Modernise Vanguard and the KGV’s for the 1980s

[Temeraire]

For what it's worth @Temeraire didn't mention any Lions or more Vanguards in this thread's OP or in any of his clarifications.

I wrote that the Lion and Temeraire probably wouldn’t be built Here:

I doubt they would be built, even in a perfect timeline seeing as by the end of 1945 it was almost completely agreed that Vanguard was the last Battleship that would be built.
Not to mention the absolute lunacy of the later Lion class designs.
Some had basically no belt Armour
Some were essentially beefed up pre Dreadnoughts
And others were as big (dimensions wise) as a Nimitz class carrier
Yeah, not ideal

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I wrote that the Lion and Temeraire probably wouldn’t be built Here:

And what about no extra Vanguards? Did I miss that too?

 

[Temeraire]

And what about no extra Vanguards? Did I miss that too?

IOTL no extra Vanguards got past the concept stage. And by the end of the war everyone knew Vanguard was going to be the last Battleship. So no more Vanguards sadly.

 

[Scott Kenny]

IOTL no extra Vanguards got past the concept stage. And by the end of the war everyone knew Vanguard was going to be the last Battleship. So no more Vanguards sadly.

How much budget do we have to bring the ships up to date? A relative shoestring like the US had with the Iowas, or can we afford a much more in-depth upgrade?

 

[World B4]

A single 15” main gun barrel per ship is fitted with a smoothbore barrel that fires a 6”sabot round containing a warhead or a war crime, the wmd delivery capacity is mandatory for the Cold War, the range on this type of weapon makes it a proper supergun. The other gun in that turret could be removed. Maybe 2 of these, the B and C turrets? Or just the C?

 

[Temeraire]

How much budget do we have to bring the ships up to date? A relative shoestring like the US had with the Iowas, or can we afford a much more in-depth upgrade?

Probably £10-20 million

 

[Temeraire]

A single 15” main gun barrel per ship is fitted with a smoothbore barrel that fires a 6”sabot round containing a warhead or a war crime, the wmd delivery capacity is mandatory for the Cold War, the range on this type of weapon makes it a proper supergun. The other gun in that turret could be removed. Maybe 2 of these, the B and C turrets? Or just the C?

I assume you mean X turret, but a super weapon like that does sound interesting. Maybe it’d give the 15”/42s a new lease on life.

 

[World B4]

Maybe it’d give the 15”/42s a new lease on life.

WW1 era solutions for WW1 era weapons

 

[World B4]

A turret could have its 15” guns replaced with a 14” guns to give it another source of heavy ammunition.

 

[World B4]

Or, a single 18” gun. Either it or a 16” gun would be another way to source heavy firepower, or additional range for a sabot round… that’s it. I’ve figured it out. The first turret is unchanged. The second turret has a single 16” gun with a smoothbore liner for long range sabot nukes, the 3rd has 14” guns, or maybe even one 14” and one 13.5”. The final tutu has a single 18” gun. All of these were scrapped before the vanguard, but that was scrapped 20 years before the 80s anyway. Now we have a bombardment ship that can fire at extreme ranges and packs a nice variety of round sizes to avoid both overkill and underkill, and won’t be crippled by one source of ammunition going out of stock.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Probably £10-20 million

Shoestring it is, then.

Pull the 5.25s and replace with twin 4.5" turrets. Probably replace the 4x aft 5.25" with a decked over section like on the Iowas and stick all the Exocets up there. (If you can acquire some Tomahawks from the USN in the Armored Box Launchers, they go there as well)

 

[EwenS]

Or, a single 18” gun. Either it or a 16” gun would be another way to source heavy firepower, or additional range for a sabot round… that’s it. I’ve figured it out. The first turret is unchanged. The second turret has a single 16” gun with a smoothbore liner for long range sabot nukes, the 3rd has 14” guns, or maybe even one 14” and one 13.5”. The final tutu has a single 18” gun. All of these were scrapped before the vanguard, but that was scrapped 20 years before the 80s anyway. Now we have a bombardment ship that can fire at extreme ranges and packs a nice variety of round sizes to avoid both overkill and underkill, and won’t be crippled by one source of ammunition going out of stock.

Back in WW1 a single 18"/40 turret was designed and built to be interchangeable with the 15"/42 twin turret (The type in Vanguard albeit in much modified form). Sets if both were produced for the large light cruiser Furious as originally conceived.

