30 km/h; 18 mph)

Complement: 2,658 officers and men (Asian-Pacific War)

Notes: N/A

Ship Notes:

USS Arizona: [1] Laid down on December 25, 1967 at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Norfolk, Virginia. Launched on February 2, 1971 and commissioned on July 4, 1971.

Arizona, before heading down to Seattle, Washington, was docked in Vancouver for a stop over on April 8, 1977 when the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service attacked Vancouver Harbour during the Raid on Vancouver, severely damaging the docks and the city itself, sinking 14 Commonwealth ships and killing 3,196 civilians, sailors and dock workers, but luckily Arizona escaped unharmed. Sailors from the Arizona reported that a few Japanese bombers nearly gunned for the battleship itself ready to fire an anti-ship missile (probably mistaking it for a British battleship), but peeled off once they saw the American Naval Jack and 56 star flag of the United States. Rear Admiral Andrew Kidd Jr. (ATL descendant of the Kidd family OTL), who was on the bridge of the Arizona at the time, remarked that it was lucky "a damn missile or bomb did not smash into our main magazine or we will have a memorial over this ship in 20 years."

After the US declaration of war on Japan on June 30, 1979, Arizona along with the East Pacific Fleet moved out of San Diego, heading to the Bonin Islands to support the US Army forces landing on Iwo Jima. Arizona mostly did shore bombardment duties and tried to survive the numerous anti-ship missiles launched from Chichi Jima, unfortunantly sinking a few ships despite her CIWS batteries shooting down many missiles. Arizona also fired its guns in anger for the first time during the battle, sinking the Japanese heavy missile cruiser Kurobe and its 4 escort destroyers with its 16 inch main guns and 5 inch secondary guns after Kurobe's task force got lost during a storm and ran into Arizona by pure chance.

Still in active service as of 2000 and currently based at San Diego Naval Base, San Diego, California as the flagship of the US East Pacific Fleet.

USS Virginia: [2] Laid down on January 24, 1968 at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Norfolk, Virginia. Launched on October 22, 1971 and commissioned on March 7, 1972.

USS Minnesota: [3] Laid down on March 3, 1968 at New York Naval Shipyard in Brooklyn, New York. Launched on January 28, 1972 and commissioned on July 24, 1972.

Served in the Asian-Pacific War, and was sunk by Imperial Japanese Navy battleship Mimasaka (A Satsuma-class super battleship) at the Battle of the Southern Philippine Sea on March 6, 1980, killing 1,588 sailors and crewmen and leaving 1,070 survivors, including Rear Admiral Norman Alexander, floating in the West Pacific. They were eventually rescued by a Task Force led by sister ship New Hampshire and Maine along with missile cruisers USS Port St. Lucie (CG-33) and USS Sedgwick (CG-39).

Only Arizona-class battleship to be lost to enemy action in the war, and one of three battleships lost in the war along with USS Mahetane (BB-61), a Puerto Rico-class battleship lost to Japanese anti-ship missiles during the Battle of Iwo Jima on November 19, 1979 and USS Rhode Island (BB-51) a Oregon-class battleship destroyed at Cavite Naval Base, Philippines during the surprise Japanese missile strike on July 2, 1979.

[4] The ship was featured in the 31-hour miniseries The Final Stand (2000), which detailed the whole Asia-Pacific War through the eyes of the British Commonwealth & allies, the Technate of China, the United Republic of India, Kobushi Japan, Corporatist Venezuela and the United States. Minnesota's battle with Mimasaka and her sinking was a major part of the 14th episode of the miniseries, which also included New Hampshire, Maine and her task force sinking Mimasaka and her sister ship Sagami in revenge of Minnesota's sinking.

USS New Hampshire: [5] Laid down on May 27, 1968 at Portsmouth Navy Shipyward in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Launched on July 5, 1972 and commissioned on November 10, 1972.

Sank the Japanese battleship Mimasaka and her sister ship Sagami during the Battle of the Southern Philippine Sea on March 7, 1980 along with USS Maine (BB-75) in cold blooded revenge for the loss of USS Minnesota (BB-72). Considered one of the few battleship vs battleship battles in the Asian-Pacific War, excluding the Battle of Luzon Strait (March 14-18, 1978) fought by British and Japanese battleships and missile destroyers.

USS Santo Domingo: [6] Laid down on October 28, 1968 at San Diego Naval Shipyards in San Diego, California. Launched on November 21, 1972 and commissioned on February 6, 1973.

