wi:HMS Vanguard built as an aircraft carrier?

Plus Centaur and Hermes still considered as strike carriers rather than the ASW carriers I suggested, though they'd certainly be better fitted for the ASW role. Albion and Bulwark as commando carriers, as iOTL, rest of the fleet similar.

Assuming the Wilson government's decision to withdraw from East of Suez still happens the concentration on the Med, north Atlantic and ASW might suggest reducing the strike carrier fleet to one post 1970 but having three ASW platforms. Not converting the Tiger (and Blake?) to expensive micro-carriers of Helicopters would give room for one of Albion or Bulwark to be used as such. Or both maybe with Centaur paid off for reserve. Ideally they would need CATS and a partial angled deck as Centaur, to carry an AD flight (6-8 Sea Vixen), a couple of Gannet AEW and 12+ Sea King. Hermes could easily have a similar complement. The fleet carrier would be useful in either the North Atlantic or Med, and if one Commando carrier was kept as the core of a Falklands style Task Force.

Does this sound plausible? Of course using an Audacious in a largely ASW role would give more bangs for the buck and a much better CAP also but it would be perhaps too expensive to consider having them instead of an equivalent number of Hermes etc.
It's plausible, but not likely because it doesn't fit in with the political and economic reality of 1965-75.

The decision to scrap the aircraft carriers and decision to withdraw from the East of Suez are often lumped together, but they were taken separately and not directly related. The sequence of events was:

1) 1966 Defence Review. New aircraft carriers cancelled. Existing aircraft carriers to be withdrawn by 1975. But British to maintain the "East of Suez" presence until at least 1985. AFAIK Eagle was still to be "Phantomized".
2) 1967 (IIRC) Withdraw from East of Suez by end of 1974. Aircraft carries still to be withdrawn by 1975 and AFAIK Eagle was still to be Phantomized.
3) Then (IIRC because of the Sterling Devaluation) the withdrawal was brought forward to the end of 1971. The aircraft carriers were now to be withdrawn in 1972. The refit of Victorious was abandoned. The Phantomization of Eagle was cancelled and she paid off in 1972. Hermes paid off in 1971 to be converted to a commando carrier. Centaur was paid off at the end of 1965 because of personnel shortages and scrapped in 1970. Ark Royal was to have paid off in 1972, but was reprieved and ran on until 1978.
4) The Commando Carriers (Hermes replaced Albion) survived the 1960s defence cuts. But they were victims of the Mason Defence review of 1974-75. Bulwark was paid off in 1976 and Hermes would have followed. But (IIRC) in 1976 it was decided to keep her in commission as an ASW carrier and re-commission Bulwark as an ASW carrier pending the arrival of the Invincible class. Bulwark had to be refitted 1977-79 and re-commissioned in 1979.
5) The decision to convert the Tiger class to helicopter carriers was taken before the 1966 Defence Review. The refits were to have taken 18 months each at a cost £1.25 million each and Blake began hers in 1965. Unfortunately the refits took a lot longer and cost much more.

The above events are definitely still going to happen ITTL because of Britain's economic problems.
 
I just remembered that work on Ark Royal and Eagle was retarded by shortages of labour and steel. Building an additional Audacious class ship instead of Vanguard doesn't help the labour shortage, but it might help with the steel shortage because AFAIK it uses less steel. That might mean Ark Royal and Eagle are more advanced by the end of the war and completed sooner.
 
Assuming the Wilson government's decision to withdraw from East of Suez still happens the concentration on the Med, north Atlantic and ASW might suggest reducing the strike carrier fleet to one post 1970 but having three ASW platforms. Not converting the Tiger (and Blake?) to expensive micro-carriers of Helicopters would give room for one of Albion or Bulwark to be used as such. Or both maybe with Centaur paid off for reserve. Ideally they would need CATS and a partial angled deck as Centaur, to carry an AD flight (6-8 Sea Vixen), a couple of Gannet AEW and 12+ Sea King. Hermes could easily have a similar complement. The fleet carrier would be useful in either the North Atlantic or Med, and if one Commando carrier was kept as the core of a Falklands style Task Force.
Abandoning the cruiser conversions in favour of re-commissioning Centaur and running on Albion as commando/ASW carriers is not a bad idea with hindsight. The commando carriers had crews that were not much bigger than Blake and Tiger after they were converted. According to British Warships and Auxiliaries 1981 it was 880 vs 980. But if that did happen Albion and Centaur would have been paid of 1978-79 because that's when Blake and Tiger were.
 
It's plausible, but not likely because it doesn't fit in with the political and economic reality of 1965-75.