United Kingdom / Britain 18"/40 (45.7 cm) Mark I - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

 

[EwenS]

A turret could have its 15” guns replaced with a 14” guns to give it another source of heavy ammunition.

It is a lot more complicated than simply replacing a gun barrel of one calibre with a gun barrel of a different calibre. The turret mounting were designed around the physical size of each gun, and the stresses imposed by firing. Similarly the turret sits on an armoured barbette designed specifically for it. Different guns need different turrets need different barbettes.

 

[World B4]

It is a lot more complicated than simply replacing a gun barrel of one calibre with a gun barrel of a different calibre. The turret mounting were designed around the physical size of each gun, and the stresses imposed by firing. Similarly the turret sits on an armoured barbette designed specifically for it. Different guns need different turrets need different barbettes.

I think it would be necessary, in part to have spare 15” turret parts. Modifying the turret interior is a given, but I think there should be enough room.

 

[SSgtC]

No 3", the US didn't use a lot of the 3"/70s. We figured out Tartar and used it on just about every ship that could mount one. Plus, the 1980s refits added 4x Phalanx CIWS.

I haven't read this whole thread yet, so apologies if this has already been mentioned. But the Iowas were supposed to get the 3"/70 as they rotated in for overhaul in WWII. The plan was to replace the quad 40mm mounts with twin 3" mounts. But the US didn't produce enough of the 3" guns before the war ended, and then once it did end, the urgency to replace the 40mm went away. The plans stayed on the books, but it was slotted in as a "nice to have" option considering that, except for Missouri, the Iowas were out of the fleet between 48 And 49. And when they were brought back for Korea, they were pretty much rushed back into service with only minimal updates, and that didn't include the 3", despite the Navy still planning to add them. And then by the time New Jersey came back in 68, guns were firmly on their way out as AA weapons, and there was no point in replace the Bofors with the 3". Instead all the Bofors were simply removed, a few 20mm were left as anti-boat and anti-personel weapons, and two of the 40mm gun tubs were turned into swimming pools by New Jersey's captain.

 

[World B4]

it should probably keep at least a pair of 5.25” turrets for light arty, let’s say the farthest forward. The farthest aft could probably stand to get replaced by 3 exocets each. The middle 4 should be replaced by 4.5” mk 8 guns and Seawolf sextuple launchers

 

[MadRat]

Keep it simple, stupid. Give it a deck on the back for helicopters. Retain the original front, main turrets but give them computers and gyros to hold a lock on the aimpoint as the ship moves. Six main guns, on either Vanguard or KGV, were plenty for politics. 5.25s were more than adequate as going 4.5s would have killed the budget savings.

 

[World B4]

The rear and elevated amidships 40mms could be replaced with 3 round SeaCat launchers, and the 4 corners could have blowpipes. This would create a sam shield redundant enough to keep the ship alive in its threat environment, though after the Falklands war the blowpipe launchers would for sure be replaced by phalanx and the superstructure would be given Kevlar armor. The Exocets would be replaced by harpoons, but with the end of the Cold War the battleship would fade from history. Though of course there would be proposals to replace a turret (if you like my 16” nuclear sabot gun idea, that’s for sure the one that would be retired) with a sea dart launcher, but the commissioning of HMS Ocean would spell the end of these, and in 1995 the last battleship to be launched would become the last to be decommissioned. Scrapped immediately for unpoisoned steel to the shrieks of naval historians, guns in museums

 

[Dilandu]

The rear and elevated amidships 40mms could be replaced with 3 round SeaCat launchers, and the 4 corners could have blowpipes. This would create a sam shield redundant enough to keep the ship alive in its threat environment,

What environment you are talking about? Both of those systems are next thing to useless against supersonics.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I haven't read this whole thread yet, so apologies if this has already been mentioned. But the Iowas were supposed to get the 3"/70 as they rotated in for overhaul in WWII. The plan was to replace the quad 40mm mounts with twin 3" mounts. But the US didn't produce enough of the 3" guns before the war ended, and then once it did end, the urgency to replace the 40mm went away. The plans stayed on the books, but it was slotted in as a "nice to have" option considering that, except for Missouri, the Iowas were out of the fleet between 48 And 49. And when they were brought back for Korea, they were pretty much rushed back into service with only minimal updates, and that didn't include the 3", despite the Navy still planning to add them. And then by the time New Jersey came back in 68, guns were firmly on their way out as AA weapons, and there was no point in replace the Bofors with the 3". Instead all the Bofors were simply removed, a few 20mm were left as anti-boat and anti-personel weapons, and two of the 40mm gun tubs were turned into swimming pools by New Jersey's captain.

the Bofors-replacement was the 3"/50, the 3"/70 was a 1950s super-rapid-fire design in a fully enclosed turret.