USS Maine: [7] Laid down on December 25, 1968 at San Diego Naval Shipyards in San Diego, California. Launched on March 17, 1973 and commissioned on October 4, 1973.

 

[Luminous]

Ok, I'm a sucker for the big gun ships. That was good!

Still in active service as of 2000 and currently based at San Diego Naval Base, San Diego, California as the flagship of the US East Pacific Fleet.

East Pacific? Would that mean that there is still some sort of Asiatic Fleet in existence? And awesome; a battleship is a fleet flagship in the twenty first century!

Only Arizona-class battleship to be lost to enemy action in the war, and one of three battleships lost in the war along with USS Mahetane (BB-61), a Puerto Rico-class battleship lost to Japanese anti-ship missiles during the Battle of Iwo Jima on November 19, 1979 and USS Rhode Island (BB-51) a Oregon-class battleship destroyed at Cavite Naval Base, Philippines during the surprise Japanese missile strike on July 2, 1979.

If Arizona is a later, modernized Montana, would I be incorrect to assume that the Puerto Rico class is roughly the Iowa class, while the Oregon class is roughly the same as either the North Carolina or South Dakota classes?

Also: are these ships Nicamax or Panamax class ships, or are they larger? I forget if there is a different size for either in this timeline.

Still, if the battleships are still flagships to this day, it looks like they haven't been completely usurped by the aircraft carrier in primacy. The heavy use of missiles seems to have replaced aircraft carriers as such a major component of various task forces. Granted, considering that the Arizonas are approaching thirty years, I imagine a new class might be in the works. ...That, or one of the older classes has become a test bed. ...Might be an interesting line of thought to pursue.

EDIT: Might arsenal ships be seriously considered?

 

[Mac Gregor]

Hey Mac Gregor, i've been reading for the past few days and i've gotta say this is my favorite piece of work on the website so far. What i'm really interested to know is if you could post an entry detailing all of the accomplishments by each country in the space race. At this point in time i've sort of lost track and don't really remember who did what.

Here you go.

Selected Space Exploration Milestones
1961-2000 ​

July, 1961: The United States Navy launches Columbus I the first manmade satellite to orbit the Earth.

December, 1961: The German Empire launches its first satellite Grenzer.

February, 1962: Germany creates the Imperial Space and Aeronautics Commission (IRLK).

April, 1962: America establishes the United States Space Agency (USSA) to oversee the nation’s space program.

August, 1963: German Chancellor Florian Kruger announces the creation of the Máni-Programm with the aim of “putting a German on the moon within the next decade.”

September, 1963: President Frank MacArthur announces America’s lunar program, the Artemis Initiative.

September, 1963: The United Kingdom launches its first satellite Drake I.

June, 1964: The United Kingdom and its allies in the British Commonwealth establish the Commonwealth Aerospace Administration (CAA) to head their space program.

December, 1964: The Russian Empire establishes the Russian Aviation and Space Bureau (RAKB).

October, 1965: The Russian Empire launches its first satellite Basil II.

February, 1966: Congress approves the construction of the Leroy R. Connor Joint Army-Navy Airbase in American Guiana which will become the launch hub for the USSA.

March, 1966: German Lieutenant-Colonel Maximilian Schwiezer became the first man to journey into outer space aboard his spacecraft Adler.

July, 1966: Walter K. Melton of Georgia becomes the first American in space.

April, 1969: American astronaut Elias Duke conducts the first spacewalk.

October, 1970: Corey C. Bailey becomes the first African American in space.

January 1971: A joint Franco-Italian space program, the European Space Research Organization (ORSE), is created.

November, 1973: American astronaut Jennifer Castello becomes the first woman in space.

April, 1974: Artemis VII became the first manned spacecraft to orbit the moon.

February, 1975: The IRLK suffers a catastrophic launch failure resulting in the deaths of three astronauts and delaying the schedule for the Máni-Programm by months.

March, 1975: Artemis X astronauts George W. Lopez of Cuba and Charlie Rosenthal of Pasapa became the first men to walk on the surface of the moon when their lunar lander Discovery successfully touched down near the Mare Serenitatis.

October, 1975: Yegor Maksimov becomes the first Russian in space with the successful flight of his spacecraft the Burevestnik.

January, 1976: The German Empire became the second nation to send a man to the moon when Helmfried Lafrentz landed on the Sea of Tranquility.

