Would these ship updates be viable?

SsgtC

Banned
Pretty much. Originally the plan was to replace them on a 2-1 basis. Meaning for every quad 40 mount would be replaced with a twin 3"mount. But the 3" weighed too much. They ended up with a 3-1 replacement ratio. 1x3" barrel for every 3x40mm barrels

In my view yes. Alrhough I seem to recall reading that due to weight issues it often wasn't feasible to simply replace one quad 40mm mount with a twin 3" mount.
 
Pretty much. Originally the plan was to replace them on a 2-1 basis. Meaning for every quad 40 mount would be replaced with a twin 3"mount. But the 3" weighed too much. They ended up with a 3-1 replacement ratio. 1x3" barrel for every 3x40mm barrels
Or, to put it more simply, two 3" mounts for three quad 40mms.

And on a related note, @Musketeer513 , yes, had the war continued on we would have seen the quad 40mms be replaced, simply due to the threat of Kamikazes during Olympic. Probably not many, though, because only a few ships would have been rotated stateside for refit in time.
 
Or, to put it more simply, two 3" mounts for three quad 40mms.

And on a related note, @Musketeer513 , yes, had the war continued on we would have seen the quad 40mms be replaced, simply due to the threat of Kamikazes during Olympic. Probably not many, though, because only a few ships would have been rotated stateside for refit in time.
The rapid fire 3" 50 Cal with the historical USN Fire control systems and VT ammo would have been a game changer in my view during the late WW2 period.
 

SsgtC

Banned
She would have mounted 13 twin 3" guns after replacing the 40mm. I don't think this would have changed after deleting the 20mm as the two weapon systems were very different.

An Iowa class battleship had 20 quad 40mm. If the 20mm guns are removed how many twin 3" would be carried?
 
She would have mounted 13 twin 3" guns after replacing the 40mm. I don't think this would have changed after deleting the 20mm as the two weapon systems were very different.

I think the 20mm would be considered useless against the new air threats.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
20 mm guns were treated much more like machine guns than proper cannon emplacements.

While by no means standard, and perhaps not on high-profile ships like BB's and CV's (I honestly don't know, I see potential issues, but don't have the knowledge), you'll often see photos of 20mm's, especially the lighter ones, mounted to the decks on ad-hoc mounts, wherever there's a few meters of free space.
 

SsgtC

Banned
This is very true actually. If you visit the USS North Carolina in NC, she still has all her 20mm mounts and they are literally anywhere there was a flat piece of deck that wasn't absolutely critical to something else.

20 mm guns were treated much more like machine guns than proper cannon emplacements.

While by no means standard, and perhaps not on high-profile ships like BB's and CV's (I honestly don't know, I see potential issues, but don't have the knowledge), you'll often see photos of 20mm's, especially the lighter ones, mounted to the decks on ad-hoc mounts, wherever there's a few meters of free space.
 
This is very true actually. If you visit the USS North Carolina in NC, she still has all her 20mm mounts and they are literally anywhere there was a flat piece of deck that wasn't absolutely critical to something else.

It's the same on the USS Massachusetts. When dealing with aircraft of the time, with the AA guns of the time, More Dakka was what's needed. That's also what the various Gatling guns are. Crews hated it when they heard the 20 mm's open up; it meant that the aircraft were CLOSE!
 
In another timeline I have India acquiring the following 4 ships;

Virat
Vikrant
Mina's Gerais
Veinticinco de Mayo

In the early 90s. They are updated and each has 2 Goalkeeper for AA defenses. The aircraft complement would be;

3 Sea King AEW
9 Sea King ASW
9 Sea Harriers (Virat has 18)

Estimated life 15 years. Would this be viable?
First obvious issue is the age of most of the ships. Now, that isn't utterly insurmountable but it does raise serious difficulties.

Second issue is the airgroup. The Indians ordered a grand total of 30 Sea Harriers IOTL (and by 2009 were down to 12 usable aircraft), your sea-going airgroup is 36... by the time you add attrition replacements, extra trainers and enough single seat airframes to have the extra squadrons to rotate through active deployment you're likely talking about needing something like 50-60 airframes.