 

[World B4]

The exocet

What environment you are talking about? Both of those systems are next thing to useless against supersonics

Yeah but good aa and asw were never going to be viable without major reconstruction, unless it gets a sea dart at the expense of a turret it’s going to need an escort for high end air defense, the idea behind having multiple systems is that you have a lot or redundancy against the strike aircraft of the day, preventing the ship from being left unprotected after a good hit a la prince of wales. Missile defense wasn’t really a thing for Britain until the war happened. Most countries they could be bringing a battleship to fight wouldn’t have supersonic naval weapons

 

[Dilandu]

The exocet

Erm, but the main threat for the Royal Navy was considered to be Soviet supersonics, not Western sea-skimmers.

Missile defense wasn’t really a thing for Britain until the war happened.

Actually, it was basically the backbone of British naval efforts - to protect the Atlantic convoys against Soviet submarine & long-range missile attacks.

 

[Temeraire]

The middle 4 should be replaced by 4.5” mk 8 guns and Seawolf sextuple launchers

Sextuple Sea Wolf launchers could go in place of the sextuple 40mm Bofors mounts

 

[Temeraire]

Shoestring it is, then.

That was me being stupid. I was thinking around the original estimates of the Victorious rebuild as a guideline, and I forgot to adjust 1950s money with inflation.
So that £10-20 million is in reality around £70-140 million by 1980

 

[World B4]

Actually, it was basically the backbone of British naval efforts - to protect the Atlantic convoys against Soviet submarine & long-range missile attacks.

But crucially it’s a job for ships with a main armament designed for the task. Vanguard can bombard, but unless it can creep up and let some tactical nukes fly out of its guns then it’s just not useful against the USSR. It’s for gunboat diplomacy more than peer conflict, it really just needs nukes to justify the cost of crewing the ship in a Cold War environment

 

[Dilandu]

But crucially it’s a job for ships with a main armament designed for the task. Vanguard can bombard, but unless it can creep up and let some tactical nukes fly out of its guns then it’s just not useful against the USSR. It’s for gunboat diplomacy more than peer conflict, it really just needs nukes to justify the cost of crewing the ship in a Cold War environment

It wouldn't be useful against USSR even with tactical nukes. Soviet coastal missiles outrange its guns (even with proposed sabot rounds) several times.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That was me being stupid. I was thinking around the original estimates of the Victorious rebuild as a guideline, and I forgot to adjust 1950s money with inflation.
So that £10-20 million is in reality around £70-140 million by 1980

Still not going to get much more than the Iowa refits.

remove half the secondary battery entirely, replace with Exocets and Tomahawks if you can get some from the USN.
replace the remaining 4 secondary turrets with twin 4.5" for ammunition commonality unless there were still RN ships using the 5.25" guns in service.
Replace 1-2 sextuple Bofors mounts per side with a Seawolf launcher. (IMO the big thing the Iowa refits should have added was some AA missiles)
Stick a couple of Goalkeeper or Phalanx CIWS guns on each side.

That's about all I think you can squeeze out of that particular funding.

 

[World B4]

It wouldn't be useful against USSR even with tactical nukes. Soviet coastal missiles outrange its guns (even with proposed sabot rounds) several times.

I mean what in the RN doesn’t get shitcanned if the Soviets go nuclear. It’s a showboat. The only use of a battleship in the Cold War against the Soviets is as a diplomacy tool, like when an Iowa went to Istanbul in 46. Carrier killer munitions simply outclass battleships. It draws a lot of attention wherever it goes, like the iowas did as a diversion in 91, which generates deterrent value as it’s nature as a nuclear supergun platform is noted in media from near anywhere it goes. I don’t see any cost effective way to make a battleship relevant against modern area denial and neither did naval leaders with a lot larger salaries than mine, so I’m not gonna stress the high end beyond decoys, ciws, and kevlar, added on when the exocets woke them up

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Me in Post 119 replying to @Purpletrouble in Post 114.

. . . probably as badly as the actual Mk6 armed ships did though. Perhaps free ships from gunline duties.