The decision to scrap the aircraft carriers and decision to withdraw from the East of Suez are often lumped together, but they were taken separately and not directly related. The sequence of events was:

1) 1966 Defence Review. New aircraft carriers cancelled. Existing aircraft carriers to be withdrawn by 1975. But British to maintain the "East of Suez" presence until at least 1985. AFAIK Eagle was still to be "Phantomized".
2) 1967 (IIRC) Withdraw from East of Suez by end of 1974. Aircraft carries still to be withdrawn by 1975 and AFAIK Eagle was still to be Phantomized.
3) Then (IIRC because of the Sterling Devaluation) the withdrawal was brought forward to the end of 1971. The aircraft carriers were now to be withdrawn in 1972. The refit of Victorious was abandoned. The Phantomization of Eagle was cancelled and she paid off in 1972. Hermes paid off in 1971 to be converted to a commando carrier. Centaur was paid off at the end of 1965 because of personnel shortages and scrapped in 1970. Ark Royal was to have paid off in 1972, but was reprieved and ran on until 1978.
4) The Commando Carriers (Hermes replaced Albion) survived the 1960s defence cuts. But they were victims of the Mason Defence review of 1974-75. Bulwark was paid off in 1976 and Hermes would have followed. But (IIRC) in 1976 it was decided to keep her in commission as an ASW carrier and re-commission Bulwark as an ASW carrier pending the arrival of the Invincible class. Bulwark had to be refitted 1977-79 and re-commissioned in 1979.
5) The decision to convert the Tiger class to helicopter carriers was taken before the 1966 Defence Review. The refits were to have taken 18 months each at a cost £1.25 million each and Blake began hers in 1965. Unfortunately the refits took a lot longer and cost much more.

The above events are definitely still going to happen ITTL because of Britain's economic problems.
Thanks. Informative but depressing. To get a different outcome would require different (and better) decision taking in the 1966 review or earlier in the case of the Tiger class conversions. That may well be ASB though!!

It seems a core problem post-war was rapid changes in RN planning reflecting mainly political and financial factors. There also seems a persistent theme of underestimating costs of planned new builds and conversions, which may be a reflection of general inflation, poor procurement process (including Treasury penny pinching and time wasting) and simply inefficiencies in shipyards. Was constant changes to designs a factor too?

Seems to warrant a challenge. Within the constraints of British finances and strategic needs, find a way to get a substantially better RN through to 1970. Without the ASB cheat of having the UK economy perform significantly better, which enablies higher defence spending than actual.

I say ASB cheat because ever since I started studying economics over 40 years ago, and then became a professional economist for a bank,
I've pondered on the reasons for Britain's relatively weak economic performance 1950-80 vis a vis other western European countries. (Thereafter it has roughly equalled that of this peer group over the long term.)

I've come to tentative conclusions but can't thing of plausible solutions given their structural roots deep in UK industry, politics and labour.
 
Abandoning the cruiser conversions in favour of re-commissioning Centaur and running on Albion as commando/ASW carriers is not a bad idea with hindsight. The commando carriers had crews that were not much bigger than Blake and Tiger after they were converted. According to British Warships and Auxiliaries 1981 it was 880 vs 980. But if that did happen Albion and Centaur would have been paid of 1978-79 because that's when Blake and Tiger were.
Still have been more useful than Tiger and Blake though in that role so worthwhile. And given different politics in the 1979s who knows what they'd have been replaced with, if anything?
 
Still have been more useful than Tiger and Blake though in that role so worthwhile. And given different politics in the 1979s who knows what they'd have been replaced with, if anything?
I agree with the first sentence, but there's the problem of paying for the larger air groups, i.e. 20 helicopters each instead of 4.

If that problem had been overcome the situation in your timeline at the time of the Mason Defence Review would have been Ark Royal (strike carrier), Albion (ASW carrier), Bulwark (commando carrier), Centaur (ASW carrier)and Hermes (commando carrier) in service with the 3 unconverted Tiger class on the Disposal List, if they hadn't been scrapped already.

That would have been much better than the situation IOTL which was Ark Royal (strike carrier), Blake (ASW cruiser), Bulwark (commando carrier), Hermes (commando carrier) and Tiger (ASW cruiser) in service with Albion and Centaur already scrapped and Lion on the Disposal List.

At that time IOTL Invincible was building with 2 more planned. The Invincibles were theoretically built to replace the Tiger class, which is why 3 were built. Plans to build 2 commando carriers to replace Bulwark and Hermes were abandoned in the Mason Defence Review, but the ability to act as a commando carrier was added to the Invincible class to compensate.

In your timeline the plan in the middle 1970s is probably still to build 3 through deck cruisers (because aircraft carriers aren't allowed), but this time to replace Ark Royal, Albion and Centaur plus 2 commando carriers to replace Bulwark and Hermes.

However, in both timelines the commando carriers get paid off in the Mason Defence review and the planned replacements cancelled.

I think that IOTL Hermes effectively replaced Tiger when the decision was made to run her on as an ASW carrier in 1976 instead of decommissioning her. Hermes had a refit in 1976 and formally became an ASW carrier in 1977, but Tiger did not pay off until 1978. I also think that when Bulwark was re-commissioned in 1979 she replaced Blake, which paid off in 1979. At the time it was planned that Bulwark would serve until 1984.

Therefore in your timeline Albion and Centaur might be run on until the early 1980s. But Bulwark would not be refitted and Hermes would have paid off in 1978.
 