December, 1978: The Eurasian Aviation and Space Bureau (YAKB) spacecraft Svetilo broadcasts the first detailed photographs from orbiting Jupiter.

October, 1979: ORSE launches its first domestically produced satellite Galileo.

February, 1980: Germany establishes the Freiden, the world’s first space station.

September, 1981: The Technate of China launches its first domestically produced satellite Zheng He.

August, 1983: The United States begins construction on its first space station Independence.

June, 1984: RAKB announces its plan to conduct a manned Venus flyby within five years.

September, 1988: China became the fourth nation to send a man into space with the launch of Shíxiàn I.

January, 1989: the IEF conducts the first manned Venus flyby when cosmonauts Grigol Iona and Saveliy Mihaylov passed by the planet on their 14 month journey.

March, 1990: America’s Navigational Homing Orbitals (NAVIHO) became fully operational with the launch of the 24th satellite in the system’s constellation. NAVIHO replaced earlier positioning systems created by the U.S. Navy and became open to anyone who had a receiver.

May, 1993: America consolidates the United States Space Agency (USSA), Federal Research Bureau (FRB), and the National Astronautics Office (NAO) under the Department of Space.

January, 1994: Germany opens Mond Vorposten Ein the first lunar base.

July, 1996: The first extrasolar planet is discovered by scientists from the British Commonwealth’s Royal Astronomical Foundation.

September, 1996: YAKB announces plans to conduct a manned flyby of the planet Mars by the end of the millennium.

December, 1997: China launches the first module of Jìnzhǎn the nation’s first space station.

June, 1999: YAKB launches Predvestnik I, its manned flyby to Mars.

July, 1999: Predvestnik I suddenly depressurizes killing the two cosmonauts onboard.

November, 2000: Persia successfully launches its first domestically produced satellite Far-e Kiyani.

 

[Kaiser Chris]

It's great how space exploration has progressed much faster TTL now that we have a never-ending friendly space race. Though i have several questions for some parts left out if you don't mind:

1. Did Britain and France/Italy ever send a man into space? I know they can't catch up to the Big 3 but they should have the resources by this point.
2. Will there in the future be a large scale lunar colony? Since Nuclear power is a big resource in TTL i can imagine Germany and America might want to do a joint mission to extract Helium-3 from the moon.
3. Will there be private space companies in the future like SpaceX OTL?
4. Is terraforming Mars possible for this timeline? (i know that would take decades into the future but it would be a nice epilogue)
5. Will militarization of space be a thing?

 

[rick007]

Sarah Caron (1983-)

Sarah Caron outside the Canadian Houses of Parliament 2014

Born October 4th, 1983, on the Lapatoc Cree First Nations Reserve outside of Cookstown, Vesperia (OTL Edmonton, Alberta) Sarah Caron had a rough childhood. When she was four her father committed suicide. Her mother, Emilia, raised her as best she could. Fortunately, Sarah was able to get a good education and avoid many of the pitfalls of living on the reserve (alcoholism, drugs, crime, etc.). When she was 18, Sarah was discovered by a talent agent and she became in involved in the Canadian Television Industry. Starting out in minor roles, in 2008 she landed a role in the hit show Manning Mysteries, a show set in turn of the century Toronto. On June 4th, 2009, Sarah Caron married Richard Collins, though she still uses her maiden name professionally. They have three children, a girl Lily and twin boys Seth and William. An activist for her people and for suicide prevention, she often speaks to parliament about Native Issues.

 

[RyderWest]

East Pacific? Would that mean that there is still some sort of Asiatic Fleet in existence? And awesome; a battleship is a fleet flagship in the twenty first century!

The US East Pacific Fleet primarily stems from the 1990 Military Reform Act passed by President Abraham Lincoln IV, where the United States Navy was reorganised into seven different fleets. The Asiatic Fleet IATL is known as the US West Pacific Fleet due to it being based in Cavite Naval Base at Subic Bay in the Philippines. (IOTL, the historical Asiatic Fleet was based in Subic Bay, so there is some historical precedent.)