I didn't know that the actual Mk 6 armed ships did badly. Please tell me more. Again, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm being inquisitive. All I know about the performance of the 4.5in Mk 6 in the Falklands War is this sentence from Naval Weapons website.

Despite this problem, these guns proved to be reliable in service and gave a good account of themselves during the Falklands War.

Are you confusing it with it's successor the Mk 8? The Naval Weapons website says this.

These guns on the Type 21s proved to be less reliable than the older 4.5" (11.4 cm) Mark 6 (Mark V gun) on the Type 12 during the Falklands War, with HMS Arrow and HMS Avenger forced to cease fire on multiple occasions due to faults.

As @Purpletrouble hasn't replied this is a question to the forum . . .

His statement that the 4.5in Mk 6 turret performed badly in the Falklands War is news to me. Can anyone else corroborate what he wrote?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Opening Post with the last sentence emboldened by me.

In a perfect world for the British armed forces how would you modernise HMS Vanguard and the King George V class to serve in the 1980s?

(Before anyone asks Yes CVA-01 through 04 are built in this timeline, so no yapping about building carriers instead, this is a perfect world for the RN, so the navy has enough.

Also the Battleships are kept in reserve, aren’t scrapped from 1957 to 1960 and are all in good condition).

Part of Post 39.

Well, a scenario where the Royal Navy is well funded to a point where they can retain the Battleships (like the USN IOTL) is exactly what I’m getting at. In this timeline, everything postwar goes perfect for the Royal Navy. No cuts, they get the 6 CVA-01s that they wanted before they were forced to settle for 4, then 3, then 1, then none. All Type 82s are built etc.

As the post-war RN of TTL was much larger than the OTL RN there's a good chance that at least one of them would still be in commission in 1982. That is Vanguard (or is she was refitting a KGV) would have been the Cadet Training Ship instead of the LPD Fearless.

IOTL Fearless had been the Cadet Training Ship since 1972 and was preceded by the cruiser Frobisher (1945-47), the cruiser Devonshire (1947-53), the aircraft carrier Triumph (1953-55) and finally the frigates of the Dartmouth Training Squadron (1955-72). Her sister ship Intrepid went into reserve in 1976 as part of the Mason Defence Review of 1974-75 but was re-commissioned twice between then and 1982 to allow Fearless to be refitted.

ITTL Vanguard (and the KGVs) would have been refitted to the standard proposed by @A Tentative Fleet Plan in Post 15 on Page One. (See the link below.) She would have relieved Triumph as the Cadet Training Ship in 1955 (instead of becoming flagship of the Reserve Fleet) and still have been serving in that role in 1982. One of the KGVs would have been re-commissioned from time to time and served as the Cadet Training Ship while Vanguard was refitting. Alternatively, each of the five surviving battleships could have served as Cadet Training Ship in rotation to allow their hulls & machinery would wear out at the same rate.

IOTL Rodney went into reserve in November 1945, was reduced to care & maintenance status in August 1946, put on the Disposal List in 1948, sold in March 1948 and arrived at Inverkeithing for breaking up on 26.03.48. In a more extreme version of the above she would have been the Cadet Training Ship from November 1945 to 1955 when her place was taken by Vanguard.

Meanwhile IOTL, the Second Battle Squadron of the Home Fleet became the Training Squadron, with the 3 battleships Anson, Howe & Nelson. (At this time King George V & Duke of York were still in commission as operational battleships). However, not for long, because Nelson went into reserve in October 1947 (she was relieved by Victorious) and the 4 KGVs went into reserve 1949-50. For the rest of its existence (i.e. until the end of 1956/early 1957) the Training Squadron had 2 aircraft carriers which were initially Implacable & Indefatigable and then Ocean & Theseus.

ITTL the Training Squadron would have consisted of 3 battleships for the whole of its existence (i.e. until the end of 1956/early 1957). Except, the Training Squadron is likely to have survived well into the 1960s and possibly continued into the 1970s as the larger RN of TTL had the resources to maintain more training ships and a requirement for more of them.

There's even the (admittedly) slim chance that Vanguard and the KGVs remained in service from 1949-50 right up to 1982 with one as the Cadet Training Ship, 3 forming the Training Squadron and the fifth refitting or in reserve at a high state of readiness.