Thanks. Informative but depressing. To get a different outcome would require different (and better) decision taking in the 1966 review or earlier in the case of the Tiger class conversions. That may well be ASB though!!

It seems a core problem post-war was rapid changes in RN planning reflecting mainly political and financial factors. There also seems a persistent theme of underestimating costs of planned new builds and conversions, which may be a reflection of general inflation, poor procurement process (including Treasury penny pinching and time wasting) and simply inefficiencies in shipyards. Was constant changes to designs a factor too?

Seems to warrant a challenge. Within the constraints of British finances and strategic needs, find a way to get a substantially better RN through to 1970. Without the ASB cheat of having the UK economy perform significantly better, which enables higher defence spending than actual.

I say ASB cheat because ever since I started studying economics over 40 years ago, and then became a professional economist for a bank, I've pondered on the reasons for Britain's relatively weak economic performance 1950-80 vis a vis other western European countries. (Thereafter it has roughly equalled that of this peer group over the long term.)

I've come to tentative conclusions but can't thing of plausible solutions given their structural roots deep in UK industry, politics and labour.
All of the above. As Harold MacMillan is reputed to have said, "Events, dear boy, events."

Even if more and better ships can be built through efficiency improvements the ASB economic improvement is still needed to pay for the extra sailors needed to man the better ships.
 
Thanks. Informative but depressing. To get a different outcome would require different (and better) decision taking in the 1966 review or earlier in the case of the Tiger class conversions. That may well be ASB though!!

It seems a core problem post-war was rapid changes in RN planning reflecting mainly political and financial factors. There also seems a persistent theme of underestimating costs of planned new builds and conversions, which may be a reflection of general inflation, poor procurement process (including Treasury penny pinching and time wasting) and simply inefficiencies in shipyards. Was constant changes to designs a factor too?

Seems to warrant a challenge. Within the constraints of British finances and strategic needs, find a way to get a substantially better RN through to 1970. Without the ASB cheat of having the UK economy perform significantly better, which enablies higher defence spending than actual.

I say ASB cheat because ever since I started studying economics over 40 years ago, and then became a professional economist for a bank,
I've pondered on the reasons for Britain's relatively weak economic performance 1950-80 vis a vis other western European countries. (Thereafter it has roughly equalled that of this peer group over the long term.)

I've come to tentative conclusions but can't thing of plausible solutions given their structural roots deep in UK industry, politics and labour.
Without improving the Government finances or the capacity of British industry...

POD 1941 as per the OP.

1) Order another Audacious class aircraft carrier instead of the battleship Vanguard, but still call it Vanguard. It is laid down in 1941 and completed in 1946.
2) Order 16 Centaur class instead of the 16 Colossus/Majestic class.
3) Don't order the Swiftsure class cruisers. IOTL 7 laid down, 3 completed as designed and 3 eventually completed as the Tiger class. Use the steel, labour and machinery saved for the upgrade of the light fleet carriers laid down 1942-43 from Colossus/Majestic to Centaur class. If anything is left over its allocated to Eagle (1942), Ark Royal and Eagle (1944).
4) Don't order the 8 Centaur class of OTL. Lay down another pair of Audacious class 1944-45 instead of Albion, Bulwark, Centaur and Hermes.
5) Don't order the Weapon class.
6) Still lay down 40 Battle class, but use the material released from not laying down 13 Weapon class to complete all 40 of them instead of 24 as per OTL.
7) Still order 16 Daring class, but don't order the G class.
8) This is probably more difficult, but build all the above with AC electrics instead of DC. Furthermore build as many Emergency type destroyers as the POD allows with AC electrics too.

To be continued...

Edit - I changed the number of Swiftsure class cruisers that were laid down from 6 to 7 because I forgot about the ship that was cancelled before it was launched.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your thoughts. It's fascinating (and depressing) that we need to go back to 1941 to produce a potentially better RN for the 1970s and 1980s!!

But that's life.
 
Thanks for your thoughts. It's fascinating (and depressing) that we need to go back to 1941 to produce a potentially better RN for the 1970s and 1980s!!

But that's life.
I can start even further than that if you want. E.g. alter the Second London Treaty so that the Illustrious class were built to a 27,000 ton design instead of 23,000 tons. It makes them easier and therefore cheaper to rebuild.
 
Continuing on from Post 28 we need alter the development of naval technology after 1945.

1) The Angled Flight Deck has to be invented at least 4 years earlier. What I do is replace the flexible deck trials carried out aboard Warrior 1948-49 with trials of an angled flight deck. IOTL the AFD trials were carried out on Triumph in 1952. This will help with the refit programmes.
2) It would also help if the development of the steam catapult could be speeded up so that it comes into service in 1950 instead of 1955.
3) ITTL the Bumblebee Project is a joint RN-USN programme. The British contribution is the resources put into Seaslug IOTL. The UK has exclusive export rights in the Commonwealth (less Canada) and Europe, with the USA having exclusive export rights in the rest of the world.
4) Don't cancel the Type 905 radar in the 1949 Defence Cuts.
5) I don't know if it the following is true, but I read somewhere that a digital version of the Comprehensive Display System was cancelled in 1949 too. To fit in with my refit programme it would be useful if the Type 984 radar and CDS could be ready in the middle 1950s instead of the late 1950s.