Third issue is what's the actual purpose of getting the extra ships? Improving coverage of ASW operations (consistent with the reduced number of Harriers per ship, fewer Harriers means less ability for a given carrier to engage in offensive operations)... but I'm not aware of India having a serious submarine threat in the early 1990s, Pakistan operated a total of three SSKs...

Fourth issue... Crew numbers. You've got 2,200 odd aboard Virrat and 1000ish aboard Vikrant(but going out of service relatively soon) IOTL but you've gotta find another 2000ish to man the other two CVLs. Probably not impossible but not all that easy.

Would suggest instead if you want India to operate four carriers new construction based on either
Chakri Naruebet, Príncipe de Asturias or Giuseppe Garibaldi would be the best bet.
 
Last edited:
Moskva aren't carriers. I think you mean Kievs.


View attachment 330193 Moskva class View attachment 330194 Kiev Class View attachment 330195 Modified Kiev Ins Vikramaditya

The plan was for the Indian navy to have 2 fleets. A western fleet with the 3 Majestic/Colossus. Each ship carrying 12 Sea Harriers, 6 ASW Sea Kings and 3 AEW Sea Kings. The eastern fleet would have the 2 Moskava & 1 Centaur. Each Moskava carrying 15 ASW Sea Kings, 3 AEW Sea Kings. The Centaur carrying 21 Sea Harriers, 6 ASW Sea Kings, 3 AEW Sea Kings.
 
In that case they'd probably swap one Moskva in the Eastern Fleet for one of the Western Fleet's Majestics, to have balanced fleets. If it came to war with Pakistan both fleets would be in the west anyway.

I don't see why the Indians would buy 2 Moskvas when the Russians are selling Kievs off for next to nothing. The Kievs were a much more capable ship.
 
In another timeline I have India acquiring the following 4 ships;

Virat
Vikrant
Mina's Gerais
Veinticinco de Mayo

In the early 90s. They are updated and each has 2 Goalkeeper for AA defenses. The aircraft complement would be;

3 Sea King AEW
9 Sea King ASW
9 Sea Harriers (Virat has 18)

Estimated life 15 years. Would this be viable?

Possible, but difficult.
Some of the difficulties is that the power plant of each vessel is over 40 years old and spare parts are virtually non existent at this time.
Replacing the power plants would be a massive operation by itself and should not be considered a viable option.

The Westland Sea King faces a similar problem with OTL production stopping in 1995 and a likely shortage of spare parts.

All of that is probably scratching the surface since i am not an expert in naval matters.
Simply dealing with the age of the equipment, operating cost & maintenance cost of four ACC, spare parts and ship designs from an era before the introduction of anti ship missiles sounds like a massive headache.

While possible, it may not be a smart move. Just look at China and its ACC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_Liaoning and all the problems it is facing with a newer design than the vessels you're proposing.
 

SsgtC

Banned
The plan was for the Indian navy to have 2 fleets. A western fleet with the 3 Majestic/Colossus. Each ship carrying 12 Sea Harriers, 6 ASW Sea Kings and 3 AEW Sea Kings. The eastern fleet would have the 2 Moskava & 1 Centaur. Each Moskava carrying 15 ASW Sea Kings, 3 AEW Sea Kings. The Centaur carrying 21 Sea Harriers, 6 ASW Sea Kings, 3 AEW Sea Kings.
My question is, why does India suddenly need these large ASW Hunter-Killer groups? Her main enemy is Pakistan, and Pakistan's submarine fleet is pretty small. She does have a regional rivalry with China, but until very recently, China's subs were older, smaller, short range boats designed more for coast defense and to keep USN Carrier Strike Groups as far from the coast as possible. They didn't really have much of a commerce raiding ability, and certainly not enough to warrant such heavy ASW as you're proposing. This only makes sense if they're preparing for war against the US, Russia, the UK or France. Since they're the only ones with a large enough nuclear sub fleet to seriously threaten Indian commerce.
 
I suppose they could be intending to take on a commitment to support UN operations outside of the Indian Ocean or an alliance with nations surrounding the South China Sea.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I suppose they could be intending to take on a commitment to support UN operations outside of the Indian Ocean or an alliance with nations surrounding the South China Sea.
That could be a possibility. The only other thing I could think of would be if India, probably because of an ASB, decided to join NATO and was tasked with taking over the Royal Navy's ASW mission.
 
Top