I based the decision for the choosing of ATL USS Arizona (may god bless the OTL USS Arizona) as the flagship of the US East Pacific Fleet due to three factors, and significant changes from OTL:

1. Slower development of Aircraft Carriers between 1935-1975: The Aircraft Carrier, as a viable naval asset that can launch aircraft and sink ships from far away, did not have it's WW2 moment until the late 1970's, where the United States got involved with the Asian-Pacific War. In such, the stigma and advocates for the battleship to be the main flagship and surface vessels probably remain rock solid for most of the years between the 1949 war with Bolivia and the Asian-Pacific War.
2. No suitable alternative to the battleship flagship: Since the aircraft carrier only came into prominence during the late 1970's IATL, rather than the early 1940's IOTL, and in turn had no experience in combat during war, the battleship probably remained the core surface warship of many nations, including the United States Navy.
3. Limited Arms Race and no Washington or London Naval Treaties: This is considered the crux of the matter, since according to the limited information regarding the battleships of the USN, battleship technology progressed at a slower pace than OTL. Since the USS Cuba was based on the Nevada-class battleship in the late 1940's, I reckon since there was no battleship arms race, in turn there was no ATL naval treaties limiting tonnage or gun sizes.

If Arizona is a later, modernized Montana, would I be incorrect to assume that the Puerto Rico class is roughly the Iowa class, while the Oregon class is roughly the same as either the North Carolina or South Dakota classes?

Yes, the ATL Arizona-class of battleships are the early 1970's version of the OTL Montana-class, and I changed the weaponry and speed since the early 1970's would have better boilers and engines.

The Puerto Rico-class battleships are based on the Iowa-class, since the lead ship bombarded Iwo Jima in 1979, and I consider the Oregon-class to be the mid 1950's tech version of the 1920 South Dakota-class. I reckon the 1939 South Dakota-class IATL would be built in the early 1960's.

Also: are these ships Nicamax or Panamax class ships, or are they larger? I forget if there is a different size for either in this timeline.

Third lock wide New Panamax, I assume. IOTL, the USN has plans for 140-foot locks specifically for the Montana-class, and by extension the USN, but it was never built. IATL, with the battleship lasting into the 21st Century, the third set of locks would probably be built as the USN express lane since Panama is a US State this time around, and allow the Arizonas to use the Panama Canal.

Still, if the battleships are still flagships to this day, it looks like they haven't been completely usurped by the aircraft carrier in primacy. The heavy use of missiles seems to have replaced aircraft carriers as such a major component of various task forces. Granted, considering that the Arizonas are approaching thirty years, I imagine a new class might be in the works. ...That, or one of the older classes has become a test bed. ...Might be an interesting line of thought to pursue.

EDIT: Might arsenal ships be seriously considered?

Like I said, the aircraft carrier vs battleship debate will probably be raging strong into the 21st century, with OTL reasoning plus ATL historical precedent and factors. I reckon a new design would be in the works, but not sure which one to choose from.

 

[Luminous]

The US East Pacific Fleet primarily stems from the 1990 Military Reform Act passed by President Abraham Lincoln IV, where the United States Navy was reorganised into seven different fleets. The Asiatic Fleet IATL is known as the US West Pacific Fleet due to it being based in Cavite Naval Base at Subic Bay in the Philippines. (IOTL, the historical Asiatic Fleet was based in Subic Bay, so there is some historical precedent.)

Ah, thanks. I remember that now. Thanks. Just one of those interesting little details.

I based the decision for the choosing of ATL USS Arizona (may god bless the OTL USS Arizona) as the flagship of the US East Pacific Fleet due to three factors, and significant changes from OTL:

1. Slower development of Aircraft Carriers between 1935-1975: The Aircraft Carrier, as a viable naval asset that can launch aircraft and sink ships from far away, did not have it's WW2 moment until the late 1970's, where the United States got involved with the Asian-Pacific War. In such, the stigma and advocates for the battleship to be the main flagship and surface vessels probably remain rock solid for most of the years between the 1949 war with Bolivia and the Asian-Pacific War.
2. No suitable alternative to the battleship flagship: Since the aircraft carrier only came into prominence during the late 1970's IATL, rather than the early 1940's IOTL, and in turn had no experience in combat during war, the battleship probably remained the core surface warship of many nations, including the United States Navy.
3. Limited Arms Race and no Washington or London Naval Treaties: This is considered the crux of the matter, since according to the limited information regarding the battleships of the USN, battleship technology progressed at a slower pace than OTL. Since the USS Cuba was based on the Nevada-class battleship in the late 1940's, I reckon since there was no battleship arms race, in turn there was no ATL naval treaties limiting tonnage or gun sizes.