The above is not an exclusive list and I might have to add more retrospectively.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know the earliest feasible date for the Royal Navy to convert its ships from DC electricity to AC?

That seems to have been a major cost in time and money for RN warship modernisations in the 1950s right up to the 1970s, e.g. one of the reasons for the 3-year gap between the decision to re-commission Bulwark as an ASW carrier in 1976 and when she actually re-joined the fleet in 1979 was that she needed a refit that took 2 years, which included replacing her existing DC electrical system with AC. I'm not an electrical engineer, but it seems that one of the reasons that American Warships of WWII seemed to carrier heavier armaments per ton of displacement was that their electrics were lighter, which AFIAK was because they were using AC, when the British were still on DC.

I think it might be feasible at about 1900. At that time the NESCo (originally the Newcastle Electrical Supply Company and later the North East Electrical Supply Company) started construction of an electrical supply grid using at a pressure of 6,600 volts, which was AC at a frequency of 40 Hertz. By 1913 it covered a large portion of north eastern England and was the largest electricity supply network in Europe. It was effectively the prototype of the National Grid. AFAIK the company's mains supply was AC at the same frequency, but a lower voltage.

I thought a suitable POD would be the electrically powered gun turrets fitted to the 1900s County class armoured cruisers, which ITTL would have to be successful rather than the failures of OTL.
 
This is a consolidation, revision and expansion of posts 28 and 31

Without improving the Government finances or the capacity of British industry...

POD 1941 as per the OP.

Changes to RN Building Programmes 1941-45
Add

  1. Lay down an Audacious class aircraft carrier instead of the battleship Vanguard, but still call it Vanguard. It is laid down in 1941 and completed in 1946.
  2. Lay down another pair of Audacious class carriers named Inflexible and Irresistible in 1944.
  3. Lay down 16 Centaur class light fleet carriers 1942-43
Delete
  1. Don't lay down the 16 Colossus/Majestic class 1942-43 - The 16 Centaurs referred to above replace them.
  2. Don't lay down the 4 Centaur class 1944-45 - The 2 extra Audacious class replace them.
  3. Don't lay down the 7 Swiftsure class cruisers 1941-43 - IOTL 3 were completed as designed, 3 eventually completed as the Tiger class and the seventh was cancelled at the end of the war.
  4. Don't lay down the 13 Weapon class destroyers 1944-45. IOTL only 4 were completed. But ITTL at least 4 of the 16 Battle class cancelled at the end of the war were completed instead.
The deletions provide the steel and labour for the additions. There should be a surplus of both which is used to do more work on the Eagle, Ark Royal and Audacious (the name I've given to the ship laid down in 1944 and cancelled in 1946) during the war.

Changes to Naval Technology After 1941
  1. The Angled Flight Deck has to be invented at least 4 years earlier. What I do is replace the flexible deck trials carried out aboard Warrior 1948-49 with trials of an angled flight deck. IOTL the AFD trials were carried out on Triumph in 1952. This will help with the refit programmes.
  2. It would also help if the development of the steam catapult could be speeded up so that it comes into service in 1950 instead of 1955.
  3. ITTL the Bumblebee Project is a joint RN-USN programme. The British contribution is the resources put into Seaslug IOTL. The UK has exclusive export rights in the Commonwealth (less Canada) and Europe, with the USA having exclusive export rights in the rest of the world.
  4. Don't cancel the Type 905 radar in the 1949 Defence Cuts.
  5. I don't know if it the following is true, but I read somewhere that a digital version of the Comprehensive Display System was cancelled in 1949 too. To fit in with my refit programme it would be useful if the Type 984 radar and CDS could be ready in the middle 1950s instead of the late 1950s.
The above is not an exclusive list and I might have to add more retrospectively.

Aircraft Carriers 1945-57

After the Malta class was cancelled the Royal Navy of TTL would have been left with 12 fleet carriers completed or building. In 1946 the plan would be to complete all 6 Audacious class and modernise all 6 Illustrious class. However, by the time the Nine Year Plan of 1948 and the Revised Restricted Fleet of 1949 were prepared it had been decided to scrap the Illustrious class when all the Audacious class had been completed.

All 16 Centaur class light fleet carriers built instead of the Colossus and Majestic classes would have been launched by the time the war ended. They were much better than the ships built IOTL because they were built to carry 30,000lb aircraft (Standard D), when (IIRC) the Majestics were designed for 20,000lb aircraft and the Colossus class were limited to even lighter aircraft.

In common with OTL 5 light fleet carriers were sold after the war (i.e. 2 to Australia, one to Canada, one to France and one to the Netherlands. That left the Royal Navy with 11. ITTL the ships built instead of Leviathan and Hercules would have been completed by 1948 instead of suspended at the end of World War II.

The ships Australia and Canada bought instead of the OTL Melbourne and Bonaventure would have been completed to Standard B-Star, which is the same standard as Hermes IOTL, but with less advanced electronics, including the Type 984 radar.