But it's more likely that on 2nd April 1982 one would be in service as the Cadet Training Ship, one would be refitting (or in reserve at a high state of readiness as backup for the Cadet Training Ship) and the other three would be in reserve at at a low state of readiness.

Link to Post 15.

A question for the forum . . .

IOTL there were also the Second, Third and Fourth Training Squadrons with destroyers & frigates in the 1940s & 1950s operating from Portland, Londonderry and Rosyth respectively. However, I've not come across a First Training Squadron and that includes Dr Watson's RN Organisation 1947-2013 article on Naval-History.Net.

Was the Home Fleet's Training Squadron the First Training Squadron in all but name?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I'm kinda confused why you think a battleship is going to have a "point big guns at ships" mission. That literally hasn't happened since 1944.

It was a RN mission well into the 1950s IOTL. The the ships the big guns would be pointed at were Soviet cruisers when RN strike aircraft couldn't fly (i.e. at night or in bad weather) and because most of the RN's aircraft carriers couldn't carry enough strike aircraft to sink a Soviet cruiser due to the irreducible overheads of fighters, AEW & ASW aircraft. It was back to the pre-war tactic of the FAA damaging targets which would allow the surface ships to catch and sink them. E.g. the Bismarck chase and the Battle of Matapan.

Believe it or not the tactic was actually practiced in exercises. For example, see this post from @JFC Fuller in the thread "RN Disposes of its battleships in 1947" in 2021.

The most cursory research on your part would have prevented you from writing that post. The Admiralty told the Defence Committee that Vanguard had "undoubted" value against the Sverdlov class and exercise Mainbrace in 1952 saw RN cruisers perform the role of Sverdlovs, during which they were engaged (obviously in simulated fashion) by battleships (and carrier aircraft). There are documents in the National Archives that date to 1944/45 talking about the need to preserve battleships due to a potential post-war Soviet threat. Ultimately though, battleships would have been part of integrated task groups with carriers (as was exercised).

It wasn't really until the late 1950s that carrier borne aircraft could match the all-weather day/night anti-surface capability offered by big gun warships. The Sverdlovs had notionally impressive heavy AA capability too and theoretically outgunned the majority of the newer RN cruisers.

It is apparently necessary to post this link, again: http://globalmaritimehistory.com/sverdlov_class_rn_response/

If recall Eric Grove's "Vanguard to Trident" correctly Vanguard caught and "sank" one of the RN cruisers that was simulating a Soviet cruiser in that exercise, but I can't remember if it was Superb or Swiftsure.

For what it's worth according to Dr Clarke & Drachinifel in 1955 the RN had the choice of keeping two cruisers or Vanguard in commission and decided on the former. They think it was the wrong choice. I'm not so sure. I think it was better to have two ships that in peace could be in different places at the same time but in war would work as a pair whose combined firepower could overwhelm a Soviet cruiser. As far as I know that's why the the RN decided to make Vanguard flagship of the Reserve Fleet and keep the two cruisers in commission.

However, the way I read the Opening Post and Post 39 is that the RN had about the same number of ships and a lot more people so it could keep more of them in commission so the KGV's aren't paid off in 1949-50, Vanguard wasn't paid off in 1955 and the five ships remain in service until well into the 1960s and possibly longer as described in Post 150.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I'm kinda confused why you think a battleship is going to have a "point big guns at ships" mission. That literally hasn't happened since 1944.

When I wrote Post 151 I'd forgotten that the "point big guns at ships" mission survived into the 1960s. The ships in that case being two Soviet Sverdlov class cruisers that were to be transferred to the Indonesian Navy.

According to Conway's 1947-1995 the Ordzhonikidze was transferred from the Soviet Navy to the Indonesian Navy in October 1962 & renamed Irian but the second Soviet cruiser that was to have been acquired at the end of 1963 never materialised. FWIW it also says that Indonesia was also in talks with the USSR about buying an aircraft carrier built on the Sverdlov class hull, but nothing came of it.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 91 with some of it emboldened by me.

Vanguard performed one very vital role, showing the flag with HRH visiting Australia I think, why not use her for this with Royals and political figures while maintaining a reserve role? No, not ham and cheese. You need to add pickle for that.

Although I'd thought of keeping the battleships in service as training ships long before you suggested keeping Vanguard as the Royal Yacht, showing the flag, would have been part of Vanguard's "job description" as Cadet Training Ship and of the KGVs in the longer-lived Home Fleet Training Squadron. They'd be visiting ports around Europe many times a year, making longer-distance trips (e.g. to North America & the West Indies) once-or-twice a year and very-long-distance cruises (e.g. to the Far East & back via Suez & the Cape of Good Hope and World cruises) maybe every other year.