Yes, the ATL Arizona-class of battleships are the early 1970's version of the OTL Montana-class, and I changed the weaponry and speed since the early 1970's would have better boilers and engines.

The Puerto Rico-class battleships are based on the Iowa-class, since the lead ship bombarded Iwo Jima in 1979, and I consider the Oregon-class to be the mid 1950's tech version of the 1920 South Dakota-class. I reckon the 1939 South Dakota-class IATL would be built in the early 1960's.

Sounds about right; I suppose angled flight decks would eventually have been developed (due to optimization issues that could be developed in peacetime) so carriers may have a... Forrestal level of development right now? Roughly, that is, I'm just spitballing. And it does make sense; the high prevalence of missile-based maritime combat would make a carrier appear far more vulnerable; a heavily armored battleship might have some advantages in that regard.

Third lock wide New Panamax, I assume. IOTL, the USN has plans for 140-foot locks specifically for the Montana-class, and by extension the USN, but it was never built. IATL, with the battleship lasting into the 21st Century, the third set of locks would probably be built as the USN express lane since Panama is a US State this time around, and allow the Arizonas to use the Panama Canal.

Thanks. It'd be easier to build, likely, than a second Nicaragua set.

Like I said, the aircraft carrier vs battleship debate will probably be raging strong into the 21st century, with OTL reasoning plus ATL historical precedent and factors. I reckon a new design would be in the works, but not sure which one to choose from.

Here are where things are interesting. With the prevalence of nuclear power, might we see some nuclear-powered ships online? With the even wider territory in the Pacific that needs to be patrolled, the prospect of nuclear-powered ships that require less refueling might be attractive. That, and there are lots of other technologies that will be tested. High velocity railguns, eventually. Perhaps rocket-assisted ammunition to give the big guns more range. Then, as some sort of defense against missiles and planes, early warning radar and long-range detection will be important. Maybe some other forms of optimization for the flow of the water about the ship (a bulbous bow on future battleships) along with other tweaks. That isn't to account for whether other missile technologies

Due to the age... Perhaps an experimental alt-Enterprise battleship equivalent could be launched in the mid eighties, taking in the lessons learned from the war against Japan/India, incorporating more anti-missile technologies and testbed systems. A prototype nuclear propulsion with a bit of excess power that would be used for powering future electronic systems that may be incorporated, with lots of excess power. Perhaps a redesign of the gmain armaments, with a testbed on one side for missiles as well?

Either way, make it a truly multipurpose ship. Although, I can also see design considerations drifting into the arsenal ship direction (a BBA perhaps? BA? BBG? BG?) as a shoot-off of the standard command battleship. Missiles did prove to be a major killer, and to have the standoff abilities of a BBA at the beck and call of a standard BB battlegroup would be ideal while the BBs continue to serve theirprevious purpose. Command duties are kept on the BB since they are the best defended of all of the various types of ships. Although, aircraft carrier battlegroups may come into existence simply for the wide variety of mission statements.

...Although, one last question. Do you suppose there has been the same tonnage creep as there has been OTL in regards to ship size and classification?

 

[RyderWest]

Sounds about right; I suppose angled flight decks would eventually have been developed (due to optimization issues that could be developed in peacetime) so carriers may have a... Forrestal level of development right now? Roughly, that is, I'm just spitballing. And it does make sense; the high prevalence of missile-based maritime combat would make a carrier appear far more vulnerable; a heavily armored battleship might have some advantages in that regard.

I reckon Forrestal or Kitty Hawk style of development would be correct as of ATL 2000. Since carrier design IOTL stemmed from the lessons learned during WW2, I reckon it would have been Essex/Midway from the early 1950's to the Asian-Pacific War.

But Mac did say that Battleships were considered universally inferior to the aircraft carrier by a good core of naval experts as of the late 1990's IATL, so there is that.....

Here are where things are interesting. With the prevalence of nuclear power, might we see some nuclear-powered ships online? With the even wider territory in the Pacific that needs to be patrolled, the prospect of nuclear-powered ships that require less refueling might be attractive. That, and there are lots of other technologies that will be tested. High velocity railguns, eventually. Perhaps rocket-assisted ammunition to give the big guns more range. Then, as some sort of defense against missiles and planes, early warning radar and long-range detection will be important. Maybe some other forms of optimization for the flow of the water about the ship (a bulbous bow on future battleships) along with other tweaks. That isn't to account for whether other missile technologies

Due to the age... Perhaps an experimental alt-Enterprise battleship equivalent could be launched in the mid eighties, taking in the lessons learned from the war against Japan/India, incorporating more anti-missile technologies and testbed systems. A prototype nuclear propulsion with a bit of excess power that would be used for powering future electronic systems that may be incorporated, with lots of excess power. Perhaps a redesign of the gmain armaments, with a testbed on one side for missiles as well?