ITTL the Audacious class would have been completed as follows:

Vanguard - laid down at John Brown, Clydebank in October 1941, launched November 1944 and completed May 1946 to Standard D
Eagle (ex Audacious) - laid down at Harland & Wolff in October 1942, launched November 1945 and completed May 1947 to Standard D.
Ark Royal (ex Irresistible) - laid down at Cammell Laird in May 1943, launched June 1946 and completed December 1947 to Standard D.

Audacious (ex Eagle) - laid down at Vickers-Armstrong (Tyne) in February 1944, launched May 1950 and completed February 1955 to Standard B.
Irresistible - laid down at Harland & Wolff in May 1944, launched in April 1947 and completed in September 1953 to Standard B.
Inflexible - laid down at Swan Hunter in March 1944, launched in May 1947 and completed in May 1954 to Standard B.

Vanguard has a refit 1950-54 which brings her up to Standard B. Eagle has a refit 1953-55 that brings her up to Standard B. Ark Royal has a refit 1954-57 that brings her up to Standard A.

IOTL

Eagle was launched in March 1946 and completed in October 1951 to Standard D
Ark Royal was launched in May 1950 and completed in February 1955 to Standard C
Eagle (1944) was cancelled in January 1946. She hadn't been launched but was said to be 26% complete.

Irresistible and Inflexible replace the 8 Centaur class ordered in 1944. Irresistible replaces Bulwark and Centaur, both of which were built by Harland & Wolff. The building dates are the same as Centaur IOTL. Inflexible replaces Albion and Hermes. The building dates are the same as Albion IOTL, which was built by Swan Hunter IOTL.

Standards A, B, C and D refer to the types of aircraft that could be carried and the electronics fitted. In October 1956 they were as follows:

Standard A - Type 984/CDS (32 or 48 track)/DPT; fully angled deck; steam catapults; Mk 13 arrester gear; Aircraft, NA39 (Buccaneer), N113 (Scimitar), DH110 (Sea Vixen) and earlier.
Standard B* (pronounced B STAR)- As A but 982/983/960/CDS (6 or 24 track)/DPT.
Standard B - Only 982/983/960, no CDS.
Standard C - As B, but interim angled deck.
Standard D - 982/983/960 or earlier, interim deck, BH V or earlier hydraulic catapults, earlier arrester gear; limited to Sea Hawk, Sea Venom, Gannet.
Standard E - Earlier radar, axial deck, earlier arrester gear.
Standard F - Earlier radar, interim angled deck, could operate existing aircraft in a training and trials role only.

ITTL its possible to complete Audacious, Irresistible and Inflexible to Standard B rather than Standard D (Irresistible and Inflexible) and Standard C (Audacious) because I have had the angled flight deck invented earlier and accelerated the steam catapult. ITTL Standard A and B ships are capable of operating the Phantom without any further modification.

Aircraft Carrier Plans 1948-57
In both timelines the plan between 1948 and 1954 is for a force of 12 aircraft carriers (6 fleet and 6 light fleet carriers for trade protection).


However, ITTL
  • All 6 fleet carriers were Audacious class ships. IOTL it was Ark Royal, Eagle and 4 Illustrious class.
  • All 6 trade protection class ships were Centaurs. IOTL it was 4 Centaurs and 2 Colossus class.
  • All the fleet carriers were to be brought up to at least Standard B by 1957.
  • All 6 light fleet carriers would be brought up from Standard D to Standard C by fitting steam catapults.
  • The other 5 light fleet carriers were to be employed on second-line duties like trials and training, but would retain their hydraulic catapults and arrester gear so that they could be used as trade protection carriers in an emergency.
Unfortunately there would be no extra money for the FAA, which was still run down to a front-line of 144 aircraft by 1950. Under the 1954 Rearmament Plan it was to be built up to 300 aircraft in both timelines. There were also 12 squadrons belonging to the RNVR (Air Branch).

The 1954 Defence Review cuts the aircraft carrier force from 12 to 6 ships in both timelines.
  • IOTL it was to 3 fleet carriers (Ark Royal, Eagle and Victorious) and 3 light fleet carriers (Bulwark or Albion, Centaur and Hermes).
  • ITTL all 6 fleet carriers (6 Audacious class) were retained and the 6 light fleet carriers were paid off into the Reserve Fleet. However, the 5 ships retained on second-line duties survived for the time being.
The 1957 Defence Review

In OTL the 1957 Defence Review cut the aircraft carrier force to 5 ships (Ark Royal, Centaur, Eagle, Hermes and Victorious), all of which were described as strike carriers to reflect the new "East of Suez" defence strategy. The Colossus class ships employed on second-line duties were also discarded, but Albion and Bulwark were converted to commando carriers.

IOTL the Admiralty had wanted 2 strike carriers and one commando carrier, "East of Suez" at all times, which one the 3-to-one principle required a total force of 6 strike carriers and 3 commando carriers. Therefore ITTL the Admiralty is able to persuade Duncan Sands to allow all 6 Audacious class to be run on as strike carriers and the 3 Centaur class which were employed as training ships at the time of the review to be converted to commando carriers.