And although I think HMY Britannia would still have been built, the Cadet Training Ship and/or the full Home Fleet Training Squadron would have been part of her escort on a regular basis.

 

[Foo Fighter]

A role as royal yacht would be a small part of the role, cadte and OR training ship would no doubt take most of the ships time.

Being a fairly good sea boat she could be used fairly heavily in most sea states.

A bit on the large side perhaps but I can dream I suppose.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It was a RN mission well into the 1950s IOTL. The the ships the big guns would be pointed at were Soviet cruisers when RN strike aircraft couldn't fly (i.e. at night or in bad weather) and because most of the RN's aircraft carriers couldn't carry enough strike aircraft to sink a Soviet cruiser due to the irreducible overheads of fighters, AEW & ASW aircraft. It was back to the pre-war tactic of the FAA damaging targets which would allow the surface ships to catch and sink them. E.g. the Bismarck chase and the Battle of Matapan.

Believe it or not the tactic was actually practiced in exercises. For example, see this post from @JFC Fuller in the thread "RN Disposes of its battleships in 1947" in 2021.

If recall Eric Grove's "Vanguard to Trident" correctly Vanguard caught and "sank" one of the RN cruisers that was simulating a Soviet cruiser in that exercise, but I can't remember if it was Superb or Swiftsure.

That small popping sound you heard was my mind blowing...

For what it's worth according to Dr Clarke & Drachinifel in 1955 the RN had the choice of keeping two cruisers or Vanguard in commission and decided on the former. They think it was the wrong choice. I'm not so sure. I think it was better to have two ships that in peace could be in different places at the same time but in war would work as a pair whose combined firepower could overwhelm a Soviet cruiser. As far as I know that's why the the RN decided to make Vanguard flagship of the Reserve Fleet and keep the two cruisers in commission.

I agree with you. Better to have 2 ships that can be in 2 different places at once, or can keep one ship out at sea if close to home 24/7.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Opening Post.

In a perfect world for the British armed forces how would you modernise HMS Vanguard and the King George V class to serve in the 1980s?

(Before anyone asks Yes CVA-01 through 04 are built in this timeline, so no yapping about building carriers instead, this is a perfect world for the RN, so the navy has enough.

Also the Battleships are kept in reserve, aren’t scrapped from 1957 to 1960 and are all in good condition).

Part of Post 39.

Well, a scenario where the Royal Navy is well funded to a point where they can retain the Battleships (like the USN IOTL) is exactly what I’m getting at. In this timeline, everything post-war goes perfect for the Royal Navy. No cuts, they get the 6 CVA-01s that they wanted before they were forced to settle for 4, then 3, then 1, then none. All Type 82s are built etc.

Post 121.

I wrote that the Lion and Temeraire probably wouldn’t be built Here:

I doubt they would be built, even in a perfect timeline seeing as by the end of 1945 it was almost completely agreed that Vanguard was the last Battleship that would be built.
Not to mention the absolute lunacy of the later Lion class designs.
Some had basically no belt Armour.
Some were essentially beefed up pre Dreadnoughts.
And others were as big (dimensions wise) as a Nimitz class carrier.
Yeah, not ideal.

From the above I assume that all the ships on order at VJ-Day that hadn't been laid down were cancelled but everything that had been laid down was completed. E.g. the 4 Centaurs and the 4 Maltas cancelled IOTL were still cancelled ITTL because they hadn't been laid down before VJ-Day, but ships like the third Audacious were completed because they had been laid down. I also assume that the the ships under construction on VJ-Day were completed at a faster rate. E.g. all 3 Audacious class, all 4 Centaur class and all 6 Majestic class were completed by 1950-ish. That is, along the lines of this post in a thread I started in the ASB section of alternatehistory.com.

Ships Under Construction or On Order at VJ Day - Edit 30.05.24 - This Link Doesn't Work. Use the Link at the Bottom of this Post.

And to cut a long story short in 1982 the RN has a larger submarine fleet, 6 strike carriers (either 1952 Carriers or CVA.01s or a mix of the two), 6 cruisers (either escort cruisers or GW96 or a mix of the two), about 90 destroyers & frigates (including 24-30 Type 82s with Type 988 radars), 3 LPH, 3 LPD, more smaller warships (minesweepers etc.) and a larger RFA to support it.