Either way, make it a truly multipurpose ship. Although, I can also see design considerations drifting into the arsenal ship direction (a BBA perhaps? BA? BBG? BG?) as a shoot-off of the standard command battleship. Missiles did prove to be a major killer, and to have the standoff abilities of a BBA at the beck and call of a standard BB battlegroup would be ideal while the BBs continue to serve theirprevious purpose. Command duties are kept on the BB since they are the best defended of all of the various types of ships. Although, aircraft carrier battlegroups may come into existence simply for the wide variety of mission statements.

That seems interesting, but since CIWS batteries are probably very numerous on most of the battleships and have high caliber rounds (like the eight 25mm CIWS batteries on the Arizonas), I reckon the USN would write the arsenal ship as "interested, but stupid".

No offense to you of course.

...Although, one last question. Do you suppose there has been the same tonnage creep as there has been OTL in regards to ship size and classification?

I reckon there would be for battleships, aircraft carriers, missile cruisers and destroyers, but at a much slower rate due to the limited arms race. IOTL, from 1906 (when HMS Dreadnought was launched) to 1922 (where the WNT locked battleships into its sizes and forbid any continued or new construction on new battleships) the tonnage creeped up from 18,200 tons (Dreadnought's tonnage) to nearly 50,000 tons (tonnages of Tosa and Kii, possibly the 1920 South Dakota and Lexingtons). In the Union Forever, the tonnage would probably increase from 19,000 tons (my estimate on HMS Leviathan's tonnage) of 1901 to around 32,000 tons (my estimate of USS Cuba's tonnage of 1949) by 1950, then lastly to 68,000 tons by 1972 (Arizona's tonnage). This is a increase of 49,000 tons over 71 years, rather than 41,800 tons over 16.

Carriers probably had the same progression too.

 

[rick007]

300 pages!

 

[Luminous]

I reckon Forrestal or Kitty Hawk style of development would be correct as of ATL 2000. Since carrier design IOTL stemmed from the lessons learned during WW2, I reckon it would have been Essex/Midway from the early 1950's to the Asian-Pacific War.

But Mac did say that Battleships were considered universally inferior to the aircraft carrier by a good core of naval experts as of the late 1990's IATL, so there is that.....

True, although considering the sheer number that are still in service, and the areas where they would perform better (shore bombardment, already integrated C&C, large missile platforms) then they would probably remain in service, at least until we see the rise of kinetic-based projectiles in the next 20 years.

I'd argue that aircraft carriers have won thanks to their more versatile design and being able to change mission parameters far more easily than a battleship would, as it is stuck with its current armament until (expensive) modification of its various hardmounts. It's designs that are about 35 years out of date (versus designs about 60 years out of date for the OTL Iowas when they were retired).

That seems interesting, but since CIWS batteries are probably very numerous on most of the battleships and have high caliber rounds (like the eight 25mm CIWS batteries on the Arizonas), I reckon the USN would write the arsenal ship as "interested, but stupid".

No offense to you of course.

None taken; it is an odd design, and it is against most standard design practice for battleships (and, probably due to the sheer volume of warheads one might contain, possibly dangerous. Do boomers exist in this timeline?)

Rather, it's more the recognition that the ship killers of the future are going to be missiles (whether delivered from aircraft, ships, or ground locations), at least until kinetic weapons manage to extend their range past there relatively hard limit given by gunpowder-based systems. A battleship purpose-built for combatting modern surface targets would place a much higher emphasis, I imagine, on the early-warning systems, radar-based arrays, and S2S missiles as the primary weapon. Any guns (which would be reduced, at least in number) would be reduced to the ground bombardment role and as a last-chance weapon against surface combatants.

Hrm... Were the 5-inch guns of any use during the war? They seem optimally positioned to be replaced by anti-missile/anti-air guns/missile blocks. The CWIS is great, but it's still limited by its short range. Perhaps missiles would complement it. ...That also begs the question of whether VLS have become prevalent.