Unfortunately the 9 aircraft carriers retained after 1957 ITTL had a combined crew of about 17,500 and the 7 retained after 1957 IOTL had a combined crew of about 12,500. There would also be a corresponding increase in the backing of sailors ashore. IOTL Duncan Sands cut the navy to 100,000 men (including Royal Marines) in the 1957 Defence Review, so ITTL a 10% increase in naval personnel was probably required, which requires a 10% increase in naval spending to pay for it.

IOTL the 5 strike carriers operated between the 1957 and 1966 Defence Reviews carried 12-24 fighters and bombers, plus 4 AEW and 8 ASW helicopters. The combined capacity was 100 fighters and bombers plus 20 AEW and 40 ASW helicopters.

ITTL all 6 strike carriers operated 24 fighters and bombers, plus 4 AEW and 8 ASW helicopters. The combined capacity was 144 fighters and bombers plus 24 AEW and 48 ASW helicopters. Although that's a great improvement over OTL it also comes at a bigger financial cost because the extra aircraft have to be bought and maintained along with the extra air and ground crews in the squadrons and under training.

Conclusion

Be-jigging the wartime building programmes we can give the postwar RN more and better ships, but without an increase in spending it won't be able to make use of them.

For what I'm planning naval personnel in the first half of the 1960s requires an increase in personnel from 100,000 to 120,000, which in turn requires HM Government to spend 20% more money on the Royal Navy, which unless the British economy performs better, is money it hasn't got.

Also if the Government is able to spend 20% more on the Royal Navy, it probably doesn't get all of it because the Army and RAF will want some of it. Therefore the UK has to be rich enough to afford at 20% increase in total defence spending.
 
Last edited:
Therefore ITTL the Admiralty is able to persuade Duncan Sands to allow all (6 Audacious class to be run on as strike carriers and) the 3 Centaur class, which were employed as training ships at the time of the review, to be converted to commando carriers.
These ships were completed about a decade earlier than the OTL commando carriers and therefore became due for replacement at about the same time as the building of the Fearless class LPDs. Therefore a class of 3 LHA type vessels was built instead of the Fearless class.
 
Cruisers 1945-70
Our Timeline


IOTL (according to Morris) the Royal Navy had 50 cruisers left at the end of 1947. Of these 20 were operational, one was the officer cadet training ship, 3 were refitting, one was on harbour service, 2 were on loan to the RNZN and 23 were in reserve or on the disposal list. The 23 ships in reserve or for disposal included the 3 in incomplete Tiger class.

Between the end of 1947 and the end of 1950 the actual cruiser force was reduced from 50 to 31 ships by scrapping most of the surviving cruisers of the C, D, E, County, Leander and Arethusa classes. The 31 remaining ships consisted of 2 County class (Devonshire in service as the cadet training ship and Cumberland being converted to a trials ship), 5 Southampton class, Belfast, 8 Colony class, 2 Swiftsure class, 10 Dido class (including 2 on loan to the RNZN) and the 3 suspended Tiger class ships. The active cruiser force had fallen to 14 ships and of the 17 remaining cruisers: 4 cruisers were refitting; one was in service as the cadet training ship; one on harbour service; 2 were on loan to the RNZN; 6 were in reserve and 3 were incomplete.

Under the Nine Year Plan of 1948 the Royal Navy was to have 24 cruisers in 1957. This was to be made up of the 20 best existing cruisers (twelve 6" and eight 5.25") and 4 other 6" cruisers were to be retained pending decisions as to their disposal. The 3 suspended Tiger class cruisers were also to be completed, but Friedman my source for this information was not clear if they were included in the 20 best existing cruisers or in addition to them.

However, this was cut to 18 cruisers (13 active and 5 reserve) plus one cadet training ship and one trials ship in the Revised Restricted Fleet of 1949 including the 3 suspended. The aspiration was rearm as many as possible with 15 with 6" Mk 26 and 3" Mk 6 turrets and fire control gear capable of engaging jet aircraft. However, I do not know how many conversions were actually planned.

It was decided to complete the Tiger class to a new design as part of the 1951 Rearmament Programme. Work did not begin until 1954 and they were completed 1959-61, several years late and over budget. Belfast was refitted 1955-59 and was to have had her triple Mk 23 turrets replaced with the twin Mk 26 turrets, that is the same type as fitted to the Tiger class. The turrets weren't fitted, but the refit still cost £5½ million. The Swiftsure class cruisers were to have been rebuilt to Tiger standard too, but Superb was scrapped in her original configuration and Swiftsure's refit, which began in 1956 was abandoned in 1960 and she was scrapped too.