Post 39 again.

Well, a scenario where the Royal Navy is well funded to a point where they can retain the Battleships (like the USN IOTL) is exactly what I’m getting at. In this timeline, everything post-war goes perfect for the Royal Navy. No cuts, they get the 6 CVA-01s that they wanted before they were forced to settle for 4, then 3, then 1, then none. All Type 82s are built etc.

To do that all British defence projects have to be completed "on time and at cost" and Britain has to have an equivalent to France's "The Glorious Thirty" & Germany's "Economic Miracle" to be able to afford it. @Temeraire, is that what you had in mind?

Edit 30.05.24 - The link above didn't work. Use this one instead and go to Post 7.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-post-war-royal-navy-the-alien-space-bat-version.550583/

 

[Temeraire]

6 strike carriers (either 1952 Carriers or CVA.01s or a mix of the two)

Thinking about it again I think the carrier fleet would likely be larger. ITTL Illustrious would be rebuilt as well as Victorious as she was the only other ship of the class that was viable for reconstruction.

4x1952 design ships are laid down to replace Formidable, Indomitable, and the 2 Implacables. (These take the names of the cancelled Centaurs: Monmouth, Arrogant, Polyphemus and Elephant)

Audacious (IOTL named Eagle) and Ark Royal are completed the same as IOTL, with the third ship, Eagle completing to a design similar to Hermes or Victorious, just scaled up.
Audacious is rebuilt to the same standard as Eagle in 1959-64, whilst Ark Royal isn’t rebuilt due to her poor condition.

Centaur is Rebuilt to Hermes standard from 1956-60 rather than the austere refit she was given IOTL.

In 1966 a 5 ship class (originally 4 but a 5th ship was added due to the decision not to rebuild ArkRoyal)
(The final design ends up being something like CVA-01 just without is laid down to replace Illustrious, Victorious, Hermes, Centaur and Ark Royal.

The first ship, Invincible, Commissions in 1970 and replaces the unmodernised Ark Royal which goes straight to the breakers, The second, Indomitable, commissions in 1971, replacing Hermes.
The third, named Indefatigable replaces Centaur in 1972
Illustrious is Replaced in 1973 by the fourth ship Implacable.
whilst Victorious is replaced in 1975 by the final ship Irresistible.

So in 1975 the carrier Fleet is as Follows

Active ships:
Invincible class (AKA CVA-01)
• Invincible (R01)
• Indomitable (R02)
• Indefatigable (R03)
• Implacable (R04)
• Irresistible (R11)

Monmouth class (AKA 1952 design)
• Monmouth (R21)
• Arrogant (R22)
• Polyphemus (R23)
• Elephant (R24)

Audacious class
• Audacious (R05)
• Eagle (R14)

Reserve ships:
Illustrious Class
Illustrious (R87)
Victorious (R38)

Centaur class
Centaur (R06)
Hermes (R12)

 

[SSgtC]

4x1952 design ships are laid down to replace Formidable, Indomitable, and the 2 Implacables. (These take the names of the cancelled Centaurs: Monmouth, Arrogant, Polyphemus and Elephant)

Unless the lead ship is laid down prior to February 6, 1952 the class would be the Queen Elizabeth II class. Royal Navy tradition is to name the lead ship of the first new class of capital ships of a monarch's reign after them.

 

[Temeraire]

Unless the lead ship is laid down prior to February 6, 1952 the class would be the Queen Elizabeth II class. Royal Navy tradition is to name the lead ship of the first new class of capital ships of a monarch's reign after them.

That’s doubtful since King George VI already broke with that tradition. Not to mention the name Queen Elizabeth is definitely not a carrier name (the only reason our current ones have the names they do is due to political reasons, it’s a lot easier to cancel a ship named Eagle than it is to cancel one named after a sovereign)

 

[SSgtC]

That’s doubtful since King George VI already broke with that tradition. Not to mention the name Queen Elizabeth is definitely not a carrier name (the only reason our current ones have the names they do is due to political reasons, it’s a lot easier to cancel a ship named Eagle than it is to cancel one named after a sovereign)

Kind of? Yes, George VI broke with it, but he had to order the Navy to do it, and he did it to honor his father. So unless Elizabeth did the same and orders the Navy to use a different name, they're going to name the lead ship QE II.