I reckon there would be for battleships, aircraft carriers, missile cruisers and destroyers, but at a much slower rate due to the limited arms race. IOTL, from 1906 (when HMS Dreadnought was launched) to 1922 (where the WNT locked battleships into its sizes and forbid any continued or new construction on new battleships) the tonnage creeped up from 18,200 tons (Dreadnought's tonnage) to nearly 50,000 tons (tonnages of Tosa and Kii, possibly the 1920 South Dakota and Lexingtons). In the Union Forever, the tonnage would probably increase from 19,000 tons (my estimate on HMS Leviathan's tonnage) of 1901 to around 32,000 tons (my estimate of USS Cuba's tonnage of 1949) by 1950, then lastly to 68,000 tons by 1972 (Arizona's tonnage). This is a increase of 49,000 tons over 71 years, rather than 41,800 tons over 16.

Carriers probably had the same progression too.

Sounds good; from the sheer number of ships involved in the Pacific War, it sounds like there was still the design philosophy of as many ships as possible maintaining on station rather than limiting mission capabilities to an overall smaller number of ships.

 

[Mac Gregor]

Mac Gregor, have nuclear weapons been used in anger ITTL? I remember about the plan to use them in the Asia-Pacific War, but that thankfully didn't happen.

No, nuclear weapons have not been used in anger during the TL. However, I will take this opportunity to address a certain point regarding nuclear weapons ITTL. Based on posts I have gathered that some believe the TL's nations are more apt to use nuclear weapons because the effects of them have never been seen on an actual city. This is true to some extent and was during the first few years after their invention. However, based on nuclear tests, especially those by Germany in Cameroon, the vast majority of people realize the devastating effects that a nuclear war would produce. In other words, the various nuclear powers in The Union Forever are not wanting to cause a nuclear exchange and don't view them as simply very big bombs.

 

[Mac Gregor]

Emperor Norton I (1818-1882)
.

As a Bay Area native who drives over the Bay Bridge all the time, I officially love you.

A public thanks again to Kaiser Chris for a terrific article. Looking forward to your next work.

 

[Mac Gregor]

Ship Class Profile
United States Navy Battleships​

.​

​

Excellent profile! Keep them coming. Very pleased with the thoughtful conversation that this generated. I don't see any issues. I imagine though that even if the USS Arizona is the titular flagship of the East Pacific Fleet the aircraft career is considered the more powerful weapon system.

 

[Mac Gregor]

It's great how space exploration has progressed much faster TTL now that we have a never-ending friendly space race. Though i have several questions for some parts left out if you don't mind:

1. Did Britain and France/Italy ever send a man into space? I know they can't catch up to the Big 3 but they should have the resources by this point.
2. Will there in the future be a large scale lunar colony? Since Nuclear power is a big resource in TTL i can imagine Germany and America might want to do a joint mission to extract Helium-3 from the moon.
3. Will there be private space companies in the future like SpaceX OTL?
4. Is terraforming Mars possible for this timeline? (i know that would take decades into the future but it would be a nice epilogue)
5. Will militarization of space be a thing?

To answer your questions.

1. ComNat and the Turin Pact haven't sent a man into space yet but who knows what the future holds. Some would say though that if you cant win why compete?
2. We will have to see what the future holds for the moon but I would say Mond Vorposten Ein is a good start.
3. While I don't like to give away future events, yes private space companies will exist. Send my suggestions for names if you have any.
4. I would say that it is possible.
5. More on this shortly. As of 2000 there is no international treaty banning space militarization.

 

[Mac Gregor]

Sarah Caron (1983-)
.

Great article rick007. However, I'm not a fan of posting things past where we are in the TL. For Sarah I would either change the dates or wait and post it when we get to the 2010s.

 

[RyderWest]

Hrm... Were the 5-inch guns of any use during the war? They seem optimally positioned to be replaced by anti-missile/anti-air guns/missile blocks. The CWIS is great, but it's still limited by its short range. Perhaps missiles would complement it. ...That also begs the question of whether VLS have become prevalent.

The 5-inch guns on the Arizonas were primarily used for anti-ship work, since cruisers and destroyers would have ditched the armour and be lightly armed. It also can do basic anti-air work, due to it being more powerful than either 20mm light AA or 40mm heavy AA and has the Rapid Fire technology. AAA shrapnel is still deadly to aircraft, even though it was mostly replaced by AA missiles.