AFAIK the 1954 and 1957 Defence Reviews reduced the planned cruiser force to 6 ships, which AFAIK would consist of the 3 Tigers, Swiftsure, Superb and Belfast until they were replaced by a new class of 1960 Cruisers armed with four 6" guns in two twin turrets and the Seaslug SAM. The 1960 Cruiser was in turn cancelled in favour of the Escort Cruiser, which was a helicopter carrier armed with Seaslug or Sea Dart and the intention was to built a class of 5 ships to complement the 5 CVA.01 class strike carriers that were planned at the time. However, the cancellation of Skybolt and the decision to buy Polaris meant the Escort Cruisers had to be postponed and it was decided to convert the 3 Tigers into interim escort cruisers, but as usual the refits went over time and cost with the result that only 2 of them were refitted.

Meanwhile the number of cruisers in active service had fallen to 10 at the end of 1954 (plus Cumberland converted to a trials ship and Devonshire had been replaced as cadet training ship by the Colossus class light fleet carrier Triumph in 1953), 8 at the end of 1957 (plus Cumberland), 5 at the end of 1961, and only one (Tiger) at the end of 1964. Tiger remained in commission until 1967 when she paid off into reserve pending her conversion into a helicopter cruiser which lasted from 1968 to 1972. This was due to personnel shortages, which AFAIK was also why the aircraft carrier Centaur was paid off at the end of 1965.

Thus the Royal Navy had no active cruisers between 1967 and 1969 when Blake re-commissioned from her conversion to a helicopter cruiser which had lasted from 1965 to 1969. In the opinion of the author the RN would have been better off keeping Albion and Centaur in commission as helicopter carriers instead as they carried 20 helicopters each instead of 4 with crews which were not excessively larger. However, after the 1966 Defence Review the only aircraft carries the Royal Navy was allowed to have were commando carriers and they were to be paid off in the Mason Defence Review of 1974, but reprieved later.

However, the Tiger class did allow the Royal Navy to get the government to built the Invincible class because they were officially replacements for the Tigers, hence their original Through Deck Cruiser designation.

This Timeline

The 16 Centaur class light fleet carriers built ITTL instead of the 16 Colossus and Majestic class IOTL were larger (circa 14,000 tons standard for the Colossus class and circa 18,000 tons for the Centaur class as designed) and had machinery that was twice as powerful (76,000 ship v 40,000 shp). However, the UK did not have the resources to built the light fleet carriers to the higher specification and the 7 Swiftsure class cruisers laid down 1941-43 (of which 3 were completed 1944-45 (including one transferred to Canada), one was scrapped on the slipway at the end of World War II and 3 eventually completed as the Tiger class).

Therefore the Admiralty decided to suspend the cruisers before they were laid down and use the resources released to complete all 16 light fleet carriers 1944-46. Any surplus labour and material is used to accelerate the building of the 3 Audacious class carriers laid down 1942-44 IOTL, which in the real world were not as far advanced as they should have been at the end of the war IOTL because of a shortage of steel and labour.

Because there are no Swiftsure and Tiger class cruisers the number on the Navy List at the end of 1950 is reduced from 31 IOTL to 24 ITTL. The new total is 24 instead of 26 because:

1. One of the Colony class had to be transferred to Canada in place of the third Swiftsure.
2. IOTL the County class cruiser Devonshire was the cadet training ship from 1947 to 1953, when she was replaced by the Colossus class light fleet carrier Triumph, which in turn had been replaced by as an operation aircraft carrier by Centaur. However, ITTL one of the light fleet carriers was cadet training ship from 1947 to 1953 and Devonshire was scrapped in 1946.

The number of operational cruisers would still be 14. The number in reserve would be reduced from 9 (including the incomplete Tigers) to 3 releasing the men and money needed to maintain them for other purposes.

With no Tiger class to resume in 1954 and complete 1959-61: Newcastle is run on 1959-66 instead of Tiger; Birmingham is run on 1960-64 instead of Lion; and Gambia is run on 1961-63 instead of Gambia.

Except...

That the re-jigging of the aircraft carrier and cruiser programmes means up to £80 million is saved in the 1950s by not building Hermes, Tiger, Lion and Blake

AND...

The Admiralty will want to spend that money on modernising its ageing cruiser force. ITTL it will have no option but to build new cruisers rather than rebuild old ones without the Swiftsure and Tiger classes because the Colony and Southampton classes are too old.

These ships were built to the same design the Ramsay class Guided Missile Cruiser in Post No. 533 of Alternative Warships of Nations, which was a modification of our timeline's GW96 design. ITTL the Bumblebee was a joint project between the RN and USN (see post No. 33 of this thread) and therefore the major difference between the real GW96 and this one is that the GWS-1 Seaslug missile system was replaced by Terrier. The Mk 10 twin launcher was fed from a magazine could accommodate a mix of 120 Tatar, Standard ER and ASROC missiles instead of 64 Seaslugs and the 2 Type 901 TI radars of OTL were replaced by a pair of SPG-55s. The rest of the armament consisted of two twin 6" Mk 26 turrets, four twin 3" Mk 6 turrets and two Wicketkeeper Mk I CIWS. They also had a Type 984 radar and the 48-track version of the Comprehensive Display System (CDS) and the Direct Plot Transmission (DPT) data link.

Wicketkeeper Mk 1 was originally designated STAAG Mk 3, but renamed to avoid confusion (and guilt by association) with the earlier marks of STAAG. ITTL it takes the place of the Sea Cat missile IOTL. Guidance of the Wicketkeepers and the guns was provided by MRS-5 directors using Type 905 radars in place of the MRS-3 directors and Type 903 radars fitted to the OTL Tiger class and many other British warships of the 1960s.

ITTL 6 ships would be ordered in trios in 1951 and 1954 which joined the fleet between 1956 and 1961. They were named after World War II admirals as follows: Ramsay (CLG-01), Somerville (CLG-02); Horton (CLG-03); Lyster (CLG-04); Pound (CLG-05) and Holland (CLG-06).

Another 2 or 3 might be built instead of the first 4 or 6 County class destroyers. IOTL one GW96 cruiser had the equivalent anti-aircraft firepower to 2 County class cruisers due to its heavier gun armament, carried double the number of Seaslug missiles and because it had 2 Type 901 radars instead of one. Furthermore it carried the Type 984 radar, which the County class did not and its CDS could handle a greater number of targets.

If built CLG-07 and 8 would be completed 1962-63 instead of the first 4 Counties and be named Forbes and Phillips. CLG-09 if built would be completed in 1966 and named Cunningham. It would be built instead of the 5th and 6th Counties would have a major electronics upgrade. That is the vacuum electronics (i.e. valves) fitted to the first 6-8 ships were replaced by solid state electronics (i.e. transistors and integrated circuits) ITTL. For example CDS was replaced by Action Data Automation (ADA) which was based on 3 Ferranti Poseidon computers and Terrier was replaced by Standard ER.

Another alternative to the County class DLG would be 4 Escort Cruisers (against a requirement for 6, i.e. one per strike carrier) which were small aircraft carriers armed with Terrier/Standard ER (instead of Seaslug IOTL) and accommodation for 9 Sea King helicopters. In that case there would be 2 Batch I ships build instead of the Batch I County class and a pair of Batch 2 ships built instead of the quartet of Batch 2 Counties. If built the CHG-01 and 2 would have the same standard electronics as CLG-07 and 08; CHG-03 and 04 would have the same standard electronics as CLG-09; and the next 2 ships (to be built instead of the first 4 planned Type 82 destroyers) would have ADAWS Mk 3 and the Type 988 radar.

If we stick to 6 Admiral class gun-guided missile cruisers completed 1956-61 and 8 Terrier/Standard ER armed County class cruisers then the Royal Navy would want to modernise the electronics of the Admirals and the first 4 Counties. IOTL the first generation of British and American naval SAMs was very unreliable. The Americans spent a lot of money on a cure programme 1965-75 IOTL and British plans to modernise Seaslug were frustrated for lack of money.

ITTL all 6 Admiral class had their electronics modernised 1965-72 to the same standard as CLG-09 if she was built. This included replacing the CDS with ADA, replacing the valves in the Type 984 radar with solid state components and Terrier with Standard ER. These refits were paid for using the money spent on the Tiger class helicopter cruiser conversions.

In Post 33 we had left the Royal Navy of 1957 with 6 Audacious class fitted with steam catapults, fully angled flight decks and capable of operating Phantom class aircraft without further modification. However, only one of them (Ark Royal) was fitted with the Type 984 radar, CDS and the DPT data link. The other 5 were brought up to this standard in refits from 1957 to 1965 and Eagle the last ship to be refitted had ADA instead of CDS. The other 5 ships had their CDS replaced by ADA in the second half of the 1960s. These refits replaced the long refits carried out on Eagle, Hermes and Ark Royal that were carried out between 1959 and 1970 IOTL.

IOTL only one ADA system went to sea, which was the one fitted to Eagle in her 1959-64 refit. It used 3 Ferranti Poseidon computers and the ADAWS Mk 1 system fitted to the last 4 County class used 2 so a total of 11 went to sea. ITTL there are 12 ADA and 4 ADAWS Mk 1 systems which increases the total production run of Poseidon computers to 44 units, hopefully with a reduction in the unit cost through economies of scale. Similarly only 3 Type 984 radars and 6 CDS went to sea IOTL, but ITTL its 12 of both.

ITTL the British contribution to the joint development of 3-T and Standard is paid for with the money spent on the R&D of Seaslug and Sea Dart IOTL. Only 9 Seaslug systems were built IOTL (one for Girdle Ness and 8 for the County class). ITTL 15 Terrier systems are built for the RN (one for Girdle Ness, 6 for the Cruisers and 8 County class destroyers, which might reduce the unit cost.

Furthermore the joint development agreement with America for the 3-T missiles and Standard gave the UK exclusive export rights in Europe and the Commonwealth (except Canada) with the USN having exclusive export rights in the rest of the world. As a result the Terrier systems fitted to the Dutch cruiser De Zeven Provinciën and the Italian cruisers Andrea Doria, Caio Duilio, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Vittorio Vento were British built. That increased the production run to 1970 from 15 systems to 20. Similarly the Tatar systems fitted to Australian, French, German and Italian destroyers and frigates to 1970 were also British built.
 
Top